Page 17 of 99 FirstFirst ... 7121314151617181920212227475767 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 1471
Like Tree1645Likes

New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

This is a discussion on New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!! within the Air Force forums, part of the China Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by asif iqbal was J10 cockpit layout designed after hundreds of hours of input by fighter pilots who ...

  1. #241
    nemo is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    276

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by asif iqbal View Post
    was J10 cockpit layout designed after hundreds of hours of input by fighter pilots who have amongst the highest flying hours in the world? did PLAAF fighter pilots work with the engineers and designers to custom make J10 to fulfill the needs for PLAAF? answer is No, no aircraft not even F35 was designed by fighter pilots, JF17 stands alone in that respect

    actually J10 has faced alot of issues and problems in that regard and has been changed alot whereas JF17 has hit the production line in break neck speed

    the beauty with avionics with JF17 is that it can take Chinese or Western systems, can J10 do this? it has one of the best avionic systems in the world, able to carry WVR, BVR , Precision-guided munitions for laser and satellite guided bombs, anti-ship missiles, and anti-radiation missiles

    Pakistan has taken delivery of the Brazilian MAR-1 anti-radiation missile and is integrating the weapon on the JF17 aircraft as well as the AIM-9L and South African A-Darter

    in addition Day/Night targeting pods, data-linking, electronic warfare (EW) suite and self-protection radar jamming pod form the tatical avionics

    u seen to give just personal opinions with no facts to back up ur claims, jumping to conclusions and making statments is easy, please share what you know if there is something i dont know
    Not to denigrate the effort put in by the Pakistani to improve the user interface, but these are the easiest to copy and modify in an aircraft. And you think Pakistani is the only one that involves pilots in the aircraft development? Everyone does that -- although some put more emphasis than that. No, pilots do NOT design aircraft -- the generate REQUIREMENT which are used by the engineer to generate the DESIGN.

    And of course J-10 is going to experience more problem -- it's much closer to the cutting edge of Chinese capability than FC-1. FC-1 uses mostly mature and least risky technology -- even the DSI was originally developed for J-10B. So much less risk means much less problem.

    J-10 is developed for PLA and PLA does not import that many weapons -- so it does NOT need to support foreign weapons. And you seriously believe that China couldn't integrate those quickly if there is a need? When J-10 is exported, capability to support foreign weapons will be added -- it's nothing more than software and interface addition or change. And if you think J-10 does not support the domestic equivalent of those weapons, I would like to know what you are smoking.

    And if you think J-10 does not have EW, datalink, etc, you are seriously underestimating J-10. And where do you think those capability on FC-1 comes from?

    I really wonder how do you get the idea that FC-1 is superior to anything China has when the bulk of FC-1's technology come from China. While FC-1 does have some refinements not in J-10, it does not change the fact that J-10 and FC-1 is not in the same class.

    What I want to ask you is why do you think China couldn't put in capabilities developed for FC-1 into J-10, if FC-1 is in fact superior to J-10 as you claimed? Especially the effort involved is relatively trivial. I can tell you what I think -- FC-1 is NOT superior to J-10 in capability, and whatever minor improvements can wait until mid life upgrade for logistical reason.

    Yes, these are speculation on my part, but so are yours. I cite the reason for my speculations, and yours does not sound convincing to me. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to mine.

  2. #242
    Bltizo's Avatar
    Bltizo is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The People's Republic of Socialist Romanticism
    Posts
    5,421

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by asif iqbal View Post
    was J10 cockpit layout designed after hundreds of hours of input by fighter pilots who have amongst the highest flying hours in the world? did PLAAF fighter pilots work with the engineers and designers to custom make J10 to fulfill the needs for PLAAF? answer is No, no aircraft not even F35 was designed by fighter pilots, JF17 stands alone in that respect
    Come on we all know that's a marketing gimmick, used by companies the world over. I doubt there is a modern fighter in service that hasn't had input from fighter pilots.

    actually J10 has faced alot of issues and problems in that regard and has been changed alot whereas JF17 has hit the production line in break neck speed
    To be fair JF-17 is an easier/simpler aircraft to develop as well, and received benefit from J-10 experience.

    the beauty with avionics with JF17 is that it can take Chinese or Western systems, can J10 do this? it has one of the best avionic systems in the world, able to carry WVR, BVR , Precision-guided munitions for laser and satellite guided bombs, anti-ship missiles, and anti-radiation missiles

    Pakistan has taken delivery of the Brazilian MAR-1 anti-radiation missile and is integrating the weapon on the JF17 aircraft as well as the AIM-9L and South African A-Darter
    I think we should be comparing the potency of the aircraft and their avionics, rather than the potential weapon suites they could have?
    Yes JF-17 was designed to be able to accomodate western avionics in addition to chinese ones, but any aircraft can.
    The aircraft's kinematics, Flight control systems, etc avionics etc are more important.

    in addition Day/Night targeting pods, data-linking, electronic warfare (EW) suite and self-protection radar jamming pod form the tatical avionics

    u seen to give just personal opinions with no facts to back up ur claims, jumping to conclusions and making statments is easy, please share what you know if there is something i dont know
    Datalinking, EW, targeting pods etc... J-10 can do all that too...

