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

[jackliu]

Actually, I'm using chrome, and it's just fine.

Probably on my end, my chrome tries double post me all the time. Lucky I have the 40 second timer.

[Hyperwarp]

I am also using chrome. so far no double posting...

[T-U-P]

To prevent double posting, please use the "Go Advanced" feature when replying instead of hitting "Post Quick Reply"

[Thorough Pro]

Yes for sure ! That's the first prototype with the smaller LERX, the old intake, no ECM/ESM pod on the tail ....

Honestly, we all know that so far no Block 02 airframe has been built.

Deino

Are we sure there is going to be any significant change in the airframe for blockk II?

[plawolf]

Are we sure there is going to be any significant change in the airframe for blockk II?

No, I think this airframe is pretty much fixed as what the JF17 will be based on now. The future Blks will mainly be refinements and incremental improvements. The BlkII will likely mean adding new features like IFR, IRST, maybe some new avionics on top of that. The next big change will come further down the road with a new AESA radar added when that becomes available/affordable. A further Blk might add conformal fuel tanks, but that is a very long way down the line at the moment.

[Dizasta1]

No, I think this airframe is pretty much fixed as what the JF17 will be based on now. The future Blks will mainly be refinements and incremental improvements. The BlkII will likely mean adding new features like IFR, IRST, maybe some new avionics on top of that. The next big change will come further down the road with a new AESA radar added when that becomes available/affordable. A further Blk might add conformal fuel tanks, but that is a very long way down the line at the moment.

Regarding the WS-13 engines ...... what is the update on this? What time frame are we looking at, where WS-13s will become the standard power-plant for the JF-17 Thunder? Also, there was a recent news, which stated that the prototype-06 was tested in full load configuration. If you could shed some light on that, whether the 06 testing could have included the increase in maximum wing-load or that could the tests be translated as the JF-17 would get additional hard-points, or perhaps dual-ejector racks?

Finally, regarding the AESA radar, wouldn't it mean that the nose-cone of the aircraft would be reshaped, to fit the radar on the aircraft. And how long, 2015-17, would it be, when the Thunder would get an AESA radar?

[delft]

Actually, I'm using chrome, and it's just fine.

Actually, I use chrome too. But I always hit "go advanced" before i submit a reply.

[Thorough Pro]

What is the significance of these tests? Do these tests clear the thunder for more agressive manouvers or allow it to carry more weapons load?

If the tests do cleat the AC for carrying more weapon load, would it be done through addition of one more hard point on each wing or use of twin ejector rails?

In my opinion use of twin ejector rail adds additional weight of the rail itself, will increase drag because of bigger size/lower hanging weapons and also increase radar signature, thus addition of one morehard point would be more suitable, but then is there enough space on the wings to add one more hard point? if yes where? between the two outer most?

Web Translation:

CAC to complete the the Xiaolong wing static test is still in good condition: 200% load

May 18, 03 of the "Fierce Dragon" aircraft left wing in the Central Laboratory in the aircraft industry to fly into the successful completion of the static test of the 200% load case reached the customer, which marks the improved aircraft wing strength application requirements. The results showed that, in the state of a given load, the wing structure is not destroyed, in line with the design theory. The trial for the further improvement of the kind, the wing structure to provide a full and reliable data. Fly Technical Center laboratory in accordance with the design and testing requirements in order to ensure the smooth progress of the trial, as detailed and full preparations before the official start of the trial, many times 40% load pre-test. The experiments were carried out 100%, 150%, 200% load of the three kinds of loads. The trial period, China Aviation Industry, deputy chief engineer Yang Wei went to the site and assumed personal command, an expert on Pakistan, the relevant departments of the aircraft industry, and relevant members of the unit on-site participation throughout the trial.

[plawolf]

Regarding the WS-13 engines ...... what is the update on this? What time frame are we looking at, where WS-13s will become the standard power-plant for the JF-17 Thunder?

The rumor is the WS13 is externally identical to the RD93, so it is impossible to independently verify those claims. I think that is very 'convenient' for the people spreading these rumors, so that naturally causes me to be cautious with the rumors.

