The KAI FA-50 is JF-17's true competitor (and threat)

[yugocrosrb95]

The engine is similar between T 50 with FA 50. T 50 is a supersonic jet trainer with after burning. Indonesia has a plan to upgrade its T 50, but I dont know whether we want to make our T/A-50 into FA 50 or make our T 50 (trainer) into T/A version.

Indonesia currently has 8 T/A version which is a light attack version, the FA version is more advance in the avionics, thus can carry better weapons. The rest that we have are T 50 version ( jet trainer)

You'r army should upgrade the T-50 rather than TA-50, you will have more armed jet fighters thus TA-50's could fly along more capable FA-50.

 

[Jungibaaz]

who cares about FA-50 but well even if we forget DSI what is interesting is that article for the first time clearli states that ELM-2032 has a tracking range 150Km for a 5m2 RCS target (alleged RCS of JF-17 loaded with 4 AtA missiles and a external feul tank) and since we also have the same on Tejas hence prooved tejas too has the same tracking range which busts pakistani fanboys claim that tejas has a tracking range of 80 km while there JF-17 has a range of 130Km for 5m2 target meaning a tejas can shoot and scoot on a PAF fighter even before it is able to launch its missiles against tejas

There's a lot that is wrong with this statement, and your numbers.
As if every engagement between the Tejas and JF-17, in our theatre will be in a sandbox scenario, with no mission specifications, no support, ground based or air, as if the JF-17 will be flying in from the Afghan border, and the Tejas in from a few hundred km in India. This is an absurd comparison.

Also, try your 'shoot and scoot' at 150km, see if the JF-17 pilot doesn't die of laughter with you attempting to engage at that range. Also, one of these aircraft is still yet to be inducted properly, or to be realised well enough by its own airforce.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Again not again its a trolling and flaming thread, mod please close this thread

 

[SQ8]

This is not my article. I wouldn't make such comical claims.

The claims have validity as it frets the JF-17 team. The F/A-50 is a superior competitor in markets where money and diplomacy is not an issue. But the JF-17 edge is in markets where either the host country is poor as heck or has diplomatic concerns with aircraft like the F/A-50.

 

[tarrar]

Well I don't know why JF17 is continued to be compared with LCA. LCA are not even off the ground & have been under development for a very long time now. Where as JF17 is fully functional & apart from that, the aircraft is continuing to get upgrades. So there is no comparison between JF17 & LCA. The first thing LCA needs to do is get off the ground.

 

[Quwa]

Folks, if you think the FA-50 isn't up to par against the JF-17, then you're all free to actually refute the specific points made in the article in the first post. Is the FA-50 using a Honeywell engine? No, it's using F404 and is being planned for EJ200; it's using a fighter grade radar capable of BVR plus an Israeli EW kit with DRFM; even its payload is close to that of the JF-17.

Iraq bought the FA-50, I'm sure they'll buy the single seat F-50 when available. Heck, the Gulf countries would probably look at FA-50 and forget about JF-17 entirely.

These are important points to consider. The availability of the FA-50 closes the door to some markets, but it reminds us of others. PAF should double down on the non-Western benefit of JF-17 and seriously work on ensuring that Block-III (or IV) raises the threshold. In other words, affordability shouldn't carry the idea of being compromised. JF-17's future blocks should emphasize composites, good cockpit visibility, relatively good range and payload, and relatively top tier electronics and weapons.

 

[GURU DUTT]

There's a lot that is wrong with this statement, and your numbers.
As if every engagement between the Tejas and JF-17, in our theatre will be in a sandbox scenario, with no mission specifications, no support, ground based or air, as if the JF-17 will be flying in from the Afghan border, and the Tejas in from a few hundred km in India. This is an absurd comparison.

