JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[maozedong]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

if you looked carefully, I already posted this article on last page of this thread. Please don't repeat. I have no doubt that they can get more than 200 export orders for JF-17, but I'm not sure about domestic orders. I personally would not go for any, but that's just me.

sorry about that,the article I just found out at first page in that websit as the news today, I didn't know this article already old.
I will check carefull next time.

this is another my thinking respond to some body post above.
I think all J-7 should be retire, J-10 maybe too expansive, and should not produce too much, China will go for the 4th genration new fighters, like J-13,J-14.
in this time use FC-1 instead of J-7 is better idea,it is cheaper but mordern, at least FC-1 can launch PL12.
about J-10 will produce 1200 just KanWa editor Mr.PKF make a guess, but if for export that J-10 mayby go up to this amount include PLAAF needs.
I also make a guess.

 

[crobato]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

May be they know a little bit more about the Xialong than what you and I do. One thing is for sure that they will not be exposing J-10s in a big way to the export market. Also replacing every old aircraft in PLAAF by J-10 is purely a wishful thinking on the part of some. Capabilities and economics will dictate what PLAAF does and not what we say on these forums.

Contrary to many posters on this forum, I strongly believe that Fc-1 needs to be purchased by PLAAF in order for it to be an effective export aircraft. Secondly, this aircraft is going through a lot of continuing development. A FC-1/JF-17 in few years may turn out to a far advanced aircraft than the one we see today. Even on a daily basis, we find something new.

You see the thing is, the FC-1/JF-17 has yet to receive an official PLA designation even up to this point. So whatever we may be hearing are proposals and plans that may not even be concrete.

What we do know is that as of late, the PLAAF is very meticulous and has a mania for testing. For the FC-1 to have a final fate with the PLAAF, it has be extensively tested and even matched against other Chinese fighters including the J-11 and the J-10. This is not suggesting that the FC-1 has to win over the J-10 in every mock dogfights, but at least achieve a respectable showing, and perhaps come out stronger against the other Jian types, the J-11B, J-7G, and J-8F. Against the J-10, the FC-1 is going to face a plane that has better instantaneous turn rates, probably quite significantly so, faster with better turn rates in high subsonic to supersonic regimes, and also probably better in the vertical plane.

The price is also something the PLAAF has to consider. The problem is, if you are buying more FC-1s and less J-10s, that can result in the J-10 prices going up, and whatever savings you get from the FC-1 cost, you are losing it on the higher J-10 cost. Likewise, this has a cascading domino effect on the prices of even the J-11B and JH-7A, once these plane volumes are also reduced.

To have room for both single engined fighters, the future PLAAF will have to end up being numerically big, quite against their statements of downsizing and going for technology instead,

The FC-1 wasn't exactly concieved with PLAAF approval, wishes or specification, and that has set something against the plane, which is sometimes viewed like an outsider. Furthermore, the PLAAF seems to be in the grip of a "heavy fighter mafia" that may have arose in the nineties after the adoption of Flankers in the air force. Before that the PLAAF has been in the control of a light fighter mafia that favors small fighters en masse decimating the enemy in concentrations. The heavy fighter mafia, similar to the bomber or fighter bomber mafia that gripped the USAF and USN in the sixties, leading to planes like the F-4 Phantom and F-105 Thunderchief, argue that the best way to obtain air superiority is to destroy the opponent on the ground. This doctrine favors large fast fighters with large payloads. The J-10 was concieved when the light fighter mafia was in control of the PLAAF. But this, and the FC-1, maybe the last single engined fighters to appear in the PLAAF, as it looks like the next projects will all be twin engined, starting from the medium weight standpoint.

Thus in a way, the FC-1 is an outsider. The outsider phenomenon occured with two famous American lightweight fighters, the F-104 Starfighter and the F-5A/E Freedom Fighter and Tiger II series. Both of whom were not acquired by the USAF, at least not in any large number (only relatively few Starfighters and F-5s only in Aggressor roles). Yet both become massive export successes, which suggests you don't really need adoption by the mother airforce to become successful outside.

But then of course, the most successful outsider of all was the F-16, as the LWF program was something that came out all of sudden, when in the skies of Vietnam, large and heavy fighters are having their problems facing light and more nimble opponents.

So the thing is, how much in the PLAAF believe in the Heavy Fighter approach, and how much still believes in the Light Fighter approach.

