Wings and layout for Military Transports are sized for field performance not for efficient cruise and climb like civil.

thus I don;t think it would be profitable for mass market. may be niche, not mass.

btw, Embraer will anounce a A320/737 competitor sometimes this year.

😉

No, the lower number is the same fuselage with a semi-active head.

SD-10 = PL-12’s export desination.
PL-11 = monopulse semi-active seeker MRAAM based on Aspide.

there is a active version of PL-11, but not in service.

Gripen is superior to both the JF-17 & Tejas but I differ from the way you are considering it. Any aircraft has to be considered or compared by separating two vital stati

1) constants
2) variables

Airframe or the structure of the aircraft is a constant and is likely to remain mostly the same for its entire life. Except for maybe few supports for strengthening the joints like wing-roots etc during life extension. Another constant is the aerodynamics of an aircraft.

Whereas almost everything else is a variable that can changed/replaced/upgraded.

I brought it up only because people always do an aircraft comparison only based on the avionics saying radar, datalinks, weapons etc of X aircraft is better than Y and hence X is better than Y…It may be true when considering the system as a whole…

In the case of JF-17, considering the above….it can be installed with all the avionics of the Gripen and make it equal in the variable(s) department. But it won’t be able to match the Gripen in the (constant) airframe department where Gripen is superior…. Unless the design is upgraded (new batch), in short a new design.

All three – JF-17, Tejas LCA & JAS-39 Gripen – belong to the same size class but capablility wise they can be categorized as low-medium-high, based on the constants.

In the case of Gripen & JF-17, I see a much greater success (read desirable) for the JF-17 because it would be cheaper to buy than the Gripen and provide most of the options that a costlier Gripen can provide.

basic airframe performance can be tweaked over life too,
engine upgrade for example,
it is not unheard of that in XX batches the wings structures are slightly redesigned or VT is replaced with different material to save XXX lbs or weight.

they went through a program where first JF-17 Flight test article has a substantial different intake and LERX than the final version.

takes effort yes but not extrodinarily heavy effort compare to what you have to go through with a radar /ew suite upgrade, which also meanst alot of flight test.

things is they have a good program, good team working on it that has lot of experience with it already and it is stable team.
that’s more important factor in determining success and failure of the program than anythingelse at this stage.

when considering the western stuffs its better to take note that it most likely will be with the small star with lots of conditions like we see in advertisements. So a detailed description of how the 8,000hrs is achieved or how it is counted (like, right from engine start etc) would be good. It would also be a good to know if the 8,000hrs is the max achievable airframe life with a mid-life upgrade.

very true,

an airframe that’s designed under an assumption of xx hourse with a certain distribution of gs during service life. with anther level of gs during life that may not hold true.

even the frequency of g’s matter.

I was mostly thinking of electronics and sensors here. Not radar or main weaponary. If the US is willing to sell I’m sure Israel or France would be happy to step in ad fill the void. But why not stick with the Rus. weapons?

Rus weapons are fine, except will russians sell their latest R-77 derivative with all of its ECMs ECCMs to an american ally, or the radar that guides that weapon, with all its modes and all that to an american ally, where their entire military force is still under joint command by the American Military!

Bollocs. The DPRK has no monney to pay with, thats why the Rus. don’t sell to them nowadays. They aren’t “ideological brothers” any more u know…

I am no russian experts but, looks to me,
Russian wants influence not money here, NK for them is another issue where they can leverage to exert influence in NE Asia.

The Indians could probbably do that for them. And they are all ready in the project, so no big risk for Sukhoi/Russia there..

But I agree with you. PAK-FA is not an realistic option in this tender. Prolly just a SO-KOR stunt to soften up LM on the ToT when buying F-35…
But the idea as souch is interesting.

with all due respect the problem in this scenario is not at Indian/Russian end, even if India has the capability to integrate a EW/Radar/Missile combo with out Russian support.
Do you think Americans will hand over a radar/AMRAAM combo to a Russian/Indian Consortium to integrate?
I thought so too.

SK buys russian stuff as a bribe to russia for not send toys to NK.

I imagine quite a few countries will show interest in the JF-17. If the up front costs are as low as advertised it could be a real bargain, a cheap multi-role aircraft with very credible performance. Not at all aware of what the thru life costs will be tho. And it’l be very attractive to those countries that find it politically inappropriate to get western planes.

JF-17/FC-1 is designed from ground up to have a pretty low life cycle cost and maintenance friendly.

and the truth is fuselage hour designed into western fighters assumes that all airframes fly to maximum life, in reality one can conserve much of the hours by flying and training on selected airframes and advanced trainers, only to use those hours in a major surge when required.

also key FC-1 is an all metal airframe that does not require very advanced metallurgy technology to produce. for example no big single piece titanium load bearing bulkheads etc. if one can make a Mig-21 airframe one shouldn’t have any glaring bottleneck making FC-1 airframes.

perfect for countries who can’t afford to invest in the full spectrum of manufacturing tech but still wants a indigenous production facility.

I think for Paf’s Karma production line, the final work share is for Paks to produce the fwd fuselage, wings and all empennages, including fuselage frames and wing spars, while CATIC (chengdu) supplies the rear fuselage and landing gear.

I assume Egypt is looking for the same thing after their good experience with K-8. all signs pointing to that they are about to sign on the dotted line.

oh do I sound like a CATIC salesman do I. 😀