Originally posted by troung
[B]H-117;

“Have you seen FC-1 with 7 hard points? So how can it become a fact?. It is just a beginning plane. Which can change with development.”

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/aircraft/fighter/fc1.asp
“Seven stores stations, one under the fuselage and six under the wing, up to 3,800 kg.”

This is a statement of previous plan. Unupdated on unofficial site.

I asked for pictures with 7 hard points not a statement. See the

difference.

So back up your claim of China adding in loading points.

I gave the link for weopon load increase. hard points increase

is now a high possibility.

“It has been droped in favor of some thing else like Su-30MKM or AWACS.”

No the RMAF does split buys. So the F/A-18F and Su-30MKM combo is a high possibility provided a good price can be reached on the trade in of the F/A-18Ds. It’s ongoing negotiations.

These are now old stories. I think you are not reading into

Malaysia recently.

“Every Airforce has both large and small and long range and short range fighters.”

False statement as not every air force has large planes and for example if some people in the RSAF get their way the F-5E/F could be replaced by more F-15S deep strikers which would leave them with no short range planes in service. And for example with Russian customers who have the money many are going for the just the Flanker and not MiG-29s which of course means their only 4th generation planes are heavy. A small air force might not want to do a high low and it might not be worth it if they have the massive air space the TNI-AU is tasked with protecting.

And the TNI-AU does have a light fighter it is called the F-16A/B Block 15, and the RMAF will still have the MiG-29N/UN and the F/A-18Ds until those possibly get traded in to knock off the price on the F/A-18F.

Every Airforce has light fighters present in one form or the other

you cannot speculate on them. heavy fighters are not necessary.

in every airforce. Those F-16 are perfect canidate of replacement

for future. MIG-29 is not close support strike plane and is still

limited in number not even 2 real squardons to have decent strkie

capability.

“No Airforce can survive only on large fighters. There will be opportunity for lighweight fighters in next 3 or 4 years.”

Maybe you’re dumb or can’t read but they are not looking at the FC-1.

They may look in the future. I think you didnot understood my

first statement in first post. You have very limited understanding

of world.

“They will built in hundreds if not in thousands.”

You have no idea if thousands will be made. None that’s just a number you pulled out of nowhere. Hell China is shaky on buying them so for all we know the number could not break 200.

Breaking of 200 number is assured. Will you want to bet on this?

“Those F-16s were newly built or 20 years old airframes i want to know this thing. And is paid or free.”

FYI Egypt and Israel get their F-16s all but free.

My question specifically directed at Thai F-16s. I know that barring

few countries most of the F-16s are given for free. so their is no

real price competition in real sense. While FC-1 will sold at hard

currency while for old F-16 no body wants to pay for it.

I have seen a very strange statement regarding those old

F-16s.

You are confusing me for some body else which shows your total

lack of understanding at what is directed at you.

Originally posted by troung
[B]H-177;
What is this?

People have plans. Their plans are very well laid out. Indonesia is buying 48 Flankers to replace the F-5E/F MACANs and A-4Es and the RMAF is buying 18 Su-30MKMs, looking to trade in the F/A-18Ds and use the money earned to lower the price of the F/A-18Fs.

currently Indonesia has plans for 48 Flankers to replace F-5 and

And A-4. But how can you be sure about plans 3 years later when

FC-1 is full developed. Remember plans are modified with passage

of time. 48 Aircrafts are not enough for size of Indonesia.

You will not see those F-18F in RMAF colors. Thats for sure.

Isn’t that great, so not only is it inferior to the F-16A/C but it is not even done testing yet.

Its the cost of developing some thing cheap. The things which

comes later with similar technology are cheaper. And inferior in

payload and range not in tech level or flight performance. Thats

for sure.

Not by the FC-1.

how do you know 3 or 4 years ahead of time.

Point being is that the TNI-AU will not be spending money on the FC-1 when they are already getting the Flankers which are costing a lot anyways.

Flanker is current order. FC-1 future. Not the same time line.

Really unless a nation is stupid they will not get sanctions. Hell Russia has cut off the tap for people and so has China.