However, the fact remains that PT06 is still doing regular flights at CAC, last seen on the 26th with wingtip AAMs only, so there has to be some purpose to these continued flight testing as I think it is safe to say they have already covered all the basics already, and such a densely populated area seems like a poor choice to be testing out more advanced things like supersonic flights or post-stall maneuvers as the risks to people on the ground would be far too great.

If you go on the J20 thread, you can see the video of the test flights on the day. It is said that there were VIPs present for the test flights, and you can see a lot of people gathered around PT06, which was parked right next to the J20, yet everyone was looking athe PT06, so that would suggesting something is up.

In that context, PT06 being fitted with WS13 would make a lot of sense.

I think we will just need to wait for more info to be disclosed before we can form a good opinion on the validity of the claims.

Also, there was a recent news, which stated that the prototype-06 was tested in full load configuration.

How recent was the news? As I have already mentioned, PT06 was last seen flying on the 26th with wingtip AAMs only. I must admit that I have not been keeping a close watch on the JF17 program lately, but I would have expected to have heard about such a test. How reliable is this news you heard?

If you could shed some light on that, whether the 06 testing could have included the increase in maximum wing-load or that could the tests be translated as the JF-17 would get additional hard-points, or perhaps dual-ejector racks?

Ottomh, I remember chatter about the PAF asking for an increase in the max warload, but that was more about clearing the centerline hardpoint for a C802 so the JF17 could carry 3 missiles each. I do not recall anything on beefing up the wings or additional hard points (there just doesn't seem to be room tbh).

I haven't seen any pictures to show JF17s with twin missile racks, although they have had twin bomb racks for some time now, and if the PAF is interested, it should be a relatively straight forward and quick task to clear the JF17 for twin missile racks like those recently seen on J10s.

Finally, regarding the AESA radar, wouldn't it mean that the nose-cone of the aircraft would be reshaped, to fit the radar on the aircraft. And how long, 2015-17, would it be, when the Thunder would get an AESA radar?

I assume you are talking about a canted nose? If so, then possibly they may redesign the radome, but not necessarily as it is perfectly feasible to add AESA radar without a canted nose as the F18E, Japanese F2 and F15 have shown. Adding a canted nose would be advantageous as that would increase the array size, but it's not a deal breaker if the nose isn't redesigned. But it is a relatively minor and straight forward mod that it shouldn't really even be an issue.

WRT the timeframe, well I think that is rather dependent on the PAF based on their requirements and budgets. If they had the funds, they could have commissioned one of China's top radar firms to custom design them a set and that will be available in the shortest amount of time possible and build exactly to their specs. But I think the PAF prefers to have radar makers pitch designed to them, and that will take longer as the firms will have to front the cost themselves to build prototypes, and will also be mainly focused on PLAAF contracts, so any AESA they pitch to the PAF will likely be a scaled down version they have pitched to the PLAAF for the J10B, which might not be ideal for the PAF.

However, the J31 programme might be a big boost to the JF17's AESA aspirations, since the AESA for the J31 should be a similar size as one that would fit the JF17, so the PAF might get a pick of AESAs designed from the ground up for a fighter like the JF17 instead of being a scaled down version of a larger design.

If the PAF is happy with a scaled down radar, 2015-17 is entirely reasonable, and may prove to be conservative, but if they want a radar developed for the J31, they may have to wait longer.

[explorer9]

Is there any foreign customer finalized for JF-17 exports, i still think the Egyptians Air Force will be the first foreign customer of JF-17

[Geographer]

Well Pakistan is the first foreign customer for the JF-17, I guess you mean Egypt will be the second? I think it's doubtful as Egypt has a lot of political turmoil now, especially in the army. A big fighter purchase requires more political capital than the Egyptian military has at the moment.

[plawolf]

OTOH, the new Egyptian president and his government seems keen to navigate a new, more independent course for the country, and the once all powerful pro-American military appears to have been tamed, with many a former top general put out to pasture by the President.

All of that will count for naught if Egypt is overly reliant on American (or any foreign) arms, as the threat of sanctions and embargo could effective veto any foreign policy decisions the new Egyptian leadership might wish to pursue or risk having their armed forces crippled by a lack of spare parts and munitions.

With that in mind, the kind of no-strings-attached and meaningful ToT that China has been willing to offer with big ticket purchases would seem a very tempting offer a newly independent minded Egypt. With the very friendly reception the new Egyptian leadership is showing towards China and the past relationship established with the K8 deal, I would think the Egypt would be a strong candidate for an export customer for the JF17.

