Questions/Info and Comparative analysis between JF-17 and MiG-33

[kilo_4que]

I have always thought that fighter jets can be comparable to one another no matter how significant one is superior to another however in terms of design i find it very hard to say "such and such fighter is SORT OF SIMILAR to another". Either a fighter is similar or it isnt, there are no in betweens.

Well this is something that had gone out of my mind long ago and recently come back to attention that the JF-17 was dubbed as a design based on the Mig-33. Now with avionics still not much evident on behalf of the Sino-Pak venture as it is still more or less secrative as to what it possesses one can only refer to the exterior design of the fighter which by no means looks like the Mig-33. So is it possible for someone to clarify the relation between the JF-17 and Mig-33

The only fighter which holds great resemblences to the JF-17s is the F-20 Tigershark

Cheers

 

[roadrunner]

First, there were two Mig-33s designed by the Russians. One was a single-engined "Product 33" version, the other a twin-engined design. The single-engined "Product 33" version was supposedly cancelled in favour of the twin-engined version. The twin-engined version is called the Mig-29 today. It's just speculation that the "Product 33" design was sold to China/Pak for the Super Seven project, but it might have happened. Don't know what it looked like in the first place to comment on whether it looks the same. They may have re-designed it anyway, China i think was denying that it had bought designs off the Russians.

It does look like an F-20 a bit judging by its exterior, but the US didn't help develop the JF-17. That was mainly Chinese with some help from the Pakistanis and perhaps Russians, I think.

 

[hovercraft]

F-20 tigershark picture is below
jf-17 design is too much similar to F-20 tigershark

 

[Falcon-16]

I have FC-1 cv which is quite similar to F20.

 

[roadrunner12]

F-20 tigershark picture is below
jf-17 design is too much similar to F-20 tigershark

You're all talking (admin: deleted text. you can respond without descending into unnecessary vulgarities. that kind of response is unacceptable in here), is all I have to say. The JF-17 also bears a passing resemblance to the Mig-33D/Mig29, shown below, but it's a totally different plane. You remind me of the blinkered idiots who claimed the JF-17/FC-1 was based off the Mig-21. DUHHHHH!!

 

[Gollevainen]

. You remind me of the blinkered idiots who claimed the JF-17/FC-1 was based off the Mig-21. DUHHHHH!!

Well if taking notice to the first information of the FC-1 which said the plane was a direct result of the Super-7 program, the MiG-21 root is justificated. Nowdays, most of the chinese "forumlingers" keep stating that the plane has nothing to do with that eyghties program and i tend to agree, tough something must have left form that earlyer design. Anyway it's quite immature to call someone idiots just becouse they say something reminds or is based on something other. For me, the FC-1 has always looked and appeared to be very similar with the Taiwanese IDF. I'm not saying that those two planes are identical, just that they have some similar features and the almoust identical meassures makes me wonder, have anyone ever compared these two planes?

 

[roadrunner12]

Well if taking notice to the first information of the FC-1 which said the plane was a direct result of the Super-7 program, the MiG-21 root is justificated. Nowdays, most of the chinese "forumlingers" keep stating that the plane has nothing to do with that eyghties program and i tend to agree, tough something must have left form that earlyer design. Anyway it's quite immature to call someone idiots just becouse they say something reminds or is based on something other. For me, the FC-1 has always looked and appeared to be very similar with the Taiwanese IDF. I'm not saying that those two planes are identical, just that they have some similar features and the almoust identical meassures makes me wonder, have anyone ever compared these two planes?

There was never any reputable paper that said the FC-1/JF-17 was a continuation of the Super-7 Mig-21 upgrade. NOT ONE. It was just that the name SWITCHED OVER when the new project that gave rise to the current FC-1/JF-17 began. It makes me wonder, whether you were one of the (admin: deleted text. you can respond without descending into unnecessary vulgarities. that kind of response is unacceptable in here) that were bellowing assertively with your personal communications avec high ranking Chinese engineers, that it was an upgraded Mig-21? It's the dumbest thing I ever heard, and it was explained over a year back on here by one of the moderators what the Product 33 was. If you look above my posting of nearly a year ago now, also states about the Product 33. It just needed some basic literacy skills to read that it was based off the Product 33, and not related to the earlier Super-7. (admin: deleted text. you can respond without descending into unnecessary vulgarities. that kind of response is unacceptable in here)

 

[gf0012-aust]

Reminder
​

Please do not descend into name calling or personal insults. It's an unacceptable means of debate in here and will not be tolerated.

