JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 / Super-7 Discussions

[Air Marshal]

Yes That's true........

[Prestidigitator]

The JF-17 will be a good fit for the low to middle tier for PAF, with F-16 C/D and any 4th gen plane taking the upper tier. PAF should find a good avionics suite sooner or later and also a good radar.

The issues however are with the confusion about the engine situation. That and the problem of finding a suite of AAMs and AGMs and making the software to mate them to the radar and avionics.

[Air Marshal]

SOME EFFECTIVE INFORMATON ABOUT JF-17 THUNDER


Introduction:

The FC-1 is the successor of the cancelled Pakistani/Chinese Sabre-2 project. The FC-1 (Fighter China-1) is being developed by Chengdu Aircraft Company (CAC) in conjunction with Pakistan, with technical assistance provided by Mikoyan OKB of Russia. The Pakistanidesignation is 'Super-7'. It will be powered by a license-produced RD-93 turbofan. The design
bears resemblance to the F-16 and the defunct F-20, suggesting an emphasis on high manoeuvrability. Its main customer is expected to be Pakistan which also partially funds the project and may have an interest of purchasing at least 150 FC-1s.
The FC-1 has been specifically developed for the Pakistan Air Force and the PLAAF but due to its design success and cost will be available for the export market. It is seen as a potential replacement for the Shenyang J-6, Chengdu J-7, Nanchang Q-5, Northrop F-5 and Dassault Mirage III/5. Air forces around the world operating these aircraft may have a special interest in purchasing the FC-1. Both PAC and CAC claim it to be as good as the Block 15 F-16A/B but cheaper. Air forces operating the F-16A/B but are short of funds may place orders for the FC-1 instead of the more expensive Block 52+ F-16C/D. Herein lies the potential of the FC-1 market.

Background:

The new multi-role fighter FC-1 is based on the Chengdu/Grumman Sabre-2 program that was abandoned some five years ago. Now the development is in collaboration with the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), Kamra and Russia's Mikoyan OKB Design Bureau. The aircraft is being jointly developed by Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) Kamra and
Chengdhu Aircraft Industrial Corporation. Mikoyan OKB is providing the improved version of the 80kN(18,000lb) st Klimov RD-33 turbofan, which is fitted to the MiG-29, designated RD-95. Three flying prototypes and two static test airframes are already under construction and first delivery is expected to take place during 2002. PAC Kamra will undertake manufacturing and assembly of this aircraft.
The FC-1 programme was launched in 1991 following cancellation of Grumman (USA) participation in the development of the Chengdu Super-7, which it replaces. Some design assistance from MiG OKB, possibly based on the (then-designated MiG-33) mid-1980s project for a single-engined variant of the MiG-29 may have been given. Two static test airframes have been built, to begin static testing in 1999. Expectation of eventual production rate of is approximately 50 aircraft per year. Chinese domestic requirement for the FC-1 is said to be for around 100 aircraft, with Pakistan wanting about 150, but a Pakistani order may be tempered by the need to find funds for its planned acquisition of Dassault Mirage 2000-5s
or some other advanced Western multi-role fighter.
The first prototype of FC-1 was set to fly in 1998, but the schedule has been further postponed till 2001 due to the higher standards set by the PAF to counter the threat from India's newly acquired Su-30MKIs as well as development problems. So far PLAAF has not made any commitment to buy FC-1, but a letter of intent (LOI) was reportedly signed by China and Pakistan in February 1998 to inject some new momentum to the much delayed project.

Features:

Powered by a Russian RD-93 turbofan (an upgraded RD-33), it is claimed to be 70-80% as capable as the F-16 (it was rumoured that the Chinese "borrowed" an F-16 from Pakistan for inspection). The LEX-featured wing and lateral air-intakes make it look similar to the Northrop F-20 Tigershark and the Taiwanese IDF. There are a total of 7 hardpoints for armaments
including 4 underwing, 2 wingtips, and 1 centreline weapons station. Its fire control radar may be selected from the GEC-Marconi Blue Hawk, Thomson-CSF RDY, Phanzotron Komar and FIAR Grifo S7. Other avionics including a 25° field of view HUD, two multi-functional displays and INS/GPS. Weapons load capability includes both short-range (AIM-9P/PL-9/Magic 2) and medium-range AAMs (PL-11/Aspide/Sparrow).
It is not yet known whether the aircraft has BVR (Beyond Visual Range) capability. There has been some development problems with the fly-by-wire (FBW) system, although the aircraft is expected to have a backup hydraulic control system. The success of the FC-1 will rest on the factor of BVR and FBW capability without which it will not be able to find customers beyond the PAF and PLAAF.
A number of manufactures are bidding for the avionics system, including GEC-Marconi, Thomson-CSF, and Phanzotron. The FC-1 cockpit will feature a HUD with 25° field of view, 2 multi-function displays, and INS/GPS navigation systems. It is expected to carry medium-range AAMs, as well as air-to-ground munitions. The maiden flight of the prototype was scheduled for early 1998, but technical delays and political foot-dragging have slipped the schedule to well after the year 2000. The PLAAF may be forced to take initial delivery under heavy pressure by Pakistan.
CAIC, the Chinese aerospace industry's export arm, says that the Chengdu/Kamra FC-1 will be in the same performance class as the Lockheed-Martin F-16. The aircraft could be assembled in both China and Pakistan. The unit cost is projected at approximately US $15 million apiece. Aircraft for the Pakistan Air Force would probably incorporate avionics of European origin, linked by a MIL-STD-1553B database. The Italian company FAIR, which is already supplying its Grifo lightweight fire-control radar to upgrade the Pakistan Air Force Mirage IIIEs and to equip its Chinese-designed F-7Ps, is bidding the equipment for the FC-1 and hopes for a decision soon. CATIC says that if the Chinese People's Liberation Army also
orders the FC-1, its variant would have indigenously developed avionics. The single seat FC-1 will be powered by the RD-93, an upgraded and licence built variant of the Russian Klimov RD-33, giving it a maximum speed of Mach 1.8 and an unrefuelled range of some 1300-1400 km. The aircraft will have seven hardpoints and an internal twin-barrelled 23-mm cannon. Western supplied equipment, at least for the Pakistani variant, includes a Martin-Baker MK101 ejection seat.
Design Features: Mid-mounted delta wing with narrow wingroot strakes at leading-edge; single turbofan engine; side-mounted twin intakes, with splitter plates; large intake trunks provide space for considerable internal fuel capacity. Large main fin with dorsal fairing; two smaller, uncanted ventral fins.
Flying Controls: Conventional hydraulic servo-operated control of ailerons, rudder and all-moving tailplane initially, with single analogue fly-by-wire system for back-up; provision for FBW to become primary system later. Trailing-edge flaps; emphasis on high manoeuvrability probably also indicates use of leading-edge flaps, as in F-7MG.
Structure: Primary structure conventional aluminium alloy semi-monocoque. Some components may be manufactured in Pakistan.
Landing Gear: Retractable tricycle type, with single wheel and oleo shock-absorber on each unit. Mainwheels retract upward into engine intake trunks; nosewheel retracts rearward.
Power Plant: One Klimov RD-93 (RD-33 derivative) turbofan (81.4 kN; 18,300 lb st with afterburning), possibly to be licence built by Liyang Machinery Corporation (LMC) for production aircraft. Could have alternative Western engine at customer's option. Substantial internal fuel capacity. Provision for external fuel tanks.
Accomodation: Single seat (Martin-Baker Zero/Zero Mk 10 in any aircraft for Pakistan) under one-piece canopy. Two-seat training versions also planned.
Avionics: Expected to be of domestic and/or Russian origin for Chinese squadrons and Western type if ordered by Pakistan Air Force. Will include pulse Doppler multirole radar. Competing candidates include GEC-Marconi, Thomson-CSF/Sextant, SAGEM, FIAR and Phazotron. Cockpit mockup exhibited at China Air Show `96 featured GMAv HUD and dual
head-down MFDs.
Armament: Underfuselage centreline station for 23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon or other store; two attachments under each wing and one at each wingtip. Weapons expected to include PL-7 and/or PL-10 AAMs, ASMs, bombs, gun and rocket pods, or other stores.

Basic Specifications:

Type: Multi-role fighter
Manufacturer: PAC (Pakistan)/CAIC (China)
Unit Cost: Approximately $15 million (1998 Forecast)
Dimensions (External):
Wingspan over AAMs: 9.50 m (31 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: basic 9.00 m (29 ft 6{1/4} in)
Length overall: 13.95 m (45 ft 9{1/4} in)
Height overall: 5.015 m (16 ft 5{1/2} in)
Wheel track: 2.30 m (7 ft 6{1/2} in)
Wheelbase: 5.14 m (16 ft 10{1/4} in)
Weights and Loadings:
Operating weight empty: 9,300 kg (20,530 lb)
Max external stores load: 3,600 kg (7,937 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 12,500 kg (27,557 lb)
Max. power loading: 154 kg/kN (1.51 lb/lb st)
Performance (estimated):
Max. level speed at altitude, clean: Mach 1.8
Service ceiling: 16,000 m (52,000 ft)
Take-off run: 500 m (1,640 ft)
Landing run: 700 m (2,300 ft)
Combat radius:
- Fighter Role: 648 n miles (1,200 km; 745 miles)
- Ground-Attack Role: 378 n miles (700 km; 435 miles)
Max. range on internal fuel: 864 n miles (1,600 km; 994 miles)
Max. ferry range: 1,200 n miles (2,220 km; 1,380 miles)
Max. G limit: +8 g

[Lost]

Chinese made equipments aren't really as low-quality as they used to be, some Chinese gear are quite up to par with western standards. Of course China has no good indigenous engine or avionics, but provided the materials China's manufacturing industry could very well compete in quality with Russian or Indian products.
The stereotype of "made in china" has got to go someday, if not now then later.

[pingpong]

Guys I have heard that China is also buying about 200 of JF-17 ......:confused:

Is it true... do you people have any link which proves this...

[kashifshahzad]

Guys I have heard that China is also buying about 200 of JF-17 ......:confused:

Is it true... do you people have any link which proves this...

Here for you dear new comer

Status Update:

FC-1/JF-17 prototype (serial number "01") conducted its first official test flight on September 3rd, 2003. The plane took off from Wenjiang Airport in Chengdu and stayed in air for about eight minutes. This prototype rolled out from the assembly line on 31 May 2003. On 1 July the it completed its first taxi run test at the test airfield in CAC.

Pakistan Air Force is going to receive ten of these in coming months to complete its own testing. Prototype "02" and "03" are in there final stages and PAF is expected to receive them soon. FC-1/JF-17 is to go under serial production by January 2006.

