Where Is The Western JF 17?
- Thread starter Berkut
- Start date
Ananda
The Bunker Group
F/A-50. It's Korean, but actually it's derived from Lokheed
-Martin Technology. Also it's heavilly with Western stuff. It's a LIFT, but if you talking LIFT this days, and you actually talking about Light weight budget Fighters. Don't forget with Hawk 200, it's Light Weight budget fighters derived from sucesfull proven LIFT. It's not primary build for air-to air but have decent capability for point defence.
-Martin Technology. Also it's heavilly with Western stuff. It's a LIFT, but if you talking LIFT this days, and you actually talking about Light weight budget Fighters. Don't forget with Hawk 200, it's Light Weight budget fighters derived from sucesfull proven LIFT. It's not primary build for air-to air but have decent capability for point defence.
the aircraft that comes out of ASIA is not expensive, but are they reliable and I have my dought if they can match any American or European aircraft in combat.
Last edited by a moderator:
Twinblade
Member
I really don't understand how JF-17 with its datalinks, bvr capable radars, and an engine with known maintenance issues be really that affordable ?
With humongous security issues...
The West with all the fire power should understand that the countries who are facing immense security issues need to have better high tech equipment, but unfortunately it's not happening due to too many strings attached with eqpt & high cost of western eqpt as well.
The Middle Earth needs to satisfy the hunger of 'Security Needs' that's where JF-17 kind of Eqpt helps them to counter it all.
The West with all the fire power should understand that the countries who are facing immense security issues need to have better high tech equipment, but unfortunately it's not happening due to too many strings attached with eqpt & high cost of western eqpt as well.
The Middle Earth needs to satisfy the hunger of 'Security Needs' that's where JF-17 kind of Eqpt helps them to counter it all.
Twinblade
Member
Such a fighter has to come from a nation which can make every single part of the aircraft, from engines, to radars, avionics and ammunition by its own, to keep the costs down, too few nations in the world can do that today.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Its also got to be somewhere in the same league as at least the previous generation of top level fighters.
So lets say it has to be able to match at least the older (unupgraded) F/A-18A, F-16, Tornado, F-16, Su-27, Mig-29. The problem is, the nations with the money and technology to afford to develop a new fighter (France, UK, Germany, US, Russia) at that level while not using their latest gear so they can keep costs down, would rather spend their money on something they will use themselves rather then just a (possibly unsuccessful) export prospect.
btw, I purposely left china off that list.
Twinblade
Member
Costs much more than f-16 for nearly comparable performance and often faces political restrictions because of US components. Another candidate is Tejas which offers compatibility with a wide range of Indian, Russian, Israeli and European weapon systems, but it will take a good 7-8 years from now to come up with a domestic engine and aesa radar.
Two factors come into play here: practicality and motivation.
Designing and building a fighter, even a low-cost one, is an extremely expensive and technologically challenging endeavor. Mission creep, overambitious specifications and poor management can dog programs from the very start. Plus, there are a host of technological obstacles to be confronted. Complicated programs with complicated products rarely travel simple (or cheap) paths. Add to this the potential for political bickering and interference, and you're looking at potent mix that will confront anyone trying to develop and market an "F-XX" light fighter of any kind.
Now, does this mean it is impossible to do? No. Many nations have built or contributed to modern fighter aircraft in the past and many will continue to do so; but the challenges at hand can only be approached and overcome if there is motivation to do so.
There has to be a clear and present market for the F-XX. Without it, most manufacturers will shy away from the risks involved.
I'm not convinced a sufficient market exists at this point in time; nor will it 10-20 years down the road, when the products of a fighter development effort started today would start rolling off the line. To be fair, there certainly are buyers out there, as events like Iraq's recent efforts to purchase 36 F-16s shows. However, with the F-35 and various 4.5-generation strike fighters snagging contracts in India, Brazil, and Europe, much of the market an F-XX might compete in is already flooded with vastly more capable platforms. And even in the markets an F-XX might perform well in (moderately wealthy countries without the need or the means for F-35s, Gripens and Rafales), there's still plenty of competition. The slew of retiring USAF, ANG and international aircraft provides potential customers with hundreds of F-16s, various Mirages, and even a few Viggens. These secondhand fighters offer a range of advantages over a brand-new F-XX.
Firstly, many of these aircraft have already been integrated with Western weapons, electronics, etc. This allows buyers to minimize new equipment buys, by allowing them to use ordnance they have in stock. Second, inexpensive spare parts are widely available; something brand-new fighter designs would struggle to compete with. Thirdly, F-16s and Mirages are proven aircraft, giving prospective buyers a concrete understanding of what they would be getting. Not so with the F-XX. It’s hard to beat 60+ combat kills with an airshow brochure.
