Why do You think the Chengdu MR would buy some ???

Because Chengdu Aircraft Corporation is owned by Chengdu Military Region, and Chengdu Military Region would try to financially support its businesses if necessary.

…. You really think there are independent Air Forces in each MR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Air_Force

In peacetime the Air Force Directorate, under the supervision of the PLA General Staff Department, controlled the Air Force through air army headquarters located with, or in communication with, each of the seven military region headquarters

Each of China’s seven military regions have their own HQ, air force, comm equipment often incompatible with the other region, cadet academy, uniform, etc.

I’d think if they had done any redesign it would reflect lessons learnt in the JF-17 program.

JF-17 is a Chengdu product while J-8 is a Shenyang product, so no tech sharing.

The circumstances are hardly comparable.

But no I don’t think PLAAF will be inducting JF-17, they don’t need it anymore than USAF needed F-20.

If Chengdu had no outstanding J-10 orders then the Chengdu military region would have bought some to keep the lines open.

No they aren’t.

There are areas where East Asia is very competitive, but aerospace sure isn’t one of them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/17/airbus-promises-600-new-uk-jobs

Airbus promises 600 new UK jobs
European plane maker likely to create roles at plants in Filton and Broughton but warns UK suppliers that they must stay competitive on price

Airbus has pledged to create up to 600 jobs in the UK this year, but sent a shot across the bows of domestic manufacturers by warning that Britain’s GKN recently lost out on a lucrative parts contract to a Korean rival because it was not competitive enough.

Tom Enders, Airbus’s chief executive, said the bid for work on wings for the A320 jet was won by Korea Aerospace Industries because it made a cheaper pitch. However, Enders dismissed as “nonsense” claims from the Unite trade union that Europe’s largest planemaker is undermining the British aerospace industry.

But KIDA notes that Boeing and Lockheed Martin say they can provide assistance in only about half of 48 technology items requested, due to technology transfer restrictions. According to KIDA, the U.S. companies will neither invest nor take a risk in the KF-X, but EADS is willing to consider investment if South Korea buys the Eurofighter .

This is incorrect.

Both Boeing and EADS offered to comply with all 53 out of 53 tech transfer/personnel assistance requests. Lockheed offered to comply with only 23 out of 53 and basically got an F in the offset category. This is why the DAPA threatened to disqualify both the Silent Eagle and the F-35 bids if both were offered on FMS terms as originally proposed by the US DoD. The Silent Eagle is offered on the DCS term and thus Boeing can bypass the US DoD and offer whatever the term it sees fit, pending the US congressional approval.

The issue with Boeing’s offer is not the scope of it(100% compliance); but getting the US congressional approval for said technologies.

The most important piece of information from that article is the RCS requirement of 0.1 m2 for early 2020s time period; this is likely to be the standard being applied in the current F-X contest, meaning the F-35’s RCS is considered overkill and unnecessary for the missions the ROKAF is planning.

This may confirm the local press reports that the F-35 was knocked out. While the F-35 is the only combat jet type for Norway and several JSF partner nations, the 3rd F-X jet is one of many types the ROKAF will operate in the 2020~2050 period, with a VLO version of KFX arriving in the late 2020s. Thus there is no need to go for the absolutely the lowest RCS figure this time, only what is needed to execute planned missions, which is reportedly to be 0.1 m2.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_04_29_2013_p46-571780.xml

Seoul Plans Phased-Development, Typhoon-Size Fighter
By Bradley Perrett
April 29, 2013
Bradley Perrett Seoul and Jeongseon, South Korea

At the top level, a foreign partner will be needed, probably the winner of F-X Phase 3, which means Boeing, Lockheed Martin or the Eurofighter partners. Most South Korean advocates of the program play down the intended role of outsiders. The KF-X will be led by South Koreans, they emphasize. Indonesia, which has contributed engineers and 20% of the funding since 2011 and proposes to order 50, is a junior partner, which is why the aircraft is sometimes called KF-X/IF-X. Attempts to enlist Turkey failed, partly because the South Koreans insisted on leadership; other partners are possible, but none have appeared so far.

Throughout its long gestation, KF-X has faced repeated objections: that it is unaffordable, or at least unjustifiable; that the country lacks the skills to develop it, or at least has too few engineers, especially if it pursues civil airplane and military helicopter programs at the same time; that the U.S., as a technology supplier, would seek to block KF-X sales; and, perhaps above all, that the South Korean fighter cannot offer much that is not already on the market at a lower price.

But backers, particularly ADD, present KF-X as the keystone in South Korea’s future military aviation development. It would not just be a home-produced fighter; it would become the host aircraft of South Korean combat aircraft systems, such as sensors and weapons, promoting wider advances in the defense industry. South Korea would be in complete control of its configuration, not needing foreign permission to integrate its systems, as it has for the T-50 supersonic trainer and its combat variants.

In evolving the design and program, ADD has sought to address doubts about South Korea’s technological capacity and the aircraft’s technological adequacy. In 2009, the developers acknowledged that South Korea could not build a fully stealthy aircraft, equivalent to the F-35. They relaxed the radar cross-section to the level of such aircraft as the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon.

