Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread
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.
