JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Preux]

Another important thing to note is that 50 aircraft are equipping only two Squadron’s and not three No. 16 and No. 26, this means the JF17 Squadrons are much larger and even sometimes double the size of traditional PAF Squadron’s which shows there has been a change of strategy and tactics

I find it interesting that this would make the PAF squadrons similar in size to PLAAF and PLANAF air regiments - is there some sort of connection?

 

[plawolf]

I find it interesting that this would make the PAF squadrons similar in size to PLAAF and PLANAF air regiments - is there some sort of connection?

Could just be logistics. It would certainly make things easier to concerntrate all the pilots and technicians in two places rather than spread them out in 4, for example. Especially since the JF17 is a new type that the PAF has not operated before, so pilots and ground crews who are qualified on the type may be at a premium. Keeping everything together would aid in training as well as avoiding spreading your limited human resources too thinly across too many bases.

I think the try test would come when the PAF stand up their next JF17 Sqds, if they keep the larger unit size, we can infer some sort of organisational and maybe even strategic change in their thinking and how they operate. If future JF17 units reverts back to smaller Sqds, than we can deduce that the current large unit sizes are to aid and facilitate rapid qualification so the PAF can have enough pilots ready to fly the JF17s as quickly as they are produced.

 

[Preux]

Could just be logistics. It would certainly make things easier to concerntrate all the pilots and technicians in two places rather than spread them out in 4, for example. Especially since the JF17 is a new type that the PAF has not operated before, so pilots and ground crews who are qualified on the type may be at a premium. Keeping everything together would aid in training as well as avoiding spreading your limited human resources too thinly across too many bases.

I think the try test would come when the PAF stand up their next JF17 Sqds, if they keep the larger unit size, we can infer some sort of organisational and maybe even strategic change in their thinking and how they operate. If future JF17 units reverts back to smaller Sqds, than we can deduce that the current large unit sizes are to aid and facilitate rapid qualification so the PAF can have enough pilots ready to fly the JF17s as quickly as they are produced.

I observe that it would be the opposite of what the PLA likes to do, they like to spread their gear around so everybody gets some experience operating with (and against) them, but that has something to do with China's unique needs - i.e. modernizing a large air force filled with obsolescent equipment while maintaining the highest possible readiness.

So quite possibly.

I suppose we'll know once we see how the block IIs are equipped.

 

[asif iqbal]

I find it interesting that this would make the PAF squadrons similar in size to PLAAF and PLANAF air regiments - is there some sort of connection?

Thing you have to remember is that PAC is building and manufacturing these aircraft, before this it was all about sourcing the equipment and making the most out of it we did not have the luxury nor could we afford huge squadrons of F16 Fighting Falcons or say Mirage 2000-5 (the deal which was thankfully scrapped) not to mention the cost of fatigue on these aircraft due to prolonged flying hours we are talking enormous resources, technicians and ground crews which have to go to foreign country’s to be trained and schooled costing lots and lots of money having 24 or 28 aircraft is one thing operating them is another

The JF-17 has an operating cost if not ½ at least 1/3 that of a comparable aircraft, it costs less to build and having a wide fleet decreases the overall cost even further, now if we need to replace a part need to overhaul an airframe all we need to do is build the part at Kamra get it sent over and get it fitted, no calls to France or US no money lost in corruption and whole thing done in a fraction of a time this is the real value of a home built fighter aircraft

There is Operational, logistical and financial reasons as to why a larger squadron is established and I think it’s a good idea, maybe the next squadron’s might not be so big they might split the next 50 Block II into 3 squadron’s because they have aerial refuelling which essentially means 1 squadrons can perform a CAP mission of 2-3 squadrons, we can afford to keep a fighter in the air because now we can absorb the wear and tear this wouldn’t really be practical before, a high end CAP mission on war time can exceed 1,000 flying hours (per year) your standard operating procedure at this point are no longer any good

Block II will have ZDK-03 integration and a non-retractable aerial refuelling probe which will be refuelled by the Ukrainian Midas tankers, both the latter are in service we just need to wait on the last piece of the puzzle to get the full picture hopefully soon enough

