JF-17 Thunder

>>32743909
Isn't it based on the MiG-21?

>>32743909
It's not like it's impossible, the F16 isn't exactly cutting edge famalam.

>>32743932
Nope. Its meant to complement the F16 (replace all Pakistani F16s eventually).

>>32743932
program roots do start from the super 7 project, which was aimed to modernize the J-7 fleet back before Tian An Men happened. But any relationship to a MiG-21 in present form is heavily exaggerated by uneducated Americans and Indians.

>>32743932
Nah dude. Literally just an F16 copy. Not in the truest sense of the word though. It was expected after HAL with the Tejas (which is pretty much a rip off the Mirage 2000). These countries including China never have original ideas.

>>32744015
Is this a joke? If you called the J-10 an F-16 copy you would have more merit.

>>32744033
No I said the JF17 is an F16 copy. Did you even read?

>>32743909
>Speed
>1960kmph for JF-17, 2120 for F-16

>Payload
>8000lb for JF-17, 17000 for F-16
>7 Stations vs 11

>Ferry range (Dubious information for combat radius on JF-17)
>3500km for JF-17 vs 4200km for F-16

It might be comparable to the first F-16s, but anything Block 50 or later shits on it.

>>32743909
Its a good affordable jet for third world countries. I can see alot of African nations buying this.

>>32744058
Yeah and I'm calling you a dumbass because the JF17 is as similar to the F-16 as the Gripen is.

>>32744144
Would a Girpen outclass this and the Tejas?

>>32744134
Very few countries in Sub Saharan Africa would buy this, because buying it requires maintaining it, which most Sub Saharan countries have shown a complete lack of competence in. Nigeria already has them, Ethiopia has Russian birds (MiG-29 or Su-27, can't remember), and South Africa has Gripens.

>>32743909
No.

Its just well marketed.

The "cheap" version, which comes in at ~$30 million is basically a day-time interceptor
>day time only

The designer of the plane himself refers to it as being 3rd Gen.

Further, as you increase capability with add-ons its price climbs incredibly quickly.

It also comes with ZERO support packages except for rudimentary flight training in Pakistan

If you buy a Gripen or F16 you get massive maintenance/training support with the purchase, which balloons the short term cost but evens out over the long term.

And lets not even talk about the fact that the "cheap" version of the JF-17 uses RD-33 engines
>I cant remeber the exact numbers, but an RD-33 will have to be over-hauled twice and replaced once before an F-16 engine reaches its first scheduled over haul
>Requesting the pic detailing this, think it was from polish trials

TL;DR - If you have the cash buy an F16, if Murica dont like you buy a Gripen, if you cant afford a Gripen then buy Russian.

>>32743909
Depends on your metric, but ill go real world:

Engines: No.
Payload: No.
Maintenance Cycles: No.
Avionics/ Radar: No. (Cost cited is for a stripped model.)
Life cycle: No.
Range: No.
Initial Cost: Better.
Existing Weapons Comparability: Roughly On par
Data Link: Arguably On Par.

The JF-17 is not a peer to the F-16 in any way other than as existing as a lightweight fighter concept.

It was never meant to compete with the F-16. It was meant to penetrate a market niche that the F-16, even in a used format, cannot yet.

TL/DR: If you can buy western, and get the JF-17, you have just been a penny wise and a pound foolish.

>>32743909
>Roughly matches the speed/performance of the F16

An F-16 fresh off the production line in 1978 perhaps.

File: web-l-15-at-aad.jpg (182KB, 2200x1080px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 2200x1080px

>>32744177
C/D? Yes

The Gripen C/D armed with meteor can take on Su-30MK' s and win in a BVR fight

>>32744186
Botswana just bough Gripen as well

Zambia bought L-15's (pic)

Angola bought Su-30MKI's

Nigeria could only afford 3 JF-17's... peasants. Interestingly, Nigeria was looking at the Textron Scorpion before the JF-17. Its an indication of the level of capability they are looking for.

