JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[sancho]

However when you look at the cost the cost advantage of JF-17 is indeed over whelming being alot cheaper than that of the fighters that offer the same capabilities..

Is it? The $15 to 20 millions are for the Block 1, while Block 2 is more expensive and more comparable to Gripen C/D in terms of techs. Also, that was the price for PAF, a development partner which funded parts of it, while the price for an export customer will be higher.
J10A was reportedly offered to Myanmar at $41 millions each, Gripen C/Ds comes at a similar price tag.
I think it is safe to say that such a JF 17 Block 2 version should cost between $20 and 30 millions for export customers, which of course is still cheap for a 4th gen multi role fighter, but the price difference to comparable fighters isn't as big as many people might think.

Capabilitywise a Gripen C/D offers the more modern design and materials, latest European or US techs and weapons, 5t of payload with more hardpoints and with coming upgrades like AESA radar, upgraded RM12 engine, or Meteor missile, also the higher future potential.

So you get more, if you pay more for a Gripen and that's a kind of cost-effectiveness as well!

 

[abdulbarijan]

Is it? The $15 to 20 millions are for the Block 1, while Block 2 is more expensive and more comparable to Gripen C/D in terms of techs. Also, that was the price for PAF, a development partner which funded parts of it, while the price for an export customer will be higher.
J10A was reportedly offered to Myanmar at $41 millions each, Gripen C/Ds comes at a similar price tag.
I think it is safe to say that such a JF 17 Block 2 version should cost between $20 and 30 millions for export customers, which of course is still cheap for a 4th gen multi role fighter, but the price difference to comparable fighters isn't as big as many people might think.

Capabilitywise a Gripen C/D offers the more modern design and materials, latest European or US techs and weapons, 5t of payload with more hardpoints and with coming upgrades like AESA radar, upgraded RM12 engine, or Meteor missile, also the higher future potential.

So you get more, if you pay more for a Gripen and that's a kind of cost-effectiveness as well!

How come you know the price tag of the blk-2 at a point at which its not even unveiled much less available for export..
I know many people have attributed such costs to it but how can you say with such assurity.....

price tag difference still is about 10 million which means for every 3 Gripens C/D's u can have 4 JFT blk-II's (which according to yourself would be more comparable...p.s using ur cost estimates here)

And you forgot to mention the similar upgrades will come for JFT as well in later blocks by 2016....and before some one jumps to it will further increase the cost .... the same will be the case with Gripen NG..

unfortunately that "more" can also be sanctions....which I believe many countries wouldn't like...

 

[Tempest II]

... ... $41 millions each, Gripen C/Ds comes at a similar price tag... ...

Are you sure considering South Africa paid $54m/plane 12 years ago?

 

[sancho]

How come you know the price tag

I don't know it, just pointed out that the currently rumored price is not the price for Block 2 that export customers buys and that changes by far with regard to cost.

which according to yourself would be more comparable

Technically, not in terms of capability, for example both will have mid air refuelling capability, which neither JF 17 Block 1 nor older Gripens had and so on, but still Gripen will remain to be more capable.

And you forgot to mention the similar upgrades will come for JFT as well in later blocks by 2016....and before some one jumps to it will further increase the cost .... the same will be the case with Gripen NG..

Again, similar but not the same and that with a price tag that is not that much different of JF 17. That's why beeing the cheapest alone, doesn't mean it offers the best ratio of cost and capability, that's all I tried to point out!

Are you sure considering South Africa paid $54m/plane 12 years ago?

Hi Tempest, the the price obviously reduces by time, only the fly away cost will remain the same, which afaik for that version was around $23 millions. Gripen NG on the other hand is said to be around $45 million flyway with system costs reported between $70 and 90 millions, depending on procured numbers.
But that was only one example, J10A, F16 B52, Mig 29M all similar tech level and all at very low costs now, but with different capabilities and all would be possible competitors on the current export markets for low cost fighters.

 

[sancho]

Apart from that, can anybody tell me the length and diameter of the 800l fuel tank of JF 17 and what's the weight limit for the centerline hardpoint?

 

[DrSomnath999]

Are you sure considering South Africa paid $54m/plane 12 years ago?

well excuse me Mr Tempest can u tell me has zimbawe inducted JF17 ???

REGARDS

 

[MastanKhan]

Apart from that, can anybody tell me the length and diameter of the 800l fuel tank of JF 17 and what's the weight limit for the centerline hardpoint?

There should be no reason to give out that information unless listed by the manufacturer.

 

[MastanKhan]

[
cost advantage of JF-17 is indeed over whelming [/COLOR][/U]being alot cheaper than that of the fighters that offer the same capabilities..[/QUOTE]


Hi,

This cost effectiveness does not work with fighter aircraft persay----you can use this terminology---when comparing rifles---okay---G3 to and AK47.