 

[Miragedriver]

An area of particular concern to potential sales of the JF-17 is China's weakness in purchase and resale of aircraft engines. This could complicate a purchase decision for potential customers. The K-8, for example, is powered by the Ivchenko AI-25 turbofan or the Honeywell TFE731, a powerplant originally developed by Garrett for business jets, while the JF-17 is powered by Russia's Klimov RD-93. Historically, a major criticism of Russian aviation equipment is the lack of spares and delays in conducting major repairs. The Royal Malaysian Air Force logistics officer told Flightglobal in an interview at the at 2011's LIMA air show in Langkawi that “….it could take one year for a MiG-29 engine to be repaired if were sent back to Russia”, adding: "The MiG-29 are a maintenance nightmare." That alone should be enough to make potential JF-17 customers have second thoughts.

"In a worst-case scenario, customers must worry not only about maintaining good relations with China, but also with Russia. This substantially reduces China's independent leverage in the lucrative and strategically potent area of military aircraft sales, which Russians, Europeans and Americans are loath to cede to China. China will find it particularly challenging to make headway in Russia's former Soviet republics, with Moscow using its political clout in the region to ensure sales for Russian airframes.

However the one bright point in all of this is that the cost of effective combat aircraft has gotten prohibitively expensive. Many 3rd world or developing nation Air Forces are faced with a choice between fewer or no military aircraft second hand aircraft and/or Chinese versions, growing numbers of countries in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America are likely to consider the China option

Maybe Beijing willing offer creative financing and other support packages that other established aircraft producers may not offer.

 

[thunderchief]

Interesting picture I found on some Indian forum . Ignore caption , it's a joke

 

[Zahid]

An area of particular concern to potential sales of the JF-17 is China's weakness in purchase and resale of aircraft engines. This could complicate a purchase decision for potential customers. The K-8, for example, is powered by the Ivchenko AI-25 turbofan or the Honeywell TFE731, a powerplant originally developed by Garrett for business jets, while the JF-17 is powered by Russia's Klimov RD-93. Historically, a major criticism of Russian aviation equipment is the lack of spares and delays in conducting major repairs. The Royal Malaysian Air Force logistics officer told Flightglobal in an interview at the at 2011's LIMA air show in Langkawi that “….it could take one year for a MiG-29 engine to be repaired if were sent back to Russia”, adding: "The MiG-29 are a maintenance nightmare." That alone should be enough to make potential JF-17 customers have second thoughts.

"In a worst-case scenario, customers must worry not only about maintaining good relations with China, but also with Russia. This substantially reduces China's independent leverage in the lucrative and strategically potent area of military aircraft sales, which Russians, Europeans and Americans are loath to cede to China. China will find it particularly challenging to make headway in Russia's former Soviet republics, with Moscow using its political clout in the region to ensure sales for Russian airframes.

However the one bright point in all of this is that the cost of effective combat aircraft has gotten prohibitively expensive. Many 3rd world or developing nation Air Forces are faced with a choice between fewer or no military aircraft second hand aircraft and/or Chinese versions, growing numbers of countries in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America are likely to consider the China option

Maybe Beijing willing offer creative financing and other support packages that other established aircraft producers may not offer.

I understand your concerns. We in Pakistan had similar concerns. If you browse this thread, you can see my posts to this effect. I had pretty much the same concerns as you have described. But so far not a single issue has been raised. It might be a good idea to get a few spare engines.

But my view is that perspective buyers might be interested in 3rd block of JF-17, which could use WS-13 in case there are significant problems with RD-93. Plus reportedly WS-13 has greater thrust. Therefore, even though JF-17 is not underpowered, that would make WS-13 a prefered choice. The only concern could be reliability, since RD-93 is a mature, tested, and trusted product.

