Pakistan’s plan to buy Chinese FC-31 stealth fighter jets: Global Times

[Ali_Baba]

the face of this replacement speed, a service life of 20 years is sufficient and economically appropriate.

Please don't try and paper over the fact that Chinese platforms are of a lower quality, and do not offer the same lifespans, or reliability of western systems with the "oh - it is planned obsolence and therefore all by design nonsense" ... Platforms are more modular, and systems are decoupled from the platform, with an expectation that the systems will get refreshed multiple times over the lifespan of the airframe. You are wrong in your logic to try and cover up this one aspect of chinese weapon systems. The point still remains that Chinese systems are much more expensive than western systems once you add up the procuremetn, operating and lifecycle costs compared to western systems. The quality is not there yet..

 

[nang2]

Please don't try and paper over the fact that Chinese platforms are of a lower quality, and do not offer the same lifespans, or reliability of western systems with the "oh - it is planned obsolence and therefore all by design nonsense" ... Platforms are more modular, and systems are decoupled from the platform, with an expectation that the systems will get refreshed multiple times over the lifespan of the airframe. You are wrong in your logic to try and cover up this one aspect of chinese weapon systems. The point still remains that Chinese systems are much more expensive than western systems once you add up the procuremetn, operating and lifecycle costs compared to western systems. The quality is not there yet..

Yeah, try to operate F-16 in Russian/Ukrainian airports and then talk about higher quality.

 

[ghazi52]

 

[uucc001]

Please don't try and paper over the fact that Chinese platforms are of a lower quality, and do not offer the same lifespans, or reliability of western systems with the "oh - it is planned obsolence and therefore all by design nonsense" ... Platforms are more modular, and systems are decoupled from the platform, with an expectation that the systems will get refreshed multiple times over the lifespan of the airframe. You are wrong in your logic to try and cover up this one aspect of chinese weapon systems. The point still remains that Chinese systems are much more expensive than western systems once you add up the procuremetn, operating and lifecycle costs compared to western systems. The quality is not there yet..

You buy a pocket knife and you can use it for a lifetime. Then your knife can beat a gun? Ridiculous logic.Even the poorest quality gun can kill a knife wielder with ease. . . Does it matter how good your knife is?If you have the ability to quickly update your weapon technology, you won't want to extend the life of your weapons. Only those who are unable to upgrade their weapons would think about extending the life of their weapons as much as possible. This is the sorrow of the incompetent. The goal of a weapon is to defeat the enemy, and the requirements for function (generation difference) are much higher than economic life, and function is the first priority. Your understanding of value engineering is zero...Once there is a generational difference in weapons, armies that are still using weapons of the previous generation will be unilaterally massacred.

 

[MirageBlue]

It will be interesting to know ( though we will never know ) how well the airframe holds up to the shock of both an EMALS launch, and arrested deck recovery. How many airframe hours, takeoffs and landings will the J-35 be rated for ?

Chinese aviation airframes are not known for their durability, with the JF17 only being able to get to 4,000hrs before it runs out of airframe hours. We of course dont know the airframe hours for the J10CE, J20, J15/16 etc so maybe they have gotten better in this regard. Also, just look at and compare the hornets landing gear and compare to the above pictures - does seem like the Hornet is designed to take more of a battering ?

I guess we can see if there are any external changes in subsequent prototypes and what that means interms of feedback from testing back into their designs.

Super Hornet landing gears are truly something else. Having seen them up close, they really are very beefy. Reminded me of the Jaguar and Flogger's main landing gears which were also very beefy due to a requirement to land on unpaved fields.

 

[guangdongt]

This is a PPT presentation on weapon mounting capability from a few years ago at a public exhibition of fc31。I'm not sure if the J-35 naval aircraft can accommodate more weapons

 

[guangdongt]

In addition, I would like to mention Shenyang Aircraft Company, also known as SAC, which manufactures the J-35. SAC is a strong player in aircraft structural design, and all public news indicates that SAC attaches great importance to the manufacturing technology of the FC31. From the beginning, SAC has adopted a series of technologies such as lightweight aircraft structural design, extensive use of composite materials, and laser shock strengthening. Chinese fighter jets have gone from scratch to pursue performance, Moving on to the stage of pursuing high quality and performance. FC31 has gone through almost 10 years of validation, during which a large number of new production technologies have matured to engineering applications. Later, J35 developed in this context. I can understand some people living in the past, still chattering about quality. Because these pieces of information are rarely reported abroad compared to aircraft performance. Moreover, the introduction time of Pakistan's J-10C is not long, and even partially improved J-10C is currently being used frequently. I think this is enough to illustrate the problem, not to mention the J-35, which was designed according to high standards from the beginning. Through the continuous precipitation of the FC31 validation machine in the early stage, the changes in J-35 are inherent, including significant improvements in body life, maintenance costs, etc. Time will prove that people's information transmission has absolute lag.

