JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[SteelBird]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Honestly, I'm happy to hear if PAF phases out RD-93. I simply don't like the engine. It has a lot of smoke, and I found this on wiki:

New engine; most likely the Chinese WS-13 TianShan, although the PAF is considering fitting European powerplants such as the French Snecma M88 to its aircraft.

Another thing, how come no people ever mention its DSI intake? As I know, the American have studied on DSI for decades and only adopt it to the F-35 recently. How can the Chinese make their DSI in such a short time? Or maybe the Chinese DSI isn't a true DSI? But FC1/JF-17 is the first operational aircraft with DSI anyway (F-35 is not operational yet).

 

[adeptitus]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

About a decade ago, the Russians put a RD-33 engine on a MiG-21 and offered it as a MiG-21-97 upgrade package.

Although the performance was greatly improved, it's still an old airframe with small radar space and restricted-view cockpit.

Both PLAAF and PAF could've upgraded their J-7's with newer power plant and BVR radar/AAM, but in the old there's only so much you can do with an old airframe and limited fuel load.

At some point you say "ok, it's time to redesign from drawing board". And that's what you got with the FC-1/JF-17.

Regardless of its design heritage, the fact is that it's a new, updated airframe that's one generation above the MiG-21.

Not unlike F-5 to YF-17.

 

[Indianfighter]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Therefore, saying that the FC-1 is an improvement or comes from the family of Mig-21 is absolute nonsense. Not a single thing between them comes from the same family. Remember, the once super-7 project differed from the F-7 mainly in having western avionics and engine and not airframe except for the intakes or a few minor changes. The Super - 7 project died with the withdrawal of Grumman Corp. The only thing that lived from that project is the idea of having a light-weight fighter.

I stand by the fact that the FC-1 is a direct and the final descendant of the F-7 line of aircraft. Others in this lineage include J-8 and J-8 II.

Your comment that just the idea remained after the demise of the Super-7 programme is not true. The basic J-7 frame continued to be taken as a template even in the FC-1 and my observation is that it's remanants are still visible in the form of the canopy, and the distinct fuselage shape from the side.
Whatever, the fact remains that only the name of the Super-7 changed to FC-1 : the task of converting the F-7 frame continued even after the change in nomenclature.

The rest of the history is well known. Also, PAF was looking for western avionics of the FC-1 back in 1995. An article pertaining to this was posted in KeyPub.

PAF is not interested in the RD-93 engine in future, but it will still power the first 50 which is quite a significant number and hence still a matter of concern.

Anyone with knowledge about it, can you please shed more light on this?

Exactly the same thing is happening on the LCA front. The IAF is not happy with the Ge-404 F2J3 but has purchased GE-404 IN for the first batch of 40 planes. But for the remaining 150, it wants either Eurojet or GE-414.

 

[Londo Molari]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

And I stand by the fact that the moon is made of cheese.

How can the Chinese make their DSI in such a short time? Or maybe the Chinese DSI isn't a true DSI? But FC1/JF-17 is the first operational aircraft with DSI anyway (F-35 is not operational yet).

DSI intake is not an electronic or metallurgical advancement. Its just a design feature, like canards. Some planes benefit from it, others don't need it. Its not difficult to make for China or anyone else. Its just a bump.

 

[Deino]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

I stand by the fact that the FC-1 is a direct and the final descendant of the F-7 line of aircraft. Others in this lineage include J-8 and J-8 II.

Your comment that just the idea remained after the demise of the Super-7 programme is not true. The basic J-7 frame continued to be taken as a template even in the FC-1 and my observation is that it's remanants are still visible in the form of the canopy, and the distinct fuselage shape from the side.
Whatever, the fact remains that only the name of the Super-7 changed to FC-1 : the task of converting the F-7 frame continued even after the change in nomenclature.

The rest of the history is well known. Also, PAF was looking for western avionics of the FC-1 back in 1995. An article pertaining to this was posted in KeyPub.


....

As I already said: .... if that's Your final statement to that issue, then all further discussion is meaningless.


