MastanKhan
Junior Member
Nobody saw this picture on def dot pk---.Look at the nose---. Is someone lying?
JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
- Thread starter johnqh
- Start date
MastanKhan
Junior Member
I think someone got a longer nose
antiterror13
Brigadier
even if IAF buy Rafael, it won't get delivered before 2025, most likely 2030 ... still JF-17 would be the first AESA fighter in the region
Zahid
Junior Member
Interesting perspective on contemporary fighters, including JF-17 - from Justin Bronk.
Thanks to Hish Kit's free blog.
Interesting takes on all contemporary types. Includes studied opinion of IAF's Rafale purchase, too. He expects it to be eventually substantial, keeping in mind disapointment with LCA Tejas (also commented upon)
JF-17 Q&A:
"Many pundits dismiss the JF-17 – what would be a fair assessment of its effectiveness? Is it comparable to the F-16, and if so – which Block would it be on a par with?
The Sino-Pakistani JF-17, not to be underestimated.
The JF-17 as an airframe is certainly competitive with the F-16, being slightly aerodynamically cleaner, with a lower wing loading but a less efficient engine than the F-16s latest F110-GE-129/132 engine options. In terms of pilot interface, sensor suite and weapon flexibility, the JF-17 is roughly at a par with 1990s-vintage F-16 Block 40/42 and could be close to the USAF-standard Block 50/52, although without the conformal fuel tanks, JHMCS helmet sighting system and radar upgrades which distinguish the later Block 50/52+ and AESA which equips the UAE’s Block 60/61s.
How would you rate the JF-17 in terms of and capabilities?
WVR, equipped with the MAA-1 Piranha missile, the small and agile JF-17 will be a dangerous but not exactly world-beating opponent for existing fourth generation fighters. It is limited to +8/-3g and the current block 1 and 2 fighters do not yet have a helmet mounted sight system as standard (this is promised for block 3). The JF-17 also doesn’t have a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio so would be at a significant disadvantage in terms of energy management against opponents such as the F-15C, Typhoon or Su-35. BVR, the KLJ-7 radar is significantly out-ranged by the F-16’s AN/APG-68 and completely outclassed by the The JF-17s small wing area and lightweight also limit its missile-carrying capacity which further disadvantages it in BVR engagements. However, it is worth remembering that the JF-17 is not really intended to take on Typhoons, Rafales, F-15s or Su-35s. It is meant to be a cheap and cheerful light multirole fighter and configured accordingly."
This seems to be a rather stupid article wherein the author states that the JF-17 is not really comparable to the heavyweight fighters but then proceeds nonetheless to state how inferior it is compared to them. Using similarly biased tactics, the F-16 would also fail massively against the likes of the Su-35. A reasonable comparison would keep the JF-17 amongst the ranks of single-engine 4th generation fighters like the F-16, F-CK-1, F-2, J-10, and HAL Tejas.
Interesting perspective on contemporary fighters, including JF-17 - from Justin Bronk.
Thanks to Hish Kit's free blog.
Interesting takes on all contemporary types. Includes studied opinion of IAF's Rafale purchase, too. He expects it to be eventually substantial, keeping in mind disapointment with LCA Tejas (also commented upon)
JF-17 Q&A:
"Many pundits dismiss the JF-17 – what would be a fair assessment of its effectiveness? Is it comparable to the F-16, and if so – which Block would it be on a par with?
The Sino-Pakistani JF-17, not to be underestimated.
The JF-17 as an airframe is certainly competitive with the F-16, being slightly aerodynamically cleaner, with a lower wing loading but a less efficient engine than the F-16s latest F110-GE-129/132 engine options. In terms of pilot interface, sensor suite and weapon flexibility, the JF-17 is roughly at a par with 1990s-vintage F-16 Block 40/42 and could be close to the USAF-standard Block 50/52, although without the conformal fuel tanks, JHMCS helmet sighting system and radar upgrades which distinguish the later Block 50/52+ and AESA which equips the UAE’s Block 60/61s.
How would you rate the JF-17 in terms of and capabilities?
WVR, equipped with the MAA-1 Piranha missile, the small and agile JF-17 will be a dangerous but not exactly world-beating opponent for existing fourth generation fighters. It is limited to +8/-3g and the current block 1 and 2 fighters do not yet have a helmet mounted sight system as standard (this is promised for block 3). The JF-17 also doesn’t have a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio so would be at a significant disadvantage in terms of energy management against opponents such as the F-15C, Typhoon or Su-35. BVR, the KLJ-7 radar is significantly out-ranged by the F-16’s AN/APG-68 and completely outclassed by the The JF-17s small wing area and lightweight also limit its missile-carrying capacity which further disadvantages it in BVR engagements. However, it is worth remembering that the JF-17 is not really intended to take on Typhoons, Rafales, F-15s or Su-35s. It is meant to be a cheap and cheerful light multirole fighter and configured accordingly."
