I should have also included that the aircraft would have the appropriate avionics and ECM instrumentation comparable to the FC-1. With that in mind the aircraft is more of a 4+ generation aircraft that the FC-1. Yes it is small, but then so is the Gripen (smaller than the Mig-21) and the Gripen is a very capable aircraft.
Given similar or better avionics, more maneuverable and more flight hours. Why not consider it. Granted the useful load to range many be less. However are you really going to hang stuff on the aircraft like a Christmas tree or use it in a specific strike or intercept roll?
Sir,
1. The Useful load figures for FC-1 / JF-17 seem to be wrong. It was 3600 KG, and then this figure was revised upwards close to 4000 KG. I do not think that your figures are quite correct.
2. JF-17 is a true multi-role. With the just 550KM range L-15 can be nothing other than a point defence fighter in addition to being a trainer.
3. While the TWR for L-15 is reportedly greater than 1, that is really because of the limited fuel capacity. At similar fuel capacity FC-1 / JF-17 could have a similar TWR as well.
4. It is important to note that FC-1 / JF-17 has probably the lowest operating cost of multi-role combat jets. That is because it is single engine, has easy access to parts and components that need to be serviced. Consequently it has a much shorter turn-around time. It also needs comparatively fewer support staff. In a war scenario these things count. I doubt that with two engines L-15 could match these advantages. Its two engines might be good for redundancy, and then the question arises if it can stay aloft with one engine. If it can not do that, then what real advantage could it have with its being twin-engined?
5. While PAF is considering installing a bigger and better AESA radar in Block III, I doubt one could do much within the limitations of L-15. Just look at the nose to see the maximum size of radar it can carry. It is not merely a matter of spending money to get a better radar / avionics.
6. What types of weapons can L-15 carry? That is an important question. How many hard points does it have, what is the capacity of those hardpoints? Can it carry a potent BVR missile? Can it have a RADAR with greater range than a possible BVR missile?
7. The service life of an aircraft can not conclusively be determined in advance. A lot depend upon the use. A lot also depends upon the capacity and capability to upgrade the airframe and aircraft. PAF is still flying 45 years old Mirages. So the question of life of an aircraft is relative and depends upon design, usage, and overhaul. I do not know what usage do the jet trainers go through, but it can not be as gruelling as a hard hitting multi-role combat airplane.
8. You have mentioned that L-15 is more manueverable. I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion? It is certainly not as fast. Moreover, with future engine upgrade with RD-93MA or WS-13, JF-17's TWR is set to rise above 1. Once the plane gets full FBW as it should, it would go beyond that too with all the weight saving etc...
I am sure that L-15 is good for its own niche. But it can hardly be suitable for roles for which FC-1 / JF-17 has been designed. For all the hassle of converting a trainer into a true combat plane, it would be better to just go ahead and purchase a well-designed combat plane.
Once specifications for JF-17 Block III are released, we can truly appreciate its capabilities and potential.