[Dizasta1]

The rumor is the WS13 is externally identical to the RD93, so it is impossible to independently verify those claims. I think that is very 'convenient' for the people spreading these rumors, so that naturally causes me to be cautious with the rumors.

I would've like to see the WS-13 Taishan with certain exterior changes. Not so much superficial, rather something more functional. In particular, the petals of the engine, be more on the lines of (not the same) WS-10 Taihang's. Considering that this is a Chinese engine, it would be prudent to distinguish what is Chinese, from what is Russian. Also, it gives the aircraft, powered by the WS-13 Taishan engine, a more identifiable look.

How recent was the news? As I have already mentioned, PT06 was last seen flying on the 26th with wingtip AAMs only. I must admit that I have not been keeping a close watch on the JF17 program lately, but I would have expected to have heard about such a test. How reliable is this news you heard?

Posted by Magnus of Pakistani Defense Forum,

¡°èÉÁú¡±06¼ÜÌáÇ°Íê³ÉÔغɵØÃæ±ê¶¨ÊÔÑ飨ͼ£© ¡ª ÐÂÎÅÊӵ㠡ª ¹ú·À¿Æ¼¼ÐÅÏ¢Íø Öйú×îȨÍþµÄ¹ú·À¿Æ¼¼ÐÅÏ¢µÄרҵÃÅ»§ ¹ú¼Ê¾üÊÂÐÂÎÅ ¹úÄÚ¾üÊÂÐÂÎÅ Èȵã¾üÊÂרÌâ Öйú¶À¼ÒµÄ¾üÊÂͼƬ ¾üÊÂÊÓƵ

Ottomh, I remember chatter about the PAF asking for an increase in the max warload, but that was more about clearing the centerline hardpoint for a C802 so the JF17 could carry 3 missiles each. I do not recall anything on beefing up the wings or additional hard points (there just doesn't seem to be room tbh).

If they did request that, then it does make sense. Since the JF-17 Thunder is to become the work-horse of Pakistan Air Force, it would require greater flexibility in performing various missions. A smaller payload, limits the fighter-jet's ability to conduct a variety of missions. For instance, a smaller payload, reduces the fighter-jet's ability to carry more weapons at a greater range, as three hard-points would already be used by drop-tanks for range. Which in turn limits the fighter-jet from carrying more weapons.

Re-designing the wing-size to make it larger and upgrading the wings with stress-wires to carry a greater payload, are aspects that the experts at CAC would like to explore with PAC personnel. This would not only allow the fighter-jet to take full advantage of the future block-upgrades, but also reflect the necessity of the JF-17 Thunder/FC-1 Xiaolong to have a more powerful, efficient and durable power-plant, such as the WS-13 Taishan engine.

I haven't seen any pictures to show JF17s with twin missile racks, although they have had twin bomb racks for some time now, and if the PAF is interested, it should be a relatively straight forward and quick task to clear the JF17 for twin missile racks like those recently seen on J10s.

Indeed, I haven't seen it either. But as you said, using the same twin-rack for Air-to-Air Missiles, as used on the J-10, would give the JF-17 Thunder/FC-1 Xiolong the ability to carry a greater missile payload, for Air-Superiority missions.

I assume you are talking about a canted nose? If so, then possibly they may redesign the radome, but not necessarily as it is perfectly feasible to add AESA radar without a canted nose as the F18E, Japanese F2 and F15 have shown. Adding a canted nose would be advantageous as that would increase the array size, but it's not a deal breaker if the nose isn't redesigned. But it is a relatively minor and straight forward mod that it shouldn't really even be an issue.

Now that you make the point, I have to say, I do agree.

As you mentioned F/A-18 Super Hornet, I couldn't help but recalling the background on this fighter-jet. The Super Hornet was derived from it's original variant, the F-18 A/C/B/D Hornet. The aircraft's over all design and shape remains the same in the Super Hornet, but what the US Navy did achieve was to increase the size, fuel capacity, range and payload of the aircraft type.

What are the chances that CAC and PAC might look into that, as a future variant of the JF-17/FC-1. This would not only increase the fighter-jet's marketing, but also lock in prospective customers and we may actually have our first international military deal with one of the countries around the world?

