JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 News, Discussion & Media

Re: JF-17: New Pics

MIGleader said:

Both sides had begun talks in the early-mid 90s, and the contract for co-development signed in 1999. At that time, the f-16A block 20 was still considered front line technology.

Im almost certain you never saw the brochures, and probably read this off of soem internet forum. Defencetalk says the 80% was calculated based on weighted averages of field performance, disregarding electronics. considering that successive protoypes of the jf-17 have had various modifications to structure and design, the 04 must be far above 80% of the f-16A.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if I saw the brochures off an internet forum. They were pictures of the brochure, official brochures that clearly stated the JF17 has 80% of the capabilities of an F16. Now, I would spend minutes looking for it, but it doesn't really matter to me that much if you believe me or not.

And no, the brochure wasn't talkikng ab out early 90s specs. It was talking about the JF17 that was flying about 2 years ago. Whatever improvements made to the JF17-04 still doesn't change the fact that it's engine is only about 8100KG.

Why do people always want to make the JF17 something that it isn't. It's a light fighter, not equivalent to an F16C/D.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

very well. Show the pictures then. And the borchure. Since you are the person making the claim, its our liability to provide proof. For all i know, you might be making this all up.

The "brochure" probably included the a2g capabilities of the jf-17 being factored in. The jf-17 is undoubtedly inferior to the f-16 in a2g. if this is the case, the 80% claim might be more reasonable.

Even if the engine is still he same thrust, you dont know what happened to the airframe. The airframe may incorperate more composites, and has a larger wing-surface area now.

Of course the jf-17 is a light fighter. It is on par with some later model f-16s(not ef block 60 though) in a2a performance ONLY.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

MIGleader said:

very well. Show the pictures then. And the borchure. Since you are the person making the claim, its our liability to provide proof. For all i know, you might be making this all up.

The "brochure" probably included the a2g capabilities of the jf-17 being factored in. The jf-17 is undoubtedly inferior to the f-16 in a2g. if this is the case, the 80% claim might be more reasonable.

Even if the engine is still he same thrust, you dont know what happened to the airframe. The airframe may incorperate more composites, and has a larger wing-surface area now.

Of course the jf-17 is a light fighter. It is on par with some later model f-16s(not ef block 60 though) in a2a performance ONLY.

Click to expand...

I don't have to prove anything. They're there on the internet forums. Do the research yourself. I have no doubt that if you look hard enough, you'll see the pics of these official brochures.

And everything else you said was pure rubbish. JF17 on par with later model F16s? I really really REALLY doubt it. For one thing, the JF17 doesn't even have 1:1 weight/thrust ratio. Going vertical for the JF17 will be much more difficult than for the F16.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

MIGleader said:

ahem...I dont know where your reading your brochures. Perhaps the 80% requirement was originally documented in the early 90s, when the project first began. Im sure the no4 jf-17 is superior in virtually every aspect to the latest f-16A, which was introduced 10 years ago.

The current jf-17 is, in my estimate, at least equal to the later f-16s, with the exception of the e/f block 60. in a2a capabilities at least, although the jf-17 has nowhere near the a2g abilities. If you notice, the primary improvements done to the f-16 over the last decade or so primarily involve increased a2g capabilites, less attention given to a2a-combat.

Click to expand...

as far as the airframe capabilities is concerned.. we all know that JF17 is statically stable plane making it an inherently weaker design than F16.(which is more agile due to its relaxed static stability..)
about the avionics.. do u really want to compare the american avionics will chineese ones..
about missiles..which BVR missile can JF17 use..?? definitely not american.. chineese SD10 is it ready??
about russian missiles.. how can they convince russians to let them integrate R77 into a plane which will compete with Mig29 directly head on in the future due to its low cost..

i would really be interested in ur logic of equating this plane to F16 blk 50.. please elaborate more on this..

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Pakistan surely is more interested in JF-17 than F-16...

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Indianfighter said:

Thanks to SteelBird for answering my question.


