Turkish Commander Checks Out JF-17 C

[dBSPL]

Any info or your estimation on what the unit cost is for Block-3 with the development and certification processes included?

 

[hyperman]

The F-110 engines will be used for flight and structural tests, and for the production of prototypes and block-0/ part of B-1 after the prototype. Apart from that, there is no other F110 agreement or procurement. The engines to be used within the scope of Phase-1 should be seen as an interim solution that will probably giving a couple years of advantage to the project. Neither the Turkish Air Force nor other potential operator countries are planning to produce the final configuration with these engines. Azerbaijan will probably be the second operator country of KAAN, and I did not write this as a prediction. This is information. Could there be engine supply problems in the future, yes. Are engine indigenization efforts lagging behind, yes. However, this is the general strategy, and the risk management of this is of course a subject worth discussing.

hmm... Interesting, I always thought Initial production was going to be with F110s, and then Block 2 would be with the TEI engine.

 

[dBSPL]

hmm... Interesting, I always thought Initial production was going to be with F110s, and then Block 2 would be with the TEI engine.

The first 20 aircraft to be delivered to the air force are planned to be delivered with the F110. My point above is that FOC and final configuration is not planned with the F110.

In fact, one of the issues we have been criticizing is to see more concrete developments regarding either the purchase of additional F110s in order to avoid supply problems at least until 2035-36, or acceleration on final engine configuration planning. It is one thing to develop a turbofan prototype, it is a completely different challenge to put it into mass production and put it on a fighter jet. We have come this far with great success, but espcially engine part (I mean not developing prototype, you know) will probably be the biggest test.

 

[Ali_Baba]

JF17C with its AESA radar is the definitive JF17 jet - the focus for PAF has to be to move to a stealth platform. They can continue to churn out JF17Cs as and when they need until a new platform is available.

 

[dBSPL]

JF17C with its AESA radar is the definitive JF17 jet - the focus for PAF has to be to move to a stealth platform. They can continue to churn out JF17Cs as and when they need until a new platform is available.

As far as I know, changing the radar system of an aircraft and switching to a different architecture is much more complicated than it seems. Aside from the basic parameters such as power requirements, power supply and cooling etc., there are tons of sub-systems communicating with the radar interface, protocols, countless detailed work both on the software side and on the electronics, mechanical and cabling side. In short, for the Murad-AESA integration to the JF-17, PAC, TAI, and Aselsan will have to work intensively together. Either Pakistan will open all systems of this aircraft to the Turks, or the Turks will open the AESA radar to PAC. Whichever country will carry out the integration and testing activities... Both assets very strategic for its owners.

At this point, I wonder to what extent CAC, which has a crucial role in the design and development of the JF-17, is competent to sell or share the aircraft with third parties? Pakistan is marketing this platform to third countries, but can it also open this aircraft to third parties for secondary development processes?

There are also equations related to cost-effectiveness. Aselsan can take the aircraft to a completely different point, what I mean is not about 'good or bad', it can be a more hybrid fighter jet that have both worlds. However, continuing with the institutions involved in the project since the blueprints of the aircraft will offer significant cost and time advantages.

 

[Hold the door]

Are we sure that this plane is JF-17? It is mentioned as j-10 in the news.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1716056357864968547

 

[LegionnairE]

and you are a Moron! Did I go personal with you? Your turkish education has only taught you to go personal with anyone whoever disagree with your turkish sh-t?

On the other note, Hurjet "Planned" version which "will be"! . Who gives a damn to planned version. The original comment says "is" similar. That's why I replied what I replied.

Doesn't matter.

There's F-5 and there's T-38, there's the T-50 and FA-50. There's the trainer and combat version of all planes in this class. JF-17 itself was offered to Turkey as a trainer back in the day. You're an idiot for not being able to connect the dots. And you're an idiot in general.

He is not that impressed by JF17 avionics must have looked old from 1970's from what he used to seeing in F35 or F16 C/D

It can't be that bad, but as I said, Hürjet will be Turkey's JF-17 anyway and there's no way in hell Turkey would buy something with chinese components in it.

F-16 comparisons would be unfair as it's a different class of jet.

 

[GreatHanWarrior]

Doesn't matter.

There's F-5 and there's T-38, there's the T-50 and FA-50. There's the trainer and combat version of all planes in this class. JF-17 itself was offered to Turkey as a trainer back in the day. You're an idiot for not being able to connect the dots. And you're an idiot in general.


