JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
- Thread starter crazyinsane105
- Start date
- Status
Not going to happen anytime soon.
The reason behind the creation of JF-17 is:
1) Cheap unit pricing
2) Easy maintenance
3) Ease of use
4) Simplicity
5) Adaptable to upgrades of foreign equipments
Marketing view point:
1) Aimed as an upgrade to replace large amounts of 3rd generation fighter
2) Aimed at nations who cannot afford the more expensive 4th generation fighters
If any twin engine fighter springs out, it won't be a JF-17 version, it will be completely new, and overhauled.
Good basic semi-stealth? Please elaborate more.
yeah, i read that already used by Pakistan AF, and several potential African country as customer.
as twin-engined uhm maybe your right...but as semi-stealth 4.5 gen is have possibility, depend to owner needs, it has DSI-type inlet like JSF, one step forward to reduce RCS. Can you imagine if this fighter turn into stealth? it's gonna look like JSF twins!
It's good fighter indeed, I wonder why PLAAF didn't use it, beside FC-1 is born by Chinese engineer right?
as twin-engined uhm maybe your right...but as semi-stealth 4.5 gen is have possibility, depend to owner needs, it has DSI-type inlet like JSF, one step forward to reduce RCS. Can you imagine if this fighter turn into stealth? it's gonna look like JSF twins!
It's good fighter indeed, I wonder why PLAAF didn't use it, beside FC-1 is born by Chinese engineer right?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
That's a picture of it doing weapons integration tests with the PL12/SD10.
With a dual rack, the JF17 should be able to loft 6 PL12s and a pair of PL5s as well as a centerline drop tank. But the PLAAF rarely if ever flies with airshow loadouts like that.
As for why they are not buying it, well the PLAAF is trying to cut down on the number of types they are operating, and the JF17 is really struggling to find a place in the new order of battle.
At the top end, you have the J10 and J11 at present, with the J20 coming online in the future, so the J10 and J11 would drop down to the medium level.
The low-end air policing duties can easily be undertaken by an armed version of whatever future trainer the PLAAF settles on, be it the L15, or an evolved JL9 version.
But personally, I am starting to get the feeling that part of the rational for continuing with the J11s is that they will take over a lot of the air policing duties.
Because of their great range, you will need far fewer aircraft and air bases to be able to cover the vast Chinese hinterland - places that have very little of value for hostile air power to attack, and also situated near neighbours without the reason or means to mount a serious air threat.
This will allow the PLAAF to make the numerical cuts they are planning to make but not leave holes in China's air defense. And if it really came down to it, the J11s can be re-deployed much quicker and easier than shorter-ranged fighters like the JF17.
With a dual rack, the JF17 should be able to loft 6 PL12s and a pair of PL5s as well as a centerline drop tank. But the PLAAF rarely if ever flies with airshow loadouts like that.
As for why they are not buying it, well the PLAAF is trying to cut down on the number of types they are operating, and the JF17 is really struggling to find a place in the new order of battle.
At the top end, you have the J10 and J11 at present, with the J20 coming online in the future, so the J10 and J11 would drop down to the medium level.
The low-end air policing duties can easily be undertaken by an armed version of whatever future trainer the PLAAF settles on, be it the L15, or an evolved JL9 version.
But personally, I am starting to get the feeling that part of the rational for continuing with the J11s is that they will take over a lot of the air policing duties.
Because of their great range, you will need far fewer aircraft and air bases to be able to cover the vast Chinese hinterland - places that have very little of value for hostile air power to attack, and also situated near neighbours without the reason or means to mount a serious air threat.
This will allow the PLAAF to make the numerical cuts they are planning to make but not leave holes in China's air defense. And if it really came down to it, the J11s can be re-deployed much quicker and easier than shorter-ranged fighters like the JF17.
The JF17 is indeed optimized for PAF-IAF scenario. With many alternatives the PLAAF has to focus on what they want and need. Personally I think the JF17 fits nicely into PLAAF but that is just a personal opinion. What is interesting is the SD10(b?) on the Chinese Fc1. I cannot imagine putting them on the outer pylons. But a dual launcher is indeed very handy. If they can put dual racks for bombs then what is the big issue with dual BCR? Maybe I have it wrong. For JF17 4 BVR and 2 WVR are more then enough to do CAP. The range can be altered by belly and wingtanks. And we still have IFR. For a2g there is less flexibility compared with bigger fighters. For heavy stuff on needs the wet pylons, hence lowering range.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Dual PL12 racks have been shown in model form for years, and we even recently caught a picture of it being used on real aircraft.
If the PAF wants it on the JF17, it should be a simple enough job of mating the launcher to the airplane and flight testing it - just the basic weapons integration process.
If the PAF wants it on the JF17, it should be a simple enough job of mating the launcher to the airplane and flight testing it - just the basic weapons integration process.
Not necessarily. First, the weapon control system's software has to support it. Then it has to pass aerodynamic testing. The launchers may have to be modified to match the fighter's center of gravity.
It can be done. It may be simple, but may cause unintended complications.
For example, many years ago, when CAC designed F7M for export, to add support for 4 missiles (PLAAF F7 carries only 2), dead weight had to be added to F7M due to center of gravity issues, reducing the fighter's performance.
Personally, I would like to see combo racks for the body center line rack, to leave the wing points for anti-ground weapons.
- Status