JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[plawolf]

Jet fighters are not cars. A lot of big car selling no nos are industry standard for jet fighters.

Pretty much everything for sale are put up on sale long before the 'finished' version is fielded.

Typhoon, Rafale, every Flanker export variant ever, PAKFA, F35. List goes on and on.

Problem is that Chinese fighters are designed and built for winning wars, not necessarily every battle.

Chinese fighters up until the latest J10, J11 and J20s were designed like WWII T34s, not the best, but good enough yet cheap enough to be bought and built in vast numbers of needed.

Western fighters are built like WWII tigers. Best of most things, but stupidly expensive.

Chinese fighters are good for war between peers, western fighters are good for peace and beating on hopelessly outmatch foes.

Most countries, when they shop for fighters, are not actually expecting to need to use them in combat. So top specs seem more important than wartime sustainability.

The situation with weapons are worse. Most that buy western fighters only get a modest weapons package because of the high cost. Needless to say, that could massively bite them in the backside in the event they actually need those fighters and weapons. Just look back to the Falklands and Argentina with their Exocists.

The JF17 is also massively disadvantaged by the institutional racism of the 'international' (read western and Russian) military aviation 'professional' community, who generally are in the pocket of western and Russian arms manufacturers, and goes out of they way to put down the competition from China.

China's peaceful diplomacy means there is nothing to offer an alternative viewpoint.

Sadly, what Chinese weapons need is a war where the latest Chinese weapons are used properly. If China or Pakistan goes to war and shows the world what Chinese weapons can do in the right hands, I'm sure countries would be lining up. Only China would never start or get involved in a war just to aid arms sales.

On balance, between selling loads of weapons and not going to war, the latter is preferable.

 

[siegecrossbow]

So according to the Indians, the issues were:

* negative technical assessment of the aircraft
* SL has no requirement for such a fighter
* USD 35 million price tag per plane and overall USD 400 million for the whole deal

Glass houses, glass houses.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Jet fighters are not cars. A lot of big car selling no nos are industry standard for jet fighters.

Pretty much everything for sale are put up on sale long before the 'finished' version is fielded.

Typhoon, Rafale, every Flanker export variant ever, PAKFA, F35. List goes on and on.

Problem is that Chinese fighters are designed and built for winning wars, not necessarily every battle.

Chinese fighters up until the latest J10, J11 and J20s were designed like WWII T34s, not the best, but good enough yet cheap enough to be bought and built in vast numbers of needed.

Western fighters are built like WWII tigers. Best of most things, but stupidly expensive.

Chinese fighters are good for war between peers, western fighters are good for peace and beating on hopelessly outmatch foes.

Most countries, when they shop for fighters, are not actually expecting to need to use them in combat. So top specs seem more important than wartime sustainability.

The situation with weapons are worse. Most that buy western fighters only get a modest weapons package because of the high cost. Needless to say, that could massively bite them in the backside in the event they actually need those fighters and weapons. Just look back to the Falklands and Argentina with their Exocists.

The JF17 is also massively disadvantaged by the institutional racism of the 'international' (read western and Russian) military aviation 'professional' community, who generally are in the pocket of western and Russian arms manufacturers, and goes out of they way to put down the competition from China.

China's peaceful diplomacy means there is nothing to offer an alternative viewpoint.

Sadly, what Chinese weapons need is a war where the latest Chinese weapons are used properly. If China or Pakistan goes to war and shows the world what Chinese weapons can do in the right hands, I'm sure countries would be lining up. Only China would never start or get involved in a war just to aid arms sales.

On balance, between selling loads of weapons and not going to war, the latter is preferable.

that's really stretching it plawolf. China has not been involved in any major conflict pretty much since the advent of modern weapon systems. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to know how they would perform in real combat. At best we can speculate.

The US, Israel etc however have been in more conflicts than one could count and that plays a significant role in how the weapon systems are designed, built etc.

I will give that due to the nature of our MIC, there are many areas that could be improve and certainly politics and complacency plays a role as well however real world wartime experiences over multiple generations have played an even larger role in the way we see how weapon systems evolved and make their way into the designs of new generations of weapons.

I do agree however that unfortunately by the nature of the beast the only way to effectively market weapons is to see how they are used in the real world or at least have a company history of producing winning weapons in the past to form a legacy down the road.

Regardless of the product, be it a $100M jet or a $10 tool, branding and company reputation is everything. China lacks branding and only way to truly mitigate that is to fight wars. It may not be a politically correct answer but dems the facts. Weapons by it's very nature is created to destroy things.

You don't sell M4s by showing how well it dig a trench or thousands of F16s over decades by showing the world how well it transports mail.

 

[aksha]

Both airshows of next year are extremly important for JF-17. Bahrain because Tejas will be flying ,

the bahrainis are going to park the JF 17 and tejas and next to each other,
oops????


static aircraft display map

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Hyperwarp]

the bahrainis are going to park the JF 17 and tejas and next to each other,
oops????

static aircraft display map
...

LOL! Now this is going to be interesting

 

[plawolf]

that's really stretching it plawolf. China has not been involved in any major conflict pretty much since the advent of modern weapon systems. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to know how they would perform in real combat. At best we can speculate.

The US, Israel etc however have been in more conflicts than one could count and that plays a significant role in how the weapon systems are designed, built etc.

I will give that due to the nature of our MIC, there are many areas that could be improve and certainly politics and complacency plays a role as well however real world wartime experiences over multiple generations have played an even larger role in the way we see how weapon systems evolved and make their way into the designs of new generations of weapons.