File: f-35 sprey.jpg (43KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 636x358px

>>32744325
>The "cheap" version, which comes in at ~$30 million is basically a day-time interceptor
[desire to know more intensifies]

It's a plane of the Gripen-class, not F-16 class.

>>32744325
>The designer of the plane himself refers to it as being 3rd Gen.

That's because China has different generations than the West.

China has no "1st Generation", which started with those Nazi jets, but jumped straight into the 2nd Generation with the MiG-15, which is their "1st generation".

Hence, Chinese "3rd Gen" means "4th Gen" in western nomenklature.

File: 1480729414896.jpg (180KB, 1200x1084px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1200x1084px

With the KLJ-7A AESA, which is basically a Chinese AGP-81, it will beat most competitors of the light-fighter class.

>>32744557
Yeah, and the price with said system will also be comparable to other light fighters.

The price everyone throws around is for the Mk.1

Its like SAAB shills who use Gripen C/D maintenance costs for the Gripen E/F

File: chinese fuckery.png (946KB, 1400x5552px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 1400x5552px

>>32744534
Is this like how the Chinese claim to have different standards for steel than the rest of the world?

>>32744534
Shut up Zhang, fighter aircraft generations are clearly defined. Calling it western terming is moving the goal posts with the west really being the only aircraft producers apart from China.
The aircraft has 3rd generation capabilities that compare with aircraft like the F-4 and early mirages. Its nowhere near as capable as even mid 80's F-1X generation planes like the F-14/15/16/18.

>>32744443
Botswana and Angola could barely maintain their prop fleet. These planes are going to be sitting in storage or getting minimal flight time because it requires a PMC maintenance crew to maintain and perhaps even operate

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Pakistan-manage-to-produce-a-world-class-jet-fighter-JF-17-Thunder-at-a-fraction-of-price-of-a-U-S-counterpart

>>32744823
>>32744793
I think he is Pakistani.

They regularly search for people having discussions on other forums and shill (for free).

The aviation forum I frequent refers to the JF-17 as the "Snow Partridge" and the Tejas as the "House sparrow" to avoid the massive shill influx any time either of the two are mentioned.

>>32744850
Botswana doesnt have these problems. They imported British technicians in the 1980's and have built up extensive institutional knowledge.

Yeah, thats about right with Angola though.

>>32744902
So the jump in to shill for the JF-17 and against the Tejas?

>>32744823
And the JF-17's capabilities are that of a 4th gen fighter jet. Prove me wrong.

>>32744123
>but anything Block 50 or later shits on it.
and also twice as expensive. FC-1 isn't for 1st world militaries.

>>32744932
No, shills from both sides will jump in and destroy the forum with infantile arguments to the point where a mod will have to mass delete posts and ban accounts.

Its really frustrating. One minute you are sitting there reading really interesting shit about wing-loading and the next its poo in the loo's pooing on the thread with some of the most childish shit you have ever witnessed
>worse than /k/

File: J-11D advanced sino-flanker.jpg (136KB, 1536x526px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1536x526px

>>32744823
There's no point for the Chinese to adopt a western classification simply because the first fighter they ever had was a 2nd generation fighter jet.

All they do is to skip a generation, that's all.

There is no change in the definitions otherwise.

A Chinese 3rd gen fighter jet has the same definitions as a western 4th gen. There's nothing hard about it.

Pic: A Chinese 3.5 gen fighter jet.

>>32744325
>If you buy a Gripen or F16 you get massive maintenance/training support with the purchase
stop drinking LockMart koolaid.

FC-1 is a very affordable fighter. Maintenance cost is significantly cheaper than the falcon.

>>32744967
Price is defined by production numbers.

As of now, the JF-17 is only operated by Pakistan, hence the numbers are few and price high. Once more are built due to more customers (Myanmar is confirmed), the price will go down.

