JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[maglomanic]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Ignore it. I probably copied and pasted some of the labels on the illustrations of the web page along, and they got translated with it.

Crobato,
do you see any obvious differences between this newer PLAAF helmet compared to the older ones?
Why we haven't seen a more westernized looking helmet in development in China?
Read a Russian AF pilot's interview and they prefer their helmets more than western helmets which in their opinion are less comfortable.

As for HMD it looks chinese philosphy is to hide the glass inside the helmet as opposed to western developments where you see a huge glass bulge over the helmet (could result in damage to glass while getting in or out of cockpit if the helmet hits anything).

My question, could it mean lesser functionality for Chinese HMD if the visor is inside the helmet (less area of display )?

 

[crobato]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

I think the cover over the visor could be hiding something else. The new helmet seems a bit big and thick to be just a helmet. There also seems to be two big bulges in the ears and I think that's more than just loudspeakers. They can be used to house directional sensors.

 

[keysersoze]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Hey there!

I have been reading (on another forum) that Pakistan was looking at the RBE2 radar as a possible option for the JF-17/FC-1.
A well respected member (he is a moderator on DT) said that the info (that he was aware of earlier) could be discussed as it had been recently published in a Chinese magazine.
Has anyone else heard this, or read the article in question?

 

[crobato]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Not really for me. There was talk that the RC400 was seriously considered among the alternatives, but I never heard about the RBE2.

 

[pshamim]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Well! since I am being quoted as the source of this information, let me admit posting it.

The news of RBE2 being considered for the future aircrafts is true. Does it make sense, in my opinion no. Let me add some background to this news.

Chinese always considered FC-1/JF-17 to be for the export market primarily. But they now think that purchase of J-10 by Pakistan has taken the shine off the FC-1. It may create confusion as to why Pakistan ordered J-10s when it was going to buy the JF-17-may be even Pakistanis think that the aircraft may not be as capable.

But Pakistanis and the Chinese have been considering to uplift the image by giving it not only a more modern radar but also reduce its RCS. Suggessions are to equip the future lot with RBE2 and reduce the RCS by using composites and making changes in the airframe to enable it to have embedded weapons.

Unfortunately, FC-1 has only 7 hard points and as TPHuang has correctly pointed out that it will not have enough MRAAM to meet and use the RBE2 capabilities i.e. tracking 40 targets and engaging 8 simultanously.

While I may support the efforts to reduce the RCS, I fail to understand the logic of introducing RBE2.

The two countries think that inspite of the price of the jet may double to $30 million a copy, it will be a great success against the Western jet in the export market. And that is the whole reason behind this issue.

 

[tphuang]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Well! since I am being quoted as the source of this information, let me admit posting it.

The news of RBE2 being considered for the future aircrafts is true. Does it make sense, in my opinion no. Let me add some background to this news.

Chinese always considered FC-1/JF-17 to be for the export market primarily. But they now think that purchase of J-10 has taken the shine off the FC-1. It may create confusion as to why Pakistan ordered J-10s when it was going to buy the JF-17-may be even Pakistanis think that the aircraft may not be as capable.

But Pakistanis and the Chinese have been considering to uplift the image by giving it not only a more modern radar but also reduce its RCS. Suggessions are to equip the future lot with RBE2 and reduce the RCS by using composites and making changes in the airframe to enable it to embedd the weapons.

Unfortunately, FC-1 has only 7 hard points and as TPHuang has correctly pointed out that it will not have enough MRAAM to meet and use the RBE2 capabilities i.e. tracking 40 targets and engaging 8 simultanously.

While I may support the efforts to reduce the RCS, I fail to understand the logic of introducing RBE2.

The two countries think that inspite of the price of the jet may double to $30 million a copy, it will be a great success against the Western jet in the export market. And that is the whole reason behind this issue.

I'm actually a little confused right now. I'm just wondering where you got these impressions of China from, because it's not really in line with the stuff I've been encountering.

