New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Kilo636]

10 more days to go before we see this baby flying! Heeeee...
By the way,these photo is already consider good and clear enough to see!

[wlchang]

I wonder how the engine issue was handled. It seems like nobody is complaining now.

On another note, the finishings of the JF-17 looks so much better than the J-10. Could it be because of cost-saving measures for J-10?

[crobato]

Could be because that these particular FC-1s, knowingly intended to be used for official ceremony, are specially assembled by a crack unit of selected workers, while the J-10s are just mass produced.

The question remains whether mass production FC-1s are going to maintain the same fit and finish.

[wlchang]

I recall seeing a few J-10s pics with better paintworks. So it's probably a matter of whether they want to incur the extra beautification cost.

[crobato]

Some of the beautification are really just extra coats of primer plus putty used to hide the imperfections deeper. Happens all the time with air show aircraft.

Also the aircraft is new, so it does not have a lot of hand made dents on the aluminum alloy skin. Compare this with prototypes that had a lot of servicing, with panels opened and closed for servicing all the time, and get a lot of hand made dents as a result. Its like comparing a new car with an old car despite being the same model and coming out of the same production line.

[Zahid]

Is it possible to speculate the rate of production of FC1 / JF17 keeping in mind the production facilities both in Pakistan and China?

[IDonT]

It depends on the Russian Engines. Without it, your stuck with current 4. prototypes.

[tphuang]

Originally Posted by IDonT

It depends on the Russian Engines. Without it, your stuck with current 4. prototypes.

Actually that's an interesting issue. They have so far received at least 10 RD-93 out of the 100 that they signed. We know they were originally suppose to get 15 last year and 20 this year, so the question is whether they have received more. So, outside of the first 4 prototypes, they can theoretically build more than 10 JF-17s. Another question is what the Russians are going to do now that the engines are going to PAF JF-17s? Cut off the supply? It's an extremely interesting development from what I can see.

[keysersoze]

Originally Posted by tphuang

Actually that's an interesting issue. They have so far received at least 10 RD-93 out of the 100 that they signed. We know they were originally suppose to get 15 last year and 20 this year, so the question is whether they have received more. So, outside of the first 4 prototypes, they can theoretically build more than 10 JF-17s. Another question is what the Russians are going to do now that the engines are going to PAF JF-17s? Cut off the supply? It's an extremely interesting development from what I can see.

TP I think that the whole thing is a colossal bluff on the part of the Russians. Unless we hear of a Russian delegation arriving in Pak demanding to look at the engines of the JF-17, I think it is fair to say that the full number of engines will be delivered to China.
If it is not a bluff, what are the likely avenues for the Russians? Cancel the order and lose the money (With no great dramas for the main export customer because they will simply get the second batch with the Chinese engines).

[crobato]

According to this.

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/dljl.../13994778.html

The original plan was to make 400 fighters, of which Pakistan will buy 150 and China will buy 250.

I'm not sure if that is any different from other earlier plans that I have heard.

[IDonT]

Originally Posted by crobato

According to this.

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/dljl.../13994778.html

The original plan was to make 400 fighters, of which Pakistan will buy 150 and China will buy 250.

I'm not sure if that is any different from other earlier plans that I have heard.

Does the PLAAF even want this aircraft? It already has the hi (J11) and low (J10) aircraft mix.

Perhaps to replaced the Q-5, J-8 in the ground attack role?

[Scratch]

Originally Posted by IDonT

Does the PLAAF even what this aircraft? It already has the hi (J11) and low (J10) aircraft mix.

Perhaps to replaced the Q-5, J-8 in the ground attack role?

I somehow don't think the J-10 to be the low end, rather than medium-hi.
The JF-17s could probably fly CAPs over less important installations, or perhaps air interdicioton?

[adeptitus]

Originally Posted by IDonT

Does the PLAAF even what this aircraft? It already has the hi (J11) and low (J10) aircraft mix.

Perhaps to replaced the Q-5, J-8 in the ground attack role?

