Where Is The Western JF 17?

[Berkut]

Thanks for the comments on the 200 - Very helpfull!
Has anybody seen a sales cost for a tricked out hawk 200? Also can anyone tell me if the 200 Series is a robust performer not requireing high levels of continual maintainance?

Also I am facinated at how Pakistan has integrated the 17 from domestic production into its own inventory. Is the JF 17 a modular design making for fast production?

 

[STURM]

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 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.

I wouldn't call the Hawk 200 cheap, after all it has a ''Made In England'' tag . In the past, the price tag of the Hawk was the reason a number of customers selected the MBB-339 and Alpha jet instead.

As for being ''easy to mantain'', the Hawk 200 contains its share of complex avionic and sub-systems that need well trained personnel to support. Being the launch customer for the Hawk 100 and 200 series, the RMAF initially experienced avionics problems with its Hawks due to extremely high humidity levels encountered in Malaysia. Another problem was a higher than expected utilisation rate and delays in getting spares.

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.

The RMAF more than a year ago did a study on possible upgrades for its Hawk 200s, which included installation of the Vixen to allow it to fire BVR missiles.

Though the Hawks 200s were previously only armed with dumb bombs, CRV-7rockets and M-20 Rockeyes, during an exercise 2 weeks ago a Hawk launched a Paveway 2.

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.

No, at present both can only launch IR missiles. The RMAF Hawk 100s though, unlike the TNI-AUs, have a laser rangefinder and FLIR, which would on paper provide it with a better ground attack capability.

Costs much more than f-16 for nearly comparable performance and often faces political restrictions because of US components.

I don't have the unit cost of the Gripen but one of its main selling points, aimed at countries that have smaller procurement and operating budgets, is that is cheaper than latest Blocks of the F-16 as well as being cheaper to operate and support.

An ad that appeared in ''India Today'' by SAAB on the Gripen - "Performance counts when aircraft are in the air, defending the skies. Unfortunately, too many fighter aircraft are either sitting on the ground because they are too expensive to fly or simply do not have the capabilities that they were touted to have."

 

[Lion8]

Are you saying that a Hawk 200 Series can go toe to toe with the JF 17 and win ?

Is NZ interested in getting JF-17? LOL..

IMO, no matter how good a trainer is, it will never match the raw power of a pure fighter jet. Lack of range, payload and speed will hinder or limits its mission profile. Trainer will be good to rid off some ill arm rebel but to face a enemy with raw decent fighter jet. That will be big trouble.

Actually , JF-17 sounds good for NZ if they are keen to acquire a squadron without costing a bomb. Nowadays, it really cost lots of money just to keep a decent squadron of fighter jet. Anyway, will NZ be allowed to buy non NATO or western aircraft?

 

[Waylander]

Apart from force integration problems with Australia who should deny it to them?

They are a souvereign country and not even part of NATO. They already ditched their fast movers without anybody screaming bloody murder I doubt a buy of any kind of fighter will raise serious objections.

 

[Berkut]

Im afraid that NZ will only end up buying some fast movers when they are offered the deal of the century. Example. Lease to buy or a donation etc etc.

As for NZ buying chinese? Its possible? But there are to many F 16s parked up for a quick trade deal that the states could use to get cushy with NZ.

Still cant go wrong with the 16 as it seems to be more like a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, if you get my drift.

 

[Berkut]

And as for the 17 - I wonder if the saying is still applicable. If it seems too good to be true! It probarbly isnt.

As for the first Modular fighter ever built - Looks like the F16 has more list options than a Mercedes Benz.

I hope the 17 begins to shine sooner than later!

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Defense acquisitions are generally made based on immediate or forseen needs. "It's shiny, I want it," simply isn't a sensible way to go about building a defense force. New Zealand simply doesn't face a credible threat to its territory, hence the reason it ditched its A-4s in the first place and is unlikely to acquire fast jets in the immediate future.

Just as importantly, a nation's foreign and domestic policy shapes what it buys. As a small, relatively doveish country, New Zealand isn't actively waging war (beyond a small ISAF contribution) and it is unlikely to fight a major conflict for the foreseeable future. Other members more knowledgeable on the region are welcome to correct me, but that's my general impression of NZ.

In New Zealand's case, uying fast jets, training air and groundcrews, integrating hardware, and maintaining them is a waste of resources that would be better used elsewhere. For this reason, we're unlikely to ever see any more fast movers with kiwi roundels.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Defense acquisitions are generally made based on immediate or forseen needs. "It's shiny, I want it," simply isn't a sensible way to go about building a defense force. New Zealand simply doesn't face a credible threat to its territory, hence the reason it ditched its A-4s in the first place and is unlikely to acquire fast jets in the immediate future.