 

[crobato]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

Most aircraft that people don't think have composite usually do have composite. The use of composites for wing, tail and elevator surfaces are more common that what most people think (example, MiG-29). I think the FC-1 should have composites in similar areas.

If the FC-1 wants to reduce RCS, it should look to increase the amount of surface composite beyond the "standard" areas mentioned above. But for me, the FC-1 has a natural low radar cross section. This is due to its size, small frontal physical cross section, the careful angling of the nose and the way the DSI intakes block reflection into the inlets. If they want to achieve further RCS reduction, they may consider putting radar absorbant material in the front parts of the plane, and tint the canopy.

If the RBE2 is considered for the JF-17, it does not need to be the exact RBE2 for the Rafale. A smaller brother or variant perhaps. Since the number of targets being engaged is redudant, maybe that can be reduced to two or four targets, but make the tracking and locking more ECM resistant. Whatever features that isn't needed can be taken out, and this can save both money, development time and weight.

 

[pshamim]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

I'm actually a little confused right now. I'm just wondering where you got these impressions of China from, because it's not really in line with the stuff I've been encountering.

TPHuang! May be you can read and understand it better. I had heard about the RBE2 from some of my Pakistani sources until this appeared.

继J-10高调亮相之后，一度为人所津津热道的FC-1枭龙轻型战斗机似乎一下子失去了光芒，连其最忠心的客户巴基斯坦都忙不迭宣称要购买J-10。的确，和J-10相比，FC-1在很多方面都存在明显的差距；如果说J-10还能和美国最新的F-16改进型一较高下的话，那么FC-1只能说是借当代电子技术之优势，在电子设备方面比早期的F-16A/B先进一些，而机动性却远远不如。一旦中国决定将J-10推向国际市场，那么FC-1的前景将相当不妙。与此同时，美国近期推出了F-35“闪电II”隐身战斗机，它将成为F-16这种“国际战斗机”的嫡系传承者，预计全球装备量超过4000架。前有阻拦，后有追兵，FC-1作为一种出口型战斗机，前途在哪里?
　　


　　事实上FC-1还是有优点的，那就是价格便宜。一架FC-1售价可能不超过1500万美元，而J-10应该在2000~3000万美元左右，F-35则在4500~6000万美元之间（还是基于大量销售的前提下），FC-1的价格优势相当明显。但是从性价比上来说，FC-1可能还不如J-10，不然中国自己早就大量装备了。所以如果没有F-35的出现，FC-1可能会被J-10（假如中国大量出口J-10的话）压得死死的，在国际市场上没有立足之地。从这个角度看，纯粹依靠低成本已经难以成为低端战斗机的出路了。但是由于F-35的出现，情况却有了微妙的变化。J-10虽然性能超过FC-1，但是作为一种第三代战机，如果面临像F-35这样第四代战机的挑战，恐怕和FC-1一样都处于下风。从这个意义上说，FC-1和J-10的差距因为F-35的出现而变小了。

　　再进一步设想，假如可以在FC-1的基础上作一些改进，使其具备一定的隐身性，那么也许FC-1能够咸鱼翻身，一举成为F-35在国际市场上的有力竞争者也说不定。另一方面，虽然F-35性能优异，但出于政治因素的原因，仍然有相当多的国家和地区无法得到，所以仍然存在一个特定的市场区间，是这种FC-1的改进型所能够一展身手的。另外，由于是外销机型，我们可以根据客户和市场的需求来灵活决定FC-1改进的方向，并和一些有合作意愿的发达国家（如法国）携手，获得一些必要得技术支援，来打破F-35垄断国际轻型战斗机市场的企图。

　　从这个思路出发，笔者设想了一种FC-1的隐身改进型，如附图所示。改进的思路主要有以下三条，分别针对FC-1现有的不足：

　　一、外形隐身化和武器内置化 ?