Also, try your 'shoot and scoot' at 150km, see if the JF-17 pilot doesn't die of laughter with you attempting to engage at that range. Also, one of these aircraft is still yet to be inducted properly, or to be realised well enough by its own airforce.

well im not a pilot or a technikal person but whatever i know is that all pakistani airspace is well with tracking range of indian multi band and multi layerreed AESA/PESA based ground radars deep inside indian territorry + are complemented by Aerostat and AWACS platforms+ the sat cover and we can trck down even which plane has just taken off from your bases all the way upto hindukush ranges + what kind of load /wepons they are carrying and we will immideatlli scramble owr jets to engage them but thats just one part

its not LCA Vs JF-17 so lets keep it that way but its not just that JF-17 cas a radar LCA also has one with internal EW suits and all things like chaffs & flairs & High off bore sight HDMS + the fact we dont have to go very far as we already have that kind of infra(more than a dozen air bases along/near indo pak border with adequate multi layerred SAM protection) + the fact a phalcon AWACS flying over say amritsar can easly guide a couple of squads of LCA to there immenent threats if you know what im talking about rest speculate yourself

 

[Arsalan]

ya you are right that as declared enemies we both have curiosity about each others wepons system but you see we all are muhib e watans of owr nations hence there are some unavoidable fire works hope you dont find my posts too offensive for your taste i try to be as respectfull and civil as i could be and never make fun or abuse other persons nation , relegon and gods or parents but get agitated when someone does it and try to register my sincear objections for which certain TTs and there side kicks gang up and report unesasarrlly and give me -ve rating when they are not even require i think you know what im talking about .... cheers mate

I have reviewed all your negative ratings before, not a single one is given without merit sir. In fact, i feel you have been luck that the count is so low as it could have been quite high, there are many ratings that have been reversed when you promise you wont do such things again but we always come a full circle to same old violations. If you want to avoid negative ratings, you will need to know the forum rules, try to follow them and improve the material of your posts.
this is just a suggestion and you can easily chose to ignore this, i wont have any complaints

 

[A2Z]

Though it has the potential to capture some market but I don't see that happening. Firstly because of the price tag, JF-17 main charm is its price tag and with all the things that thunder offers the price of FA-50 would become way too much for African and other medium income countries. Secondly the countries that can afford can go for it but then it would be a direct competitor to F-16 and everyone knows USA wont let that happen, prime example of this is IAI Lavi everyone knows what happened despite Lavi's huge potential.

 

[Quwa]

Though it has the potential to capture some market but I don't see that happening. Firstly because of the price tag, JF-17 main charm is its price tag and with all the things that thunder offers the price of FA-50 would become way too much for African and other medium income countries. Secondly the countries that can afford can go for it but then it would be a direct competitor to F-16 and everyone knows USA wont let that happen, prime example of this is IAI Lavi everyone knows what happened despite Lavi's huge potential.

Lockheed Martin has been marketing the FA-50 as a replacement for F-5, MiG-21, etc. At $35mn you're gettinga good set of capabilities, and if you're in a position where you can't afford $85mn for a new F-16, Lockheed Martin will push this to keep you away from JF-17.

 

[yugocrosrb95]

Lockheed Martin has been marketing the FA-50 as a replacement for F-5, MiG-21, etc. At $35mn you're gettinga good set of capabilities, and if you're in a position where you can't afford $85mn for a new F-16, Lockheed Martin will push this to keep you away from JF-17.

FA-50 is 30M$ not 35M$, it would be 35M$ with training included and FA-50 for what it offers for such price is simply a bang for a buck though it is a two seater and you need two people to fully operational capability it if I remember correctly.

I wonder if single seater of FA-50 the F-50 will ever be made/produced in near future...

My country is going to buying new jets, still on freaking old MIG 21's BIS...

I wish my country could afford JAS 39 Gripen C/D which is capable of launching cutting edge Meteor air to air missile...

 

[Drebin]

Folks, if you think the FA-50 isn't up to par against the JF-17, then you're all free to actually refute the specific points made in the article in the first post. Is the FA-50 using a Honeywell engine? No, it's using F404 and is being planned for EJ200; it's using a fighter grade radar capable of BVR plus an Israeli EW kit with DRFM; even its payload is close to that of the JF-17.

Iraq bought the FA-50, I'm sure they'll buy the single seat F-50 when available. Heck, the Gulf countries would probably look at FA-50 and forget about JF-17 entirely.

These are important points to consider. The availability of the FA-50 closes the door to some markets, but it reminds us of others. PAF should double down on the non-Western benefit of JF-17 and seriously work on ensuring that Block-III (or IV) raises the threshold. In other words, affordability shouldn't carry the idea of being compromised. JF-17's future blocks should emphasize composites, good cockpit visibility, relatively good range and payload, and relatively top tier electronics and weapons.

