JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Lion]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

TVC add another extra 125lbs. weight,this will require much more powerful engine.

That is the reason why WS-13 will come into picture. Rumour WS-13 will have a higher thrust than RD-93

 

[mean_bird]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

TVC add another extra 125lbs. weight,this will require much more powerful engine.

I don't know if TVC is high priority for them, but if it is the 125lbs can easily be decreased by just using more composites and possibly a higher thrust engine.

 

[HKSDU]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

This would defeat the purpose of cheap cost fighter then.

 

[Lion]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

This would defeat the purpose of cheap cost fighter then.

Cheap fighter is for Pakistan. China can afford a much better FC-1.

I believe all these goodies add up to FC-1. It will still be cheaper than a J-10.

 

[Deino]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

This would defeat the purpose of cheap cost fighter then.

Completey agreed !!!

Cheap fighter is for Pakistan. China can afford a much better FC-1.

I believe all these goodies add up to FC-1. It will still be cheaper than a J-10.

That's not for sure and I really daubt that. Why should an improved FC-1 - which is actually IMO not that much cheaper to produce than a J-10 - right after a legthy integration and additional testing phase be cheaper than a current J-10, which is in production since years and esp. than an the improved J-10B. Especially as an FC-1+ or even ++ would be much closer incapabilities to the J-10 ... and so, why two types of fighters with similar performances ??

IMO the PLAAF or PLA-NA will puchase (if ever) the "basic" FC-1 in a version not very different to the model currently under delevery to the PAF. Otherwise it will stick with the J-10A and later B model to complement the J-11-versions.


Deino

 

[Mashan]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

I think the target customers are the third ( maybe fourth ) world countries, they have a lot of aging Mig 21 or simular 2nd gen planes which need to be replace soon as their air frame are really in bad shape.

The FC-1 base model at 800M ( as quoted in many of the Chinese web site ) will be a real bargain. These countries do not have the financial strength or the technical skills to manage F16 E/F. Once China comes up with a recent domestic engine for the FC-1 then China and Pakistan can export lots of them at a even cheaper price tag. It is in my option a lot better fighter plane then the Mig 21.

 

[Chaminuka]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

These countries do not have the financial strength or the technical skills to manage F16 E/F.

Financial I agree.

Technical? ... hmmm ... is it not that regardless of what new plane they get, they have to learn knew skills anyway - unless it is a type they have already operated. One advantage and selling point of the more advanced planes (eg the Gripen) is how easy they are to service. Just that at some point the vendor might not be willing to transfer certain skills/knowledge to the customer - e.g. that Russia did not train India to service the MKI engines. I would say if a country/air force is not going to be able to follow a maintenance/service schedule, it does not matter what plane they get - they will fail weather it is a basic trainer or an F-16E!

 

[Mashan]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Keeping skilled technicians around to maintain world class fighter planes are expensive, if I am not mistaken a few third world countries decided to sell the more advanced fighter planes they owned to other countries because it cost too much to maintain and they rather maintain less expensive planes which basically can do the same job. For most third world countries who might next get to fight a first world country will probably not benefit from operating a fleet of world class fighter planes.

 

[Chaminuka]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Are you suggesting that technicians in the Pakistan air force would be less likely to leave the service if they had JF-17s instead of F-16s? Assuming Uganda had F-16s instead of MiG-21s, who would poach their technicians? With the cheaper MiG-21, other MiG-21 operator on the continent might but for citizenship and national security reasons, the other countries will not.

If the difficulty is of buying (=cost) the components to service the planes - then I agree. However, whether a country sends its technicians and pilots to be trained for F-16s or FC-1 as long as the individuals are competent - I do not see a different besides the cost.

I can see why poor countries can buy old technology because they are familiar with it and save training and initial inductions costs. I can however say from a personel training and skill - that can easily be acquired as long as they have potential. For example, when Zimbabwe wanted to buy MiG-29, they sent personnel to the USSR for training. When they wanted K-8s they equally sent personnel to China for training. A technician of a particular grade is paid the same regardless of what plane they look after. The cost of the plane and spares was why the MiG-29 contract got cancelled.

 

[Mashan]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Maintaining a fleet is more complicated then people can imagine. Cost of training, inventory of spare parts, upgrades, repairs and routine maintenance can bankrupt a poor third world country in a hurry. Sometime it is the total cost of ownership that can away the decision of what kind of plane one can afford when most of the contenders meet the requirements.