That radar cross-section is likely to be in the range of 0.1-1 sq. meters (1.07-10.07 sq. ft.), compared with 1-10 sq. meters for old F-4 Phantom and F-5 Tiger fighters in South Korean service, says a former air force officer who has been involved in planning for KF-X and other programs. KF-X’s intended cross-section “is low enough,” he says, pointing to an official but unpublished study showing gaps in the coverage of North Korean surveillance radars when dealing with such a target. Those gaps exist even without electronic countermeasures degrading the performance of the radars, the study shows.

While the designers relaxed the stealth specification, they notably did not much change the aircraft’s external shape and configuration, the foundation of low radar cross-section. The KF-X kept classic stealth features such as parallel edges and surfaces, forward fuselage chines and curved engine inlet ducts. That has allowed ADD this year to propose reintroduction of high-grade stealth in later KF-X versions. Block 2 would have more stealth coatings, radar-absorbing structural materials, tighter control of gaps, “integrated” (presumably flush) aerials, and a weapons bay. It would be as stealthy as an F-117, ADD estimates. Further, unstated improvements would advance Block 3 to the level of the F-35.

These improvements would be added with new systems. So KF-X would, in the end, significantly outperform current fighters—just not immediately.

Since settling on moderate stealth, ADD has been studying two main variables in its design: the number of engines, and the location of horizontal stabilizers. It has settled the first issue—the aircraft will have two engines—but the second issue will depend on the origins of the experienced foreign partner. The KF-X will have conventional aft stabilizers, following concept Design C103, if a U.S. company helps develop it; and forward stabilizers, for Design C203, if a European partner is chosen.

Size appears to have been set by the choice of two engines, the preference of the air force. “We do not have a rubber engine,” says an engineer familiar with the project, meaning that the designers must choose one off the shelf, not have one designed for their specification. So they see available afterburning thrust as 17,700 lb. (from the General Electric F404), 20,200 lb. (from Eurojet EJ200) or 22,000 lb. (from GE F414). The Snecma M88 is not mentioned as a candidate.

The thrust ratings straddle what is available to the Typhoon, and so it is not surprising that the airframes, for both C103 and C203, have been sized for an empty aircraft mass very close to that of the European fighter. Reflecting the great volume typical of stealth designs (partly because snaking inlet ducts demand a bulky fuselage), C103 and C203 each have more internal fuel than the Typhoon.

Also relying on airframe volume, the designers are contriving to work a weapons bay into the Block 2 version. In the Block 1 variant, four Raytheon AIM-120 air-to-air missiles are mounted in recesses under the fuselage, a favorite approach introduced by the Phantom’s designers about 60 years ago (see cover photo). Those missiles must move inside the bay for the Block 2 KF-X; there is not enough space to have both a bay and external under-fuselage weapons. Provision for the weapon bay will be in the Block 1 aircraft, ADD says, which must mean that internal equipment will be packaged in some way to easily make space available.

Six more hard points for weapons and other stores are on the wing, the outer two available only for Raytheon AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missiles. ADD’s drawings show the others with air-to-ground weapons: GBU-39, GBU-53, CBU-105, GBU-31, GBU-38 and GBU-24 guided bombs and AGM-65 missiles. External fuel tanks are an option for the inner pair of hard points, and models show cruise missiles mounted in those positions, too. There are no wingtip hard points, presumably to restrict radar reflections, but models show sensor pods on the lower corners of the fuselage.

A gun is mounted internally above the left inlet duct.

The prime sensor for KF-X will be a radar with an active, electronically scanned array. A foreign radar will be installed first, while a later version of the fighter will be outfitted with a set based on work that South Korean electronics company LIG Nex1 is undertaking. The designers are also specifying an electro-optical targeting system, an infrared search and track sensor, data link, GPS-INS navigation, “advanced threat warning and countermeasures” and internal electronic countermeasures.

The cockpit will incorporate a helmet-mounted display, a head-up display and multifunction head-down displays. In integrating electronics and weapons, the program intends to follow Western design standards, hence the advantage that KF-X, if built, will hold over Chinese and Russian rivals. Introducing new U.S., European or indeed South Korean equipment should be easier.

The wing of the C103 (tail-aft) version has full-span flaperons and leading-edge flaps for variable camber. The planform is a diamond shape, with 40 deg. leading-edge sweep and 10-deg. forward sweep for the trailing edge.

When the C103 and C203 designs were discussed in February, there was a hint that the two-seat option had been rejected, along with such variants as a single-engine aircraft. But ADD’s latest description of the aircraft does show a version with a second seat that replaces the forward fuselage fuel tank. Although the U.S. has decided that simulation obviates the need for a trainer version of the F-35, a second seat is becoming popular again in other fighters for a reason that was familiar decades ago but then fell out of fashion: two people can handle the work of a combat mission more easily than one.

This is what the Gripen E/F is supposed to look like. Note the DSi.