MountainWhich is what Black Archer said. A niche low cost fighter which does not offer the kind of capabilities that an AF which can afford better (like the PLAAF) would want.
I dont see the point here, JF-17 has always been touted as a low cost fighter to build up numbers. What is the point being made?
Mountainthat says a lot about what they think of the FC-1 doesn’t it? It should theoretically be cheaper to acquire and operate than the J-10 and since they developed it themselves, they could upgrade it as they see fit and they also have hundreds of obsolete fighters that need to be replaced..so a cost-effective 3rd gen fighter should ideally be bought in large numbers by the PLAAF..yet they don’t want it.
Not really. The US created the F-5 and this was not used as a frontline USAF type, but filled a niche. That is exactly what is happening here. China simply may not have the same requirements as Pakistan. It’s main focus is long range battle over the Tawain Straits.
MountainIt has been mentioned that the PAF is interested in the KC-135 at some point. Looking at what is available whilst the first KC-135R has been transferred to Davis Monthan that wouldn’t be my choice if I was the PAF as it is very high hour and intentionally retired because it is at the end of its useful service. A better choice would be some of the KC-135E stored at AMARG instead, a number if which are in Type 1000 storage for possible regeneration into service. Four KC-135E refurbished into R standard with F108 and brung up to Block 40.5 standard or if they wait a bit the latest Block 45 standard which is going to start to role into the USAF fleet this year.
Yup, agreed, they have the additional of advantge of being able to be purchased via EDA at limited or no cost (bar for the upgrades).
Getting T-50 is not detrimental to the JF-17 project in my opinion. I am sure software would allow the T-50 to replicate much of the JF-17/F-16 (and in the future) J-10 fleets. A double seater JF-17 may not do this, and as someone pointed out, China may not show interest in developing one.
MountainWhat you say is so true that Ar went first to a Fr platform upgraded with Fr electronics.
This is not the cold war anymore. Fr like the UK won’t bother to care that much after a colonial type of war raised by one or the other. And it’s all about deterrence.
I would not be so sure, the Falklands was a conflict that had little to do with the Cold War, France is politically/Militarily/Economically now very close to the UK. In fact a lot of new weapons are being developed jointly. The AAF may not have a problem with it, but surely once bitten twice shy!?
MountainYes, good point. Argentina would have learned from the Falklands War when France gave Britain info on defeating Exocet and halted deliveries. This makes a pure Chinese solution FC-1 as opposed to JF-17 a tempting prospect I guess. US/UK pressure will not be as big an issue. It will not give you the most capable plane on the market, but it means your pilots will not worry about having their radars and missiles compromised.
MountainWhen we look at what the Argentinean’s FAA need and what they would like and what they are looking to spend we end up with very limited options the fact that they entered into the F-1M deal I think shows they where looking for a stop gap airframe able to conduct interceptions and back in June the F-1M was a good option however when the Kfir Blk 60 deal was put on the table in November I think there eyes were opened to the possibility of a very good 4th gen multi-role BVR Western type that could give up to 30 years service so the options as I see them are
1) carry on with the F-1m deal and operate this type for the next 10-15 years then look for a new type cost 235 million dollars
2) go for 18 Kfir blk60’s with an option for 6 more in 5 years and operate a fleet of 24 aircraft for the next 30 years cost 650 million dollars
3) go for 20 JF-17’ blk2’s with an deal to build 40 more with a view to ending up with a all JF-17 fleet by 2025 cost of the first 20 aircraft 600-700 million dollars
as said I think it come down to what money is in the pot
I would go for F-1M or JF-17. Kfir at 650 million is not a stop gap. That will blow their budget for at least the next 10 years, on some very old airframes, at least the F-1M deal (at around a third of the cost) lets them focus on a new type later down the line. Is there a structural upgrade available for the Kfir?
MountainIndonesia has not always adopted this approach. It replaced its WW2-vintage US aircraft (operated in the face of active US hostility, up to CIA pilots flying bombing missions for anti-government forces) with modern Soviet-designed aircraft in the early 1960s, then lost support for its shiny new aircraft after Sukarno was overthrown in 1966, turning its expensively-acquired modern combat units into static displays.