　　FC-1总体上是采用中等后掠梯形机翼、两侧进气、单发单垂尾的常规布局。这种布局的好处是简单实用，虽然气动性能不如J-10的鸭式布局好，但是比J-10更有利于隐身化的改进。笔者设想用外倾的双垂尾代替单垂尾，并取消腹鳍；将机翼和平尾的外形做少许修改，使之前后缘保持平行，前机身（包括座舱）的横截面则修改为菱形，同时保持原有的DSI进气口和边条设计，这样一来，整体的外形隐身程度将得到极大的改善。如果加上隐身涂料和舱口锯齿化等措施，其前向RCS下降至0.05左右还是有可能的。隐身化的另一项重要措施是内置武器舱。由于FC-1采用两侧进气，所以可以很方便地在机腹设置一个半埋式的小型武器舱，以容纳两枚中距空空导弹或一枚500公斤级的制导武器。其鼓包式舱门与机腹平滑过渡，以减小对气动和隐身性能的影响，同时也最大限度地减少了对有限的机内空间的影响。同样采取两侧进气的F-35由于要考虑垂直起降型的需求，只能在机身两侧设置两个小型武器舱，从机身空间的利用率来看显得很不理想，以近30吨左右的最大起飞重量，在武器完全内置时却只能携带两枚1000磅的JDAM和两枚中距导弹。这样，在高危地区执行制空/截击任务时，FC-1隐改型和F-35实际上可以达到同样的武器携带量（两枚中距导弹）；而执行对地任务时，FC-1隐改型的载弹量则为F-35的一半，也不算太差。

　　二、机体减重并大量采用复合材料

　　FC-1的空机重大约6.8吨，在轻型战机里面算是重的，而这主要是出于控制成本的考虑，所以没有大量采用复合材料。据称除了少量舱盖部位采用了复合材料之外，FC-1主要仍使用传统的高强度铝合金。相比之下，印度的LCA由于采用了高达45%的复合材料，空机重仅有5.5吨，由此可见，FC-1减重的空间还是比较大的。假如FC-1的复合材料使用率达到20%左右的话，预计空重可以降低到6吨以下。这样一来，虽然飞机的价格有所上涨，但带来的好处也是显而易见的。首先可以提高机动性，其次可以增加载油载弹量（并抵消由于敷设隐身涂料之后的增重），而且还在一定程度上提高了隐身性。

　　三、升级发动机和电子设备

　　FC-1的另一个软肋是发动机。目前采用的RD-93发动机最大加力推力为8.3吨，推重比7左右（按照中国/西方标准），如果机内半油并携带两枚中距导弹时的空战推重比大约为0.94，而F-16、J-10、F-35等战机的空战推重比均超过1。笔者设想FC-1隐改型换装推重比8左右、采用矢量推力喷口的泰山发动机，最大加力推力为8.8吨，同时由于机体减重，其空战推重比将达到1.1以上，从而机动性大为改善，完全可以和最新型的三代及四代战机在近距格斗中分庭抗礼。将来换装推比10的中推后机动性还将进一步提高。至于电子设备，首先要改进的就是飞行控制系统。FC-1出于成本的考虑，仅采用了双余度纵向电传控制，而其隐改型应该采用四余度电传控制，这将进一步提高其机动性能。其次是雷达方面，这是中国的弱项，所以可以考虑和法国合作，在“阵风”战斗机的RBE2雷达基础上发展出一种小型化的机载无源相控阵雷达，并引进“阵风”的多频谱电子自保护系统（SPECTRA）和前扇区光学系统（FSO），从而具备完善的战场环境感知能力。这样法国就算无法实现“阵风”出口零的突破，至少可以实现其技术的出口，也算是对多年潜心开发“阵风”的投入的一种补偿吧。


　　经过上述改进，估计FC-1隐改型的价格可能会上涨近一倍，达到3000万美元左右。即便如此，但改进后的FC-1已经初步具备了和F-35对抗的实力，性价比明显超出。这样一款轻型隐身战斗机将在国际市场上对F-35构成严重的威胁，尤其对一些无法及时得到或买不起F-35的国家会产生强烈的吸引力。进一步设想一下，假如能够和法国携手打入几家欧盟国家的市场，那可是对欧盟对中国的军售禁令的极大讽刺啊！
　　
　　与此同时，法国由于“阵风”滞销，想必对于F-35之将要大行其道也是眼睛红通通的，如果能够借机推销其航空技术，顺手打击一下美国的军机市场，应该也是甘心乐意的吧！

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[RedMercury]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

From a software engineering point of view, the ability of a tracking algorithm to withstand noise can easily be traded off with the number of targets.