And while these used aircraft may be aging, aggressive SLEPs could add years to their effective service lives.
I third issue I see here is the fact that not all demands are created equal. Different buyers, although they may all want a "simple, low-cost fighter" often need (and want) a variety of vastly different capabilities. India, for example, demands its combat aircraft to pass stringent high-altitude operational tests (see the Leh tests undergone by the MMRCA competitors), something a sea-level Middle Eastern country would have little need for.
Fighters (especially small ones) can only be so flexible, and I strongly doubt a single tiny fighter can do everything dozens of diverse air forces would demand of it.
Apologies for the wall of text. There's a lot to be said on this subject.
Designing and building a fighter, even a low-cost one, is an extremely expensive and technologically challenging endeavor. Mission creep, overambitious specifications and poor management can dog programs from the very start. Plus, there are a host of technological obstacles to be confronted. Complicated programs with complicated products rarely travel simple (or cheap) paths. Add to this the potential for political bickering and interference, and you're looking at potent mix that will confront anyone trying to develop and market an "F-XX" light fighter of any kind.
Now, does this mean it is impossible to do? No. Many nations have built or contributed to modern fighter aircraft in the past and many will continue to do so; but the challenges at hand can only be approached and overcome if there is motivation to do so.
There has to be a clear and present market for the F-XX. Without it, most manufacturers will shy away from the risks involved.
I'm not convinced a sufficient market exists at this point in time; nor will it 10-20 years down the road, when the products of a fighter development effort started today would start rolling off the line. To be fair, there certainly are buyers out there, as events like Iraq's recent efforts to purchase 36 F-16s shows. However, with the F-35 and various 4.5-generation strike fighters snagging contracts in India, Brazil, and Europe, much of the market an F-XX might compete in is already flooded with vastly more capable platforms. And even in the markets an F-XX might perform well in (moderately wealthy countries without the need or the means for F-35s, Gripens and Rafales), there's still plenty of competition. The slew of retiring USAF, ANG and international aircraft provides potential customers with hundreds of F-16s, various Mirages, and even a few Viggens. These secondhand fighters offer a range of advantages over a brand-new F-XX.
Firstly, many of these aircraft have already been integrated with Western weapons, electronics, etc. This allows buyers to minimize new equipment buys, by allowing them to use ordnance they have in stock. Second, inexpensive spare parts are widely available; something brand-new fighter designs would struggle to compete with. Thirdly, F-16s and Mirages are proven aircraft, giving prospective buyers a concrete understanding of what they would be getting. Not so with the F-XX. It’s hard to beat 60+ combat kills with an airshow brochure.
And while these used aircraft may be aging, aggressive SLEPs could add years to their effective service lives.
I third issue I see here is the fact that not all demands are created equal. Different buyers, although they may all want a "simple, low-cost fighter" often need (and want) a variety of vastly different capabilities. India, for example, demands its combat aircraft to pass stringent high-altitude operational tests (see the Leh tests undergone by the MMRCA competitors), something a sea-level Middle Eastern country would have little need for.
Fighters (especially small ones) can only be so flexible, and I strongly doubt a single tiny fighter can do everything dozens of diverse air forces would demand of it.
Apologies for the wall of text. There's a lot to be said on this subject.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12
Im not sure the Saab is as cheap as people make it out to be.
I have read many unconfirmed reports that it has possibly the 'best' EW capabilitys for aircraft in its class. The NG makes me drool by the way!
I think Rehashing the F 16 makes lots of sence! Can the states strip out a 16 and sell it at a bargain basement price to compete against the Chinese hot rod JF17?
Yes...
Will it?
I have read many unconfirmed reports that it has possibly the 'best' EW capabilitys for aircraft in its class. The NG makes me drool by the way!
I think Rehashing the F 16 makes lots of sence! Can the states strip out a 16 and sell it at a bargain basement price to compete against the Chinese hot rod JF17?
Yes...
Will it?
It's already been done
Regarding your "hot rod" comment. Keep in mind that performance is rarely the deciding factor in modern air combat. Better sensors, ECM and standoff weapons matter far more than turning radius, acceleration, etc.
If you're just looking for a bomb truck, there are plenty of low-cost trainers and ground attack attack aircraft out there already, like the MB-339, L-39, Hawk, Yak-130, G-2 Galeb, etc.
