Shopping for Fighters: Is the Chinese/Pakistani JF-17 Thunder the Real “Joint Strike Fighter”?

Nov 09 2017 - 72 Comments
By Tom Demerly

Cheap, Easy, Available: Asia’s JF-17 Thunder Contrasts U.S. and Russian Tactical Aircraft.

Develop it faster, build it cheaper and make it more available. From electronics to automobiles, the Asian doctrine of the 20th century. With the rush toward globalization and the blurring of borders in the internet age, manufactured products in every category move across borders and subvert political boundaries with impunity.

Tactical combat aircraft may be the next category.

Traditionally, high level defense and aerospace programs have been slow to move toward global distribution largely because of regional security concerns, partially because of technology concerns, and definitely because of economic concerns. But those concerns may be taking a back seat to the new priorities of updating old air forces as new political boundaries and alliances are drawn, and old ones are erased.

Enter the Chinese and Pakistani co-manufactured PAC JF-17 Thunder tactical aircraft, also referred to as the CAC FC-1 Xiaolong or “Fierce Dragon”. The JF-17 is a lightweight, single-engine, multi-role combat aircraft developed from a joint venture between the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) and the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) of China.

In the ethos of eastern imports competing with western aircraft like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program, the JF-17 Thunder can be hawked as “better, cheaper, faster” to many end users who could not afford to participate in the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter program for political or financial reasons or both. While the “better” and “faster” are certainly doubtful, the “cheaper” is set in stone. For many countries, that is the single most important acquisition metric; affordability.

Global political change has mandated the need for new mass-market, non-western import/export multi-role tactical aircraft. When the former Soviet Warsaw Pact defense industry collapsed along with the Iron Curtain at the end of the Cold War it left huge inventories of largely Russian-built tactical aircraft in service with third world air forces.

The Russian-built MiGs and Sukhois in African and Arab service were sturdy, easy to maintain and designed to operate in austere conditions. They were perfect for air forces in developing nations. When countries engaged in a greater or lesser degree of political alignment with the former Soviet Union, the price of the Russian-built tactical aircraft went down, sometimes to zero in lend-lease or other political machinations.

But those old Eastern Bloc, Cold War Russian planes supplied to banana republic countries and oil nations with shifting global agendas are wearing out, and many of the lines that separated the countries who use them have been erased and redrawn in the Arab Spring and the new Africa. These changes have created a market for a new, affordable, regionally capable fighter plane. The Chinese and Pakistani JF-17 may fill that need.

The JF-17 many fill a low-cost, more available niche for many nations (Photo: PAC/CAC)

The generic looking, “no-brand” JF-17 is what most people would sketch on a napkin to show what jet fighters look like. It is quite unremarkable by 5th generation combat aircraft standards. If U.S. wholesale retailers Costco or Sam’s Club sold fighter planes, they would sell the JF-17. The JF-17 probably may have more in common with the 1950’s F-100 Super Saber than the current F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

In numbers, a JF-17 Thunder costs (approximately) between $25 million USD-$32 million USD, depending on the tranche and avionics version. Contrast that with the $94 million to $134 million USD price tag of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. If you are a sales agent for the Chinese/Pakistan consortium building the JF-17 one of the first lines in your pitch at the Paris or Dubai Air Show will be, “For the price of one F-35 you can fly almost four JF-17s!” Then you open your slick PowerPoint (in one of 6 languages) and back up your sales pitch with shorter training cycles for air crew, lower maintenance cost, easier and faster acquisition, and on and on.

New upgrade proposals and capability expansion for the JF-17 program make a versatile and affordable option. (Photo: PAC/CAC)

If you are selling the JF-17 Thunder it is unlikely you will be courting the same prospective market as F-35 program participants. And you will certainly do well to also stay away from comparisons about capability, because comparing an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in any version to the JF-17 Thunder is like comparing a Bomar Brain pocket calculator from the 1970’s to a new MacBook Pro computer. They are completely different products.

But the JF-17 is still a capable aircraft that is well-engineered for a burgeoning market of basic tactical aircraft consumer nations. To date, operators include Myanmar, Nigeria and Pakistan. Countries that have indicated, at some point, an interest in the project include Argentina, Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Qatar, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Uruguay.

Given the dynamic nature of global politics and fluid changes in alliances the JF-17 fills a niche for many countries. That alone is reason to be familiar with it.

Top image credit: Shimin Gu

Salva

Salva

Salva

  • Bilal

    It is very good choice for some countries who wants to have a capable air Force. Good article, We got this new information about a budget aircraft.

  • SirSmoustache

    If I were to be honest, I really do hope this aircraft would be successful enough to inspire other countries to start making their own jets. Though highly improbable, the thought of more competition is nice.

  • Mohamed Labib

    how come u compare this limited capability ,useless fighter to F-35 ,comparing RAFALs is ok MIG 35 is may be,but this flying trash is impossible

  • Naveed rasheed

    F-35 is highly criticised for its costs, plus the program took decades in development and tax payers money, whereas JF17 took less than a qtr of that both in time and money.
    If JF17 can be build this quicklly and economically, certainly it can catchup or maybe exceed F35 in future.

    • Uniform223

      A flight of F-35s would look at the (possible) numerical superiority of JF-17 and say, “now that is what I call a target rich environment”.

  • Imran Afzal

    Please don’t forget the western propaganda prowes, F-22 has gone to the bins. F35 has isn’t better than spitfire in close dogfight. F35 is technically so advance that engineers will be getting it ready, whereas war would have entered negotiations table.

  • Burgs

    If successful “Joint Strike Fighter” equates to something that is merely better than a grounded 40 year old Mig 21, then yes, the J17 is a “successful” JSF.
    Otherwise it is a merely a placeholder that allows a third world air force to claim that they have X number of fighters – ignoring, of course, that they are actually saddled with 21st century Brewster Buffaloes.

  • Bobserver

    And while airplanes will go one way with 5th generation stealth fighters the other way will be mass produced pilotless drones/planes that because they are relieved of the need for life-support and related systems safety systems can either carry more ordinance or be made slimmer/smaller. The Chinese will be able to mass produce the latter for even cheaper costs. The future just got interesting.

  • Sami Shahid

    Very nice article… well JF-17 was mainly built to replace the obsolete interceptor F-7 & Ground attack air crafts “ Mirage 3 & 5”. The JF-17 can not only intercept & attack on ground but it can attack on ground with precision & can fight in the airspace as well in all weather conditions day/night. The Chinese FC-1 is mainly designed for interceptions while JF-17 is designed for counter insurgency, interception,border security,air to air warfare & Anti-ship roles. The JF-17B is a dual seat version equipped with long range targeting pods while the block 3 would be equipped with AESA radar & Helmet Mounted Display. If Pakistan can install a Mach 1.8 engine on the block 3 then it won’t need any more F-16’s.

  • Naveed rasheed

    your understanding of technology seams naive and simplistic.

  • Chugs 1984

    Hi Leory

    Just to clarify your comment there are no exact agreed upon casualties for the Vietnam war. Instead there basically three estimates, low (1.45m), middle (2.45m) and high (3.59m).

    What makes it all the more confusing is how NVA and Viet Cong were counted and divided, one of those forces constituted from people in the North and the other force being constituted from the South.

    After the Tet Offensive the Viet Cong were utterly decimated (despite their apparent success) and were basically rebuilt by the NVA forces.

    Second how many people did the US forces kill? Well the estimates that you can read, at least from point of view, are exceedingly low. US bombing is estimated to have killed 50-65k, whilst US forces are estimated at killing just 5,500-10,000 which in my mind is ridiculously low.

    Look at the number of US military war dead, 58,318 were killed by NVA and Viet Cong forces. The idea that 543,000 only killed 10,000 enemy is just ridiculous. Considering the force multipler I would argue that they killed at least 1m plus NVA, Viet Cong and Chinese troops.

    Combine that with the atrocioities committed by ARVN forces, and the bombing and chemical warfare several million civilians were killed, bringing the total to around 3-4 million.