 

[tphuang]

Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread

TPHuang! May be you can read and understand it better. I had heard about the RBE2 from some of my Pakistani sources until this appeared.

继J-10高调亮相之后，一度为人所津津热道的FC-1枭龙轻型战斗机似乎一下子失去了光芒，连其最忠心的客户巴基斯坦都忙不迭宣称要购买J-10。的确，和J-10相比，FC-1在很多方面都存在明显的差距；如果说J-10还能和美国最新的F-16改进型一较高下的话，那么FC-1只能说是借当代电子技术之优势，在电子设备方面比早期的F-16A/B先进一些，而机动性却远远不如。一旦中国决定将J-10推向国际市场，那么FC-1的前景将相当不妙。与此同时，美国近期推出了F-35“闪电II”隐身战斗机，它将成为F-16这种“国际战斗机”的嫡系传承者，预计全球装备量超过4000架。前有阻拦，后有追兵，FC-1作为一种出口型战斗机，前途在哪里?
　　


　　事实上FC-1还是有优点的，那就是价格便宜。一架FC-1售价可能不超过1500万美元，而J-10应该在2000~3000万美元左右，F-35则在4500~6000万美元之间（还是基于大量销售的前提下），FC-1的价格优势相当明显。但是从性价比上来说，FC-1可能还不如J-10，不然中国自己早就大量装备了。所以如果没有F-35的出现，FC-1可能会被J-10（假如中国大量出口J-10的话）压得死死的，在国际市场上没有立足之地。从这个角度看，纯粹依靠低成本已经难以成为低端战斗机的出路了。但是由于F-35的出现，情况却有了微妙的变化。J-10虽然性能超过FC-1，但是作为一种第三代战机，如果面临像F-35这样第四代战机的挑战，恐怕和FC-1一样都处于下风。从这个意义上说，FC-1和J-10的差距因为F-35的出现而变小了。

　　再进一步设想，假如可以在FC-1的基础上作一些改进，使其具备一定的隐身性，那么也许FC-1能够咸鱼翻身，一举成为F-35在国际市场上的有力竞争者也说不定。另一方面，虽然F-35性能优异，但出于政治因素的原因，仍然有相当多的国家和地区无法得到，所以仍然存在一个特定的市场区间，是这种FC-1的改进型所能够一展身手的。另外，由于是外销机型，我们可以根据客户和市场的需求来灵活决定FC-1改进的方向，并和一些有合作意愿的发达国家（如法国）携手，获得一些必要得技术支援，来打破F-35垄断国际轻型战斗机市场的企图。

　　从这个思路出发，笔者设想了一种FC-1的隐身改进型，如附图所示。改进的思路主要有以下三条，分别针对FC-1现有的不足：

　　一、外形隐身化和武器内置化 ?

　　FC-1总体上是采用中等后掠梯形机翼、两侧进气、单发单垂尾的常规布局。这种布局的好处是简单实用，虽然气动性能不如J-10的鸭式布局好，但是比J-10更有利于隐身化的改进。笔者设想用外倾的双垂尾代替单垂尾，并取消腹鳍；将机翼和平尾的外形做少许修改，使之前后缘保持平行，前机身（包括座舱）的横截面则修改为菱形，同时保持原有的DSI进气口和边条设计，这样一来，整体的外形隐身程度将得到极大的改善。如果加上隐身涂料和舱口锯齿化等措施，其前向RCS下降至0.05左右还是有可能的。隐身化的另一项重要措施是内置武器舱。由于FC-1采用两侧进气，所以可以很方便地在机腹设置一个半埋式的小型武器舱，以容纳两枚中距空空导弹或一枚500公斤级的制导武器。其鼓包式舱门与机腹平滑过渡，以减小对气动和隐身性能的影响，同时也最大限度地减少了对有限的机内空间的影响。同样采取两侧进气的F-35由于要考虑垂直起降型的需求，只能在机身两侧设置两个小型武器舱，从机身空间的利用率来看显得很不理想，以近30吨左右的最大起飞重量，在武器完全内置时却只能携带两枚1000磅的JDAM和两枚中距导弹。这样，在高危地区执行制空/截击任务时，FC-1隐改型和F-35实际上可以达到同样的武器携带量（两枚中距导弹）；而执行对地任务时，FC-1隐改型的载弹量则为F-35的一半，也不算太差。