 

[Zahid]

This is where 2-3 squadrons of JF-17s equipped with Air Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCM) whether Paksitani or Chineses, would seem to matter - a lot. RAF F-35 or no RAF F-35, this is the best and most economical way of showing pointy teeth instead of boring dentures.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argentine threat over Falkland Islands oil operations

Argentina has threatened oil businesses operating off the Falkland Islands with fines, confiscations and jail sentences for their executives.

Argentina's embassy in London said new laws had been passed by the country's congress to clamp down on exploration it claims is in breach of UN decisions.

The UK's Foreign Office insisted the activities were legitimately controlled by the islands' government.
.
.
.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Miragedriver]

-

Argentine threat over Falkland Islands oil operations

Argentina has threatened oil businesses operating off the Falkland Islands with fines, confiscations and jail sentences for their executives.

Argentina's embassy in London said new laws had been passed by the country's congress to clamp down on exploration it claims is in breach of UN decisions.

The UK's Foreign Office insisted the activities were legitimately controlled by the islands' government.
.
.
.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hello Friend. This is not a place to post any Argentina and possible aircraft. Please see the Argentina Air Force thread in the World Military section. Thank you.

 

[Miragedriver]

Here is a question to ponder: If the useful load of a JF-17 and L-15 are comparable (around 3000kg) and the L-15 is a lighter aircraft (9,500 kg vs. 12,383 kg), ferry ranges being comparable, the L-15 is estimated at 10,000 fight hours and the Jf-17 is estimated at 5000 fight hours. Additionally the L-15 can emulate 4.5 generation aircraft in maneuverability and the thrust to weight ratio is higher (due to the light weight and comparable thrust) and mostly the price is less; why wouldn’t one select a single seat version of the L-15 over the JF-17?

Please see technical data and picture below:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Specifications (JF-17 Block 1)
Data from Pakistan Aeronautical Complex
General characteristics
· Crew: 1
· Length: 14.93 m (49 ft)
· Wingspan: 9.45 m (31 ft, including 2 wingtip missiles)
· Height: 4.72 m (15 ft 6 in)
· Wing area: 24.4 m² (263 ft²)
· Empty weight: 6,586 kg (14,520 lb)
· Loaded weight: 9,100 kg (20,062 lb)
· Useful load: 3000 kg (6600 lb)
· Max. takeoff weight: 12,383 kg (27,300 lb)
· Powerplant: 1 × Klimov RD-93
· Dry thrust: 49.4 kN[16] / 51.2 kN (11,106 lbf / 11,510 lbf)
· Thrust with afterburner: 84.5 kN (19,000 lbf)
· G-limit: +8 g / -3 g
· Internal Fuel Capacity: 2,300 kg (5,130 lb)
Performance
· Maximum speed: Mach 1.6
· Combat radius: 1,352 km (840 mi)
· Ferry range: 3,482 km(1,880 NM)
· Service ceiling: 16,920 m (55,500 ft)
· Thrust/weight: 0.95


Specifications For L-15
Data from Military-Today L-15
General characteristics
· Crew: 2
· Length: 40.256 feet (12.27 m)
· Wingspan: 31.1 feet (9.48 m)
· Height: 15.78 feet (4.81 m)
· Empty weight: 9,920 lb (4,500 kg)
· Loaded weight: 14,300 lb (6,500 kg)
· Max. takeoff weight: 20,900 lb (9,500 kg)
· Powerplant: 2 × Ivchenko Progress AI-222K-25 for AJT condition, Ivchenko Progress AI-222K-25F afterburning turbofans
· Dry thrust: two engines at 24.7 kN (5,552.78 lbf) (total of 11,140lbf)
· Thrust with afterburner: two engines at 4200 kgf / 41.2 kN (9,262.13 lbf) (total of 18,524 lbf)
Performance
· Maximum speed: Mach 1.4 (924.1 mph)
· Combat radius: Over 550+ km (More than 340+ miles)
· Ferry range: 3,100 km(1926 miles)
· Service ceiling: 52500 feet (16,000 m)
· Rate of climb: >39370 ft/min (afterburning) (>200 m/s)
· Thrust/weight: greater than 1 to 1