JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Geographer]

What kind of upgrades can the JF-17 expect in coming years? IRST, WS-13 engines, conformal fuel tanks, AESA radar? Is AESA overkill for a lightweight fighter like this?

I read on this board that the J-10A is sufficiently better than the JF-17 in performance for the PLAAF to make the J-10A its standard lightweight fighter. How can we compare performance of the two aircraft? The J-10A has some gaping problems like no DSI, IRST, or AESA radar that the J-10B fixes, yet China does not seem to be producing the J-10B in great quantities.

 

[siegecrossbow]

What kind of upgrades can the JF-17 expect in coming years? IRST, WS-13 engines, conformal fuel tanks, AESA radar? Is AESA overkill for a lightweight fighter like this?

I read on this board that the J-10A is sufficiently better than the JF-17 in performance for the PLAAF to make the J-10A its standard lightweight fighter. How can we compare performance of the two aircraft? The J-10A has some gaping problems like no DSI, IRST, or AESA radar that the J-10B fixes, yet China does not seem to be producing the J-10B in great quantities.

J-10A is hardly a lightweight... it is more of a medium weight fighter (only slightly lighter than the Eurofighter). I don't think it is comparable with the JF-17.

 

[johnqh]

What kind of upgrades can the JF-17 expect in coming years? IRST, WS-13 engines, conformal fuel tanks, AESA radar? Is AESA overkill for a lightweight fighter like this?

I read on this board that the J-10A is sufficiently better than the JF-17 in performance for the PLAAF to make the J-10A its standard lightweight fighter. How can we compare performance of the two aircraft? The J-10A has some gaping problems like no DSI, IRST, or AESA radar that the J-10B fixes, yet China does not seem to be producing the J-10B in great quantities.

Think J-10 as F-16, and FC1 as F-20. USAF didn't want F-20. For the same reason, PLAAF doesn't want FC1.

I don't think the issue is flight performance, but weapons, range, and room to grow.

I don't think J-10B has been finalized yet. J-10A has had a good production rate(about 20+/year?). Remember J-10A is China's first domestic 3G fighter, so everything needs to be upgraded, from pilot training, maintenance, facilities etc. It wouldn't help if you product the fighters and nobody can fly them. F-16 had the peak production rate of 72/year, but most 3G fighters seem to have peak production rate of 12 to 36/year. So J-10A is certainly doing fine.

 

[plawolf]

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.

AKA, the basic weapons integration process. Only easier since the racks can be re-designed if needed, whereas if you were flight testing a large missile, you need to make other changes since the profile of the missile is already set. That is where your F7 example might have been relevant.

But we are in a different age now, with modern FBW computers and software, the flight control computers can be programmed to automatically compensate for any imbalances (so long as they are not massive, and there is no reason to think they would be) without the need to add in counter weights.

 

[plawolf]

What kind of upgrades can the JF-17 expect in coming years? IRST, WS-13 engines, conformal fuel tanks, AESA radar? Is AESA overkill for a lightweight fighter like this?

I read on this board that the J-10A is sufficiently better than the JF-17 in performance for the PLAAF to make the J-10A its standard lightweight fighter. How can we compare performance of the two aircraft? The J-10A has some gaping problems like no DSI, IRST, or AESA radar that the J-10B fixes, yet China does not seem to be producing the J-10B in great quantities.

There are currently no operationally deployed fighters in the world that has DSI, IRST and AESA radar. Does that mean they all have 'gaping problems'?

IRST, AESA and the J10B's integrated EW/ECM pods can be retrofitted to existing J10As with little difficulty. The only thing that would be hard to retrofit would be the DSI, but even without DSI it will be one hell of a fighter.

The J10B's slow progress may be due to the J20 getting priority, or it could have something to do with the mysterious new engines the J20 has been using and changing to.

It will all depend on the WS15 timing, but if there is the possibility of having the J20 and J10B share the same engine, and a fifth gen supercruising engine at that, it would be very tempting to wait for the WS15 if it is not too many years off.

 

[johnqh]

AKA, the basic weapons integration process. Only easier since the racks can be re-designed if needed, whereas if you were flight testing a large missile, you need to make other changes since the profile of the missile is already set. That is where your F7 example might have been relevant.

But we are in a different age now, with modern FBW computers and software, the flight control computers can be programmed to automatically compensate for any imbalances (so long as they are not massive, and there is no reason to think they would be) without the need to add in counter weights.

It took several months to test SD-10/PL-12 on J-10 (we don't know the reason). PL-12 was successfully tested on other platforms (J-8B?) before. Eventually the problem was found on the J-10 side. Basic weapons integration process?

First, we don't know if JF-17's weapon control system can support two missiles on the same rack.

Second, the best way to balance out weapon launches with minimum impact on performance is to have a intelligent fuel system to adjust the center of gravity. We don't know if JF-17 has that.

Third, JF-17's FWB is limited to yawl.

Like I said, if PAF wants it, I am sure CAC can add it. But there is a cost (time and money) cost associated with it. It all comes down to whether the benefit is worth the cost.

 

[Munir]

I don't think it is limited whether PAF wants it. It is mostly related to how they want to sell JF17. If you can offer dual racks and make the fighter suitable for more BVR then it will sell better. And since CAC is interested in selling planes it is matter of time they will do the testing. For Pakistan it is more important to have a BVR right now. Whether they have 2 or 4 right now is not a big issue.

 

[johnqh]

I don't think it is limited whether PAF wants it. It is mostly related to how they want to sell JF17. If you can offer dual racks and make the fighter suitable for more BVR then it will sell better. And since CAC is interested in selling planes it is matter of time they will do the testing. For Pakistan it is more important to have a BVR right now. Whether they have 2 or 4 right now is not a big issue.

When you make a product, there is always something "nice to have". You have to stop somewhere.

A lot of small countries will never see air combats with more than 1 to 1. For them, 2 is enough. I don't see having only 2 is a limitation when selling to small developing countries.

However, for PAF, it makes a lot of sense to have 4. IAF has way more fighters than PAF.

 

[Munir]

In the PAF-IAF scenario it is fighting for PAF in their area close to their airfields and defenses. They do not need to carry huge fuel reserves or a2g. If they come close they already have the upper hand.

 

[i.e.]

Second, the best way to balance out weapon launches with minimum impact on performance is to have a intelligent fuel system to adjust the center of gravity. We don't know if JF-17 has that.

.

Not really done that way on real airplanes.

Fuel Slosh in tanks would move those CGs anyways.

a flight control system (FBW or not ) would have to deal with CG shift for weapon and fuel burns.

There is a way to estimate CG/(and gross weight) but it is only estimate.