Getting back on topic
I’ve taken a few weeks to respond for a couple of reasons, the first was to read all of you interesting comments and the other was to get over the shock that the FAA is even considering the JF-17.
First I want to address some interesting questions that where introduced in the thread.
1) Argentina currently has the monies to purchase the required equipment to protect national borders (approximately 9 billion US dollars).
2) The nation spends a smaller percentage of its GDP on defense than its neighbor Chile.
3) The nation is in poor econonic condition due to current government policy.
4) The question then becomes why don’t we purchase the required equipment, but additionally maintain what we currently possess? The answer is simple. The current government is made up of ex anti-military government
that hate the military. To the point of starving them of equipment, maintenance, support and pensions.
5) We can then say that we can but won’t spend the monies.
6) The current anti-American sentiment in the government has now also poisoned the well on all possible purchases from the USA. At one time in the 1990’s Argentina received the status of non NATO Allie.
But JF-17 is not a very durable aircraft (
, compared to 8,000+ hours for competitors such as the F-16 and Mirage 2000). And if one has enough mathematical skills to divide the price of the aircraft through the hours of airframe service life, it comes out as none cheaper than much better planes that are only a little more expensive.
While some here argue (and will argue) that this plane is cheap and that it is a great buy (for the money) and that you get so much for what you are paying, I have to disagree. In my opinion it is neither cheap nor do you get a lot for your money.
a) Because it is not really cheaper than better competitors in a comparable price range.
b) Because you don't really get a lot for what you pay.
It would be a good supplementation to better fighters, to fill up some numbers or to replace older fighters, such as the Mig-21, Mirage III, Mirage F-1 (but then again, if you are cash-strapped, can you even afford a large number, and having to supply two types of aircraft, and having to buy more expensive ones to make up for the cheap ones? At the end, the question is: Can you really afford to buy cheap? Because that scenario may turn out to be more expensive and yet less effective/capable than buying a bit more expensive but more capable jets in the first place, like Chile did with the purchase of 48 F-16s), but acquiring it as the main fighter aircraft would be "fatal", especially for small air forces with neighbors which fly much better aircraft. Even today, but even more so in 2020, it would still be like flying Mig-21s or F-5s in the 1990s
My choice would have been three squadrons of J-10 in conjunction with a squadron of gently used Su-27/30 types. This provides two more capable aircraft that use the same engine. As expected, China is now offering its new J-10 jet fighter for export. The price is $30 million, which is less than half what a new F-16I costs, but still more than the Chinese JF-17, which goes for $18+/- million. But there are still hundreds of used F-16s available, for under $15 million each. While the U.S. still has about 1,300 F-16s in service (about half with reserve units), over 4,200 were produced, and America has hundreds in storage. The end of the Cold War in led to a sharp cut in U.S.A. Air Force fighter squadrons. Additionally, the new F-35 will be replacing all U.S.A. F-16s in the next decade. So the U.S. will continue to have plenty of little-used F-16s sitting around, and these remain a cheaper and more effective aircraft than the JF-17, and on par with the J-10. However, since Argentina has effectively cut off the possibility to buy F-16s, then used the J-10s and/or Su-27s would provide a respectable, but more expensive, substitute. A used F-16C, built in the 1990s, would go for about $10 to $15 million on the open market.