Pakistan Air Force has announced that it will include 150 of these planes at the same time China announcing that it will induct 200 of these planes into its Air Force. Once the work is completed on this deadly plane, it will create a new dimension in air combat standards. It will not only allow Pakistan to build this plane with its own recourses within the country but at the same time opening a huge export market.
http://www.pakistanidefence.com/PakAirForce/superSeven.html

[highsea]

Pakistan Air Force has announced that it will include 150 of these planes at the same time China announcing that it will induct 200 of these planes into its Air Force. China has not made any announcements on the FC-1. According to Chengdu officials at the 5th China Airshow in Zhuhai (Nov. 1-17, 2004), the PLAAF is still evaluating the AC. This matches what Sinodefence says also.

Various Pakistani sources have stated 200-250 planes for the PLAAF, but there is no open source confirmation of this. This doesn't mean the PLAAF won't use them, just that there is no confirmation from China as yet.

China has a bunch of aircraft projects going, and not all of them will see service in the PLAAF. The FC-1 has always been considered to be primarily an export product from China's perspective, since they have the J-10 and all the Flanker variants, plus the JXX project, etc. The FC-1/JF-17 is still a few years away from operational service, and it's hard to predict what the PLAAF will do.

Read more about the airshow and China's AC projects here:

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.54/pub_detail.asp

[ThunderBolt]

A very simple question:

Is JF-17 better than F-16??
I can't really say anything about this bcoz JF-17 was made using some of the tech from f-16s. Even it looks like a F-16.

:confused:

[aaaditya]

er,what technology of f-16 was used on jf-17(was it the engine,the avionics,or the fbw or the cockpit glass )
jf-17 may be a good aircraft but at this stage comparing it with f-16 would be foolish also not much of jf-17 looks like f-16(only thing that it shares with f-16 is its conventional layout).:coffee

[srirangan]

A very simple question:

Is JF-17 better than F-16??
I can't really say anything about this bcoz JF-17 was made using some of the tech from f-16s. Even it looks like a F-16.

:confused:
I think you are confusing the JF17 with the J10. The J10 was based on the legacy F16 platform (Israeli assistance to the Chinese). And if I'm not mistaken the JF17 (FC-1) is based on the MiG 33 (if you go by internet reports).

[WebMaster]

J10 is the continuation of Lavi fighter which Israel was working on.

[srirangan]

J10 is the continuation of Lavi fighter which Israel was working on.
I doubt J10 is a continuation of the Lavi. It is based on the Lavi/F16 airframe but nothing more.

Otoh some claim that the FC-1 (JF-17) is a Russian single engine MiG29 plan sold of to the Chinese. Anybody having more info on this?

[WebMaster]

It's based on Lavi, which is a failed isareli/US project. F-16 is no way near failed nor is it Israeli. Check online references.

[srirangan]

It's based on Lavi, which is a failed isareli/US project. F-16 is no way near failed nor is it Israeli. Check online references.
Who ever claimed the F16 was a failed project? Uh?

[WebMaster]

I was pointing out the difference between the two.

[highsea]

Sri, the Lavi and F-16 airframes are completely different animals. The only thing the Lavi and F-16 have in common is a similar-looking forward fuselage and canpoy. You might say it was inspired by the F-16, but it did not come from GD, as they were not a major player in the Lavi development. All of the design work was done by IAI and Grumman.

Israel sold the Lavi to China lock, stock, and barrel. It was actually reported to the US Congress by CIA director James Woolsey clear back in 1993. Israel closed down their China office under US pressure, but Israeli engineers continued to work on the J-10 for several years after that (and no doubt still do).

There is no question that the J-10 is the Lavi, reincarnated with a Russian/Chinese engine and Russian/Chinese/Israeli avionics, but to think it has any significant F-16 technology in it is mistaken.

[ThunderBolt]

i am confused??

I think read somewhere on defencetalk that pak sold a F-16 to Shanghai and thats where pakistan contributed in the project. Someone said that JF-17 is capable of takeing on a F-16, or was it J10?? PLEASE can someone explain to me.

[highsea]

Thunderbolt-

There is no F-16 technology in the JF-17 or J-10. The JF-17 would not fare well against any F-16 of the current crop. Neither would the J-10 (mainly due to inferior weapons and avionics).

Pakistan did not sell any F-16's to China, the 40 AC that the US sold to Pakistan are all accounted for. Some people believe that they did provide access to the AC to Chinese engineers, but China was not really technologically capable of capitalizing on it, partly because they did not have the sophisticated machinery to make the complex skin shapes at the time (now they do, in the form of a Cincinatti 5-axis stretch press that was sold under the Clinton administration).

Now that's all we need to say about PAF F-16's to China. The topic is JF-17, and we don't want to get into a bunch of mudslinging over rumors, okay?

[ThunderBolt]

roger that cap, that solves it for me, thanx a bunch.

:)

[kashifshahzad]

Dear mates tell me the difference between these three some says J-10 is the copy of F-16's and JF-17 thunder is a mixture tell me what F-16 can do and these two cant

FC-1/JF-17 MULTIROLE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

SPECIFICATIONS

Crew: One
Wingspan: 9.00 m
Length: 14 m
Height: 5.10 m
Weight: Empty 6,321 kg; Normal take-off: 9,100 kg; Max take-off 12,700 kg; Max weapon payload 3,800 kg
Maximum Weapon Load: 3,600 kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 1.6
Range: Ferry range 3,000 km; Operational Radius 1,352 km
Service Ceiling: 16,500 m
Maximum Climb Rate: N/A
+G Limit: 8.5


Lockheed Martin F-16A/B Fighting Falcon

Origin: USA
Type: single-seat air-combat and multi-role fighter
Max Speed: 1,146 kt / 1,320 mph
Max Range 3,886 km / 2,415 miles
Dimensions: span 10.00 m / 32 ft 9.75 in
length 15.03 m / 49 ft 4 in
height 5.09 m / 16 ft 8.5 in
Weight: empty 8,273 kg / 18,218 lb
max. take-off 19,187 lb
Powerplant: one 13154-kg (29,000-lb) afterburning thrust Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 or General Electric F110-GE-129 turbofan
Armament: one 20-mm M61A1 Vulcan cannon with 500 rounds, plus provision for up to 9276 kg (20,450 Ib) of externa ordnance on one underfuselage, six underwing and two tip hardpoints, this total declining to 5420 kg (11,950 Ib) for sorties including 9-g manoeuvres; the ordnance can include AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, a wide range of disposable ordnance (free-tall and guided), drop tanks and electronic pods (ECM, reconnaissance and targeting)


China's fourth generation multi-role fighter aircraft J-10

Specifications

Primary Function: Multirole fighter

Builder: Chengdu Aircraft Industry Co. (CAC)

Power Plant: One Lyulka Saturn AL-31F turbofan
Thrust: 17,857 lb (79.43 kN) dry and 27,557 lb st (122.58 kN) with afterburning
Length: 14.57 m
Height: 4.78 m
Wingspan: 8.78 m

Wing Area: 33.1 m2
Speed: Mach 1.2 (sea-level) or Mach 2.0 (high altitude)
Ceiling: 18,000 m
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 18500 kg
Range: combat radius of 1,000 km
Armament: One 23 mm internal cannon, 4500 kg payload on 11 hardpoints
First Flight: 1996
Date Deployed: Around 2005

[srirangan]

............

[kashifshahzad]

First of the FC1 is a single engine aircraft and it isn't in the league of J10's and F16's.

Dear i am just asking the difference the FC-1 and the J-10 will be equiped with the latest BVR AAM's and they wil also carry the bombs then how cant they fight with the F-16's which we have in service if the FC-1 and J-10's are more capable then we can replace old F-16's the new BVR missile will give a boost in the export market to named as SD-10 then how can you say that it cant match the F-16's the difference is in the airframes the airframes of the F-16's is madeup of composite but the JF-17 and J-10's consists of mainly of metals.

[aaaditya]

1)well kashif for one f-16 has a maximum speed of mach2 not mach 1.7 as your article indicates.
2)f-16 has a heavier weapons load and is a larger aircraft having superior ground attack capability(f-16's weapon load is nearly 6 tons compared to 3+tons and 4+ tons of jf-17 and f-10 respectively).
3)f-16 is a matured and combat proven technology whereas the other two (jf-17 and f-10) have not seen any combat and have not been inducted in full strength.
4)in terms of manouverability f-16 can acheive 9g's whereas you have not mentioned that of f-10 and jf-17's according to your article is 8.5g's .f-16 thus has superiority over jf-17 interms of manouverability which will give f-16 the advantage in a dogfight.
5)f-16 has proven bvr combat capability ,f-10 and jf-17 may have them but i dont think it is yet proven.(f-16 can as of now carry amraam missile which is an operational missile ,i dont know much about sd-10 so i will not comment about it)
6)and as highsea had mentioned inhis post f-16's avionics are superior and combat proven when compared to jf-17's or f-10's

well further reference can be obtained on the f-16 (the latest variants) from www.airforce-technology.com (http://www.airforce-technology.com/):coffee

[kashifshahzad]

1)well kashif for one f-16 has a maximum speed of mach2 not mach 1.7 as your article indicates.

Yeah agreed but this is a smaller difference you cant make it a base the F-16 is really superior then the JF-17's

2)f-16 has a heavier weapons load and is a larger aircraft having superior ground attack capability(f-16's weapon load is nearly 6 tons compared to 3+tons and 4+ tons of jf-17 and f-10 respectively).

the JF-17 is also cheaper it costs about $15m but the F-16 cost $40m so if Three JF-17 thunders fly they can fight at different places can knockdown planes and can return through different routes but when the F-16 goes it can manuvere but when the weapon load is heavier then the manuvarability is also limited.


3)f-16 is a matured and combat proven technology whereas the other two (jf-17 and f-10) have not seen any combat and have not been inducted in full strength.

Dear mate these two fighter havent been any incident that whether there was any defect in their airframes or in the engines.But the F-22 raptor had some bad incidents and other planes also do have these kind of incidents so what can you get out of it


4)in terms of manouverability f-16 can acheive 9g's whereas you have not mentioned that of f-10 and jf-17's according to your article is 8.5g's .f-16 thus has superiority over jf-17 interms of manouverability which will give f-16 the advantage in a dogfight

Do this 0.5 matters


5)f-16 has proven bvr combat capability ,f-10 and jf-17 may have them but i dont think it is yet proven.(f-16 can as of now carry amraam missile which is an operational missile ,i dont know much about sd-10 so i will not comment about it)

every thing has to start from zero

SD-10 Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile

NAME
PLA designation: Pi Li-12 (PL-12)?
Export name: Shan Dian-10 (SD-10)

TYPE: Active radar homing medium-range air-to-air missile

CONTRACTOR: China Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute (LETRI), also known as 607 Institute.

