If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting Pakistan procure the J-35A, and go for a purely unmanned PFX design, to maximize performance (and presumably minimize expense). The concern I have from this is being able to control the fleet during heavy EW, and if the datalinks and AI are robust enough to perform the mission.
Did I make such an implication? I was merely analyzing the JF-17 fighter jet platform. As for what kind of fighter jet the PAF (Pakistan Air Force) wants to buy, that's outside the scope of this discussion.
How much a J-10C with WS-15 would cost? if the WS-10 is replaced in the J-10C?
Replacing the WS-10B engine on the J-10C fighter jet with the WS-15 engine is an ideal scenario. It doesn't present many technical obstacles, but there are significant practical hurdles.
The implication was that UCAVs are superior and a development pathway in that direction was best to optimize performance.
Outdated thinking. Even if the engine cost double, the price spike would only be 5-10 million. Making it on par with J-10CE or even less. The main advantage is power and efficiency, the newer engines of China are now just entering what Roll Royce and GE had in the early 2000's. So the JF-17 could theocratically have more powerful avionics and allow room for Pakistan to develop better avionics for the jet, which could be more inefficient yet more powerful. Basically redesigning the outer frame slightly and adding new avionics. Also UCAV are not the main future of air combat, idk about Chinese but in arms-race Mao-dun is used about a weapon and it's counter measures, so basically UCAV might be flashy rn but soon enough a strong enough electronic countermeasure would come and basically make them ineffective. Much like how anti-air missiles made CAS completely redundant as a separate category. So no, the JF-17 has no parallels in the PLA as it is Grippen style take, infact the PLA has little to no experience in innovation in air hence why they're greenlighting all projects just cuz they have the funds. It's nothing new, infact the US did the same strats post-war allowing the technological creep that allowed US and West to dominate. So what Pakistan has for Block 4 is still speculation, however it's gonna be a larger airframe and redesign body. As you said, J-10 is a outdated design for the PLAAF, mainly due to it not having integrated EW or strong radar compared to the Flanker copies(as big radar in Pacific go brr), plus it's early role is completely redundant in the next decade. Compared to a new redesign JF-17, which could be enlarge and have a few structural changes to give it better rcs along with more effective EW integration room than the J-10. Props to Yang Wei ngl, he design this aircraft extremely good as apart from the size and a few changes because of requirements, the aircraft is a solid transitioning aircraft. Again assumptions, the choice of PAF is dependent on the requirements they have for the aircraft which could be different for each nation and their philosophy. PAF has a independent spirit for their air that is different compared to PLA or IAF, radar or range or electronics, everything is based on the requirements of the airforce. The J-10 is still a fantastic aircraft for many nation, while the Flanker is mediocre at best however due to Chinese land mass and other requirements they need to choose an effectively worse off aircraft. Tldr; don't make assumptions based upon your own nation's choices, China has dwindling pilot rollout hence they invest in unmanned craft, not because they're good but they can't risk a single pilot compared to PAF who has nearly 2.2 pilot for every craft making the craft more important than the pilot.
First is a good choice. Rest are braindead, I mean Michael has addressed the second point idk atleast 20 times? Cost are a thing, unless the Chinese are becoming hostile, why should we waste an extra 100k on equipment purchases and airframe parts per airframe built if the Chinese can give them to us directly? The US sources most of it's aircraft parts from Europe, same with Europe and Korea. Doesn't mean anything, just braindead nationalism at work which is only good against braindead Indians who say their Tejas airframe is made 100% in India while they source nearly 85% of the avionics from abroad. Sure we can try and build our own presses, helping out our indeginous aerospace sector but that is a completely different point and does not require us to make 100% of the airframe. The third point is something that is good, changing and redesigning aircraft are important. Like compare the YF-17 to the F/A-18, or the Legacy Hornets to the latter Superhornets. The FBW can be changed and it's okay, having a refined product three years later is better than a mess that gets shit added on. Like look at the Tejas, no major changes to the airframe or new redesign, just chugging shit in and the reward is a barely functioning aircraft.
It's not that the UCAV is inherently superior, but rather that, given the technological development path of the JF-17, developing a UCAV is the optimal solution under current technological conditions.
The exact price is unknown, but it's definitely not cheap.
Friend, I cannot answer your question. The premise of your discussion is fundamentally flawed.
I understand better what you mean now; if we are focused on limited costs; then a UCAV makes sense. While if we are going beyond the original framework, the resulting aircraft is no longer a JF-17.
If Pakistan develops the JF-17 within its existing framework, then it's solely a matter for Pakistan.
What's the point of local production if there is no export orders.
OK. If he is the one revealed it then it's certainly is NOT PFX whatever it is. I guess only real update about PFX will come during this years IDEAS in Nov. Before that whatever we hear or listen is part of noise.