Hello,

Been following your posts, articles and discussions on not just PDF but, also on your website "QUWA" which offers a very fine insight and, a knowledgeable view of various defense related topics. This requires an enormous effort and dedication which in my view is a very respectable trait. So keep up the good work sir and, godspeed.

On topic; I agree with certain parts and understand your PoV but, disagree with others. I think you've totally discounted or underestimated the price, overall weapons package, logistics vis-a-vis spares and maintenance that come from countries other than South Korea and their deniability,operating cost, modularity and future growth potential which is cost effective.

Allow me to elaborate on point to point basis. I probably won't be as coherent as you but, hope you'll bear with me and ignore any mistakes I make in comprehension.

PRICE
As I understand, the flyaway cost of F/A-50 and JF-17 Block-II are $35 Million and $25 Million respectively. That's the difference of $10 Million which by no means is a small amount considering the target market for both these jets. Now if we compare the performance of both the birds then, via your own account, they're very much comparable with one another. EXCEPT, Thunder edges out because of integrated IFR giving it far more loiter time then the Golden Eagle and, that fact is undisputed.

I'll agree that not all air forces have refueling tankers but, for those that either have one or can afford one, it's a clear winner. And when it comes to refueling tankers, there are lot's of neat as well as modular options available these days. One among many is CN-235/C-295 on which you did an excellent article recently. If an Air Force already has one or gets one, it becomes a massive force multiplier which not only serves as an aerial tanker but, also as a tactical lift. Can be modified as an aerial gunship or can later be acquired -or modified, I'm not sure- as an AWE&C or J-STAR like platform.

Although, JF-17 Block-II specs haven't officially been revealed yet by PAC but, we do know that it's in full production and, going by various PAF officials' interviews, it has a better load carrying capability of 500kgs. Since Block-I already had F/A-50 beat albeit with marginal or meager difference,the addition of 500kgs swings the pendulum in Jf-17's favour. Than, it houses KLJ-7 V2 which reportedly has a tracking range of 110km for 3m2 RCS compared to EL/M-2032 whose tracking range for the same RCS is frankly unknown. So, if it's the same as KLJ-7 V2 than, no comparison there. If not, than it's another point for JF-17. Also, there are considerations for adding another hard point on lower lateral starboard side air intake for the targeting pod. I reckon it might be for the future Block-III configuration but, reason I included the point in this discussion is because it really isn't far fetched that, this hardpoint will find it's way in the Block-II since it has an additional 500kg load carrying capability. Thus, freeing up underwing hardpoint(s) for useful load and making Block-II even more lethal at fraction of a cost. And, this will give Block-II 8 hardpoints instead of 7 which is again a feather up it's cape.

WEAPONS:-
JF-17 Block-II simply takes the cake in weapons department. All one has to really do is look at the assortment of weapons currently integrated on it.

In AoA, F/A-50 as of now has no BVR solution. Yes, in future, AMRAAM or Israeli BVR indeed is an option. But, JF-17 is rocking PL-12/SD-10 right now. And talking about future, HOBS is coming in Block-III. But let's not stop there. Talking about future, it'd be a grave injustice if we didn't mention PL-15. I'm sure sir you do not need an introduction to what that missile is but, let me ask what 5th Gen options are for F/A-50?

Now I know that not all future customers of JF-17 will get access to 5th Gen weaponry out of the box as there's a lot of politics involved. But, certain other players like rich GCC countries via Pakistan might just get that. And, of course, it goes without saying that Pakistan WILL get it. It will only elevate the prospects and reputation of JF-17 not just above F/A-50 but, also any other competition.

Anyway, enough about the future, let's talk about the present. And presently, Thunder 1ups the Golden Eagle again in A2G capability. Whatever F/A-50 boasts, Thunder boasts the same and more including anti-radiation missiles to stand-off munition that you talked about in your article. You said that in future F/A-50 could deploy ALCMs which could serve as A2G as well as AShM stand-off munitions. But sir, you probably didn't consider the price hike that such munitions will trigger for their integration and deployment. As it stands right now, on average an ALCM costs equal or above $1 Million for 200 to 300 kilometer range. If more range is desired then cost itself becomes an inhibiting factor. A good example is a recent purchase by Spain of 43 Taurus KEPD 350 ALCMs which cost them a whooping $80 Million. Now please consider incorporating the same tech on F/A-50 for its targeted market and monumental cost hike. . . Not a good way of going around doing business now, is it?

