JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[KFX]

Regarding the prospective Argentine JF-17 sale, it will need UK approval owing to the Martin-Baker ejection seat. In November 2020, Argentina's FA-50 sale was nixed by UK, which declined to provide export licenses. Still, it should be possible to outfit JF-17 with a Chinese seat.

 

[Deino]

Regarding the prospective Argentine JF-17 sale, it will need UK approval owing to the Martin-Baker ejection seat. In November 2020, Argentina's FA-50 sale was nixed by UK, which declined to provide export licenses. Still, it should be possible to outfit JF-17 with a Chinese seat.

Guys ... can we stick to the topic and discuss any relevant issues like this one in the correct thread for the Argentinian AF? By the way, this was already discussed there.

 

[plawolf]

Considering Argentina has been umming and uhhing about various other fighters over the years with false starts, the position they've taken so far is indecisive.

That’s a bit of a strawman since no one here has suggested this is a done deal.

But you must admit that with the recent wider geopolitical developments of late, China now have a very good reason to move from a purely commercial prospective to include geopolitical considerations into what they would consider a good deal from a sale, and that can significantly change the calculation for both sides.

The clarification from the Argentine government (linked in Sieges post above just now) is basically confirmation of it.

That’s just the dance. China made its opening offer, which was enough to get Argentine to make a splash, but now comes the haggling as both sides tries to get the best deal.

Also, China would be very naive to think that a sale or even a gift of 12 JF-17s is anywhere near equal to the AUKUS agreement.

So what precisely has has AUKUS produced other than fruitless diplomatic fallout?

Also, another strawman to think that this will be China’s only response. This would only be the low hanging fruit opening move.

Now, it is possible that the JF-17 sale (if it proceeds) and future military cooperation with Argentina might be seen as some kind of response to the UK, but at this stage, this purchase is far from convincing.

Same as above, the game has just started. It’s downright unreasonable to criticise the opening pawn move as no checkmate.

 

[Blitzo]

That’s a bit of a strawman since no one here has suggested this is a done deal.

But you must admit that with the recent wider geopolitical developments of late, China now have a very good reason to move from a purely commercial prospective to include geopolitical considerations into what they would consider a good deal from a sale, and that can significantly change the calculation for both sides.


That’s just the dance. China made its opening offer, which was enough to get Argentine to make a splash, but now comes the haggling as both sides tries to get the best deal.


So what precisely has has AUKUS produced other than fruitless diplomatic fallout?

Also, another strawman to think that this will be China’s only response. This would only be the low hanging fruit opening move.


Same as above, the same has just started. It’s downright unreasonable to criticise the opening pawn move as no checkmate.

Your post in #5887 did not talk about this JF-17 sale as if it were a first move as part of an overall significant policy shift for China in terms of arms sales to Argentina -- you spoke of the JF-17 sale "I would not be surprised if this is China’s response to the UK for AUKUS" -- speaking about the potential of this singular sale.

My position is pretty simple:
1. This sale has yet to be made concrete.
2. There are not yet any indications that China is seeking to arm Argentina (+/- other UK adversaries) in a particular manner.

Those two factors, combined with the fact that Argentina has been angling to buy new fighter jets for a while now (and have very openly been considering JF-17 Block III), makes me think we don't yet have the evidence to suggest this sale is linked to any sort of Chinese reaction to AUKUS.
If the above two factors -- especially the second factor -- changes in the future, then sure, let's consider it.

But at this stage, the most reasonable explanation is that Argentina has just happened to have moved forwards with their long delayed fighter procurement program -- or rather, it just so happens that Argentina happened to release a draft budget for its 2022 fiscal year on 15/09/21.
And yes, Argentina in the past issues its draft budgets for upcoming fiscal years on 15/16th September (depending on what part of the world you're in):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As for the results or the significance of the AUKUS alliance, that is not for this thread.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Can we at least wait until the deal has been finalized before we discuss the ramifications of the sale? The Argentina ministry of defense just confirmed that things are still up in the air. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

 

[Mohsin77]

There's 2 possibilities with the PL-15 for the Block III.

1) The PL-15 was never going to be integrated despite assumptions of even the PAF's pilot community, due to whatever technical and/or budget reasons.

2) The PL-15 is being integrated, but this fact is not being publicized.