    Yes JF-17 has a better MFD set up than the J-10A, but that's almost to be expected given it was a newer plane when it went into production.

    I see JF-17 as J-10's slightly younger brother, with slightly smaller radar, less weight/payload/range, slightly less capable in the FCS department (for instance digital FBW is only in the pitch axis for JF-17), and unable to quite reach the top 9 Gs of other 4th gen planes -- instead being easier to maintain, upgrade, having modern weapons and being cheap, most importantly.

    On the subject of JF-17, here's a recent write up on the plane's export prospects by richard fisher from IASC. Sums up most of what we know on the internetz. http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib...her_020712.pdf
    CARRIER HAS ARRIVED! ^^

  3. #243
    Dizasta1's Avatar
    Dizasta1 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Parachinar, Pakistan
    Posts
    305

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    In so far as comparing J-10s with JF-17s is concerned, it is not right.

    The JF-17 Thunder, ideally suits Pakistan Air Force's requirements. It is a light-weight fighter, which fulfills most of Pakistan Air Force's requirements. The fighter-jet offers multi-role capabilities, that include BVR Missiles (SD-10s), Smart Bombs (H-2s/H-4s), Stand-Off Missiles (Ra'ad). These are capabilities in a fighter-jet, that Pakistan Air Force can produce in bulk, 250 JF-17 Thunders to be precise. And that improves the odds, stacked in Pakistan's favor.

    Geographically, Pakistan is a country whose land area, by width, is narrower to the rest of the country's layout. Which means, that in the event of a war, or short conflict, the enemy's fighter-jets would reach quite quickly into Pakistan's Air Space. For this reason, Pakistan Air Force requires a light-weight fighter, which has an effective range and proportionate endurance during Air Combat.

    The JF-17 Thunder, provides this to Pakistan Air Force, at a cost that no other fighter-jet in the world can match.

    Ideally and eventually in the future (Insha-Allah), the JF-17 Thunders should be upgraded to incorporate AESA Radars, In-Flight Refueling (retractable) Probe, a more powerful, clean (smokeless) and efficient engine (WS-13) and a robust and highly effective ECM Suite.

    The J-10A and J-10B are exceptional fighter-jets, which are bigger, heavier, with longer range. These fighter-jets would suit Pakistan Air Force in strike role and/or in attaining Air Dominance over the enemy's (hindustan) vast Air Space. And for Pakistan Air Force, a teaming of J-10B (AESA + DSI + IFR + WS-10) and JF-17 (AESA + DSI + IFR + WS-13), would prove to be a deadly and lethal combination to field against any enemy who provokes war.

  4. #244
    nemo is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    276

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Munir View Post
    >>>FC-1's avionics is a simplified version of J-10's, with minor improvements.

    I am looking forward to the technical details that are the foundation of this very clear statement.... Simplified with minor improvements? Which avionic? What was simplified? What are the improvements? Since you are so clear you pretty much can explain them very easy and simplistic so I can understand them. Thanks in advance...
    Isn't that obvious?

    simplified flight control -- pitch axis only, less control surfaces.
    smaller radar.
    removal of PLA specific equipments
    addition of Pakistani/export specific equipments
    upgrade MFD

  5. #245
    challenge is offline Banned Idiot
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    Fc-1 is more advance than J-10a,this is according to magazine, a lot of new technology was first tested in FC-1 before it end up in J-10B.in J-10A you still see some analog display, in FC-1,it was complete glass display.

  6. #246
    nemo is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    276

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by challenge View Post
    Fc-1 is more advance than J-10a,this is according to magazine, a lot of new technology was first tested in FC-1 before it end up in J-10B.in J-10A you still see some analog display, in FC-1,it was complete glass display.
    A glass display alone does not make it more advanced. Analog instrumentation may serve as a backup in case of mulfunction -- make the plane flyable even without the glass display.
    As for the tech source, I think you get it reversed -- tech developed for J-10B is used on FC-1 rather. For example, the DSI technology was developed on a modified J-7. That was before FC-1's development, but not before J-10's. And DSI is only on 4h FC-1 prototype, which means DSI wasn't intended for FC-1, else it would have been designed in already. Since FC-1 is a commercial project, it make no sense to go for new technology, especially when the client is budget sensitive because of the risk of failure. Any new technology adopted are most likely incidentally available at the time.
    Last edited by nemo; 02-10-2012 at 04:33 AM.

  7. #247
    Dizasta1's Avatar
    Dizasta1 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Parachinar, Pakistan
    Posts
    305

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    Guys, why are you arguing over which aircraft is better. It is a very simple understanding, the J-10 is a heavier class fighter, which has a longer range and endurance. Comparing JF-17 Thunders to J-10 Dragons is like comparing two different categories altogether.

    As I have explained it in my previous post, PLAAF and PAF have different requirements and different geographical spread. China is a much larger country, area wise and as such, J-10's endurance and payload take precedence in PLAAF inducting bigger fighters such as J-11s and J-10s.

    Comparatively, Pakistan's land area, vis-a-vis the combat area (during war) is considerably less. Pakistan's main enemy is hindustan. Looking at the map of Pakistan and hindustan, one can easily understand why PAF would want a light-weight, multi-role fighter like the JF-17 Thunder.

    The Thunder gives PAF the capability of BVR Combat, which it previously lacked. Hence when you have a light weight fighter, which is BVR capable and also has IFR capability, it's a no-brainer that the Thunder is ideally suited for PAF operational requirement. Alternatively, PAF has historically shown a more offensive stance, when defending its Air Space. It would mean that PAF would also require a fighter-jet with longer legs, like the J-10Bs, to conduct deep strike missions over the vast enemy territory.

    Why do we have to compare the two aircraft, when the two are in different categories?

  8. #248
    Munir is offline Banned Idiot
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    389

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by nemo View Post
    Isn't that obvious?

    simplified flight control -- pitch axis only, less control surfaces.
    smaller radar.
    removal of PLA specific equipments
    addition of Pakistani/export specific equipments
    upgrade MFD
    FBW does not make the plane better. Mig29 without FBW could do same as F16 with full FBW. I do not think it is wrong to go for partial FBW. Less computers. Less failures. Less heat, energy consumption etc etc...

    Smaller radar does not make you a better plane in the warfare. With links you can get feed from anything anywhere. What do you think the ZDk03 will do? Or the Erieye? A better plane does not use active sensors. It gives away position. And a bigger radar dish means a bigger RCS.

    Removal of what? I can say adding of very special PAF equipment. You can do better then an empty statement.

    MFD... Does not make you wonder that J10A has monochrome displays and not MFD?

    I agree J10A is bigger and has longer endurance. But atleast give facts or data. I can read these kind of statements everywhere.

  9. #249
    nemo is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    276

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Munir View Post
    FBW does not make the plane better. Mig29 without FBW could do same as F16 with full FBW. I do not think it is wrong to go for partial FBW. Less computers. Less failures. Less heat, energy consumption etc etc...

    Smaller radar does not make you a better plane in the warfare. With links you can get feed from anything anywhere. What do you think the ZDk03 will do? Or the Erieye? A better plane does not use active sensors. It gives away position. And a bigger radar dish means a bigger RCS.

    Removal of what? I can say adding of very special PAF equipment. You can do better then an empty statement.

    MFD... Does not make you wonder that J10A has monochrome displays and not MFD?

    I agree J10A is bigger and has longer endurance. But atleast give facts or data. I can read these kind of statements everywhere.
    Huh? A full relaxed stability aerodynamics is more agile than traditional design. Think of it this way -- when you do a roll, for example, the aircraft, instead of having a tendency of returning to straight level flight, the roll rate accelerates. This type of aerodynamics is impossible for a pilot to control without assistance from the flight control. Besides the more complicated control law, you need to test it more fully than traditional design. But you get to do more too -- you can hide the aircraft's ideosyncrasies from the pilots, or limit pilots action so it does not go pass the limit. In the traditional design, you need to make sure the handing is relatively benign so the pilots can handle it. That's why even if the aerodynamics is not fully relaxed, a full digital flight control is worth having.

    A larger radar isn't better? A larger radar, all else being equal, mean more sensitivity and range. By your logic, fighters without radar is fine if it contains datalink. So what happens if your datalink is jammed, your AWACS is shot down or elsewhere? You are getting desperate.

    Removal of PLA specific equipment -- such as encrypted communication, datalink, and e/w equipments. And replace it by a different (different operating frequency, for example) or even reduced performance equivalent. All nations do that to hide their true capability. Pakistani may have elected to use a foreign supplier for some of these, and those may have better performance than the PLA's equivalent.

    MFD -- this respect FC-1 is better, but changing it now means pilots have to be retrained. And it can wait until mid life upgrade, by which time it will be newer and better then FC-1 has now.

  10. #250
    Lion is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,985

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    FC-1 will never match J-10 in aero dogfight with equal capable pilots. J-10 is designed by Chinese in mind to beat F-16 operated by the ROCAF easily during its development year.