 

[guangdongt]

The J-35 is always despised by some people in our country who pursue functionality first. They criticize the J-35 as not a heavy fighter jet and for not having a side magazine. People always overlook the fact that as a carrier based aircraft, the J-35 is at the forefront of conflict and will directly face a large number of American F35s and various cutting-edge fighter jets from other countries. In such maritime operations, which are filled with electromagnetic interference and daily maintenance is filled with various salt alkali corrosion environments, this puts forward very high requirements for the manufacturing quality of the J-35. A truly usable naval aircraft itself is synonymous with quality.

 

[Ali_Baba]

You know nothing about value engineering. Your knowledge blind spot is too big. Too much prejudice.

No prejudice - a clinical discussion on actual numbers of flight hours, airframe lifespans and procurement costs. Hard facts...

 

[Ali_Baba]

Of course, Australia does not have any strength to keep up with China’s technological update speed. So you can only say sourly that the quality is not good. By the way, the quality of Chinese steel is poor because the imported Australian iron ore has too many impurities.

OMG - are you really going to "blame" Iron Ore ?

 

[Ali_Baba]

You buy a pocket knife and you can use it for a lifetime. Then your knife can beat a gun? Ridiculous logic.

Your logic here makes no logical sense. You are not comparing things on an equal basis. That is the whole point of this discussions. Are chinese warplanes of inferior quality to western warplanes. Russias have the same view as you but they are discovering their warplanes are being overuse relative to their overall airframe lifespans..

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/08/the-uncounted-losses-to-russias-air-force.html

The same problem exists with any operator of Chinese warplanes ... if your enemy has airframes that have 2x or 3x the overall lifespan that your warplanes do - then you are in trouble. That is why MTBO, Service life intervals are so important in consideration.

Even the poorest quality gun can kill a knife wielder with ease. . .

If the gun has rusted up because the manufacturer did a poor engineering job - then there is no guarantee that you can pull the trigger on the gun and it will work.. Shelf life and active lifespans of systems is an important part of the makeup of military systems.

Does it matter how good your knife is?If you have the ability to quickly update your weapon technology, you won't want to extend the life of your weapons.

The quality of a defence product given their large procurement costs is very very important. If you are having to re-buy weapons at 2x the rate of your enemy - then you have already lost part of the war. The economic war also sits alongside the military .. Countries have to be able to re-invest into their economies and grow so that they remain viable... Look at Pakistan - complete economic basket case? Would not last more than a few weeks in a toe to toe fight with India who can outlast Pakistan in any war. Pakistan has strategically lost already.

Only those who are unable to upgrade their weapons would think about extending the life of their weapons as much as possible. This is the sorrow of the incompetent.

No - this logic makes no logical sense.

The goal of a weapon is to defeat the enemy, and the requirements for function (generation difference) are much higher than economic life, and function is the first priority. Your understanding of value engineering is zero...

Military systems are part of an ecosystem of capability, part of which is the military capability of the product, and part of it is the economic strength to utilise those weapons. If you have become near bankrupt buying inferior systems that dont last as long as the systems deployed by your enemy, then you have lost the battle already..

Once there is a generational difference in weapons, armies that are still using weapons of the previous generation will be unilaterally massacred.

The Americans are professionals at war, they understand what is required for war, and they have buillt their systems for war. Weapon systems shelf life, active operational lifespans, servicing requirements, mtbo, overall lifespans are all dedicated to winning wars. That is why American systems are popular and people want to buy them. Chinese systems are the opposite. They are not designed for warfare, they are designed to make profit for China by forcing people to rebuy systems more frequently as they are not designed to compete with american systems for the variables that are important to war.

 

[uucc001]

Your logic here makes no logical sense. You are not comparing things on an equal basis. That is the whole point of this discussions. Are chinese warplanes of inferior quality to western warplanes. Russias have the same view as you but they are discovering their warplanes are being overuse relative to their overall airframe lifespans..

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/08/the-uncounted-losses-to-russias-air-force.html

The same problem exists with any operator of Chinese warplanes ... if your enemy has airframes that have 2x or 3x the overall lifespan that your warplanes do - then you are in trouble. That is why MTBO, Service life intervals are so important in consideration.



If the gun has rusted up because the manufacturer did a poor engineering job - then there is no guarantee that you can pull the trigger on the gun and it will work.. Shelf life and active lifespans of systems is an important part of the makeup of military systems.



The quality of a defence product given their large procurement costs is very very important. If you are having to re-buy weapons at 2x the rate of your enemy - then you have already lost part of the war. The economic war also sits alongside the military .. Countries have to be able to re-invest into their economies and grow so that they remain viable... Look at Pakistan - complete economic basket case? Would not last more than a few weeks in a toe to toe fight with India who can outlast Pakistan in any war. Pakistan has strategically lost already.



No - this logic makes no logical sense.



Military systems are part of an ecosystem of capability, part of which is the military capability of the product, and part of it is the economic strength to utilise those weapons. If you have become near bankrupt buying inferior systems that dont last as long as the systems deployed by your enemy, then you have lost the battle already..



The Americans are professionals at war, they understand what is required for war, and they have buillt their systems for war. Weapon systems shelf life, active operational lifespans, servicing requirements, mtbo, overall lifespans are all dedicated to winning wars. That is why American systems are popular and people want to buy them. Chinese systems are the opposite. They are not designed for warfare, they are designed to make profit for China by forcing people to rebuy systems more frequently as they are not designed to compete with american systems for the variables that are important to war.

Your basic settings are wrong. None of China's fighter jets start to retire after their service life reaches 20 years. Higher quality means higher cost. The essence of value engineering is the organic unity of cost and function---you simply don't understand this. Costs should be minimized over the life of the feature. You probably can’t understand this.

 

[guangdongt]

Your logic here makes no logical sense. You are not comparing things on an equal basis. That is the whole point of this discussions. Are chinese warplanes of inferior quality to western warplanes. Russias have the same view as you but they are discovering their warplanes are being overuse relative to their overall airframe lifespans..

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/08/the-uncounted-losses-to-russias-air-force.html

The same problem exists with any operator of Chinese warplanes ... if your enemy has airframes that have 2x or 3x the overall lifespan that your warplanes do - then you are in trouble. That is why MTBO, Service life intervals are so important in consideration.



If the gun has rusted up because the manufacturer did a poor engineering job - then there is no guarantee that you can pull the trigger on the gun and it will work.. Shelf life and active lifespans of systems is an important part of the makeup of military systems.



The quality of a defence product given their large procurement costs is very very important. If you are having to re-buy weapons at 2x the rate of your enemy - then you have already lost part of the war. The economic war also sits alongside the military .. Countries have to be able to re-invest into their economies and grow so that they remain viable... Look at Pakistan - complete economic basket case? Would not last more than a few weeks in a toe to toe fight with India who can outlast Pakistan in any war. Pakistan has strategically lost already.



No - this logic makes no logical sense.



Military systems are part of an ecosystem of capability, part of which is the military capability of the product, and part of it is the economic strength to utilise those weapons. If you have become near bankrupt buying inferior systems that dont last as long as the systems deployed by your enemy, then you have lost the battle already..



The Americans are professionals at war, they understand what is required for war, and they have buillt their systems for war. Weapon systems shelf life, active operational lifespans, servicing requirements, mtbo, overall lifespans are all dedicated to winning wars. That is why American systems are popular and people want to buy them. Chinese systems are the opposite. They are not designed for warfare, they are designed to make profit for China by forcing people to rebuy systems more frequently as they are not designed to compete with american systems for the variables that are important to war.

Your statement is full of contradictions. The most critical life cycle of a fighter jet is the first 20 years. The MiG-21 fighter jet served in India for a considerable period of time before being shot down in the conflict between India and Pakistan. No matter how much it is renovated or upgraded, it is an outdated aircraft. J10c joined the Pakistani Air Force for a short period of time, but participated in the Pakistani air raid on Iran. Not to mention that JF17 has been involved in various operations in Pakistan for over a decade. According to your forced purchase statement, Russia will definitely force India to assemble the SU30mki, after all, the MiG-21 is still flying, and they will force you to purchase the SU30 again

Türkiye's f16 upgrade plan, including purchase. Türkiye has paid a price of 20billion dollars, which in your mind is certainly not a forced purchase. At the same time, Greece obtained F35 at a lower cost, which may be the cheap beauty of Western weapons in your mind.

 

[Nuffle]

It will be interesting to know ( though we will never know ) how well the airframe holds up to the shock of both an EMALS launch, and arrested deck recovery. How many airframe hours, takeoffs and landings will the J-35 be rated for ?

Chinese aviation airframes are not known for their durability, with the JF17 only being able to get to 4,000hrs before it runs out of airframe hours. We of course dont know the airframe hours for the J10CE, J20, J15/16 etc so maybe they have gotten better in this regard. Also, just look at and compare the hornets landing gear and compare to the above pictures - does seem like the Hornet is designed to take more of a battering ?

I guess we can see if there are any external changes in subsequent prototypes and what that means interms of feedback from testing back into their designs.

Fighters can increase their service life after an overhaul. By way of comparison, the Typhoon started with 3,000h, reduced it to 1,500h, after review it returned to 3,000h and aims to reach 6,000h. F-16C/D increased to 13,000h from a useful life of 8,000h...

 

[vkdindian]

Most of the recent posts have digressed from the topic in hand.

PAF has always proven to be more dynamic and nimble in its acquisitions compared to its eastern counterpart.

Keeping aside the economy part of it, I am sure that PAF would be able to induct something at a short notice like J10, as and when the need arises.