JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[cashcoin]

About the JF-17 block III, I guess

1) Max payload: 5.3 - 5.5 tonnes
2) Helmet Mounted Display, same/better version from J-10B
3) AESA radar
4) RD-93 MA engine, 9300kgf trust (As PAF will have 200 RD-93 engine, WS-13 will not be inducted.)
5) PL-10 or related variant
6) SD-10B, range improved ver. of SD-10

 

[cashcoin]

I have checked many posts from Indians talked about JF-17. Most of them look down on it by the reasons like cheap price, without high tech composite material used, without powerful thrust.

Although JF-17 cannot compete with 5th generation fighters (F-22, F-35), it is still powerful enough to match other 4th generation fighters.

It's thrust weight ratio is better than Gripen C/D & MIG 29, match Mirage 2000. With improved engine (RD93 MA), there is no problem to match F-16A, the best maneuverability version. As a light weight single engine fighter, its' flexibility and rolling rate overwhelm the big birds F-15, Su-30MKI.

Most of the existing fighters, included F22, Rafale & EF-2000, their avionic were developed before 2000. For JF-17, as you know, developed around 2003 - 2007, this means it can have more advanced computer technology (CPU, network, interface) and flexibility on upgrade.

Compare with Indian's fighters (excluded Rafale, it still sit on paper), JF-17 not only match but look down on them.

Both Mig29, Mig29K & Su30MKI equipped R-77 & R-73 as main AA weapon. They are very old missiles which first operated 20 yrs & 30 yrs ago and used out-dated USSR technology. But the big problem is both of them sold to Chinese more than 10 yrs before. Is there anyone can still has the confidence that the missiles can resist JF-17's ECM system (included jamming pod) from China?

The upgraded Mirage 2000 also have the same problem on AA missile. Super 530 is too old and the MICA is too short leg for BVR. Although ASRAAM will be equipped but it cannot balance the disadvantage on BVR.

For LCA, original spec is a smaller & lighter fighter than JF-17. As you know, it is now overweight 1 tonne (5.5T => 6.5T) and heavier than JF-17. Under the same wing area as the original spec, I have no idea why the Indians still believe it has good maneuverability. It really is a junk bird.

Composite materials are light weight but it may not so useful for decrease the weight as you thought. LCA is one example. Here is another. The J-11B(indigenize SU-27) has replaced with composite materials made wings, vertical & horizontal stabilizers and save 100 KG ONLY (Information is come from official announcement).

 

[Dizasta1]

I have checked many posts from Indians talked about JF-17. Most of them look down on it by the reasons like cheap price, without high tech composite material used, without powerful thrust.

Although JF-17 cannot compete with 5th generation fighters (F-22, F-35), it is still powerful enough to match other 4th generation fighters.

It's thrust weight ratio is better than Gripen C/D & MIG 29, match Mirage 2000. With improved engine (RD93 MA), there is no problem to match F-16A, the best maneuverability version. As a light weight single engine fighter, its' flexibility and rolling rate overwhelm the big birds F-15, Su-30MKI.

Most of the existing fighters, included F22, Rafale & EF-2000, their avionic were developed before 2000. For JF-17, as you know, developed around 2003 - 2007, this means it can have more advanced computer technology (CPU, network, interface) and flexibility on upgrade.

Compare with Indian's fighters (excluded Rafale, it still sit on paper), JF-17 not only match but look down on them.

Both Mig29, Mig29K & Su30MKI equipped R-77 & R-73 as main AA weapon. They are very old missiles which first operated 20 yrs & 30 yrs ago and used out-dated USSR technology. But the big problem is both of them sold to Chinese more than 10 yrs before. Is there anyone can still has the confidence that the missiles can resist JF-17's ECM system (included jamming pod) from China?

The upgraded Mirage 2000 also have the same problem on AA missile. Super 530 is too old and the MICA is too short leg for BVR. Although ASRAAM will be equipped but it cannot balance the disadvantage on BVR.

For LCA, original spec is a smaller & lighter fighter than JF-17. As you know, it is now overweight 1 tonne (5.5T => 6.5T) and heavier than JF-17. Under the same wing area as the original spec, I have no idea why the Indians still believe it has good maneuverability. It really is a junk bird.

Composite materials are light weight but it may not so useful for decrease the weight as you thought. LCA is one example. Here is another. The J-11B(indigenize SU-27) has replaced with composite materials made wings, vertical & horizontal stabilizers and save 100 KG ONLY (Information is come from official announcement).

My friend, as much as I like your post. I would advise not make any direct comparisons with other aircraft. Since a comparison warrants prior engagements with aircraft the JF-17 Thunder is being compared to.

Old and new technology does not guarantee anything. What matters is the pilot, his training and his skills to operate the fighter-jet, in war. Capabilities of the fighter-jets are only limited to the pilot sitting in it's cockpit. So it would be a premature comparison, when comparing Thunders to Fulcrums, Flankers and others.

Also, Argentina, when it procures the JF-17 Thunders. Wouldn't have it's fighter-pilots go up against Flankers or Fulcrums. Since none of the threats Argentina foresees, operate these aircraft. If anything, a Thunder would be up against a Eurofighter, as historically britain is the only country which Argentina has a dispute with.

So I urge you to be a bit more pragmatic in your analysis.

 

[Deino]

I have gone thought all the pages of this post and I found that most of you asking about the WS13 engine. This is why I translate the list.

Thanks and I hope You did not misunderstand me. I do not question Your post nor Your translation. What I question - and to admit I have some very strong doubts & reservations in this regard - is that after all these years we've heard ONLY and actually NOTHING more than such and similar reports, but we do not even have a single image of a WS-13, we don't have an image showing that WS-13-powered JF-17 ... NOTHING !
Even the so far single WS-13 image from that strange development chart of Chinese engines actually shows only a standard RD-33 (!) since the gearbox is mounted on top of the engine.

Therefore - regardless of how much I would like to thrust Your summary and THANKS for that - IMO it is once again only an unproven summary of even more less confirmed reports.

Deino

 

[Zahid]

Unconfirmed reports of deal with Nigeria for 40 birds:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[SteelBird]

Unconfirmed reports of deal with Nigeria for 40 birds:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Take a break my friend and don't be too excited. Given it's from a twitter post, I'm afraid it's far from credible.

Enjoy this image; JF-17 and beautiful ladies.

 

[thunderchief]

More pics of supposed first Block II aircraft, stolen from certain Indian forum

 

[khanasifm]

Unconfirmed reports of deal with Nigeria for 40 birds:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Totoro]

Reading all the newsbits about potential sales of jf17 - it seems more and more the initial agreement when developing jf17 was that Pakistani side holds most rights to the project. That would imply they paid for all or most of the development expenses. Catic website does list fc-1, so i would guess chinese firm does have some right to it, but perhaps still less than half. Initially there was also talk most of avionics for pakistani planes would not be chinese. As we found out, that's not the case now, and perhaps that made chinese side piece of the cake larger, in a case of a potential sale.

Still, so far it seems to be really Pakistani idea - "lets make a plane", contracted to someone else who could actually develop a design - Chengdu - with various subsystems decided upon as they went along.

It would really explain why the chinese side isn't really being heard at all when it comes to potential sales.

 

[Zahid]

Reading all the newsbits about potential sales of jf17 - it seems more and more the initial agreement when developing jf17 was that Pakistani side holds most rights to the project. That would imply they paid for all or most of the development expenses. Catic website does list fc-1, so i would guess chinese firm does have some right to it, but perhaps still less than half. Initially there was also talk most of avionics for pakistani planes would not be chinese. As we found out, that's not the case now, and perhaps that made chinese side piece of the cake larger, in a case of a potential sale.

Still, so far it seems to be really Pakistani idea - "lets make a plane", contracted to someone else who could actually develop a design - Chengdu - with various subsystems decided upon as they went along.

It would really explain why the chinese side isn't really being heard at all when it comes to potential sales.

What makes you say that Chinese side is not being heard? I would really like to know. Pakistan's marketing of JF-17 / FC-1 has been lack-luster to say the least. But I am interested in how you see things.