Lets call this hypothetical fighter PFX.
A. Not exactly a replacement but an alternative to buying further F-16s from US. Induction of PFX to increase the number of medium weight fighters to a minimum of 110.
B. You're looking at 2 squadrons of PFX. More units can be ordered if required. R&D costs will be minimum due to the minimum alterations required to install EJ2x0. Composites are most probably planned for JF-17's future variants so no additional R&D costs there.
C. No.
D. Not exactly a different program as the only difference will be a different engine and alterations to the rear fuselage.
E. Continues as planned.
OK!?Lets get the facts out on the board.
Max thrust of RD 93 currently as per recent interview of project director of JFT is 19600 lbf.
Max thrust of EJ200 Series engines is 100kn (20000lbf).
So what we are looking at is an engine which has 400lbf more thrust, has significantly better MTBO but is 5 million more expensive if not more.
RD93MA is round the corner with fadec and better MTBO and the same thrust as EJ200 series. It may be a couple of million more expensive but with PAF having infrastructure available for over hauling RD93 series the infrastructure could be utilized to save a lot of costs.
If we agree to the facts mentioned above then lets move on to analysing our remit.
A. Designing an alternate to buying more 16s.
F16s come not only with increased range and payload but also with other hardware which is where we have huge problems countering/manufacturing. The Goodrich recce pod is a classical example. The fighter you are proposing to build will take too much time and for the money PAF will probably get its target of 110 fighters with a combination of new and MLUed platfor and the acquisition will be complete most likely by 2019-20.
So where we can improve JFT is by increasing at least 3 more hardpoint one for a POD on the chin inlet and 2 more on the wings. More composites might mean a bit more weight loss which might translate into ability to carry more fuel thereby increasing range in conjunction with a better performing engine. This is in my humble opinion achievable on the current airframe with a slightly better engine. Other alternative is to relocate the gun and use both chin inlets for hardpoints which will be a lot more fiddly. The last option is to think along the lines of CFT freeing up the 3 hardpoints. Or only one central tank plus 2 hardpoints. Combine that with a chin inlet and you have a pretty good fighter.
These are achievable points on the curent airframe with very little or few modifications.
Now if we lengthen or enlarge the airframe that will need retesting and moe money which we dont have. Just to give you an example the IFR probe installations and testing has taken at least 12_-15 months.
The other point to consider is that we are at the transition phase between generations. If you now waste another 3-5 years on researching and then another couple of years manufacturing the platform then you have lost the purpose of the platform.
The last thing I would say is that in order to develop a middle weight fighter you will have to rely on the Chinese as your developmental capabilities are infantile at best. Would they want to create competition for theJ10 in the market? They would much rather we bought 2xsq. J10s
So in my view it is possible to make incremental changes to JFT ala F16 to incrementally develop its capabilities in blocks depending on what capabilities are available at the time. Do we transform the JFT at some stage to a heavier fighter like the C&°D examples of 16s remains to be seen. The factors are the needs of PAF,fighter demands in the market and the finances available. We have suffered more from the last angle than most other factor. We have a very gòod airframe that not only suites our needs but is an aerodynamic wonder. The thing to do is increase its capabilities depending on resouces available at the time.
One of the problems with theFF35 has been that it has been tweeked tò bethe be all aand know all of all the fighters to such an extent that it is fast becoming a liability rather than an assett. We dont want to go down that route with what has worked beautifully for us.
The world of hypothesis is always good to keep the brain in gear but always remember the old adage" the enemy of good is better".
A