    It is one of the major reason why PLAAF and PLANAF prefer J-10 over FC-1. F-16/FC-1 is a very agile and good plane. But fourth gen aerodynamic fighter like gripen, rafale ,typhoon and J-10 are a step up over it. Their high speed turning is one big points over F-16/FC-1.

  11. #251
    Dizasta1's Avatar
    Dizasta1 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Parachinar, Pakistan
    Posts
    305

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by nemo View Post
    Isn't that obvious? simplified flight control -- pitch axis only, less control surfaces.
    Is there any further details as to why the JF-17 Thunders do not have a fully digital FBW? Was it the cost, or the size of the aircraft?

  12. #252
    nemo is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    276

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dizasta1 View Post
    Is there any further details as to why the JF-17 Thunders do not have a fully digital FBW? Was it the cost, or the size of the aircraft?
    Cost, risk, schedule, and the aerodynamic does not need it.

    Even if the aerodynamic is stable, a full digital flight control need to be fully tested to exercise the code -- which, unlike hardware, does not have inherent limitation. This is tremendously expensive and time consuming, not to mention risky. This is one of the reason that Tejas is so late and is only limited to 6G on IOC, despite an airframe that is capable of 9G.

    From what I've heard, FC-1 is actually flyable without digital flight control. The addition of the DFC, I suspect, is to fulfill PAF's requirement for dogfight performance (ability to point nose quickly for a quick shot). This is not entirely bad as this make the plane tolerant of battle damage.

  13. #253
    Dizasta1's Avatar
    Dizasta1 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Parachinar, Pakistan
    Posts
    305

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by nemo View Post
    Cost, risk, schedule, and the aerodynamic does not need it.

    Even if the aerodynamic is stable, a full digital flight control need to be fully tested to exercise the code -- which, unlike hardware, does not have inherent limitation. This is tremendously expensive and time consuming, not to mention risky. This is one of the reason that Tejas is so late and is only limited to 6G on IOC, despite an airframe that is capable of 9G.

    From what I've heard, FC-1 is actually flyable without digital flight control. The addition of the DFC, I suspect, is to fulfill PAF's requirement for dogfight performance (ability to point nose quickly for a quick shot). This is not entirely bad as this make the plane tolerant of battle damage.
    So in actual air combat, a JF-17 would be at a disadvantage in fighting against an aircraft that can pull 9Gs?

    What are the possibilities that Block-II JF-17s would incorporate Fully Digital FBW systems? As being able to pull 9Gs in an actual dogfight, could possibly be the difference between victory and defeat.

    Pakistan and hindustan, have no geographical distance or barrier between them. Which means that, when at war, Air Warfare would most definitely see WVR combat. 9Gs is WVR combat, is crucial, wouldn't you say?

  14. #254
    nemo is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    276

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dizasta1 View Post
    So in actual air combat, a JF-17 would be at a disadvantage in fighting against an aircraft that can pull 9Gs?

    What are the possibilities that Block-II JF-17s would incorporate Fully Digital FBW systems? As being able to pull 9Gs in an actual dogfight, could possibly be the difference between victory and defeat.

    Pakistan and hindustan, have no geographical distance or barrier between them. Which means that, when at war, Air Warfare would most definitely see WVR combat. 9Gs is WVR combat, is crucial, wouldn't you say?
    Well, you cannot do entire dogfight in 9G -- the pilot's body won't stand for it. G rating is for sustained turn performance. Nowadays with HMS and full aspect missiles, instantaneous turn rate may be more important -- you only need to point your nose for a quick shot instead of having to position behind the enemy aircraft. But G rating is still important for evading missiles. So yes, FC-1 would be at a disadvantage, but it's not a sure thing.

    G rating has more to do with the structural integrity of the airframe. To achieve that, you need to strengthen and/or lighten the airframe. And for a well behaved aerodynamic, fully digital FBW does not buy you much.

    Nowadays, BVR combat is becoming more and more important, so aircraft maneuverability is becoming less important. This is one of the reason air forces prefers larger fighter -- to carry more BVR missiles. So trading marginal gain for cheaper aircraft may be worth it.

  15. #255
    Dizasta1's Avatar
    Dizasta1 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Parachinar, Pakistan
    Posts
    305

    Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread!!!

    ^^ Thanks for the reply, nemo!

Similar Threads

  1. Ideal naval carrier fighter(aircraft) designs.
    By sumdud in forum Air Force
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 05-31-2014, 11:17 PM
  2. JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
    By crazyinsane105 in forum Air Force
    Replies: 1879
    Last Post: 10-16-2011, 02:25 PM
  3. New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
    By Vlad Plasmius in forum Air Force
    Replies: 811
    Last Post: 06-16-2011, 08:38 AM
  4. J-XX Fighter Aircraft
    By FriedRiceNSpice in forum Air Force
    Replies: 790
    Last Post: 07-24-2008, 07:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •