I doubt that if one purchases the JF-17 some of them will be produced in China. The JF-17 is the Pakistani version and if you order that then all your air craft will have to be built in Pakistan. If you order the Chinese version the FC-1 then your planes will be manufactured in China.From Jakarta Post:
You know, when Pakistan Manufacturer claim that JF-17 was above F-16, they should check with the purchasing policy of PAF that's still put F-16 as their main 'dream' fighter despite the advancenment of JF-17 to PAF.
I don't know if this'is the real quot or some misunderstand by Jornalists (not the first one), but when your nation air force (PAF) still regarded F-16 as their most advance and capable fighter in the inventory, and continue hoping to get more Blok 52, this kind of claim by their manufacturer and defence ministry will be regarded as contradicted with the account by their own Air Force preferences. Not a smart way to promote your commodity
They should say what close to the reality: "JF-17 was 'value for money' aircraft with capability that can match many of F-16 aspects with much reduce prices..and no political string attach.."
BTW; sources in the Min-Def says that simmilar offer (for JF-17) was being forwarded by the Chinese last year. Just wandering if buying from Pakistan will also means some of the JF-17 being offered also being manufactured in China.
I Know that for every CN-235 that's being sold by DI/IAe, half of parts will be build by CASA, vice versa also if the CN 235 being sold by CASA. Is this the same deal also between China and Pakistan for JF-17 ??
Indonesian Aero News
- Thread starter Ananda
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
AND
Wow. Just, wow. Not at all what I would expect from someone who is actually involved in the defence industry.
For starters, as has been mentioned several times in differing threads where LO/VLO/stealth gets trotted out and also "debunked", there is far more to making an aircraft LO than just achieving advancements in materials engineering, as Bonza was pointing out. The objective of LO aircraft, is to reduce (or eliminate altogether) the awareness ones' opponent has of the presence of the aircraft in question, and therefore, due to a reduced or complete lack of awareness, limit the ability the opponent has in responding to the aforementioned aircraft. How this limitation is achieved differs depending on the ability of ones opponent in detecting aircraft. As such, technologies and techniques have varied and changed since ideas to reduce aircraft observability were first attempted back in the Great War/WWI. Given ehe vast host of different methods of detecting aircraft, and where/how such sensors can currently operate for an advanced nation, more than simply managing the aircraft RCS is needed. Something which seems to have eluded you, given your focus on discussing materials to counter radar.
Secondly, why did you go off and rant about the F-117 being a "waste" or suggest that it would be used against China in 2020, or that the "official" reasons behind the aircraft being retired are actually propaganda and wishful thinking on the part of industry? When the aircraft was retired from USAF service in 2008, it had been flying for ~26 years (1st flight 1981, 1st USAF delivery Aug.1982) and had served in the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars, as well as over Serbia/Kosovo in 1999. When the aircraft was retired, it had been out of production for 18 years, and given the short development cycle it had (~2.5 years from full-scale development decision to 1st flight) the F-117 utlized many system components from older, then-legacy aircraft like the F-104 Starfighter. In short, if one were to be flying the F-117 over China in 2020, they would be flying an aircraft that was built at least 30 years ago, of a design which is ~40 years old, and has some internal systems which are ~50-60 years old, which might have been designed 55-70 years ago. In short, the comment was ridiculous. The following add-on to why it was being retired was not much better, given that the F-117 was a 1st Gen LO combat platform which was difficult and expensive to maintain (again, legacy components from the F-104 and similar aircraft) which had a limited role of night attack, when newer, 3rd Gen LO combat aircraft are entering service which are comparatively easier and less expensive to maintain, and not as role-restricted.
In short, the posts made have not seemed to demonstrate any real understanding of LO management or its history and therefore comments blasting others for being "wrong" is IMV the sort of behavior one would receive from someone who wished to argue, not discuss or debate.
-Cheers
Last edited by a moderator:
F-117 was sold as "stealth bomber" but it was detectable and shot down. It cannot perform as promised. [Mod Edit: Text deleted for unverified claims. See below.]
I was just using china 2020, as a "come on" argument (If one really believes it works, why not put money where ones mouth is and use it in a very likely hypothetical situation) [Mod Edit: Text deleted for unverified claims. See below.]
Yes, I know this is ancient history and a lot has changed since, but I was illustrating the danger of "one trick wonder" design. [Mod Edit: Text deleted for unverified claims on LO and VLO technology. See below.]