But when it come to fighter aircraft---cost is a moot point----. There are major weapons systems and then there are your regular weapons system---. Major weapons systems are bought for a different purpose in mind----ie---force projection---to show off and strut around---like india does with its SU30's and u s does with its F15 what is it silent eagle---F22.

When you buy major weapons systems---keeping in mind the pak india scenario---india wants to pressurize pakistan to 'cow' down---whereas---pakistan does not even know the term what it means---.

JF17's cost scenario is good for those countries---who are going to face similiar kind of aircraft---in case of pakistan---it ties down pakistan's hands behind its back---.

The jf17 is made on the belief---it is ours----we made it---it is sanction proof---it is cheap---BUTwars are not won on this philosophy---untill and unless you have them in twice the number---ie twice as many in numbers as the enemy's and still have the production lines running----.

Pakistan will have to conjure up 35---45 sdrns of front line aircraft to make a dent in the IAF----which means---350--400 jf17's---150---200 F16's blk52 and MLU's and 150-200 J10B's.

With these many aircraft in opposition---iaf would be in no win situation----because even during war time---it will still have to keep almost 1/3rd to 1/2 of its air force closer towards the chinese border.

Untill and unless paf cannot match or exceed the iaf numbers it will have major issues----. Paf must have atleast 100---150 more aircraft to face the iaf---if it comes down tot hat---then india will seriously think of making peace with pakistan---. But if it can get about 100 eurofighters---that would also change the political scenario in the sub continent.

Pakistanis should never forget----you can only make india to come to the peace table if you can show off a better and bigger or more advanced aircraft than the SU30----india is not impressed what your little fighter' can do in actual combat---that comes later---and the results are up for grabs---. You have something to strut around in---that will get india's attention.

Remember---major weapons systems are for making peace and not for starting wars---.

 

[abdulbarijan]

I don't know it, just pointed out that the currently rumored price is not the price for Block 2 that export customers buys and that changes by far with regard to cost.

yup all of us know that too....but it comes down to this what exactly is the cost...which we all dont know for sure..

Technically, not in terms of capability, for example both will have mid air refuelling capability, which neither JF 17 Block 1 nor older Gripens had and so on, but still Gripen will remain to be more capable.

Dear sir, do you know all about the upgrades in the JF-17 BLK-II? I simply ask this because the time frame around 2004-2010
it was termed as what not..paper plane,poor man's viper,junk fighter and all most of which originated from IDF and BR..You being a mod on IDF should know first hand the famous sentence
"what will you get in a jet for 15m$? "
But then your comparing it with the Gripen...and no doubt there is a difference in capability...but then again the comparison itself suggests that JF-17 atleast offers some capabilities which make you go and compare with it....cuz the last time I checked there was no comparison of F-7P's and Gripens (not even on exports)...
So now I guess we will have to ask some of the critics if we can get something like the JF-17 which outperformed all the standards set for it in just 15-20 million a piece

"what capabilities will we get for 20-30 million dollars a plane"

Again, similar but not the same and that with a price tag that is not that much different of JF 17. That's why beeing the cheapest alone, doesn't mean it offers the best ratio of cost and capability, that's all I tried to point out!

you again forgot the factor cost in the cost to capability ratio....You simply looked at the capability factor here...You admit its the cheapest 4th gen jet available right...
so can you point out a single jet which offers this much in 15-20 million range ..(and yes talking about BLK-I here) .. I'd leave BLK-II to the future as when it comes only then we will know what it offers how much does it cost and such....

 

[Tempest II]

well excuse me Mr Tempest can u tell me has zimbawe inducted JF17 ???
REGARDS

I do not believe they have yet … … I believe (hope) they will soon.

 

[SQ8]

Remember---major weapons systems are for making peace and not for starting wars---.

Agreed to a certain extent..
But faced with a lack of funds as we are.. its next to impossible for us to showboat the latest weapons around in a bid for peace... ala RSAF.
In this case.. one can only ensure that adequate measures are made for war.
The question has NEVER been of not wanting this or that.
Its always been about the Benjamins.

 

[Last Hope]

Remember---major weapons systems are for making peace and not for starting wars---.

Major weapon systems like Nuclear warhead.
Pakistan developed it's nuclear development program to defend itself from Israel and India not to start off a war with anyone else.

The bigger the weapons, like nukes, you have, the less chances for a war breakout.

But this principal doesn't apply everywhere like a ACC. They are used to pressurize the enemy, to obey and not wage a war, more like signing a deal just cause you have a gun pointed at your head.