Lastly, for anti-ship role, F/A-50 has zero capability, role or whatever. Thus, no need to elaborate this point as JF-17 has the clear advantage.

LOGISTICS & MAINTENANCE:-
Steady supply of spares and services for maintenance and serviceability to overhauls is the heart of any air fleet. Cut that line and any force, air, land or sea will die it's own death. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that, that line must be kept open for the sustenance, high morale and capability of an Air Force to carry out its day to day operations unhindered and maintain the critical defense of the country.

That said, in order for F/A-50 to become a compelling offering, it needs reliable foreign partners which unfortunately it does not has. United States just yesterday denied permission to South Korea for sell of 12 such jets to Uzbekistan. Again, considering the countries that have either shown interest in fighter/attack type or the market that S.K wants to target with F/A, it is more likely that permission will be denied again as it'll be conflict of interest for U.S.

And it's not just about United States either as European countries might try to block the sales or allow a half-assed version to be sold. Please do remember what Kfir configuration did Israel offer Argentina and why. And also the diplomatic messaging and posturing that U.K made when Argentina was considering FC-1.

Point that I'm trying make is that, sell of Fighter/Attack class jets involves A LOT of politics and dodging and diplomatic maneuvering. No wonder the first export customer of JF-17 is being kept secret.

It might seem like a doom and gloom from the picture that I've painted but, the astounding thing is that in spite of all that, F/A-50 already is an export success. It has an active operational squadron in Korean Airforce and is slated to replace all the older F-5s. That means, it's no could ultimately balloon to 60-100 aircrafts. On top of that, Iraq and Philippines have already confirmed orders for 24 and 12 aircrafts respectively.

But, point to note is that, both the countries share their national interests with the United States in one way or another. And the countries which will get the F/A-50 in future will be only those which like Iraq and Philippines share United State's interests or designs in the region. Period.

You may say that JF-17 is no different as it imports RD-93 from Russia but, you know that a lot of development is being done on that front as there are ongoing negotiations for setting up maintenance and overhaul facilities for RD-93 locally. And then, there's China which is not only developing a local solution in form of WS-10 but, is also a guaranter and middle man for RD-93 imports from Russia in much the same way as it was for Pakistan before normalization and convergence of national interests of both the countries, i.e., Pakistan and Russia. Not only that but, the geo-strategic shift in international relations have brought ever more convergence of interests and interdependence of not just Pakistan, China and Russia but also Central Asia to Middle East and Africa. One great example is recent Russian offering of gas pipeline stretching from Russia to Turkmenistan and running parallel to TAPI and ending in Gwadar. LNG import from Russia is another great example of growing Pak-Russo relations. Whether any of this is possible or will come to fruition is another debate but, it was necessary to point out these things in the context of political influence and leverage in defence equipment sell.

I'm sorry for dragging on but, one more quick point about maintenance as I've just been occupied with logistics and other things.

JF-17 was designed from ground up for plug and play easy maintenance in mind which can be done by minimum ground crew (2 to 3 I believe). Although I'm not privy to F/A-50's design philosophy and therefore, I can't educatedly talk about whether it'd as easy as JF-17. But I had to guess then, I'd say JF-17.

GROWTH POTENTIAL & COST:-
It'd be plain foolish to think that one bird has more or less growth potential then the other. I think both have incredible potential and instead of looking at it that way, it'd be wise to think of it as a race. As it stands right now, both the birds have access to the latest technologies. It all comes down to the customers, operators, their needs and their requirements. In this regard, I'd say JF-17 will develop much faster as Block-III -which is scheduled to begin production from 2016 or 17- will incorporate AESA, IRST, HMD, possible uprated RD-93MA, much advanced avionics and integrated EW suite instead of pods, 2 more hardpoints along with greater use of composites. It'd be a quantum leap in aircraft's capabilities and a massive force multiplier. But, if not all the projected advancements make their way into Block-III, it'll probably be because of cost.

Cost will be the one and only inhibiting factor for JF-17's future development. Whereas for F/A-50 programme, it not just has to fight to keep the cost down as it only or predominantly uses western components but, also justify the cost in face fierce competition.