Passionate debate doesn't require personal abuse or the use of vulgarities - in fact it diminishes the strength and quality of a response.

It would be worthwhile re-reading the forums rules and conditions on participation.
​

 

[ThInK TaNk]

hey guys as far as i know MiG-33 was an advanced version of MiG-29,MiG-33 was a glass cockpit version of MiG-29 but was rejected by the russian air force,MiG-33 has some influences on the FC-1/JF-17, but by no means is it actually based on Project 33 or the failed Chengdu J-9.The JF-17 will be will be fitted with Italian Grifo S-7 fire-control radar.Aircrafts which r comparable to JF-17 are AIDC F-CK-1 Indigenous Defence Fighter (also known as Ching-kuo, after late ROC President Chiang Ching-kuo) nd F-20 Tigershark!!!!

 

[chinawhite]

The Super-7 was a peace peral project pre-tiananmen which was a upgrade/evolution of the Mig-21. The Mig-33 was a Concept . The FC-1 looks like the tiger shark.

I dont know why people want to believe the conspiracies. The FC-1 was well documented.

Super 7 cancelled/mothballed >> Pakistani funding for the former Super-7 re-named the project FC-1/JF-17 because of US sanctions >> And new revised FC-1 to compete with sanctions now lifted

For me, the FC-1 has always looked and appeared to be very similar with the Taiwanese IDF. I'm not saying that those two planes are identical, just that they have some similar features and the almoust identical meassures makes me wonder,

Huh, what similar features. A picture to show you the big difference in overall design
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/idf-aidc.jpg
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/5307/0024zl.jpg

The LEXes the position of the intakes the seating arraignment the engines the tail planes. Actaully nothing is similar from the looks of it. the size of the planes are similar but there are more planes which also are similar in size weight etc

 

[Gollevainen]

There was never any reputable paper that said the FC-1/JF-17 was a continuation of the Super-7 Mig-21 upgrade. NOT ONE. It was just that the name SWITCHED OVER when the new project that gave rise to the current FC-1/JF-17 began. It makes me wonder, whether you were one of the (admin: deleted text. you can respond without descending into unnecessary vulgarities. that kind of response is unacceptable in here) that were bellowing assertively with your personal communications avec high ranking Chinese engineers, that it was an upgraded Mig-21? It's the dumbest thing I ever heard, and it was explained over a year back on here by one of the moderators what the Product 33 was. If you look above my posting of nearly a year ago now, also states about the Product 33. It just needed some basic literacy skills to read that it was based off the Product 33, and not related to the earlier Super-7. (admin: deleted text. you can respond without descending into unnecessary vulgarities. that kind of response is unacceptable in here)

Well I said the first information claimed that. There's no escapeing it, no matter wheter it is now solved or not. When i started to become interessed on chinese military matters, and therefore joined in few military forums, everyone stated that FC-1 was based on super-7. When i saw the first pics of that cancelled eigthies project I noticed that those two planes bear only little resampleness so they cannot be close relatives. You should learn to read others post more carefully before going to chilldish bashing...

Huh, what similar features. A picture to show you the big difference in overall design
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/idf-aidc.jpg
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/5307/0024zl.jpg

The LEXes the position of the intakes the seating arraignment the engines the tail planes. Actaully nothing is similar from the looks of it. the size of the planes are similar but there are more planes which also are similar in size weight etc

Well it's my lay obinion (i did say "to my EYES") and as i'm no expert in aiviation matters it's hard to me explain it any further. But you know that in matters of taste, there can be no depating so guess you just have to seddle my wiev as my own. I'm not trying to get you or anyone else sharing that.

 

[chinawhite]

You asked if anyone compared them. . And visually and technically dis-similar

 

[Gollevainen]

In comparison i ment their performance, looks doesen't really make a difference in that. Why i asked that is becouse i've come agross alot of silly comparison threads in different forums concerning chinese planes but neve IDF vs. FC-1. I would have toughted it's the best possiple type becouse the planes are so similar in threair size and operational use. The slight differences would have made the whole thing even juicyer. But it seems like most of the chinese guys are almoust afraid of the topic...beats me??

