[QUOTE=Deino;2020671]

Dear “PLA-MKII” … I usually like Your post but to admit here You run into a dead-end-road !

China is surely not obligated to buy anything ! The contract was simply a co-development-agreement with Pakistan and included the probability to later acquire this type … but as explained by severals here why should the PLAAF introduce a short-legged new type, that requires a complete new line of maintanance as well as logistic, introduces a second new type of engine for a price not much below in comparison to the J-10 ??? There were surely plans, but they all fell apart with the delays and even more with the success of the J-10.

The PLAAF will simply take a larger quanity of the slightly larger aircraft, which is well know, highly praised within the PLAAF and more capable … so what ? And we sure it CAN “fully replace the hordes of J-7s or Q-5s” the PLAAF want to. Why should the FC-1 do that job better that the J-10 ?

The so often reported WS-13 will only we a possibility to be independent from the Russian veto, nothing more.

Sorry, but if this is a a matter of facts for You simply does not make these true facts !

Deino

Dear Deino,

It has been stated by Pakistani officials that the contract so stipulates at least the purchase of 400 aircraft, 150 for the PAF and 250 for China. No country would go into a joint venture without knowing that they can get to a minimum efficient number of aircraft sold.

Would you be privy, contradicting what has been officially stated, as to what the contract stipulates?

Secondly, why would you think that it opens a new logistic chain where there is no synergy? The J-31 will run on two engines of what the FC-1 will run on. Surely an excellent way to minimize your logistics footprint.

The existence of the J-10 does not per se contradict buying FC-1s. J-10s are not ideal for the CAS role, and would be a waste to replace Q-5s with this. I just think you could have done better than to paint my opinion as a dead end. Far better and more worthy of your respect would have been if you answered with valid points and evidences.

As much respect as I have for your posts, I do not know where you come from in terms of this black and white certainty of yours that China will not buy FC-1s. Not even hui tong goes so far (he only states there is less likelihood and focuses on the PLAAF, not that China would not buy).

I would like you to comment on:

1. What evidences you have, officially that you know that China will not buy FC-1s.

2. That the contract does not stipulate a purchase (would be a very strange joint venture, virtually all joint ventures stipulate a buy, see the Eurofighter, Jaguar, etc). Directly contradicting what we know from Pakistani officials.

In any case, we shall know soon enough. The WS-13 fitted FC-1 is flying already.

Iranian MiG-29s are quite well documented.

Fourteen originally delivered 9.12As are serving as we speak (#3-6106-#3-6118 and #3-6132)
So far four ex-Iraqi 9.12Bs were put back into service (#3-6103, #3-6104, #3-6105 and #3-6133)
Six 9.51 MiG-29UBs with serials ranging from #3-6301 to #3-6307 (#3-6304 has not been spotted thus far)

That means: 24 active Fulcrums in service confirmed.
If we account for all missing numbers (#3-6101, #3-6102, and #3-6304 as either stored or simply escaped attention, then we get he total number of 27.

Even if there were some whole series of unspotted Fulcrums having serials #3-6119-#3-6131, then the overall number of available MiG-29s would be exactly 40 – 33 single-seaters and 7 trainers.
These are the hard facts, everything else is fanboy BS

MSphere, can you clarify how you know that they are well documented? Iran does not allow its fighter aircraft to be photographed or people to go near their bases. What pictures are available are therefore highly restricted. Given how much money Iran spent in the last MiG-29 upgrade cost, surely there was more to it than was written.

Iran could easily have bought more MiG-29s from a host of former Soviet states, under the table. There is much more going on than is openly available. I am privy to knowing that for a while there was a MiG-29 (or in the plural) available to the Pakistanis. The point is, what we know is limited.

Very few knew about the J-10s entering into service when it actually did, we only learned about it a good deal afterwards. Point again is that what we know about how many and where is always less than what is classified or hard to access.

Logically speaking, the best way available for Iran to supplement its fighter force would be to, given barriers to direct acquisitions from a number of countries, to buy in the black market an aircraft that is already in their inventory. The MiG-29 fits this bill and fits the limited requirements that they have.

[QUOTE]

Can you provide an official Chinese source that confirms the Chinese have “signed a contract” for 250 FC01s?