FC-1 comes with TOT and assembly lines. RD-93 parts can be

obtained from Russia if not China. Same is the case with Radars

and weopons depending on political relation between client and

seller.

They have not dropped the F/A-18F its called negotiations

You didnot understood my quote. I was referring about the use

of AIM-120 which led to questioning by Malaysians for buying

further F-18s. FC-1 can share Radar, weopons and engine with

RMAF MIG-29s with much cheaper cost of maintaining.

They are not buying the FC-1. It is not on the books as a plan and would not fit in with what they are doing. So other then saying you think it would be nice you have nothing to back up they will ever use it.

It all comes to future. We shall see when FC-1 is fully developed.

Thailand for one. They just got the AIM-120 not to long ago on their new F-16A/B ADFs.

Did thailand bought the Old F-16 recently and got upgraded or

the upgrade is related to original purchase?

Blah blah blah.

We shall wait about the number of hardpoints but wingspan is

the same.

So you can’t refute that. The FC-1 has 7 loading points so yes it cannot take an F-16 style load up and hope to clear the runway.

If your only counter is to make up upgrades then you really should just stop responding.

FC-1 is development platform. And many changes can be

expected in its development time. It is not upgradation.

Upgradation comes after development. So your upgradation

argument does not hold any weight.

Originally posted by troung
[B]

Not yet but the USA is offering a buy back on the F/A-18Ds so the deal is a huge possibility.

Did they accept US offer?. No need to talk about possiblities.

Possibilities are always there for every thing.

The point is the RMAF is no longer buying single engine fighters and Indonesia is buying 48 Flankers, which have the range they need. The TNI-AU will have Su-30MKs, Su-27SKs, F-16A/B Block 15 OCUs and Hawk 209s as their fast jet force in the coming years. And the RMAF’s last splurge on fighters was for the MiG-29N and F/A-18D, both of which are dual engine.

The young Hawk 208/209s are both single engine yes but will stay with both nations for some years to come in thier CAS role.

Neither one is buying the FC-1.

How you know about their future. Fc-1 has still to 2 or 3 years

of development left. Those F-16 can be replaced at some point

of time. Flanker does not undercut FC-1 market interms of

money.

And a smaller range and payload as well as a lower top speed. And no one really knows what the RCS will be.

And much lesser price and less strings attached with missiles.

The basic reason that Malaysia dropped F-18F. twin engine

fighters are expensive in maintaing. Fc-1 can make the numbers

with added strike ability.

An F-16A/B ADF goes for between 7-12 million dollars apiece. That’s a fully BVR capable fighter with American tech support and weapons such as the AIM-120. The FC-1 cannot compare with that price.

Who has bought those F-16s with MLU with $7 to $12M paid and

AIM-120 delivered.?. Don’t underestimate SD-10.

And the F-16 can carry bigger ones the point being. And under wing tanks would not kill the offensive load of an F-16 (9 loading points) as much as it would kill the FC-1s (7 loading points). An F-16A/B ADF could carry 4 AIM-120s, 2 Mk.84s, 2 under wing fuel tank, an ECM pod under the center, and a LDP. Can the FC-1 do the same? No because it lacks the places to put those.

How do you know that Fc-1 hardpoints will be the same assuming

the increase in weopons load?upgradation is always a possiblity.

Both FC-1 and F-16 has same wingspan.

Stick with comparing the FC-1 to the LCA. [/B]

As much as you want the other way.

There is a big market for FC-1 unlike LCA.

Originally posted by troung

Only three F-16A/C users lack BVR capable F-16s. And those are Indonesia, Venezuela and Pakistan. Thailand has the AIM-120 so that should tell you something on how hard it is to get BVR weapons on an F-16. And the F-16A/B ADFs with the AIM-120 cost the RTAF less then the FC-1, and they got them a lot faster also for example.

This FC-1 is not specifically mentioned to countries who already

use F-16s. And FC-1 due to recent revisions with FBW, increase

weopons load , speed to Mach 2.1 and China AAMs and Anti-Ship

missiles will not be a bad choice either. Weopons choice will grow

by the time it enters service. Upgradation and customization at

customer will be a big benefit to customer along with Assembly.