CARRIER AIRCRAFT: J-10, FC-1

SERVICE STATUS: Currently under development and is expected to enter service by 2005

PROGRAMME

China has been developing an active radar-homing medium-range air-to-air (MRAAM) for its fourth generation fighter aircraft since the late-1990s. In the Zhuhai Airshow 2002 China revealed its SD-10 active radar-homing MRAAM, which was said to be carried by the J-10 and FC-1/Super-7 fighters. The detailed information of this missile's development remains unknown, but it can be expected that the new missile will enter the PLAAF service by 2005 to 2008.

It is still not clear whether the SD-10 has any link with the PL-12 active radar homing MRAAM, which is also currently under development for the PLAAF. Some sources suggested that the SD-10 and PL-12 are actually the same missile programme with different names used by the export marketing company and the PLAAF respectively. The PL-12 was said to be derived from the Italian Aspide technology and integrated with active radar-homing seeker technology obtained from Russia.

According to the Chinese officials, the effort of developing the SD-10 has been underway since 1997. The missile was developed indigenously, but also with helps from foreign manufacturers. Several Russian missile and subsystem developers are reportedly supporting the program, with much of the missile utilizing components from the R-77 (AA-12 Adder). Ground-test firings have already been carried out, as have captive-carry and safe-clearance trials using a J-8B testbed aircraft.

DESIGN FEATURES

From the revealed photos of the SD-10, it can be estimated that the missile has a similar size to the U.S. AIM-120 and Russian R-77/AA-12 Adder. The general aerodynamic layout of the SD-10 is also highly identical to the AIM-120.

In 1996 China revealed an active radar-homing seeker AMR-1, which is possibly based on Russian technology. Claimed to be developed for the new generation active radar-homing MRAAM, the AMR-1 seeker or its developed variant could be used to guide the SD-10.

The SD-10 will have the range of above 70km

6)and as highsea had mentioned inhis post f-16's avionics are superior and combat proven when compared to jf-17's or f-10's

Suppose dear that one F-16 have superior avionics and it has AIM-120 and the J-10 and JF-17 have inferior avionics and they have the SD-10 so it is confirmed that the radar which JF-17 and J-10 will have will be a range of more then 70 km+ but what about the F-16 ofcourse it have the superior avionics but it dont have the long range BVR AAM so the F-16 will escape caz it can go to 2 Mach so what are we have 40 F-16's and we are getting more may be 50-100 in very high price forget about the dogfight this is the era that one AC fires and knock down other extinct use of sidewinders and other missiles comming in this category now countries have SAM sites located near the boarders and near the runways so how can the enemy planes bother to come near the base

well further reference can be obtained on the f-16 (the latest variants) from www.airforce-technology.com

Cant you use the edit button this is used for editing LOL i am seeing you that you are quickly increasing posts

[aaaditya]

so you mean to say that aim-120 doent have a range in excess of 70kms,and by the way the costy of f-16 depends on the variant some variants are available for 20-30 millions too ,it is considered to be a highly affordable fighter.
also currently around 4000 f-16's are in service and many more are epected(including by pakistan) to be produced ,it has never been shot down in combat and by the way what is your source that the radars of jf-17 and f-10 have the ranges that you have mentioned. manouverability of 0.5g's definitely does matter.it is the amount of g's that an airframe can withstand in combat,if the jf-17 is frequently sublected to g's in excess to its capability(8.5 g's) it will suffer from early fatigue and structural failures. m2 and m1.7 is not a small diffenece(dont see it as a.3 difference)it is a difference of 300+kms/hr,an aircraft can use thisadditional speed to outmanouverthe opponent or to get to the combat zone that much quicker.

dearest kashif just because an aircraft has had accidents doesnt mean that there is a defect in it's airframe or engine (accidents can happen due to several reasons cfit due to lack of situational awareness is one of them ,like offcourse airframe or engine problems or software and avionics problems,bird hits etc).if we go by your logic then pakistan need not go for f-16 wasting 25million dollars per aircraft more instead they should acquire 100's of jf-17 and f-10 (they must be the best aircrafts in the world since they have not crashed or had accidents so far along with the lca whereas aircrafts like gripen,f22 and rafale,ef2000 had all crashed)

regarding sd10 how many times has it been testfired,how many variants are there,usa already has several variants of amraam and they are already developing more advance variants of it.so amraam is no pushover.
yes kashif everything has to start from zero and it is like comparing a baby who is just starting to walk with a 30 year old person in the prime of his life.
well kashif you said that sd-10 uses components of r77 but which variant,r77 is not as advance as what we may think a more advanced variant of the basic r77 is available known as the RVV-AE .:coffee

[kashifshahzad]

so you mean to say that aim-120 doent have a range in excess of 70kms,and by the way the costy of f-16 depends on the variant some variants are available for 20-30 millions too ,it is considered to be a highly affordable fighter

Dear mate see the range of AIM-120

AIM-120 AMRAAM

Specifications:

Length 12 ft
Diameter 7 in
Wing Span 1 ft 9 in
Weight 335 lbs
Speed 760+ mph
Range 39 nm
Power Plant High performance, directed rocket motor
Warhead Blast Fragmentation; high explosive
Unit Cost $386,000
Date Deployed September 1991

And now see the specification of SD-10 then compare these two

SD-10 Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile

SD-10 was first revealed to the public during the 2002 Zhuhai Airshow. PL-12 has been under development at LETRI/607 Institute since early 90s. It is expected to be in the same class as AIM-120A and the missile may have evolved from the earlier AMR-1 design. Its tailfins appear to have fin tips as well as the leading edges of the fin root cropped. These specially designed tailfins are believed to possess lower drag for greater speed and higher torque for better maneuverability. Two datalink antennas can be seen next to the nozzle for mid-course correction. PL-12 completed its development test in December 2004 and was expected to enter the service in 2005 to be carried by J-8F FC-1 ,J-10 and J-11B.Some specifications of SD-10: length 3,850mm, diameter 203mm, wing span 674mm, weight 180kg, max g-load 38g, max speed 4M, max range 70km.

There are other alternatives too if this missile comes too late see this PL-11

A PL-11 AAM carried by a J-8B was shown in an AVIC I promotional video at the 2002 Zhuhai Airshow. The development of PL-11 medium-range semi-active radar homing AAM began in 1987 and the missile was at least partially based on Italian Aspide AAM (several dozen were imported back in the late 80s). The development was not completed until end of 2002 and by that time its technology was already obsolete. The missile has a range of about 60km. However PL-11 is believed only in limited service with the upgraded J-8B/D/H intercepter and is expected to be replaced by the new SD-10 active radar homing AAM. Its export version is dubbed FD-60.

When you are saying that there are other versions available whose price is less then they will also have inferior radar and weapon system our PRESIDENT has clearly said that Pakistan is not going to get a plane which could not meet our requirements so keep this in mind.

also currently around 4000 f-16's are in service and many more are epected(including by pakistan) to be produced ,it has never been shot down in combat and by the way what is your source that the radars of jf-17 and f-10 have the ranges that you have mentioned. manouverability of 0.5g's definitely does matter.it is the amount of g's that an airframe can withstand in combat,if the jf-17 is frequently sublected to g's in excess to its capability(8.5 g's) it will suffer from early fatigue and structural failures. m2 and m1.7 is not a small diffenece(dont see it as a.3 difference)it is a difference of 300+kms/hr,an aircraft can use thisadditional speed to outmanouverthe opponent or to get to the combat zone that much quicker.

There are arounf 4000 F-16's in service including PAF i want to say this the JF-17 will also be in a bigger quantity caz it is going to replace the old planes like A-5 ,F-7's ,F-7PG's and Mirages.This planes is mainly developed by China for the export then the countries operating these planes will require a replacement so lets see how can this plane gets the markets.

If you say F-16 was never shot down in a combat tell me with which countries it was used to fight and fire hah those are Afghanistan and Iraq those poor countries could do nothing against this AC these AC's went there dropped the bombs fired the missiles and came back safely none of the SAM was able to reach it.When PAF got F-16's after that there was no war mainly i think they were aquired to make them to drop a NUKE .

Yaar see when you have a missile of range 70km and you dont have a radar range above then that then what the hell are you doing in the sky . suppose a F-16 comes nearer and it has superior radar then it has AIM-120 then thre range of SD-10 is higher and the range of AIM-120 is lesser then the advange which F-16 will have is this a bit good manuvaribility and greater speed which will help it in running away Lol.

dearest kashif just because an aircraft has had accidents doesnt mean that there is a defect in it's airframe or engine (accidents can happen due to several reasons cfit due to lack of situational awareness is one of them ,like offcourse airframe or engine problems or software and avionics problems,bird hits etc).if we go by your logic then pakistan need not go for f-16 wasting 25million dollars per aircraft more instead they should acquire 100's of jf-17 and f-10 (they must be the best aircrafts in the world since they have not crashed or had accidents so far along with the lca whereas aircrafts like gripen,f22 and rafale,ef2000 had all crashed)

Yeah dear i also want to say this kind of thing if F-16's didnt had a single accident then it dosent mean that it is the superior plane as compared to the other which had accidents the JF-17 will also have accidents .I want to say that when the planes are tested if the AC crashes then the engineers and the designers have to where the real problem was so it takes time and you can see clearly the JF-17 didnt had any accident it shows that it is ok there are more chances that it can fly in the sky and its serial productoin will start in a few years.

read this

Technical Details:

Super Seven is a light weight, multi-role day-night, all weather fighter with max TO weight 12,700kg, max speed 1.6M, ceiling 16,500m, max weapon load 3,900kg, range 3,000km. It uses Russian RD-93 turbofan engine, which is an upgrade of RD-33, this RD-93 turbofan engine is also used in Russian MiG-29 it is claimed to 80-85% as capable as American F-16 and highly aerial maneuverability as its key features. RD-93 engine used in FC-1 is build in China with Russian license. The aircraft can also be fitted with an in-flight refueling probe and a deck arrester hook. This will increase its striking range beyond 3,000km.

Avionics:

FC-1 will be fitted with Italian Grifo S-7 fire-control radar. The Grifo S-7 radar system is specially designed for the FC-1 it has 25 working modes and a non-break-down time of 200 hours. Grifo S-7 radar system is capable of look-down, shoot-down, as well as for ground strike abilities. Pakistani sources also suggest that Pakistan is mostly looking into western avionics to further improve FC-1's capabilities. In addition to that it includes new digital dual fly-by-wire (FBW) system and a true Beyond Visual Range (BVR) attack capability.

