New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[coolieno99]

Originally Posted by SteelBird

There is one more thing I'd like to add on what Crobato has said about the expection on FC-1's domestic engine is that an engine with more power and clean than the RD-93. I watched the 04's flight, the RD-93 somehow still produce a long black smoke tail. I heard somewhere (in this forum) that Pakistan side request to cut off the smoke tail or else it won't accept the AC. China's explain was it didn't use the standard aircraft fuel. But to me, I think this is the nature of the engine rather than fuel problem.

The smoke trail makes it easier for opposing forces to spot your plane. Smoke trail is basically unacceptable for a modern fighter. Hopefully the WS-13 will do away with the smoke trails.

[crobato]

For price differential, what we're going from internet estimates is the FC-1 being under 20 million, and the J-10 being around 25 to 28 million. That isn't much.

China is still a poor and developing country. But it does not change the fact that it accounts for 15 percent of the world's GDP (historically it has been as high as 33% in the 1800s), 30% of the world's industrial output, has the world's largest foreign reserves, and a growing middle class of around 300 million, as big as the entire population of the United States. But most importantly it is a big country, and that means 1.4 billion citizens to protect. Currently China's defense budget is like each person contributing 20 to 30 dollars each year for that, yet it amounts to tens and tens of billions. Unlike other countries, the spending of the defense yuan is only recycled within the economy, so it pays for the jobs of others.

There are hundreds of antiquated fighters out there but recent white paper by the PLA suggests they don't intend to replace them on a one to one basis. In fact, the PLAAF is expected to drastically shrink with plane retirement. Don't listen to those neocon threat hypers. As if a modest fighter design like the FC-1 is somehow a threat to the Raptor or F-35, or even the Block 2 Super Hornet. Even if indeed the FC-1 comes under 20 million, thats still too high for a one to one replacement of the antiquated aircraft; J-7s were built which during their day would be well under a million. In today's dollars that would only still be a fraction of the FC-1's.

This is not to say that the FC-1 doesn't have its virtues. Its shaping quite nice in fact. Despite the limitations of range, internal fuel volume, number of hardpoints, it can work out as a flexible multirole tactical support fighter. Back up the J-10s and J-11s in air to air engagements, back up the JH-7A and Su-30s in air to surface missions. Previous jets like the J-7G and the J-8F are mainly one trick ponies, good in one particular role, not much on others. FC-1 looks like it can do BVR, WVR and air to ground support, and offer better range radius and operational maintainability.

Rumors now seem to suggest it may have yet another new radar again. Hopefully it gets the same holo hud as the J-11B to complement those large displays. Better sensors such as optical MAWS will certainly help with the situational awareness and the survivability of the aircraft. Most promising is the new engine.

Mostly we like to see some hard numbers out there, maybe hopefully we get some pilot impressions. Even if the numbers are not good, but the pilot impressions are very good, then the chances can be hopeful.

I respect pshamin's credits as a pilot and an officer. I certainly quite well aware of it. I hope that one day, he himself gets to fly an FC-1, and personally would wish he can share some impressions of that and whatever that can be allowed to be shared in public.

[maglomanic]

asaracen,
i don't think anyone is trying to disrespect. I myself tend to learn alot from him every now and then. But questionning every possibility disecting pros and cons is good for discussion and much better learning experience.
I am pretty sure from PAF side pshamim will be one of our best source on future JF-17 developments


Crobato,
I would appreciate a little more on the new radar theory

[maozedong]

no body knows the price between J-10 and FC-1, but every body knows FC-1 is much cheaper than J-10.
a USAAF Genearl predicted that J-10 just produce 30 annual (I read from a chinese magazine), according to this prodution manner,if China produce 300 - 400 J-10 needs about 10 years. Taiwan ordered 150 F-16ab in 1990, until 2002 then all of them just equiped Taiwan airforce.
produce one J-10 should needs much more time than one FC-1,as every body knows J-10 is so good quality. the thing is J-7,J-8s should retire in the next 10 years or no (J-6 already retire), if so, there is a blank in PLAAF,only Su27,Su30 ,J-8II (also old) and small amount J-10 are not able to protect China - this such large country's sky and the long coast.
ofcause no body knows PLAAF's dicision,the article also mention Luo ron huai said PLAAF aggressviely carries on the proof,the ordering quantity not under to several hundred
but we can think he speaks very carefully,this is chinese style.now this article is be understood as a news in the newspaper and internet - China will buy FC-1.
however China face up to so many unfriendly countrys and enemy, she should needs a kind of IDF fighter - FC-1, otherwise Su27,Su30,J-10,J11-totally about 400- 500, they may runing too hard,also use FC-1 to do regular mision may extend those expensive fighters life.
most countrys use this manner to save money,India use LCA instead of Mig-21,Janpan use F-2 instead of US F4, pakistan use FC-1 instead of J-7,but they still buy US F-16 and Mig-35( maybe India will buy typhoon,raffle not Mig-35 )
some body uselly like US style compare with China,I disagree this manner,both countrys totally deffint.US is so rich and military technology is so advence,that China can not compair with it.

