JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
- Thread starter johnqh
- Start date
When I saw the J-11B and JF-17 beside each other in Shaheen-VI, that was when I first became aware of
A) The absolutely massive size of the Flanker
and:
B) The extremely small size of the Thunder
And it looks like JF-17 is going to be a very lightweight but also very powerful fighter once Block 3 enters service (should not be far from now). New engines (whether it be WS-13 or the new 'breakthrough' RD-93MA) will provide it capability of Mach 2 flight along with significantly improved TWR, which finally puts it in the class of F-16, JAS 39, and J-10C in terms of kinematic performance. Integration of AESA radar, even better EWS, compatibility with PL-15 missiles (maybe also PL-10E), IRST, HMD/S, etc. would make it superior to most or nearly all light fighters currently in service. The question will then be whether it can remain an affordable jet (i.e. not much more expensive than B2) such that it wouldn't strain PAF's budget too much, and that other nations with smaller military budgets can procure them in significant numbers.
Tail art reminds me of spider-man's costume.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
JF-17 Block III's development seems to be slower than Nevada's vote count.
The Nigerian Air Force photo reminds me, how is JF-17 marketed exactly?
At this point, is it chiefly a PAC product?
Obviously only Pakistan can provide training, I also imagine most support would be handled by Pakistan as well. From the ASELPOD integration, obviously PAC can do system integration.
What work does Chengdu do at this point? Seems like only major design changes like JF-17B.
At this point, is it chiefly a PAC product?
Obviously only Pakistan can provide training, I also imagine most support would be handled by Pakistan as well. From the ASELPOD integration, obviously PAC can do system integration.
What work does Chengdu do at this point? Seems like only major design changes like JF-17B.
An extremely low cost lightweight fighter that features 4.5 generation fighter technology. Major selling point being that each unit costs ~USD 30million, while similar Eurofighters and Rafales costs more than double that to procure - something a country like Nigeria or Myanmar's defense budget won't be able to afford.
Integration is one thing, design and production is another.
The Block 3 might look the same aesthetically, but internally (especially the use of composites from Block 2 onwards to reduce weight) and mission capability wise it has seen much improvement that are contributed by CAC. Case and point the JF-17B isn't only a dual-seat variant to be used as a trainer, it can be used for reconnaissance and strike.... But to be able to execute these mission sets doesn't just mean structural changes to fit the WSO at the back, but more importantly avionics/sensors and technology that PAC doesn't have or might not have experience designing/producing... Whereas CAC has been doing it for a while with the more complex J-10.
Ultimately future block upgrades and midlife updates to the JF-17 will require CAC's input. Until PAC is able to to become self sufficient (probably won't have the resources to do so for a while anyway), they'll still need CAC as a partner to contribute Chinese technology, valuable experience, as well as technical ingenuity.
I think I should rephrase it to "Who is doing the marketing?".
It would appear to me that PAC can probably handle most of the responsibilities for any given customer in terms of integration and support.
My point with JF-17B was pretty much what you said, but I don't think the countries interested would have the budget to command the changes that would require the resources of CAC.
Really, I'm not sure I've seen JF-17 marketed by CAC for a while now. Actually, now that I think about it, seems like there are so many domestic projects ongoing, seems like export work is on the backburner.