It can't be that bad, but as I said, Hürjet will be Turkey's JF-17 anyway and there's no way in hell Turkey would buy something with chinese components in it.

F-16 comparisons would be unfair as it's a different class of jet.

Of course, Turkey does not buy JF17. Because Turkey wants to buy J-10.

As for what PDF Turkey members say. Don't worry too much.

The only problem is. Will China sell J-10 to Turkey?

 

[CivilianSupremacy]

Doesn't matter.

There's F-5 and there's T-38, there's the T-50 and FA-50. There's the trainer and combat version of all planes in this class. JF-17 itself was offered to Turkey as a trainer back in the day. You're an idiot for not being able to connect the dots. And you're an idiot in general.

Well, certainly I struck a nerve there. You certainly are getting ready to make a fool out of yourself on a failed argument. Its hilarious that's the best you could do? A full load of crappy argument you came up to defend the great Hurjet? Hurjet could be a very good plane but only a trainer. Its NEVER same as JF-17s or any other combat aircraft, Here's Why:

JF-17 & JF-17B or F-5 & T-38 or F-16C & F-16D or in any other case those dual seat versions have nearly the same performance parameters. Those "trainer" versions are basically mutlirole combat fighters and can carry out missions. Their performances are as spectacular as their single seat variants. Those original aircraft versions were never designed to be trainer to begin with.

So, either its JF-17 & JF-17B or F-5 & T-38 or F-16C & F-16D all have nearly same performance capabilities and same designs. So, if Hurjet is also of same league and its only just a dual seat version of a combat aircraft then let's see how its performance will be as a combat aircraft:

Hurjet Specs ( and I wrote some of JF-17s specs in red just for comparison):

I mean who can be foolish enough to compare a purpose built trainer (Hurjet) with combat aircrafts. As, I said I have nothing against Hurjet, it could be a very good trainer but it is NOT a combat aircraft. It's really is astonishing that some of these Turkish salesman got even the audacity to compare their trainer with modern combat aircrafts. I have not even mentioned the BVRs, the High offbore sight missiles, the anti-ship capabilities or all the other features. But no, this guy is persistent to call Hurjet as "similar platform" to JF-17s.

Now go back facing mirror and say the word "idiot".

 

[GreatHanWarrior]

Well, certainly I struck a nerve there. You certainly are getting ready to make a fool out of yourself on a failed argument. Its hilarious that's the best you could do? A full load of crappy argument you came up to defend the great Hurjet? Hurjet could be a very good plane but only a trainer. Its NEVER same as JF-17s or any other combat aircraft, Here's Why:

JF-17 & JF-17B or F-5 & T-38 or F-16C & F-16D or in any other case those dual seat versions have nearly the same performance parameters. Those "trainer" versions are basically mutlirole combat fighters and can carry out missions. Their performances are as spectacular as their single seat variants. Those original aircraft versions were never designed to be trainer to begin with.

So, either its JF-17 & JF-17B or F-5 & T-38 or F-16C & F-16D all have nearly same performance capabilities and same designs. So, if Hurjet is also of same league and its only just a dual seat version of a combat aircraft then let's see how its performance will be as a combat aircraft:

Hurjet Specs ( and I wrote some of JF-17s specs in red just for comparison):

View attachment 965067


I mean who can be foolish enough to compare a purpose built trainer (Hurjet) with combat aircrafts. As, I said I have nothing against Hurjet, it could be a very good trainer but it is NOT a combat aircraft. It's really is astonishing that some of these Turkish salesman got even the audacity to compare their trainer with modern combat aircrafts. I have not even mentioned the BVRs, the High offbore sight missiles, the anti-ship capabilities or all the other features. But no, this guy is persistent to call Hurjet as "similar platform" to JF-17s.

Now go back facing mirror and say the word "idiot".

Is the Turkey F16 C/D stronger than the Taiwan F-16V?

 

[LegionnairE]

Well, certainly I struck a nerve there. You certainly are getting ready to make a fool out of yourself on a failed argument. Its hilarious that's the best you could do? A full load of crappy argument you came up to defend the great Hurjet? Hurjet could be a very good plane but only a trainer. Its NEVER same as JF-17s or any other combat aircraft, Here's Why:

JF-17 & JF-17B or F-5 & T-38 or F-16C & F-16D or in any other case those dual seat versions have nearly the same performance parameters. Those "trainer" versions are basically mutlirole combat fighters and can carry out missions. Their performances are as spectacular as their single seat variants. Those original aircraft versions were never designed to be trainer to begin with.