[mehdi]

Crobato I have an observation to make I hope you can see my point.

By looking and finding new articles about the JF-17 I see there are some parallels with the development of the F/A-18 which was at the beginning a single engined fighter that later became the Hornet with twin engines and lots of improved avionics/electronics and hence later became a navalised fighter which stands as the work force of the US Navy.

Not to forget that the F/A-18 latest development as the new Super Hornet and also a new electronic attack version the EA-18G.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fa18/


I don't know what the future holds but the similarities are quite interesting.

[pshamim]

Friends,

I must thank for your kind words for me. Just like to say that I never mean to be confrontational with any one. Also, I strongly feel that my knowledge level is not better or higher than those who have different views than mine. In fact I learn a lot from friends who have opposing views. They try their best by researching and presenting clear arguments to justify their positions.

As I am very tired now, I will just say the following:

1. I do not think that I will ever be flying again, so probability about my flying a JF-17 is out of question for sure;

2. One does not have to be a pilot to know more than the one who has never flown. I have a lot of respect for TP, Crobato, and Maglomanic and their views. They have done their home work and should be appreciated;

3. Though I may disagree with some but that does not mean that I totally disagree with them too. Give me a good argument and I will accept it.

4. Re: FC-1. It is going to much cheaper than the JF-17 model and price difference between this model and J-10 will in my humble opinion be about 50%.

5. China is not a poor country. It has the wealth and great minds. If it wants it can replace all old 6s and 7s with J-10s. Money is no object; Only queston is whether it should or not.

6. Regarding the F-18s (YF-17), it was never a single engine aircraft. A land version was developed as F-18L for export but no sale was ever made. You may also find out that YF-17/F-18 was included as the 2nd choice because of its twin engines although the Boeing model clearly won over the F-18s.

Will discuss it more when I am feeling better. Old age you know.

Regards.

[asaracen]

Originally Posted by tphuang

huh? I think even Pshamim would tell you that when it comes to the requirements and needs of plaaf, he is not as knowledgeable as someone like Crobato.

If you want to argue for a place for FC-1 in plaaf, then please find a real explanation on why it should be this way. For example, give a ball park number on what you think the price of J-10 is and what FC-1 is and what are the cost to performance ratio and such.

I would consider Pshamim truly as an officer and a gentleman, you only have to read his last reply to agree with my statement. I understand that he was PAF pilot and presently lives in the USA. Now, why on earth would you expect him to have any interest, let alone be an expert on the A/C deployment doctrines/requirements of PLAAF. There is a place for JF-17 / J-10 and F16s in Pakistani air defence / warfare planning, and it seems that they will have all three of them. I am sure if Pakistani's could afford, they would rather have all 186 J-10s rather than 150 JF-17s and 36 J-10s. Much in the same vein as USA (the sole super power with per capita income many many times that of China) would have hundreds more Raptors than the cheaper Joint Fighter.

No one but the Chinese government knows their A/C procurement plans - all of our estimates and opinions are formed by the scraps of news / leaks or propaganda that we come across. I shall rest my case by saying that the same budgetery and financial constraints would force PLAAF to give a good look into FC-1, that forced Pakistan to have JF-17 / J10 / F16 mix, and the USA the Raptor and Joint Fighter split.

All I meant was that I would respect and give more credence to Pshamim's assessments, than some of the other posters. Crobato's JFC-1 / J-10 price differential figures quoted above are just one example of how by such far fetched figures (just to prove one's point) trust deficit is created. More realistic figures have already been quoted above by someone else.

