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

Re: JF-17: New Pics

I dont believe you. Thrust is important until it reaches a certain level. Aircraft with larger wing areas or surface body areas do not need a great amount of thrust to achieve manuverability. A f-15 has greater thrust than the f-16, and TWO engines. does that mean a f-15 is more manuverable? NO. In A2A combat, weight and aircraft design are mroe important. As long as the engine can provide a good amount of thrust, than a few Kg of thrust does nto make a difference.

Click to expand...

well maybe I generalized bit, and the thrust is only one of the factors of the manouvarability of modern jets. The mentioned F-15 and f-16 are almoust par in manouvrability compared to aerodynamically more sophisticated MiG-29s and Su-27 due their considerable trhust to weigth ratio. But manouvrability is only one factor of modern jet performance, and not the most essential one. the operational flexibility migth take that position and in there, the thrust determs what size of plane is under consideration and therefore leading into what can be carried and to how far...

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Thrust is one of the most important factors of the performance of an aircraft. It can determine its very role.

As an example, the JF-17's engine has a thrust of only 80 kN with afterburners. Thus, it can only carry 6 A2A missiles and little A2G load (total of 3,600 kgs with fuel).
Hence it is an air-superiority fighter.

The J-10 has the powerful Lyulka engine that generates 122 kn of thrust with afterburners. Thus, it can carry 6 A2A missiles and much more A2G load on 5 harpoints under the fuselage (total of 4,500 kgs). Thus, it is a multirole fighter.

If it is only on an air-superiority mission, the J-10 will be extremely fast and agile as compared to the JF-17.

I have a minor question. In the terminology of JF-17, what does the number 17 stand for ?

Re: JF-17: New Pics

To indiafighter: total thrust has to be put into context versus total weight of the plane. If indeed jf-17 weighs some 6500 kg empty (versus some 8500 kg for j-10 - my projected figure), if j-10 on its average mission carries 500 kg more fuel then you have a comparison of 81 kg/kn versus 74 kg/kn for j-10. Difference now, though still favoring j-10, is much lower.

What could be more problematic is drag. Assuming both planes create similar amount of drag at medium speeds to begin with (its clear at high speeds j-10 would be less draggy) and with each missile or bomb creating same additional drag, it is clear that weaker engines will either waste lots more fuel to maintain j-10s speed and acceleration or, more probably, jf-17 will rarely even try to match that speed and acceleration.

In the end, useful payload figures depend on lifting power. (though strong thrust is useful for shorter take offs) I would guess from the pictures jf-17 has enough of a wing area, coupled with its starting lower weight, to be on par with j-10, if it wanted to. Its another matter that drag would probably mean no such loads in practice. Also, for sustained turns - created lift versus weight seems to be quite comparable with j-10, with even an adge over it at low speeds. Unstable design and future tvc, however, would have make j-10 superior at instantenous turns.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Indianfighter said:

I have a minor question. In the terminology of JF-17, what does the number 17 stand for ?

Click to expand...

As I know, JF = Joint Fighter (you don't ask this, but i'll answer all), means a fighter that is joint developed between China and Pakistan. 17 means to be higher (superior) than F- [16]. (source from a Chinese web site)

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Indianfighter said:

J-10's maximum load carrying capacity is 4500 kgs (according to wikipedia though). 7000 kgs is actually closer to the load-capacity of F-15 and Su-30 (that has twice the J-10's thrust).

Click to expand...

Believe whatever you will, but do not use wikipedia as your source. J-10 has a 19300 KG max takeoff weight (but probably higher now with the increased thrust on AL-31FN-M1). A F-16 block 30 weighs around 8300 KG. I'd think J-10's weight would be similar to that. So you at around 11000 KG difference for fuel + payload.

JF-17 can also carry 6 A2A missiles in sacrifice for A2G load (purely air-superiority). The J-10 can only carry some more A2G load than the JF-17 in addition to the 6 A2A missiles.(multirole)

Click to expand...

hmm, who told you this? I haven't even seen evidence that JF-17 has 6 hardpoints that support AAMs. Remember, J-10 has 11 hardpoints, but only 6 can be used for AAMs. JF-17 only has 7 hardpoints for different purposes, I'd think 4 AAMs is the max it can carry.

Now Pakdef members were discussing that Grifo wanted to put an 800mm radar onto the JF-17. Anyways it is likely that PAF will get a very capable radar for the JF-17 from either Grifo or UK.

Click to expand...

800 mm, not likely. JF-17 currently is slated to use Chinese radar that beat out Grifo. I'm confident that a future Chinese radar will eventually beat out the UK radar too.

- JF-17 / FC-1 has a computer controlled infra-red interference bullet (missile?) system, which automatically calculate the right timing (based on the rsult of detecting system) to release the interference bullets to maximaze the impact. Only recently released airplanes such as F-22 / Rafale have such system. Even F-18E/F and F-16 E/F need further upgrading to acquire such capacity.

Click to expand...

It's from the article I translated a while back. J-10 definitely has this.

- JF-17 also has an "focused interference system", which can focus the enegy on one direction (i.e. attacking missile's guiding system) to distrub it. By doing this, a small equipment can have the same impact as a large electronic warfare airplane in that particular direction. Initially FJ-17 / Fc-1 did not have this system. However, in view of the fact that Pak's potential enemy is IAF equiped with Su-30 & R-77 missiles, CAC add this system into the plane. As of today, no india airplane has such system nor do PAk's f-16s.
Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Although its true that CAC maufactures the J-10 and JF-17, but is it possible that these systems are present only on the JF-17 ?

Click to expand...

J-10 has this too. Anything that CAC is adding on JF-17, it is developed on J-10 first. China seems to subscribe by the Russian export model. It will always keep the best technology it developed for itself.

I have to say that the article I translated stated many things and said that only JF-17 has them in China, but in essense they were all developed on J-10 first and will be eventually also equipped on J-11B and JF-17. China seems to be taking that route with all future avionics. Since J-10 and J-11B are still not allowed to be listed in China by their designations, it is kind of hard for the author of that article to add them in there.

To totoro, you should use 13,200 KG as the thrust of J-10 rather than 12,500, since that's the maximum thrust of WS-10A and AL-31FN-M1.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Interesting picture of the 4. prototype !!!



Of special note:

If You compare the front fuselage of the earlier prototypes and the no. 04 than You can notice that the squared sides were changed back to more sounded sides ... Any idea, WHY ????

With stealth in mind (even if the FC-1 is surely not stealthy) I think, the angled sides were less visible than these rounded ???

Cheers, Deino

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Thanks to SteelBird for answering my question.

tphuang said:

hmm, who told you this? I haven't even seen evidence that JF-17 has 6 hardpoints that support AAMs. Remember, J-10 has 11 hardpoints, but only 6 can be used for AAMs. JF-17 only has 7 hardpoints for different purposes, I'd think 4 AAMs is the max it can carry.

Click to expand...

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.

800 mm, not likely. JF-17 currently is slated to use Chinese radar that beat out Grifo. I'm confident that a future Chinese radar will eventually beat out the UK radar too.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

skyhawk2005 said:

You really need to research more. 80% of F16 was clearly documented in Chinese brochures. It is no myth.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

Nope. When the JF17 was first announced like two years ago, there were brochures that clearly stated JF17 was supposed to have 80% of the capabilities of an F16A. The JF17 was not around in the early 90s except in the super7 version.

Thrust matters a lot. JF17 and F16 are in completely different classes. JF17 is a light fighter, like the F1CK. F16's thrust puts it into the medium category, like the J10.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

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.