So, either its JF-17 & JF-17B or F-5 & T-38 or F-16C & F-16D all have nearly same performance capabilities and same designs. So, if Hurjet is also of same league and its only just a dual seat version of a combat aircraft then let's see how its performance will be as a combat aircraft:

Hurjet Specs ( and I wrote some of JF-17s specs in red just for comparison):

View attachment 965067


I mean who can be foolish enough to compare a purpose built trainer (Hurjet) with combat aircrafts. As, I said I have nothing against Hurjet, it could be a very good trainer but it is NOT a combat aircraft. It's really is astonishing that some of these Turkish salesman got even the audacity to compare their trainer with modern combat aircrafts. I have not even mentioned the BVRs, the High offbore sight missiles, the anti-ship capabilities or all the other features. But no, this guy is persistent to call Hurjet as "similar platform" to JF-17s.

Now go back facing mirror and say the word "idiot".

I don't give a shit, won't even read.

Of course, Turkey does not buy JF17. Because Turkey wants to buy J-10.

lol, no. Never gonna happen.

It's just a way go get the Americans to proceed with the Block 70 sale

 

[JamD]

Yes, that is what I understood from your post. Although I have no idea about the utility of this Turkofied block 3. I do not see the PAF purchasing any. It could be produced for export if there is demand for it.

The utility is the eventual bring up of all JF-17s to this block 3 or block 3 prime standard. There is a limit to how much China is willing to support an aircraft program that they do not operate.

 

[Harbyharb]

We're entering an age where sensors and network is much more important than kinematic performance so yes. It would be definitely worth it.

I would argue that, it is specifically because sensors and networks plays a bigger and bigger role, it makes greater sense to invest in longer ranged, more versatile platforms instead of a smaller, restrictive airframe. It would be a shame if a jet enjoys very impressive sensors and EW systems to make it competitive in an action zone, but because its restrictive size does not have the range to reach it, have little action time before bingo fuel, or cannot employ its full multi-role potential because of limited hardpoint options.

At the end of the day, JF-17 is a whole weight class below J-10 F-16 and Rafale. It is designed for less financially-liberated customers with defensive counter air missions primarily in mind with A2S ability if needed, so it could be good against air, or good against surface, but not at the same time. So unless the intended competitor against the JF-17 improves in sensor and EW that threatens it from fulfilling its role, I do not see a need to further upgrade the JF-17.

There is another possibility though, and that is to outright destroy the airframe's transonic and supersonic potential, and convert JF-17 into a A2G oriented fighter primarily operating in subsonic by using the twin seater variant as basis, reducing the wing sweep angle, extend wing geometry to accommodate additional hard points, enlarge fuselage, apply Conformal Fuel Tanks, enlarge wing root extensions etc. That would certainly warrant a separate block designation, hard to say if it's an upgrade or a side-grade though.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Any info or your estimation on what the unit cost is for Block-3 with the development and certification processes included?

35-45 million to my guesstimate

 

[JamD]

As far as I know, changing the radar system of an aircraft and switching to a different architecture is much more complicated than it seems. Aside from the basic parameters such as power requirements, power supply and cooling etc., there are tons of sub-systems communicating with the radar interface, protocols, countless detailed work both on the software side and on the electronics, mechanical and cabling side. In short, for the Murad-AESA integration to the JF-17, PAC, TAI, and Aselsan will have to work intensively together. Either Pakistan will open all systems of this aircraft to the Turks, or the Turks will open the AESA radar to PAC. Whichever country will carry out the integration and testing activities... Both assets very strategic for its owners.

At this point, I wonder to what extent CAC, which has a crucial role in the design and development of the JF-17, is competent to sell or share the aircraft with third parties? Pakistan is marketing this platform to third countries, but can it also open this aircraft to third parties for secondary development processes?

There are also equations related to cost-effectiveness. Aselsan can take the aircraft to a completely different point, what I mean is not about 'good or bad', it can be a more hybrid fighter jet that have both worlds. However, continuing with the institutions involved in the project since the blueprints of the aircraft will offer significant cost and time advantages.

You have no idea how scarily accurate that question is. PAF's perspective: technically yes, contractually no. And you know how much Pakistanis care about contracts (nothing to be proud of).