We all agree and with quite much surprise, that the FC-1 continues to evolve and become better. No one would have anticipated all the changes and even the rapidity things are happening even when FC-1 advocates are tenaciously arguing just a few years ago.

I do think there are some cards CAC has yet to play. We are seeing interesting developments on another aircraft, the J-11B, features that could be added to the FC-1 at little cost. For example, the 3D holographic wide angle HUD. Another, just recently, is the optical missile approach warning reciever. Satellite uplink for navigation. Another, which we are seeing in the JH-7A, are optical channels for TV guided weapons.

I also think that using an indigenous engine will help make a big difference in the minds of the leaders. Citing better performance, lower cost, easier home grown maintenance, and support for local industries and employment. (You have a feelling that there are many in the CMC and PLA that share skepticism on Russian equipment as many forum members on this board and others.)

 

[pshamim]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Thus in a way, the FC-1 is an outsider. The outsider phenomenon occured with two famous American lightweight fighters, the F-104 Starfighter and the F-5A/E Freedom Fighter and Tiger II series. Both of whom were not acquired by the USAF, at least not in any large number (only relatively few Starfighters and F-5s only in Aggressor roles). Yet both become massive export successes, which suggests you don't really need adoption by the mother airforce to become successful outside.

But then of course, the most successful outsider of all was the F-16, as the LWF program was something that came out all of sudden, when in the skies of Vietnam, large and heavy fighters are having their problems facing light and more nimble opponents.QUOTE]

Crobato,
I agree with most of what you said. But the three aircrafts that I have been very closely associated with have been F-86, F-104s and the F-16s. The last one being associated as a member of the F-16s International team with General Dynamics.

Re: F-104s, USAF did buy between 300-400 aircrafts. F-104s were one of the most ineffective and incapable crafts. They were not export success but still found their way into several Air Forces as US pushed them as unwanted rewards to its allies in arms. They were touted as the fastest jet in the world and many bought because they wanted their Air Forces to project as a modern force.

Re: F-16 was conceived after the success of F-86s, an aircraft I flew. Also as result of F-4s failures during the Vietnam war, USAF did realize that they needed a highly maneuverable aircraft and F-4 did not provide that. F-4s shortcomings included low maneuverability, large size, poor transient performance, to name a few.

Some of these shortcomings were overcome by the introduction of F-15s. Now this was a plane that USAF wanted and opposed the development of LWF as it did not want it to be a threat to its F-15s.

As we all know that the supporters of the F-16 program won out finally because they considered a light weight, highly maneuverable, able to fight in the combat speed etc etc which the heavy two engines F-15s could not do.
Well, that was a great decision back in 1971 and the new F-16 started to roll out in 1978. No other jet aircraft was ever produced in USA more than the F-16s and no other aircraft was ever inducted in USAF beside the large number of exports as well.

We now see a similar situation now with PLAAF and many others who consider the J-10s as its main aircraft and wants no competition just like we saw in late 60s.

In my humble opinion, J-10s are not going to be the sole answer for PLAAF.

 

[maglomanic]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Shamim Saheb,
Thanks for your detailed replies. However one question pops up in my mind, is J-10 really a heavy enough fighter for PLAAF, it being a single engined plane more in F-16 league itself ?? Heavy and light weigth comparison (like F-15 and F-16) would make much more sense when we are comparing Flankers and J-10 IMHO.

However i too see some role for FC-1 in PLAAF/PLAN, minimal it maybe however.

 

[RedMercury]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Here's a thought. All this talk about amortizing R&D costs so that buying more planes would reduce the per unit cost...doesn't make sense if you think about those R&D costs as sunk.

Generally, you shouldn't let sunk costs influence your decisions, because those costs have already been paid and don't matter whichever choice you make. Now, since the cost of R&D is sunk, the only thing you weigh when you think about acquisition of a fighter is its unit production cost, operational/maintenance/logistics/training/deployment cost, and opportuninty cost (e.g. factory could be making something else, pilots could be flying something else, jetfuel could be burned in something else, etc.).

You decide whether to start (or continue a preliminary) project based on the projected ammortized costs, which depend on how many planes you plan to make.

But once you've made the decision to go and the plane has been developed, that R&D cost is sunk, it doesn't make sense to say "let's buy more, because we'll save more". It is like buying something you don't need because it is on sale and you would "save" money. You should make the decision on the merits versus the future costs alone.

