JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[vesicles]

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

Whether a third world nation has one squadron of high end fighters or ten squadrons of low end fighters, it stands no chance against a modern air force such as the USAF or PLAAF. However, against another third world nation, having more low end fighters to maintain better sortie rates and cover more territory would make more sense. Also it is unknown how cost-effective 5th generation aircraft.

My feeling is that we should not look at whether a small nation can beat an advanced AF. We should, instead, look at how these small nations could MAXIMIZE their own potential, however small it is...

 

[bladerunner]

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

You would be surprised how men can thrive and morale can be maintained in adverse conditions. Just look at Korean War.

Heres an example I found from another forum.

According to the December 7th 2007 edition of the PLA Daily, "the 3rd division was commissioned on November 11th, 1949 from the 209th infantry Division. When it entered the Korean War in October 1951, it pilots had only 20 flying hours before encountering the USAF. As expected they suffered a huge loss. However, the 3rd division did produce 7 aces for the PLAAF, including its top ace, Wang Hai, credited with 9 shoot-downs or damaged American aircraft."

Todays PLAAF JF17 pilots would have more than 20 flight hrs exp, even so I can't imagine them being prepared to accept a loss ratio of 10/1.
I could even imagine, under war footing, it would take less time for industry to churn out a a JF17 than replacing a experienced pilot.

 

[rhino123]

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

The discussion on whether JF17 or FC1 is still valid in today's aerial warfare and whether stealth is needed or further upgrades are needed for these aircrafts basically boils down to the type of fighters or missions that these aircraft will be undertaking.

Of course if the FC-1 is to face a more superior fighter (T-50, Su-30 or even the F16, etc), it would have little chance of survival. However I do not believe that given any amount of upgrades that these FC-1 fighters could fair any better against these modern fighters (except perhaps against the earlier versions of F-16). And any structural upgrades that could actually bring the FC-1 to the level of the said fighters, it would definitely also include increases in weigh which will no longer made the FC-1 or JF-17 a light fighter. Also more prominently and importantly, such an upgrade will essentially resulted in a totally new fighter and no longer an upgrade only, would most definitely increases the cost of the fighter so much that not much third world country could afford. And those that could afford would have gone for western fighters (not because the Chinese version are no good) but for various political and sentimental reasons.

However we must note that the FC-1/JF17 was not intended to compete with these fighters, there are other heavier and better fighters in mind. The FC-1 or JF17 could hold their own for other missions such as against smaller fighter (LCA, Mig21 (still in abundance in many third world country, even India still operate huge number of them) and older Mirage fighters), also if fitted with air to ground ordnance, they can still function pretty well as support for ground offensive and defensive.

Of course if the opponents are very modern AF like the USAF or other NATO AF, the JF17 attrition level will be quite high. But I doubt many third world country as wanting to face these opponents in aerial combat. And if indeed they have to fight these country, I doubt they will use the same tactics as what the NATO and US would adopt (and that is to face opponents' fighters headon, due to vastly technological advances). The tactics these country would use would be a combination of SAM and AAA to create a no-fly zone and pray like hell their missiles and rounds managed to stop the fighters and bombers from coming into their airspace, while they hide their best ground assets as much as possible for the future ground offensive of these said NATO countries or US.

 

[King_Comm]

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

One thing that the PAF values most is sortie rate, the number of aircrafts is only relevant if it can get to the air. Having a single JF-17 in the air is infinitely better than having 100 F-35's on the ground.

And the problem with most advanced fighters today is that most third world countries can't perform major repairs and overhauls on them, and some have difficulties even with basic service and maintenance. In case of a war, when support from manufacturer may not be available in time, or at all, it's going to be a problem.

With JF-17 on the other hand, not only it is simpler, China and Pakistan are more than willing to help set up repair and maintenance facilities, and production lines for spare parts, or even entire aircraft, and JF-17 was designed with manufacture in third world countries in mind.

Therefore, we can imagine that in a future conflict between two third world nations, the side with JF-17 will suffer higher losses than the side with more advanced fighters at the first few days , but after that, when the advanced fighters are stuck on the ground due to minor problems that their operators can't rectify, JF-17's will still be able to take to the air, again, and again, and again.

 

[Zahid]

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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Courtesy SSAAD from Pakdef.

Notice the difference between the Engine Compartment size and the current engine at 1:41, while posters with better understanding of the related issues can comment on the difference, it seems to confirm that JF17 is made to accept other engines if needed. With PAF thinking in mind, any testing for another engine would be well worth the effort in case a need arises (embargo, higher peroformance requirements, etc..)

 

[challenge]

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

you forgot to mention the origin of F-16.
F-16 was envision by the "fighter mafia" as low cost cheap highly manuever light weight jet fighter.this suppose "cheap aircraft" out grew itself, in overtime improvement was made.now , f-16 was consider reliable,multi porpose jet fighter.

 

[challenge]

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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Courtesy SSAAD from Pakdef.

Notice the difference between the Engine Compartment size and the current engine at 1:41, while posters with better understanding of the related issues can comment on the difference, it seems to confirm that JF17 is made to accept other engines if needed. With PAF thinking in mind, any testing for another engine would be well worth the effort in case a need arises (embargo, higher peroformance requirements, etc..)

JDW report that egypt is consider purchasing up to 48 JF-17, what engine did egypt choose? GE F-414? at T:W ratio 9.7:1 compare to RD-93 7.5:!,in term of manuever,it will be quantum leap over the original RD-93 power JF-17.

 

[tphuang]

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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Courtesy SSAAD from Pakdef.

Notice the difference between the Engine Compartment size and the current engine at 1:41, while posters with better understanding of the related issues can comment on the difference, it seems to confirm that JF17 is made to accept other engines if needed. With PAF thinking in mind, any testing for another engine would be well worth the effort in case a need arises (embargo, higher peroformance requirements, etc..)

as I said before, when you put another engine in there, that shifts the center of gravity for the plane. And even if the dimensions and weight are same as in the case of Taihang to AL-31, you need to do a lot of testing, because the engines don't behave the same. It doesn't matter if it can be fit in there or not. Do people not read before they comment on things?

 

[bladerunner]

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

Wasnt Pakistan supposed to be getting some second hand reconditioned F16s from the USA as part of their Hi Low mix?

 

[Lion]

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

you forgot to mention the origin of F-16.
F-16 was envision by the "fighter mafia" as low cost cheap highly manuever light weight jet fighter.this suppose "cheap aircraft" out grew itself, in overtime improvement was made.now , f-16 was consider reliable,multi porpose jet fighter.

I think you have mixed up F-5 freedom fighter with F-16....

F-5 freedom fighter was meant to be a low cost fighter for allies of America.