　　二、机体减重并大量采用复合材料

　　FC-1的空机重大约6.8吨，在轻型战机里面算是重的，而这主要是出于控制成本的考虑，所以没有大量采用复合材料。据称除了少量舱盖部位采用了复合材料之外，FC-1主要仍使用传统的高强度铝合金。相比之下，印度的LCA由于采用了高达45%的复合材料，空机重仅有5.5吨，由此可见，FC-1减重的空间还是比较大的。假如FC-1的复合材料使用率达到20%左右的话，预计空重可以降低到6吨以下。这样一来，虽然飞机的价格有所上涨，但带来的好处也是显而易见的。首先可以提高机动性，其次可以增加载油载弹量（并抵消由于敷设隐身涂料之后的增重），而且还在一定程度上提高了隐身性。

　　三、升级发动机和电子设备

　　FC-1的另一个软肋是发动机。目前采用的RD-93发动机最大加力推力为8.3吨，推重比7左右（按照中国/西方标准），如果机内半油并携带两枚中距导弹时的空战推重比大约为0.94，而F-16、J-10、F-35等战机的空战推重比均超过1。笔者设想FC-1隐改型换装推重比8左右、采用矢量推力喷口的泰山发动机，最大加力推力为8.8吨，同时由于机体减重，其空战推重比将达到1.1以上，从而机动性大为改善，完全可以和最新型的三代及四代战机在近距格斗中分庭抗礼。将来换装推比10的中推后机动性还将进一步提高。至于电子设备，首先要改进的就是飞行控制系统。FC-1出于成本的考虑，仅采用了双余度纵向电传控制，而其隐改型应该采用四余度电传控制，这将进一步提高其机动性能。其次是雷达方面，这是中国的弱项，所以可以考虑和法国合作，在“阵风”战斗机的RBE2雷达基础上发展出一种小型化的机载无源相控阵雷达，并引进“阵风”的多频谱电子自保护系统（SPECTRA）和前扇区光学系统（FSO），从而具备完善的战场环境感知能力。这样法国就算无法实现“阵风”出口零的突破，至少可以实现其技术的出口，也算是对多年潜心开发“阵风”的投入的一种补偿吧。


　　经过上述改进，估计FC-1隐改型的价格可能会上涨近一倍，达到3000万美元左右。即便如此，但改进后的FC-1已经初步具备了和F-35对抗的实力，性价比明显超出。这样一款轻型隐身战斗机将在国际市场上对F-35构成严重的威胁，尤其对一些无法及时得到或买不起F-35的国家会产生强烈的吸引力。进一步设想一下，假如能够和法国携手打入几家欧盟国家的市场，那可是对欧盟对中国的军售禁令的极大讽刺啊！
　　
　　与此同时，法国由于“阵风”滞销，想必对于F-35之将要大行其道也是眼睛红通通的，如果能够借机推销其航空技术，顺手打击一下美国的军机市场，应该也是甘心乐意的吧！

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hey Pshamim,

This is what I was afraid of. While I'm sure that your Pakistani sources are quite credible, this source is not. They routinely have pieces like this by amateurs on Chinese forums. I'm not saying this because I don't believe they have RCS reduction plans for JF-17, but just that the author yoyo_navy isn't someone with more insider knowledge than the rest of us.