HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore

[Last Samuri]

Auz.

I am sure the JF17 is a brilliant plane for PAF and its combat doctrine for next 30 years.

Its great it defeats the F16 as you say and obviously now you wont need more F16s in the future has they are sanctioned threatened anyway.

Good job on the thunder.

From my point of veiw there are some obvious weaknesses that could have made this even better

1. I would have built thunder with a fully unstable FCS because it dramatically increases agility with full quadruplex FBW system. ie gripen typhoon rafale and Tejas lca.

2. Far more compsites less RCS and improved strength. just like the planes above

3. Euro/western engines as the russian engines though powerful have less flyimg life and carry more maintenance .personally the rolls royce engines ej200 OR frances snemca would be brilliant .

4. Ability to use western weapons & not just chinease weapons.ie amraam mica and derby python etc.


i honestly believe a bigger western content of more variety will lead to more sales eventually for block 2 and 3.

All of this will add $10m per plane but it will gain credibility

 

[JayAtl]

You still did not get the point or did not read the analogy properly. The JJ-7s..and JJ-8s were inadequate for the role that the PLAAF wanted out of them. It was a compromise. Now that they have the aircraft they require for the role they originally defined.. why should they bother with adding another type when they already have what they need??



Because your focus is to push that the JF-17 was not bought by China and ipso facto its crap..

Now why was the F-20 not bought even when Chuck yeager himself loved it?
Do you know the reason?

If you recollect , you came in and quoted me replying to a guy, who was calling everyone retards for not going with his version of the aircraft being way superior... that was my focus when I asked ' How come the chinese do not use it themselves'.

next regarding F 20--- you don't seem to understand why your analogies don't make sense. It does not make a difference who loved the aircraft, the aircraft was never developed beyond a prototype. I had asked you a simple question- show me an aircraft that was sold by the host country ( not block versions), but was never inducted into the host countries air force. F 20 is not that example...

Yeah...same as you can give all the evidence and data to a cow-piss drinker, but he remains an illiterate under the influence of cow-piss he drank all his life as a devout hindu..

Auz, like I said to you , you make a whole lot self made up assumptions that have never been stated as the reasons by the chinese. and as I said , you can put lipstick on a pig but it still is a pig. This aircraft has been called a poor man's 3+ aircraft and that is why the chinese themselves have never inducted it.

 

[karan.1970]

The slight advantage of LCA on paper over JF-17 doesn't matter at all, both will eventually eat each other up on their home grounds as both are meant for better interception/defensive roles rather then offensive ones.

Case in point that no of posts has little correlation with the quality of posts.. You are absolutely right. A high probability is that these 2 planes may never even come face to face in any engagement

 

[PoKeMon]

@Oscar

Its easy to say JF-17 dont fit into chinese war doctrine but can you please tell why did china went onto build a fighter which she dont think will help their armed forces?

Now you will say export purpose. Ok, then please let me know which country develop a fighter only for export purpose with close to zero export history? Here history do matter since export potential of an aircraft by a new entry in export business is negligible due to lack of credentials. The pragmatic way is to design a fighter which suits your purpose first and if possible have export potential. The induction in ones air force is assurance one need to invest money in new platform. Its like saying India developing Tejas for export and will fill the numbers with Mig 29(doctrine and so so).

Case in point that no of posts has little correlation with the quality of posts.. You are absolutely right. A high probability is that these 2 planes may never even come face to face in any engagement

JF-17 will constitute 60% of total fighter pakistan will operate. With what you expect pakistanis to attack offensive? And what more than LCA Mk II you expect IAF would deem suitable for a fighter of JF stature.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

@Oscar

Its easy to say JF-17 dont fit into chinese war doctrine but can you please tell why did china went onto build a fighter which she dont think will help their armed forces?

Now you will say export purpose. Ok, then please let me know which country develop a fighter only for export purpose with close to zero export history? Here history do matter since export potential of an aircraft by a new entry in export business is negligible due to lack of credentials. The pragmatic way is to design a fighter which suits your purpose first and if possible have export potential. The induction in ones air force is assurance one need to invest money in new platform. Its like saying India developing Tejas for export and will fill the numbers with Mig 29(doctrine and so so).

Moreover China is still making MIG -21 and export them and then also use in their own AF.

 

[PoKeMon]

Moreover China is still making MIG -21 and export them and then also use in their own AF.

That dont count as chinese achievement. I will still bracket them with close to zero export history in aviation(ofcourse before JF-17).

 

[karan.1970]

@Oscar


JF-17 will constitute 60% of total fighter pakistan will operate. With what you expect pakistanis to attack offensive? And what more than LCA Mk II you expect IAF would deem suitable for a fighter of JF stature.

There is a saying in Haryana, that goes "Jaat mara tab jaaniye, jab chautha ho jaye"... Given the current speed of (30 planes in 4 years) JF 17 production with PAF, I dont see that 60% dream being realized anytime soon..

Also PAF doctrine is aggressive defence and PAF will mostly be used to try and deny air superiority to IAF over Pakistani skies in case of a war.. With selective sorties by late block F 16s (and J 10s if they come in by then) into Indian territories..

 

[PoKeMon]

There is a saying in Haryana, that goes "Jaat mara tab jaaniye, jab chautha ho jaye"... Given the current speed of (30 planes in 4 years) JF 17 production with PAF, I dont see that 60% dream being realized anytime soon..

Also PAF doctrine is aggressive defence and PAF will mostly be used to try and deny air superiority to IAF over Pakistani skies in case of a war.. With selective sorties by late block F 16s (and J 10s if they come in by then) into Indian territories..

You are good in posting satires, thoda samjha bhi karo.

 

[sancho]

The slight advantage of LCA on paper over JF-17 doesn't matter at all, both will eventually eat each other up on their home grounds as both are meant for better interception/defensive roles rather then offensive ones.

Actually that exactly speaks for the LCA, since it has advantages in air defence roles and most likely in operational costs, which makes it more useful as a cost-effective and easy to operate interceptor. The JF 17 however, is meant for more, because PAF don't have the variety of fighters that IAF has. JF17 needs to do SEAD, deep, heavy, or anti ship strikes too, so for the whole range of offensive missions and that although it's "just" a light class fighter.

well honestly speaking then Final specs will only be known truely after it gets FOC (this year end). There are many conflicts reports about its fuel capacity(some says 2450KG internal fuel while some says around 3000KG) and weapon load will be around 3500KG. Engine's wet thrust is confirmed to be 90KN for current version(89.6 kn actually). @janon @Abingdonboy @sancho may help you with more.

 

[Secur]

There is a saying in Haryana, that goes "Jaat mara tab jaaniye, jab chautha ho jaye"... Given the current speed of (30 planes in 4 years) JF 17 production with PAF, I dont see that 60% dream being realized anytime soon..

Counting those years from 2009 , when the contract was signed between PAC and CATIC for the production of 42 serial production aircraft , the number isn't thirty but fifty aircraft . The Kamra is gearing up for the Block 2 production whose first aircraft is slated to be rolled out by May , this year after completing the last JFT of the first block last month . Where was that figure from , anyways ?

Moreover China is still making MIG -21 and export them and then also use in their own AF.

Wrong . The Chinese produced the last of the J-7 for the Bangladesh Airforce and closed the production line ever since - not to mention that aircraft has a fairly impressive export history . The ones in the PLAAF are being replaced by other aircraft .

 

[Bullet500]

That helps, Ill bring it down to a lower level. Would you use 747s to fly 17 passengers from Dehli to Amritsar? If you would.. then Im talking to a child in these matters.. and children should not post in this thread and Ill ensure that for you.

I once boarded an IA 737 from Amritsar to Delhi with mo more than 30 passengers...beat that!

 

[Lil Mathew]

@Oscar

Its easy to say JF-17 dont fit into chinese war doctrine but can you please tell why did china went onto build a fighter which she dont think will help their armed forces?

Now you will say export purpose. Ok, then please let me know which country develop a fighter only for export purpose with close to zero export history? Here history do matter since export potential of an aircraft by a new entry in export business is negligible due to lack of credentials. The pragmatic way is to design a fighter which suits your purpose first and if possible have export potential. The induction in ones air force is assurance one need to invest money in new platform. Its like saying India developing Tejas for export and will fill the numbers with Mig 29(doctrine and so so).

Right question bro.. The first flight of China's j10 was in 1998.. Joint venture contract for jf17 signed in 1999..
Actual story is not that.. This is an old project dated back in 1980.. China started as an upgrading project of china's f7 or mig21 to f7m[later incorporated with a failed russian design(project 33-russia dropped this in 1992] called Sabre 2 with $500m.. They got a partner in 1986.. Grumann from Usa.. They done the avionics side of the aircraft.. But the joint venture failed and grumann left this project(tianmen square incident).. But China continued this as fighter china(FC-1) or Super 7.. In 1995 they actually fed up as it was obsolete to induct in their airforce and they lost plenty of money.. Then they got an idea to save atleast some money they invested.. Pakistan fell in their trap.. Contract signed in 1999.. Upto 2001 project was very slow all of a sudden prototype produced in 2002.. First flight in 2003.. That is within 500-700 dayz new air craft [Even a car designing will take more time.. Na? But reality is it was a project from 1980].. When Paf got the plane they understand the reality but no way but inducting..
Then Pac and China done their best to make it a 4th(ya 3++) gen fighter.. For $15m it is a gud fighter.. But the prob arises when they compare it with $26m lca..

 

[SQ8]

next regarding F 20--- you don't seem to understand why your analogies don't make sense. It does not make a difference who loved the aircraft, the aircraft was never developed beyond a prototype. I had asked you a simple question- show me an aircraft that was sold by the host country ( not block versions), but was never inducted into the host countries air force. F 20 is not that example....

Your simple question is idiotic. Because it forgets that aircraft are developed and purchased based on requirement. The F-5(in its fighter form) was never really operated in combat beyond one squadron in the United states... does that make one of the worlds most exported fighters a failure. Your whole focus is somehow prove by sheer dumb and rather pathetic approach that the JF-17 is a failure without having the intellectual honesty to even acknowledge HOW my logic fails on you.

 

[JayAtl]

Your simple question is idiotic. Because it forgets that aircraft are developed and purchased based on requirement. The F-5(in its fighter form) was never really operated in combat beyond one squadron in the United states... does that make one of the worlds most exported fighters a failure. Your whole focus is somehow prove by sheer dumb and rather pathetic approach that the JF-17 is a failure without having the intellectual honesty to even acknowledge HOW my logic fails on you.

What was my original question that made you come and start attacking me? " if the aircraft is so great, why do the chinese not use it" ...

you keep giving me examples of aircrafts that were inducted in the host country, if exported- or you give of those that were never exported and never inducted, as some sort of look it happens elsewhere. Those are incorrect examples...

show me an aircraft that was built by the host country, and that was exported, but never to be inducted into their own air force ( not block versions)

J-17 is not a failure, I was questioning Auz's overt calls of it being highly superior aircraft .

 

[karan.1970]

Counting those years from 2009 , when the contract was signed between PAC and CATIC for the production of 42 serial production aircraft , the number isn't thirty but fifty aircraft . The Kamra is gearing up for the Block 2 production whose first aircraft is slated to be rolled out by May , this year after completing the last JFT of the first block last month . Where was that figure from , anyways ?

In 2010 Feb PAF commissioned the 1st squadof JF 17. At that time there were 18 JF 17s in service .. From 2010 Feb to now is close to 4 years and its has taken that long to hit the 50 number (32 adds).. (Is the 3rd squad finally commissioned now? )