FC-1 include a 25° field of view HUD, two multi-functional displays and INS/GPS (Global Positioning System).

Weapon Systems:

Super Seven is designed to be fitted with vast array of weaponry. It has a total of seven store stations, one under the fuselage and six under the wing with a maximum weapon load of 3,800kg.

FC-1s primary air to air weapon is a medium range SD-10 Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile. Other weapons it can carry are short and medium range AAMs (Anti-Air Missiles) like AIM-9P/PL-9/Magic 2 and PL-11/Aspide/AIM-7E etc. In addition to that it can carry wide array of high and low drag bombs, laser guided bombs, runway penetration bombs and cluster bombs for air strikes.


you can see clearly that why we are spending 20-25m$ for this plane the JF-17 and J-10's are good but the speed and the .5 manuvarability matter if we were able to make a plane like F-16 then there was no need to buy those costly F-16's.

regarding sd10 how many times has it been testfired,how many variants are there,usa already has several variants of amraam and they are already developing more advance variants of it.so amraam is no pushover.
yes kashif everything has to start from zero and it is like comparing a baby who is just starting to walk with a 30 year old person in the prime of his life.
well kashif you said that sd-10 uses components of r77 but which variant,r77 is not as advance as what we may think a more advanced variant of the basic r77 is available known as the RVV-AE .

Aaaditya dont talk nuts it will be in production when the JF-17 will also in production your comparison is totaly wrong you are comparing a baby with a man what a rubbish dear planes are planes not babies if you say this the F-22 is also a baby but!! the F-16 is 30 years old why dont they modify that lol they need thatplanes do they are manufacturing it i have told you the alternatives for SD-10 that missile could be modified to fir into these new planes JF-17 and J-10 when you have a back bone strong then you can fight better when the back bone is not stronger then you have only to defence yourself nothing else

[srirangan]

F22 is a baby. But of a different species!

[highsea]

kashif and aaaditya- Guys, keep in mind that a manufacturer's quoted range for an AAM missile means nothing unless launch parameters are specified. Russian manufacturers tend to advertise their ranges based on unrealistic launch parameters, to make them look better than they really are. If you want to compare AAM's in more detail, you can open a thread in WMD and Missiles, perhaps R-77 vs. AIM-120. It might get interesting. :D

[aaaditya]

dearest kashif
the range of aim120 according to your post is 39nm(that is 39nautical miles which is equal to 72.15 kilometres since 1nm=1.85 kms) so that makes it longer ranged than the sd-10 or the othermissile that you mentioned
the speed of aim120 that is mentioned in your post is very vague they say 760+miles which means it can go faster than that.so let us not take that into consideration.
dearest kashif in your post you mentioned that fc-1 is as capable as 80-85%of f-16 but you didnt mention what version of f-16(even then fc1 is 20-15% inferior to f-16 that should answere your argument fc1 is inferior to f-16.
maybe kashif you have not heard about f-16block60 or f-16sufa and all that(check www.airforce-technology.com (http://www.airforce-technology.com) for more info on that ) f-16's have been considerably modified based on the combat experience gaine by the us and its allies during the period of its service.
you are also making a mistake comparing sd-10 with the oldest version of aim120 when more advanced versions of aim120 are available
here are the specifications of aim120c amraam

SpecificationsDiameter/Caliber180mm7.09-inLength3.7 m12-ftMax Range48 km26 nmMax Speed4,896 kphMach 4.1Max Weight157 kg346-lbSpan.5 m1-ftWarhead Weight20 kg44-lb

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=mn00005003

you will notice that that aim120c is lighter and faster than sd-10.

also check the article from this site http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html(the company manufacturing this missile about specifications of aim120a /b and you will find that the range is 70kms,and the speed is m4.) its got a detailed report on aim-120's development programme.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-120.htm

by the way if you want the complete information regarding the f-16 which will be helpfull for comparing it with other aircraft(jf-17 and f-10) then check

www.f-16.net (http://www.f-16.net)

[aaaditya]

well kashif iam also posting specifications of some versions of f-16 from
www.f-16.net (http://www.f-16.net)

F-16A/B

Block 1/5/10/15/15OCU/20

Specifications

Engine: One Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 turbofan, rated at 12,240 lb.s.t. dry, 14,670 lb.s.t. full military, and 23,830 lb.s.t. with afterburning.

Maximum speed: Mach 2.05 at 40,000 feet. Service ceiling 55,000 feet. Maximum range 2400 miles. Initial climb rate 62,000 feet per minute.

Dimensions: wingspan 32 feet 9 1/2 inches, length 49 feet 3 1/2 inches, height 16 feet 8 1/2 inches, wing area 300 square feet.

Weights: 16,285 pounds empty, 25,281 pounds combat, 37,500 pounds maximum takeoff.

F-16C/D

Block 50/52



Specifications (standard Block 50/52)

Engine: One Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 turbofan, rated at 17,000 lb.s.t. dry and 28,500 lb.s.t. with afterburning or one General Electric F110-GE-129 turbofan, rated at 17,155 lb.s.t. dry and 28,984 lb.s.t. with afterburning.

Performance: Maximum short-endurance speed: Mach 2.05 (1353 mph) at 40,000 feet. Maximum sustained speed Mach 1.89 (1247 mph) at 40,000 feet. Tactical radius (hi-lo-hi interdiction on internal fuel with six 500-lb bombs) 360 miles. Maximum ferry range 2450 miles with maximum external fuel (excluding 600gal. tanks or CFT's) .

Dimensions: wingspan 31 feet 0 inches, length 49 feet 4 inches, height 16 feet 8 1/2 inches, wing area 300 square feet.

Weights: 18,238 pounds empty, 26,463 pounds normal loaded (air-to-air mission), 42,300 pounds maximum takeoff.

pakistan is planning to acquire the advanced variant of this aircraft (f-16 block52+)

F-16E/F

Block 60



Specifications

Engine: One General Electric F110-GE-132 turbofan, rated at 19,000 lb.s.t. dry and 32,500 lb.s.t. with afterburning.

Performance: Maximum short-endurance speed: Mach 2.02 (1333 mph) at 40,000 feet. Maximum sustained speed Mach 1.89 (1247 mph) at 40,000 feet.

Dimensions: wingspan 31 feet 0 inches, length 49 feet 4 inches, height 16 feet 8 1/2 inches, wing area 300 square feet.

Weights: around 22,000 pounds empty, 29,000 pounds normal loaded (air-to-air mission), 46,000 pounds maximum takeoff

you would notice that the sustained speed alone is more than jf-17's maximum speed(m 1.6)

[aaaditya]

there are other variants of f-16 which i have ommited along with their images due to lack of time and patience.

you can get information from the above site and use them for you comparison betwean f-16 and jf-17 and f-10 aircrafts.

[kashifshahzad]

Dear aaaditya i know that UAE and Isreal has greater versions of F-16's the UAE has E/F and the Isreal has F-16I Sufa i have posted this before somewhere in DT the specifications about the Sufa are as mentioned

F-16I Sufa
The F-16I looks radically different from other F-16s, with Conformal Fuel Tanks, dorsal spine, and numerous fairings and bulges for undisclosed equipment. Rumor has it that a lot of the equipment is only installed after delivery to Israel.

You canclearly see that this version of F-16 is with conformal fuel tanks dorsal spine and numerous fairings and bulges for undisclosed equipment.But keep this thing in mind that the higher ranger AMRAAM will be from AIM-120/A/B/C you know that this is the age of that planes having radar that can see other planes without being seen and of that planes having long range BVR's so if you say the new versions of planes will use this
specifications of aim120c amraam

SpecificationsDiameter/Caliber180mm7.09-inLength3.7 m12-ftMax Range48 km26 nmMax Speed4,896 kphMach 4.1Max Weight157 kg346-lbSpan.5 m1-ftWarhead Weight20 kg44-lb

In this you can clearly see that if JF-17 thunder is having a fight with F-16 having AIM-120C then the JF-17 is going to knock it down dear forget that the speed and weight are going to do some difference use common sence then you will understand all.

See the specifications of UAE's F-16 E/F

Modifications & Armament
The UAE purchased USD $2 billion in sophisticated aircraft armament for its F-16s, including 491 AIM-120B AAMRAAM Missiles, 267 AIM-9M Sidewinder 163 AGM-88 Harm, 1,163 AGM-65D/G Marerick , 52 AGM-84 Harpoon, laser guided bombs, 20mm ammunition and other weaponry.

I think dear you cant see the prices the prices will reach to 70-80m$ per piece and there is no difference in the weapon system so what will they do if they have superior radar think for a while and search the range if AIM-120B
then tell me whether the range of SD-10 is greater or the range of AIM-120 is greater.Lol

I repeat that the only difference in the JF-17 and the F-16's is the composition and design of airframes,engines,radars and manuverability but the weapon system are same but are of different origins if we were able to make planes like F-16 then there was no need to buy F-16's see he Sweden they havent purchased any plane from other country they have JAS 39 ,viggin and the other one i dont remember I pray that PAF will be able to make planes like F-16's but we have to buy engines and avionics from others like Russia and France

[gf0012-aust]

This thread is starting to derail. Before people continue on quoting specs and stats about their respective platforms, please take the time to understand that it's about systems and systems integration.

aircombat particularly is about warfighting with systems.

quoting ranges of weapons, platform weight, mach speed etc has very little to do with absolute capability.

[kashifshahzad]

there are other variants of f-16 which i have ommited along with their images due to lack of time and patience.

you can get information from the above site and use them for you comparison betwean f-16 and jf-17 and f-10 aircrafts.

Dear i have posted the comparison between these planes the only difference in the JF-17 and the F-16's is the composition and design of airframes,engines,radars and manuverability but the weapon system are same but are of different origins


Mod edit: Please do not tell other posters to modify the way and frequency of their posts. That is a moderators job - not yours. Such a request may also well be a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"

[kashifshahzad]

This thread is starting to derail. Before people continue on quoting specs and stats about their respective platforms, please take the time to understand that it's about systems and systems integration.

aircombat particularly is about warfighting with systems.

quoting ranges of weapons, platform weight, mach speed etc has very little to do with absolute capability.

