JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Munir]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Lion: It was Pakistan that did not want to show JF17 in Zuhai. I think if Pakistan sends K8 and Mushaq to this latest show they would have done the same with JF17. Probably it is not on their intrest to do so. Don't take onesided and hardly reliable opinions as facts. Chengdu did not send a K8... But did you count how many they have in service and did you notice that L15 is not going to be the option?

Tphuang. I think you are correct on that. The extra power was not allowed.

 

[Munir]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

... and also the PAF's C-130 have the same one !

old PAF j7G/pg

newer PAF f7p [overhauled]

Here the latest pics of J7g

TAF F5

Mirage PAF

JF17 PAF

 

[mean_bird]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

You do not know this at all. In all likelihood it will be Chinese radar and avionics on the J-10's exported to PAF. One of the main reasons Pakistan is buying J-10 is because it wants the J-10's radar and avionics.

Even if Pakistan somehow had access to advanced European radars and avionics and wanted them on J-10, China will not want their J-10's internal systems to be opened up to western suppliers for integration. The Europeans will also not want their radars and avionics exposed to Chinese engineers for integration into J-10 either.

So you are wrong, unless somehow PAF can get advanced European systems off the shelf and completely integrate them with J-10 all by themselves successfully.

You do know that Tanvir Mahmood explicitly said in an interview with AFP (in 2008) that pakistan wants a western radar of its own choice on the FC-20? I am sure there is a way out or he wouldn't have said that.

However, seeing the new date is so far away, its entirely possible to have complete Chinese systems on the FC-20. I believe he also said there are "new weapons and missiles being made by China for themselves and for us". So also possible to see a next generation of A2A missiles on it.

That's a good point I did not know that. But PAF ACM said the same thing about JF-17, and we all know what radar its using.

No he didn't. When the First assembly line at Kamra was established, during a press conference he made it clear that when the agreement with china was signed, pakistan was under sanctions. Hence the agreement was signed for Chinese avionics for the first 50 aircrafts. But PAF is looking for other options since the lifting of sanctions and hope to finalize soon.

So going chinese was included in the original contract for the first 50 aircrafts. Its for this reason that the program got delayed from 1992 to around 1998 and its for the same reason that airframe development was de-linked with the avionics.

Ofcourse, at that time the chinese avionics were not as advanced as they are today. Also PAF is in a financial crunch. So it is fairly possible that a chinese system be selected both based on improved performances that meet PAF requirement and/or on financial consideration.

The word around is that PAF will go for Italian radar for both JF-17 and FC-20 with a major ToT and facilities being established at Kamra. Nothing, however, has been confirmed as yet.

 

[mean_bird]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Pictures from the handing over ceremony of the first JF-17 to be assembled/build at PAC to PAF.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Londo Molari]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

No he didn't. When the First assembly line at Kamra was established, during a press conference he made it clear that when the agreement with china was signed, pakistan was under sanctions. Hence the agreement was signed for Chinese avionics for the first 50 aircrafts. But PAF is looking for other options since the lifting of sanctions and hope to finalize soon.

Long before the assembly line, a couple of ACM have said that JF-17 would have western radar and avionics on a Chinese airframe. At that time there was no mention of this first 50 batch concept. So I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Munir]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Long before the assembly line, a couple of ACM have said that JF-17 would have western radar and avionics on a Chinese airframe. At that time there was no mention of this first 50 batch concept. So I wouldn't hold my breath.

I disagree with that. If you read aFM interview with ex ACM you will see that he said that Chinese avionics improved very fast and that the first batch would be Chinese avionics. The opposite happened with the ejection seat. It was not good enough so they went for Martin Baker. That could change in the next batch if China improves it. Clearly the first batch of 50 was mentionned so we do not have to hold our breath.

 

[Curious George]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Hi all, I was just surfing the net looking for more info/comparing the JF-17's online stats with other aircraft when I just noticed that the WS-9 engine apparently has more thrust and is lighter than the RD-93, so the question is:

Does anyone know why the designers built the JF-17 around the RD-93, when the WS-9/RB168Mk202 Spey of the JH-7 looks to have been the better choice for a lot of reasons, such as: the WS-9 has more thrust, is lighter, can last up to 10000 hours (at least the Rolls Royce-made version can), and can be sourced indigenously by China? The only thing I can think of that made the designers choose the RD-93 is that the WS-9 might use more fuel or is more expensive when compared to the RD-93, but those seem to be minor details that could be improved on later as China tries to make their own improvements on the engine and also bring the cost down through mass production.

 

[Lion]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Hi all, I was just surfing the net looking for more info/comparing the JF-17's online stats with other aircraft when I just noticed that the WS-9 engine apparently has more thrust and is lighter than the RD-93, so the question is:

Does anyone know why the designers built the JF-17 around the RD-93, when the WS-9/RB168Mk202 Spey of the JH-7 looks to have been the better choice for a lot of reasons, such as: the WS-9 has more thrust, is lighter, can last up to 10000 hours (at least the Rolls Royce-made version can), and can be sourced indigenously by China? The only thing I can think of that made the designers choose the RD-93 is that the WS-9 might use more fuel or is more expensive when compared to the RD-93, but those seem to be minor details that could be improved on later as China tries to make their own improvements on the engine and also bring the cost down through mass production.

U are correct on the thrust but wrong on diameter, length and weight.

WS-9 is by far a bigger, lengthy and heavier engine. Which is why RD-93 was chosen.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Specifications (RD-33)
Data from Janes Aero Engines, Kilmov Website

General characteristics
Type: Afterburning Turbofan
Length: 4,229 mm (166.50 in)
Diameter: 1,000 mm ( 39.37 in)
Dry weight: 1,055 kg (2,326 lb)

Specifications (Spey Mk 202)
General characteristics
Type: Low bypass turbofan
Length: 204.9 in (5204.4 mm}
Diameter: 43.0 in (1092.2 mm)
Dry weight: 4,093 lb (1856 kg)

 

[mean_bird]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Hi all, I was just surfing the net looking for more info/comparing the JF-17's online stats with other aircraft when I just noticed that the WS-9 engine apparently has more thrust and is lighter than the RD-93, so the question is:

Does anyone know why the designers built the JF-17 around the RD-93, when the WS-9/RB168Mk202 Spey of the JH-7 looks to have been the better choice for a lot of reasons, such as: the WS-9 has more thrust, is lighter, can last up to 10000 hours (at least the Rolls Royce-made version can), and can be sourced indigenously by China? The only thing I can think of that made the designers choose the RD-93 is that the WS-9 might use more fuel or is more expensive when compared to the RD-93, but those seem to be minor details that could be improved on later as China tries to make their own improvements on the engine and also bring the cost down through mass production.

Apart from possible other reasons such as size and/or efficiency (its a pretty old engine using old tech.), it is a RR engine, even if it is license produced, and hence they have the right to deny export to any country- which opposes the very reason why JF-17 got built.

 

[Curious George]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

U are correct on the thrust but wrong on diameter, length and weight.

WS-9 is by far a bigger, lengthy and heavier engine. Which is why RD-93 was chosen.

Thanks for that Lion , looking at the stats again, I realised that the pounds/kgs in the brackets were reversed in the wiki entries, which is why I thought that the WS-9 was lighter with a figure of 1856 (which is actually in kgs) compared with the RD-93's 2326 (which was in lbs).