In summation, I think both the jets are simply meant for different markets. And when I say different market, I mean for countries that are in supposed American Bloc and opposed to China and Russia will be the end users of F/A-50s. Neutral countries might be enticed but, costs, logistics and above discussed points might prove to be inhibiting factor. All in all, I think JF-17 is a much better airplane right now and will be in the future with great growth potential, smooth logistics -with promise of getting even more streamlined in the future-, costs ranging from acquisition to operations and maintenance and far lenient political compromises (IF ANY).

P.S, my source of information was mostly google and wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere that F/A-50 has AIM120-D integrated. Thus, my above comments and claims. If you find any other contradiction than, I request you kindly point it out and provide a source for me to educate myself.

Thank you for your time.
Best regards.

 

[Quwa]

Hello,

Been following your posts, articles and discussions on not just PDF but, also on your website "QUWA" which offers a very fine insight and, a knowledgeable view of various defense related topics. This requires an enormous effort and dedication which in my view is a very respectable trait. So keep up the good work sir and, godspeed.

On topic; I agree with certain parts and understand your PoV but, disagree with others. I think you've totally discounted or underestimated the price, overall weapons package, logistics vis-a-vis spares and maintenance that come from countries other than South Korea and their deniability,operating cost, modularity and future growth potential which is cost effective.

Allow me to elaborate on point to point basis. I probably won't be as coherent as you but, hope you'll bear with me and ignore any mistakes I make in comprehension.

PRICE
As I understand, the flyaway cost of F/A-50 and JF-17 Block-II are $35 Million and $25 Million respectively. That's the difference of $10 Million which by no means is a small amount considering the target market for both these jets. Now if we compare the performance of both the birds then, via your own account, they're very much comparable with one another. EXCEPT, Thunder edges out because of integrated IFR giving it far more loiter time then the Golden Eagle and, that fact is undisputed.

I'll agree that not all air forces have refueling tankers but, for those that either have one or can afford one, it's a clear winner. And when it comes to refueling tankers, there are lot's of neat as well as modular options available these days. One among many is CN-235/C-295 on which you did an excellent article recently. If an Air Force already has one or gets one, it becomes a massive force multiplier which not only serves as an aerial tanker but, also as a tactical lift. Can be modified as an aerial gunship or can later be acquired -or modified, I'm not sure- as an AWE&C or J-STAR like platform.

Although, JF-17 Block-II specs haven't officially been revealed yet by PAC but, we do know that it's in full production and, going by various PAF officials' interviews, it has a better load carrying capability of 500kgs. Since Block-I already had F/A-50 beat albeit with marginal or meager difference,the addition of 500kgs swings the pendulum in Jf-17's favour. Than, it houses KLJ-7 V2 which reportedly has a tracking range of 110km for 3m2 RCS compared to EL/M-2032 whose tracking range for the same RCS is frankly unknown. So, if it's the same as KLJ-7 V2 than, no comparison there. If not, than it's another point for JF-17. Also, there are considerations for adding another hard point on lower lateral starboard side air intake for the targeting pod. I reckon it might be for the future Block-III configuration but, reason I included the point in this discussion is because it really isn't far fetched that, this hardpoint will find it's way in the Block-II since it has an additional 500kg load carrying capability. Thus, freeing up underwing hardpoint(s) for useful load and making Block-II even more lethal at fraction of a cost. And, this will give Block-II 8 hardpoints instead of 7 which is again a feather up it's cape.

WEAPONS:-
JF-17 Block-II simply takes the cake in weapons department. All one has to really do is look at the assortment of weapons currently integrated on it.

In AoA, F/A-50 as of now has no BVR solution. Yes, in future, AMRAAM or Israeli BVR indeed is an option. But, JF-17 is rocking PL-12/SD-10 right now. And talking about future, HOBS is coming in Block-III. But let's not stop there. Talking about future, it'd be a grave injustice if we didn't mention PL-15. I'm sure sir you do not need an introduction to what that missile is but, let me ask what 5th Gen options are for F/A-50?

Now I know that not all future customers of JF-17 will get access to 5th Gen weaponry out of the box as there's a lot of politics involved. But, certain other players like rich GCC countries via Pakistan might just get that. And, of course, it goes without saying that Pakistan WILL get it. It will only elevate the prospects and reputation of JF-17 not just above F/A-50 but, also any other competition.