WRT the timeframe, well I think that is rather dependent on the PAF based on their requirements and budgets. If they had the funds, they could have commissioned one of China's top radar firms to custom design them a set and that will be available in the shortest amount of time possible and build exactly to their specs. But I think the PAF prefers to have radar makers pitch designed to them, and that will take longer as the firms will have to front the cost themselves to build prototypes, and will also be mainly focused on PLAAF contracts, so any AESA they pitch to the PAF will likely be a scaled down version they have pitched to the PLAAF for the J10B, which might not be ideal for the PAF.

I hope that it happens in due time. People don't realize the amount of work, research, data-analysis and testing that goes into developing and manufacturing a fighter-jet.

However, the J31 programme might be a big boost to the JF17's AESA aspirations, since the AESA for the J31 should be a similar size as one that would fit the JF17, so the PAF might get a pick of AESAs designed from the ground up for a fighter like the JF17 instead of being a scaled down version of a larger design.

Indeed, I hope it does. At the moment, Pakistan Air Force's priority is the JF-17 Thunder and after that, the J-10B Dragon. The latter would be able to give Pakistan Air Force the AESA edge it needs, initially. And once the development, manufacturing and upgrades gradually start to integrate into the JF-17s. Then we would see a fleet wide use of AESA radars in Pakistan Air Force.

If the PAF is happy with a scaled down radar, 2015-17 is entirely reasonable, and may prove to be conservative, but if they want a radar developed for the J31, they may have to wait longer.

So long as Pakistan Air Force is able to thwart aggression from the enemy, defend it's airspace and achieve Air-Dominance over it's airspace. I don't see why Pakistan Air Force wouldn't be happy with a scaled down version of the AESA radar.

[Thorough Pro]

According to UEC General Designer Alexander Ivakh speaking at the Engines 2012 salon in April, about 70 engines of the RD-33 family were made in Russia last year. Their production is run now by the Chernyshev Mashine-Building Enterprise in Moscow. Previously, the RD-33 Series 2 had been in production with the Baranov OMO enterprise in Omsk (at present, an affiliate of the Salut Gas Turbine Research and Production Centre), but the fact that customers order now RD-33 Series 3 and RD-33MK engines only has left Omsk-based plant with repairing and overhauling Baranov-made engines, while the production of new engines has moved to Moscow.

Chernyshev’s near-term production programme is determined by its current orderbook for the second batch of 29 MiG-29K/KUB carrierborne fighters to India (the first batch of 16 aircraft powered by Chernyshev-built RD-33MKs was delivered during 2009–2011) and the recent Russian Defence Ministry order for 24 fighters of the type. In addition, the plant supplied RD-33MK turbofans to fit the first two MiG-29M/M2 fighter prototypes.

The first MiG-29K/KUB jets are due to the Russian Navy’s air arm as soon as 2013, but the RD-33MK first has to pass its official bench tests for compliance with peculiar requirements of the Russian Armed Forces. Klimov JSC kicked off the tests on 28 January 2012.

An important position in Chernyshev’s production plans is also occupied by the deliveries of RD-33 Series 3 knockdown kits to India under the January 2007 contract on licence production of 120 engines of the type there. The programme is about half-complete.

Finally, the RD-93, a RD-33 derivative with the low-mounted accessory gearbox, is exported to China to fit FC-1 (JF-17) light single-engine fighters. The deal for 100 RD-93s with an option for 400 more was clinched in April 2005. The first 15 engines were assembled by Klimov, and Chernyshev has handled the rest of the deliveries since 2006. The contract is half-complete, and the deliveries shall resume as soon as the customer submits its request.

At the same time with the full-rate production in Moscow, Klimov JSC in St. Petersburg continues to refine the RD-33MK and RD-93. According to Klimov, the company’s jet engine priorities are the development of the modified RD-93MA with the thrust enhanced to 9,300 kgf for a foreign customer and the development of the upgraded RD-33MKM with a thrust of 9,500 kgf for the MiG corporation.[/B]

h t t p: w w w.en.take-off.ru/news/107-june2012/729-rd33outputontherise

Can any knowledgable member confirmmthis news or share waht they know about this development. Thanks in advance.

[Thorough Pro]

Hello anyone?