JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Mohsin77]

You'd better mind your manners when you talk to me; you don't want me to open up on you. Being a fanboy of a rising superpower whose choices will decide the fate of nations is one thing, being a fanboy of a marginal, poor, and weak statelet that gets slapped coming and going by all and sundry is quite another.

You're starting to sound like Winston Churchill again, and we all know how that 'superpower' ended... So maybe learn from history and keep the ego bombs in check. (This is the second time we're having this exact same conversation, resulting from the same point that you're bringing up again, regarding pods.)

 

[siegecrossbow]

@asif iqbal @ZeEa5KPul , please knock it off and keep the discussions civil.

 

[plawolf]

That will be a problem if block III needs to field PL-10. Maybe they can be used in conjunction with PL-5?

The JF17 is a small fighter with few enough hardpoints as it is. Using 4 to carry short range missiles would not be ideal, and indeed would negate much of the benefits of the BLK3’s new ASEA radar.

In theory it shouldn’t be that hard to integrate PL10 seeker and electronics into the PL5 airframe to make a PL5X that is roughly comparable in terms of seeker and off boresight performance, but will suffer from shorter range compared to the PL10.

The PAF would likely bite the bullet and pay for the development work given how much a boost such a missile would give to its JF17 fleet.

OTOH, it is also possible that the PL10 is close enough in confirmation to the PL5 as to allow the same aerodynamic benefit as the PL5; or it could prove much easier to make some changes to the PL10 airframe to make it achieve the same aerodynamic effect rather than trying to transplant the PL10’s internals into a PL5 body.

When we boil things down, the key difference in terms of aerodynamic shapes of different missiles is created by the control surfaces. The PL8 has rather oversized control surfaces, which is why it probably spoilt the aerodynamic benefit of wingtip mounting on the JF17. The PL10’s control surfaces are much smaller and more in line with the size of those found on the JF17. So maybe making some small adjustments on control surfaces of the PL10 would be enough to retain the aerodynamic benefits of wingtip mounting while also retaining the majority of the PL10’s performance.

The final possibility is that the PAF is betting big on BVR (which might also explain the choice to not integrate an IRST), so they are prioritising their funds on better radars and BVR missiles over dogfighting missiles and HMS/Ds for now. The above mentioned new WVRAAM would still be an option as a later upgrade to the whole JF17 fleet.

 

[free_6ix9ine]

I have a problem with Pakistan abusing China's kindness by attaching foreign electronics to a Chinese plane. China goes out of its way to design a plane for Pakistan and foots the bill out of friendship when Pakistan doesn't have a snowball's chance of doing it alone, shares it IP with Pakistan and sets up local production, then Pakistan spits in China's face by putting foreign electronics on it. What's wrong with Chinese electronics?

If it were a European targeting pod the insult would remain but at least it would be understandable. But this is a Turkish targeting pod. You buy tomatoes and watermelons from Turkey, not electronics.

Yo chill dude, who cares. It's just a targeting pod? Why are you being an asshole and insecure about it? Even if the U.S. sometimes buys thing from other countries such as the Harriers for the Marine Corp.

 

[free_6ix9ine]

You're starting to sound like Winston Churchill again, and we all know how that 'superpower' ended... So maybe learn from history and keep the ego bombs in check. (This is the second time we're having this exact same conversation, resulting from the same point that you're bringing up again, regarding pods.)

Mohsin, ignore this ZeEa5kPul, he is insecure and making us all look bad. He is probably a troll from India trying to start beef between China and Pakistan. Even the U.S. sometimes buys weapons from other countries like the Harrier jets.

 

[Brumby]

Keep in mind the discussion regarding EW suites here a while back, where it was discovered that China doesn't pod the equivalent DRFM EW suite required for the Block III (China instead integrates it into the airframe.) Now, if China doesn't pod it, and the JF-17 can't integrate it into the airframe, then there's no choice for the PAF but to find a podded foreign version from somewhere. And I much rather the PAF go to Turkey than to the EU/US for any subsystems.

For better or for worst, when the PAF selected a Chinese AESA radar the inevitable outcome is that the EW system will naturally be Chinese as well. In other words, the AESA and EW are a married couple. It is incredibly difficult if not impossible to integrate a non Chinese EW suite suite to a Chinese radar. The Turkish targeting pod is not on the same scale of complexity as EW integration.

Getting an AESA radar to function properly as designed is very difficult. We know because from the DOT&E status reports it took approximately 10 years for the USN to sort out the operational issues with the APG-79. One of the problem was interference between EW and radar when they operate in the same frequency. I expect that the JF-17 to have similar issues dealing with "look through" features. The technical and operational difficulties of sorting out "look through" in itself is difficult and you don't want to attempt that by using differently sourced systems because that would be a problematic recipe.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

I have a problem with Pakistan abusing China's kindness by attaching foreign electronics to a Chinese plane. China goes out of its way to design a plane for Pakistan and foots the bill out of friendship when Pakistan doesn't have a snowball's chance of doing it alone, shares it IP with Pakistan and sets up local production, then Pakistan spits in China's face by putting foreign electronics on it. What's wrong with Chinese electronics?

If it were a European targeting pod the insult would remain but at least it would be understandable. But this is a Turkish targeting pod. You buy tomatoes and watermelons from Turkey, not electronics.

And why not, Turkey actually has some military industry capacity. And Pakistan choosing a foreign military equipment over Chinese counterparts is not necessarily indicative of the performance of the said equipment.
Pakistan like all sovereign nations out there has it's own national interests and concerns which it has to balance out with other nations, yes, China included. Buying military equipment from various countries with different alignments and policies is standard practice among nations to avoid being embargoed in the event of clashes in policies and for redundancy practice. Heck, Pakistan has to be pretty dumb to NOT do that. That is just prudent practice.
And I will say that Pakistan has at the very least paid a substantial amount to co develop the JF-17, not 60-80 per cent of the whole project but still substantial and it's not like China is getting nothing out of the deal, what with licensing rights and co production of the plane for export at Chengdu.
To demand that a nation subscribes exclusively to a single nation as it's provider of arms is a fool's hope.

 

[Jono]

pardon me, friends. Let me play the devil's advocate.
can anyone educate me as to why and how the Turkish targeting pod is superior to the Chinese equivalence ?
If indeed the Turkish one is superior, either in terms of quality and/or costs, then some of us would have nothing to say.
otherwise it can rightly be considered as an unfriendly act, to say the least........

 

[ougoah]

The Turkish Aselsan pod is a targeting pod. I'm not aware of a Chinese targeting pod specifically designed for the JF-17. For PLAAF fighters, yes but none that are more suited or custom built to match the radar and electronic profiles of blk 3. There's also the huge political considerations. Pakistan and Turkey are becoming increasingly aligned in the region. There are plenty of talks of military cooperation between the two nations and buying equipment from each other is obviously a start towards greater dependency and interaction. So even if a similar Chinese targeting pod is available to the blk 3, it doesn't necessarily mean the PAF would have gone with that instead.

EW pods would be a different discussion. If what brumby says is accurate, there's little chance PAF will go with anything other than a wholly Chinese EW suite that's built around the blk 3 and its new AESA radar.

 

[Jono]

The Turkish Aselsan pod is a targeting pod. I'm not aware of a Chinese targeting pod specifically designed for the JF-17. For PLAAF fighters, yes but none that are more suited or custom built to match the radar and electronic profiles of blk 3. There's also the huge political considerations. Pakistan and Turkey are becoming increasingly aligned in the region. There are plenty of talks of military cooperation between the two nations and buying equipment from each other is obviously a start towards greater dependency and interaction. So even if a similar Chinese targeting pod is available to the blk 3, it doesn't necessarily mean the PAF would have gone with that instead.

EW pods would be a different discussion. If what brumby says is accurate, there's little chance PAF will go with anything other than a wholly Chinese EW suite that's built around the blk 3 and its new AESA radar.

I see, thank you very much.
OTOH, Turkey is not considered exactly a friend of China in the eyes of many Chinese for several reasons. Hence putting Turkish equipment on JF-17 may be touching some raw nerves here....
Regards,