(Of course I'm ignoring the details such as maintenance, support, and continued development.)

 

[crobato]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Shamim Saheb,
Thanks for your detailed replies. However one question pops up in my mind, is J-10 really a heavy enough fighter for PLAAF, it being a single engined plane more in F-16 league itself ?? Heavy and light weigth comparison (like F-15 and F-16) would make much more sense when we are comparing Flankers and J-10 IMHO.

However i too see some role for FC-1 in PLAAF/PLAN, minimal it maybe however.

That's the point. The J-10 is also a small single engined fighter. The relationship between the FC-1 and the J-10 isn't like the F-16 vs. F-15, its much more like the F-20 Tigershark vs. the F-16. And we know what eventually happened to the F-20 Tigershark.

We also look at the experience of the ROCAF. The F-CK-1 is about the same class weight, and actually has slightly better thrust than the current RD-93 powered FC-1. The twin TFE-1042s produce a combined thrust of 8900kg and the plane comes in at en empty weight of 6450kg. But the ROCAF preference is towards the F-16 and M2000-5. It will be interesting to see the improvements of the C/D versions of the F-CK-1. In absolute terms, the ROCAF believes the plane turns tighter than an F-5E and accelerates better than an F-104. It has a fairly well developed avionics suite that supports BVRAAM, AshMs, AGMs and TV guided PGMs, plus robust networking. One can say the F-CK-1 has achieved what the FC-1 is trying to do but did it more than a dozen years ago. But it does have an extremely short range. Two engines eat more fuel than one, and the internal fuel capacity of the F-CK-1 appears smaller than the FC-1.

There are three other planes in the super light category. There is obviously the Tejas, which isn't finished yet, the Korean A-50, which has yet to morph a true single seat fighter version. And then there is the Gripen, which I think represents the state of the art of the superlights.

One can say, its the PLAAF that wanted the Flanker to be its main frontline fighter, supported modern light fighters and upgraded legacy fighters. How the J-10 performed appeared to have upset the order of these plans, putting both J-11B and FC-1 programs under a microscope, and may have accelerated the phase out of J-7G and J-8F. Once someone has tasted better, they tend to raise their standards.

This is not to say however, that all the other programs are going to stand still and let themselves be hit. The J-11B is going to fight back and we are seeing some surprising features being put into the plane. For the FC-1 that means another round of changes that will upgrade its standard. I would like to see the FC-1 for example, get the J-11B's holographic HUD, sensors like the MAWS in the J-11B, and most importantly get the domestic engine, which to start with is more powerful than the RD-93, and can score additional political and economic points for being domestic.

 

[SteelBird]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

There is one more thing I'd like to add on what Crobato has said about the expection on FC-1's domestic engine is that an engine with more power and clean than the RD-93. I watched the 04's flight, the RD-93 somehow still produce a long black smoke tail. I heard somewhere (in this forum) that Pakistan side request to cut off the smoke tail or else it won't accept the AC. China's explain was it didn't use the standard aircraft fuel. But to me, I think this is the nature of the engine rather than fuel problem.

 

[asaracen]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Pshamim to Crobato,
I agree with most of what you said. But the three aircrafts that I have been very closely associated with have been F-86, F-104s and the F-16s. The last one being associated as a member of the F-16s International team with General Dynamics.

Re: F-104s, USAF did buy between 300-400 aircrafts. F-104s were one of the most ineffective and incapable crafts. They were not export success but still found their way into several Air Forces as US pushed them as unwanted rewards to its allies in arms. They were touted as the fastest jet in the world and many bought because they wanted their Air Forces to project as a modern force.

Re: F-16 was conceived after the success of F-86s, an aircraft I flew. Also as result of F-4s failures during the Vietnam war, USAF did realize that they needed a highly maneuverable aircraft and F-4 did not provide that. F-4s shortcomings included low maneuverability, large size, poor transient performance, to name a few.

Some of these shortcomings were overcome by the introduction of F-15s. Now this was a plane that USAF wanted and opposed the development of LWF as it did not want it to be a threat to its F-15s.

As we all know that the supporters of the F-16 program won out finally because they considered a light weight, highly maneuverable, able to fight in the combat speed etc etc which the heavy two engines F-15s could not do.
Well, that was a great decision back in 1971 and the new F-16 started to roll out in 1978. No other jet aircraft was ever produced in USA more than the F-16s and no other aircraft was ever inducted in USAF beside the large number of exports as well.