 

[Bratva]

yup all of us know that too....but it comes down to this what exactly is the cost...which we all dont know for sure..





Dear sir, do you know all about the upgrades in the JF-17 BLK-II? I simply ask this because the time frame around 2004-2010
it was termed as what not..paper plane,poor man's viper,junk fighter and all most of which originated from IDF and BR..You being a mod on IDF should know first hand the famous sentence
"what will you get in a jet for 15m$? "
But then your comparing it with the Gripen...and no doubt there is a difference in capability...but then again the comparison itself suggests that JF-17 atleast offers some capabilities which make you go and compare with it....cuz the last time I checked there was no comparison of F-7P's and Gripens (not even on exports)...
So now I guess we will have to ask some of the critics if we can get something like the JF-17 which outperformed all the standards set for it in just 15-20 million a piece

"what capabilities will we get for 20-30 million dollars a plane"





you again forgot the factor cost in the cost to capability ratio....You simply looked at the capability factor here...You admit its the cheapest 4th gen jet available right...
so can you point out a single jet which offers this much in 15-20 million range ..(and yes talking about BLK-I here) .. I'd leave BLK-II to the future as when it comes only then we will know what it offers how much does it cost and such....

you are making circular arguments again and again. Cost factor is only important for PAF. And cost effectiveness comes with a penalty. Quality of services provided in aircraft will be not up to par. Tell me, if french avionics were selected for JF-17 then would JF-17 would have remain cost effective? Block 2 will not have drastic upgrades so it will not make any great imapct when it will come.

 

[PakShaheen79]

Hi,

This cost effectiveness does not work with fighter aircraft persay----you can use this terminology---when comparing rifles---okay---G3 to and AK47.

But when it come to fighter aircraft---cost is a moot point----. There are major weapons systems and then there are your regular weapons system---. Major weapons systems are bought for a different purpose in mind----ie---force projection---to show off and strut around---like india does with its SU30's and u s does with its F15 what is it silent eagle---F22.

When you buy major weapons systems---keeping in mind the pak india scenario---india wants to pressurize pakistan to 'cow' down---whereas---pakistan does not even know the term what it means---.

JF17's cost scenario is good for those countries---who are going to face similiar kind of aircraft---in case of pakistan---it ties down pakistan's hands behind its back---.

The jf17 is made on the belief---it is ours----we made it---it is sanction proof---it is cheap---BUTwars are not won on this philosophy---untill and unless you have them in twice the number---ie twice as many in numbers as the enemy's and still have the production lines running----.

Pakistan will have to conjure up 35---45 sdrns of front line aircraft to make a dent in the IAF----which means---350--400 jf17's---150---200 F16's blk52 and MLU's and 150-200 J10B's.

With these many aircraft in opposition---iaf would be in no win situation----because even during war time---it will still have to keep almost 1/3rd to 1/2 of its air force closer towards the chinese border.

Untill and unless paf cannot match or exceed the iaf numbers it will have major issues----. Paf must have atleast 100---150 more aircraft to face the iaf---if it comes down tot hat---then india will seriously think of making peace with pakistan---. But if it can get about 100 eurofighters---that would also change the political scenario in the sub continent.

Pakistanis should never forget----you can only make india to come to the peace table if you can show off a better and bigger or more advanced aircraft than the SU30----india is not impressed what your little fighter' can do in actual combat---that comes later---and the results are up for grabs---. You have something to strut around in---that will get india's attention.

Remember---major weapons systems are for making peace and not for starting wars---.

Great post sir,

I agree 1000% that Pakistan needs some strong Force Projection capabilities in order to secure strategic interests without fighting a war. If we look around the world, every country is spending more and more on its AF in order to project power as this is the most agile and dynamic force any nation can have. Having said that, I think cost effectiveness is a first step in right direction as with economy like ours... If we wants to build numbers, (Which we MUST as you pointed out as well) we will have to look for cost effective solutions which Thunder is. For the top tier, even 6 squadron will be not enough. PAF will have to have atleast 10 squadron of F-16 and J-10Bs backed by force multiplier in order to get a chance against IAF in realistic scenario.

In this respect, Pakistan must follow the defense strategy of Israel according to which every war between Israel and its enemies will be fought outside Israel and this is the core philosophy behind building a modern AF by Israel. Peace can only be ensured through strength not weakness.

 

[aamerjamal]

i'm not expert but i dont know why indians trying to convey that jf-17 is nowhere near to gripen.

can any one explain me on what basis it beat thunder comprehensively ?

radar
payload
range
speed
maneuverability
multirole function
weapons

all factors are even nothing major it offers for double price
but dont campare block I with NG, block III is meant to face NG