The JF-17 has 4 hardpoints under the wing, and 2 on the wing-tips (source : sinodefence.com). Also, on one of the possible configuration of weapons (on wikipedia though), 6 AAM missiles such as SD-10, PL-9 etc. were mentioned.

Click to expand...

yeah, the 4 under the wings are carrying AAMs and the ones under the fuelsage carries fuel tanks and pods (without fuel tanks, the operating radius of JF-17 is relatively small)

The interview was suppoedly given by a Grifo representative to Kanwa news agency. The relevant post is on PDF.

Click to expand...

yes, it's true that grifo is working on this, but they appear to be too far behind. They are still doing slotted array radar. Not a good sign when AESA radars are soon available.

It is likely that the J-10 weighs uptp 8500 kgs since this approaches the weight of F-16. Thus, it needs a powerful engine such as the Lyulka (122 kN)
for additional thrust.

Hence, the thrust must thus be great enough that it can carry the additional 2000 kgs (as compared to the empty weight of 6000 kgs of the FC-1) and A2G weaponry under 5 additional hardpoints under its fuselage. A2G weaponry as I checked now weighs 200-400 kgs each.

But. the weight of the payload is still unlikely to exceed 4500 kgs as 4000 kgs is the load of the F-16, which is slightly smaller and uses a more powerful engine than the J-10.

Click to expand...

I told you, AL-31FN-M1 and WS-10A both have around 13,200 kg of thrust, so that's around 8 to 10 kN extra for you. F-16's max payload is definitely not 4500 kg. And then there are different versions of F-16, block 60's payload is much higher than the F-16A. Look, I gave you the maximum takeoff and empty weight of J-10, you can calculate what the maximum payload of J-10 is from that.

As for where I think Jf-17 is at? The Chinese side believes that it's equal in A2A to F-16C, but I think that's pushing it. I would say probably better than non-AMRAAM capable F-16s.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

tphuang, as already mentioned by me, the JF-17 has 4 hardpoints under the wing + 2 on the wingtips. Doesnt that give it the capability to carry 6 AAM + 1 A2G load under the fuselage ?

I admit I made a very grave mistake in assuming that the maximum weapons load of the F-16 is 4000 kgs, when it is so only for air-to-air missions. For A2G missions, it is of the order of 7000 kgs. Hence the J-10 must also have similar load carrying capabilities.

But I still say that figures of 10,000 or 11,000 kgs of maximum load for the J-10 is unlikely--7000 kgs is more feasible, as the F-16's engine has only 700 pounds less thrust than the latest AL-31 or Ws-10 engine mentioned by you.

Source: F-16.net

about the avionics.. do u really want to compare the american avionics will chineese ones..

Click to expand...

Actually there is no reason to assume that US avionics are superior to Chinese ones. The operational capabilities of the JF-17 such as radar (the proven KLJ for China, and Grifo or Selex AESA for Pakistan may favour the JF-17 more than the F-16).

About the missiles, the SD-10 and PL-9 missiles are reportedly based on technology from Israel. It has been claimed that these missiles are at-least equal in performance to the AMRAAM and Sidewinder respectively.

I think that the JF-17 must be equivalent to Block-52 F-16 in A2A capabilities and the J-10 between the Block 52 and Block 60 F-16 in overall capabilities, upon actual comparison of the specifications between these aircraft and the F-16.

We must shed such an "outcast" mentality and accept that China and India are making aircraft comparable to international standards. The JF-17/J-10 from China and Dhruv helicopter from India are examples of this view.

JF17 doesn't even have 1:1 weight/thrust ratio

Click to expand...

No. That was prior to addition of DSI. With the additionn of DSI and changes in design, the T/W ratio for the JF-17 is likely to have been increased to greater than 1.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Indianfighter said:

tphuang, as already mentioned by me, the JF-17 has 4 hardpoints under the wing + 2 on the wingtips. Doesnt that give it the capability to carry 6 AAM + 1 A2G load under the fuselage ?