Dear gf0012-aust plz try to understand that we are not senior members let us discuss here something is that necessory that when we want to discuss something we should open a new thread let us discuss the things we want to discuss this will make us to increase our abilities and knowledge i want to say that if a plane has the radar range of 100km and it has BVR missile of range 50 km and the other enemy plane which has a radar range of 70km and has the BVR missle of the same range what do you thing is the best

[WebMaster]

If you want to discuss F-16, do that in F-16 thread. If you want to discuss AIM missiles, do that in AIM Missile thread. This is a freaking FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17 thread, do I see F-16 in the name? Do I see AIM missiles in the name?

To baby sit you even further, this thread was created for you to post latest news and information about the jet... I am sure you knew that?

Now, any "talk back" or "sujjestions" to mods will result in ban for 4 weeks.

Continue with the TOPIC, FC-1 / Super 7 / JF-17!!!

[rafale_2k5]

Dear i have posted the comparison between these planes the only difference in the JF-17 and the F-16's is the composition and design of airframes,engines,radars and manuverability but the weapon system are same but are of different origins


Mod edit: Please do not tell other posters to modify the way and frequency of their posts. That is a moderators job - not yours. Such a request may also well be a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"

Kashif i never knew that u were so blinded by patriotism to start comparin it with F-16 , had it been so good PAF wont be rantin 4 years on the F-16 saga....plus its basically third generation whose avionics suite is topic of much speculation, even perfprmance parameters dont justify it to be proclaimed as superior to F-16s , look at F-16s combat record/ service with a number of forces whereas no pun against China is yet to deliver a decent finished project, couple all these things with the engine imbroglio n u have a host of problems to solve be4 it could be seen in PAF colours!!!! the only advantage PAF would gain is a medium tech aircraft meant 4 replacing F-7s n mirages, plus the technological know how to an extent in designing / fully integrating a fighter aircraft plus have the capability to go 4 block up grades in the future but weve got to see the time frame when this plane enters, by then the world would be buzzing with 4.5/ 5 gen planes!!!! how much tweaking it would require to put up a decent fight is still a matter of conjecture....:coffee

[kashifshahzad]

Kashif i never knew that u were so blinded by patriotism to start comparin it with F-16 , had it been so good PAF wont be rantin 4 years on the F-16 saga....plus its basically third generation whose avionics suite is topic of much speculation, even perfprmance parameters dont justify it to be proclaimed as superior to F-16s , look at F-16s combat record/ service with a number of forces whereas no pun against China is yet to deliver a decent finished project, couple all these things with the engine imbroglio n u have a host of problems to solve be4 it could be seen in PAF colours!!!! the only advantage PAF would gain is a medium tech aircraft meant 4 replacing F-7s n mirages, plus the technological know how to an extent in designing / fully integrating a fighter aircraft plus have the capability to go 4 block up grades in the future but weve got to see the time frame when this plane enters, by then the world would be buzzing with 4.5/ 5 gen planes!!!! how much tweaking it would require to put up a decent fight is still a matter of conjecture....:coffee

Dear mate i was compaing the JF-17 with the F-16 these both planes belong to the PAF or one of it will belong to the PAF so tell me where is the patriotism dear i have posted an article in which it was clearly said that the new JF-17 is 80-85% as much as capable as the the F-16's if both planes have the BVR missiles with the same range but the F-16 will have the higher speed and manuverabiliy this will give an edge to the F-16 the avionics are better in the F-16's if you have the MKI's then your AF is superior and it can do manuvers which other planes cant do but can you post the weapon system of that we will surely get the planes of next generation from China or russia now the whole situation depends upon India . How can you say that the old things are not usefull like F-16's if the old things are modified for the modren age then there is no doubt that they will not perform well

[umair]

Ok lets be sensible here guys.
Rafale, to dispel some perceptions, the specs on the net regarding the Thunder are old, way old infact. A lot has changed wrt the specs and capabilities of this aircraft.
If you want the latest specs you'll have to wait till late this year when the pre production platforms start coming off the assembly line.
Kashif, learn the rules of platform comparison, first gather as much info about the patforms as possible, digest it, put it in the paradigm of operator countries and their specific geo-strategic military needs criteria, the intended role of the platform within their force structure and then proceed with the comparison, and always be circumspect while engaging in such comparisons as other members my very well know more than you.

[kashifshahzad]

Kashif, learn the rules of platform comparison, first gather as much info about the patforms as possible, digest it, put it in the paradigm of operator countries and their specific geo-strategic military needs criteria, the intended role of the platform within their force structure and then proceed with the comparison, and always be circumspect while engaging in such comparisons as other members my very well know more than you.

Yaar i wanted to say this only ok i will try to digest fst :(

Technical Details:

Super Seven is a light weight, multi-role day-night, all weather fighter with max TO weight 12,700kg, max speed 1.6M, ceiling 16,500m, max weapon load 3,900kg, range 3,000km. It uses Russian RD-93 turbofan engine, which is an upgrade of RD-33, this RD-93 turbofan engine is also used in Russian MiG-29 it is claimed to 80-85% as capable as American F-16 and highly aerial maneuverability as its key features. RD-93 engine used in FC-1 is build in China with Russian license. The aircraft can also be fitted with an in-flight refueling probe and a deck arrester hook. This will increase its striking range beyond 3,000km.

I know i know several things will change in the JF-17 in the comming years but i want to say that this fighter will backup our F-16's if we had the tech and avionics as that F-16's have was there a need to buy F-16's then PAF would be looking for some kind of stealth planes may be from China or US or could try to make its own just spaculation!! :(

[aaaditya]

kashif you have mentioned that jf-17 is 80-85%as capable as f-16 but you did not mention which variant(whichever variant you may mean it still would mean that jf-17 is 20-15% inferior to f-16,which proves that as of now jf-17 cannot fully match f-16,i woul realy doubt if the comparison is against the f-16b52 aircraft which pakistan is acquiring ).:coffee

[mysterious]

Aaaditya, u're questions have been answered a dozen times by senior members if you care to look around a bit; instead of dragging the thread along on an issue already discussed before.

Aaah bail mujhey maaar!

[gf0012-aust]

If there are any more tit for tat comments made in this post it will be locked.

This does not require a response from anyone who feels a need to defend their actions.

[umair]

First of all I'm tired of all this comparison crap! This thread is supposed to discuss the technical details of the JF-17 not to quantify it's performance parameters in %s wrt anyother platform/s. Another thing, that 80% was for public consumption and from my talks with people working on this thing, I've learnt one thing, public fodder is what it is public fodder.The only time we'll really be able to quantify this platform's performance will be when the finished product comes out and has served some service time.
Also if I see any more of these % posts, rest assured that I'll nuke em.

[WebMaster]

Chinese JF-17 / FC-1 faces export hurdle
janes.com
Jul 18, 2005, 10:59
Editor Note: This report basically proves all other reports wrong about Russia allowing China to export JF-17 / FC-1 with RD-93 Engine to third country. Stay tuned for latest on this...

Russian engine manufacturer Chernyshev Moscow Machine Building Enterprise has banned China from entering its RD-93-engined FC-1 attack fighter aircraft in any procurement competition where it is up against a Russian aircraft.

The Chengdhu FC-1, Pakistani designation JF-17, is a joint development between Pakistan and China but the issue of the powerplant remains unresolved. Russia has ruled out export of the RD-93, a development of the RD-33, to Pakistan to avoid upsetting India.

A Chernyshev spokesperson said there are explicit terms in the original contract stating that the "RD-93 should not be exported to any third country" without Russian permission and the engine will not be allowed in any competition where a Russian manufacturer is bidding.

URL of this article:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_002681.php

Major Setback for JF-17 / FC-1 Program.

[pshamim]

Well! FC-1 will not be competing against Mig-29 or SU-30s. Regarding export of RD-93 to a third country, I think it is posturing before the 126 MRCA decision by Indians. Pakistanis are still not fazed-must have something up their sleaves.

[kashifshahzad]

Well! FC-1 will not be competing against Mig-29 or SU-30s. Regarding export of RD-93 to a third country, I think it is posturing before the 126 MRCA decision by Indians. Pakistanis are still not fazed-must have something up their sleaves.
Yeah it is not going to compete the the Mig29's and the SU30's.

We have an alternate for the radar after the rejection from the french the Italian Grifo S-7 fire-control radar but how can the replacemt of RD-93 can be done do they have any other country which can give the engines to fit into the the JF-17.
I also want to know that the previous AC's which PAF from China what engines the use and what is their origin. :rolleyes:

China is also developing its own WS-10A turbofan powerplant, and it could be fitted on the later versions of the J-10. An all-aspect vectored-thrust version of the AL-31F was revealed for the first time at Zhuhai Air Show 1998, leading to speculation that this advanced engine may wind up on the J-10, potentially conferring phenomenal manoeuvrability.Could this engine be fitted into the JF-17 and when it going to come into production. :confused:

[pingpong]

Chinese JF-17 / FC-1 faces export hurdle
janes.com
Jul 18, 2005, 10:59
Editor Note: This report basically proves all other reports wrong about Russia allowing China to export JF-17 / FC-1 with RD-93 Engine to third country. Stay tuned for latest on this...

Russian engine manufacturer Chernyshev Moscow Machine Building Enterprise has banned China from entering its RD-93-engined FC-1 attack fighter aircraft in any procurement competition where it is up against a Russian aircraft.

The Chengdhu FC-1, Pakistani designation JF-17, is a joint development between Pakistan and China but the issue of the powerplant remains unresolved. Russia has ruled out export of the RD-93, a development of the RD-33, to Pakistan to avoid upsetting India.

A Chernyshev spokesperson said there are explicit terms in the original contract stating that the "RD-93 should not be exported to any third country" without Russian permission and the engine will not be allowed in any competition where a Russian manufacturer is bidding.

URL of this article:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...icle_002681.php (http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_002681.php)

Major Setback for JF-17 / FC-1 Program.



Pakistanis must be prepared for such a situation. Could any one enlist the details of engine options pakistan has.

Would the above mentioned ban by russia would hurt FC-1 or it can opt for other engines without any delay.
Could any one provide spec of other engines that pakistani plan to fit in FC-1.

[highsea]

We have discussed this here in some depth. You can't switch engines without significant reengineering, which would translate into a pretty long delay.

Other engines in the size/weight/thrust class:
GE 404/414
Volvo RM-12 (based on GE404)
Rolls Royce EJ-200
Snecma M88-2 (2K lbs. less thrust)

Here is a comparison of the RD-93 and the GE404:

http://defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=42514&postcount=128

[Salman78]

China has not made any announcements on the FC-1. According to Chengdu officials at the 5th China Airshow in Zhuhai (Nov. 1-17, 2004), the PLAAF is still evaluating the AC. This matches what Sinodefence says also.

