Ok Zahid. Let’s try this one more time
Sir, it is common knowledge among posters with serious interest in JF-17 that PAC figures are woefully outdated. the figure of at least 3600 Kg is commonly accepted. That is why I mentioned it. Since early last year, some have asserted that the actual figure is 4000 Kg. I would encourage you to visit Huitong's website: Chinese Military Aviation: Fighters II to get a better idea. This blog is well known to posters here and elsewhere and is trusted to be quite accurate in the information it presents. There is lots of information relating to Chinese Air combat products, their history, and specifications. Note that it supports my contentions.
Response to question: I will stick with the official specifications provided by the manufacture not speculation by fanboys on a blog spot. Until PAC figures are updated those remain the manufactures specification for load. Granted there may be an additional loading that MAY be carried in emergency conditions. But as mentioned earlier the manufactures specification are officially stated in the PAC figures and are not from a blog spot
But sir, who would spend money to converst L-15 to a single seat configuration? Unless there are at least plans to do so, it is pointless to discuss it. Yes, it might have better specs that way, but would anybody be interested enough to spend cash to find out? We can discuss a 2-seat version of FC-1 / JF-17 because it is planned, talked about, and has some interest behind it. But no such thing exists for L-15. Therefore one can dismiss such discussion as purely academic.
Response to question: The Chinese even mentioned that the aircraft can be converted to a single seat point interceptor of strike aircraft easily. Think, removing the rear seat is a cost savings. No rear ejection seat, no expensive secondary avionics, no second control mechanism, etc…. The result is space for a fuel system (remarkable cheaper). By this you add more fuel and more range. What is so difficult to comprehend
The radome of Gripen is a bit smaller than JF-17, but still comparable. Not so the L-15 radome. The figures for KLJ-7 are widely quoted as being in excess of 110 KM for a 5 sq. M target. That matches very nicely with SD-10 (70 KM) or even supposed range of SD-10B MRAAM (100 KM). Even though JF-17 with PAF is expected to work with AWACS in a netcentric battlefield environment, it still needs to stand on its own, hence a capable & suitable radar that is supposed to have some resistance to ECM.
Response to question: Again please read the entire paragraph prior to answering, since you have not address the radom issue. Yes in the L-15s current nose configuration there is little to no room for radar. However, just as with the Hawk 200 vs. the Hawk trainer, once the second seat is removed the nose can be modified to accommodate radar of smaller or comparable size. Since you enjoy facts and specifications from blogsites and fanboys, why don’t you check out some of the drawing posted on them, you can take them both with the same grain of salt.
Hence by having a radar it will be able to stand on its own (granted not as well as the other aircraft mentioned) as well as with AWAC support.
Anything beyond WVR is BVR. So even some SRAAMS can be considered BVR. Mig-21 can be made BVR capable, but I would encourage you to find out the range of radar and also look at compatible BVR missiles. Again as I have mentioned above, I find the idea of a single-seat L-15 as nothing more than an idea which has no support so far. If there is talk of a single seat L-15, we could discuss this idea again.
Response to question: My response to your question was that is possible to have a BVR system on the aircraft, and I provided several examples of aircraft with small radoms that have BVR capabilities. Again no mention was made as to the range of detection (which is less). However it is possible (based on the radar question answered above) and it would pose a threat to other aircraft by having a BVR missile system.
Sir, I have purposely kept myself to the numbers presented by you, and voiced my concerns about the figures I knew to be incorrect. I have provided you reference to widely respected Chinese blog. I could have referred you to some Pakistani forum or blog, but I thought that you might find a Chinese source more acceptable.
Response to question: Again even if you go to the “respected blogsites” the fact still remains that the L-15 is lighter that the JF-17, and I will again state that if you add the same about of fuel and armament two both aircraft the L-15 is still lighter due to the fact that one has an initial lighter empty weight. As I mentioned before “Now add similar fuel and armaments the aircraft is heavier. Look at the thrust of the two Ivchenko Progress AI-222K-25F turbofans and that of the RD-93 ... don’t just accept what is being preached… take the time to look at the higher thrust-to-weight ratio, and lower wing loading and higher max-G. That will answer your question.”
If L-15 can go beyond 1.8 Mach, or pull more than 8.5 Gs, or carry much more than 3000 Kg out to a decent range, or possess a true BVR Radar & Missile combo, then I would readily concede that it is a better combat aircraft - on paper.
Response to question: What does speed have to do with it? The F-5E has a maximum speed of Mach 1.6 and can pull less Gs than an F-15, yet time and again the F-5 wins out over the F-15 in aggressor training. The Kfir can go Mach 2.0+ yet I would not want to go up against a JF-17 in a dogfight. Even slow American A-4s in topgun training have taken out F-18 (granted that’s due to pilot skill). The rules in a dogfight are to hit first, or if that fails go into maneuvering aerial combat (or turn tail and run).
As I mentioned before I’m not saying the L-15 is superior to the JF-17. I’m saying that the aircraft has the potential to become more. Apparently from interview with the designers of the aircraft, it was designed with that intent in mind. It could be the T-38 of the Americans and its evolution to the F-5E.
Please don’t take this so personally and don’t let your fervent admiration of the JF-17 blind you to the fact that this aircraft of small size (yet longer operational hours) is a contender for a certain niche market. Some countries cannot spend the current 20 million US or 22 to 25 million $US for future blocks of the JF-17 and may consider a 15 to 18 million $US aircraft. Even though the costs are comparable the operational flying hours alone makes the aircraft attractive.
