JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Dizasta1]

I don't see Vietnam would buy any fighters from China .. let alone 5th generation fighters. And I don't think China would consider that either

I believe that there is a way that both China and Vietnam can come to the table and achieve a peaceful resolution to their disputes. Both countries need each other and the region would have more peace prosperity, if both China and Vietnam can build up their relations and find ways to grow economically, together as countries of the same great continent. It is besides the fact, whether Vietnam buys Chinese aircraft. What's more beneficial to Vietnam, is having joint-economic cooperation agreements to build infrastructure, establish free trade and find ways to protect the eco-system in the South China Sea. Agreements on fishing on a fair quota system, to benefit the ASEAN countries and have cooperative maritime traffic management with all the countries involved. I believe that Vietnam would come forward in peace, but China would need to find a balanced approach toward Vietnam. Of course it isn't helpful if countries outside of ASEAN and Asian Continent peddle in the bilateral affairs of Vietnam and China. This has to be handled tactfully and with the elegance and grace of the 5000 year old Chinese cultural heritage.

 

[plawolf]

In which specific ways is the JF-17 optimized for PAF? I'm asking because I genuinely don't know. If you're talking about how the monitors are set up or the layout, that's too trivial to matter. The plane is assessed based on its role. As a single engined, air superiority with secondary CAS, ground attack, and anti-ship, it's mostly a multirole fighter not too dissimilar to f-16 or gripen. No reason why this can't be exported and modified slightly for other countries. Reason it hasn't seen any exports is more an issue of politics, economics and price, rather than capability and jf-17 being too tailor made for PAF.

It's no conincidence the JF17 look so much like the F16.

Form follows function, and basically the PAF's wish list boiled down to a jet that is essentially a mini-F16 - with very good turning capabilities, a powerful radar yet cost only a fraction of the F16 to both purchase and operate, and that's what CAC delivered.

If you look at the kinds of jets CAC prefers to design, you get tailless delta canards.

The JF17 is significant departure from CAC's preferred style of fighter design.

Had CAC and the PLAAF been given the lead on the JF17, the design would have either ended up as a mini-J10, or a beefed up JL9.

If you look at the original Super-7 programme that turned into the JF17, you will see that the PLAAF wanted a BVR capable J7 that was only marginally more expensive than the vanilla version while retaining as much parts commonality as possible to allow them to make the most of their existing J7 maintance facilities and spare parts stocks.

I think it's even possible that the original JF17 programme got split in two, with CAC retaining the PAF version which became the JF17 as we know it, while the Chinese version went to Guizhou, and eventually became the JL9 trainer as the J10's success deminished the PLAAF's interest in a BVR J7, so they just made it a trainer instead.

The PAF's fixation with the F16, and desire to keep costs down meant the JF17 retained 3rd gen aerodynamics and is in a bit of a niche weight class.

Had the PAF allowed CAC to play to its strengths, they probably would have gone for a mini-J10, which would have been a direct competitor for Gripen customers.

OTOH, if the PLAAF was still onboard and was talked out of the Super-7, they would have demanded something with more range and payload, so you might have had an enlarged JF17 running on AL31s, which really would have been a Sino-F16.

As it is, the PAF got its dream plane in the weight and price range it is happy with. However, it does leave the JF17 in a bit of an awkward position in the market place.

Anyone who operated F16s and love it as much as the PAF could and would just get more F16s.

Those who can't get the F16 don't have the same emotional attachment and investment in the design, and so would find its size and range limiting while also being suspect about its 3rd gen aerodynamics roots, especially in comparison to truth full blooded 4th gens.

 

[kurutoga]

It's no conincidence the JF17 look so much like the F16.
Form follows function, and basically the PAF's wish list boiled down to a jet that is essentially a mini-F16 - with very good turning capabilities, a powerful radar yet cost only a fraction of the F16 to both purchase and operate, and that's what CAC delivered.

This has been my confusion all alone. They want a backup F16 for A2A? It does not seem to make sense because J10 will be better for that role. I originally thought Pak wants JF17 as ground attack, then we see the block 3 upgrades almost like another A2A jet not much A2G capabilities. JF17 block 3 will have the best radar Pak AF ever has. But it probably gets wasted since they will not use JF17 as air dominance role.

 

[kurutoga]

Skyrocketing? That is a bit of a exaggeration
End of the day the JF17 was fit for PAF anything on top is a bonus

Regardless who is designing/making it, any new jets will be super expensive though, since anyone designing a new jet in 2017 will almost certainly be a stealth jet. This also means a lot of other things such as sensors, engine, etc etc. I'd say $100 million will be the bottom price for any newly designed fighter jets from this point on.

