[

Funny, that those strings seem to have very little impact on sales!;)

Mmmm? Politics? South Korea ring a bell?

Better deal??? I am not so sure about that. As I said any so called advantage is not backed up by sales. Further, even in the cases that the US lost a sale. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that loss had anything to do with “strings”.

Yes! Better deal! If someone offers you FULL partnership, which means full ToT, upgrades & the ability to do what you want, (within reason of course) is a hell of a lot better deal than getting something which you know you wont be able to do what you want with it, don’t you think? Thats a better deal in my book! Oh and, again, politcs. But anyways, whats your opinion is yours & whats mine is mine. 😉

Btw, nice to see you back. 😉

Thats the problem – the Viper and Super Hornet are fine aircraft, but come with enough strings attached to drown users in red tape viz their foreign policy and strategic decision making, to even modifying and using the airframe as they see fit.

A random selection of examples:

Malaysia and the F/A-18: Mahathir Mohammad on F/A-18s & the US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSjgOcFdI9Y

Brazils experiences with US ITAR et al.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/10/brazilian-brigadier-bashes-us.html

UK (and others) tough issues with JSF technology transfer:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/67419/uk-leads-growing-backlash-against-jsf-**.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/itar-fallout-britain-to-pull-out-of-f35-jsf-program-01587/

Examples are dime a dozen.

And in recent news, the US continues to treat Pak – with whom India may have to war, as a strategic asset.

It is because of this, that the Rafale and Eurofighter appear to be more palatable for an India which routinely modifies and adds new capabilities to its equipment & which may have to use them as it sees fit, whenever the balloon goes up.

Exactly right. What you just said and provided, would make me, personaly, say; ‘Thanks, but no thanks’ to any American fighter, especially when America is buddy-buddy with a likely enemy of mine, of which just to add, I would be in two minds whether I trust America or not. Most likely not! IMO I’d just go with a European aircraft, preferably Typhoon and Rafale a VERY close second.

Just my two pennies.

Pakistan Buying Chinese J-10 Fighters
11-Nov-2009 22:11 EST

Pakistan and China have been cooperating for a number of years on the JF-17/ FC-1 Thunder, a low-medium performance, low-cost aircraft that has attracted interest and orders from a number of 3rd World air forces. In November 2009, a long-rumored deal was announced for China’s Jian-10/ FC-20 4+ generation fighter, whose overall performance compares well with the F-16C/D Block 52 aircraft that Pakistan has ordered from the United States.

The J-10 has been reported as a derivative of the 1980s Israeli Lavi project, and reportedly incorporates an Israeli fly-by-wire control base that was transferred in the project’s early years. The change in relations that followed the Tienanmen Square massacre hurt the J-10 project badly, however, forcing the replacement of planned Western avionics and engines with Chinese and Russian equipment. The required redesign was very extensive, affected all areas of the airframe, and took over a decade, amounting to the development of a new aircraft. The first operational J-10 unit entered service with the PLAAF in July 2004.

China has reportedly ordered 100 J-10s to date. The initial Pakistani order is for 2 squadrons, but could expand as technical cooperation and orders increase. The $1+ billion sale represents the J-10’s first export order… but almost certainly not its last.

Contracts and Key Events

Nov 11/09: Widespread reports surface that Pakistan has signed a $1.4 billion contract for 36 of CATIC’s Jian-10 fighters, which will be known as FC-20 in Pakistan. The deal is described as a preliminary agreement, and there are reports that Pakistan may eventually be interested in acquiring up to 150 of these aircraft. Retired Pakistani general Abdul Qayyum is qoted as saying that:

“The agreement should not simply be seen in the narrow context of Pakistan’s relations with China…. There is a wider dimension. By sharing its advanced technology with Pakistan, China is … also saying to the world that its defence capability is growing rapidly.”

The UK’s Financial Times echoes this theme, noting that the $21.7 billion Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC) group is rapidly emerging as a big military goods exporter. The group is also involved in China’s civilian aircraft program, and gives only total revenue figures, but the Financial Times quotes industry sources who believe a recent remerger of 2 split-out groups late in 2008 was aimed at creating a bigger and internationally competitive player.

It is not clear whether Pakistan’s FC-20s will carry Russian Salyut AL-31FN turbofans (17,130/ 27,557 pounds dry/afterburner thrust) that are similar to the engines in many SU-27 family aircraft, or the larger Chinese WS-10A derivative (reportedly a lesser 16,523/ 24,729 pounds dry/afterburner thrust) developed by China’s AVIC Aviation Engine Institute and Shenyang Liming Aero-Engine Group.

Source: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Pakistan-Buying-Chinese-J-10-Fighters-05937/#more-5937

If true, then India better make a ruddy good desicion when it comes to buying the aircraft for MMRCA. i.e something with “canards” on it and produced by four European countries.

Every time i see that…..I just go

Yeah I know, terrible…Its a lot like the F22, isn’t it? Like the F35 is a lot like the Yak-141. :diablo:

But messing about aside, its not that bad looking, seen worse.

I agree, but all fighters will have to carry weight, if they’re armed. It’s the distribution of that weight, that I’m getting at. If you keep your weight near the center of gravity, it’ll be less of a hindrance than out on the wings(especially with EFT and A/G weapons).

Absolutaly, of course. The reason why I mention F1 is because the designers & engineers try to keep the weight near the centre of gravity of the cars for the best performance and the best results, even still all of that effort dragged back abit once they fill the cars up with fuel even though they had the weight issue in mind at the start. With EFT’s and A/G weapons the designers and engineers still try their best for centre of gravity, its just a matter of working & improving with what you’ve got at the end of the day.

You got it wrong wrightwing, it’s the weight that affect maneuver/acceleration.
And btw are you talking about clean or with “realistic load” as in 6+ AAM’s ?

Thats what a lot of people (especially “fanboys”) forget, is the weight. No matter if its internal, you still have to lump all that weight about. If you watch Formula 1 you’ll hear the commentaters mention all the time that weight KILLS everything, speed, agility, acceleration, just the overall performance of the car. The very exact same can be said for fighters.

Its a shame that the RAF have to face such situations with these kinds of cuts, not just the RAF but with the British Army and Royal Navy, at the end of the day its just the real world and not the world where “this VS that” etc etc etc. Its something the British Armed Forces have had years & years of just having to deal with, and luckily, they happen to be very ruddy good at getting in with what they’ve got, i.e The Falklands war, GW1 & 2, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan etc. They’ve just learned to have to adapt over the years and they’re the best ones at it IMO.