JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by johnqh, Jun 21, 2011.

  1. nemo
    Offline

    nemo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    147
    Not to denigrate the effort put in by the Pakistani to improve the user interface, but these are the easiest to copy and modify in an aircraft. And you think Pakistani is the only one that involves pilots in the aircraft development? Everyone does that -- although some put more emphasis than that. No, pilots do NOT design aircraft -- the generate REQUIREMENT which are used by the engineer to generate the DESIGN.

    And of course J-10 is going to experience more problem -- it's much closer to the cutting edge of Chinese capability than FC-1. FC-1 uses mostly mature and least risky technology -- even the DSI was originally developed for J-10B. So much less risk means much less problem.

    J-10 is developed for PLA and PLA does not import that many weapons -- so it does NOT need to support foreign weapons. And you seriously believe that China couldn't integrate those quickly if there is a need? When J-10 is exported, capability to support foreign weapons will be added -- it's nothing more than software and interface addition or change. And if you think J-10 does not support the domestic equivalent of those weapons, I would like to know what you are smoking.

    And if you think J-10 does not have EW, datalink, etc, you are seriously underestimating J-10. And where do you think those capability on FC-1 comes from?

    I really wonder how do you get the idea that FC-1 is superior to anything China has when the bulk of FC-1's technology come from China. While FC-1 does have some refinements not in J-10, it does not change the fact that J-10 and FC-1 is not in the same class.

    What I want to ask you is why do you think China couldn't put in capabilities developed for FC-1 into J-10, if FC-1 is in fact superior to J-10 as you claimed? Especially the effort involved is relatively trivial. I can tell you what I think -- FC-1 is NOT superior to J-10 in capability, and whatever minor improvements can wait until mid life upgrade for logistical reason.

    Yes, these are speculation on my part, but so are yours. I cite the reason for my speculations, and yours does not sound convincing to me. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to mine.
     
  2. Bltizo
    Online

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,519
    Likes Received:
    16,294
    Come on we all know that's a marketing gimmick, used by companies the world over. I doubt there is a modern fighter in service that hasn't had input from fighter pilots.

    To be fair JF-17 is an easier/simpler aircraft to develop as well, and received benefit from J-10 experience.

    I think we should be comparing the potency of the aircraft and their avionics, rather than the potential weapon suites they could have?
    Yes JF-17 was designed to be able to accomodate western avionics in addition to chinese ones, but any aircraft can.
    The aircraft's kinematics, Flight control systems, etc avionics etc are more important.

    Datalinking, EW, targeting pods etc... J-10 can do all that too...

    Yes JF-17 has a better MFD set up than the J-10A, but that's almost to be expected given it was a newer plane when it went into production.

    I see JF-17 as J-10's slightly younger brother, with slightly smaller radar, less weight/payload/range, slightly less capable in the FCS department (for instance digital FBW is only in the pitch axis for JF-17), and unable to quite reach the top 9 Gs of other 4th gen planes -- instead being easier to maintain, upgrade, having modern weapons and being cheap, most importantly.

    On the subject of JF-17, here's a recent write up on the plane's export prospects by richard fisher from IASC. Sums up most of what we know on the internetz. http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20120207_ChinaNewTacFight_Fisher_020712.pdf
     
  3. Dizasta1
    Offline

    Dizasta1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    In so far as comparing J-10s with JF-17s is concerned, it is not right.

    The JF-17 Thunder, ideally suits Pakistan Air Force's requirements. It is a light-weight fighter, which fulfills most of Pakistan Air Force's requirements. The fighter-jet offers multi-role capabilities, that include BVR Missiles (SD-10s), Smart Bombs (H-2s/H-4s), Stand-Off Missiles (Ra'ad). These are capabilities in a fighter-jet, that Pakistan Air Force can produce in bulk, 250 JF-17 Thunders to be precise. And that improves the odds, stacked in Pakistan's favor.

    Geographically, Pakistan is a country whose land area, by width, is narrower to the rest of the country's layout. Which means, that in the event of a war, or short conflict, the enemy's fighter-jets would reach quite quickly into Pakistan's Air Space. For this reason, Pakistan Air Force requires a light-weight fighter, which has an effective range and proportionate endurance during Air Combat.

    The JF-17 Thunder, provides this to Pakistan Air Force, at a cost that no other fighter-jet in the world can match.

    Ideally and eventually in the future (Insha-Allah), the JF-17 Thunders should be upgraded to incorporate AESA Radars, In-Flight Refueling (retractable) Probe, a more powerful, clean (smokeless) and efficient engine (WS-13) and a robust and highly effective ECM Suite.

    The J-10A and J-10B are exceptional fighter-jets, which are bigger, heavier, with longer range. These fighter-jets would suit Pakistan Air Force in strike role and/or in attaining Air Dominance over the enemy's (hindustan) vast Air Space. And for Pakistan Air Force, a teaming of J-10B (AESA + DSI + IFR + WS-10) and JF-17 (AESA + DSI + IFR + WS-13), would prove to be a deadly and lethal combination to field against any enemy who provokes war.
     