Anyway, enough about the future, let's talk about the present. And presently, Thunder 1ups the Golden Eagle again in A2G capability. Whatever F/A-50 boasts, Thunder boasts the same and more including anti-radiation missiles to stand-off munition that you talked about in your article. You said that in future F/A-50 could deploy ALCMs which could serve as A2G as well as AShM stand-off munitions. But sir, you probably didn't consider the price hike that such munitions will trigger for their integration and deployment. As it stands right now, on average an ALCM costs equal or above $1 Million for 200 to 300 kilometer range. If more range is desired then cost itself becomes an inhibiting factor. A good example is a recent purchase by Spain of 43 Taurus KEPD 350 ALCMs which cost them a whooping $80 Million. Now please consider incorporating the same tech on F/A-50 for its targeted market and monumental cost hike. . . Not a good way of going around doing business now, is it?

Lastly, for anti-ship role, F/A-50 has zero capability, role or whatever. Thus, no need to elaborate this point as JF-17 has the clear advantage.

LOGISTICS & MAINTENANCE:-
Steady supply of spares and services for maintenance and serviceability to overhauls is the heart of any air fleet. Cut that line and any force, air, land or sea will die it's own death. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that, that line must be kept open for the sustenance, high morale and capability of an Air Force to carry out its day to day operations unhindered and maintain the critical defense of the country.

That said, in order for F/A-50 to become a compelling offering, it needs reliable foreign partners which unfortunately it does not has. United States just yesterday denied permission to South Korea for sell of 12 such jets to Uzbekistan. Again, considering the countries that have either shown interest in fighter/attack type or the market that S.K wants to target with F/A, it is more likely that permission will be denied again as it'll be conflict of interest for U.S.

And it's not just about United States either as European countries might try to block the sales or allow a half-assed version to be sold. Please do remember what Kfir configuration did Israel offer Argentina and why. And also the diplomatic messaging and posturing that U.K made when Argentina was considering FC-1.

Point that I'm trying make is that, sell of Fighter/Attack class jets involves A LOT of politics and dodging and diplomatic maneuvering. No wonder the first export customer of JF-17 is being kept secret.

It might seem like a doom and gloom from the picture that I've painted but, the astounding thing is that in spite of all that, F/A-50 already is an export success. It has an active operational squadron in Korean Airforce and is slated to replace all the older F-5s. That means, it's no could ultimately balloon to 60-100 aircrafts. On top of that, Iraq and Philippines have already confirmed orders for 24 and 12 aircrafts respectively.

But, point to note is that, both the countries share their national interests with the United States in one way or another. And the countries which will get the F/A-50 in future will be only those which like Iraq and Philippines share United State's interests or designs in the region. Period.

You may say that JF-17 is no different as it imports RD-93 from Russia but, you know that a lot of development is being done on that front as there are ongoing negotiations for setting up maintenance and overhaul facilities for RD-93 locally. And then, there's China which is not only developing a local solution in form of WS-10 but, is also a guaranter and middle man for RD-93 imports from Russia in much the same way as it was for Pakistan before normalization and convergence of national interests of both the countries, i.e., Pakistan and Russia. Not only that but, the geo-strategic shift in international relations have brought ever more convergence of interests and interdependence of not just Pakistan, China and Russia but also Central Asia to Middle East and Africa. One great example is recent Russian offering of gas pipeline stretching from Russia to Turkmenistan and running parallel to TAPI and ending in Gwadar. LNG import from Russia is another great example of growing Pak-Russo relations. Whether any of this is possible or will come to fruition is another debate but, it was necessary to point out these things in the context of political influence and leverage in defence equipment sell.

I'm sorry for dragging on but, one more quick point about maintenance as I've just been occupied with logistics and other things.

JF-17 was designed from ground up for plug and play easy maintenance in mind which can be done by minimum ground crew (2 to 3 I believe). Although I'm not privy to F/A-50's design philosophy and therefore, I can't educatedly talk about whether it'd as easy as JF-17. But I had to guess then, I'd say JF-17.

GROWTH POTENTIAL & COST:-
It'd be plain foolish to think that one bird has more or less growth potential then the other. I think both have incredible potential and instead of looking at it that way, it'd be wise to think of it as a race. As it stands right now, both the birds have access to the latest technologies. It all comes down to the customers, operators, their needs and their requirements. In this regard, I'd say JF-17 will develop much faster as Block-III -which is scheduled to begin production from 2016 or 17- will incorporate AESA, IRST, HMD, possible uprated RD-93MA, much advanced avionics and integrated EW suite instead of pods, 2 more hardpoints along with greater use of composites. It'd be a quantum leap in aircraft's capabilities and a massive force multiplier. But, if not all the projected advancements make their way into Block-III, it'll probably be because of cost.