One can see why such a history makes Indonesian generals think that it’s worth having multiple sources of supply.
Yes, that is my point Swerve, it is quite an inefficient and expensive approach, but does have the advantage of never being left high and dry if one supplier pulls the plug.
MountainYes I understand your analogy of being “reliant on one source”, but three different designs, all with different engines and radar systems … etc… What a logistical and maintanance nightmare for such small amount of aircraft!
Regards
Pioneer
Yup, exactly my point, but for some reason the Indonesian and Malaysian Air Forces have always seemed to adopt this approach.
MountainAgreed. I was merely trying to point out one of the many flaws in PLA-MKII’s claim, based on numbers alone, that the PAF would be behind only the air forces of USA, China, Russia & India in power.
Well PAF certainly is a very well respected air force and interacts with some of the very best out there, but it still has some critical areas that need work on. Funds are a major stumbling bloke
For a future force of JF-17/FC-20/F-16s, their most advanced trainer is the K-8. Although good for maybe basic and the lower end of advanced training, this does not provide the LIFT that they require to help train modern fighter pilots and take precious hours off the OCUs. The RAF are currently doing this very well with their Hawk Mk128 set up, which is already easing the burden of the Typhoon OCU and having pilots spend more time on cheaper Hawk hours.
Maybe a buy of T-50 or a JF-17 two seater LIFT variant can solve this.
In terms of ADGE, they have purchased large amounts of SPADA 2000, and linking these up with their TPS-77s and Eriieyes should give them a very decent network if they can get country wide coverage. They still require a very high altitude SAM, a glaring deficiency.
In terms of ISR and EW, they recently recieved 3 King Airs and have 3 Falcon 20s. I dont know what they have packaged in these, but consideirng the vast array of radars and SAMs to the east, I would say SEAD and EW maybe an area they need more investment in, MAR-1s are certainly a step in the right direction.
In terms of a high end training envoironment, and considering the state and size of their enemy, I would say this is vital. Although they are a regular at Anatolian Eagle and the odd Red Flag, they need their own set up. Perhaps something similar to RAF Sadeadam combined with Konya. Then maybe invite UAE Mirage 2000-9s, Chinese SU-30s and Iranian/Azeri MIG-29s for some DACT in order to keep the front line units familiar with what they face in combat ACM wise.
Again, they seem to have made a step in the right direction here with purchasing a ACMI range kit from Turkey.
Air to air refullers. 4 IL-78s are simply not enough, with more funds buying 4 more should not present a challenge, then maybe a few retired KC-135s for the F-16s, say 8 IL-78s and 4 KC-135s. That will give you say 6-7 in the air for any wartime emergency. Enough for quite a few strike packages of FC-20s and F-16s.
Networking, networking, networking! I’m not talking about creating a Linkedin page either! The array of Chinese V US/Euro systems means a highly integrated network centric force is vital. The Chinese AEW and Erieyes need to talk to every fighter and provide targeting info to P-3Cs, navy ships and SAMS.
I think the PAF are working on a unique system that enables all these systems to communicate via ground stations. If this is the case this would solve this particular issue.
Right, I need tea!
MountainIt would have only slightly larger numbers than the Saudi & Israeli air forces, of inferior aircraft, & larger numbers but of greatly inferior aircraft than several other air forces, e.g. the AdlA. It would compare unfavourably to the S. Korean air force (some F-35 in service of 40 ordered, 60 F-15K, ca 130 F-16 upgraded with RACR AESA radar & other new systems, & >100 FA-50 & combat-capable TA-50, plus any remaining KF-5).
If they get rid of the F-7/Mirage fleets it becomes a very decent force, but counting fighter types and numbers and comparing with other countries is not really a very accurate way of measuring a air arms power. If one looks at overall capability one needs to take into account factors like training, pace of high end exercises, pilot to plane ratio, weapons on the aircraft, ISR capability, AEW, EW, ADGES etc. As we all know, all of this gives each fighter plane you have much great punch.