  4. nemo
    Offline

    nemo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    147
    Isn't that obvious?

    simplified flight control -- pitch axis only, less control surfaces.
    smaller radar.
    removal of PLA specific equipments
    addition of Pakistani/export specific equipments
    upgrade MFD
     
  5. challenge
    Offline

    challenge Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    5
    Fc-1 is more advance than J-10a,this is according to magazine, a lot of new technology was first tested in FC-1 before it end up in J-10B.in J-10A you still see some analog display, in FC-1,it was complete glass display.
     
  6. nemo
    Offline

    nemo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    147
    A glass display alone does not make it more advanced. Analog instrumentation may serve as a backup in case of mulfunction -- make the plane flyable even without the glass display.
    As for the tech source, I think you get it reversed -- tech developed for J-10B is used on FC-1 rather. For example, the DSI technology was developed on a modified J-7. That was before FC-1's development, but not before J-10's. And DSI is only on 4h FC-1 prototype, which means DSI wasn't intended for FC-1, else it would have been designed in already. Since FC-1 is a commercial project, it make no sense to go for new technology, especially when the client is budget sensitive because of the risk of failure. Any new technology adopted are most likely incidentally available at the time.
     
    #246 nemo, Feb 10, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2012
  7. Dizasta1
    Offline

    Dizasta1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Guys, why are you arguing over which aircraft is better. It is a very simple understanding, the J-10 is a heavier class fighter, which has a longer range and endurance. Comparing JF-17 Thunders to J-10 Dragons is like comparing two different categories altogether.

    As I have explained it in my previous post, PLAAF and PAF have different requirements and different geographical spread. China is a much larger country, area wise and as such, J-10's endurance and payload take precedence in PLAAF inducting bigger fighters such as J-11s and J-10s.

    Comparatively, Pakistan's land area, vis-a-vis the combat area (during war) is considerably less. Pakistan's main enemy is hindustan. Looking at the map of Pakistan and hindustan, one can easily understand why PAF would want a light-weight, multi-role fighter like the JF-17 Thunder.

    The Thunder gives PAF the capability of BVR Combat, which it previously lacked. Hence when you have a light weight fighter, which is BVR capable and also has IFR capability, it's a no-brainer that the Thunder is ideally suited for PAF operational requirement. Alternatively, PAF has historically shown a more offensive stance, when defending its Air Space. It would mean that PAF would also require a fighter-jet with longer legs, like the J-10Bs, to conduct deep strike missions over the vast enemy territory.

    Why do we have to compare the two aircraft, when the two are in different categories?
     
  8. Munir
    Offline

    Munir Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    1
    FBW does not make the plane better. Mig29 without FBW could do same as F16 with full FBW. I do not think it is wrong to go for partial FBW. Less computers. Less failures. Less heat, energy consumption etc etc...

    Smaller radar does not make you a better plane in the warfare. With links you can get feed from anything anywhere. What do you think the ZDk03 will do? Or the Erieye? A better plane does not use active sensors. It gives away position. And a bigger radar dish means a bigger RCS.

    Removal of what? I can say adding of very special PAF equipment. You can do better then an empty statement.

    MFD... Does not make you wonder that J10A has monochrome displays and not MFD?

    I agree J10A is bigger and has longer endurance. But atleast give facts or data. I can read these kind of statements everywhere.
     
  9. nemo
    Offline

    nemo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    147
    Huh? A full relaxed stability aerodynamics is more agile than traditional design. Think of it this way -- when you do a roll, for example, the aircraft, instead of having a tendency of returning to straight level flight, the roll rate accelerates. This type of aerodynamics is impossible for a pilot to control without assistance from the flight control. Besides the more complicated control law, you need to test it more fully than traditional design. But you get to do more too -- you can hide the aircraft's ideosyncrasies from the pilots, or limit pilots action so it does not go pass the limit. In the traditional design, you need to make sure the handing is relatively benign so the pilots can handle it. That's why even if the aerodynamics is not fully relaxed, a full digital flight control is worth having.

    A larger radar isn't better? A larger radar, all else being equal, mean more sensitivity and range. By your logic, fighters without radar is fine if it contains datalink. So what happens if your datalink is jammed, your AWACS is shot down or elsewhere? You are getting desperate.

    Removal of PLA specific equipment -- such as encrypted communication, datalink, and e/w equipments. And replace it by a different (different operating frequency, for example) or even reduced performance equivalent. All nations do that to hide their true capability. Pakistani may have elected to use a foreign supplier for some of these, and those may have better performance than the PLA's equivalent.

    MFD -- this respect FC-1 is better, but changing it now means pilots have to be retrained. And it can wait until mid life upgrade, by which time it will be newer and better then FC-1 has now.
     
  10. Lion
    Offline

    Lion Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,985
    Likes Received:
    8
    FC-1 will never match J-10 in aero dogfight with equal capable pilots. J-10 is designed by Chinese in mind to beat F-16 operated by the ROCAF easily during its development year.

    It is one of the major reason why PLAAF and PLANAF prefer J-10 over FC-1. F-16/FC-1 is a very agile and good plane. But fourth gen aerodynamic fighter like gripen, rafale ,typhoon and J-10 are a step up over it. Their high speed turning is one big points over F-16/FC-1.
     
Loading...

Share This Page