Various Pakistani sources have stated 200-250 planes for the PLAAF, but there is no open source confirmation of this. This doesn't mean the PLAAF won't use them, just that there is no confirmation from China as yet.

China has a bunch of aircraft projects going, and not all of them will see service in the PLAAF. The FC-1 has always been considered to be primarily an export product from China's perspective, since they have the J-10 and all the Flanker variants, plus the JXX project, etc. The FC-1/JF-17 is still a few years away from operational service, and it's hard to predict what the PLAAF will do.

Read more about the airshow and China's AC projects here:

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.54/pub_detail.asp


I strongly believe its just a matter of time before china officialy announces a large purchase order for JF-17's. The reason be their obsolete inventory of
J-7, F-6 and A-5 aircraft which need to be replaced by a medium tech aircraft like JF-17's.

JXX is far away even from the prototype stage.
J-10 is the frontline plane along with Su-30's. They need a backup fighter to fill in the gap

[mysterious]

Maybe you are not aware of this development but it has already happened. China is going for Jf-17s (FC-1 for China) in the possible range of 150-200 aircrafts. That is why the deal with Russia materialized as Russians would have been assured that all the RD-93 engines procured would be used solely for the aircrafts to be supplied to the PLAAF. :coffee

[pingpong]

Maybe you are not aware of this development but it has already happened. China is going for Jf-17s (FC-1 for China) in the possible range of 150-200 aircrafts. That is why the deal with Russia materialized as Russians would have been assured that all the RD-93 engines procured would be used solely for the aircrafts to be supplied to the PLAAF. :coffee



If PLAAF would be using RD-93, then what about the pakistanis. What engine they will use. This is the big question as pakistanis AC's are old and they desperatly need new jet. From the above news it seems that FC-1 will going to get late.

so far only hypothetical answers have been given. could any guy give any inside report of pakistani airforce options regarding the engine dilemma.

[srirangan]

PAF could lease the FC-1's from the PLAAF.

[Salman78]

Maybe you are not aware of this development but it has already happened. China is going for Jf-17s (FC-1 for China) in the possible range of 150-200 aircrafts. That is why the deal with Russia materialized as Russians would have been assured that all the RD-93 engines procured would be used solely for the aircrafts to be supplied to the PLAAF. :coffee

Yeah maybe i am not aware of the developments you are so sure about.

Mind posting a link for the story you got your information from ?
If PLAAF has already made the decision to acquire then whats the 150-200 range about ? havnt they given a fixed number.

Pakistan WILL get the JF-17's with RD-93 engines. Russians would have, could have, should have carries no meaning here.

Awaiting the link from you, proving official PLAAF claim of a specific number of FC-1 to be accquired.

[pshamim]

This discussion on RD-93 whether they will be put on the JF-17 will not lead us to no where. Only Pakistanis, Chinese, and Russian know for sure what is the real story.

According to some:

a) PLAAF will not order FC-1s
b) PAF JF-17 are in trouble-no RD-93 for them

Question: Are there any other aircrafts either currently in service or under development in China which use RD-93?

Question: Can someone tell us where 500 RD-93 engines, ordered by China and confirmed by Russia, going to be used.

[umair]

The engine issue has been resolved with Russia.
I've already posted in this forum somewhere how that's so. And I don't like to repeat myself.

[srirangan]

The engine issue has been resolved with Russia.
I've already posted in this forum somewhere how that's so. And I don't like to repeat myself.
The latest news report on DT speaks of the contrary. :S

[ajay_ijn]

Not only DT,but the janes website also reported.
India will try hard to block the engine.

The most surprising part is, there is not even a single pakistan official comment on Russia blocking RD-93.
Russia clearly specified about that many years ago.

[P.A.F]

well if its true that russia would not provide the engine then why the hell did pakistan go ahead with the project.:confused: .

anyway, i bet disscussions are going on undercover about this and i'm sure india is adding a little salt n pepper here and there.

[P.A.F]

This is all i could find on the engine business.
http://www.pakistanidefence.com/news/FullNews/2005/July2005/RD93forJF17.htm

JF-17 To Get Russian RD-93 Engines

July 1, 2005: PakistaniDefence.com reports, in a very welcomed new for JF-17 project Russia has signed a contract with China to supply RD-93 engines for Sino-Pak JF-17 fighter. This contract nulls all the reports that RD-93 will not be fitted into JF-17 hence making JF-17 not as effective as Chinese and Pakistani air forces would like it to be. This contract will allow initial supply of 100 engines its spare parts and maintenance. Net worth of this contract is 237 million dollars. Talks are already underway for another 500 engines.

[ajay_ijn]

well if its true that russia would not provide the engine then why the hell did pakistan go ahead with the project.:confused: .

anyway, i bet disscussions are going on undercover about this and i'm sure india is adding a little salt n pepper here and there.
Thats for sure,the news article itself says that,It is becoz of India russia denied the sale.

May be the only option now would be to reverse engineer but china doesn't seem to plan anything like that.
Chinese FC-1 faces export hurdle
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw050718_2_n.shtml
The Chengdhu FC-1, Pakistani designation JF-17, is a joint development between Pakistan and China but the issue of the powerplant remains unresolved. Russia has ruled out export of the RD-93, a development of the RD-33, to Pakistan to avoid upsetting India.

P.A.F[/font] (member.php?u=1489)]
This is all i could find on the engine business.
http://www.pakistanidefence.com/new...RD93forJF17.htm (http://www.pakistanidefence.com/news/FullNews/2005/July2005/RD93forJF17.htm)
I do think Janes is more reliable than anyother website.

[adsH]

Hold onn guys I smell something here. PAF has been very quiet about this and they've been promoting the Jet to other nations. They wouldn't do that unless they didn't have a Backup !! It would only hurt there Image if they couldn't deliver.

[ajay_ijn]

Hold onn guys I smell something here. PAF has been very quiet about this and they've been promoting the Jet to other nations. They wouldn't do that unless they didn't have a Backup !! It would only hurt there Image if they couldn't deliver.
Russia said that they won't give engine to just to pakistan not anyother country so china/pakistan can promote the jet to other countries which will be still powered by RD-93.
So even a normal asian country like Iran,Korea etc will not have any problem in getting the JF-17 with RD-93.

[highsea]

I'm not sure Pakistan wants to deal with the fallout of selling JF-17's to Iran or NorK. China, might do it, but the US would not be too happy.

The export restrictions on the RD-93 go beyond just Pakistan. Russia has stated that the engines will not be sold if the FC-1/JF-17 is to compete directly with Russian planes in any tender. So if a country wants to buy some planes, and the MiG-29 is offered up, Russia will not supply the engines for FC-1's to compete against the MiG.

[pshamim]

The engine issue has been resolved with Russia.
I've already posted in this forum somewhere how that's so. And I don't like to repeat myself.

That is no answer. If you know something, come out with it. May be we all can learn something from you. Dont want to repeat then what was the reason for your post.

[ashblackhawk]

Thats for sure,the news article itself says that,It is becoz of India russia denied the sale.

May be the only option now would be to reverse engineer but china doesn't seem to plan anything like that.
Chinese FC-1 faces export hurdle
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw050718_2_n.shtml



I do think Janes is more reliable than anyother website.





I think china dont have the capability to reverse engineer the Engine. I think its not only about design, its about the material of critical engine components which are difficult to reverse engineer. A slight difference in proportion could fail the engine with burst... :coffee

[rafale_2k5]

Plus its not like that today u decided to reverse engineer something n its gonna happen outta of the box, china still lacks technology to manufacture critical engine components, so even if paf opts for another engine now, the delay resulted could off set the programme to several more years !!!!n if that happens than the viability of the whole programme becomes questionable!!!!!!!

Plus i dont think that the clause introduced would hurt current MIG-29 sales sinc its in the league of block 50s whereas JF-17 could be opted for as a cheaper alternative for arforces planing to replace their fleets of MIG-21s/F-7s.

[Salman78]

PAF could lease the FC-1's from the PLAAF.

You dont spend millions of dollars on R & D, set up a production line, then lease the airplane :D

[SABRE]

Plus its not like that today u decided to reverse engineer something n its gonna happen outta of the box, china still lacks technology to manufacture critical engine components, so even if paf opts for another engine now, the delay resulted could off set the programme to several more years !!!!n if that happens than the viability of the whole programme becomes questionable!!!!!!!

Plus i dont think that the clause introduced would hurt current MIG-29 sales sinc its in the league of block 50s whereas JF-17 could be opted for as a cheaper alternative for arforces planing to replace their fleets of MIG-21s/F-7s.

Some countries have poorer MiG-29 versions, they r not even BVR & r from ancient times. They are not willing to buy new MiG-29s. China seems interested in targeting them while Pakistan's job is to maintain its fleet & replace the aging F-5s & F-7s of its allied/friendly countries (E.g; Saudi Arabia).

What ever the engine situation is PAF seems to have started the development phase aswell as the marketing.

As at this moment I am in Saudi Arabia & PAF chief is here. The speculations here is that he is here to market JF-17 over F-5s besides visiting the PAF pilots based in/with Saudi AirForce. Saudis are also planning on aquiring more PAF pilots.

Kalim Sadat has also brought the high ranking evaluation officers with him here. For what they have come to evaluate, I dnt know.

Besides Sadat the British Defence deligation is also here. So far they havent said any thing abt weapons sale.They just said they are going to have full cooporation with Saudis on defence & other technologies.

I'm not sure Pakistan wants to deal with the fallout of selling JF-17's to Iran or NorK. China, might do it, but the US would not be too happy.

The export restrictions on the RD-93 go beyond just Pakistan. Russia has stated that the engines will not be sold if the FC-1/JF-17 is to compete directly with Russian planes in any tender. So if a country wants to buy some planes, and the MiG-29 is offered up, Russia will not supply the engines for FC-1's to compete against the MiG.

Pakistan wont be selling Jf-17 to North Korea. We have nothing to loose with NK but we have lot to loose buy making US angry. But Pakistan does see Iran as a potential buyer.

Iran being MiG-29 coustomer, I believe that Russia will not sell RD-93 for FC-1s to be supplied to Iran. If what u r saying is true. Syria is also on the buyers list along with Egypt. Anyways most of the potential buyer countries (included in the list of China & Pakistan togather) are non US friendly. Pakistan cant drop all of them & loose the sell.


What ever the situation is (with engine) Pakistan & China seem to be going ahead with the project. There has been no stops so far.

[kashifshahzad]

Sabre tell me that in history any of the AC project which had been cancelled due to the non avalibility of the engines from any of the country i dont think that kind of thing happened in history.

