JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[defenceman]

Hi,
in my opinion dual seaters are still with PAF, though they are there to train the Azeri airforce
in their dual seat configuration for may be in their own country‘s surrounding
thank you

 

[Zahid]

Hi,
in my opinion dual seaters are still with PAF, though they are there to train the Azeri airforce
in their dual seat configuration for may be in their own country‘s surrounding
thank you

For now that may be so; however, for a JF-17 fleet expected to reach 40 aircraft, it would be odd not to have at least a few JF-17B as part of the fleet.

 

[Originname]

President of Kyrgyzstan, Sadir Zhaparov

 

[TheFuture_NoMore]

President of Kyrgyzstan, Sadir Zhaparov
View attachment 165785View attachment 165786View attachment 165787

No - Kyrgyzstan is not buying the JF17C, it was just a courtesy show and tell visit. Nothing more.

 

[mshrief303]

It makes no sense for anyone to operate the JF17 with a engine type, that is not operated by the PAF, as the largest wealth of experience exists in Pakistan. Azerbijan has the advance of knowing the RD-33/93 series of engines from their Mig-29 days, so maintenance logistics becomes easier for them to manage.

I strongly disagree, reasons are:
- if a country is going to operate a Chinese system of systems in their air force, like the J-10C, J-35A and KJ-500 with the JF-17 as a platform to introduce more quantity, it'll be better to have a chinese engine for the JF-17 as you'll already invest for the infrastructure and training for your engineers to work the chinese engines anyway, and you'll be able to introduce scale to have the depth needed to operate in a big & long war.
- you want to get russians out of the deal for geopolitical reasons
- You want to be the biggest operator of chinese engines in hope to have licenses production or joint the supply chain for the jet.
- Future proofing the jet by using modern and capable engines from china, rather than engines that are produced using old methods and tooling, and may have bad future if the current people working in the industry retiring and not passing the knowledge or the young ones doesn't want to join this type of production and leaning to more modern products.

 

[_killuminati_]

I strongly disagree, reasons are:
- if a country is going to operate a Chinese system of systems in their air force, like the J-10C, J-35A and KJ-500 with the JF-17 as a platform to introduce more quantity, it'll be better to have a chinese engine for the JF-17 as you'll already invest for the infrastructure and training for your engineers to work the chinese engines anyway, and you'll be able to introduce scale to have the depth needed to operate in a big & long war.
- you want to get russians out of the deal for geopolitical reasons
- You want to be the biggest operator of chinese engines in hope to have licenses production or joint the supply chain for the jet.
- Future proofing the jet by using modern and capable engines from china, rather than engines that are produced using old methods and tooling, and may have bad future if the current people working in the industry retiring and not passing the knowledge or the young ones doesn't want to join this type of production and leaning to more modern products.

If im not mistaken, licensed engine production is rare now with the only exception being the Russians who offer partial manufacturing (to China and India) and partial US to Turkey with core tech still restricted.

Introducing a new engine type to an aircraft that the seller itself does not use is problematic in many ways. Many parts of the aircraft have to be modified and if the seller is not doing it, what makes you think it will allow the purchaser to make those modifications?

 

[Mekconyov]

If im not mistaken, licensed engine production is rare now with the only exception being the Russians who offer partial manufacturing (to China and India) and partial US to Turkey with core tech still restricted.

Introducing a new engine type to an aircraft that the seller itself does not use is problematic in many ways. Many parts of the aircraft have to be modified and if the seller is not doing it, what makes you think it will allow the purchaser to make those modifications?

Because core specially hot temperature core dies not belong to engine manufacturers. Hot Temperature Core are proprietor rights of specialised design cos.

 

[mshrief303]

If im not mistaken, licensed engine production is rare now with the only exception being the Russians who offer partial manufacturing (to China and India) and partial US to Turkey with core tech still restricted.

Introducing a new engine type to an aircraft that the seller itself does not use is problematic in many ways. Many parts of the aircraft have to be modified and if the seller is not doing it, what makes you think it will allow the purchaser to make those modifications?

If you want to have that license in the future at least, you start by being the biggest customer, and trying to get into its supply chain bit by bit, so that china in the end is willing to give you the license while they're moving to new generations.

That's my thoughts at least.

 

[Zahid]

Interesting observations. When it comes to Azerbaijan, I am not sure the JF-17 fleet is going to be big enough to warrant engine assembly. The point about reliance on Russia is well-taken. But again there are two observations about it: 1) We in Pakistan had the same thoughts but we never did have any particular problems, apart from some issues with RD-93 deliveries lately; 2) If need be, the option of WS-13E is available - but for a cost.

WS-13 has been tested on JF-17. If RD-93 is ever not available, the fleet does not have to be made dysfunctional/grounded. The matter is just the cost of converting to WS-13, provided China has no problem with it. Do remember that JF-17 is a modular design & it is not built around any specific engine or avionics hardware. This is the strength of the program.

 

[neutralobserver]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1998021192675164240