Some of the earlier Arab-Israeli wars were indeed excellent crucibles and proving grounds for advanced weapons.

However, all the modern Arab-Israeli conflicts and every war America had fought since WWII were against hopelessly outmatch opponents. And I do count both the Vietnam and Korean wars as such. Given the cast technological and logistical dominance the U.S enjoyed in those wars, Vietnam and China shouldn't have had a prayer. Which goes to prove paper specs isn't remotely close to being the be-all and end-all of determining the outcomes of battles and wars.

But let's focus only on the hardware side of things for now.

The fact that the U.S seems addicted to war, and that wars do provide feedback and influence weapons development are indeed true. But neither is necessarily a good thing.

As the old adage goes, generals and weapons makers tend to make and buy weapons best suited to winning the last war rather than the next.

Every modern war America has been involved in has been against a hopelessly outclassed opponent where the outcome should never have been in doubt. The only real question were how long it would take and how much treasure and blood it would cost America to win.

That is significant because western, and American specifically, generals and weapons and Weapons manufacturers seems to be taking air and naval dominance as a given, and are focused more and more on developing weapons designed to best and most efficiently exploit air and naval dominance, paying especial focus on dealing with traditional 'nuisance, weapons like SAMs, that can pose a risk even after you had achieved air dominance.

Look at the direction of recent U.S. Weapons development. Massive shift of focus and budget from manned to unmanned combat aircraft. Persistent and ominous reports about the air combat deficiencies of the F35. The lack of teeth of the LCS and puzzling choose to add shore bombardment cannons to the DDG1000 rather than give it a good missile load and area air defence capabilies. The list does on.

Now, the U.S. Can generally rely on its overwhelming numerical and full spectrum technology dominance and not-for-sale stuff like the F22 and SSNs and cruise missile etc to easily achieve air and naval dominance and overcome any limited advantages most opfor might enjoy in specific fields against specific US kit.

The question is, can someone who buys western weapons designed to work with and benefit from the full spectrum dominance of western militarises really do the business when it is asked to do all the heavy lifting itself without the massive back up cast?

How would someone who buys the F35 as their top end fighter and a massive UCAV fleet fair when faced off against an opponent who spent the same amount of money on PAKFAs or J20s? Not terribly well would be my guess assuming equal pilot quality.

 

[delft]

Some of the earlier Arab-Israeli wars were indeed excellent crucibles and proving grounds for advanced weapons.

However, all the modern Arab-Israeli conflicts and every war America had fought since WWII were against hopelessly outmatch opponents. And I do count both the Vietnam and Korean wars as such. Given the cast technological and logistical dominance the U.S enjoyed in those wars, Vietnam and China shouldn't have had a prayer. Which goes to prove paper specs isn't remotely close to being the be-all and end-all of determining the outcomes of battles and wars.

But let's focus only on the hardware side of things for now.

The fact that the U.S seems addicted to war, and that wars do provide feedback and influence weapons development are indeed true. But neither is necessarily a good thing.

As the old adage goes, generals and weapons makers tend to make and buy weapons best suited to winning the last war rather than the next.

Every modern war America has been involved in has been against a hopelessly outclassed opponent where the outcome should never have been in doubt. The only real question were how long it would take and how much treasure and blood it would cost America to win.

That is significant because western, and American specifically, generals and weapons and Weapons manufacturers seems to be taking air and naval dominance as a given, and are focused more and more on developing weapons designed to best and most efficiently exploit air and naval dominance, paying especial focus on dealing with traditional 'nuisance, weapons like SAMs, that can pose a risk even after you had achieved air dominance.

Look at the direction of recent U.S. Weapons development. Massive shift of focus and budget from manned to unmanned combat aircraft. Persistent and ominous reports about the air combat deficiencies of the F35. The lack of teeth of the LCS and puzzling choose to add shore bombardment cannons to the DDG1000 rather than give it a good missile load and area air defence capabilies. The list does on.

Now, the U.S. Can generally rely on its overwhelming numerical and full spectrum technology dominance and not-for-sale stuff like the F22 and SSNs and cruise missile etc to easily achieve air and naval dominance and overcome any limited advantages most opfor might enjoy in specific fields against specific US kit.

The question is, can someone who buys western weapons designed to work with and benefit from the full spectrum dominance of western militarises really do the business when it is asked to do all the heavy lifting itself without the massive back up cast?

How would someone who buys the F35 as their top end fighter and a massive UCAV fleet fair when faced off against an opponent who spent the same amount of money on PAKFAs or J20s? Not terribly well would be my guess assuming equal pilot quality.

Even without PAKFA and J-20 see how Saudi Arabia is doing against Yemen.

 

[mr.bean]

Even without PAKFA and J-20 see how Saudi Arabia is doing against Yemen.

when we read that the saudi's are hiring western ''contractors'' to do some of their fighting then it's really not going well. all those billions they spent on the best western weaponary isn't holding up.

 

[siegecrossbow]

when we read that the saudi's are hiring western ''contractors'' to do some of their fighting then it's really not going well. all those billions they spent on the best western weaponary isn't holding up.

You can say the same about the Iraqi Army, to a lesser extent.

 

[aksha]

LOL! Now this is going to be interesting

no laughing matter this

the Bahrainis may be doing this to grab media attention
(remember the mig 29 was parked next to to the F 16 on its first foreign airshow).

with the the kind of distrust between the two countries , both planes might end up guarded like VIP's with death threats

and i am sure it will not be very good for the pilot psychology on either side.
will create a lot of unneccessary pressure on the pilots