PS. I gave you a scheme where "LO" is above radar limit of detection.
[Mod Edit: The Mod team gave you a chance to self edit. But you failed to made meaningful changes. Therefore, I had to delete text for unverified claims on a bunch of rubbish. BTW, F-117 shoot down has been discussed in other threads with more sophistication than the bunch of rubbish you posted.
Mod comments and Forum Rules are not recommendations or options, they are to be followed and the Mod team does not appreciate backtalk to Mod comments.]
I was just using china 2020, as a "come on" argument (If one really believes it works, why not put money where ones mouth is and use it in a very likely hypothetical situation) [Mod Edit: Text deleted for unverified claims. See below.]
Yes, I know this is ancient history and a lot has changed since, but I was illustrating the danger of "one trick wonder" design. [Mod Edit: Text deleted for unverified claims on LO and VLO technology. See below.]
PS. I gave you a scheme where "LO" is above radar limit of detection.
[Mod Edit: The Mod team gave you a chance to self edit. But you failed to made meaningful changes. Therefore, I had to delete text for unverified claims on a bunch of rubbish. BTW, F-117 shoot down has been discussed in other threads with more sophistication than the bunch of rubbish you posted.
Mod comments and Forum Rules are not recommendations or options, they are to be followed and the Mod team does not appreciate backtalk to Mod comments.]
Last edited by a moderator:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Please have the courtesy to stop, read and actually process a post before blathering on.
As has been discussed on DT many times before, LO or 'stealth' does not make an aircraft invisible or invincible, under the right (or wrong, depending on POV) circumstances, a LO aircraft can still be detected. In the specific case of the F-117 shot down over Serbia in 1999, that has also been discussed here on DT, repeatedly. Trotting it out again without understanding or discussing the context of the engagement makes it look like either one does not understand how the loss occurred, or one does but is playing somewhat loose with the facts.
Secondly, and again with the F-117, at the time of the aircraft loss, the F-117 had been in service with the USAF for 17 years, and out of production for ~9 years, and still continued to serve in the USAF until 2008. This to me means that the decision to cancel/retire the F-117 was not made suddenly, since served for a quarter century, and that the retirement was done almost a decade after the operational loss over Serbia. Now, if you do believe that makes the decision to retire the F-117 sudden, then you are actually right about something, we do live in different realities.
Thirdly, you are again focused on materials to manage or reduce the RCS. There is more to making an aircraft LO than just managing the RCS. The electronic and IR signatures also need to be considered, and in many respects, the overall shape of an aircraft is more important than the materials.
-Cheers
Last edited by a moderator:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #126
Are you sure on that ?
I mean, whether you call it JF-17 or FC-1, basically it's begin as Chinese project and design. If we take international collaboration like SEPECAT Jaguar for instance, even most of the export sales done by BAe, however the export variance did have (from publications on Jaguar publihed by Jane's..I've read this quite many years ago..try to find it gain), substantial French parts.
Just wandering if the Pak's got free reign on any export deal they're making on this aircraft from the Chinese. If they did..well good for them..means they got good deal. Try to found it on line..however still could not find the exact detail on the export deal for Pakistan Industry in this aircraft. Indications off course seems showing that the Chinese Air Force not really interested on the Aircraft and more to J-10. however whether this means Chinese will let Pakistan to have free reign on export deal on their version of the aircraft is what I really like to know.
Afterall this's not like the Yak and Aermachi fiasco, in which after developing the Aircraft, each parties than decide to finish their own design and each have sole ownership of their own particullar versions.
Last edited:
I never said Pakistan would have free reign on the Aircraft. I am confused as you are about who will lead the marketing role of the air craft. Although the JF-17 is the Pakistani version it does have Chinese parts in it. I think and this is just my opinion, that the Chinese will have free reign on the FC-1 but Pakistan could need Chinese consent before exporting it to any other country.
I know Bangladesh was offered both the JF-17 by Pakistan and the FC-1 by China but both were more or less rejected.
I guess we will have to wait for the first actual export deal of the JF-17 to find out.
Warning Issued: Go back and delete derogatory remarks made about others, they are against the forum rules, in addition, do not continue to belittle the service or work experience and/or expertise of others. Failure to heed this Warning will result in additional actions being taken.
