JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Equation]

I never said his analysis was stupid, just that it's the typical cookie cutter piece you can expect from 99% of western defence pundits.

What makes a western defence pundit? They need to have good contacts with western defence firms.

Why are western defence pundits typically useless on Chinese defence related matters?

1) they have zero contacts within the Chinese defence establishment. Meaning they almost never bring any new information to the debate. Instead all they do is take open source information and add their own analysis, which is just their own feelings and opinions.

2) by the necessity of their jobs, they develop close links to western and sometimes Russian arms makers, so all too often end up as glorified salesmen for those defence companies, trading puff pieces for inside information and exclusive scoops through conscious choice or unconscious group think.

Since they have no Chinese contacts, they often turn to these same western and Russia defence company contacts for their views on Chinese products. Needless to say, these western, and especially Russian defence companies sees Chinese arms as a serious and growth threat to their own business and bottom line. Which is why as Chinese weapons improved over the years, western defence publications have gradually gone from real curiosity and interest to near open hostility in most cases in their tone regarding Chinese arms.

I had a brief skim, and that piece is pretty much your typical cookie cutter pro forma example of what you would expect from the vast majority of western defence writers these days.

A brief, selective regurgitation of commonly know facts paving the way for them to add their own 'analysis', which invariably focuses heavily on any and all perceived difficencies with the token plus thrown in for the pretence of balance.

Once you read one such piece, you read them all.

Of course Western pundits are hoping that when one repeats a lie long enough it became truth.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

I think it is an excellent article---. He is not under estimating the capabilities of the JF17 but telling it like it is.

Readers must understand that the JF17 was not planned with the chinese EW suite and weapons package but rather that of Thales and possibly the French / weapons---.

If that deal would not have fallen thru due to mistakes & error in judgement made by Paf---the JF17 would have been way ahead of the Gripen and somewhere between the BLK52+ and BLK60.

 

[Blackstone]

Hi,

I think it is an excellent article---. He is not under estimating the capabilities of the JF17 but telling it like it is.

Readers must understand that the JF17 was not planned with the chinese EW suite and weapons package but rather that of Thales and possibly the French / weapons---.

If that deal would not have fallen thru due to mistakes & error in judgement made by Paf---the JF17 would have been way ahead of the Gripen and somewhere between the BLK52+ and BLK60.

Kudos for a good input based on reason.

 

[Iron Man]

Hi,

I think it is an excellent article---. He is not under estimating the capabilities of the JF17 but telling it like it is.

Readers must understand that the JF17 was not planned with the chinese EW suite and weapons package but rather that of Thales and possibly the French / weapons---.

If that deal would not have fallen thru due to mistakes & error in judgement made by Paf---the JF17 would have been way ahead of the Gripen and somewhere between the BLK52+ and BLK60.

Why are you yourself resorting to making comparisons between JF-17 and Gripen and F-16 but simultaneously legitimizing this inane article's comparisons with far larger and heavier twin-engine fighters?? If "telling it like it is" is something like "a Bradley IFV is puny compared to an Abrams MBT, that's just the way it is", then I guess that's just the way it is, but that doesn't mean the comparison isn't stupid, because it is.

 

[Zahid]

@Iron Man

Please do not treat Mastan Khan as just another poster. He is ex-PAF and well known on this and other forums. His opinions are backed by experience. While one may not agree with him, it is not OK to treat him like a typical newbie teenager.

Everything can not be merely boiled down to us vs them - Chinese vs western world, etc... There might be better suited threads for such venting.

 

[Iron Man]

@Iron Man

Please do not treat Mastan Khan as just another poster. He is ex-PAF and well known on this and other forums. His opinions are backed by experience. While one may not agree with him, it is not OK to treat him like a typical newbie teenager.

Everything can not be merely boiled down to us vs them - Chinese vs western world, etc... There might be better suited threads for such venting.

You are not at all replying to the substance of my post, rather your perception of its tone. You should respond with why you think it is appropriate to compare a lightweight, single-engine fighter to a bunch of heavyweight twin-engine fighters and be allowed to conclude that the lightweight fighter is terrible in comparison, without someone raising a hand to say that it is a stupid comparison in the first place.

 

[Zahid]

@Iron Man

You are just trying to create a strawman argument by insinuating that Mastan Khan said something that he clearly did not say.

In situations where combat aircraft face-off, nobody cares whether one or the other has one or two engines. Generations do not matter either. Each pilot has to face the other according to their plane's strengths and weaknesses - and that is to say nothing about extraneous factors.

If we claim JF-17 to be a 4th generation combat aircraft, we should not mind how it is compared to other 4th generation fighter air crafts. Its nothing to get emotional and /or abusive about.

 

[Iron Man]

@Iron Man

You are just trying to create a strawman argument by insinuating that Mastan Khan said something that he clearly did not say.

In situations where combat aircraft face-off, nobody cares whether one or the other has one or two engines. Generations do not matter either. Each pilot has to face the other according to their plane's strengths and weaknesses - and that is to say nothing about extraneous factors.

If we claim JF-17 to be a 4th generation combat aircraft, we should not mind how it is compared to other 4th generation fighter air crafts. Its nothing to get emotional and /or abusive about.

Perhaps you should read what he clearly wrote, again. He straight up made a comparison between JF-17, Gripen and F-16. These are correct and appropriate comparisons. But why did he compare the JF-17 to these similar fighters when he can instead compare the JF-17 to much bigger fighters like the article did? The answer is obvious to the average person, but apparently not to some people.

Look, if you want to say that on the battlefield nobody cares whether one or the other is 70 tons of compound/DU armor with a 120mm smoothbore gun and the other is 35 tons of rolled steel armor with a 35mm gun, then yes, you are right. Nobody cares. One will probably annihilate the other and that's the end of the story. One sure does suck pretty badly compared to the other.

 

[AndrewS]

@Iron Man

Comparing JF-17 to Gripen or F-16 is not a correct nor appropriate comparison.

The JF-17 is most likely to go up against the Flankers, Mig-29 or Mirage-2000 in the Indian Air Force, so comparing against those bigger 4th gen fighters would be better.

Gripen and F-16 should really be compared to the J-10 as they are in the same weight class for 4th generation fighters. Plus it is actually conceivable to see J-10s up against F-16s.

 

[Iron Man]

@Iron Man

Comparing JF-17 to Gripen or F-16 is not a correct nor appropriate comparison.

The JF-17 is most likely to go up against the Flankers, Mig-29 or Mirage-2000 in the Indian Air Force, so comparing against those bigger 4th gen fighters would be better.

Gripen and F-16 should really be compared to the J-10 as they are in the same weight class for 4th generation fighters. Plus it is actually conceivable to see J-10s up against F-16s.

The JF-17 will not be exclusive to the PAF, so again, the comparison of its capabilities needs to be made to its peers. And according to your reasoning, why should I limit comparing the JF-17 to only 4th generation fighters when it could potentially go up against 5th generation fighters like the PAK FA???