Its very widely reported for a very long time, confirmed by many top PAF officials on the record. A simple google search would have saved you embarrassment.

China, Pakistan Agree To Produce New Fighter Jets -FT

　　05-09-05 04:33 PM EST
　　NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Pakistan and China have agreed to start joint production of a new fighter aircraft intended as a replacement for the aging French and Chinese aircraft used by Pakistan‘s Air Force, the Financial Times reports in an article on its Web site Monday, citing a senior Pakistani airforce officer.
　　The agreement, the newspaper says, comes only two months after the U.S. offered to sell F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan, reversing sanctions applied almost 15 years ago in protest at Islamabad‘s nuclear weapons program. The first four of the JF-17 “Thunder” aircraft would be delivered to Pakistan next year for trial flights, while the supply of a total of 150 aircraft would begin in 2007, said Air Vice Marshal Shahid Latif, director of the JF-17 project.

　　China‘s Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute is the architect of the JF-17 while its prototypes, first flown last year by Pakistani test pilots, were made by the Chengdu Aircraft Company based in Sichuan province, according to the FT.

　　”The (JF-17) project is not only of strategic importance to the air force but it has far-reaching implications both for the national defense and economic prosperity of Pakistan,” Air Vice Marshal Latif said in a rare press briefing, according to the FT. Pakistan and China were planning to produce at least 400 JF-17 fighters, with the balance of 250 of them on order for China‘s airforce. Pakistani air force officials said that, under the agreement between their two countries, half the fighters would be produced on an assembly line in China while the other half would be made in Pakistan.

　　A Pakistani government official said the JF-17 project was being pursued with a view to exporting the fighter to other countries once the aircraft has established a service record with Pakistan. “It‘s the first time China plans to export the JF-17 to another country and Pakistan‘s experience could help China with its future marketing efforts,” he said, according to the newspaper.

　　Dow Jones Newswires
　　05-09-05 1633ET
　　Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Or is this an “opinion” you were alluding to? There’s no mention of it in the link you provided. Why would a Russian engine be a critical point for something like the JF-17 when it hasn’t stopped the Chinese from operating the J-10 and J-11 with Russian engines and the JH-7A with British Rolls Royce Spey engines in the past? There’s nothing in your post but merely your opinion, heresay and fan boy wishful thinking.

Poor manners and poor intellect. There is little to discuss here. You’re going to my ignore list.

There is a UAV which is planned, armed ISR if I understand it, a stealthy global hawk type (B-2 type wing-body blend) that is being highly regarded by those on board. Apparently a NG project. Apparently its the reason for a reduction in a number of other programs and this program is considered to be very successful, may already be in classified deployment.

As I understand it, instead of large manned platforms (like say 777), a network centric view has been accepted with relatively smaller sized platforms.

On second thought I may be talking about a navy program…

hmmm… weight adds drag… did you mean mass adds drag?

Nice JF-17 pics Ken. I think the Chinese are waiting for the WS-13 engine to reach production, otherwise importing RD-93s don’t make the FC-1 worthwhile. In any case, the J-10/J-11 would be a better replacement for the F-8, while the JF-17 IMHO would be a better replacement for the F-7s and Q-5s.

Irrelevant to what?
The USAF was less than satisfied with the Starfighter and procured only 296 examples in single-seat and two-seat versions. At the time, USAF doctrine placed little importance on air superiority (the fighter-to-fighter mission), and the Starfighter was deemed inadequate for either the interceptor (meaning fighter-to-bomber) or tactical fighter-bomber role, lacking both payload capability and endurance compared to other USAF aircraft. Its U.S. service was quickly wound down after 1965. The last F-104As in regular USAF service were re-engined with more powerful and more reliable J79-GE-19 engines in 1967.
The last USAF Starfighters left active service in 1969. It continued in use with the Puerto Rico Air National Guard until 1975

OH my– over a decade before those expansive F-106 aeroplanes were retired.

As for your inept total ignorance, as you see, F-104 was created for the same reason the Six was created.

That European Air Forces were gullible enough to buy a pig-in-poke was their fault for falling for marvelous salesman hype.

The 104 was a nice looking airplane just lacking in too many ways.

OK Bunky now go play with your toys.

Maybe history is repeating itself with the salesmanship, europe and F-35…