The question is, in scenario 2, what would be the incentive to hide this fact? Possibly because China does not want to pitch the Block III to other countries with the PL-15 package, because that may cannibalize possible sales of the J-10C. And if the PAF was getting it on the Block III, that would also make potential customers like Argentina complain about not being offered the PL-15 on the same Block. So it's possible the PL-15 on the Block III is an optics issue and it can't be advertised.


p.s. I also agree with @siegecrossbow, the J-10C isn't a roadblock for integration itself, because the PAF actually wants both.

 

[ougoah]

Can we at least wait until the deal has been finalized before we discuss the ramifications of the sale? The Argentina ministry of defense just confirmed that things are still up in the air. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

I guess the excitement is more from the fact that the Argentinians decided on the JF-17 over the other options. They definitely prefer the JF-17 over the Tejas, it's closest "competitor". FA-50 is literally a glorified trainer and definitely an inferior fighter to a block 3, especially a block 3 capable of being armed with PL-15. It has T:W edge, radar edge, and payload edge plus probably a price edge despite being a fighter with some 4.5 gen equipment compared to a glorified trainer.

The Tejas simply isn't a real option until the Indians work out production. They produce single digit numbers of Tejas per year. It can barely even be considered serial production. The Indians are waiting for MK1 Tejas and the IAF have long expressed dissatisfaction for the current Tejas. Uttam is not available and nor are their new domestic missiles ready yet to say nothing of matured. MK1 Tejas may be a good option for Argentina and Malaysia etc but by then 6th gens would be flying in secrecy.

 

[Zahid]

There's 2 possibilities with the PL-15 for the Block III.

1) The PL-15 was never going to be integrated despite assumptions of even the PAF's pilot community, due to whatever technical and/or budget reasons.

2) The PL-15 is being integrated, but this fact is not being publicized.

The question is, in scenario 2, what would be the incentive to hide this fact? Possibly because China does not want to pitch the Block III to other countries with the PL-15 package, because that may cannibalize possible sales of the J-10C. And if the PAF was getting it on the Block III, that would also make potential customers like Argentina complain about not being offered the PL-15 on the same Block. So it's possible the PL-15 on the Block III is an optics issue and it can't be advertised.


p.s. I also agree with @siegecrossbow, the J-10C isn't a roadblock for integration itself, because the PAF actually wants both.

Most likely scenario 2. Rafale armed with Meteor is a potent enought threat to warrant purchase of PL-15. But I do not expect PAF to advertise its deployment. Why bother when there is not yet a reason to confirm it when IAF is not in a position to field the Rafale + Meteor combo just yet. Its best to keep the enemy guessing.

BTW, what are the chances that J-10C might be a better platform for deplyment of PL-15? Suppose PAF never confirms PL-15 on JF-17, but shows J-10C in PAF colors with PL-15?

 

[ougoah]

Most likely scenario 2. Rafale armed with Meteor is a potent enought threat to warrant purchase of PL-15. But I do not expect PAF to advertise its deployment. Why bother when there is not yet a reason to confirm it when IAF is not in a position to field the Rafale + Meteor combo just yet. Its best to keep the enemy guessing.

BTW, what are the chances that J-10C might be a better platform for deplyment of PL-15? Suppose PAF never confirms PL-15 on JF-17, but shows J-10C in PAF colors with PL-15?

It could be a case of PAF simply going to J-10CE for PL-15 deployment and use. This is if PAF actually has purchased J-10CE (or rather J-10P if you will).

JF-17 block 3 should have nothing restricting it from PL-15 use. It is no challenge to integrate that missile with JF-17 mechanically and it should be a given for the radar to be integrated with it.

They're not saying because it doesn't need to be said. No one is demanding an answer on a question no one has formally asked. It's also not necessary to tell everyone exactly what you have or plan to have.

PL-10's integration is given away by pictures. Just because we have not seen PL-15 armed block 3 doesn't mean it can't and won't be. Having said that, PAF could also have preferred PL-15s on J-10P? Seeing as PL-15 is not an inexpensive missile at all, I do have doubts that it will be a missile that features heavily in PAF arsenal. So it could just be a case of, since we'll have this better fighter to fire this missile we don't have a lot of, it's probably better used by the J-10s which can fly faster, higher, and longer, then turn better. Oh and also see further.

J-10P would itself probably still mostly be using PL-12 variants for air to air combat. I think even block 3 would almost always be seen with PL-12 or SD-10 even if it is absolutely capable of firing PL-15 and upgraded with every intention to.

 

[asif iqbal]

I think PAF may opt for the most lethal air-to-air missiles for JF17 Block III

which one is that PL-15? as SD10 is already pretty dated