Just as importantly, a nation's foreign and domestic policy shapes what it buys. As a small, relatively doveish country, New Zealand isn't actively waging war (beyond a small ISAF contribution) and it is unlikely to fight a major conflict for the foreseeable future. Other members more knowledgeable on the region are welcome to correct me, but that's my general impression of NZ.

In New Zealand's case, uying fast jets, training air and groundcrews, integrating hardware, and maintaining them is a waste of resources that would be better used elsewhere. For this reason, we're unlikely to ever see any more fast movers with kiwi roundels.

AFAIK the RNZAF's fast movers were never really intended to defend NZ's airspace. Again who from? But they were intended to provide a high quality addition to coalition operations with, at the very least, the RAAF in the defence of SEA or in some other larger foreign conflict. No they were never used in that role but so what? In the contemporary era most military capability exists as a form of insurance/deterrent and are never used, doesn't mean there isn't utility in possessing them. NZ's defense is based on coalition operations with allies such as Australia, and a high quality RNZAF fast jet squadron would have made a significant contribution in any such scenario; quickly deployable, easily supportable with allied infrastructure and disproportionally effective in the battlespace.

I think there is definitely utility in an NZ fast jet capability. However now that capability has been forfeited the cost in reforming it would be prohibitive, and I'm not just talking the aircraft.

 

[Ananda]

I wouldn't call the Hawk 200 cheap, after all it has a ''Made In England'' tag . In the past, the price tag of the Hawk was the reason a number of customers selected the MBB-339 and Alpha jet instead.

As for being ''easy to mantain'', the Hawk 200 contains its share of complex avionic and sub-systems that need well trained personnel to support. Being the launch customer for the Hawk 100 and 200 series, the RMAF initially experienced avionics problems with its Hawks due to extremely high humidity levels encountered in Malaysia. Another problem was a higher than expected utilisation rate and delays in getting spares.

Well yes, if you compared it with what China can provide on unit costs, Hawk 200 is not really that cheap. However since this thread talking about Western eq. of JF-17 (thus Light Fighters), then Hawk 200 can get in to the category since it provide western packages in relative economical prices.

Like I said before, I'm not fan with Hawk 200, and the costs of getting Hawk 200 to Indonesian Air Force was ridiculous (although most because Hanky-Panky creation of Soeharto's Children on the deal). However for operational purpose, it's still an Economical Light Fighters with capable punch for it's size.

Thus I believe if some country looking for capable but light in budget western packages, then Hawk 200 can be the answered. Besides, it's not entirely 'made in England' package though, many of the sensors and sub system and weapons basically made in US.

 

[STURM]

Besides, it's not entirely 'made in England' package though, many of the sensors and sub system and weapons basically made in US.

True but apart from the radar and certain sub-systems, most of the plane is British made. My take is that the Hawk 200 makes a potent point defence fighter and if fitted with LGBs, as the RMAF has done with the Paveway, it has a useful attack role.

 

[Cadredave]

Defense acquisitions are generally made based on immediate or forseen needs. "It's shiny, I want it," simply isn't a sensible way to go about building a defense force. New Zealand simply doesn't face a credible threat to its territory,

hence the reason it ditched its A-4s in the first place and is unlikely to acquire fast jets in the immediate future.

Lets get this right a left leaning political party chasing votes got rid of our strike fleet supported by a small minority with a big voice and more savvy when talking to the media a painful lesson our defence force has had to learn the hard way.

Just as importantly, a nation's foreign and domestic policy shapes what it buys. As a small, relatively doveish country, New Zealand isn't actively waging war (beyond a small ISAF contribution) and it is unlikely to fight a major conflict for the foreseeable future. Other members more knowledgeable on the region are welcome to correct me, but that's my general impression of NZ.

For a country that sent 10% of its male population to fight for god, king and country in WW1 out of a total population of 1 million, and has fought in every major conflict since the Boer war right thru till vietnam, it amazing that a small country like mine has been at the fore front of all major conflict and you call us doveish, what the bloody hell have the spanish, portugese, and other european countries done to expend there young in the same way as NZ. We were there in all theatres of WW2 can these countries say the same we were there in korea & vietnam we were there in afghanistan right from the start. Iraq well your govt did its best to cock that war up if you had a UN mandate then we would of been there. NZ has and will always operate as part of a Coalition but we will dictate from now on where and when we are to wage war as you put it.

In New Zealand's case, uying fast jets, training air and groundcrews, integrating hardware, and maintaining them is a waste of resources that would be better used elsewhere. For this reason, we're unlikely to ever see any more fast movers with kiwi roundels.

Again NZDF lost the battle because it could not get its message across to joe public, and you are correct we will never see fast movers again with RNZAF on the side.