IMO the FC-1 is more of a MiG-21/J-7 replacement (light fighter), while the JH-7 can qualify as the Q-5 replacement (attacker), though I also think a militarized version of the L-15 would replace Q-5's CAS role.

Years ago the consensus from various articles was that the PLAAF didn't really want the FC-1, but they had to accept it because of the Sino-Pakistani relations through this joint venture. Since they're stuck with it, mind as well make the best out of it.

[crobato]

The original intention may have been the FC-1 as a low end J-7 replacement, and the J-10 as low to med mix fighter, but events and evolution appeared to have changed all that.

The electronic capabilities of the J-10 has reached to a point that not only does it clearly surpasses the original J-11s, but also the Su-30MKK. Surely the Flankers still can carry more payload, have more hardpoints, suffer less flight penalties when carrying stuff, and still has more range. But nonetheless, the combat capabilities of an aircraft is being increasingly judged and valued through its electronics.

Of course, not until the PLAAF acquires the J-11B, which is already in the process of doing so, or the latest Su-35s, can this electronic balance be redressed and matched to the airframe capability.

The FC-1 evolved far more than a J-7 replacement. Complete with SD-10 and missiles that can take advantage of helmet targeting systems, the FC-1 is easily a serious threat to any aircraft today. I use the word threat, because threat does not imply superiority. The FC-1 is not superior technologically by any means to many fighters you have today, like a Typhoon or Su-30MK. But threat means it has a seriously good chance of taking one down, if opportunity, tactics and pilot skill presents that chance. Think of it as a cobra confronting a tiger. A cobra is way down the evolutionary ladder to the opposing mammal, but if a chance presents to allow a quick bite, the venom will kill the much bigger and powerful animal.

Because of raising requirements and a much later introduction entry, the FC-1's systems may not only have closed the gap with the J-10's systems but may even have incrementally improved on those as well. The J-10 was planned to counter the F-16 Block 20, Mirage 2000 and the F-CK-1, and so its specifications are built around these parameters. The FC-1 had to deal with the MKI, and whatever the Indians plan to introduce, so the FC-1 has already undertaken an upgrade cycle even during development.

Because of rising electronics capabilties along with introductions close to each other, the electronic differences between FC-1, J-10 and J-11B is not as well defined as the US fighters, which have development gaps that can be measured as much as one to two decades. Thus there is a huge difference between the systems onboard an F-14D vs. a Phase II Super Hornet for example.

So this mix definition has become very blurred, and the airframe begins to matter less compared to the electronics onboard.

***

On another matter, the JH-7A isn't really a true replacement of the Q-5, as anymore as the Su-34 is to the Su-25. Big interdictor deep strike jets intended against more strategic targets are not in the same class as cheap, tough, highly agile aircraft intended for battlefield support. In this sense ,the Q-5 never has any replacement at all, and the closest to even coming one does not have true wings---the WZ-10 attack helicopter.

In a battlefield, the JH-7A will respond differently than a Q-5. When attacked, the JH-7A goes low, hugging the earth and tries to run away. The Q-5 on the other hand, will swing around and try to catch you in a dogfight. Even in PAF service, their A-5s are said to engage F-16As in dogfight during exercises.

Perhaps as the other post says, a militarized L-15 may do the trick for a Q-5 replacementm, though I doubt it would be as cheap.

[tphuang]

Originally Posted by IDonT

Does the PLAAF even want this aircraft? It already has the hi (J11) and low (J10) aircraft mix.

Perhaps to replaced the Q-5, J-8 in the ground attack role?

It's a little hard to say right now. We know CAC gets a lot of orders for J-10, XAC gets a fair amount for JH-7A/H-6 and SAC gets some for J-11 series. But when it comes to export items like JF-17, JL-15 and JL-9, only JL-9 has received a small number of firm orders so far. I guess there are too many factors right now:
1. how good is JF-17?
2. how cheap is JF-17?
3. how many export orders does it have?
4. how many regiments of J-7 are due for retirement, can the J-10 production keep up?
5. how many WS-13s can they produce?

Either way, it's clear that JF-17's initial production will satisify PAF's requirements first.