>>32744983
Chao, is it that hard to call your jets by a worldwide standard?
China did in-fact adopt first generation jets with the locally made mig-15/17s and second gen j-7s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations

>>32745032
China's classification is along this way:

>Air Force Magazine[edit]
>In 2009, Air Force Magazine also define fighter generations and proposed a sixth :[8]

>1. Jet propulsion : F-80, Me 262
>2. Swept wings; range radar; infrared missiles : F-86, MiG-15

China's 1st generation was the MiG-15 and not the Me 262.

>>32745017
>Maintenance cost is significantly cheaper than the falcon.
>RD-33 engines

Pick one and only one.

You are also ignoring that pesky thing known as ground-crew and the support packages they need.

>>32745056
Aircraft generations are defined by a set of characteristics.
China has third generation aircraft which fit within the standard framework, e.g. the J-8
China's Su-27 copies are clearly 4th generation with the 27+ variants 4.5 generation.
Aircraft generations aren't dictated by the individual countries technological progress but the international standard.

>>32745115
As you can see from that wikipedia entry, there are multiple different definitions literally made by every airforce magazine and thinktank themselves.

Some put the MiG-15 and the Me-262 together in one generation, the other seperate them. In some definitions, the Su-27/F-15 is a 5th generation jet etc.

When your labor costs are 2% of what they are in the west, any plane you make is going to be cheaper than theirs.

>>32745090
you know that a high MTBF number doesn't necessarily mean low maintenance for a low bypass military turbofan, right? RD33s do have something like a 300 hour MTBF, but the components are cheap and it's easy to swap.

>>32745192
labor cost has very little impact on aircraft costs. The expensive stuff like engines and avionics are expensive because they're hard to make, not assemble.

>>32745301
>make, not assemble
wat

>>32743909

Labor costs are huge factor in it. Western workforce is way more expensive than Chinese. Aircraft are quite labor intensive to design, build, test and to maintain.

>>32744177
>Would a Girpen outclass this and the Tejas?

Absolutely.

>>32745017
>stop drinking LockMart koolaid.

Western fighter usually come far more complex deals than just the fighter. Usually it starts from tech transfers for local assembly and full maintenance support locally. Fly away cost is only a fraction of actual cost of fighter. Purchase of fighters almost always includes weapons and known to be used spare parts for most of the life cycle of the fighters.

Third world tin pot dictators and Arabs might buy fighters without proper support deals.

>>32746038
>Usually it starts from tech transfers for local assembly
that's a fucking load of shit and you know it. Or maybe you don't, because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

File: Patria_HN_huolto_1.jpg (554KB, 1200x803px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 1200x803px

>>32746371
>that's a fucking load of shit and you know it. Or maybe you don't, because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

You have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about.

If a military aircraft purchase is more than handful of units, most industrialized countries will have local assembly and heavy maintenance. Handful of aircraft might not have economies of scale to justify costs of setting up local assembly line. Only 3rd world nations will just import their aircraft in major purchases or if they are dealing with shit tier exporters that refuse such things by default, then buyer is usually international pariah tier dictatorship.

Local content or lack of it is quite often deal breaker in defense sales.

A fighter procurement is bit more complex than just buying something. Whole life cycle of aircraft is ta

>>32746371
>>32746371
>that's a fucking load of shit and you know it.

He isnt wrong. Its called "offsets"

South Africa bought the Gripen because SAAB allowed them to heavily modify it with local gear, there were IP transfers involved and Gripens around the world, dependent on configuration, now contain South African code and components (mainly related to the HMD).

SAAB also offered domestic production of the Gripen in India to try to win their program.

The entire F-35 program is pretty much one giant offset.

South Africa, again as an example, bought the A400M as part of the deal was the manufacture of A400M components in South Africa.
>they later pulled out of the A400M deal, but still manufacture components in country

Offsets are pretty standard practice for deals involving nations whom have a developed military-industrial complex, Russia only does it with its biggest clients, but, most Western companies will offer it to even their smallest clients.