Read the forum code of contact
By: 3rd June 2013 at 19:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I doubt it. All the ancillary costs with F-1 will be higher than JF-17 for the simple reason ... France vs. China. Look at how expensive India's Mirage 2000 upgrade was.
Which is not to say that I think F-1 for Argentina would be a bad idea. If they are determined to stay within the 'western sphere' then it is undoubtedly the best option.
By: 3rd June 2013 at 20:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Curious to know what you meant by your last sentence y-20Bacon
By: 3rd June 2013 at 20:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-How many JF-17 threads do we need, anyway?.
By: 4th June 2013 at 00:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-lolol i laugh so hard! mirage is 30 year older than jf17!! cannot even compare the two! jf17 has dsi, fly by wire, ew, big mfd, and will carry everything in chinese inventory.
By: 4th June 2013 at 07:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-JF-17 is said to cost between 20 and 25 million dollars as it is today however the PAF is looking for western avionics for its JF-17's and how much will this put up the price per unit this said I do like where this platform is going and I feel some Countries are waiting to see how it beds in with the PAF and what Block 2 brings
The only way we can compare how F-1 MF2000 stacks up on price is by taking some known's so the 18 F-1's from Jordan are on the market for 100 million dollars so that works out at 5.5 million each we also know that the MF2000 upgrade costs 15 million dollars per airframe so there is not much in it cost per unit
So what are you getting for the money
JF-17 a new airframe that is said to be a BVR capable multi-role platform but is yet untested and we are yet to see how it stands up to service life but has promise
Or Mirage F-1 MF2000 a well proven airframe that even on there last exercise had the best availability of any type there including Gripen with well proven avionics in the RDY-3 radar at give it the same A2A capability as M2K and a A2G capability in line with Rafale it is also interesting that the MBDA Apache can be Launched from both M2K and Rafale so there is know reason why it can't be launched from F-1 MF2000 from the centre line or the in bored pylons which would make F-1 a pocket Rafale
so for me at this time if and only if I can find the right airframes it would be F-1
By: 4th June 2013 at 08:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Actually Tempest, the PAF went for Chinese avionics, as the ACM noted that the Chinese have really come up and fulfilled all their requirements. The BVR question was also solved with the SD-10, which the PAF was initially sceptical about and now are extremely satisfied with.
There was a point, earlier in the program when PAF was not sure about Chinese stuff but the rapid development in Chinese milavia has overwhelmed all such concerns in the past few years.
By: 4th June 2013 at 08:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Also, the Mirage F1 might look deceptively straight-forward (like the archetypal "supersonic combat aircraft"), but it's actually hideously complex mechanically - it could hardly have more moving parts if it had variable sweep or variable incidence! In fairness, among most of its contemporaries (F-4E, MiG-23, F-8 etc.) it fits right in, but it's not exactly a simple airframe by modern standards.The French price premium does raise an interesting issue though, with the ASTRAC upgrade mentioned so often over the past few weeks it has occurred to me that the Russian aerospace industry has pretty much all the building blocks in place to offer a very interesting alternative...
Well, actually, there are too few Mirage F1 flying around to make the development & integration of such an upgrade cost effective. While I'm sure that the russian stuff should be cheaper, there is also the fact that the french upgrade is available off the shelf.
So unless your purchase huge stocks of weapons, I don't know how it could be cost effective to develop yet another upgrade for the small fleet of remaining Mirage F1s.
Now what do you think the russians could do with the dozens of Gripen A/B Sweden has in storage. THAT, IMO would be a very very interesting upgrade to develop.
Nic
By: 4th June 2013 at 09:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-lolol i laugh so hard! mirage is 30 year older than jf17!! cannot even compare the two! jf17 has dsi, fly by wire, ew, big mfd, and will carry everything in chinese inventory.
Don't you know what the ASTRAC upgrade adds to the Mirage F.1? Do a little research, such as searching for images of the cockpit.
By: 4th June 2013 at 10:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Well, actually, there are too few Mirage F1 flying around to make the development & integration of such an upgrade cost effective. While I'm sure that the russian stuff should be cheaper, there is also the fact that the french upgrade is available off the shelf.So unless your purchase huge stocks of weapons, I don't know how it could be cost effective to develop yet another upgrade for the small fleet of remaining Mirage F1s.
Now what do you think the russians could do with the dozens of Gripen A/B Sweden has in storage. THAT, IMO would be a very very interesting upgrade to develop.
Nic
1) Agreed. Not worth developing another upgrade. Unless the South African upgrade I read about some years ago is ready to install without development or risks, I think ASTRAC is the only one that makes sense. For Spanish Mirages, one might not need the full ASTRAC upgrade, because of the upgrades they've already had.
2) I think it might be easier & cheaper (because of development costs) to incorporate elements of the Gripen Demo programme. Developing modular upgrades for older Gripens was part of the point of it, as well as producing Gripen E.
By: 4th June 2013 at 10:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-2) I think it might be easier & cheaper (because of development costs) to incorporate elements of the Gripen Demo programme. Developing modular upgrades for older Gripens was part of the point of it, as well as producing Gripen E.
The advantage of a russian upgrade would be better politically, as you wouldn't be dependant on the US to get weapons & avionics. You'd get the modern equivalent of a Mig21 Bizon with a combination of russian, french & israeli avionics and weapons in a top notch airframe. What's not to like?
Nic
By: 4th June 2013 at 12:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Could anyone PLZ ban the word DSI from forum? Ok, it is a smart way to design air intakes. No less, no more!
By: 4th June 2013 at 12:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The word DSI has been used only twice, once by you. :-)
An old design like the F-1 only has limited upgrade potential. There is only so much you can do. I am still waiting for:
certain capabilities lacking in the current JF-17. perhaps cheaper to operate too?
By: 4th June 2013 at 12:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Right on this thread ;) you got your point! On the other hand i didnt bash DSI, did i? (and a third time!)
By: 4th June 2013 at 15:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-How about taking the ASTRAC upgrade for Mirage F-1 and fitting it to Gripen A replace the RDY-3 with the RDY-2 its not a true upgrade but it dose open up the Rafale toy box for the bargain price of 15 million dollars
By: 4th June 2013 at 16:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-
An old design like the F-1 only has limited upgrade potential. There is only so much you can do.
Well, there is nothing new in the JF17 plane design other than DSI. Perhaps you meant new airframe.
By: 4th June 2013 at 17:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-FCS is different and new, that alone makes a huge difference. Maintainability and simplicity is something that makes the JF-17 far superior to the exceedingly complex F-1. General engineering improvements in the last 3 odd decades is also an advantage.
Aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering benefiting from modern CAD design is yet another improvement. Weight management techniques have also improved. Further, the JF-17 has certain level of composites, which again is an improvement.
EW integration into the bodywork is another advantage of a fresh design. Uprating engines without optimizing inlet again is highly non-optimal. (for instance F-16s with the more powerful GE engine but the small inlet barely improve on their performance...). Even with the modified engines giving a theoretical improvement, the F-1 would be underpowered compared to the JF-17.
IMHO the only advantage I see is the theoretical top speed of the F-1, essentially at the cost of maneuverability.
These are just some from the top of my head.
I think that anyone thinking a jet designed in the 1960s is comparable to an aircraft designed 3-4 decades later has a very unique perspective indeed.
By: 4th June 2013 at 18:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-JF-17
7 hard points 8000lbs load
Speed Mach 1.6
G limits +8 -3
BVR yes
Service ceiling 55000 Ft
NVG compatible cockpit Yes
self-protection radar jamming pod
Super cruse NO
F-1 MF2000
7 hard points 8800lbs load
Speed Mach 2.2
G limits +8 -3
BVR yes
Service ceiling 65500 Ft
NVG compatible cockpit Yes
self-protection radar jamming pod
Super Cruse Yes
By: 4th June 2013 at 18:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Come to think of it, practically all of this could also be done to the F-4E. Iran, are you listening (setting aside for a moment the question of why they would prefer to stick with Western airframes that will always be hard up for spares, rather than just buying MiG-29s and JF-17s)?
Ah-ha! Iran is a few steps ahead of you there Trident! :D
A program was instigated in 2008 for the Iranian F-4 fleet. Called "Project Dowran" it is split into two phases and involves an overhaul, SLEP and Systems upgrade. The F-4D are being processed first then the F-4E and it will extend their life to a planned OSD of 2025. The airframes are taken down to bare metal, overhauled, strengthened, re-wired and the cockpit modernised with indigenous and Chinese systems including a new HUD, MFD's and Radar. The radar is apparently the KLJ-7 giving a useful improvement in performance and compatibility with the latest Chinese missiles. Finally freshly overhauled engines are installed giving their F-4 a new lease of life.
It is a stop gap solution and my guess is it allows time for a decision to be made if they want to procure Chinese fighters in the future. It is certainly the last significant upgrade any Phantom will get globally and Iran will probably be the last operator of the type.
By: 4th June 2013 at 19:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-How about taking the ASTRAC upgrade for Mirage F-1 and fitting it to Gripen A replace the RDY-3 with the RDY-2 its not a true upgrade but it dose open up the Rafale toy box for the bargain price of 15 million dollars
Indeed. Thalèsing the Gripen A to make it ITAR free could make for a great update on the cheapo. IIRC RDY-2 is much more expensive than RDY-3 though.
Nic
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 3rd June 2013 at 19:01
Tempest brought this up in the Argentine thread but its worth of a separate one..
would the Mirage F-1 ASTRACT actually be a better option for air forces on a budget looking for a single seat fighter?
it would give it:
RDY3 radar,
AASM,
Damocles pod,
MICA for BVR
Exocet
new electronic suite
certain capabilities lacking in the current JF-17. perhaps cheaper to operate too?