JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[pshamim]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

After the recent go ahead given by Russians for RD-93 export to Pakistan, as expected, articles by some who are unfriendly and chronically biased towards China and Pakistan have started to trash the JF-17. What is not very clear as to why attempts were being made to block the engines for such a supposedly inferior aircraft.

However, good news keeps coming out suggesting a very positive picture of PAF and its new additions in the coming days.

The latest June issue of the Air Force Monthly Magazine, carries an interview with PAF Chief. The article is at least 6-7 pages long and discusses the following:

1. PAF will be raising the number of JF-17 to 250
2. First 50 will be equipped with Chinese made avionics which Pakistan helped develop.
3. PAF will equip the 2nd batch with AESA. Negotiations in progress with Thales or Gaileo '
4. 16th and 26th squadrons will be the first to get the Thunder;
5. Chinese KLJ-7 radar turned out to be more advanced and capable than the APG-66 on F-16A/B. APG-66 is being replaced by APG-68(v)9 through the MLU;
6.JF-17 to be armed with French, US, and Chinese BVRs. (Wonder what the US position is)
7. Not only the Chinese but the Russians were very cooperative in the development of JF-17.
8. A brand new Air Force base is being built for F-16s

Other points in the article:

1. A minimum strength of 400 combat aircrafts will be maintained. More may be in plans.
2. Middle of 2007, IL-76 will be converted for house and drouge refueling for JF-17
3. F-16 will be equipped with boon refuelling planes for F-16
4. C-130s are being upgraded
5. Erieyes will be joined by Chinese AWACS by 2009.

All the above will be completed by 2012.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Reproduced from DefenceTalk.com

 

[maglomanic]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Please remove it if it violates any copyrights. The photographer's name is there on the picture with magazine's name.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[speculator]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

I don't believe further FC-1 improvements will bring a second engine, in that weight-class, a fighter should stick with one.
The FC-1 is designed to be light, a second engine will only add unneeded weight.
Though we know/assume the FC-1 currently to be underpowered, this can be solved by a stronger engine in the future. But I don't see a need for a second one.
It would also necessitate a major airframe and aerodynamics redesign and I don't exspect the FC-1 to be worth it.
And since it will be an important plane for PAF in the future, I exspect them to stay in the development all the way.

i agree with you here. a twin engine design for a light-weight fighter is just not a good idea. it does not only add extra weight, but also gives the fighter very short legs. Look at what happened to the Mig 29, very short legs indeed compaired to the F-16. and also, not a significant performance increase.

 

[crobato]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

i agree with you here. a twin engine design for a light-weight fighter is just not a good idea. it does not only add extra weight, but also gives the fighter very short legs. Look at what happened to the Mig 29, very short legs indeed compaired to the F-16. and also, not a significant performance increase.

There are other two examples. One is the Ching Kuo fighter. For what its worth, it had very short legs due to the twin small engines. But on the other hand, it has a very good safety record because of the engine redudancy.

The other example is the F-5 series. They're still short legged by absolute standards, but not as bad as MiG-21s.

The basic idea of a twin engined design for a light weight fighter is because you don't have the technology to make that big single engine with enough thrust. The more powerful they are, the harder they push the technology development boundary. But a smaller, less powerful engine is less technological challenging, and putting two together gives you the same output. Not to mention providing that safety margin. Of course, its not perfect, it raises your plane costs, your maintenance complexity.

That's the idea behind why the Typhoon and the Rafale also uses twin engines. Don't think Europe had the capability to produce a big superpowerful single engine like F135 for the JSF. But RB199 or SNECMA M88-2 each are less challenging to develop.

One has to understand this is also the reason why J-8II with two small engines succeeded, while J-9 with one big engine did not.

 

[Chengdu J-10]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

I agree to you to a certain degree Crobato, indeed one single powerful big turbofan signifies advancement then two small engine giving out the same power. But sooner or later you have to insert two turbofans no matter how advance your nation is even if you can build a single super powerful turbofan you still have the insurance that if one coughs out you still have one powering your plane. No matter how safe that one engine is, your mind feels much at ease with two engines powering your plane. But this isnt my point. My point is that even thought the US is "currently" most powerfulness nation it still to had to insert 2 turbofans into its aircraft. The F-22 raptor iam talking about the heavey weight class fighter uses two powerful engine. If they were to use one singular engine it'll be pretty big and fuel consuming then just two smaller engines.

 

[noxiouspython]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

i agree with you here. a twin engine design for a light-weight fighter is just not a good idea. it does not only add extra weight, but also gives the fighter very short legs. Look at what happened to the Mig 29, very short legs indeed compaired to the F-16. and also, not a significant performance increase.

Forgive my ignorance could you please explain what you mean by giving the aircraft Short legs?

Another thing is how long till JF-17 gets WS-13, considering the fact that the Russians have allowed RD-93 re-export to Pakistan [and a large number has been approved] so does that mean that the WS-13 isn't on track or something else?

 

[bd popeye]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Forgive my ignorance could you please explain what you mean by giving the aircraft Short legs?

Short legs means the aircraft has a limited range.

Someone else can answer your engine questions.

 

[crobato]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

I agree to you to a certain degree Crobato, indeed one single powerful big turbofan signifies advancement then two small engine giving out the same power. But sooner or later you have to insert two turbofans no matter how advance your nation is even if you can build a single super powerful turbofan you still have the insurance that if one coughs out you still have one powering your plane. No matter how safe that one engine is, your mind feels much at ease with two engines powering your plane. But this isnt my point. My point is that even thought the US is "currently" most powerfulness nation it still to had to insert 2 turbofans into its aircraft. The F-22 raptor iam talking about the heavey weight class fighter uses two powerful engine. If they were to use one singular engine it'll be pretty big and fuel consuming then just two smaller engines.

If it reaches a certain size, then surely it needs two engines. The F-22 is heavier than some bombers in WWII. If you like a single engine implemention, check the F-35, which uses a version of the engine used on the F-22. It has a single engine, only slightly larger than an F-16, yet weighs nearly as much as an F-15.

Safety favors two engines, I would agree, even if modern jet engines have greatly improved in reliability. The history of fighter attrition from 1960 till now should greatly favor the twin engine when it comes to pilot survival. Although many accidents are still caused not related with engines,

The advantage of single engine is that it has 1/2 less parts to maintain, inspect and operate. Because of this, single engined planes have a tendency to become available for missions much faster, and can be turned over as fast as 30 minutes from the end of one mission to another. This is definied in terms as operability, mission availability rates, and sortie generation rates. Being numerically superior is a useless term if the planes are in the ground.

 

[Zahid]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

The advantage of single engine is that it has 1/2 less parts to maintain, inspect and operate. Because of this, single engined planes have a tendency to become available for missions much faster, and can be turned over as fast as 30 minutes from the end of one mission to another. This is definied in terms as operability, mission availability rates, and sortie generation rates. Being numerically superior is a useless term if the planes are in the ground.

When people castigate JF17 / FC1 for being small, having fewer hard points, etc... they ignore the advantages enumerated by Crobato in the above quote. I wonder if the IAF can match the sortie rate PAF can have with 400 fighters, all of which would be single engined once JF17 replaces A5. IAF minus Mig21 and Mirage 2000 is heavily dependent upon twin engine warplanes, which must have a lesser sortie rate. With dwindling Mig21 stocks and replacement plans that have yet to come close to being realized, I would say that in near to mid future IAF would lose its "numerical" edge over PAF.

 

[tphuang]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

When people castigate JF17 / FC1 for being small, having fewer hard points, etc... they ignore the advantages enumerated by Crobato in the above quote. I wonder if the IAF can match the sortie rate PAF can have with 400 fighters, all of which would be single engined once JF17 replaces A5. IAF minus Mig21 and Mirage 2000 is heavily dependent upon twin engine warplanes, which must have a lesser sortie rate. With dwindling Mig21 stocks and replacement plans that have yet to come close to being realized, I would say that in near to mid future IAF would lose its "numerical" edge over PAF.

The MKIs do not need to have a numerical edge against JF-17s. That being said, by the time PAF has the so called 4th generation fighters, IAF will have finished inducting MKIs, have some induction of MRCAs and LCAs. I don't think they will loose numerical edge.