To give you one example. A PAF F-16A in the 80s would have no air to air refueling capability, no AMRAAM, maybe only a pilot per plane, limited ground attack capability, no AEW support.
Now look at a PAF F-16 MLU, even taking into account the avionics upgrades we all know about, this plane has much greater value. The PAF probably has 2-3 pilots per plane by now. Many of these pilots are US trained and additionally have conducted exercises such as Red Flag, Anatolian Eagle and ATLC.
Link 16 and AEW support will give much better situational awareness. Structural upgrades have probably led to greater sortie availability. The release AMRAAM gives better A to A capability. They are capable of being refulled in the air (the PAF lacking a boom tanker at the moment).
As a result now, (even if you take away the avionics upgrades and improved radar) one PAF F-16A probably gives much bigger bang per buck then it did just 10 years ago.
Like wise I expect with their Block II Thunders compared to Block I, in 5 years from now, with more training, more available pilots, support, air to air refueling and new weapons being integrated, one Thunder will be much more use to the air force the is the case now.
MountainRafale should have enough thrust to use the ramp from the longest start point but this needs to be proved a good place to start would be RNSA Yeovilton or RAF Whittering which both have land based ramps from the Harrier days
So the days of any meaningful cross deck ops are a long way off, especially if the Rafales are to carry any meaningful load.
Personally I just dont see this happening.
MountainWhy is the F-16 MLU out due to politics? The USA has been happy to sell Argentina fairly capable aircraft since the Falklands war, e.g. the A-4AR.
Same reason US was happy to sell Chile Block 52s without HARM, AMRAAM or Link 16. Capability I guess, and in this case range.
As the 1982 conflict proved, A4s would be at the edge of their range going to the Falklands, so an upgraded A4 with AIM-9s is essentially a god point defence fighter.
You move up to MLU standard and you are in a different ball game (unless they defang them like Chile’s I guess).
China on the otherhand could give you a plane with MAR-1, SD-10 and C803 capability. If you want to really sabre rattle about the Falklands and increase your bargaining power at the negotiating table (and are handicapped by cost), then that would be the choice for me.
MountainCharles de Gaulle air wing
– 10 Rafale M
– 10 Super Etendards Modernisés
– 2 E-2C Hawkeye
– 2 Dolphin Helicopters
– 1 Alouette III Helicopters
– 2 Caracal C-SAR HelicoptersI would have thought the one carrier air wing would be top priority, so why not replace the ole Etendards altogether ?
Yes money, but i’d sooner have 10 less in AF
Think the Etendards will be replaced very soon, simply not enough airframes at the moment in the French Navy to deploy, as they have decided to stretch out delivery to keep the line open longer, I am assuming that when the Navy does get its full complement of planes (44?) then they can deploy 20 easily of the CDG without effecting maintanence and training too much.
MountainBy the time that upgrade was finished the FAA would have in its hands an airframe broadly equivalent to a F-16 MLU Tape 5/6, without much of an improvement (if any) over the original JF-17, wich had lost its main virtue, low cost.
That is a good point, but in terms of a cost/capability perspective, F-16 MLU would be out due to poltics, the Eurocanards out due to cost and politics (maybe the Gripen, but as someone pointed out, this has high UK/US content). So to get a decent air to air capability they could go down the SU-30/35 route or JF-17, which I think even with French kit still works out at around half the cost of a new Flanker (forgive me if my costings are not exact). 24-36 of these would give you a semi decent deterrent against anything the neighbours have at the moment (remember Chilean F-16s dont have AMRAAM).
MountainActually, that isn’t too far off what was originally considered for the FC-1/JF-17 during early development. Updated with current French avionics and weapons, could be a compelling package?
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bidders-line-up-for-fc-1-super-7-avionics-45307/
You integrated a good radar, a helmet mounted site and MICA onto a FC-1 and pilots are able to get within AMRAAM range, then that could give Typhoon pilots something to worry about for sure.
Sign In