[nalan]

well india's marut2 (twin engined marut) was affected due to engine problems (this aircraft was designed by kurt tank and was a very promising project in those times),the original marut also never saw its full potential.

[ajay_ijn]

Some countries have poorer MiG-29 versions, they r not even BVR & r from ancient times. They are not willing to buy new MiG-29s. China seems interested in targeting them while Pakistan's job is to maintain its fleet & replace the aging F-5s & F-7s of its allied/friendly countries (E.g; Saudi Arabia).
.
Ancient?? Poorer??
I don't know what do u mean by them.
Even the original Mig-29 could fire AA-10 Alamos BVR Missile,its depends on the user countries if they want to have BVR Missile.

But Mig-29 maintainence is very difficult due to Engine and Avionics problems but they are all now solved in the lastest Mig-29m2.

And Mig-29(20-25 million dollars) cost is Slightly more than JF-17.


If u have to choose between JF-17 and Mig-29m2 to replace aging fighters,then its obvious to choose Mig-29 Itself.

[kashifshahzad]

any other project other then that in which year this project marut2 got affected why didnt you asked russian to give you engines

[ajay_ijn]

Sabre tell me that in history any of the AC project which had been cancelled due to the non avalibility of the engines from any of the country i dont think that kind of thing happened in history.
But why are u asking such question?
JF-17 won't be cancelled but still can be used by PLAAF.

Its just that now russia will directly influence on JF-17 sales,development etc.
If they want to offer the fighter to any other country they will ,if they don't want,they will simply block the engine.
Did Russia provide some technical assistance to China for JF-17.

China might violate the agreement,that is the only optimal solution right now.

But if China Violates,Russia might completely block the engine to china itself.

[kashifshahzad]

But why are u asking such question?
JF-17 won't be cancelled but still can be used by PLAAF.

Its just that now russia will directly influence on JF-17 sales,development etc.
If they want to offer the fighter to any other country they will ,if they don't want,they will simply block the engine.
Did Russia provide some technical assistance to China for JF-17.

China might violate the agreement,that is the only optimal solution right now.

But if China Violates,Russia might completely block the engine to china itself.

I want that dame engine problem to get solved as quickly as possible that would be foolish to voilate the agreement with Russia China is getting a lot of things from Russia.If only China gets the JF-17's then what the hell PAF is gonna do is there any subtitute for the replacement of old AC's for that we will have to do meeting with every AC manufacturing company but they would never gonna be able to get this kind of plane having a lot of things and doing such nice things and having this much price

[mysterious]

Relax. Something is probably already in the works as far as this issue is concerned; you can just tell by the hush hush that has been maintained by the parties involved up to this point. No body really knows whatz happening inside the concerned circles and the media just keeps speculating on one aspect or the other which as often, is misleading. We can't really be sure of what PAF would do with regards to this problem unless they come out with a statement about whatz going on and what backup plan they've fallen up on to deal with this situation.

[SABRE]

I did some digging & regardless of the Engine troubles these countries are interested in JF-17 & some have even asked for them.

1. Egypt
2. Burma
3. Bangladesh
4. Nigeria
5. Zimbabwe

While marketing is being done in

6. UAE
7. KSA
8. Libya
9. Syria
10. Iran

The countries where it is being marketed most of them are believed to buy JF-17 specialy KSA to replace its F-5. I believe Syria too would be interested.

Besides that these countries are interested in K-8 Trainers. KSA, UAE, Egypt, Zimbabwe & Iran are already using K-8.

[P.A.F]

since when did Iran have K-8 jets SABRE. i never heard about this one before. any link????

[SABRE]

since when did Iran have K-8 jets SABRE. i never heard about this one before. any link????

I read some where that China gave/sold Iran 2 K-8s. Iranians had seen K-8 at the 1st IDEAS in Pakistan. Pakistan had also marketed it to Iran offcourse. The 2 were given for evaluation. If Iran likes it they can buy more & I think I also read some time later that Iran is willing to buy K-8.

Cant find the link now it was long time ago & on a random search. Try sinodefence.

[ashblackhawk]

Hi guys,

Can anyone list the components designed and developed by Pakistan in JF-17 ? I mean which components of JF-17 have made in Pakistan tag ?

:coffee

[srirangan]

I did some digging & regardless of the Engine troubles these countries are interested in JF-17 & some have even asked for them.

1. Egypt
2. Burma
3. Bangladesh
4. Nigeria
5. Zimbabwe

While marketing is being done in

6. UAE
7. KSA
8. Libya
9. Syria
10. Iran

The countries where it is being marketed most of them are believed to buy JF-17 specialy KSA to replace its F-5. I believe Syria too would be interested.

Besides that these countries are interested in K-8 Trainers. KSA, UAE, Egypt, Zimbabwe & Iran are already using K-8.
Hmm interesting. The first list, have they expressed their interest in buying, or have they merely asked for a bid from the makers for FC-1/JF-17?

[SABRE]

Hmm interesting. The first list, have they expressed their interest in buying, or have they merely asked for a bid from the makers for FC-1/JF-17?

the 1st five Egypt, Burma, Banglades, Nigeria, Zimbabwe are interested in buying. They have seen the prototype at PAC Karma. Egypt wants a ToT just as for K-8.

Saudis too will go for it & UAE may probably buy handful of them. KSA, UAE, Iran, Syria, Libya have yet to express their desire or vice versa.

[kashifshahzad]

It would be silly to sell 2-3 AC's to the countries is this a fish market come a get the quantity which you want. Man these are ACs you should not sell them in this quantity you people know what they will do with them copy the technology and you will see there would be versions comming from their country.I have read some where that Pakistan has exported 200 anti tank missiles to Bangladesh what is the purpose of that purchases if they really want to buy they should buy in a quantity more then a thousand.
Suppose PAF requests Russia for 1 Su-30 ,Requests France for 1 Rafale,US for 1 F-22 and SAAB for 1 grippen what do you think about this they are gonna whip out PAF this shows PAF would be not really intrested in them want to copy the tech

[srirangan]

the 1st five Egypt, Burma, Banglades, Nigeria, Zimbabwe are interested in buying. They have seen the prototype at PAC Karma. Egypt wants a ToT just as for K-8.

Saudis too will go for it & UAE may probably buy handful of them. KSA, UAE, Iran, Syria, Libya have yet to express their desire or vice versa.
Interesting scenario. China is the only manufacturer atm (wrt. Pak and Rooskie engine problems) and they too aren't allowed to export where Russian companies are bidding. Yet these countries have approached Pakistan to purchase the JF-17's. The puzzle doesn't fully fit. Can anyone explain?

Imho either these are private 1-1 bids to purchase, thus no tenders from Russian companies hence China can sell them. Or these countries haven't invited bids from Russian companies, infact have outright refused them. Any other possibility?

[A Khan]

The egyptian interest first became public, when they were denied the AIM-120 by the US due to israili pressure. Then they shifted there focus to the JF-17, mainly due to SD-10. Wether or nor they were offered a russian BVR missile, i dont know. This is what i read sometime back. Can't give you any source for it at the moment sorry.

[SABRE]

Yes the Egyptions wont by Russian AirCrafts & hence wont get Russian BVRAAMs. But I think they should. They already ahve 200 F-16s & are not buying any more so no trouble from US unless US has threatened to bar spare parts & components.

To avoide pressure from US they dont go to Russia & instead of going to Chinese they came to Pakistan for both K-8 & JF-17. But I think they are getting a little bit out of the way by asking for ToT. China Pakistan agreed on K-8 ToT probably thats why they think we'll do it with JF-17. But yes the SD-10 is the main source of attraction for them.

I read some where that China is not willing to sell SD-10 at the moment to any country not on its allies list. SD-10 is the major part of JF-17 that makes it interesting for export. On the other hand China also has good relations with Israel & Israel may pursue China not to sell SD-10 to Egypt & according to 1st 5 year pact both Pakistan & China cant sell SD-10 to any country unless mutualy agreed (few countries are excluded from this & can be sold early on by either country --- I have only herd of this pact dont realy know if it exists). I think Egypt may find it hard to aquire SD-10 but since they are the 1st to officialy show interest they might have had some agreement on SD-10 with Chinese & Pakistanis.

Zimbabwe was rejected SD-10. Pakistan dont want to make diplomatic gaps with South Africa. Bangladesh has also been denied SD-10 early on with JF-17.

Seems like Pakistan & China realy charish SD-10 & will be very hard on selling SD-10 to any one.

[adsH]

Correct me if i am wrong SD-10 is actively being developed by Pakistan Nescom.

[armage]

Correct me if i am wrong SD-10 is actively being developed by Pakistan Nescom.

Um, I thought it was a pure Chinese project only.... :confused:

[SABRE]

Correct me if i am wrong SD-10 is actively being developed by Pakistan Nescom.

I am not too sure. I have herd that Nescom is developing it but I dont have any thing concret on this. But Production in China is on.

[agent-0011]

how are they compared to the mig-29

[pshamim]

how are they compared to the mig-29

?????????????Brother the two are different weapons. Mig-29 is a fighter jet and SD-10 a missile.

Hope you learned today. Regards.

[agent-0011]

?????????????Brother the two are different weapons. Mig-29 is a fighter jet and SD-10 a missile.

Hope you learned today. Regards.

I mean JF-17 compared to mig 29, not SD-10

[kashifshahzad]

Correct me if i am wrong SD-10 is actively being developed by Pakistan Nescom.

Was this thing ( development of SD-10) included in the ToT I think only the development of the airframes was included as far as missile development is considered Pakistan id only developing short range G2A missiles such as anza and Pakistan do not have ability to develop an A2A missile.If this is true then this will be a big milestone in the pakistan's history only a few countries produce BVRAAM's.

Why Egypt will find it hard to acquire SD-10 if China is ally of Isreal then Pakistan and egypt are Muslim countries.Pakistan would prefer to give this missile to Egypt but the US or Isreal pressure can come to Paksitan and China respectively.Pakistan and China can get heavy price for that missile both would be getting benifits from it. ;)

Why Bangladesh was denied they are very poor I think they donot have any BVR capebility in their planes . I also dont know which planes they are operating now :confused:

[P.A.F]

Correct me if i am wrong SD-10 is actively being developed by Pakistan Nescom.



Theres a interesting discussion about this on the Pakdef forum.