Cost will be the one and only inhibiting factor for JF-17's future development. Whereas for F/A-50 programme, it not just has to fight to keep the cost down as it only or predominantly uses western components but, also justify the cost in face fierce competition.



In summation, I think both the jets are simply meant for different markets. And when I say different market, I mean for countries that are in supposed American Bloc and opposed to China and Russia will be the end users of F/A-50s. Neutral countries might be enticed but, costs, logistics and above discussed points might prove to be inhibiting factor. All in all, I think JF-17 is a much better airplane right now and will be in the future with great growth potential, smooth logistics -with promise of getting even more streamlined in the future-, costs ranging from acquisition to operations and maintenance and far lenient political compromises (IF ANY).

P.S, my source of information was mostly google and wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere that F/A-50 has AIM120-D integrated. Thus, my above comments and claims. If you find any other contradiction than, I request you kindly point it out and provide a source for me to educate myself.

Thank you for your time.
Best regards.

Superb response sir, fully agreed with your points. What you've established is that while the F/A-50 will ultimately remain as a lightweight fighter (remember, Korea has another program, KFX, in the pipeline they'll want to push for export), the JF-17 is inching towards being more of a medium weight system. The Block-III may ultimately be as much of a jump for JF-17 as Gripen NG was for the C/D, and we can owe this point to the realities faced by the PAF.

Unlike ROKAF, the PAF has a high threat adversary, but relatively little in the way of economic and foreign vendor support. In other words, it can't muster very many high end imported fighters (like ROKAF could) nor can it take its F-16s for granted.

This inherently makes the JF-17 a vital project, not a neat export focused project (like F/A-50). As Block-III indicates, the PAF has every intention of making the JF-17 a more serious asset, it just has to (no other choice when you really think about it).

Sometimes we have to read between the lines. For example, the desire for AESA and additional station for pods indicates a larger and lighter airframe, that necessitates composites. The inclusion of HMD/S can be a hint towards better cockpit visibility via a raised cockpit with an enlarged canopy. Will this result in additional drag? Sure, but you have a greater focus on electronics, HOBS AAM, etc to compensate.

 

[yugocrosrb95]

I am going to correct you because by looks of it you haven't done your research properly or at all:

PRICE
As I understand, the flyaway cost of F/A-50 and JF-17 Block-II are $35 Million and $25 Million respectively.

Flyaway for JF-17 Block I is $25 million while JF-17 Block II is $30 to $35 million in 2011 while FA-50 is selling for $35 million in 2015 while it was $30 million in 2012.

EXCEPT, Thunder edges out because of integrated IFR giving it far more loiter time then the Golden Eagle and, that fact is undisputed.

I'd say JF-17 will develop much faster as Block-III -which is scheduled to begin production from 2016 or 17- will incorporate AESA, IRST, HMD, possible uprated RD-93MA, much advanced avionics and integrated EW suite instead of pods, 2 more hardpoints along with greater use of composites. It'd be a quantum leap in aircraft's capabilities and a massive force multiplier. But, if not all the projected advancements make their way into Block-III, it'll probably be because of cost.

Slides of upgrades for T-50 to FA-50 near future:

Conformal fuel tank modification, aerial refueling, new avionics layout, CFT, Helmet-mounted Display, Internal Training System, Large Area Display, Head-Up Display...

it houses KLJ-7 V2 which reportedly has a tracking range of 110km for 3m2 RCS compared to EL/M-2032 whose tracking range for the same RCS is frankly unknown. So, if it's the same as KLJ-7 V2 than, no comparison there. If not, than it's another point for JF-17.

EL/M-2032 maximum range is 150 kilometers while for KLJ-7 V2 it is between 140 and 150 kilometers thus EL/M-2032 is superior

WEAPONS

JF-17 Block-II simply takes the cake in weapons department. All one has to really do is look at the assortment of weapons currently integrated on it.

Currently you say? Well either you're ignorant, you didn't do proper research or you're intentionally ignoring developments that have happened this year...