Tphuang, I have seen enough of your posts denegrading FC-1 / JF-17, and building up a case for Chinese Hi/Lo mix of MK and J-10s (basically poo pooing FC-1/JF-17). I totally respect your opinion, and of course your knowledge in Chinese defence industry. Now, with the promise that FC-1 / JF-17 have shown lately, could I ask you to perhaps review your assessment of this plane?? I believe Chinese have done such a good job in cross platform technology transfer / integration, that it has, in my opinion have forced IAF to recently revise its specifications for 126 MRCAs.

[crobato]

Originally Posted by maglomanic

asaracen,
i don't think anyone is trying to disrespect. I myself tend to learn alot from him every now and then. But questionning every possibility disecting pros and cons is good for discussion and much better learning experience.
I am pretty sure from PAF side pshamim will be one of our best source on future JF-17 developments


Crobato,
I would appreciate a little more on the new radar theory

The new radome may suggest a different radar this time. Yes, its still Chinese, but a different Chinese company now.

If you happen to notice, all the radars manufactured by NRIET has to come with a black radome with static strips on the side. This is true on the J-10, on the J-8F, the FC-1 prototypes, and even the J-11B.

But the radars made by its rival Leihua institute, don't have that. They instead chose to use either a green or grey radome that does not have the strips. Look at the older J-8IIs, the JH-7 and the JH-7A.

One thing I have been noticing is that NRIET must have went all out to improve the air to air performance of their radars. I believe it was a gamble that enabled them to secure contracts over the rival Leihua and over Russian manufacturers like Phazotron, offering the JL-10A and Zhemchug radars respectively. But on the other hand, they neglected air to ground or surface roles, taking the Eurofighter approach of adding the air to surface systems in later batches. For that reason, we don't see the J-8F, J-10 or the J-11B with a lot of smart ordinance. Things like the LS-6 are more dependent on satellite positioned navigation systems than on the radar.

On the other hand, Leihua took a more rounded approach, and went on its way to cover air to surface modes. In a way, the JL-10A equipped JH-7A has a leg up over the J-10 in some areas like the ability to support AshMs, ARMs, channels to support FLIR/IT and TV guided munitions.

Going to Leihua for the FC-1 may mean that CAC isn't waiting for NRIET to finally get the air to surface modes done, and want to short cut the process. As a note, Leihua and one other radar institute, are located also in Chengdu.

Another thing is that Leihua in the 2004 Zhuhai show, introduced China's first Ku band radar, exhibiting the SY-80 which appears meant for the same market as the J-7G, competiting for the PLAAF and the export market. It is presumed that the J-7G contract was won by the KLJ-6E from NRIET, but all we really saw was the KJL-6E on prototypes, not sure if its really on the serial production aircraft. I don't really know whats on the Bangladesh F-7BG.

If they have this tech, maybe we can speculate the possibility that the FC-1 may have a Ku band scanning ability, if the new radar is based on the SY-80. Combine that with air to surface systems inherited from the JL-10A.

Its all speculation, but this is all serious possibilities nonetheless.

In the future, its still possible for Leihua (institute 607) to win the J-10 and J-11B contract back.

[crobato]

I have a theory that the size of the country actually plays an important part of determining the size of the fighters best to defend it. The bigger the state, the longer ranged those fighters have to be.

When you build a lot of small fighters to cover sufficient area, you're not exactly saving money when you can have fewer, but longer ranged fighters. Get a map of China and try covering the area using circles drawn from a compass with a radius set to an equivalent 300km. Then try to cover the country with circles drawn to a radius the equivalent of 1000km. You will notice you need far less circles. Less fighters also means less bases, which means less personnel and logistics.

The upfront cost of buying a larger heavier fighter is higher initially, but you have greater savings in the long run by maintaining less planes and less bases to do the same job. Right now, an Su-30MKK might do the job of about 5 Q-5s (in terms of payload). But the long term operating costs of that single Su-30MKK might be better than operating the five Q-5s, including the costs of training and housing the pilots and their techs, their salaries, maintaining the bases etc,.

Now why does the US and the Soviet Union in the end, still maintain lots of lots of single engined fighters?

Here is a clue. It's not really in the cost of acquiring the fighter, but single engined fighters are simply, much more deployable. When you have a single engine, you have nearly 30 to 50% less parts in the plane to maintain and potentially break down. Thus, simpler planes means you can get them up running and ready for a mission in less time, and would be more available for mission generation. By generating more missions, they can keep up a more intense tempo. Mission generation rates is as important as sheer quantity of planes. 1000 planes may not be as effective as 500 planes if the 500 planes can generate twice the mission tempo.

