JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[PanAsian]

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

Or it can be turned around into an exchange experience however limited it might be.

 

[kwaigonegin]

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 fighting 'outclassed' opponents have it's benefits as far as our subject is concern.
Let's use your example of Vietnam as start. Just off the top of my head I can think of at least 4 weapons systems there were either heavily influenced or programs quickly accelerated by the Vietnam conflict.

1. The continued evolution and improvement of the M16/AR chassis carbine from Vietnam,
2. The lessons learned which ultimately led to the creation of the A10 and the inclusion of CAS to ground support
3. accelerated development of AH 1 Cobra and the follow on AH 64.
4. inclusion of cannons of F4s (and highlighted the importance of the cannon even to 5th gen fightetrs we see today) and advance ECM systems

... these things would either have never happened or would've taken much much longer to develop if not from lessons learned there.

Also the vietnam war is not as one sided as most people think. NA had SAMs, Migs etc which led to improvements and modifications of our fighters, electronic warfare etc.

and these are just hard stuff. There have been even more significant improvements in softskills such as improvement in training, tactics etc. Vietnam brought on the first major deployment of and highligted the 'importance' of using helos as transport and close fire support which led to the development of the Blackhawk few years later as lessons learned using the Hueys.

Vietnam is also the first conflict which led to the deployment of FACs. Vietnam also highlited the importance of force multipliers using special forces and inclusion of such training programs in SEAL and other SPec ops. Vietnam also directly affected the creation of the Navy's Top Gun (Sifftee) program among many things.

These are just the things off the top of my head and only from one conflict. Like I said in my previous post the ONLY way weapon systems can be improved and marketed is via usage in actual war because that is ultimately what weapon systems are used for and made for.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... I'm not sure, but is this apolitical debate - THEN STOP - or are we still in the JF-17-tread ??
At least can't see it any more !

Deino

 

[MastanKhan]

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.

Sir,

Sales is sales---cars or weapons---need and desire---show and pomp---shiny new toys----

Basic 101 of sales does not change for anything---if you don't know about it---leave it---.

I have done it for thirty years---from the smallest dealership to the top number 1 in unit sales honda dealership in the world---from paupers to multi millionaires----from average car makes to high end cars----there always one thing in common----.

Create the desire---create the urge---make them believe they need it.

Look at pakistan----it has a hard on, on the F 16's---it has been sanctioned----but still it wants it. During sanctions the situation was so bad that hardly any aircraft could fly----and even they know that the relationship is getting bad with the U S---they still go and ask for it---even though congress put a stop to it.

The issue with the JF 17 is an INCOMPLETE PRODUCT----. The twin seater was a must----. Secondly---the BLK 1 should never have been put up for sale---even paf had to make many a changes to make it BLK 2.

When you put an incomplete product on the market---buyers get apprehensive---. You do not want the buyers to think negative of your product---because there are only an X amount of buyers that there are in the market.

That is why you need to sell from a position of strength---pakistan decided to market the JF 17 from a position of weakness---the aircraft was not ready for sales---.

The terminology used in the sales pitch was bad--- " CHEAP "---you never call your product cheap----they marketed it as 2 for the price of one ( must be real cheap then---that is how human mind works ).

Air forces don't market fighter aircraft---professional salesmen do---.

 

[Equation]

Air forces don't market fighter aircraft---professional salesmen do---.

Yeah but it's the Air force pilots that is doing the flying and fighting. Their demand trumps the salesmen pitch for national defense need every..time.

 

[Zahid]

Yeah but it's the Air force pilots that is doing the flying and fighting. Their demand trumps the salesmen pitch for national defense need every..time.

Mastan Khan is ex-PAF. You dont need to tell him that. You've missed his point. An airforce pilot does not necessarily have the competence to make sales. In PAF's case, they have rather shown the lack of it. Its quite simple really.

 

[taxiya]

That is why you need to sell from a position of strength---pakistan decided to market the JF 17 from a position of weakness---the aircraft was not ready for sales---.

The terminology used in the sales pitch was bad--- " CHEAP "---you never call your product cheap----they marketed it as 2 for the price of one ( must be real cheap then---that is how human mind works ).

I didn't know PAF used "cheap" as a selling point. I thought all the time that "being cheap" was only an argument used by us, the internet people.

Also, like a coin has two sides, one (the sales man) can say "for this price, you can do more things", or "doing the same thing, you can save this much money". The former is the positive way emphasizing the strength, the later is the negative way emphasizing the cheap. But essentially they are describing the same Performance/Price ratio. I don't know the detail of PAF's sales campaign, but I would expect PAF using the positive way, just my speculation.

 

[Brumby]

Sir,
Look at pakistan----it has a hard on, on the F 16's---it has been sanctioned----but still it wants it. During sanctions the situation was so bad that hardly any aircraft could fly----and even they know that the relationship is getting bad with the U S---they still go and ask for it---even though congress put a stop to it.

The issue with the JF 17 is an INCOMPLETE PRODUCT----. The twin seater was a must----. Secondly---the BLK 1 should never have been put up for sale---even paf had to make many a changes to make it BLK 2.

I understand the latest F-16 request is being blocked by the US Congress. The part I don't get is if the JF-17 is such a capable aircraft, why is Pakistan still going after the F-16 especially if they are within the same product segment? It doesn't project confidence in your own indigenous product.

 

[Rauf]

F-16 for Hi, JF-17 for lo and JF-17 also as Backbone fighter. Same with most Airforces of the world, Hi-Lo mix to get the most out of service if needed. Just as PLAAF will opt for J20 as Hi and another platform for lo.

Also JF-17 is only meant as a replacement for J-7, Mirage III/V, in that regards it meets the requirement of PAF but still leaves room for something else. ( I would say if possible, PAF should opt for Mix of J-11D and J-16, that is if Chinese are willing to sell. But that just my opinion. )

 

[Deino]

Guys .. it's enough !

We are that far off the topic's title ... and right in the middle of a discussion regarding the PAF's use of fighters, sales prospects and so on ... !

STOP !

Deino