www.China-Defense.com

It was a fighter the PLAAF never wanted, given its recent orientation towards longer ranged, heavier payload aircraft. Yet for political reasons, it may have to purchase at least 100 to 150 of these fighters to lower its costs and help fulfill China's obligation on the program, which it shares with Pakistan. There are suggestions and sentiments that the project should be stopped, given its delays, with only a prototype scheduled to fly next year, more than five years after the first revised J-10 took off. It may take even more years for it to finally see service, and there are reasons why Chengdu proposed the alternative F-7MF program.

The FC-1 holds too many similarities to another project, somewhat similar in weight, power, fuel capability, even in appearance and name—the F-CK1 or Taiwan IDF fighter, a plane that is derided in the mainland. Compare some of the specs: the empty weight for both respectively is 6,300kg and 6,500kg. Engine power is 18,100lbs for the FC-1 using the Klimov RD93 engines; the F-CK1 generates a max of 18,900lbs from its two small engines. The internal fuel for the F-CK1 is 2,200kg; the FC-1 holds about 2,300kg.

But there are interesting virtues about this plane. The substantial changes in the aerodynamics and weight balance of the F-7MF warrant further testing, whereas development for the FC-1 has reached a far more advanced stage. The FC-1's basic technology is simple, yet modern, relying on time tested technologies rather than the cutting edge. It's relative lack of complexity should make for fair quick development and debugging, keep costs low, and production speedy.

The FC-1 will undoubtedly be compared to the cranked delta J-7 series. But regardless how well the cranked delta J-7s perform, the ultimate issue is the long term, assuming that the prototype shows promise in the area of maneuverability. The FC-1 still possess greater future potential than a J-7. The V shaped inlets for example, should give ample airflow during high angles of attack. The nose could hold an adequately sized radar for BVR confrontation, and the airframe could hold a more powerful engine, which it does need, for the current engine spec is a little underpowered.

Although the Klimov RD93 (similar to the RD33 used in the MiG-29 Fulcrum) is the engine slated for the the FC-1, in the future, it should consider a domestic engine. It should be easier for China to develop and deploy an indigenous engine of medium thrust power, around 8000-9000kg maximum thrust, to suit the FC-1's needs, compared to 125,000 to 130,000kg maximum thrust needed to suit the J-10's needs.

Of course, it remains important that the FC-1 remains in the light and simple category and evolving towards a heavier, more capable fighter would cause it to overlap is jurisdiction with the J-10 and create an internal conflict. It would also raise it's costs.

If used as a shorter range, tactical strike or attack jet, the FC-1 has better payload capacity at 3,800kg versus a Q-5 Fantan's 2,000kg at best, despite the Fantan having similar power and weight numbers to the FC-1.

The combination of a potentially more advanced and low cost makes the FC-1 makes an ideal meat filling “cannon fodder” and alternative to the J-10, should large numbers of J-10 to replace phased out aircraft become economically unviable. With J-10 and J-11 filling Category A regiments or wings, FC-1 could provide a healthy upgrade to Category B units. The FC-1's short range, however, remains it's biggest shortcoming, although it is unavoidable with light fighters. Yet, the FC-1 has greater range than the F-7MG, with 3,000km for its ferry range and a combat radius of 1,300km with external fuel tanks.

Another shortcoming is its obvious late development and uncertain future. The project is however, tied into an inked contract with Pakistan, which is sharing the costs of development. Thus, the PRC cannot cancel if they want to without losing face to the Pakistanis. Furthermore, as a joint project, the costs to the PRC won't be as high as any fighter and export sales could offset these costs. Everything will depend on how the actual prototype would perform.

While the FC-1 may not be quite a match against more sophisticated Western aircraft, obsolete aircraft like the J-7 or Q-5 will fare even less. Its straight forward simplicity can make it easier to maintain a high sortie availability and readiness. Armed with a medium range active guided missile and helmet sighted, large angle off boresight missiles, and the FC-1 can still be a threat, as a great measure of the threat effectiveness really lies in the effectivity of your missile ordinance. In fact, as trends show that missiles becoming a dominant factor, planes are rendered to the role of a mere missile delivery vehicle, an aerial "pick up truck", and whether a missile is fired from an SU-30MKK or an FC-1, it is still the same missile. With that consideration, the FC-1 can be quite cost effective.

1. Relative simplicity and low cost makes it good for cannon fodder or Cat. B role.
2. Sufficient provision for BVR radars and missiles
3. More advanced than any of the J-7, including proposed variants.
4. Greater payload and range than the J-7 and Q-5.
5. Greater long term potential for engine and fire control upgrades than the J-6. Can pay for itself. Less political hamstrings to export compared to J-10.

1. Late development
2. Performance is unknown factor. It must perform significantly over the J-7 to justify itself.
3. Raising specifications could bring overlapping conflict with the J-10 and raise the plane's costs.
4. J-10 production and cost an unknown factor as to whether it could justify the FC-1 or not.
5. Relatively small range to PLAAF's requirements despite better range than J-7 and Q-5.