Mostly trainer-fighters dual purpose type lightweights like FA-50 that also offers AESA but no PL-15 equivalent.
At the end of the day, if a customer wants it, KAI is exploring Meteor integration with it, not only that, but the AMRAAM-D is ready on the block 70's. I have no interest however in hearing you tell me about how the PL-15 is the super missile wonderweapon and nothing compares, because you cant make that claim. So, dont bother with that rubbish. So yes, the FA-50 offers in class missiles.
FA-50 is nearly twice the cost of a JF-17 block 3 though and that's just unit price. Packaged for western weapons, parts and training, the FA-50 as a package would be more than 4 times the cost compared to a JF-17 block 3.
False. The Philippines paid 59m/unit for their FA-50PH. Heck, the Polish deal, which included a custom variant (FA-50PL) which included the Phantomstrike AESA and additional missiles worked out to 68m/usd per unit.
If the Azeri contract details are true, it puts the JF-17 at 115m/unit. The NAF paid 100m/unit too. Etc etc. Yes, they probably include infrastructure, however, at nearly double, those HAS better come with sacks of gold.
Tejas MK1.A would be an equivalent too but it's F404 engine supply dependent whereas even though the FA-50 uses the F404 as well, South Korea and Lockheed Martin directly profit from FA-50 sale so Uncle Sam is more likely to not disrupt engine supply. Mk1 hasn't got AESA yet but India claims to be close to putting Uttam to replace the Israeli EL/M-2052. Also doesn't have a missile comparable to PL-15 yet. Astra they say will be long ranged 200km + as well.
The Tejas is out of the game realistically.
Other fighters are far more expensive - Gripen E/F is like 5 times the price.
Which Gripen E contracts put it at 500m/unit?
If your country is western aligned or hopes to be then FA-50 or Gripen is the choice if you have deep pockets. Otherwise Tejas MK1.A or JF-17 block 3 is the choice. Mig-35 is more expensive than JF-17 and possibly worse performing since it has no AESA for actual use and no R-37M. Twin engine for Mig-35 also works against it for operational costs.
The MIG-35 has the benefit of commonality with the 29. Though, its also a non starter due to Russias state now. Most operators will continue to keep their 29's limping along until they cannot anymore. The JF-17 is actually an ok replacement for the 29, but PAC/CAC does not pitch it as such. Operational cost is not necessarily a figure looked at by forces on a budget as much, upfront cost is something more of a priority for them, this is why you end up seeing forces with questionable platforms that were cheap to buy, but insanely costly to run(cough, ZDK.). Its also why you see some of the worlds least funded forces operating insanely costly to run equiptment.
Any airforce that wants ready and proven AESA and long range missile combo for affordable price can only select JF-17 block 3.
The PAF denied any JF-17 involvement on any kills during op Sindoor.
And that aside, i sure as hell dont need to see an engagement to know that raytheon can build a bloody good aesa!
FA-50 and M346FA