[P.A.F]

Just a few brief key points on the JF-17 production phase.


there are 4 prototypes to fly. PT-1, PT-2, PT-3 and PT-4 which is to fly this year.
PT-4 will be testing integration of the Chinese radar and SD-10 BVR missile.
Pakistan will initially produce 50% of the aircraft locally, progressively increasing to 100%
Full rate production is planned to start in 2007 turning out 20 aircraft per year.
The initial production aircraft will probably feature a Chinese radar which would enable use of the Chinese BVR SD-10 missile. But Pakistan plans to put the Grifo radar in the initial production aircraft for evualuation and testing of the avionics with the Grifo.
The Pakistan Air Force have offered the FC-1/JF-17 to the Royal Malaysian Air Force. China Aviation Import and Export Corporation (CATIC) and CAC are marketing the FC-1 to potential customers currently including Bangladesh, Egypt and Nigeria, more are likely to follow soon.
Future variants will include a two-seat fully combat-capable training version, which is scheduled to begin flight testing in 2006. It features a lengthened fuselage to accomodate the additional cockpit.
China may also develop its own powerplant for the FC-1. Also there are plans to include air-to-air refuelling probes and modifications incorporating modern avionics.
Pakistan is also looking at adding advanced Western weapons and avionics in the future. It is also looking at the possibility of acquiring anti-radiation missiles, which could be the same as the BVR missile with a different seeker head.

[P.A.F]

Q and A with Chief Project Director, JF-17 Project, PAF

Q. Has PAF carried out an assessment of the training-requirements for induction of JF-17 aircraft? How will they be met?

A. So far the PAF has not chalked out any training programme for its pilots on JF-17 aircraft. However, owing to the excellent man- machine interface of JF-17 aircraft, it can be assumed with confidence that the training for flying this aircraft would neither be difficult nor a complex affair. Reports from the Chinese and PAF test pilots in China also confirm the fact that JF-17 is a pilot-friendly and easy aircraft to fly. Since training to fly the JF-17 aircraft would not be time consuming and induction of the aircraft in PAF is still two years away, therefore, it is a little premature to chalk-out the training plan.

Q. How will PAF conduct acceptance of JF-17 aircraft from the manufacturer i.e. what does it involve?

A. PAF will not only be the user but also the manufacturer of JF-17 aircraft. Therefore, manufacturing and production process of JF-17 aircraft would be monitored and controlled by PAF from the very beginning. Since PAF is a quality conscious organisation, therefore, highest standards of quality will be ensured at all tiers of production. Nevertheless, after the completion of manufacturing and assembly processes, elaborate ground and flight tests would still be conducted on all the newly manufactured JF-17 aircraft at PAC Kamra, before they are handed over to the fighter squadrons. For this purpose, a modern computerised ‘flight test centre’ is being established at PAC Kamra.

Such exhaustive ‘quality control’ and ‘quality assurance’ measures would certainly ensure a high quality of the product. Nevertheless, before flying the aircraft to the fighter bases, teams from operational squadrons of the PAF, comprising pilots, engineers, and technicians would also be asked to carry out ‘ground acceptance tests’ on the aircraft when it is handed over to them. Additionally, these pilots would also fly ‘Functional Check Flights’ to re-assure themselves of the satisfactory functioning of all the aircraft systems and sub-systems.

Q. Will JF-17 (or its variant) be used in the naval role.

A. Yes, JF-17 is an all-weather, multi-role combat aircraft, which can be effectively used against almost all types of targets including those at sea. Therefore, the aircraft will be appropriately configured to effectively undertake the maritime operations as well. For this purpose, it is being equipped with a modern radar, which would have good performance against all types of targets even during bad weather, rough sea-states and EW environments. The aircraft is also being equipped with an auto-pilot, accurate navigation system, and other avionics systems, which are installed in any modern aircraft to ensure efficient day / night operations over the sea. In its weapons package, the aircraft is being equipped with modern anti-shipping missiles and anti-radiation missiles, in addition to the general-purpose bombs and LASER guided bombs. These capabilities would certainly make JF-17 aircraft a potent weapon system, which can be effectively used for all type of missions over the sea.

Q. Can your provide some details about JF-17’s avionics and weapon suite?

A. JF-17 aircraft will have a modern avionics architecture, which will be supported by two mission computers, ‘Smart Multi Function Coloured Displays’, ‘Smart Heads Up Display’, ICP and HOTAS arrangement. These features will provide an excellent man-machine-interface to the pilot in a complete glass-cockpit environment. In the avionics layout, mechanical sub-systems of the aircraft will also be interfaced to provide automatic monitoring of almost all the aircraft sub-systems. In case of a malfunction in any of the aircraft sub-systems, the onboard computers will provide fault analysis, warning and guidance to the pilot.

The aircraft will have a modern powerful radar, which will have excellent performance in air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-sea modes. A ‘tactical data link’ system, which will be integrated with the other air-borne and ground-based sensors, will also be available to provide comprehensive ‘situational awareness’ to the pilot. The aircraft will also be equipped with IRSTS, CLDP, and Helmet Mounted Display to provide all weather operations capability in all types of environments. The navigation system of the aircraft will be based on the Ring LASER gyro which would be coupled with the GPS.

For providing qualitative operational training, the aircraft will also be equipped with ACMI, Solid State Digital Data/ Video Recorder and the DTC, whereas TACAN, ILS etc will also be available for efficient and safe aircraft operations at night and during bad weather conditions. For its self-protection, the aircraft will have an Integrated Counter Measure System, which would automatically operate to ward –off different types of threats by employing CFD and ECM pod. The ICMS will get its update from the RWR, MAWS and other sensors. Two independent high-performance wide-band radios alongwith an independent data link will ensure efficient communication even during intense EW environments. In short, JF-17 aircraft will have a highly modern avionics suite, which will certainly provide the cutting- edge to the aircraft.

Q. Currently, the JF-17 prototypes are equipped with a mix of hydraulic and FBW system. Will the production models retain this unique system or will they be equipped with a complete FBW system?

A. The flight controls of JF-17 aircraft are commanded through six computers and operated by two hydraulic systems. The six ‘flight control computers’ have a lot of redundancy within themselves, therefore, the aircraft would keep flying normally, even if couple of computers fail. This redundancy is a common feature of almost all the fly-by-wire control systems in the world. However, a unique feature of JF-17 aircraft is that it can fly like a conventional aircraft even when all its flight control computers fail. This arrangement is an added safety feature, which provides an additional advantage to the aircraft without any adverse effects. Therefore, it would be retained in the serial production aircraft as well.

Q. When will Pakistan get its first aircraft for evaluation and training?

A. Pakistani test pilots and test-engineers are already involved in the complete flight testing and evaluation phase of JF-17 aircraft in China . Therefore, these tests will not be repeated in Pakistan. The small-batch or the pilot-batch production would start in the middle of 2004 and PAF would get its first aircraft in the second half of the Year-2006.

Q. What is the final number of JF-17s to be procured? Is it still 150 aircraft or has the number been raised due to the failure in procuring the 4th generation fighter?

A. Before answering the question, it would be appropriate to clarify the fact that PAF has not failed in procuring the hi-tech aircraft. As a matter of fact, PAF is only keeping its options open for the time being, for procurement of such an aircraft.

As far as the JF-17 is concerned, the number and induction schedule of this aircraft in PAF would be regulated according to the operational requirements of the service. Therefore, there is a lot of flexibility in the induction schedule and the total number of aircraft, which would be acquired by the PAF over the years. In the same context, it would be appropriate to mention that JF-17’s manufacturing facilities will have enough capacity to meet the domestic as well as foreign customer’s demands, simultaneously. Hence, lack of production capacity would never become a factor in the induction of a required number of JF-17 aircraft in the PAF.

Q. When will the dual-seat JF-17 aircraft be produced and what will be the ratio of these aircraft in PAF’s JF-17 fleet vis-Ã*-vis single-seat aircraft?

A. Presently, the Project is concentrating on timely serial production of single seat JF-17 aircraft. Since an urgent requirement for production of a dual-seat model does not exist, therefore, the schedule for serial production of dual-seat aircraft has not been determined as yet. For the same reason, the ratio of dual-seat aircraft versus single-seat aircraft in PAF’s JF-17 fleet has also not been finalised as yet.

Q. Will the first batch of JF-17s be equipped with an in-flight refuelling system? Will in-flight refuelling be based on a buddy refuelling system or will a tanker fleet be actually required?

A. The serial production of JF-17 aircraft will have the air-to-air refuelling capability, but the initial batch of these aircraft will not have the air-to-air refuelling kit installed on them. Nevertheless, basic design of all the JF-17 aircraft fulfils all the essential requirements for providing air-to-air refuelling capability. Therefore, by simple modification of an air-to-air refuelling kit, the first batch of aircraft will also be modified for the air-to-air refuelling capability.

"Buddy" refuelling is a good option, but in many tactical situations, the need for a tanker aircraft cannot be ignored. Therefore, acquisition of tanker aircraft is a natural requirement for any Air Force, which desires to have the air-to-air refuelling capability on its fighter fleet.

Thanks to

pakdef.info

[Hussain]

Why doesn't Pakistan stick the Atar (Mirage 3 engine) in about a 100 JF17's.

It makes sense. They're about the same size a s RD33/RD93. .Pakistan has between 50-150 brand new ones from Libya + I am quite sure many other new ones from various other sources.They are upgradeable from French upgrade kits and can be made lighter eg Titanium blades etc.The engines can allow the JF17 to go beyond Mach 2 as the plane is lighter than the Mirage 3 and 5 which is capable of doing Mach 2.2
Pakistan can ask worldwide manufacturing rights for the engine.
Pakistan can save the money from the engines and concentrate on avionics for the plane. Does the engine matter that much considering the aim of the plane ids for handling and avionics
In any case isn't the Atar better built than RD33 which the RD93 is based upon? Furhtermore the Atar is time tested and the PAF know the product in and out and Kamra is able to effectively work on the engine saving costs and familiarisation time on the engine. I think it makes sense.

[highsea]

Why doesn't Pakistan stick the Atar (Mirage 3 engine) in about a 100 JF17's.

It makes sense. They're about the same size a s RD33/RD93.The ATAR 9K50 is 500kg. heavier (1,582 kg. vs. 1,055 kg.) and is 1700 mm. longer (5,944 mm vs. 4,230 mm) than the RD-33/93. And has 2,500 lbs. less wet thrust. (15,870 lbs. vs. 18,300 lbs.).

Remember, it was South Africa that wanted to upgrade their Cheetah's with SMR-95's (which was a development of the RD-33). The Atar is no good for the JF-17. Overweight, oversize, and underpowered (and not that reliable).

[Hussain]

Maybe not. Lengthen the plane slightly.:o

[srirangan]

PAF, can you date the interview? It seems pretty old.