JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

Zahid

Zahid

Junior Member
Dizasta1 said:
Hmm ... if that can possibly be the case for the Mach-2 claim, it would support my argument that there might be some structural changes to Block-llls. My argument was that since the first two blocks were 50 aircraft each (unless that has changed). That Block-lll would most likely have structural changes which would go along the lines of F/A-18Cs to F/A-18Es. Greater wing surface area (more hard points) and redesigned DSI (Mach-2 speed). Considering that Block-llls will be produced to the tune of 100-150 aircraft. Then such a structural design change is justifiable.

But that's just my view and I can be wrong. I thank Zahid, Plaworlf, Deino and Sinosoldier for your analysis. Much appreciated, guys.
Click to expand...

1. I can not talk about engine issue. But do expect a change. I will not divulge the information until the bird flies. My guess (not confirmed info) is that the changes would change both endurance & power, but it would be an incremental change. I do not expect Block-III to cross Mach 2. The DSI penalty would be too huge to climb over with marginally more power, unless the design changes.
2. I do not know about the structural changes apart from inclusion of more composites.
3. EO pods may function as a substitute for IRST.
4. The philosophy of the design would not change with incremental changes (composites, engine power, etc...).
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Zahid said:
1. I can not talk about engine issue. But do expect a change. I will not divulge the information until the bird flies. My guess (not confirmed info) is that the changes would change both endurance & power, but it would be an incremental change. I do not expect Block-III to cross Mach 2. The DSI penalty would be too huge to climb over with marginally more power, unless the design changes.
2. I do not know about the structural changes apart from inclusion of more composites.
3. EO pods may function as a substitute for IRST.
4. The philosophy of the design would not change with incremental changes (composites, engine power, etc...).
Click to expand...

What do mean by you will not "divulge" information? Do you know of rumors beyond what you've written?
 
Zahid

Zahid

Junior Member
SinoSoldier said:
What do mean by you will not "divulge" information? Do you know of rumors beyond what you've written?
Click to expand...

Not rumors, actual information about the project. But I ensure that I do not reveal anything before it becomes common knowledge.

For example, I confirmed that JF-17 engine change took as little as 45 minutes from a very authentic source. I deemed it to be information that could be shared without affecting the program. Also, the source was semi-public (paper written by a professor that could be shared with certain members of the public at a university) so it was obviously not top-secret. This was the sort of information that would be shared with would-be buyers to show the modular design and fast turn-around time of the aircraft.
 
Dizasta1

Dizasta1

Senior Member
Zahid said:
1. I can not talk about engine issue. But do expect a change. I will not divulge the information until the bird flies. My guess (not confirmed info) is that the changes would change both endurance & power, but it would be an incremental change. I do not expect Block-III to cross Mach 2. The DSI penalty would be too huge to climb over with marginally more power, unless the design changes.
2. I do not know about the structural changes apart from inclusion of more composites.
3. EO pods may function as a substitute for IRST.
4. The philosophy of the design would not change with incremental changes (composites, engine power, etc...).
Click to expand...

In other words the possible new capabilities would be things like AESA, IRST and an Advance EW suite. Aircraft design remains the same, no radical increase of surface area of the airframe. Which seems to be a safe course of action, when it comes to manufacturing. Greater use of composite perhaps, may or may not lead to increased ordinance load out. For engines, at best we see the RD-93MK integrated, at worst it remains as is. I guess it is a wise decision not to make any radical changes, which prevents any radical increase to the price of the aircraft.

Let's see if Block-lll brings increased orders from new client states.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Zahid said:
Not rumors, actual information about the project. But I ensure that I do not reveal anything before it becomes common knowledge.

For example, I confirmed that JF-17 engine change took as little as 45 minutes from a very authentic source. I deemed it to be information that could be shared without affecting the program. Also, the source was semi-public (paper written by a professor that could be shared with certain members of the public at a university) so it was obviously not top-secret. This was the sort of information that would be shared with would-be buyers to show the modular design and fast turn-around time of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

May we have an idea of who your authentic sources are and what your relation is to them? I don't mean to cast unnecessary doubt on you, but after spending time on this forum I hope you can see why some folks here require a bit more insight into the sources before buying into certain rumors.
 
Zahid

Zahid

Junior Member
SinoSoldier said:
May we have an idea of who your authentic sources are and what your relation is to them? I don't mean to cast unnecessary doubt on you, but after spending time on this forum I hope you can see why some folks here require a bit more insight into the sources before buying into certain rumors.
Click to expand...
At my age I am past caring whether I am deemed credible or not. I have a young friend who works on JF-17 program, but I have asked him not to share anything sensitive with me. Also, one of my professor friends is a bit of a defense enthusiast and he recently wrote a strategy paper on JF-17 program. If I come to know of anything sensitive, I make sure not to reveal it. I am friend of the program, not a foe.
 
Dizasta1

Dizasta1

Senior Member
Zahid said:
At my age I am past caring whether I am deemed credible or not. I have a young friend who works on JF-17 program, but I have asked him not to share anything sensitive with me. Also, one of my professor friends is a bit of a defense enthusiast and he recently wrote a strategy paper on JF-17 program. If I come to know of anything sensitive, I make sure not to reveal it. I am friend of the program, not a foe.
Click to expand...

If you are able to, then could you ask your circle of friends, whether "Project Azm" is truly meant to develop a Pakistani Stealth Fighter from scratch? Or whether it will be having another joint venture with another nation (China or Russia or someone else) to design, develop and manufacture fifth generation fighter?

In all honesty, I don't see Pakistan Military leadership being so naive as to build a stealth fighter from the ground up. I mean that sort of fantasy accolade belongs our neighbor in the East.
 
B

badger16

New Member
Registered Member
Viktor Jav said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If we look at this article, it gives reference to the Super Seven project which was a redesigned F-7 of which China based the FC-1 project. The F-7 in turn being a upgraded variant of the Mig-21.
Click to expand...

I guess we could argue that F/A-18 Super Hornet is derived from T-38 Talon, LCA Tejas is based on Marut, etc.

AIUI, although the Super Seven project originally envisioned J-7 based aircraft, all the MiG-21 heritage was wiped out in early '90s redesign, especially when they brought Mikojan consults in. Thus JF-17 is not "based" on MiG-21, as contrasted to JL-9, which has very obvious MiG-21 heritage.

This is somewhat analogous with Gripen, where the original project for new aircraft had concepts like heavily upgraded Draken etc. However the eventual a/c has nothing in common with Draken and is not based on it any way.
 
B

badger16

New Member
Registered Member
plawolf said:
Furthermore, it is the DSI intake that limits top speed rather than engine.

So if for argument sake we accept M2 claim, that does not necessarily mean engine upgrade, as a different DSI design could theoretically also help push up top speed if DSI rather than engine power was the previous bottleneck.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's 're-reporting inflation' and original quote was akin the lines of "closer to Mach 2". Meaning 1.8+, somewhat more believable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top