JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Munir]

There is nothing wrong in having opinions. I do not have to copy them. And opinions are not the same as facts. I haven't seen J10 or J11 in real. But before I talked to engineers, pilots or sit in the plane, I do take it serious to analyze it on what I see and everything I get in my hands. I think there are not many that have put that much effort in time in this field. So since yo are convinced... Please enlighten me in which area the J10-a is more agile then FC-1. A delta with canards against a conventional lay out...

Every plane has its limitations. I am pretty sure that it is not only avionics. It is a forum... I am looking forward to the open and healthy discussion.

 

[no_name]

So do you also think that JF-17 with upgrades can come close to the performance of the latest F-16s that PAF have? Because those and the J-10 are not that far apart.

 

[nemo]

There is nothing wrong in having opinions. I do not have to copy them. And opinions are not the same as facts. I haven't seen J10 or J11 in real. But before I talked to engineers, pilots or sit in the plane, I do take it serious to analyze it on what I see and everything I get in my hands. I think there are not many that have put that much effort in time in this field. So since yo are convinced... Please enlighten me in which area the J10-a is more agile then FC-1. A delta with canards against a conventional lay out...

Every plane has its limitations. I am pretty sure that it is not only avionics. It is a forum... I am looking forward to the open and healthy discussion.

More and larger control surfaces tends to imply agility -- there must be some gains for more complexity. J-10 is a full relaxed stability design, while FC-1 is only unstable on one axis. J-10 is a design that pushed toward the edge of possible performance envelope, while FC-1 is not. This is evident from much longer test flight and development cycle.

J-10's canard is a cross between closely coupled and loosely coupled canard design. Closely coupled canard smooth airflow above the wing for more lift but no/less pitch moment. Loosely coupled canard offers more pitch moment but no lift. J-10's design is a balance of those two -- far enough ahead for more pitch moment, but also generating lift by creating a vortex. This requires very complicated control law and extensive flight test to develop. This is a very aggressive design that no one else seems to have the guts to use due to the technical risk involved.

Enlighten me and tell me how FC-1 is comparable to J-10?

 

[Miragedriver]

The speed of development of the J20 would explain why the PLAAF would allow the J10B to be exported at all, and potentially at the same time, if not before the PLAAF itself gets them.

Plawolf, please indulge me in this change of topic. Do you feel that the Chinese would sell the J20 to Pakistan (assuming of course that china has two or three squadrons operational)? Is not the PLAAF would be concerned about spies gathering information on their new aircraft?
It took the Americans many years before they parted with the F-15

 

[challenge]

likely hood J-20 being offer to PAF is likely zero,unless, PAF are willing to cofund it,enter into somesort partnership with chengdu or shenyang to develop single engine JX.

 

[delft]

likely hood J-20 being offer to PAF is likely zero,unless, PAF are willing to cofund it,enter into somesort partnership with chengdu or shenyang to develop single engine JX.

Then you are talking not about J-20 but about the single engined JX, which is necessarily a completely new design, if it exists.

 

[escobar]

Then you are talking not about J-20 but about the single engined JX, which is necessarily a completely new design, if it exists.

they could scale down the J-20 to make a single engine stealth aircraft.
They don't necessarily need to design a new one.

 

[Deino]

Honestly, any single-engined scaled down J-2x would be a succesor to the J-10 and finally a good replacement for the last J-8D/H/F, but surely not comparable with the JF-17/FC-1.
As already noted so often - and IMO the reason alone why the PLAAF won't buy any of them - the FC-1 is a fine aircraft, ieally suited as a replacement for the F-5, MiG-19 and -21 ... but it is too light to be comparable to the latest multi-role fighters with a much larger weapons load or longer range.

Deino

 

[escobar]

Honestly, any single-engined scaled down J-2x would be a succesor to the J-10 and finally a good replacement for the last J-8D/H/F, but surely not comparable with the JF-17/FC-1.
As already noted so often - and IMO the reason alone why the PLAAF won't buy any of them - the FC-1 is a fine aircraft, ieally suited as a replacement for the F-5, MiG-19 and -21 ... but it is too light to be comparable to the latest multi-role fighters with a much larger weapons load or longer range.

Deino

The J-20 along with J-10 variant and J-11B will be doing the Air-dominance job for PLAAF while the J-16, JH-7A, SU-30MKK and J-19 will take the strike role. I don't think china need a J-2X unless it is the stealth strike aircraft(J-19??). It could also just be the scale down export variant of J-20.

 

[delft]

Any single engine aircraft will have a totally different configuration, structurally and aerodynamically, from J-20, so will have to be a totally new design.