I am guessing that Deino was referring to German Mig-21 pilots. Pakistan only has J-7s, not Mig-21s.
JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
- Thread starter johnqh
- Start date
I am guessing that Deino was referring to German Mig-21 pilots. Pakistan only has J-7s, not Mig-21s.
No, in fact they were from Croatia.
Point is that in their opinion - and I must admit that I surely lack the technical knowledge to judge on my own - the JF-17 lacks the F-16s thrust to weight ratio, the engine is much less responsible (is that the correct term? spool up time to full AB), it looses much quicker and much more energy during hard manoeuvring and most of all - they say - the constant smoke trail in certain flight regimes is the worst for aerial combat.
Again, I do not want to diminish the JF-17's capabilities, but the F-16 is simple another league.
Dizasta1
Senior Member
Comparing the F-16s, which is a design from the 1970s, and has been upgraded, improved and expanded upon over the last 50 years. To the JF-17s, whose first flight was back in 2003, that's 15 years ago. Is not a legitimate comparison, and the begin to state that the JF-17s are no where near the league of F-16s, is an assessment devoid of proper analysis. For starters, Block-lll Thunders have not been finalized yet, and their production will commence perhaps at the end of 2019. We need to wait and see what the Block-lll turns out to be.
There are certain key aspects which are suppose to be addressed in Block-llls. In my view (I can be wrong), logic dictates that after having built 100 or so Thunders. The approach toward Block-llls would be to address the issue of engines, radars, endurance and payload. Pakistan Air Force stated that it was satisfied with the RD-93s (at the time). Now that Thunders are moving through to Block-llls, I am sure Pakistan Air Force would be looking for engines with high performance than RD-93s, better thrust-to-weight ratio, longer life or flight hours between major engine overhauls. The key, and I think Pakistan Air Force is acutely aware of, is more powerful, efficient engines. Based on which JF-17 Thunder Block-llls can increase payload, radars and even the surface area of the aircraft itself.
Pilots of MiG-21s can claim what they want, but there isn't a single piece of argument that can stand up to the fact that JF-17 Thunders are fighter jets, "unsanctionable" by the West. An Air Force can have the Typhoons, Gripen NGs, Rafales, heck even the F-35s. But those aircraft are equivalent to sitting ducks, if they can be embargoed by Western countries in times of war (where those fighter jets would actually be needed). An Air Force's doctrine is built on actual war fighting strategies, not based on fighter jets which are only good for flying on National Day parades.
Republic of Turkey, is now feeling the sting of building its "entire Air Force" based on Western fighters. With zero F-35 Lightning lls delivered so far. Turkey will perhaps now realize the importance of having aircraft in its combat fleet, which are not vulnerable to external political ploys. Although I doubt that Turkey would ever be thrown under the bus, like Pakistan was. What we have in Turkey, is smoke and mirrors. But for countries which want to exercize their doctrines, and support their own government's foreign policies. Well then, they can either build their own fighter jets, or buy JF-17 Thunders.
There are certain key aspects which are suppose to be addressed in Block-llls. In my view (I can be wrong), logic dictates that after having built 100 or so Thunders. The approach toward Block-llls would be to address the issue of engines, radars, endurance and payload. Pakistan Air Force stated that it was satisfied with the RD-93s (at the time). Now that Thunders are moving through to Block-llls, I am sure Pakistan Air Force would be looking for engines with high performance than RD-93s, better thrust-to-weight ratio, longer life or flight hours between major engine overhauls. The key, and I think Pakistan Air Force is acutely aware of, is more powerful, efficient engines. Based on which JF-17 Thunder Block-llls can increase payload, radars and even the surface area of the aircraft itself.
Pilots of MiG-21s can claim what they want, but there isn't a single piece of argument that can stand up to the fact that JF-17 Thunders are fighter jets, "unsanctionable" by the West. An Air Force can have the Typhoons, Gripen NGs, Rafales, heck even the F-35s. But those aircraft are equivalent to sitting ducks, if they can be embargoed by Western countries in times of war (where those fighter jets would actually be needed). An Air Force's doctrine is built on actual war fighting strategies, not based on fighter jets which are only good for flying on National Day parades.
Republic of Turkey, is now feeling the sting of building its "entire Air Force" based on Western fighters. With zero F-35 Lightning lls delivered so far. Turkey will perhaps now realize the importance of having aircraft in its combat fleet, which are not vulnerable to external political ploys. Although I doubt that Turkey would ever be thrown under the bus, like Pakistan was. What we have in Turkey, is smoke and mirrors. But for countries which want to exercize their doctrines, and support their own government's foreign policies. Well then, they can either build their own fighter jets, or buy JF-17 Thunders.
Last edited:
Thrust to weight is important for sustained turning capabilities. I agree with their assessment.
