It's not exactly 1 generation behind if you think about it. In conventional aviation terms the JF-17 would be considered 4th generation not 3.5th generation, wouldn't it?
Therein lies the problem.
3rd generation certainly not, the JF's BVR attack capabilities rule that out. But 4th generation? The arguments against this are mainly to do with the airframe:
- 8.5g limit
- Primarily constructed from metal alloys
So many tend to classify it as 3.5, 3.9, etc.
In my own opinion it can be classed as 4th generation, but I cannot ignore the above arguments.
Its not so much the 8.5g part, that seems fine to me. No pilot can sustain 9g anyway (Dragonfly g-suit developed for Typhoon apparently gets around that, but nobody else has developed something similar as far as I know).
But the airframe weight still bugs me. It certainly isn't overweight, it has a thrust to weight ratio of 0.99, that's better than a Mirage 2000! But just compare JF's empty weight (6,411 kg) to other jets of the same size class:
- Gripen 5,700 kg
- LCA ~5,500 kg
- F-20 5,090 kg
The killer: Taiwan's IDF weighs 6,500 kg empty even though it has TWO engines.
On a side-note, if JF weighed the same as Gripen, its thrust to weight would go up to 1.08 with no new engine. Combined with a slightly more powerful WS-13, thrust/weight increases further.
As for the original (stupid, completely pointless) topic. JF-17 is ~3 tonnes lighter than J-10. Why doesn't Russia market the Su-27 only rather than Su-27 and Mig-29? Why doesn't USA market the F-15 only rather than F-15 and F-16?
We don't even know if J-10 will be exported to anyone except Pakistan. The only export version of J-10 is FC-20 and that is for Pakistan. Every other plane China exports has an export designation. F-7, F-8, FTC-2000, K-8, etc.
Don,t understand this logic of J10 & JF17 being different class of fighters.
That's because you're biased and don't know what you're talking about.
j10 is onlt different in being more modern ie 4th generation versis JF17 prehaps 3.5 generation. J-10 is 4.5 generation. In fact J-10 is closer to 4.5 generation than LCA mark one could ever hope to be.
J10 is a realtively cheap plane at only $30m each. and very attractive to poor developing countries...
No it's not cheap or attractive to poor countries, JF-17's price tag is ~12 million for PAF, maybe a little more for other countries. J-10 is much more expensive to buy, operate and upgrade than JF-17. That's why they are targeting developing nations to replace F-7, Mirage III and V, Mirage F1, etc. It' interesting that ~650-700 Mirage F1 were sold and Mirage F1 in air combat configuration is armed with 2 BVRAAM and 2 close combat missiles, just like JF-17.
No, J-10 is a medium MRCA and will assume the role of killing India's MMRCA and helping JF-17 with killing MKI in PAF.
Marketing of JF17 is Pakistan program and J10 is Chinese program. Two different countries targeting same market with is third world countries.
You're wrong on many points. Marketing of JF-17 is a joint program, a joint Sino-Pak marketing organisation has already been set up for FC-1.
But Pakistan need to work hard on avionics. I think JF17 might beat J10, when its avionic are fully develop in Kamra. Because Pak engineer has broader spectrum of working with all type of western and chinese avionics.
It doesn't matter what Pak engineers have experience with. All you need for developing technologies is engineers and money, China has much more of both.
Chinese engineer has to follow one directional path of Russian te3chnology. They have seen years of high tech embargo. Most of advance technology exposed to China through Pakistan.
Nope, most of the high tech stuff they see is through Israel and Russia. Israel for example showed them stuff like AESA radar AWACS systems, latest HOBS air to air missiles.
Example is F16 or will be Swed AWAC system or any other French anti air system. Chinese engineers would need to see those things for themselves, they can't just ask Pakistanis how the Europeans make them.
in their inventory