Zahid
Junior Member
I think the whole article is well-worth a read. A knee-jerk reaction is perhaps not the best response. JF-17 is indeed in the 4th generation fighters line-up. But Justin Bronk does give rationale for his analysis and therefore it can not be summarily dismissed. Moreover, we ourselves have often pointed out that JF-17 is not exactly meant to be a world-beating aircraft and that its focus is on providing mainstream capabilities at a fraction of the cost of other 4th generation fighter aircraft. He has pointed out 3 issues very clearly:
1. Helmet mounted sight.
2. AESA Radar.
3. TWR
These three issues have been discussed on various fora and therefore his pointing these factors out is entirely justified.
When Block-3 rolls out - hopefully with AESA radar, an uprated engine, & HMS - we may challenge anyone who may think that JF-17 does not belong in the higher tier of 4th gen fighter aircraft. Until then its best to take the criticism with an air of optimism.
It seems to me that SDF is one of his sources of information and I would not be surprised if he posted here every now and then.
1. Helmet mounted sight.
2. AESA Radar.
3. TWR
These three issues have been discussed on various fora and therefore his pointing these factors out is entirely justified.
When Block-3 rolls out - hopefully with AESA radar, an uprated engine, & HMS - we may challenge anyone who may think that JF-17 does not belong in the higher tier of 4th gen fighter aircraft. Until then its best to take the criticism with an air of optimism.
It seems to me that SDF is one of his sources of information and I would not be surprised if he posted here every now and then.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I never said his analysis was stupid, just that it's the typical cookie cutter piece you can expect from 99% of western defence pundits.
What makes a western defence pundit? They need to have good contacts with western defence firms.
Why are western defence pundits typically useless on Chinese defence related matters?
1) they have zero contacts within the Chinese defence establishment. Meaning they almost never bring any new information to the debate. Instead all they do is take open source information and add their own analysis, which is just their own feelings and opinions.
2) by the necessity of their jobs, they develop close links to western and sometimes Russian arms makers, so all too often end up as glorified salesmen for those defence companies, trading puff pieces for inside information and exclusive scoops through conscious choice or unconscious group think.
Since they have no Chinese contacts, they often turn to these same western and Russia defence company contacts for their views on Chinese products. Needless to say, these western, and especially Russian defence companies sees Chinese arms as a serious and growth threat to their own business and bottom line. Which is why as Chinese weapons improved over the years, western defence publications have gradually gone from real curiosity and interest to near open hostility in most cases in their tone regarding Chinese arms.
I had a brief skim, and that piece is pretty much your typical cookie cutter pro forma example of what you would expect from the vast majority of western defence writers these days.
A brief, selective regurgitation of commonly know facts paving the way for them to add their own 'analysis', which invariably focuses heavily on any and all perceived difficencies with the token plus thrown in for the pretence of balance.
Once you read one such piece, you read them all.
What makes a western defence pundit? They need to have good contacts with western defence firms.
Why are western defence pundits typically useless on Chinese defence related matters?
1) they have zero contacts within the Chinese defence establishment. Meaning they almost never bring any new information to the debate. Instead all they do is take open source information and add their own analysis, which is just their own feelings and opinions.
2) by the necessity of their jobs, they develop close links to western and sometimes Russian arms makers, so all too often end up as glorified salesmen for those defence companies, trading puff pieces for inside information and exclusive scoops through conscious choice or unconscious group think.
Since they have no Chinese contacts, they often turn to these same western and Russia defence company contacts for their views on Chinese products. Needless to say, these western, and especially Russian defence companies sees Chinese arms as a serious and growth threat to their own business and bottom line. Which is why as Chinese weapons improved over the years, western defence publications have gradually gone from real curiosity and interest to near open hostility in most cases in their tone regarding Chinese arms.
I had a brief skim, and that piece is pretty much your typical cookie cutter pro forma example of what you would expect from the vast majority of western defence writers these days.
A brief, selective regurgitation of commonly know facts paving the way for them to add their own 'analysis', which invariably focuses heavily on any and all perceived difficencies with the token plus thrown in for the pretence of balance.
Once you read one such piece, you read them all.