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

[SABRE]

ROBERT HEWSON Editor, Jane's Air Launched Weapons says in the above and i quote "that the FC-1/JF-17 will become the first Chinese aircraft to be integrated with US weapons."
Which is wrong and not true, the first chinese ac to be matted with US weapons was F-6(mig-19). PAC technicians had added the aim-9 sidewinder AOA missile to the weapons complement of the "farmer".

Yes but the Chinese F-6 was actualy Soviet MiG-19. So technicaly it was Soviet rather than Chinese. Hence FC-1/JF-17 Thunder is the 1st 'Chinese Desgined' fighter to be armed with US Weapons.

 

[fieldmarshal]

Ok, point taken.
Even than FC-1/JF-17 is still not the first chinese designed fighter to be armed with us weaponary, that distinction would than go to the A-5.

 

[aaaditya]

Ok, point taken.
Even than FC-1/JF-17 is still not the first chinese designed fighter to be armed with us weaponary, that distinction would than go to the A-5.

besides isnt the jf17 design supposed to be based on the russian mig33.if so then it cannot be considered as a true chinese design.

 

[aaaditya]

seems now russia may be involved in the lca project(development of the engine).
lca is becoming a truly multinational project with france,usa,russia and israel being involved in this project at some stage or other.
by the way this article claims that the development of engine alone will cost 1 billion dollars.

Russian engine-maker bids in Indian tender


12:33|06/ 12/ 2005


MOSCOW, December 6 (RIA Novosti) - A Russian leading Russian aircraft engine-maker, Saturn, is bidding in a tender to develop a jet engine for an Indian light fighter, the company's director-general said Tuesday.
Speaking at an international forum, Russia and India: Strategic Partnership in the 21st Century, Yury Lastochkin said: "The tender will be closed this year, and the deal is worth more than a $1 billion. The Tejas light fighter is the first aircraft being developed under the Indian national program Light Combat Aircraft."
Lastochkin said Russia, which exported over $5-billion worth of arms last year, should focus on new weaponry for Asian markets.
"If Russia does not develop new weapons, in the next 10-15 years our cooperation [with India] will amount to nothing," he said, adding that the development of a fifth-generation fighter could be a promising area of bilateral cooperation.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov earlier said Russian-Indian military and technological cooperation was estimated to be worth $33 billion, or about 70% of India's weapons imports. Russia is currently working on contracts with India worth $10-billion. Notable deals in recent years include a contract for the modernization and sale of the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier, and deals on Sukhoi fighters, Il-76 transport planes and T-90 main battle tanks.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20051206/42328153.html

aaaditya start putting gaps between your paragraphs & also put your news in 'quotes'. The way you post makes it real hard & boring to read it. And with out putting news in quotes it gets tough to distinguish between the news & the comment post.

 

[SABRE]

besides isnt the jf17 design supposed to be based on the russian mig33.if so then it cannot be considered as a true chinese design.

Nops it no longer is based on MiG-33 (it may still have few elements from it though). All the previous plans of JF-17 Thunder were scraped & CAC (along with PAC) came up with newer design. The J-9, Super-7, MiG-33 these designs are no longer there.

The point is: JF-17 is not based on any aircraft, not any more. The PT-4 & PT-5 are also different from the previous Prototypes aswell.

 

[aaaditya]

Nops it no longer is based on MiG-33 (it may still have few elements from it though). All the previous plans of JF-17 Thunder were scraped & CAC (along with PAC) came up with newer design. The J-9, Super-7, MiG-33 these designs are no longer there.

The point is: JF-17 is not based on any aircraft, not any more. The PT-4 & PT-5 are also different from the previous Prototypes aswell.

thanks for the info.

by the way can you tell me:
1)what is to be the design ceiling altitude of the jf-17?

2)the maximum angle of attack and the turn radius of the jf-17?

3)and if possible can you please give me some info as to the type of radar for the jf-17(both the western and the chinese radars) and its specifications like the maximum number of targets tracked and engaged ,maximum detection range,reliability of the radars(mtbf)and its power consumption and output.

4)and if possible some info on the hud.

i tried to use the google search to find more about the radar and some articles showed it to be the italian grifo radar but the information was quite vague.

 

[highsea]

...The point is: JF-17 is not based on any aircraft, not any more. The PT-4 & PT-5 are also different from the previous Prototypes aswell.

Are you sure about this Sabre??? I am very sceptical of this, given China and Pak's experience (meaning the lack thereof) in airframes. Just redesigning the inlets, vert stab, and nosecone does not translate into a new airframe. And if a new airframe was designed, why was it designed around the RD-93, given the problems of engine availability?

Doesn't make sense....

 

[chinawhite]

besides isnt the jf17 design supposed to be based on the russian mig33.if so then it cannot be considered as a true chinese design.

There was no Mig-33.


The FC-1 is well documented. a moderized J-7 during the sino-american honey moon period later cancelled after '89. Then continued with ciense and pakistani money.

The "Mig-33"(its un-offical name) was only a concept. It was the russian entry into the LFI (like americas LWF which lead to the F-16) which later got cancelled due to no funding. It lost out and only made it to the model stage

How or why would china buy a concept?

Concept as defined by dictionary.com
# A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
# Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion.

The FC-1 design is completly different having the air intakes mounted on the sides instead of the and the LEX only extending to the start of cockpit while the claimed Mig-33 is towards the end. The wings on the Mig-33 are also swept back on the back of them. The mounting of the cockpit is in a different position. the Mig-33 being elevated much like the F-16 while the FC-1 is more like the Mig-21

You compare the FC-1 to the super-7

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/4997/cat/3231/perpage/30

 

[tphuang]

FC-1 is only similar to Mig-21 in size and such. With the usage of turbofan engine and the different design changes, you can't really associate it with J-7 anymore.

 

[SABRE]

Are you sure about this Sabre??? I am very sceptical of this, given China and Pak's experience (meaning the lack thereof) in airframes. Just redesigning the inlets, vert stab, and nosecone does not translate into a new airframe. And if a new airframe was designed, why was it designed around the RD-93, given the problems of engine availability?

Doesn't make sense....

(Well look who is back )

Anyways;

No I am not 100% sure. I do have some doubts on my behalf. This is what my friend had inquired that the aircraft planning has been modified from that of MiG-33.

According to my source there was a talk of modifying the AirFrame (right after F-16 sales ban was lifted & PAF had decided to buy 70+ F-16s....Guess it gives more time to PAF, PAC & CAC to make some changes & they have made some changes). How ever wheather the airframe has been modified or will be or will be kept same, I cant say not 100% for sure.

IF the airframe has been changed or will be changed, I dont think it would be based around RD-93 considering availibility issue of the engine. Same issue is a very good reason to change the airframe. (but recalling in 2004 the PAC chairman said that there is no such issue & China has the engines available).

Anyways we would have to wait for PT-5 to see it. I have emailed some one more reliable in this matter. If he replies than I might get some clearer input regarding the changes.

 

[chinawhite]

FC-1 is only similar to Mig-21 in size and such. With the usage of turbofan engine and the different design changes, you can't really associate it with J-7 anymore.

It difinatly is not a Mig-21. I am saying it has more relation to the Mig-21 than the Mig-"33"

 

[SABRE]

It difinatly is not a Mig-21. I am saying it has more relation to the Mig-21 than the Mig-"33"

Elaborate how it is more related to MiG-21 chinawhite. May be if you give your clearer prespective & opinion than you'll get clearer prespective opinion from other members.

 

[fieldmarshal]

, why was it designed around the RD-93, given the problems of engine availability?

Doesn't make sense....

Well it has been stated again and again by PAC/CATIC design/project team that JF-17/FC-1 is an "open architecture". So to say that it has been designed around this and that engine would be not true.

As far as availability of the said engine goes than the the AVM leading our side of the project has said that " their is no engine problem as they have sovereign gurantees". Now if the man says so than that should be good enough for all of us, as no one, here on this forum or any were else would have more info about the project than him. Wouldent u agree.

 

[fieldmarshal]

besides isnt the jf17 design supposed to be based on the russian mig33.if so then it cannot be considered as a true chinese design.

You know some body once said that " were if's and but's, pots and pans, than their would be no takers". I hope u get the drift

 

[highsea]

Well it has been stated again and again by PAC/CATIC design/project team that JF-17/FC-1 is an "open architecture". So to say that it has been designed around this and that engine would be not true.

It doesn't work that way. The term "open architecture" refers to the avionics and data buses. You can't design a "universal" airframe that will accomodate multiple different engines. Even the "common engine bay" on the F-16 doesn't mean the GE's and Pratt's are interchangeable- they're not.

Jet fighters do not have that much room to play with- it's not an engine hanging on a pylon, it's integrated into the AC. Frame locations, mounts, wiring and plumbing, weights and balances, etc...

 

[fieldmarshal]

It doesn't work that way. The term "open architecture" refers to the avionics and data buses. You can't design a "universal" airframe that will accomodate multiple different engines. Even the "common engine bay" on the F-16 doesn't mean the GE's and Pratt's are interchangeable- they're not.

Jet fighters do not have that much room to play with- it's not an engine hanging on a pylon, it's integrated into the AC. Frame locations, mounts, wiring and plumbing, weights and balances, etc...

Point well taken mate, but if u recall the interview of the AVM, he specifically mentioned that if RD-93 is not available (hypothetical) than they would "mate" a french engine with the airframe. So the term open architecture in this case does imply to the airframe as well.

 

[chinawhite]

Elaborate how it is more related to MiG-21 chinawhite. May be if you give your clearer prespective & opinion than you'll get clearer prespective opinion from other members.

During the chinese american honeynoon period the americans were going to upgrade chinas J-8II and J-7 fleets with american radar and such.

The Super-7 was developed as a upgrade package to fit the AN/APG-66 into the mig-21 airframe and change the air intake and make a solid nose. This program fell through and in 1999 pakistan needed a new fighter and so they started devlopment of the JF-17. which is a redesigned super-7 with russian engine and modifled fin and other stuff.

What i meant about being more related to the Mig-21 because the Mig-33 was only a concept which never made it pass the model stage

 

[Brit]

Any credible plans to incorporate TVC into the FC-1? The RD-33 (/93) has accomodated TVC on the Mig-29 airframe so the technology is there.

My thoughts would be that it'd be particularly difficult to incorporate since the limited fly by wire controls make shifts in COG harder to compensate for (i.e. the FC1 isn't an inherently unstable airframe).

 

[chinawhite]

I wouldn't think its nessary. the FC-1 is being marketed as a cheap fighter. TVC is a unnessary feature which only brings cost up

 

[highsea]

Point well taken mate, but if u recall the interview of the AVM, he specifically mentioned that if RD-93 is not available (hypothetical) than they would "mate" a french engine with the airframe. So the term open architecture in this case does imply to the airframe as well.

Rubbish. There is no such thing as open architecture in this context. period.

I don't care what the AVM says, he is either not an engineer, or he is commenting for public consumption, ignoring the reality of the situation. It matters not which.

I have written on this topic in regards to both the JF-17 and the LCA, and am not inclined to repeat myself. You can review these threads if you want more detail:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=37539&postcount=611

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=45199&postcount=749

http://defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=42514&postcount=128

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=46281&postcount=798