We now see a similar situation now with PLAAF and many others who consider the J-10s as its main aircraft and wants no competition just like we saw in late 60s.

In my humble opinion, J-10s are not going to be the sole answer for PLAAF.


I atotally agree with Pshamim, as there are horses for courses, and JF-17 / FC-1 is a serious contender in its category. I would imagine developing A/C deployment doctrines for each country would be a complex affair and context / scenario based. Now China, still a poor and developing country, would definitely factor in the huge price differential between the J10 and FC-1when you consider how many hundreds of absolutely antiquated fighters they have to replace in the coming decade.
We all are entitled to our opinions, but there is enormous difference between the assessment and opinions of an F86 veteran pilot / international consultant like Pshamin, and some of us, armchair warriors, limited to mostly regurgitating others opinions. Looking at the quality of Pshamim's contributions elsewhere, I believe his credibility to be an order of magnitude higher compared with some of armch.........

 

[tphuang]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Pshamim to Crobato,
I agree with most of what you said. But the three aircrafts that I have been very closely associated with have been F-86, F-104s and the F-16s. The last one being associated as a member of the F-16s International team with General Dynamics.

Re: F-104s, USAF did buy between 300-400 aircrafts. F-104s were one of the most ineffective and incapable crafts. They were not export success but still found their way into several Air Forces as US pushed them as unwanted rewards to its allies in arms. They were touted as the fastest jet in the world and many bought because they wanted their Air Forces to project as a modern force.

Re: F-16 was conceived after the success of F-86s, an aircraft I flew. Also as result of F-4s failures during the Vietnam war, USAF did realize that they needed a highly maneuverable aircraft and F-4 did not provide that. F-4s shortcomings included low maneuverability, large size, poor transient performance, to name a few.

Some of these shortcomings were overcome by the introduction of F-15s. Now this was a plane that USAF wanted and opposed the development of LWF as it did not want it to be a threat to its F-15s.

As we all know that the supporters of the F-16 program won out finally because they considered a light weight, highly maneuverable, able to fight in the combat speed etc etc which the heavy two engines F-15s could not do.
Well, that was a great decision back in 1971 and the new F-16 started to roll out in 1978. No other jet aircraft was ever produced in USA more than the F-16s and no other aircraft was ever inducted in USAF beside the large number of exports as well.

We now see a similar situation now with PLAAF and many others who consider the J-10s as its main aircraft and wants no competition just like we saw in late 60s.

In my humble opinion, J-10s are not going to be the sole answer for PLAAF.


I atotally agree with Pshamim, as there are horses for courses, and JF-17 / FC-1 is a serious contender in its category. I would imagine developing A/C deployment doctrines for each country would be a complex affair and context / scenario based. Now China, still a poor and developing country, would definitely factor in the huge price differential between the J10 and FC-1when you consider how many hundreds of absolutely antiquated fighters they have to replace in the coming decade.
We all are entitled to our opinions, but there is enormous difference between the assessment and opinions of an F86 veteran pilot / international consultant like Pshamin, and some of us, armchair warriors, limited to mostly regurgitating others opinions. Looking at the quality of Pshamim's contributions elsewhere, I believe his credibility to be an order of magnitude higher compared with some of armch.........

huh? I think even Pshamim would tell you that when it comes to the requirements and needs of plaaf, he is not as knowledgeable as someone like Crobato.

If you want to argue for a place for FC-1 in plaaf, then please find a real explanation on why it should be this way. For example, give a ball park number on what you think the price of J-10 is and what FC-1 is and what are the cost to performance ratio and such.

 

[coolieno99]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

There is one more thing I'd like to add on what Crobato has said about the expection on FC-1's domestic engine is that an engine with more power and clean than the RD-93. I watched the 04's flight, the RD-93 somehow still produce a long black smoke tail. I heard somewhere (in this forum) that Pakistan side request to cut off the smoke tail or else it won't accept the AC. China's explain was it didn't use the standard aircraft fuel. But to me, I think this is the nature of the engine rather than fuel problem.

The smoke trail makes it easier for opposing forces to spot your plane. Smoke trail is basically unacceptable for a modern fighter. Hopefully the WS-13 will do away with the smoke trails.:coffee: