JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 News, Discussion & Media

F

FreeAsia2000

Junior Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

maglomanic said:
It will carry almost all Pakistani weapon systems. This has been said time and again by now two or three aircheif marshals if i am not wrong. That also includes H2(52 km)/ H4 (100+ km) stand off munition. heck even Mirages carry em and JF-17 will replace Mirages in PAF.

Also if you look at the size and weight of Chinese Ashm and the fact that JF-17 has a Chinese radar, it shouldnt be too hard to decipher that JF-17 could be integrated with these missiles and do a decent job as a naval strike fighter in the same or better performance class as Pakistani Mirage-Vs armed with excocets.
Click to expand...

I thought the idea was for it to be armed with PL-12 missiles. If it is armed with PL-12 surely it will be better than the F-16 A/B ?

I keep on asking this question and getting no answer how well does the JF-17 compare to the F-16 in terms of upgradability
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

PL-12 is domestic version, SD-10 is the export version, there is a difference like there is in the export and domestic version of R-77.

As for H-2 and H-4, how heavy are these things exactly?

As for YJ-83 air launched version on JF-17? I will believe it when I see it.

I have to agree with Ajay, the fact that statically unstable with a very developed FBW allows a fighter to be very maneuverable.
 
B

Black jack

New Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

Does anybody have any real/official information regarding the difference between the PL-12 and the SD-10 rather than the same old "Domestic weapons are better than export and that's that"? Or "they are better because Russia and X country do it". I mean proper info on whether the SD-10 has a inferior seeker/range or whatever.
 
P

pngwerume

New Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

Thank you Black Jack, I share the same frustration with you when I read arguments that are not validated by figures/statistics. A lot of posts saying because it is American, because it is the Gripen. Can we quote real performance data - I know that is not easy but it will make this discussions more informative and worth while.

I am not saying the Gripen is not good but I recently realized that I have never heard of a Gripen’s air victory or busting a SAM site. Then I ask myself, could it be that the Gripen has just been well marketed?

Talking datalink, I remember in the UK watching a documentary on the MiG 29 and I am sure what they described, now when I look back is datalink to a very good extent. They were saying (and for the explanation they used computer generated animation with 3 Migs) the radars on the Migs could be linked, i.e. if each radar can search 30km across, then 3 Migs 30 km apart each can see a 90km wide area!

Let us have figures PLEASE.

As a suggestion, is it possible to start a database on this forum? One were only few people can change and enter CONFIRMED FACTS about projects/equipment? When can have all the chatter but have a reference point of what is and what is not confirmed?
 
F

FreeAsia2000

Junior Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

pngwerume said:
Thank you Black Jack, I share the same frustration with you when I read arguments that are not validated by figures/statistics. A lot of posts saying because it is American, because it is the Gripen. Can we quote real performance data - I know that is not easy but it will make this discussions more informative and worth while.

I am not saying the Gripen is not good but I recently realized that I have never heard of a Gripen’s air victory or busting a SAM site. Then I ask myself, could it be that the Gripen has just been well marketed?

Talking datalink, I remember in the UK watching a documentary on the MiG 29 and I am sure what they described, now when I look back is datalink to a very good extent. They were saying (and for the explanation they used computer generated animation with 3 Migs) the radars on the Migs could be linked, i.e. if each radar can search 30km across, then 3 Migs 30 km apart each can see a 90km wide area!

Let us have figures PLEASE.

As a suggestion, is it possible to start a database on this forum? One were only few people can change and enter CONFIRMED FACTS about projects/equipment? When can have all the chatter but have a reference point of what is and what is not confirmed?
Click to expand...

Regarding your last para please see the rather excellent homepage which does contain confirmed data.

Surely the JF-17 does have an unstable design ?

The unstable design increases the performance of the aircraft in CIC/Dogfight as well as in Supersonic intercepting.
Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
M

maglomanic

Junior Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

IMHO,

Just saying that this airframe is unstable and carries FBW to keep it stable makes it better doesn't make much sense. If i am not wrong F-7Gs were deevloped to counter Taiwan's F-16s and i would like to know about the FBW on them and their unstable design!!

My understanding is that you need other means to make aircraft manuverable when it's heavier/bigger and just aerodynamics of the aircraft prove insufficient. Even the penalty of weight associated with FBW system is acceptable in this case. Same holds true for TVC as well.Would it make sense to have TVC on a fighter like JF-17?? I don't think so. The size of the aircraft is so small that it could acheive greater manuverability with it's aerodynamics without having to deal with unstableness and FBW.

Here is a quote form sinodefence "The unique double-delta-shape wing of the J-7E designed by Northwest Polytechnic University (NPU) has a slightly larger wingspan and wing area, giving the J-7E a bigger internal fuel capacity and better manoeuvrability. The original WP-7B turbojet was replaced by an improved WP-13F. The J-7E is comparable in manoeuvrability and general performance to early versions of the F-16A/B, and can make a serious challenge to a modern fighter in 'dog fight' air combat.
"

The only problem i see as of now is engine. With a more powerful chinese engine i can see JF-17 acheiving even better manuverability in future.


P.S why do we hear so much about a partial FBW for JF-17 if it's not unstable?
 
M

maglomanic

Junior Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

tphuang said:
As for H-2 and H-4, how heavy are these things exactly?
.
Click to expand...

There have been indications that these are local productions of Raptor-I and Raptor-II. They even match the range profile. Can anyone get the wieghts for both these stand off munitions.
 
A

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
Re: JF-17: New Pics

FreeAsia2000 said:
I thought the idea was for it to be armed with PL-12 missiles. If it is armed with PL-12 surely it will be better than the F-16 A/B ?
I keep on asking this question and getting no answer how well does the JF-17 compare to the F-16 in terms of upgradability
Click to expand...

There'ss no reason why the JF-17 cannot be upgraded to perform the same missions as the F-16. For an example, precision strike with LGB's or glide blombs, anti-radar, anti-shipping, LANTIRN pod for night strike, and so on.

However, from a strictly hardware point of view, the JF-17 has fewer payload stations and weight capacity than the F-16C/D. Most JF-17 specs say that the aircraft has 7 payload stations with max payload capacity of 3,800 kg.

You could increase payload stations with multiple weapon racks like the BRU-57:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Since the JF-17 is brand new, we can't really expect it to match against the latest F-16's with increased payload (weight) and conformal fuel tanks for increased fuel & range.
 
M

Munir

Banned Idiot
Re: JF-17: New Pics

In the beginning the F16 had no BVR. Then they adapted so even the outer wing station could get it. What you see now is a plane that has to start weapon integration. No wonder we do not see pictures with SD10... Or long range ASM. One time you say that you haven't see anything real on JF17 and then you say it will get upgrades. Somehow you should understand that weapon integration is after flight testing. What and how many is for most open question but with the cockpit and design being upgraded big time you actually think that weapons would be a few short range dumb bombs? If you had read parameters then you would have predicted more. It will replace ground attack planes. They have been talking about many western and eastern smart bombs... I hardly think that ignoring till seen helps forums. Remember that we are talking about the famous paper plane...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top