JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread


Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
If real this is indeed a major news: long expected and often shown on patches and models, but never before seen on a real aircraft or confirmed, this appears to be a JF-17 Block 3 prototype carrying dual racks with two AAMs each (looks like the older PL-12 due to their longer rear-fins)

(Image via @四川地产界高层 from Weibo)

1632206477629.png
 

ougoah

Colonel
Registered Member
If real this is indeed a major news: long expected and often shown on patches and models, but never before seen on a real aircraft or confirmed, this appears to be a JF-17 Block 3 prototype carrying dual racks with two AAMs each (looks like the older PL-12 due to their longer rear-fins)

(Image via @四川地产界高层 from Weibo)

View attachment 77352

Not bad. That means Block 3 gets an energy boost and still carry 4 medium range A2A missiles and 2 short range.

Do we know if the inner pylons typically carrying fuel tanks can also carry MRAAMs? Single centreline fuselage tank plus 6 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs would make this a mean air superiority fighter albeit with shorter range if it only carries one tank.
 

badger16

New Member
Registered Member
Apparently argentinians are dismissive of the news saying that multiple previous requests for funding for other fighters have gone nowhere. We should approach it with caution until it is actually confirmed
Yes, Mirage F1 deal was officially sanctioned before cancelled at last minute, 'imminent' Kfir and FA-50 acquisitions also went nowhere. JF-17 was previously rejected by Air Force as not having suitable avionics for them.
 

lcloo

Senior Member
Not bad. That means Block 3 gets an energy boost and still carry 4 medium range A2A missiles and 2 short range.

Do we know if the inner pylons typically carrying fuel tanks can also carry MRAAMs? Single centreline fuselage tank plus 6 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs would make this a mean air superiority fighter albeit with shorter range if it only carries one tank.
R (1).jpg4 (1).jpg
 

ougoah

Colonel
Registered Member

And just like with the J-10s why can't those inner pylons carry MRAAMs? They are all clearly capable of carrying guided, smart weapons.

Ideally I'd like to see J-10 being able to carry dual racks for both those pylons (2, 3, 5, and 6). That should be one central drop tank with 8 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs. J-10 could do this with more thrust to weight and range than JF-17 but JF-17 should at least be capable of doing this if required. It might be a bit on the heavy side and won't give those first few MRAAMs as much speed and range as they could otherwise if three fuel tanks and 4 MRAAMs total.
 

lcloo

Senior Member
And just like with the J-10s why can't those inner pylons carry MRAAMs? They are all clearly capable of carrying guided, smart weapons.

Ideally I'd like to see J-10 being able to carry dual racks for both those pylons (2, 3, 5, and 6). That should be one central drop tank with 8 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs. J-10 could do this with more thrust to weight and range than JF-17 but JF-17 should at least be capable of doing this if required. It might be a bit on the heavy side and won't give those first few MRAAMs as much speed and range as they could otherwise if three fuel tanks and 4 MRAAMs total.
It is just a matter of need. If there is need, it surely can be done. Whether to do it or not depends on the air force's requirement.
 

plawolf

Brigadier
I would not be surprised if this is China’s response to the UK for AUKUS.

I expect China may have been withholding certain weapons in previous offerings, specially anti-ship and stand off precision strike weapons so as to not damage relations with the UK needlessly. But now that the UK has joined AUKUS, upsetting the UK has gone from a negative to a positive.

On top of allowing a full offensive weapons suit, there are plenty of other things China can do if it really wanted to do this deal to screw with the British ranging from price cuts to soft loans to making the planes military aid outright.
 

Top