Unless you mess up bad (Pakistan, Indonesia) the USA happens to be one of the best if not the best supplier out there. As for China, several buyers have not been terribly happy with the goods received.

Also the USA does not slap on embargo’s for no reason and they are not easy to get either.

Unless you are living in some other planet there has been sea

change in attitude towards US around third world. I will now not

boost about recent visits of our leader and largest Gas and

refinery deals in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria etc. You will

find new weopos deal for US hardly in third world recently.

Indonesia and Malaysia now looks towards Chinese leadership.

And FC-1 can easily complement Flankers.

i would not call the F-16A/C outdated and especially compared to the FC-1. The F-16 is faster, has a better cockpit view, has a better payload, a large number of weapons cleared for it and excellent customer support. And being able to buy the whole platform from one source is a lot better then having a Russian engine, Chinese airframe and French, Israeli or Italian radars and avionics. Oh yeah and the F-16A/C is proven and in service.

Speed matter has i already answered, Elevated cockpit increases

drag, I will give you on range and pay load. FC-1 is supposed to

has 75% weopon load and range. Reduced RCS is one of the

benefit touted in media but it remains to be seen.

It is better to get Radars with on source codes and on choice

rather than imposed from out side. Russia, France, Italy all are

marketing Radars for FC-1. I can assume that Russian weopons

will also be available to customers depending on political

relationship of customer.

Originally posted by GoldenDragon
There is a very interesting story concerning Morocco and the K-8 and could be related in a way to the FC-1.

The K-8E is assembled by the Egypt’s Arab Manufacturing Authority. It is a pretty large order of 80.

But the more interesting piece is that the Arab Manufacturing Authority was first developed and funded by nations across the Arab world. Although today, it is run by the Egyptian state .

Morocco is often mentioned in publications as a customer of the K-8 although there has not been a Chinese-made K-8 delivered to Morocco. It is was reported at other times that the K-8s that Morocco will receive will come from the Egyptian assembly line not from China or Pakistan.

The same might happen with the FC-1 if and when Egypt gets the assembly line (which would probably be the only reason Egypt would get the FC-1.)

Egypt’s Arab Manufacturing Authority might end up as a pan-Arab aircraft manufacturer of K-8s and FC-1s and other aircraft in the future for Arab nations like Morocco that prefer not spend on US weapons because of money or politics.

As noted above, Egypt has a very long history of pursuing a homegrown aviation industry with the HA 300 40 years ago in 1960. That was also a pan-Arab project led by Egypt but with Syria, Yemen and other countries funding a piece too. That project fell apart after a flood of Russian aircraft and then US F-16s after the peace treaty with Israel.

This time, they have a production line in place with a modest trainer, the K-8, as a foundation. So the next step could be a FC-1 line since the Egyptians have experience with a Chengdu/PAC product already in the K-8.

Strictly preformance-wise, the FC-1 has no chance in beating out F-16s for the Egyptian market. But politics and the push for a homegrown industry could allow the FC-1 to win out.

Why SD-10 and PL-9 are good weopons. And FC-1 price and

performance will not be bad considering J-7G close performance

to F-16A. Customization and Upgradation is also a big benefit.

And a nation cannot rely on American weopons only. There should

be a backup.

Originally posted by SOC
If China’s newest fighter is comparable to the mid -80’s Western aircraft why do you think the J-10 will be any better?

If you are referring to FC-1. Than it is built with specific amount

of money taken into consideration like $10M a piece. It has

nothing to do with amount of technology.

Originally posted by SOC
It’ll be the most advanced fighter in Asia except for the JASDF F-15Js with AAM-4, and IAF Su-30MKIs if you count the Indian sub-continent.

Nothing indigenous comparable to FC-1? Ever heard of an F-CK-1?

IS F-15 Indigenous to Japan or -MKI indigenous to India? the

answer is no. Can Japan and India export their fighters without

permission the answer is no. So whats the point?

And don’t even bring F-CK-1.

And considering the kind of money and R&D done in China. You

shouldnot be surprized by the Chinese tech.