JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

[anathema]

Hi a question --

Price of J10 is reputedly between 40-45 million dollars whereas price of JF is between 17 million to 20 million dollars.
Both are single engined fighters, both powered by Russian engines ! One by RD series and one by AL.

So the question -- why is there so much of price difference between two A/C's that are similar ? I have been reading numerous posts in this thread and have come to the conclusion that avionics between two a/c's are pretty much similar. Both A/C's share same radar (KLJ 10) , same avionics (i guess - MAWS , Data Links , Jammers) , etc..pretty much the technology developed for J10 will be undoubtedly incorporated into JF.

Even if we take a couple of million for AL series of engine and couple of million of a/c frame construction (since J10 is bigger) -- It still doesnt add up ! So what exactly is making J10 expensive or JF cheaper ?

Am i missing something ? If this has been answered then kindly point me to the right direction.

Thanks.

 

[MZUBAIR]

Hi a question --

Price of J10 is reputedly between 40-45 million dollars whereas price of JF is between 17 million to 20 million dollars.
Both are single engined fighters, both powered by Russian engines ! One by RD series and one by AL.

So the question -- why is there so much of price difference between two A/C's that are similar ? I have been reading numerous posts in this thread and have come to the conclusion that avionics between two a/c's are pretty much similar. Both A/C's share same radar (KLJ 10) , same avionics (i guess - MAWS , Data Links , Jammers) , etc..pretty much the technology developed for J10 will be undoubtedly incorporated into JF.

Even if we take a couple of million for AL series of engine and couple of million of a/c frame construction (since J10 is bigger) -- It still doesnt add up ! So what exactly is making J10 expensive or JF cheaper ?

Am i missing something ? If this has been answered then kindly point me to the right direction.

Thanks.

JF-17 (single Engine) light weight AC's.
J-10 (single Engine) Medium weight AC's.
J-11 (Twine Engine) Heavy weight AC's.

Size would allow to encorporate more weapons suites, long range radar and more oppertunities to integrate technologies. So size + technology increase the cost.

---------- Post added at 05:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 AM ----------

Why is the runway length important are we planning to launch the JF17 thunder off a aircraft carrier how long is the runway on the carriers? just out of curiosity

I think motor way would be usefull for short take off's

 

[TaimiKhan]

Hi a question --

Price of J10 is reputedly between 40-45 million dollars whereas price of JF is between 17 million to 20 million dollars.
Both are single engined fighters, both powered by Russian engines ! One by RD series and one by AL.

So the question -- why is there so much of price difference between two A/C's that are similar ? I have been reading numerous posts in this thread and have come to the conclusion that avionics between two a/c's are pretty much similar. Both A/C's share same radar (KLJ 10) , same avionics (i guess - MAWS , Data Links , Jammers) , etc..pretty much the technology developed for J10 will be undoubtedly incorporated into JF.

Even if we take a couple of million for AL series of engine and couple of million of a/c frame construction (since J10 is bigger) -- It still doesnt add up ! So what exactly is making J10 expensive or JF cheaper ?

Am i missing something ? If this has been answered then kindly point me to the right direction.

Thanks.

Problem with J-10s price is that it is for now all speculative.

Chinese official price has not been given so far nor any export orders.

What we heard about the reason for late decision making on J-10s from PAF was that the Chinese were asking for something like 35-40Mln per aircraft, while Pakistan may be saying something like 25-30Mln for the aircraft.

So till a confirm official price tag is not heard, we can't say what the real price of J-10 platform would be and whats in its price which makes it more then J-10.

Reason for price hike would be the engine price, another may be more use of composites, larger airframe so more material used, more man hours used up etc etc.

But by looking at JF-17, the price of J-10s should not be more then 30Mln, but 35-40Mln the Chinese may be asking to compete with the platforms which it rivals which are in the same or higher category.

 

[Kompromat]

BB, I couldn't find any J-10 picture with wingtip missiles. Does it really have wingtip missiles?

This is what i see in every picture...

Google Image Result for http://www.irandefence.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=561&stc=1&d=1154787466

Because you were Finding J-10A- wingtip missile station has been added in J10B.

Now lets get back to JFT shall we

 

[Tempest II]

Hi, a small correction.... as per my observation take off was 100 meters shorter than what you indicated.
Corrections are welcome

I would agree with you BATMAN and my believe is it was shorter than the 850m I posted. I however wanted to give room for error and erred on the consevative side. I thuought ir was safer that way.

 

[Tempest II]

The second plane seems to have used up even less runway but cannot be conformed from this video.
Note: watch the video in full screen mode to see things clearly.

I do believe the second JF-17 had a shorter run than the second. I suspected it could also be the reason it produced more smoke = high throttle/power setting.

I will watch the video again over the weekend more critically.

That video is just great and the whole Farnborough visit has just given us a lot of info. We just need to take time and patientlu sift through it to refine the facts.

 

[anathema]

JF-17 (single Engine) light weight AC's.
J-10 (single Engine) Medium weight AC's.
J-11 (Twine Engine) Heavy weight AC's.

It doesnt matter what type of A/C is ? Nowadays Price is determined by what the A/C is carries inside !

Size would allow to encorporate more weapons suites, long range radar and more oppertunities to integrate technologies. So size + technology increase the cost.

Precisely --

i was wondering what those additional technologies are ? J 10 is reputed to be a good competitor to latest F16-- so what is present in J10 , and what is not present in JF ?

 

[anathema]

Problem with J-10s price is that it is for now all speculative.

Chinese official price has not been given so far nor any export orders.

What we heard about the reason for late decision making on J-10s from PAF was that the Chinese were asking for something like 35-40Mln per aircraft, while Pakistan may be saying something like 25-30Mln for the aircraft.

So till a confirm official price tag is not heard, we can't say what the real price of J-10 platform would be and whats in its price which makes it more then J-10.

Reason for price hike would be the engine price, another may be more use of composites, larger airframe so more material used, more man hours used up etc etc.

But by looking at JF-17, the price of J-10s should not be more then 30Mln, but 35-40Mln the Chinese may be asking to compete with the platforms which it rivals which are in the same or higher category.

True Taimi-- i was speculating based on what is present in Internet-- which is in the range of 35-40 million a pop.

Bigger engine -- and bigger airframe alone will not warrant such a increase in price -- With regards to Man power -- that also IMO will not be an issue , since the Chinese manpower cost itself is the lowest in the world -- so it shouldnt deviate much (maybe a million or two) compared to JF...

I suspect avionics which is J10 is privy to ..and is not present in JF-- i was wondering what that might be ?

 

[aliyusuf]

Price of the J-10 would be speculation at best at the moment. But price of a plane is not just the cost of goodies put in it plus then some. It is also about how costly the R&D process had been over the years and the cost of the manufacturing set up. Depending on the planned number of units to be built, a suitable value on the unit cost is set after earmarking a target period for ROI.

The reason for JFTs much lower price is partly due to much of the R&D already had been done in many of the technologies and components during the J-10 development process.

Regards

 

[khurasaan1]

Why is the runway length important are we planning to launch the JF17 thunder off a aircraft carrier how long is the runway on the carriers? just out of curiosity

normal runway on the aircraft carrier is 300 ft rather than on the airports which is more than 1000ft for the fighter jets..u can see as below:

Taking Off and Landing on an Aircraft Carrier
Written by Jeff Moring
The aircraft carrier is the centerpiece of the United States Navy because of its ability to transport aircraft all over the world. The main component of these ships is their ability to launch and land jets in such a small space. But with so much chaos in such a small area, engineers have had to design simple yet effective devices to help manage the process. The catapult system is used for taking off, while the Fresnel lens and arresting wires are used to help the pilot land. These systems have been in place for several decades, and even though technology will improve drastically within the next 20 years, the future systems will continue to be based on these initial designs.
The Floating Airport
USS Nimitz (CVN 68)

USS Nimitz (CVN 68)
Photo by U.S. Navy

Aircraft carriers have been the centerpiece of the United States Navy since World War II despite the fact that their most basic and important function, launching and landing fighter jets on a ship in the middle of the ocean, proves to be a very difficult task. Due to the extremely limited runway space on the decks of these mobile machines, engineers have been forced to develop powerful systems to accelerate and decelerate aircraft in a very short period of time.
Ship Basics

The Navy currently uses Nimitz class aircraft carriers, which are typically 1,094 feet in length and have deck space of approximately 4.5 acres, the size of four football fields. Below deck the ships hold up to 80 aircraft, 6,250 people, 2 nuclear reactors, and all the supplies needed for tours that can last several months (Burgess, Naval Aviation Guide 162).

In order for the aircraft carrier to act as a true traveling airport, the pilots and crew rely on three key elements to launch and land aircraft safely. First, four catapults are specially developed to launch planes at high speeds. Second, a lighting system known as the Fresnel lens, or the "meatball" system, lets a pilot know if the plane has the correct altitude and position when approaching to land. Third, four arresting cables are in place to bring the plane to rest in less than 320 feet ("The Aircraft Carrier").
Launching From A Catapult

Aircraft typically require long runways in order to gather enough speed so they can successfully take off. Since the runway length on an aircraft carrier is only about 300 feet ("The Aircraft Carrier"), compared to the 2,300 feet needed for normal aircraft to take off from a runway ("T-38 Talon"), engineers have created steam-powered catapults on the decks of carriers that are capable of launching aircrafts from 0 to 150 knots (170 miles per hour) in just 2 seconds (Kaufman 55). The takeoff system can be broken down into two components - the above ground and below ground operations.
Blast Deflector

Blast Deflector
Photo by U.S. Navy
Above Ground

Above deck, the crew hooks the aircraft's front wheel, or nose gear, to the catapult using a tow bar. The tow bar hangs off the front of the nose gear so the catapult can pull the aircraft (Burgess, Naval Aviation Guide 174). In order to prevent harmful jet discharge from going into unwanted places, a jet-blast deflector is placed directly behind the aircraft, pushing the discharge up into the air. The pilot then pushes the engine to full throttle, creating a forward thrust that would traditionally move a jet forward (Kaufman 54-56). A holdback bar is in place to prevent any motion at this time, despite the thrust of the jet.

Once the force from the catapult is added to the thrust of the jet, the excess force will cause the hold-back bar to release and the jet will move (Burgess, Naval Aviation Guide 174). This is because the hold-back bar can only hold the force from the jet at full thrust, but not the additional force of the catapult.

Source:
illumin : article : Taking Off and Landing on an Aircraft Carrier

 

[khurasaan1]

 

[hataf]

look closely

 

[mjnaushad]

Because you were Finding J-10A- wingtip missile station has been added in J10B.

Now lets get back to JFT shall we

Is it the same targetting pod which was displayed with JFT in farnbrough

 

[TaimiKhan]

Is it the same targetting pod which was displayed with JFT in farnbrough

This is an animated picture, but yeah the pods are somewhat similar in shape.

 

[TaimiKhan]

True Taimi-- i was speculating based on what is present in Internet-- which is in the range of 35-40 million a pop.

Bigger engine -- and bigger airframe alone will not warrant such a increase in price -- With regards to Man power -- that also IMO will not be an issue , since the Chinese manpower cost itself is the lowest in the world -- so it shouldnt deviate much (maybe a million or two) compared to JF...

I suspect avionics which is J10 is privy to ..and is not present in JF-- i was wondering what that might be ?

See problem is with a bigger engine the cost of spare engines and spare parts of the engines alone go up. Atleast 4-5 Million would be added in costs in the engine deptt alone, 2.5Mln is RD-93 while AL series is somewhere at 5 Mln or above, thus its spare and the spare engines will itself add in the cost. Its not just bigger airframe, rather the quality of material used, J-10s are supposed to be having more composites thus higher cost for the material in the airframe.

And the 40Mln per piece price is being quoted of the variant which PAF is going to buy, which would be much upgraded compared to the current variants, it will be having IRST, AESA radar, more composite structure, internal jammers etc etc, so by looking at these new stuff being incorporated, the price would definitely be high.

And as for JF-17 avionics & current J-10 avionics, except for radar not much difference, rather JF-17s avionics came later compared to J-10s, thus JF-17s avionics suit must be upgraded one compared to the ones being installed on the earlier variants of J-10s, taking a single example of JF-17s having optical missile approach warning system in the tail section and at other places, which was lacking in earlier J-10 variants, but we saw this upgrade in the DSI J-10B variant.

As said, i see the J-10s price to be somewhere at 30-35Mln for PAF, shouldn't be more, plus in the total contract no one knows what are the things which have been included and what not, are weapons included, how many extra engines, how many spare radars and other spare parts, the per aircraft price may be 30Mln, but by adding spare engine costs, spare parts cost and limited weapons costs, the price may go up, to about 35-40Mln. So in reality the price per plane is less but other goodies make it high.