Pardon, but that plain wrong and especially it was not me who started this discussion; I only replied to this post and previous question:
Also, comparing a not yet finished Block III as a what if design with a F-16 wasn't the question. Point was simply to compare the JF-17s ability to "retain energy when turning" and here I only repeated what pilots told be. Especially important is that exactly this flight display of the JF-17, which repeatedly leads to "WHOOOOO and AHHHHH" in certain fanboy circles was rated as impressive, but surely not comparable.
Dizasta1
Senior Member
My post was in response to the comparison made on both aircraft. It wasn't directly to your post, but I certainly appreciate your input on the discussion. I am however curious about the comment of the "MiG-21 Pilots" and their claim. Because as far as I can tell, MiG-21s do not have RD-33s as their power plant, or any variant of the RD-33s. So how could they have been in a position to comment on JF-17s, compared to F-16s.
Also, I do believe (from the get go) that RD-93s are "sufficient enough" engines, not ideally the ones Pakistan Air Force wanted to have. In fact, if memory serves me right, Pakistan Air Force had approached France for JF-17 Thunder's avionics, power plant and radars. The idea was, the first batch would've been produced with Chinese avionics and radars, whereas the Russian RD-93s would be selected as the power plant. Were the French option exercized, then Block-ll Thunders would've had M-882s as its power plant, RBE2 as its radar and IMAs as its avionics package.
Circumstances changed, French were unwilling to concede to an agreement due to their active bid for the Indian MMRCA program. And Pakistan had to fall back on its initial Thunder package. Block-lll's development is based on the lessons learnt (I hope to God they learnt their lesson) and the speculation (because that's what it essentially is on my part) that in light of China's remarkable advancement in combat aircraft technology. The way is clear for Pakistan Air Force on what course it would take for Block-lll design, avionics package and engines.
JF-17 Thunder program, inspite of the hurdles faced, has come out on top with 100 units produced to date. With a total requirement of 300 aircraft, one can only wait in anticipation, of what the Block-lll Thunders would comprise of. I sincerely hope that one of two things does happen. Either Thunders obtain an upgraded RD-93 engine [which is smokeless with better efficiency of burning fuel thereby increasing the endurance/range/time in the air (although I think PAC might have resolved that problem to some extent), more powerful thrust capability (110kn is good enough) allowing for greater acceleration in all flight regimes and durability which increases the engine life and the time between engine overhauls]. Or the same requisites fulfilled, but on Chinese designed and manufactured engines, namely the WS-13 engine.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Could Pakistani members here comment on how credible the blogger Muzammil Hatami is?
Zahid
Junior Member
Retaining energy in maneuvers is not the same as TWR. It is also not the same as agility or nimbleness. It is simply an assessment of how efficiently an airframe uses energy in making a maneuver. I have seen both F-16 & JF-17 fly together. JF-17 does not compare with F-16 in agility, TWR, & turning radius. But it does reportedly retain more energy during maneuvers. What this means is that F-16's TWR advantage is reduced. That is all.
not much .... in fact with history on defence related matters
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Design philosophy would also come into it.
Americans have traditionally enjoyed overpowered engines, as such, their designers do not place as much emphasis on energy retention, since their engines can replace lost energy as fast as the plane can bleed it.
That is why the F16 is so good at sustained turns at medium to low airspeeds.
The Chinese OTOH have historically suffered from the Achilles’ heel of poor engine power, which consequently meant their designers made energy retention an absolute priority. This meant that Chinese designes are more suited to higher speed slash and dash tactics, with high instantaneous turn rates for turning fights.
The JF17 is a bit of an anomaly in that while it was designed by China, it was made to PAF specs.
The design evolution from FC1 to JF17 is a good illustration of the different design preferences, with the bulk of the design changes from FC1 to JF17 focused largely on improving sustained turn rates, but it still retained much of the Chinese design influence focused on retaining energy.
With a more powerful engine, the JF17 could probably get closer and maybe even exceed the F16 in some to most flight regimes, but such an engine is still some way off from being available. And until it gets such a powerplant, it will continue to fall short of its full potential.
That may be partly why the BLK3 production has been pushed back.
Americans have traditionally enjoyed overpowered engines, as such, their designers do not place as much emphasis on energy retention, since their engines can replace lost energy as fast as the plane can bleed it.
That is why the F16 is so good at sustained turns at medium to low airspeeds.
The Chinese OTOH have historically suffered from the Achilles’ heel of poor engine power, which consequently meant their designers made energy retention an absolute priority. This meant that Chinese designes are more suited to higher speed slash and dash tactics, with high instantaneous turn rates for turning fights.
The JF17 is a bit of an anomaly in that while it was designed by China, it was made to PAF specs.
The design evolution from FC1 to JF17 is a good illustration of the different design preferences, with the bulk of the design changes from FC1 to JF17 focused largely on improving sustained turn rates, but it still retained much of the Chinese design influence focused on retaining energy.
With a more powerful engine, the JF17 could probably get closer and maybe even exceed the F16 in some to most flight regimes, but such an engine is still some way off from being available. And until it gets such a powerplant, it will continue to fall short of its full potential.
That may be partly why the BLK3 production has been pushed back.