Click to expand...

most wingtips dont can carry smaller missiles like AIM7x/9x or R73.. and not bigger missiles like AMRAAM/R77..

I admit I made a very grave mistake in assuming that the maximum weapons load of the F-16 is 4000 kgs, when it is so only for air-to-air missions. For A2G missions, it is of the order of 7000 kgs. Hence the J-10 must also have similar load carrying capabilities.

But I still say that figures of 10,000 or 11,000 kgs of maximum load for the J-10 is unlikely--7000 kgs is more feasible, as the F-16's engine has only 700 pounds less thrust than the latest AL-31 or Ws-10 engine mentioned by you.

Click to expand...

are there some confirmed reports on J10's weight, max weight.. lets stop calling it another F16 by picking up all figures from F16..

Actually there is no reason to assume that US avionics are superior to Chinese ones. The operational capabilities of the JF-17 such as radar (the proven KLJ for China, and Grifo or Selex AESA for Pakistan may favour the JF-17 more than the F-16).

Click to expand...

comeone dude.. u are expecting too much here.
neways just google up and compare the specs of blk52 radar/blk 60 radar which are in use right now( leave aside the versions that are gonna come in future).. and compare them to KLJ & grifo..
Selex AESA??
1. as far as i know no country has put an aesa in a production plane other than US..
2. why will a country give away a technology like this to paksitan.. ?? even if they are ready to give it . think about the cost of it.. the radar will cost more than the rest of the JF17 and taht too without ToT.

About the missiles, the SD-10 and PL-9 missiles are reportedly based on technology from Israel. It has been claimed that these missiles are at-least equal in performance to the AMRAAM and Sidewinder respectively.

Click to expand...

it is in the league of the astra missile.. totally unfair to compare it to a missile which is in production.. keep the comparisons out till it goes in production..
as good as

I think that the JF-17 must be equivalent to Block-52 F-16 in A2A capabilities and the J-10 between the Block 52 and Block 60 F-16 in overall capabilities, upon actual comparison of the specifications between these aircraft and the F-16.

Click to expand...

i gave you a big reason why JF17's airframe itself is inferior..
addition of F35 type inlets doenst double the capability of the plane.. it needs much more than that..
please give me a better justification for calling it comparable to F16 blk52 .. than your beliefs.

We must shed such an "outcast" mentality and accept that China and India are making aircraft comparable to international standards. The JF-17/J-10 from China and Dhruv helicopter from India are examples of this view.

Click to expand...

you know i am an indian.. and quite frankly we are still not up to the mark.. it takes time to overcome the lead of a century and hundreds of billions of dollars esp when we dont even have the money..
JF17 isnt even a 4th gen airframe.. just a cheap replacement of mig19s and 21s ..
J10... i dunno much about it.. in fact can someone give me decent details other than the ones out by imposing F16 specs on it..
LCA.. it might be a good job to build a plane with 50% composites by weight.. but wheres everything else.. engine isnt ready.. radar isnt ready..and still too much beurocracy rather than trials to fix the problems..
Dhruv.. it is just a civilian helicopter.. the work on attack helicopter based on dhruv has started but lets look at the final product before comparing it with apache etc..

both india and china are still decades behind the americans in military technology.. and its there to stay for a decade or more for china and even more for india...

No. That was prior to addition of DSI. With the additionn of DSI and changes in design, the T/W ratio for the JF-17 is likely to have been increased to greater than 1.

Click to expand...

T/W ratio is just a mathematical figure take the engines thrust and divide it by weight of the plane( in a certain configuration.. i.e. A2A/A2G etc).. thats it.. it doesnt even account for drag etc..
DSI can improve the performace but cannot improve the TW ratio..

Re: JF-17: New Pics

ajaybhutani said:

as far as the airframe capabilities is concerned.. we all know that JF17 is statically stable plane making it an inherently weaker design than F16.(which is more agile due to its relaxed static stability..)
about the avionics.. do u really want to compare the american avionics will chineese ones..
about missiles..which BVR missile can JF17 use..?? definitely not american.. chineese SD10 is it ready??
about russian missiles.. how can they convince russians to let them integrate R77 into a plane which will compete with Mig29 directly head on in the future due to its low cost..

i would really be interested in ur logic of equating this plane to F16 blk 50.. please elaborate more on this..

Click to expand...

Yes, the first part is true. This is because the Pakistanese did not want to pay for overly expensive FBW, so they opted to get a more stable design. But the jf-17 does provide large wing area, and has a rear wieghted body for better manuverability to compensate.

I never said block 50, i will put my estimates at the block 42 taiwan has. disregarding the AMRAAM, the jf-17 will stand an excellent chance against this model. What I dont understand is why are we comparing the jf-17 to a f-16, when the two likely never clash in the near future. How about the mig-29 instead?

Sd-10 has been out for a year or so. An export sd-10 will be less capable(lesser seeker?) though.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

ajaybhutani said:

most wingtips dont can carry smaller missiles like AIM7x/9x or R73.. and not bigger missiles like AMRAAM/R77..

Click to expand...

Wingtips are meant to carry AAM missiles only, and no other payload. The wingtips on the JF-17 are meant to carry AAM missiles only.

are there some confirmed reports on J10's weight, max weight.. lets stop calling it another F16 by picking up all figures from F16..

Click to expand...

Both the aircraft are similar in size, have engines with near-equal thrust and carry similar weapons loads, thus it is feasible to compare the J-10 with the F-16.

Both are optimum designs. With such engines, stability and composite structure, the specifications of the J-10 must equal that of the F-16.

comeone dude.. u are expecting too much here.
neways just google up and compare the specs of blk52 radar/blk 60 radar which are in use right now( leave aside the versions that are gonna come in future).. and compare them to KLJ & grifo..

Click to expand...

It is futile. Specific details or numbers (except qualitative praise) are never mentioned on parameters like detection range, resolution, number of modes, kinds of modes, etc. Thus,direct comparisons cannot be made.

However, the KLJ radar is said to have been accepted in favour of the Russian Zhemchung and Israeli radars for the J-10. A variant of this radar is installed on the JF-17. Thus, it must be of international standards.

Selex AESA??

Click to expand...

It is being offered to JF-17 for the PAF. An AESA radar is much better than the pulse-doppler radar present on the Block-52 F-16.

1. as far as i know no country has put an aesa in a production plane other than US..

Click to expand...

That was a few years ago. Today, the SELEX (a UK and Italian JV) AESA radar has been offered to L**, T-50 and the JF-17. This news is a few months old.
Elta from Israel also manufactures AESA radars.

2. why will a country give away a technology like this to paksitan..

Click to expand...

There was no mention of ToT. Only the equipment shall be supplied.

it is in the league of the astra missile.. totally unfair to compare it to a missile which is in production.. keep the comparisons out till it goes in production..
as good as

Click to expand...

Those were not my speculations, but from sinodefence, huitong and fas.org themselves. Anyway, the SD-10 and Pl-9 are already into production since a long time.

you know i am an indian.. and quite frankly we are still not up to the mark.. it takes time to overcome the lead of a century and hundreds of billions of dollars esp when we dont even have the money..

Click to expand...

50 years ago nuclear tehnology was the preserve of only the most powerful nations like USA and the Soviet Union. Today, 3rd world nations like Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Syria, Libya have or are on the threhold of nuclear weapons production.

India and China have large IT or chip manufacturing facilities. I'm sure the best avionics have bee installed into the JF-17,J-10, and L**.

both india and china are still decades behind the americans in military technology.. and its there to stay for a decade or more for china and even more for india...

Click to expand...

They have gone ahead by a few decades in developing the JSF and F-22. Russia has proposed the development of a 5th generation intercepter and a transport aircraft with India on the lines of JSF. They wouldnt have done so if India did not have the capability to do so.