And that statement readrding the moon is nice ! :roll:

Deino

 

[jawad]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Only thing I wanted to say is that upgraded F-7 fighter jet project with the help of Grumman was named by the Pakistan air force Saber-II in light of superb performance of original F-86 saber and project was dropped by 1988 as a result of withdrawal of Grumman and project was dropped from the procurement list that year original idea was to make F-7 with US GE-404 instead of WP-7 turbo jet along with APG-66 radar and other avionics developed from avionics of F-16 and F-20 with final production line and assembly to be in Pakistan. Aircraft had air intake very similar to that of FTc-2000/JL-9 jet trainer and slightly bigger wings but same delta wing design that was used in basic F-7 at that time. All this was published along with basic drawings in science digest in 1988.

As far as the project with china is concerned it was only offered first time in mid 1990 and only help this project had from Russia was and is RD-93 which china had no equivalent i.e. no choice and China provided state assurances that Russians won’t back down in case of Indian pressure.

 

[jawad]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

double post

 

[Indianfighter]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Sinodefence.com itself says that Chengdu continued the Super-7 programme under just another name called FC-1. The objective remained the same, which was upgrading the basic J-7 radically : changing the nose and adding side intakes.

People who disagree can further argue with sinodefence.com. I just said what it says.

 

[Baibar of Jalat]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Sinodefence.com itself says that Chengdu continued the Super-7 programme under just another name called FC-1. The objective remained the same, which was upgrading the basic J-7 radically : changing the nose and adding side intakes.

People who disagree can further argue with sinodefence.com. I just said what it says.

Stop embarrassing yourself. You main claim was FC 1 is the last version of J- 7. Look at your posts. People have criticised that claim but you seem to ignored their and mine posts and focused on parts of sinodefence articles. Which can be interpretated in a number of ways, depending on viewpoint.

"""The FC-1 was the last of the J-7 improvements"""

Your claim, I am assuming your referring to those FC 1s going into production in 2009. If you are please remember, plane designs change, more often then names. This is no marketing ploy by the respective makers on par with the Russians in renaming old platforms to newer names. Lastly I may add you use the same arguments made when project was revealed.

 

[Indianfighter]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

I'll have to adopt a harsh tone for the remainder of this post : something I've never done on sinodefenceforum before.

Stop embarrassing yourself. You main claim was FC 1 is the last version of J- 7. Look at your posts. People have criticised that claim but you seem to ignored their and mine posts and focused on parts of sinodefence articles. Which can be interpretated in a number of ways, depending on viewpoint.

If you know how to read and write and use a scroll bar, then you should've seen by now that I maintain that FC-1 belongs to the F-7 lineage, the MiG-21 / F-7 family. It is the last of the J-7 descendants.

It has the J-7's canopy and fuselage (sideways). It has the F-16's flaperon wings and tail. Chengdu added side-intakes just as it did to the J-8 II, which also is from the J-7 family. I still call it the hybrid of a Russian and a US fighter jet.

It's not a boast, but I've posted more about the JF-17's history on this forum than all Pakistanis here have ever had. They don't know that PAF tried to freeze it's avionics back in 1995; it wanted western ones. Just a year before that in 1994, Chengdu company had approached India to collaborate on the LCA but the plan fell through. India and China went on their separate ways.

After 2003, the FC-1 added a DSI bump and LERX --- not to improve agility but because the FC-1 was unable to meet the bare basic requirements of maneuverability.

Have you asked yourself why it has 2 names ? Why does China call it China's First fighter (FC-1), but only Pakistan insists that it is a Joint-Fighter (JF - ) ? It's because it is a Chinese fighter from nose to tail, while Pakistan is only a financier and a lender of F-16 schematics. Have you asked yourself why it is never flown at airshows in China ? Because PLAAF is not inducting it. Why is it continuing tests in Pakistan instead of China ? Why did it complete tests in a record 3 years flat in China ? Because Chengdu did bare basic tests and handed it over to PAF on an "as-is" basis (after all, it's not the J-10 they're developing for the PLAAF).

Now PAF chief Tavner Mahmood said he doesn't like RD-93 and wants a western engine beyond 50 units. No radar has been integrated into it, there is no news of weapons testing, and Mr. Mahmood wants western avionics after the first 50 are deivered.

From all of the above do you even realize the mess the JF-17 is in ?



I maintain that it is a fine aircraft. Indian Air Force's Chief himself praised it (a very frank and honest man). But you have to admit it's current situation --- and it's history also.