 

[Ananda]

True but apart from the radar and certain sub-systems, most of the plane is British made. My take is that the Hawk 200 makes a potent point defence fighter and if fitted with LGBs, as the RMAF has done with the Paveway, it has a useful attack role.

Agree, well Light Fighters was not mean more than point defense (i,e it's not suggested for area defense or air supremacy role), even with whatever the JF-17 fan boys put (well if you look at what the claim, JF-17 can overtake even F-35), JF-17 like any other Light Fighters was mean also as point defense. That's why it's relative cheaper so the operators can provide (in theory) larger number of such planes to cover their defense on point of interest.

 

[STURM]

Ananda, remember the Nothrop F-20 Tigershark? It was aimed at F-5E users who could not afford the F-16 and was meant to be a much improverd successor to the F-5E. I'm pretty sure that at some point, it was offered to the TNI-AU.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Ananda, remember the Nothrop F-20 Tigershark? It was aimed at F-5E users who could not afford the F-16 and was meant to be a much improverd successor to the F-5E. I'm pretty sure that at some point, it was offered to the TNI-AU.

There is one huge reason why there isn't a western JF-17, its called the F-16. The number of air forces which couldn't afford the F-16 is small, considering how cheap they were in the 90's.

 

[luccloud]

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 ?

Relatively speaking. Unless one go for 2nd hand (F16), all the current in production fighter jet are way too advance and pricy.

 

[Berkut]

Ok - Are people here saying that the JF 17 is Really the only Cheap fast mover that one can buy brand new on the market? Is that the general consensus.
Is Pakistan considered a Western ally enoght to claim that it can be considered a Western production fighter?

 

[luccloud]

Is NZ interested in getting JF-17? LOL..

IMO, no matter how good a trainer is, it will never match the raw power of a pure fighter jet. Lack of range, payload and speed will hinder or limits its mission profile. Trainer will be good to rid off some ill arm rebel but to face a enemy with raw decent fighter jet. That will be big trouble.

Why will NZ want an sizable AF anyway. Unless they worrying about Australasia gonna invade them. XD

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Why will NZ want an sizable AF anyway. Unless they worrying about Australasia gonna invade them. XD

I addressed that in post #27. The same could be said for having standing infantry battalions, NZLAV's, ANZAC class frigates ect. I mean, if Australia isn't a threat then whats the point right?

 

[Ananda]

Ananda, remember the Nothrop F-20 Tigershark? It was aimed at F-5E users who could not afford the F-16 and was meant to be a much improverd successor to the F-5E. I'm pretty sure that at some point, it was offered to the TNI-AU.

I agree with Ozzy, in the end F-20 would not really cheaper than F-16. With US by later half of the 80's open the gate for non-Nato customers to acquired F-16, the F-20 project lost momentum and significance.

With F-16 come out (especially Block 15-25), then the need for light aircraft for Western allies diminishing. Plus I believe with the proliferation of Mig 29, the Western nation see F-16 was the minimum they should have to counter Mig 29.

Some try to advance Light Fighter (remembered the AMX), I believe the Italian try hard to win contract for AMX in SEA by early 90's. However with BAE move to offered Hawk 200 and with the compatibility the Hawk 200 has with the LIFT Market leader (Hawk mk 50-60, and 100), for some country that need lighter than F-16 (or Mig 29) in their Inventory, Hawk 200 become more interesting (plus face it BAe have more International clout in marketing than Aermachi).

Anyway, the unit costs for Hawk 200 (especially for Indonesian case) is not that cheap. again with the help of Soeharto's Children, the unit cost was similar with the F-16.
That's why I see the procurement of Hawk 200 was wasting limited resources that Indonesian had that time, which should go to more F-16 instead.

Still after getting operational status, it's economical to run. And with the price of Block 52 this days, Hawk 200 is budget aircraft compared to that. Off course the Hawk 200 can't begin to be close comparison with Block 52 let alone Block 60. Still with updated packages that BAe offered, the Hawk 200 can (in theory) provide good alternatives for some country that can't afford Block 52 + or did not want to have refurbished Block 15-40, and also want something economical but relatively have good punch.

The last sentences above I've bold it, to emphasis Hawk 200 right now is the most appropriate answered from the West for the kind like JF-17.

PS: If Korean can evolved F/A-50 with AESA radar and more advance electronic packages as original plan. then they can provide something that's same class with JF-17 but with more capable Western technologies. In the Sense if they can come out like that. It's the real Western answered for JF-17 or Indian LCA. It's Korean, but with ingredients made in US/Western.

 

[shag]

Speaking on that front it makes sense to note that, LCA itself has quiet a few western components, american engine, french-israeli+indian avionics, and israeli radar.