That's why the F-16 become the workhorse. It can run a mission tempo better than the F-15. Likewise, it fell to the Hornet over the high maintenance Tomcat. When we look at the PLAAF, we see the J-11 and J-8II on the side of high maintenance/low tempo, while the J-10/FC-1/J-7 on the low side/high tempo. If the Soviets ever went to war in the eighties over NATO, in contrast to most arguments, it would be the simple MiG-21 that well bear the brunt and burden compared to more complex and high maintenance types like the MiG-23, MiG-29, Foxbat etc,.

Hence the debate of large vs. small fighters isn't easy. This is like the boxing argument of throwing long powerful knockout strike vs. wearing down an opponent with a flurry of short sharp jabs. In the end, its better to keep both bases.

---

Going back to needs of China, one can say its remarkably different from Pakistan. Pakistan borders its most likely opponent directly by land. It needs small high tempo fighters in land bases near the front that can run a high mission tempo, whether its intercepting ground strikers or be a ground striker itself. Here you see the situation for wearing down an opponent through a flurry of short sharp jabs.

China has a very different position. It's most likely opponents are going to be seperated by seas. Range becomes the predominant issue. You have a sitaution that calls for long powerful knockout strikes.

Well partly because in a potential Taiwan campaign, you also need the jabs.

---

The funny thing is, the J-10 itself may not be as ideal for the PLAAF. The plane was concieved back in the eighties, and the requirements was still a highly defensive one, featuring a Clauswitzian/Adolf Galland approach of swarming concentrations of small fighters against enemy formations.

There is a third alternative of the hi lo mix, and that is one people don't seem to talk about yet, the examples are staring them right in the face. The examples are the Hornet, the Typhoon and the Rafale. Basically, its a one size medium fighter that combines the attributes of the light and the heavy fighter, rolling them into one. Having the capability and range of the heavyweight, combined with the convenience and mission generation tempo of the light one.

Does it work? Well the US Navy and the Marines is sticking to one type of fighter as opposed to two. European nations are sticking to one type of fighter, whether its the JSF which is another med fighter, or the Typhoon.

In China, I think that's the crux of the next generation twin engined we hear being developed in Chengdu. There is a lot of talk that the J-10 is only a transition to something else.

---

So in the end, what does it all say?

Regardless of the cheap costs of the FC-1, or J-10s beating Su-30s, doctrinal trends in the PLAAF keep pointing to the direction of larger fighters, at least a medium (twin engined, 10,000kg class ,engines around the 8500-9000kg class or single engined, 10,000kg class, with engine around the 35000kg class) to the very least.

If one reads the white papers issued by the PLA, they have made their intentions known, they're not seeking to replace numbers, going for smaller but more adept technologically forces.

The statements are vauge and general though it may not mean much. Even the FC-1 won't cost low enough to replace old fighters on a one to one basis, but its technological capabilities would be high enough to make number replacement moot.

[tphuang]

Originally Posted by asaracen

I would consider Pshamim truly as an officer and a gentleman, you only have to read his last reply to agree with my statement. I understand that he was PAF pilot and presently lives in the USA. Now, why on earth would you expect him to have any interest, let alone be an expert on the A/C deployment doctrines/requirements of PLAAF. There is a place for JF-17 / J-10 and F16s in Pakistani air defence / warfare planning, and it seems that they will have all three of them. I am sure if Pakistani's could afford, they would rather have all 186 J-10s rather than 150 JF-17s and 36 J-10s. Much in the same vein as USA (the sole super power with per capita income many many times that of China) would have hundreds more Raptors than the cheaper Joint Fighter.

No one but the Chinese government knows their A/C procurement plans - all of our estimates and opinions are formed by the scraps of news / leaks or propaganda that we come across. I shall rest my case by saying that the same budgetery and financial constraints would force PLAAF to give a good look into FC-1, that forced Pakistan to have JF-17 / J10 / F16 mix, and the USA the Raptor and Joint Fighter split.

All I meant was that I would respect and give more credence to Pshamim's assessments, than some of the other posters. Crobato's JFC-1 / J-10 price differential figures quoted above are just one example of how by such far fetched figures (just to prove one's point) trust deficit is created. More realistic figures have already been quoted above by someone else.

Tphuang, I have seen enough of your posts denegrading FC-1 / JF-17, and building up a case for Chinese Hi/Lo mix of MK and J-10s (basically poo pooing FC-1/JF-17). I totally respect your opinion, and of course your knowledge in Chinese defence industry. Now, with the promise that FC-1 / JF-17 have shown lately, could I ask you to perhaps review your assessment of this plane?? I believe Chinese have done such a good job in cross platform technology transfer / integration, that it has, in my opinion have forced IAF to recently revise its specifications for 126 MRCAs.

Seeing that we were having a good debate going on about the needs of plaaf for JF-17, I want that kind of debate to continue. Saying that Pshamim's opinions are better than that of Crobato is not an argument. If you want to support Pshamim's argument, then please provide some real assessment as I have asked for. Now, none of the members on this website are working for CAC or any of the institutes in China providing avionics for JF-17. If someone like that comes on this site and asserts his opinion (like Netspider did with Type 99 tanks), I would regard that as an extremely valuable source.

As for my opinion of JF-17 or FC-1, it can be seen pretty well in all the forums I post in. What more do you want to know exactly? Like what kind of roles do I see for FC-1 in plaaf?

As for what kind of hi-lo combination do I see with plaaf? I personally don't even like J-11B that much. I don't think plaaf will get the flanker they really want until J-11BS comes out. That will finally give them a fighter/bomber with good flight performance, long range, high payload like su-34/F-15K. So, my preferred combination is J-10 for air superiority tasks, J-11BS for long distance strike/anti-shipping mission, JH-7 for low end strike missions and ground strikes and a strategic bomber.

several other points:
1) JF-17 is supposedly getting 3 MAWs according to an article that I translated way back on pt 4.
2) I think the price ratio of J-10 to JF-17 is probably around 2:1 assuming that JF-17 gets enough orders. But there is also the idea of providing logistics, training and servicing for an extra fighter. After adding this in, what the ratio will be is probably harder to say.
3) It's my opinion that in terms of A2A performance, J-10 will probably do a lot better than 2:1 against JF-17. But then again, that won't be known until as Crobato mentionned, pitting J-10 vs JF-17.
4) I think we might get a case with JF-17 like the J-7G scenario where the export version get SY-80 and domestic get KLJ-6E. So in this case, export JF-17 will get a 607 or 38 institute radar and domestic get lab 14. It's also dependent on the customer. If PAF wants a radar with better SAR capability or A2S capability, then a 607 radar may be a better fit.

[Ryz05]

Any possibility for the JF-17 to be equipped with a delta wing like the F-16XL? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F..._down_view.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL ? This might improve the aircraft's performance like it did with the F-16.

[maozedong]

Originally Posted by Ryz05

Any possibility for the JF-17 to be equipped with a delta wing like the F-16XL? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F..._down_view.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL ? This might improve the aircraft's performance like it did with the F-16.

this is a great pic, If FC-1 equipped with a delta wing like F-16XL ofcause is better, at least may loading much more weapons, and good for super cruise,I think.
but there are will be lots of improvements work on FC-1, that means will put lots of money on it.
but FC-1 is design for export espeacially for pakistan air force, FC-1 already desire for cheap style plane.this oppinion is from chinese air technology officer speaking.
China already has J-10 fighter, if FC-1 upgrade like this is not necessary for China,whatever for export or PLA needs.
US has so much money they can do a lot of research that China can not compair with it.

[Ryz05]

Letting the FC-1 have the delta wing shouldn't be much of a problem. In the future, all light combat aircrafts should have the delta wing if it helps to improve their performance. Look at the similarities between the FC-1, the F-16, and the F-16XL in these 3-view pictures.

F-16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:G...ING_FALCON.svg

FC-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:J...gazineScan.jpg

F-16XL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F...041110-016.jpg

F-16 mod with delta wing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F..._down_view.jpg

[maglomanic]

Ryz05,
When FC-1 was envisaged, they had the example of f-16XL infornt of them. They could have chosen delta configuartion from the very begining but they chose not to. Also, why didn't USAF go for this design if it was a better design?

Every design decision has cost/benefit ratio to it. The designers know it more than us forumers, and they decided not to use delta.

[coolieno99]

IMHO I wouldn't be surprised if China offered Pakistan the J-11 besides the J-10.


Pakistani girls welcoming President Hu Jintao's visit, Nov. 2006