i think people are forgetting that the j7 can replace the q5 has a close air support...
These aircraft are not designed or build in the US so will not be bought or leased by the Pentagon. That would take money away from US producers. And for US producers to build simple and cheap aircraft is also unthinkable, as that would reduce dividends to their shareholders.The issue is operational costs. An FC-1 is more expensive to operate for just area defence than a J-7 (or even a JL-9). It has better payload capacity, range and avionics than J-7.
I stick my neck out and say that in the future, to save on operational costs the USAF will procure jets like Tejas and probably a refurbished Ching-Kuo to do routine patrolling in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will achieve the same purpose and save millions in costs.
If you can quote the longest range at which Indian Mig-21 fired its R-77? as it can make it easier for member like me to know the real life effectiveness of upgrading a J-7/F-7/mig-21 type of aircraft with BVR capabilityI'm sure J-7s are also equipped with decent HMS and BVR (IAF MiG-21s sure are), and besides like I said earlier, FC-1s are not exactly meant only for area defence, whereas J-7s are fit for that role.
So J-7s can play that low-end role better than the FC-1 in the PLAAF.
A subsonic target was destroyed in a direct hit by the RVV-AE, which was fitted with a telemetry package in place of the warhead. The launch was made at 12km (6nm) in a head-on engagement. The target was at 20,000ft (6,100m) and the fighter at 13,000ft.
The issue is operational costs. An FC-1 is more expensive to operate for just area defence than a J-7 (or even a JL-9). It has better payload capacity, range and avionics than J-7.
I stick my neck out and say that in the future, to save on operational costs the USAF will procure jets like Tejas and probably a refurbished Ching-Kuo to do routine patrolling in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will achieve the same purpose and save millions in costs.
If you can quote the longest range at which Indian Mig-21 fired its R-77? as it can make it easier for member like me to know the real life effectiveness of upgrading a J-7/F-7/mig-21 type of aircraft with BVR capability
The only information i was able to fin was
I feel that Both JF-17/FC-1 and J-7 offers completely different level of capabilities
Irrespective of the Fact that PLAAF may or may not decide to purchase the FC-1, one has to admit that it is already offering range of capabilities like LS-6, LT-2, LT-3, YJ-83 and SD-10/PL12, PL-9/8/10 which puts it much higher then the Q-5 or J7
As far as procurement costs are concerned, I have argued long time back that the figure of $15million for the FC-1 is from the year 2000. Today, it should be something like $25-27 million per unit.If cost would be a serious issue then the PLAAF would not go for so many programs and planes. Chine is leading world economy and a worldpower. If you want to explain that they have to select between J7 (max 5 million) or Fc1 (max 8-15 million) then I have to return a smile. These guys are busy with everything and the most expensive. A few hundred Fc1 are a big laugh for them. It is all about having internal parts and not depending on others. as soon as that problem is fixed there might be orders. But they hardly will count the coins cause if not Fc1 then a better and more expensive J10 will be produced in large numbers.
For an FC-1 whose empty-weight is the same as a Gripen-C, with nearly the same armament and fuel, you say there is little difference in operational costs vis-a-vis J-7 ? I doubt it. There should be a big difference.Munir said:The operational cost of Fc1 is marginal. We have seen presentation of the designer and I do not think that is can be a serious issue. I would be more interested what the difference is with a J10. A few bucks more for a better plane? Then there is obvious no choice.
FC-1 has an anti-ship missile ? Besides, it shouldn't be a great deal if PLAAF decides to upgrade its J-7s with BVR and HMS. It has been done in other parts of the world and it'd be cheaper than procuring whole FC-1s.Comparing J7 with Fc1 is a mistake.It is a whole new generation. .... Does J7 have anti radar missile? Anti ship? So we already have a sea difference. The BVR. The ECM. The links/digital cockpit/IFR/HMS etc etc
As far as procurement costs are concerned, I have argued long time back that the figure of $15million for the FC-1 is from the year 2000. Today, it should be something like $25-27 million per unit.
For a few hundred FC-1s, it will make a significant difference.
For an FC-1 whose empty-weight is the same as a Gripen-C, with nearly the same armament and fuel, you say there is little difference in operational costs vis-a-vis J-7 ? I doubt it. There should be a big difference.
FC-1 has an anti-ship missile ? Besides, it shouldn't be a great deal if PLAAF decides to upgrade its J-7s with BVR and HMS. It has been done in other parts of the world and it'd be cheaper than procuring whole FC-1s.