Please clarify status of J-7MF & J-7CP projects

[Costas 240GD]

Thus far I knew that these remained paper projects/models only, yet I have found references that a prototype of the J-7MF may have been built. Can anyone tell me if prototypes of these exist or not?
Thnx in advance,
Costas
P.S. Pic source: PLAAF pic thread

[vincelee]

MF had a mockup, CF....who knows. Both projects are dead.

edited for spelling.

[Costas 240GD]

MF had a mockup, CF....who knows. Both projects are dead.

edited for spelling.

Thanks. I guess hope dies last. I wanted to make scale models of them if prototypes were built. BTW, did you notice that the nose section of the CP looks just like the F-102A Delta Dagger, right down to the shape of the air intakes?

[sumdud]

Nah, the J-7CP was eventually changed into the FC-1.

J-7MF was a competitor to the FC-1, and since the FC-1 is flying now, the FC-1 won and the MF is scrapped.

[tphuang]

Nah, the J-7CP was eventually changed into the FC-1.

J-7MF was a competitor to the FC-1, and since the FC-1 is flying now, the FC-1 won and the MF is scrapped.
not exactly true, F-7MF is still in development really. CAC claims that F-7MF can be just as capable as FC-1. Anyhow, here is an article on MF.
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6630/j7mf15pp.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Costas 240GD]

Thanks, everyone. BTW, I can't read Chinese, so can someone PLEASE translate the article tphuang posted????

[tphuang]

oh brother, let me see if I can do this:
J-7MF is a plane in the J-7 series, but it's really a completely different fighter.
The intake is now located in the belly.
There is a lot of changes in the wing, tail, vertical stabilizer and such.
Originally, J-7 only had 2 hardpoints under the wings and one under the fuelsage. Now, it has 7 hardpoints.

The avionics on MF has reached modern standard.
It talks a lot about the changes that allowed for better fuel efficiency - better operating radius and such. Also, talked about the aerodynamics in different speed ranges.
6 hardpoints are under the wings and 1 is under the fuelsage.
The payload will be 4.5 tonnes.
The avionics will be dependent on the customer. MF uses a domestic turbojet engine. It says the development period is short+low cost. The progress of MF is behind FC-1. J-7FS is a prototype of MF?

[Costas 240GD]

Wow, that was fast! thanks a lot!

[ahho]

Just wondering, since we know FC-1 is the ressurected super-7 project by the interest of pakistan and mainly for import and that we know fc-1 and j-10's demand are a bit limited in numbers. Could MF be the replacement of F-7s???

[crobato]

The F-7MF (not J-7MF) is not a PLAAF approved scheme and is mainly for export. That's why it should not be referred to with a "J" but only with an "F".

[vincelee]

and further complicate logistics? Needless to say, building and fielding 2 airplanes in the exact same performance and cost categories doesn't sound very logical.

[tphuang]

That's the 10 billion dollar question, how is China going to replace its entire fleet or archaic J-7s and just retired J-6s?

In the short term, you will simply see upgrade of J-7 to J-7G and upgrade of J-8 to J-8F.

What about long term?
My personal view is that J-10 is going to do brunt of the work. Despite the endless complaint about the cost of J-10, it's still only about 25 million each for PLA(although probably much more expensive for export). That's incredibly cheap compared to how much Rafale and typhoon and the Teens cost. J-11 total will probably go to 400, because SAC needs work. And frankly, J-11 is a good platform to build into an attacker. JH-7 series will probably reach 200. That means, you have:
100 su-30
500 su-27sk/ubk/J-11
200 JH-7
I'm guessing you are trying to replace about 1500 J-7/J-8 and 500 Q-5 and H-6 here?
2000 - 800 = 1200
That means, you need about 1200 J-10s. Is that doable? I think so.
Projects like FC-1, F-7MF are not likely to get more than 100 orders.

[vincelee]

a one-to-one replacement? Not even the US can afford that. Let's be serious.Even a one-to-two is a very ambitious goal for the PLAAF/PLANAF.

[tphuang]

a one-to-one replacement? Not even the US can afford that. Let's be serious.Even a one-to-two is a very ambitious goal for the PLAAF/PLANAF.
it's not a 1-to-1 replacement. Remember, the entire J-6 fleet has just been retired. I'm guessing there are still 2000 fighters after that. That's a good number for pla to keep. You have to remember, the early J-10s and J-11s will be retiring at some point too.

[crobato]

My guess is that Su-30 will stay about 100 or so.

J-11s will reach about 200, not including the SKs and UBKs imported from Russia. China will decide if they will continue with J-11s later on.

JH-7A will probably number no more than 100 to 120.

JH-7A is still too dated an airframe to consider continuing production by the latter part of this decade.

FC-1s will number 100 to 150.

J-10s will probably number up to 1500, with about 300 using AL-31FNs and variants. The balance is up for China to decide in any mix if they wish to continue using AL-31FNs or shift to WS-10A.

We might see one or two more H-6H regiments made.

There is probably about over 1000 J-7s and 400 J-8IIs that may need replacing in the next decade or so except for new airframe J-8Fs and J-7Gs. There won't be a lot of J-7G or J-8F made, and probably the line for both may be temporarily halted for upgrades on existing aircraft. Perhaps a few may be built to plug for losses in attrition.

[MIGleader]

oh brother, let me see if I can do this:
J-7MF is a plane in the J-7 series, but it's really a completely different fighter.
The intake is now located in the belly.
There is a lot of changes in the wing, tail, vertical stabilizer and such.
Originally, J-7 only had 2 hardpoints under the wings and one under the fuelsage. Now, it has 7 hardpoints.

The avionics on MF has reached modern standard.
It talks a lot about the changes that allowed for better fuel efficiency - better operating radius and such. Also, talked about the aerodynamics in different speed ranges.
6 hardpoints are under the wings and 1 is under the fuelsage.
The payload will be 4.5 tonnes.
The avionics will be dependent on the customer. MF uses a domestic turbojet engine. It says the development period is short+low cost. The progress of MF is behind FC-1. J-7FS is a prototype of MF?

Typhuang, is this designation "j-7mf" another attempt by the PLAAF to make itself look more outdated than it really is? Even with all these airframe changes and weapons upgrades, this fighter is still technically a upgrade of the old mig-21. To a foreigner, it would appear as if the chinese were still using derivatives of 60's aircraft.

If the russians controled the j-7 program, they would probably have called it the j-29 by now.

[Fairthought]

I 'm not sure the final cost of the J-10 will be $25 million per plane. But if it is, than 1200 J-10 will cost $30 billion. Let's say that production will run at an average rate of 60 planes per year (not likely to happen anytime soon). that'll take 20 years to fill. Then the price for PLAF procurement will be about $1.5 billion per year. That is not unreasonable, especially when one considers that production will start out slowly for the first few years and as the years go by, China will have alot more money to throw onto their defense budgets.

But I should caution that 20 years is a long time, and in that time the price per plane will rise up considerably. Future upgraded versions (and there will be an upgraded version every 8 years or so) may cost double or triple its current value.

[MIGleader]

My guess is that Su-30 will stay about 100 or so.

J-11s will reach about 200, not including the SKs and UBKs imported from Russia. China will decide if they will continue with J-11s later on.

JH-7A will probably number no more than 100 to 120.

JH-7A is still too dated an airframe to consider continuing production by the latter part of this decade.

FC-1s will number 100 to 150.

J-10s will probably number up to 1500, with about 300 using AL-31FNs and variants. The balance is up for China to decide in any mix if they wish to continue using AL-31FNs or shift to WS-10A.

We might see one or two more H-6H regiments made.

There is probably about over 1000 J-7s and 400 J-8IIs that may need replacing in the next decade or so except for new airframe J-8Fs and J-7Gs. There won't be a lot of J-7G or J-8F made, and probably the line for both may be temporarily halted for upgrades on existing aircraft. Perhaps a few may be built to plug for losses in attrition.

I highly doubt the j-10 will ever number more tahn 300-400. The plaaf might aquire 100 or so per upgraded batch. Wit the al-31 m1, m2, and m3 being the basis for each upgrade, i see no more than 300 j-10. Perhaps future vairents using ws-10a or a derivative will come out as the j-xx comes out.

The existing fleet of flankers will be modified and improved until probably 2015 or 2020, which is when the plane should be outdated, and the airframes will have no hours left.

jh-7a will probably cease production almost immediately now, as jh-7b is comming soon.

The remaining force of j-7gs and j-8fs will serve as standard interceptors for the plaaf until around 2015.

[Fairthought]

Migleader is right,

There will not be alot of J-10's. Future orders will be around 300 to 500. China does not want to put all their eggs in one basket. To keep multiple projects going requires spreading your production orders. This means China will procure significant numbers of FC-1's and J-11's. Particularly the naval variant of the J-11. The J-12 is expected to come out around 2015-2020 and orders for the J-10 will cease by then.

[tphuang]

Not likely, J-10 is considered to be the superior airframe by people in plaaf, despite being cheaper (due to its smaller size and one less engine). Also, you are seeing innovations by CAC on J-10 that simply cannot be matched by J-11. You have to remember that CAC developed this thing, so it knows J-10 inside and out. Just by looking at the upgrade done by CAC on JF-17, you can think about the changes done for the next variant of J-10. It's been said that SAC still has not fully grasped su-27 even after 10 years of licensed production. Basically, J-10 will most likely get more orders than J-11 in the future due to the superior design capability of CAC over SAC.

Alright, I'm adding more now.

A summary of J-10's advantages over J-11 at this point:
1. cheaper price
2. production quality of J-10's assembly line is better than that of J-11. Actually, it's mentionned that even J-7's assembly line is better. Why is this? Apparently, the Russian workmanship wasn't great to begin with. When they gave us the assembly line, it's quality wasn't that great.
3. The production speed of J-10 is most likely greater due to its smaller size and such.
4. CAC developers are much more familiar with J-10 than SAC is with J-11. They have went through the experience of developing a 4th generation fighter. This means they will be able to apply changes much faster. It's been said that each bunch of J-10s coming out is improved from previous bunch. I believe Deino recently pointed out the door change to J-10.

To be fair, a list of J-11's advantages:
1. it's a heavy platform that allows for greater range and payload, it's something that plaaf has never had.
2. it can be used to be developed into a fighter-bomber like su-34

I do want to point out that J-10's range is probably not as short as some people have suggested. The range of J-10 with and w/o external tanks have not been published, but I think it's been greatly understated. I will just leave it as that.

If you look at the current production rate of J-10 and J-11, the ratio is probably 70-75 to 15-20 per year. It's clear to me that J-10 is going to get the majority of orders in the future. Also, I think J-8F/H will last in PLAAF a lot longer than most people would think.

[crobato]

I do expect that China was actually building J-11s at a rate of 20-30 a year, enough to convert a regiment every year.

With enough engines, i think China can build J-10s even faster than that.

Despite the sophistication of the J-10, it should be relatively simpler to build. We don't have a cutaway of the j-10 to look at, but we still have the nearest model for a comparison, this time, from the Lavi.

The Su-27 airframe is extremely complex. Unlike earlier Russian aircraft, it does not seem like it was meant for fast mass production at all. The J-10 is still much closer to the same design principles that makes the MiG-21 fast to make. Not only does simplicity makes things easier to make, they also make things easier to maintain and repair.

As for the price going up in the years to come, not really. Perhaps the cost of upgrades may go up. But the volume of production means that with amortization, the cost per J-10 unit will go down. Making 100 FC-1s may probably end up costing more per unit than 200-300 J-10s.

As for the FC-1, I see little evidence of it being "simpler" than the J-10 to provide sufficient cost advantages. This is especially so since the FC-1 appears to be continually "upgraded" in the design board. The RD-93 itself costs nearly as much as an AL-31FNM-1, the latter much more powerful and has TVC.

I doubt that China is wise "not putting eggs on the same basket". Having multiple programs is the one thing that is not wise after all. You really need to put all your eggs in the same basket because one excellent design is always better than three mediocre ones. If you divide your development funds, you will only end up with crappy jets. A modern fighter is an expensive thing to develop and refine in all these years. If you look at Europe and the US, they are indeed putting as many eggs in as few baskets as possible. And you have to consider that China only has a fraction of the budget the US has.

[MIGleader]

Id say put your eggs in only 2 baskets is the way to go, as no single fighter can perform every role perfectly. Even the cash strapped russians are going for a heavy and light future combat aircraft.

As china paid 2.5$ billion for a j-11 liscence production contrct, i dont think they will simply halt production halfwya and lose all that money. If china is indeed capable of producing j-11s without kits, it should by all means go ahead and build the 200. Russia has already been paid in full, so they have no say in this. when more and more of j-xx start comming out, the older su-27sks and original j-11s/j-10s will be regulated to second-line units, the ones that currently operate j-8/7.

Isnt mass production a bit dated? with planes costing in the tens of millions of $ these days, its impractical to mass produce aircraft in peace time.

[Fairthought]

If you look at the current production rate of J-10 and J-11, the ratio is probably 70-75 to 15-20 per year-Tphuang

I did not realize J-10 production was already that high. Could you cite a source, please.

Nonetheless, I predict China will have a big demand for naval fighters in the next twenty year. They will want well trained squadrons ready before their carriers are completed. And when China decides on a carrier design, China will build a series of carriers, not just one.

Until I see a naval variant of the J-10 I don't believe future chinese orders will be predominantly J-10's. Also, China is committed to large orders of the FC-1 because it was designed to be an export product. Large orders lowers its production costs per plane and makes it competitively priced in the international arms market.

The J-10 is China's best fighter project to date, but it's role is limited and it doesn't have too many years before the J-12 which is expected around 2015-2020.

[tphuang]

I would think a naval version of J-11 is much farther away from being developed than a naval version of J-10. If you are just talking about a strike aircraft like mkk, J-10B should be able to fill a similar role.

If you are talking about a STOL aircraft that can be put on a carrier, then I think it's more likely su-27kub would be purchased. Even then, you would only need about a regiment. With the greater thrust on the current engine + TVC, it should be possible for future J-10s to fly off a carrier. China has been trying out J-8 in this role recently. I don't see how J-10 can't do the same.

As for FC-1, the mass production is not going to start until 2009 after the 04 prototype change. It's very unlikely China will put in the 250 fighter order that it said it will before. I think you only need about 500 JF-17s in order for this project to work. I'm guessing Pakistan will get around 200 JF-17s, China will get around 100. Exporting 200 to other countries should be a piece of cake. China put in probably 250 million US into FC-1 and 2.5 billion US into J-10. I just don't see how anyone can think FC-1 will get more orders than J-10.

Anyhow, as for the production rate. There has been a lot of speculation on the number of J-10s that got produced last year. Generally, we can say that there are currently 2 production lines going. In normal production rate, you can crank out 2 J-10s per production lines per month. (that's where people got the rate of 50 from) In maximum production period, you can crank out 3. 2 x 3 x 12 = 72 The 2-3 production rate can be check on a lot of sites.

There has even been talk that China might raise this to 100 per year, but you would need 3 lines going to accomplish this.

In 2005, there was a stoppage in J-10 at one point, so the number of J-10s that came out did not amount to 72, but 2006 is likely going to be different with the AL-31s all coming in by the 3rd quarter.

There is not going to be any definitive proof of this at this point. A lot of this is from reading off expert posters on Chinese forums.

As for J-11, I definitely expect China to go beyond the 200 that it was licensed to produce. I'm not sure what kind of ramifications that will bring, but I think SAC and sukhoi will sort it out.

If you look at the F-15/F-16 combination for USAF, there are far more F-16s than F-15s using the same logic to my J-10/J-11 argument. The heavier fighters normally get produced in lower quantity.

[MIGleader]

Its not like an entirely new liscence must be sorted out by SAC and sukhoi. future j-11s will be contructed entirely in china, use chinese weapons, and use a chinese engine. Sukhoi almost has not part in this. China should merely ask sukhoi to extend the liscence to 300 fighters over 5 more years. As this does not require any effort on the part of sukhoi, the company shouldnt ask for more than $500 million or so.

Of course, sukhoi is still eager to entice china with more flanker upgrades, and may even extend the liscence for free if china agrees to purchase a certain upgrade.

Once upgraded j-10s enter service, do you think the original j-10s will be used as a model to design a version for export?

[crobato]

Id say put your eggs in only 2 baskets is the way to go, as no single fighter can perform every role perfectly. Even the cash strapped russians are going for a heavy and light future combat aircraft.


No. They are going only for one aircraft, but can't decide if it is heavy or medium.

Most of the world will probably stick with one type of fighter (JSF) from now on. Sweden only made one fighter, so did France, and so did the Eurofighter.



As china paid 2.5$ billion for a j-11 liscence production contrct, i dont think they will simply halt production halfwya and lose all that money.


That does not make business sense. Because I tell you, every good business knows when to quit or bail out, or call its losses.

I heard that China invested over 3 billion to develop the J-10, so that kind of pushes the J-11 out.


If china is indeed capable of producing j-11s without kits, it should by all means go ahead and build the 200. Russia has already been paid in full, so they have no say in this. when more and more of j-xx start comming out, the older su-27sks and original j-11s/j-10s will be regulated to second-line units, the ones that currently operate j-8/7.

Isnt mass production a bit dated? with planes costing in the tens of millions of $ these days, its impractical to mass produce aircraft in peace time.

They should do that and build more, another hundred or two. That will still be good enough till 2010, and the PLAAF can decide if they wish to continue further from that point.

[tphuang]

Its not like an entirely new liscence must be sorted out by SAC and sukhoi. future j-11s will be contructed entirely in china, use chinese weapons, and use a chinese engine. Sukhoi almost has not part in this. China should merely ask sukhoi to extend the liscence to 300 fighters over 5 more years. As this does not require any effort on the part of sukhoi, the company shouldnt ask for more than $500 million or so.

Of course, sukhoi is still eager to entice china with more flanker upgrades, and may even extend the liscence for free if china agrees to purchase a certain upgrade.

Once upgraded j-10s enter service, do you think the original j-10s will be used as a model to design a version for export?
It actually raises an interesting question. Whether or not China still needs to ask Sukhoi for the license to build more J-11, if the airframe is changed and the avionics+weapon sets are all changed. Apparently, what certain Chinese are saying about J-11B is that it's a different design from any of the Russian flankers, so it can no only be produced but exported. I'm personally not sure, since I have never had a side by side comparison of J-11B with sk or mkk. Also, the question is what the contract says. The only noticeable change seems to be the extra hardpoints.

As for J-10, I think we can all expect that the export versions to be downgraded version of upgraded J-10s. The question is when that's going to happen.