JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 News, Discussion & Media

Precisely if they could sell enough, the PLAAF need not be getting them. I do think that an FC-1 regiment in the FTTC would be useful though, for operational evaluation, tactical development, training and use as aggressors.

I think FC-1 is design to make money from export market. They realised thier F-7 series fighter plane already cannot get more deal and fully will outdated in 10yrs time. FC-1 is the one to fill in that gap.

And regarding Pakistan more keen on getting western stuff. All these changed with the embargo after the nuclear test. Getting western stuff is risky as they may cut off yr spares and supply anytime. No countries is as reliable as PRC. Who don't link domestic politics with trade. With Bush going to go out in the 2009. Pakistan status as major Non-Nato allies of US will be gone soon. Western tech? Get more and u will get burn more..

Pakistan has realised that in the present 21st century US and NATO are no longer the mother for Pakistan's military equipment. And that China is becoming more and more professionalised in areas where Pakistan cannot get its supplies from Western countries, selling them at a much lower price with the same quality. Some say that the FC-1 won't play a big part in the PLAAF and that limited orders will be put foward. Due to the more advance fighters such as Su-27, Su-30 and J-10. These are indeed more advanced but much more expensive and to replace the J-7 and J-8 with the aircrafts mentioned above, it'll take a while due to the tight budget. As a cheap solution i reckon about 120 (5 regiments) further upgraded FC-1 with TVC engines should be made by the PLAAF as a coastal mainland defence fighter. While the Su-27, Su-30 and J-10 can play the beyond mainland fighter.

Coastal point defense fighter does not make any sense to me. Against a potential opponent, all they need to do is destroy the bases. If you want to be able to defend your bases, it is better to put them inland where you can layer it with SAMs after SAMs as you approach the base. Bases near the coast aint going to get this protection.

Another point is that the FC-1 isn't cheap anymore. It has been so upgraded and upfeatured that I don't see a light price tag anymore. The engine isn't that much cheaper than the J-10's, 2.85 million for the RD-93 vs 3 million for the AL-31FN. Producing the FC-1 and reducing the number of J-10 as a result only results in increasing the costs of the J-10s. This means in the end, you won't be saving money as a whole, and your capability is lower.

It all depends in the end, how the FC-1 performs. With all the upfeatures, it may actually perform better than we expected it to be. The final determinant would be the PLAAF. I am pretty sure they would test and match these aircraft with other types in mock air combat, and whatever results they get, they will accept or not accept the aircraft by the results.

Let me point out something. FC-1 is neither a J-7 or Q-5 role replacement. What it is, with SD-10, HMS and HOBS missile, PGM support, is a light weight multirole tactical fighter. That's much more than a J-7 or Q-5. Once its functions has materialized, the FC-1 is more flexible than most planes in the PLAAF which still has a tendency to be focused in one role. For that matter, it is also more expensive and more complicated.

It has to be weighed by the PLAAF against alternatives, and only the PLAAF would have the hard data, seat in the pants experience to determine if the aircraft is worth being in their inventory or not.

I guess at the end of the day, it depends on how much a FC-1 is per unit vs cost per unit for a J-10. If the price difference is significant enough, buying FC-1s can be a good alternative to replace the J7s, etc. As pointed out, it's not a direct replacement since the FC-1 will have more ability than the older planes but that is a good thing. I don't see FC-1s being deployed for the hot spots in China such as Taiwan straits etc. But it would serve reasonably in areas where the competition is weaker, say Tibet, Yunnan, Xinjiang? Also, can the WS-10 be used on the FC-1? Would that make the FC-1 even cheaper for PLAAF?

The FC-1 indeed does have much more ability than the J7s but i was referring to that the J7s and J8s are getting old though still effective. The point is that there are 300+ of these these aircraft in the PLAAF inventory now this will take ages to replace with a 1 to 1 aircraft ratio, which isnt neccessary. As the FC-1 can to multiply roles combining the J7 and Q5 roles together into one aircraft. As i said before a small number of these aircraft should be in the inventory (not much) just a couple of regiments. The FC-1 has a higher kill ratio than the J7 so the 300+ J7 & Q5 could be replaced with the FC-1. The production line for the Q5, J8 and J7 should stop, to let the production of the J10 to increase or further put more of the budget into creating the "Super 10." I agree (crobato) and noticed that the FC-1 is no longer a cheap aircraft anymore. I was trying to say that it wouldn't be bad to have some of these aircrafts in the PLAAF. Mainland fighters could be the upgraded J7s coastline FC-1 and beyond coastline J-10, Su-30.

This gives a rather detailed analysis of the indian LCA
can i have an equivalent data on the JF-17


TY

joshuatree said:

I guess at the end of the day, it depends on how much a FC-1 is per unit vs cost per unit for a J-10. If the price difference is significant enough, buying FC-1s can be a good alternative to replace the J7s, etc. As pointed out, it's not a direct replacement since the FC-1 will have more ability than the older planes but that is a good thing. I don't see FC-1s being deployed for the hot spots in China such as Taiwan straits etc. But it would serve reasonably in areas where the competition is weaker, say Tibet, Yunnan, Xinjiang? Also, can the WS-10 be used on the FC-1? Would that make the FC-1 even cheaper for PLAAF?

Click to expand...

You might be looking at a 2 to 1 cost ratio (or even less) for J-10 vs FC-1, although the capability of one J-10 is probably far greater than 2 FC-1. WS-10 is too large to be used on FC-1. What can make FC-1 even cheaper?
It's very cheap already. The only thing I can think of is using a domestic engine.

tphuang said:

You might be looking at a 2 to 1 cost ratio (or even less) for J-10 vs FC-1, although the capability of one J-10 is probably far greater than 2 FC-1. WS-10 is too large to be used on FC-1. What can make FC-1 even cheaper?
It's very cheap already. The only thing I can think of is using a domestic engine.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's what I was wondering, if the price can be lowered with a domestic engine. It would also eliminate any licensing issues as well.