Rafael, Taurus Systems GmbH showcase long-range weapons packages for KAI FA-50 -

TheMess Forums

FA-50 can use GBU-12 since early 2015, here's the slide:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=235701&d=1425520662

Taurus KEPD 350K-2
Taurus seeks to supply mid-range missiles on Korea's FA-50

KEPD 350 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The double 500-kilogram (1,100 lb) warhead called Mephisto (Multi-Effect Penetrator, HIgh Sophisticated and Target Optimised) features a precharge and initial penetrating charge to clear soil or enter a bunker, then a variable delay fuze to control detonation of the main warhead. The missile weighs about 1,400 kg (3,100 lb) and has a maximum body diameter of 1 metre (3.3 ft). Intended targets are hardened bunkers, command, control and communications; airfield facilities; port facilities; AMS/ammunition storage; ships in ports/at sea and bridges.

This year at ADEX(?) 2015 the Rafael and Taurus;

LOGISTICS & MAINTENANCE:-

It needs reliable foreign partners which unfortunately it does not has. United States just yesterday denied permission to South Korea for sell of 12 such jets to Uzbekistan. Again, considering the countries that have either shown interest in fighter/attack type or the market that S.K wants to target with F/A, it is more likely that permission will be denied again as it'll be conflict of interest for U.S.

And it's not just about United States either as European countries might try to block the sales or allow a half-assed version to be sold. Please do remember what Kfir configuration did Israel offer Argentina and why. And also the diplomatic messaging and posturing that U.K made when Argentina was considering FC-1.

On top of that, Iraq and Philippines have already confirmed orders for 24 and 12 aircrafts respectively.

FA-50 does not have a reliable partner? I didn't know China and Pakistan are unreliable partners too and claim otherwise for sake of exposing yourself for having double standards. China refused to sell anti-ship missiles so China is afraid of UK, wow...

Also it is pathetic that you base so called unreliable partner because of Uzbekistan who has highest rate of slavery thus it makes me wonder if China/Pakistan would sell JF-17 to Liberia where people are conscripted in basically neverending conscription like slaves...

With those orders from Iraq and Philippines, T-50/FA-50 will be over 130 units.

GROWTH POTENTIAL & COST:-

Cost will be the one and only inhibiting factor for JF-17's future development. Whereas for F/A-50 programme, it not just has to fight to keep the cost down as it only or predominantly uses western components but, also justify the cost in face fierce competition.

Neutral countries might be enticed but, costs, logistics and above discussed points might prove to be inhibiting factor. All in all, I think JF-17 is a much better airplane right now and will be in the future with great growth potential, smooth logistics -with promise of getting even more streamlined in the future-, costs ranging from acquisition to operations and maintenance and far lenient political compromises (IF ANY).

Your view of JF-17 compared to FA-50 is either biased or ignorant/uninformed or simply naive or combination of these four possibilities with you also jumping to conclussions and making assumptions...

JF-17 Block II cost/price for Pakistan and/or China is $30 to $35 million in 2011 while FA-50 was selling for $30 million in 2011 thus FA-50 is at very least equally priced or at very most cheaper by 16-17% and we are comparing a single seater with a two seater at that.

It seems likely now that Taurus and Rafael are supporting FA-50 that F-50 will happen and will have cost savings that will reduce price for at least a million if not two million USD.

Also JF-17 airframe flight lifespan is 4000 hours compared to FA-50's 8000's hours, it is literally half and what if your supply lines get cut off and your airframe rapidly wears off due to high G acrobatics when dogfighting or avoiding missiles?

JF-17 Block 3 will be more expensive due to composite airframe to reach 8000? hours of flight lifespan. I would't be surprised if JF-17 price reaches 50-60 million USD.

Sources; Wikipedia and the web, at least I am not BSing users on this forum.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Lockheed Martin has been marketing the FA-50 as a replacement for F-5, MiG-21, etc. At $35mn you're gettinga good set of capabilities, and if you're in a position where you can't afford $85mn for a new F-16, Lockheed Martin will push this to keep you away from JF-17.

Any projects that are FMS or backed by US money are not the typical market for JF17 anyway. Still, the BVR capability and control of the program offered through JF17 package is unprecedented. There is really no price for military equipment, imagined numbers, and often decisions are not based on "analysis" and "performance" but political. I personally think JF17 has a 600-800 aircraft export market. Will this be realised, only time can tell.