Londo Molari
Junior Member
Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009
Jet Fighters are tools, just like rifles. Imagine a dozen guys with 50 year old H&K G-3 rifles (still operated by many countries) going up against a dozen guys packing brand new H&K G-36's. Do you think the G-36 operators will just kill everyone on the other side 12-0? In actuality, the result will probably be very mixed. The rifle will make a much smaller difference than tactics, positioning, numbers, body armor, training, terrain, support, etc...
Regardless of possible MRCA or T-50 acquisitions, the bulk of InAF for next 15 years will be Mig-21's, Su-30's, Mig-29's and Mirage 2000's. The JF-17 can certainly mix it up with all those fighters. It is not obsolete compared to them.
Why will US operate F-16's well into 2025? Because they don't need F-22 for everyone. Similarly, PAF does not need a next generation fighter for entire InAF. JF-17 can defend against most of it. It can always be upgraded later to give it more edge, if Pakistan somehow gets the cash. But Pakistan is financially in a very difficult position.
So it is totally worth it for PAF to get it, and to keep it low-cost.
If a third world nation has ten squadrons of low end fighters with well trained pilots, the USAF or PLAAF would seriously reconsider attacking them. Of course USAF or PLAAF would win, but they would suffer serious enough losses. 3:1 or 4:1 kill ratios would be possible, and that would hurt USAF morale a lot more than their enemy's.
The thing is, people tend to always think of the dominant performance in the gulf wars or the six day war... but the losing pilots there had horrible training and the air forces were poorly maintained. A country with good training seldom gets attacked. Look at what happened in Vietnam.
Of course something like stealth or one side not having BVR weapons can make a significant difference. But if both sides have BVR weapons and neither has stealth, technology is no longer the dominant factor. Tactics, numbers, training, maintenance, that's what decides victory. Look at any war in history.
Its not a Final Fantasy video game where level 10 JF-17 will always lose to level 15 Su-30MKI.Whats the point of buying a "low cost fighter" when your just going to lose them in any foreseeable conflict?
Jet Fighters are tools, just like rifles. Imagine a dozen guys with 50 year old H&K G-3 rifles (still operated by many countries) going up against a dozen guys packing brand new H&K G-36's. Do you think the G-36 operators will just kill everyone on the other side 12-0? In actuality, the result will probably be very mixed. The rifle will make a much smaller difference than tactics, positioning, numbers, body armor, training, terrain, support, etc...
Regardless of possible MRCA or T-50 acquisitions, the bulk of InAF for next 15 years will be Mig-21's, Su-30's, Mig-29's and Mirage 2000's. The JF-17 can certainly mix it up with all those fighters. It is not obsolete compared to them.
Why will US operate F-16's well into 2025? Because they don't need F-22 for everyone. Similarly, PAF does not need a next generation fighter for entire InAF. JF-17 can defend against most of it. It can always be upgraded later to give it more edge, if Pakistan somehow gets the cash. But Pakistan is financially in a very difficult position.
So it is totally worth it for PAF to get it, and to keep it low-cost.
Quite wrong.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.
If a third world nation has ten squadrons of low end fighters with well trained pilots, the USAF or PLAAF would seriously reconsider attacking them. Of course USAF or PLAAF would win, but they would suffer serious enough losses. 3:1 or 4:1 kill ratios would be possible, and that would hurt USAF morale a lot more than their enemy's.
The thing is, people tend to always think of the dominant performance in the gulf wars or the six day war... but the losing pilots there had horrible training and the air forces were poorly maintained. A country with good training seldom gets attacked. Look at what happened in Vietnam.
Of course something like stealth or one side not having BVR weapons can make a significant difference. But if both sides have BVR weapons and neither has stealth, technology is no longer the dominant factor. Tactics, numbers, training, maintenance, that's what decides victory. Look at any war in history.
Wrong, see rifle analogy above.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.
Agreed 100%To me the main question remains... Is it worth to add a more powerful engine cause it is defined as a cheap fighter?
The only reason they stopped selling to Iran is because they got the US to agree to stop selling to Taiwan (US has changed their mind now obviously). That would reduce chance of expensive war with Taiwan, and would be profitable. Profit is everything.Garbage??? If profit is everything, PLA will have sold everything Iran wants..
Let me ask you again. You all admit Pakistan has no experience changing jet engines and Pakistan has no facilities doing that.
If CAC refuse to do it. How is Pakistan going to do about it?
Although changing engines on JF-17 is an expensive and silly idea and Pakistan would not want to do it, it could still be done. I don't know why you think Pakistan cannot do it. What exactly makes think that? Just because they have never done it before? Has China made a stealth fighter before? Does that mean they can never make one? And how did US go to moon if they had never done it before?Since you now admit Pakistan cannot change the engine on it's own, will you retract your original claims?
Last edited: