First of all, it uses extensive advanced composites, and uses advanced techniques to reduce RCS using proprietary techniques during manufacturing.
It also uses advanced Al and Ti alloys and isn’t quite the same as the legacy Hornet, even featuring about 40% fewer parts than the Hornet despite being larger. And Boeing is quite well known for its improved productivity rates thanks to Lean principles applied during the manufacturing process on the shop floor itself. they even consulted with HAL to improve their productivity using Lean techniques.

Examples include determinant assembly, which eliminates requirements for tooling, and computer terminals that contain work instructions.

Advanced manufacturing is a vital component in Boeing’s development of new technologies and processes in assembly for the C17, FA 18 and F-15 programs. Take high-speed machining, for instance. In the past, Boeing typically focused on improved metal removal rates. Now, the company is developing technologies that improve assembly of its aircraft from a system approach. Boeing is facilitating its assembly process by automating the drilling, reaming, fastening and the application of sealants.

“Now, we’re not just looking at feeds and speeds issues. We are machining for assembly now as opposed to just machining for improved metal removal rate. When you think about that, not only are we impacting and changing the technology, but we also impact the resources required, because a different skill set is required of our operators,” Williams says.

For instance, assembly teams used to consult large, bulky printed work instruction manuals. Now, the teams consult web-based instructions that are electronically displayed. To give them the needed skills, team members are trained for competencies on computers and computer systems.

“We have it such that they know what is required next in each sequence of building the job. Advanced manufacturing means they are higher on the value chain. That is really driving a change in our resource management as related to training and deployment of technology,” Williams says.

link

This is just one such article. You can google it up easily and see Boeing advances in super plastic forming, etc.

Anyways I would think if the IAF wanted tech transfer they should not leave out all the manufacturing technology and seriously should consider the gripen NG …. The F/A-18E/F structure is old and processing and production technologies nothing new!

You’re quite wrong here. The F/A-18’s production processes and manufacturing technologies are known in the industry to be excellent. very modern, with excellent LEAN practices. Its no coincidence that they actually not only meet, but exceed their delivery date schedules, with the RAAF’s F/A-18Fs being the most recent example.

I also recall that when England, France, Germany and Italy were looking at joint design and production of a new fighter 30 years ago, Dassault wanted design lead, effectively a monopoly on the technology to be developed. IIRC they also wanted assembly to be done by themselves. This is not how you behave if you wish to co-operate with other partners. Could that attitude be part of the reason that Embraer is (apparently) not interested in working with Dassault?

To me the case for selecting Gripen is now overwhelming.

As far as I know, it’s not exactly like you put it. Dassault (and France too) thought that since they required the most numbers of fighters, they wanted to get the design lead as a result. That doesn’t sound so unfair does it ?

One thing from these pics is that the full body suit that the Swedes developed for the Gripen to allow for water immersion in cold waters for extended periods, must be hot as hell for pilots in Indian conditions..maybe if Saab wins, they may need to develop a lighter version of that suit. Pilots used to sweat very heavily even in the much lighter overalls that they wear in the IAF. It may be comfortable inside the air conditioned cockpit, but outside, it must be like wearing arctic clothing in a desert.

Canberra, MiG-25, Jaguar, Hunter, MiG-27, MiG-23, MiG-29, Mirage-2000, MiG-21 and the last one is not clear.

That must be most interesting that they included replacement for F-5M and AMX. Along with a major expansion of the fleet, this IMHO puts the JF-17 right on the money. I can’t think of a fighter that could better fit that bill.

That is your opinion and here, China can deal directly with Brazil. Pakistan itself was taught how to assemble the JF-17 by China, so why would they want Pakistan to cut in on such a deal (which is anyway so unlikely as to be hardly debatable by anyone but the most staunch fanboy)

However, things certainly have moved well along. Further, a lot of the problems have related to quality of manufacturing (again not a problem today IMHO). That issue is virtually eliminated if manufacturing takes place in Brazil. Pakistan’s Kamra based Pakistan Aeronautical Complex has bought a large number of its tooling from Western and other foreign sources. You can see the quality of the manufacturing in the models of the JF-17 at Farnborough. If I recall, many attendants mistook it for a Swedish plane.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/3/3/6/1803633.jpg

The JF-17 still doesn’t happen to fit into anything remotely likely to be the FAB’s requirements, even if some attendants admired the build quality of JF-17s. I’ve been to airshows where people around me mistook an F-5 for an F-16, so that hardly means much, unfortunately.

The J-10B itself may be an interesting airframe for Brazil. I think that the JF-17 can do well with a third block, and in partnership with Brazil, a significant improvement is still possible. I know that the designers left room for certain western engines to be used for the JF-17. Although I’d hope Brazil chooses to build something based on their own tweaking of the WS-13. I think Brazil could really benefit from stepping up to engine manufacture. After all, its the heart of any aircraft!

Lots of hopes and very little substance to any of it unfortunately.

Brazil can certainly add to the metallurgy of the JF-17. I’m thinking that (and I may be wrong) Embraer’s airframe expertise could easily be transferable here. After all, building light and fuel efficient airframes is something both fighters and airliners share.

Embraer’s expertise in manufacturing certainly might have come in handy for Pakistan and China, if that is what you’re hinting at. Maybe they can look to give Embraer a consultant’s role to improve on the JF-17’s airframe.

I personally don’t see that big a difference between an uprated JF-17 and the Eurocanards. Of course I’ve just probably hurt the feelings of a ton of people, but really, the Eurocanards don’t appear to be worth the money they want, other than the Gripen.

Seriously ? 😮 If this isn’t a fanboy post, I don’t what is.

1. JF-17 is slated to have an AESA radar in possibly its next block
2. Composites are increasing and already incorporated. Higher percentage of composites coming in next version

Interesting to hear about the AESA and the composites. AFAIK, the current JF-17 has very little to no composite content except maybe for the radome. Of course, authoritative sources (and not internet blogs like grandestrategy) would be useful to back up such claims.

I think just buying JF-17s or J-10Bs would be a radical decision from Brazil and would be a major signal of shifting alliances. The JF-17 would make less of a splash particularly if its an industrial collaboration between multiple partners.

JF-17 Block III “Brasilia” with RR engines or a Brazilian tweak of a WS-13 would certainly be a fun plane for any aviation enthusiast.

maybe we might see some photoshopped JF-17s with FAB markings like we saw of the Rafale. Other than that, everything else is very very unlikely at the least.

So did my Volvo compared to my VW. 😉