JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread


Haris Ali

New Member
Registered Member
Nigeria bought 3 Thunders (BLK-2) for $180 millions and $60 million a piece. If we say that $30 million is the actual price and the other 30 is for logistics, training, munitions etc, then where do you think this will put the price of BLK-3 config???
 

Mohsin77

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'd expect the block III cost to be 25% below a comparable US fighter. Let's take the unit cost of the F-16V (given the optimist that I am). Let's say 70mil for the Viper means a block III should cost around 50mil... and that basically means you get 4 Block IIIs for the price of 3 aesa-Vipers... In other words, the fourth unit is 'free.' ... Good times.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Junior Member
Registered Member
why so harsh words?
I have a problem with Pakistan abusing China's kindness by attaching foreign electronics to a Chinese plane. China goes out of its way to design a plane for Pakistan and foots the bill out of friendship when Pakistan doesn't have a snowball's chance of doing it alone, shares it IP with Pakistan and sets up local production, then Pakistan spits in China's face by putting foreign electronics on it. What's wrong with Chinese electronics?

If it were a European targeting pod the insult would remain but at least it would be understandable. But this is a Turkish targeting pod. You buy tomatoes and watermelons from Turkey, not electronics.
 

plawolf

Brigadier
Is there a reason why JF-17 BlockI/II never moved from PL-5 to PL-8?
Most likely aerodynamics.

The JF17 is rarely seen without wingtip PL5s, even on test flights. That would suggest to me that like the F16 it was designed to match, it most likely uses the wingtip missiles as aerodynamic assistants, so the plane actually flies much better with wingtip missiles than without.

That aerodynamic benefit would likely be lost if something very different like PL8s were used instead of PL5s.

It would be interesting to see if JF17s still retain PL5s once they roll out HMS/Ds on the BLK3, because if they do, then it would be a strong indication China has continued to update the PL5 to support the JF17 programme; and might even be secondary proof that the latest PL5s now have off-bore-sight capabilities and is integrated with HMS/Ds.
 

Mohsin77

Junior Member
Registered Member
What's wrong with Chinese electronics?
Keep in mind the discussion regarding EW suites here a while back, where it was discovered that China doesn't pod the equivalent DRFM EW suite required for the Block III (China instead integrates it into the airframe.) Now, if China doesn't pod it, and the JF-17 can't integrate it into the airframe, then there's no choice for the PAF but to find a podded foreign version from somewhere. And I much rather the PAF go to Turkey than to the EU/US for any subsystems.
 

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
Most likely aerodynamics.

The JF17 is rarely seen without wingtip PL5s, even on test flights. That would suggest to me that like the F16 it was designed to match, it most likely uses the wingtip missiles as aerodynamic assistants, so the plane actually flies much better with wingtip missiles than without.

That aerodynamic benefit would likely be lost if something very different like PL8s were used instead of PL5s.

It would be interesting to see if JF17s still retain PL5s once they roll out HMS/Ds on the BLK3, because if they do, then it would be a strong indication China has continued to update the PL5 to support the JF17 programme; and might even be secondary proof that the latest PL5s now have off-bore-sight capabilities and is integrated with HMS/Ds.
That will be a problem if block III needs to field PL-10. Maybe they can be used in conjunction with PL-5?
 

Top