They have this joke that in the year 2050 the entire USAF will have only one fighter jet, and it is shared with USN, due to unmanageable rise of cost.

 

[Dizasta1]

Air Combat has come a long way since the days of WW1. Where wooden air frame, propeller driven aircraft took to the skies over Europe. They fought with machine guns fixed on the wings or nose of the aircraft. By WW2, piston driven aircraft were flown and used in air-combat. Within that war, the first Jet-Engine fighter aircraft emerged from Germany. Aiming mechanism was developed for the pilot to use his guns more accurately. Then came missiles, radars on aircraft, radar warning receivers and more and more avionics. With every evolutionary stage, what was accomplished in the previous generation, was refined and incorporated with the new generation of combat aircraft. This process has continued since WW1. When one starts to try and fit all that tech and weaponry into on single platform. Something is bound to change, be it the size of the radars, missiles or the avionics. Automation dominated the evolution, computers took over various functions that pilots would have to monitor. But one thing has remained the same since "Day One" in the history of air-warfare. That is the pilot, and with the pilot, the aircraft has been designed around the needs of the driver. F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lightning ll, Su-57, J-20 or J-31. All have been designed around the fighter-pilot's ability to fly the platform into the theater of war and deliver weapons or fight for air dominance.

Today, as yesterday, evolution is ongoing. With the advent of UAVs. Autonomous flight has evolved at unprecedented levels. And "AI" is poised to evolve to the extent that future air-combat will be fought by AI driven machines, more deadlier and stripped of any morality or physical fatigue. Certainly, when AI has taken that quantum leap, the era of manned flights would be laid to rest. The cost however, again is associated with "man". Would either reduce due the lack of pilot in the cockpits, as there won't be cockpits in future AI Combat Aircraft. Or would be expensive still, due to the greed of man putting a higher price tag, on the advent of superior "Artificial Intelligence" piloted killing machines. Whichever the case, what is clear, is that countries would be driven to spend an endless amount of money on weapons to destroy one another until they're either flat broke (Soviet Union), or imprisoned in state of perpetually enveloping debt (United States), or cannibalizing themselves to get the next technologically advance weapons (Britain).

So until mankind comes to their senses (which they never will), it seems as though the cost of combat aircraft is set to get more and more expensive. As someone aptly put, "It is a zero sum game and yet we play it to our utter doom."

 

[plawolf]

This has been my confusion all alone. They want a backup F16 for A2A? It does not seem to make sense because J10 will be better for that role. I originally thought Pak wants JF17 as ground attack, then we see the block 3 upgrades almost like another A2A jet not much A2G capabilities. JF17 block 3 will have the best radar Pak AF ever has. But it probably gets wasted since they will not use JF17 as air dominance role.

The J10 was simply not available for export until recently.

The PAF also doesn't have the budget of the PLAAF, so even if the J10 was an option, they wouldn't have been able to buy the J10 in the numbers they needed.

The JF17 is also about building up Pakistan's domestic aviation industry, and there is just no way China will allow Pakistan the same level of ToT with the J10 as they have with the JF17.

Plus the J10 would have been a direct competitor to the F16, and I hear there are interest groups on Pakistan that are not keen on that at all, which is why the long-rumoured PAF J10 deal keep refusing to materialise.

The JF17 blk 3 will gain a lot of multi role capabilities, but at its core, it will still very much be an air superiority bird, I am not sure why you would think otherwise. Although given the opposition, I think air dominance would be a bit much to ask for.

 

[Zahid]

AESA is a boon for Multirole aircraft. There is no need to pre-configure the radar for switching its roles before the flight. How can anyone say that an AESA radar would go to waste, when the aircraft in question is a multirole?

JF-17 is a numbers aircraft. This is the only aircraft PAF can afford in numbers, with many ancillary benefits. There is a reason why JF-17 is a cruciform design with high wing loading and relatively low drag. It fits PAF's philosophy and tactics. I would want a fast delta jet too, because a mixed package would have different strengths and more difficult to counter. I do see a future for J-10 in PAF. I just can not say when PAF might induct it.

 

[[email protected]]

I hear there are interest groups on Pakistan that are not keen on that at all, which is why the long-rumoured PAF J10 deal keep refusing to materialise.

I can bet you must be a victim of a source using term "F-16 mafia" ....
Reasons for cancellation 36 J-10 deal 'were' different

 

[AndrewS]

I don't see a Pakistan J-10 deal happening.

Both the J-10 and F-16 are in the same weight/performance class, so it's inefficient to have the 2 types operating. Particularly since the JF-17 is available and the Pakistan Air Force can't sustain a large fleet of F-16s or J-10s.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... we are right again in a political, historical and PAF-related discussion!

Please stay on topic.

Deino