The Hawk 200 has not, but it's two-seat cousin has
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Well the Indonesian Hawk 200 involved with Anti Insurgences campaign in Aceh, and even briefly in East Timor before the referendum. The involvement was not long because the embargo. On the other hand for counter insurgencies, the Air Force like OV-10 better.
Still after 2003 when UK's and EU embargo being lifted the Hawk 200 become the most reliable Fighter in Indonesian Air Force inventory (since F-16 still under US embargo which's not lifted until 2006, and the Flankers just coming and not fully implemented).
It's proved easy to maintain, cheap, and can be serviced from Indonesia's secondary airbases (which not as equipped as the primary air bases). With it's capability of air refueling, and more economical engine, it's more reliable to operate across Indonesian Archipelago than F-5.
I'm not a fan of Hawk 200 (my previous posts on Indonesian Air Force Thread can show that), but as budgeted Fighter for relative lower budget Air Force, it can provide suitable Fighter based. For comment Hawk 200 as A-4 replacement, well in Indonesian Air Force, the Hawk 200 is the A-4 replacement. It has better radar than F-5 (it can accommodate BAE skyflash/AIM-7E) although in Indonesian service it's only equipped with AIM-9L for air to air (thus put them as secondary air defense assets).
In short, the sensors that can be mounted on Hawk 200 can rival what the Chinese or Pak can put with JF-17. BAE now negotiating with Indonesia for MLU of those Hawk 200, which can provide better sensors (still unclear what sensors are on BAE offered packaged). In short, the only downsize in my mind of Hawk 200 compared to other budget Light Fighters (like JF-17) that it's not supersonic. However with relative efficient and economical engine, suitable range of operational (due to economical engine and Air Refueling capability), and relative good sensors (for it's class), in my mind it's the Western comparable to JF-17.
I believe if NZ wants to look something cheap and reliable as A-4 replacement (if the NZ decided to go back with Fast Jet but do not want something fancy like Shornet), Hawk 200 can be suitable candidate. NZ can also work together in Logistics with Aussies, considering the Hawk 200 logistics share much similarity with Hawk 100 families (in which RAAF Hawk LIFT based on).
Well in Indonesia it self, the future of Hawk 200 (after MLU) is seems going to be replaced by F/A-50. Although it's still the plan.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #16
Are you saying that a Hawk 200 Series can go toe to toe with the JF 17 and win ?
Can we please not get into "platform A vs platform B" discussions... go have a look at the forum rules.
The Selex Vixen AESA is seen as a possibility but integration has yet to be done.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
It depends on what sensors the Hawk 200 operator choose to put into their Hawk 200 series. Even though Hawk 200 was design for Air to Ground (just like A4 did), but like A4 they can have secondary Air Defense capabilities.
One of the Sensor packages being offered for Hawk 200 (at the 90's) included radar (AN/APG-66H) that capable to modify for BVR missiles (well at that time Skyflash/AIM-7E). Remembered that's radar basically derived from F-16 radar. Thus it's not impossible for present condition, the upgraded packages being offered by BAe can be made for AIM 120 capable. I'm not sure whether Indonesian or Malaysian Hawk 200 equipped with BVR capable package, since seems both Countries choose their Hawk 200 for more Air to Ground capabilities.
In short if the operator choose to equipped their Hawk 200 for more Air to Air capable, well BAe can accommodate that. For my self , I see JF-17 vs Hawk 200 like F-5/Mig 21 vs A-4. A-4 have potential and capability to get toe in toe in air combat with either F-5 or Mig 21, if the operators choose to equipped their A-4 for that role. But like A-4, the Hawk operators seems more to equipped their Hawk 200 for Air to Ground, since Hawk 200 operators usually have another Fighters on their Inventory that's more equipped for Air to Air.
However if one Air Force choose to only equipped their Inventory with one Aircraft type, and that type has to be on budget Aircraft with Air to Ground (including maritime strike) and have Secondary air defense capability also with easy and cheap to maintain, then Hawk 200 can be the candidate.
One thing for sure, RR/Turbomeca Adour is cheaper to maintain then Mig 29 engine that being choose to powered JF-17.
PS: Sorry Mod, not have intention on talking for platform vs platform debate. Just to show that as budget fighter, Hawk 200 have enough flexibility on the design (although I'm still not a Fan for that fighter)
.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
I guest if the original packages was AN/APG-66H which is F-16 radar derivative, then it's possible to be integrated with Selex Vixen AESA. The available space in the nose seems enough for relative small (for AESA) Selex-Vixen.