JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[RedMercury]

The TW ratio also depends on the fuel on board. A value greater and less than 1 can both be correct...under different circumstances.

 

[taimikhan]

Taimahkahn, what is your official position in the PAF?

Sir, i am not in PAF, but one of my pilot friend is with the program, also have friends who have inside knowledge about the program.

 

[taimikhan]

The TW ratio also depends on the fuel on board. A value greater and less than 1 can both be correct...under different circumstances.

Agreed Sir, but problem is the thrust of the RD-93s being used in JF-17s is not what is publicly stated, it is slightly more, plus the weight of the plane has also been reduced, so the latest figures of the plane and engine are not known, thus we can't say exactly what it could be.

 

[Munir]

sorry. double post.

 

[Miragedriver]

Where is this from? I was under the impression JF-17 is costing $10m-$15m per unit, while J-10 is $30m. That makes the JF-17 much more affordable, although admittedly less capable than the J-10.

Gentlemen, I must clarify, the article came from the Rupee News and stated that a contract for $800 million was signed for 42 aircraft. Since this was the first initial purchase it must have also include support equipment, parts, training, etc.. In a subsequent article (same paper, which could be bias) the Pakistanis signed another deal for additional aircraft. The article stated that the JF-17 will cost $14.3 million per aircraft, and that the final 250 units will cost $12 million each. Pakistan is expected to produce 25 to 30 aircraft annually.

 

[Miragedriver]

However it is interesting to note that if a third party country where to order the JF-17, it would end up costing around $19 million per aircraft, since they would have to purchase all the support equipment and aircraft components to operate the units.

 

[Miragedriver]

you did nothing wrong. You just hit a sensitive spot for many members of this forum. It's like if you tell people that J-10 is just Lavi, that would get a lot of people upset here. No worries.

To put simply, you can't really compare the maneuverability of 3rd generation to 4th generation planes. No matter how much electronics you put on J-7, it's restricted by that airframe. J-7MF was a completely updated design. It was done as a possible export option for CAC.

Thanks you.

Agreed, The older airframe design would limit the J-7MF. However it would be nice to have some to serve as a cheep ground attack aircraft that could be easily maintained. A nice replacement for the Q-5.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Thanks you.

Agreed, The older airframe design would limit the J-7MF. However it would be nice to have some to serve as a cheep ground attack aircraft that could be easily maintained. A nice replacement for the Q-5.

I am not sure whether spending money on a ground attack aircraft is wise given the current developments. The U.S., for example, is going to scrap the A-10s in the near future and replace them with F-35s. Why waste time developing an attack aircraft when multirole fighters and attack helos could supplant them?

 

[MastanKhan]

I am not sure whether spending money on a ground attack aircraft is wise given the current developments. The U.S., for example, is going to scrap the A-10s in the near future and replace them with F-35s. Why waste time developing an attack aircraft when multirole fighters and attack helos could supplant them?

Hi,

I don't think the A 10's are being scrapped---my understanding is that as many as are possible will be re-furbished to extend their life to 2035----. The U S air force has fallen in love with the A 10 and will not let them go---.

F 35 is no match and replacement for the A 10.

 

[cloyce]

@ MastanKhan

Modern CAS has changed a lot. A-10 is outdated.
Instead, I think they could develop some new kind of small gunship for counter insurgency role.