alternative comparative analysis: LCA vs JF-17 / FC-1

[SABRE]

SABRE,
I thought that there are only 4 prototypes. so where has PT-5 come into the equation. Also we all that seen pics of PT-1, PT-2 and PT-3. We have not seen pictures of the real life PT-4 which has undergone testing or is still being tested. Correct me if i'm wrong.

No u r not wrong...There are four prototypes. According to pathfinder-x there are always 5 PTs for every chinese aircraft so I was assuming it to be PT-5 since PT-4 looks a bit different. If this is PT-4 than I guess some changes have been done specialy in the nose section after we last saw the PT-4 model pics.

I got the pics from pathfinder-x & later showed it to some one, he said this is "almost" what the final product will look like specialy at the "nose & wings."

 

[P.A.F]

Thanx for clearing up the issue.
anyway it's looking great. the front almost looks like the F-22/JSF. hope this is the actual end product.

 

[tphuang]

Is there any posibility of adding 2 more hardpoints same like which Rafale have this would enhance its ability against opponets and in this way it would take out 6-8 ACs.Do not add bombs on it this duty can be adjusted in the other aircrafts like the F-16s and in the third fighter.

I seriously can't stand this anymore. Be a little realistic here. It's a light combat aircraft. Do you have an idea of the cost on the performance of such a plane when you increase that payload? It's still using an engine with 8kN of thrust. What would JF-17 ever need 6-8 AAMs for? do you actually think it can take down 6-8 IAF planes at once? It'd be extremely lucky to take down two or three bisons on one flight. With all the changes PAF is requesting on JF-17, it won't be out until bisons are retired.

As for Avionics, has Grifo S-7 ever achieved the self proclaimed stats of 16/6? That was a quite leap to go from Grifo 7, considering Grifo 7 only had like a 37KM detection range and single track. I hear all day about these amazing western avionics and AAMs PAF is planning. where are they?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I seriously can't stand this anymore.

I was wondering how long it would take before someone exploded :lol3

 

[umair]

Mailed those pics to a contact whose working on the project. The information which follows is sourced from him. Nope not pt4.. Just another chinese photoshop(and a bad one at that). The design has had a number of changes and has been finalised but the nose looks nothing like that.
As for the avionics, the Griffo S7 is an improved variant of the Griffo-2000/Griffo-M[APG-68] not the Griffo 7 whose improved variant is the Griffo-7Pg. So I'd have faith in it. Most of the information about the S-7 floating around is pure speculation.
As for the engine,(sighs) once again, the engine will be the Rd-93. Whatever has been coming out of Russia is for third party consumption. The engine in the final production variant will be an upgraded variant with greater thrust. Also the percentage of composites will go up to 25% or thereabouts.
The air-air missile fit has a number of options under consideration besides PL-9C and SD-10. I've already posted here a long time ago that we have the U-Darter in service though it has not been acknowledged. The R-Darter is in service as well under the designation V-4(not to be confused with H2[Raptor1] and H4[MUPSOW]). Another option could be the MICA though it's expensive. US missiles, if acquired would be integrated but would primarily be used on the Falcons.
This'll have to suffice because (ask Sabre) such inside sources have started to, you know keep things to themselves most of the time. Besides I myself am(have been and will be) busy with a few personal matters so have not pursued my contacts as vigourously as I used to.

 

[Brit]

Yeah, those 3d model pics appeared unlikely IMO.. the wings in the top left one are much too deep compared to the actual aircraft.As for using the South African R-Darter MRAAM (/U-Dartar SRAAM), aren't they produced with heavy Israeli assistance which would preclude them from PAF service? The R-Darter looks, and is often described as, a Derby clone (with slightly different areodynamics)

 

[SABRE]

Mailed those pics to a contact whose working on the project. The information which follows is sourced from him. Nope not pt4.. Just another chinese photoshop(and a bad one at that). The design has had a number of changes and has been finalised but the nose looks nothing like that.

Wanted to answer earlier but waited from replies from some other people I emailed yesterday (I have allways believed Its better to ask more than one person). Anyways, the next guy says that the pictures are bit too "optimistic" making the aircraft look more like F-16 & F-18. The aircraft wings have been changed a bit & nose has also been extended a bit aswell, but the pics negate the real look of the wings & nose. I guess what he ment is that JF-17 does has an extended nose but not similar to JSF & F-22 which it shows in the picture. Anyways but he still says there have been "more than few" changes which might be revealed to public early next year most probably & that would be the final look.

As for the engine,(sighs) once again, the engine will be the Rd-93. Whatever has been coming out of Russia is for third party consumption. The engine in the final production variant will be an upgraded variant with greater thrust. Also the percentage of composites will go up to 25% or thereabouts.

There is more speculations on WS-13A for later FC-1/JF-17s. I have never asked abt it from any expert but only friends. So no information.

Besides as u said not much information can beem optained now days from officials who are directly & closely involved. Those who will give u information will not give importent information. It will be limited & mostly incompelete (by passing ur actual questions) & some also make it confusing & make it look speculative.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Note that I sent those pics to Sabre for reference only. The computer rendered images were created by military.china.com to predict what the production model will look like given changes seen on the model shown at Beijing airshow. They should not be taken as official images.

On the matter of WS-13 engine, there are several Chinese source regarding its status. From what I can gather, it is being developed either by Guizhou institute or Liaoyang institute as future replacement for RD-93 engine. The stats of the engine are quoted below, but I suck at translating so I'm not even going to try. Use world lingo translator if you can't understand it.

该发动机长4.14米，最大外直径1.02米，交付使用重量1135千克。推重比7.8，加力推力86.37千牛，耗油率2.02千克/十牛小时。最大状态中间推力56.75千牛，耗油率0.73/十牛小时。巡航推力51.2千牛，耗油率0.65/十牛小时。进气量80千克/秒，函道比0.57，涡轮前温度1650K，总压比23。大修间隔810小时，总寿命为2200小时

Source: http://jiatelin.jschina.com.cn/pla/fc1_2.htm

 

[umair]

Yeah, those 3d model pics appeared unlikely IMO.. the wings in the top left one are much too deep compared to the actual aircraft.As for using the South African R-Darter MRAAM (/U-Dartar SRAAM), aren't they produced with heavy Israeli assistance which would preclude them from PAF service? The R-Darter looks, and is often described as, a Derby clone (with slightly different areodynamics)

The U-Darter looks pretty much like a MagicII and has been in unacknowledged service since the 90s(I've seen a few myself).
As for the R-Darter well it comes from that guy and I've heard it from two/three other officers as well so I'd trust em as they are in the loop.[perhaps the secret Israel-Pak relations at work(sarcastic!) ]
I also asked about the performance of the SD-10 Brit. Apparently the aerodynamic performance is satisfactory, it's the seeker head's performance they are worried about. And the PL-9 well in it's present guise it's range is well not adequate. Don't know much about the proposed PL-9C variant.

 

[SABRE]

Note that I sent those pics to Sabre for reference only. The computer rendered images were created by military.china.com to predict what the production model will look like given changes seen on the model shown at Beijing airshow. They should not be taken as official images.

Offcourse !

Anyways .. got only three emails regarding the pics. All say (in one way or another) tht they r bit too "Optimistic" but yes there are "slight" changes in Wings & Nose.

 

[tphuang]

该发动机长4.14米，最大外直径1.02米，交付使用重量1135千克。推重比7.8，加力推力86.3 7千牛，耗油率2.02千克/十牛小时。最大状态中间推力56.75千牛，耗油率0.73/十牛小时。巡航推力51.2千牛，耗油率0.65/十牛小时。进气量80千克/秒，函道比0.57，涡轮前温度1650K，总压比23。大修间隔810小时，总寿命为220 0小时

engine length - 4.14 meter
weight 1135 kg
t/w ratio 7.8 (hmm, I thought it was 8.0, most of the chinese sources I read used 8.0)
thrust afterburner 86.37 kN
dry thrust 56.75 kN
cruise thrust 51.2 kN
major fix time after 810 hours
life expectancy 2200 hours

 

[Brit]

The U-Darter looks pretty much like a MagicII and has been in unacknowledged service since the 90s(I've seen a few myself).
As for the R-Darter well it comes from that guy and I've heard it from two/three other officers as well so I'd trust em as they are in the loop.[perhaps the secret Israel-Pak relations at work(sarcastic!) ]
I also asked about the performance of the SD-10 Brit. Apparently the aerodynamic performance is satisfactory, it's the seeker head's performance they are worried about. And the PL-9 well in it's present guise it's range is well not adequate. Don't know much about the proposed PL-9C variant.

Thanks, good to have some quality info.

I was confusing U-Darter with the more recent/advanced A-Darter.

Re Derby/R-Darter issues. I thought it was widely accepted that South Africa provided financial support to the Derby program and that it led to its own version: R-Darter, which lacks the additional fins and presumably has some different avionics. Here’s a basic airframe comparison I’ve constructed:
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/4783/dartercomp6xq.jpg
The measurements are so close; the difference may be in rounding from various sources.

The R-Darter (/Derby) seems a good choice of BVR missile for light fighters such as FC-1 but unless its links to Israel are completely fallacious, I can’t imagine PAF adopting it. India has reportedly adopted Derby for Sea Harriers so it may well be the natural choice for LCA.

 

[aaaditya]

. India has reportedly adopted Derby for Sea Harriers so it may well be the natural choice for LCA.[/quote]
the indian navy has adopted derby and python5 for the sea harriers.the airforce is most likely to use the indigenous astra,rvv-ae or mica for the lca.

 

[BilalK]

Offcourse !

Anyways .. got only three emails regarding the pics. All say (in one way or another) tht they r bit too "Optimistic" but yes there are "slight" changes in Wings & Nose.

I'm posting a picture of what looks like a magezine scan.
http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/2401/fc126873281mg7jx.jpg

The current JF-17 is the one on the bottom, and there's a JF-17 variant on the top. Note that this is a magezine scan, and I'm not sure whether its official or not, so don't kill me if turns out to be fake. Anyways though, its very unlikely the PAF's first 40-70 JF-17s will be the stealthy-awesome looking one, but perhaps this variant (Block-2?) would be inducted into PAF from 2012?

 

[wp2000]

I'm posting a picture of what looks like a magezine scan.
http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/2401/fc126873281mg7jx.jpg

The current JF-17 is the one on the bottom, and there's a JF-17 variant on the top. Note that this is a magezine scan, and I'm not sure whether its official or not, so don't kill me if turns out to be fake. Anyways though, its very unlikely the PAF's first 40-70 JF-17s will be the stealthy-awesome looking one, but perhaps this variant (Block-2?) would be inducted into PAF from 2012?

I am skeptical about that top drawing. They don't even match each other.

Anyway, FC1's design has been changed quite a lot at least from what I can see. From positive side, you can say it's finally evolved into a competitive plane. But it also means delays, cost over runs.

I guess this late change is a result of 2 types of pressures. F16 sale to PAF and to convince PLAAF to place some order. Now, it seems that CAC managed to get some kind of promise from PAF and PLAAF so that they decided to go with a more ambitious design at this later stage. According to CAC, they claim that they actaully prepared 6 designs for FC1 even 2 years ago, we have seen 2 of them. Depending on the funding and requirement, they are ready to go for any one or two of them.

Anyway, FC1 involves too many countries and too many politics. Technical difficulties are actually not that big.

 

[BilalK]

I am skeptical about that top drawing. They don't even match each other

I have my doubts as well, but I'm hoping its the real thing. Everything except the nose seems to be feasible for another design prototype - but maybe the top design isn't the initial production design? I think the top one could be a variant of JF-17 PAF will need to replace its aged JF-17s which would need to be retired after 12-15 years.

 

[wp2000]

I have my doubts as well, but I'm hoping its the real thing. Everything except the nose seems to be feasible for another design prototype - but maybe the top design isn't the initial production design? I think the top one could be a variant of JF-17 PAF will need to replace its aged JF-17s which would need to be retired after 12-15 years.

The design changes are real, but that drawing is not accurate. Same as PAF, PLAAF is said to be serious about FC-1 now.

 

[aaaditya]

The design changes are real, but that drawing is not accurate. Same as PAF, PLAAF is said to be serious about FC-1 now.

by the way do you know what is the percentage of composites used on the jf17's structure and their composistion?

 

[moinanwer]

The bottom image looks in the league of Mig 23/27, while the top one seem tobe a mix of F-16, F18, Mig29.

A question
were the engine of Mirage 2000 variants considered for JF-17

if not why

 

[aaaditya]

The bottom image looks in the league of Mig 23/27, while the top one seem tobe a mix of F-16, F18, Mig29.

A question
were the engine of Mirage 2000 variants considered for JF-17

if not why

the mirage2000's engines too powerfull for the jf17's requirements.also it would be more expensive than the russian and chinese engines thus increasing the cost of the aircraft.