In addition, by 11:59 PM GMT/Zulu time July 27th, provide proof of claims made, or retract them. DO NOT make any additional posts apart from posting proof of claims, until the required proof has been provided. Failure to either provide the proof, self-edit the claims, or making additional posts without providing the required proof beforehand will result in a minimum 2 week Ban.
-Preceptor
Unapproved post to retain record, but following deletion of posts and Banning of problematic poster, they are not currently needed.
Last edited:
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
News article about the KF-X project in Bahasa Indonesia.
No new information in it.
No new information in it.
You really have no clue what you are talking about. Please take a look at the pictures of the JF-17 parts that get delivered to PAC from China. Also, consider where the avionics and suppliers are for JF-17 at the moment. And then consider the manufacturing capabilities of PAC and the current requirements of JF-17 by PAF.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #131
Tp then at present version of JF-17 basically is not different then Chinese FC-1 ? However isn't true that further development of JF-17 is plan by PAC and that versions will have many differrent part than chinese one, including western engine ? If that happen will. PAC have own rights to market FC-17. Just wandering why Pak marketed JF-17 to us seperately than China offer.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #132
Another KFX Image
Found another KFX image. This time with only one engine. I think with only USD 8 Bio - USD 12 bio in the proposed KFX development budget, this one engine version in my oppinion more realistic then the twin engine versions that been circulated before.
I know it's much too early to speculate, but seems the singgle engine versions will have slightly smaller and lighter charateristic then the twin engine ones. Thus perhaps become more affordable to the plan target market (outside South Korea and Indonesia) which are mostly developing countries.
Found another KFX image. This time with only one engine. I think with only USD 8 Bio - USD 12 bio in the proposed KFX development budget, this one engine version in my oppinion more realistic then the twin engine versions that been circulated before.
I know it's much too early to speculate, but seems the singgle engine versions will have slightly smaller and lighter charateristic then the twin engine ones. Thus perhaps become more affordable to the plan target market (outside South Korea and Indonesia) which are mostly developing countries.
Has probably been said before but it appears to have borrowed a lot from the F22 and F35, with it being developed in SK would they have access to US tech in design and stealth ? It will be an interesting project to follow, are there any indicative specs for the project yet ?
Ananda
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #134
Depends on who KAI able to hook on with. Bets with Locheed, however indication also show
European sources also in the talked. For DI/IAe getting in this project as junior partner provide access on technological development that by themselves too expensive to hands on. Still it's much depend on how ambitious the project in the end. Except on general statement that the specs will be higher than F 16 block 60 but lower than F 35 and occasional release of images on several potential versions, the final specs targeted to be finish by end next year or mid 2012.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Yes, it looks more realistic, especially because it looks more like the JSF/F-35 and KAI has worked closely with Lockheed-Martin in the past.
Its for me still dificult to believe the KFX will be better than the F16 Block 60.
KFX will be full of US technology covered by ITAR legislation - radar, avionics, powerplant - the IAI Lavi springs to mind here.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #137
Well, they have to if KFX want's to have a 'shoot' in the market. By the time (based on schedulle) KFX ready, the F-16 Block 60 will be 15 years old design.
From Indonesian Parlementary Communicate use Google Translate:
300 km operational radius and 24 hours endurances, then it's belong to MALE catagory. It's still need confirmation which MALE UAV in the process with TNI AU.
Domestic development of UAV still not (from latest data at least) match what TNI AU wants. Indonesia will not buy any UAV from Israel or with Israel technology. Perhaps Turky new UAV ?
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
UAV operational radius is generally restricted to ~100km due to LOS control esp at low levels.
One would either need a relay or sat-control to achieve 300km or fly the UAV only at extremely high altitudes (not much choice).
As to 24 hour endurance, there's a number of UAVs that can achieve that.
UAV operational radius is generally restricted to ~100km due to LOS control esp at low levels.
One would either need a relay or sat-control to achieve 300km or fly the UAV only at extremely high altitudes (not much choice).
As to 24 hour endurance, there's a number of UAVs that can achieve that.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
I won't provide a list. Minus US and Israel, I would suggest that UAVs like the TAI Anka might interest the Indonesian air force. IOC in 2012 and they're open to partners at this time. Turkey is probably at the forefront of indigeneous defence industry in the muslim world. Aselsan provides the EO/IR (which is not sourced from Israel but certainly they would have learned from the use and tech).