 

[chinawhite]

The slight differences would have made the whole thing even juicyer. But it seems like most of the chinese guys are almoust afraid of the topic...beats me??

Looking to debate Gollevainen? Im going to call your bluff here

Where are those silly chinese comparisions?. If you found them give me their links and lets see if their silly or not

You said
"For me, the FC-1 has always looked and appeared to be very similar with the Taiwanese IDF. I'm not saying that those two planes are identical, just that they have some similar features"

And
"Well it's my lay obinion (i did say "to my EYES")"

Where was performance mentioned there. It looks like your trying to compare them visually to me and i would imagine the structure of the comment to a lot of other people?. Or you going to change your statement half way? John kerry Sir?

I'll be the first to make the comparision. The reason why no one compares those two fighters is because people like big flashy in your face things not the little details(FC-1). I dont actually know anyone which will compare the fighters without looking at the weapons it is carrying. Anyway i dont think anyone has compared these fighters for a reason or another.

But in most forums this topic is banned because it insights nationalism.
eg. FC-1 vs LCA - Rafale vs EF - MFI vs F-22 - Tu-160 vs B-1

5years ago you would see the russians and americans bashing eah other who would have won the cold war comparing stats and figures and what not(still going on). The french and british were bashing each other to. Now its the indians chinese and pakistanis. regional rivalries turned digital. And trust me every comparision that could be made has been made. Everything from what you look like to what you eat to what your country looked like in the middle ages. And trust me the FC-1 has probaly been compared to the Ching-kuo as well as been compared to the F-22(never seen it happen but indians told in me some forum). As well as the LCA been compared to the B-2 in stealth with its percentage of composites and russian RAM paint. This one i was in the disscussion

Lets see.
FC-1

Thrust - rated 49.4kN dry or 81.4kN with afterburning

Max Speed - Mach 1.6
Operational Radius 1,352 km
Service Ceiling - 16,500 m
Empty - 6,321 kg
Maximum Takeoff 12,700 kg
Max weapon payload 3,800 kg

Ching-kuo

Thrust - rated 54kN dry or 84kN with afterburning

Max Speed - Mach 1.8
Operational Radius 1100 km
Service Ceiling - 16,800 m
Empty - 6,500 kg
Maximum Takeoff 12,250 kg
Max weapon payload N/A

But these stats dont tell us the correct information. The Ching-kuo has a little under 3KN of thrust on the FC-1 while it is 1.6 for the FC-1 and 1.8 for the Ching-kuo. The FC-1 Is also about 200kg lighter than the Ching-kuo and assuming maxium speed is done doing a clean confirguration it would seem the Ching-kuo is overstating speed or the FC-1 is hiding speed. But the nswer is propably mis-information by jorunalist.

The Pakistani FC-1/JF-17 is rumoured to be getting the Grifo-7 which has a detect range of 55km while the Ching-kuo 39 km (look down), 57 km (look up). So the FC-1 will be a disadvantge of 2km in that situation. While it cannot be ruled out a more powerful radar seeing as how the FC-1 is going to be armed with a 70km missle so it is a possbility that a longer rnage radar is in the works

No matter how hard i tried i cannot find the range of the Sky sword II. But I will assume it is not as good as Aim-120A/B missiles which the taiwanese are now planning to buy more of the Aim missiles so it would be assumed that the Sky Sword II is not up to this standard. The SD-10 is going to be armed on the FC-1 and it has a rnage of 70km which is comparable to the Aim-120C so i say the advantage in BVR is the FC-1 owing to the range of the missile. Longer range = Bigger NEZ

Maintance?. Two engines need more help then one ,sufficient ?: . Not knowing the actual hours needed for each aircraft engine i would think two is harder than one. The RD-93 is a more refinded version of the RD-33 so it has come under that revision on the maintance and efficency of the RD-93

I would like to do a better comparision when the FC-1 comes into service and the new "super" FC-1 which is being rumoured from having a superstealth type major revision to a modification of the intakes to DSI. The problem with the Ching-kuo is it is the dark horse of taiwan and no major uypgade is being planned in the near future or the distance future while the pakistanis are pushing chian to make the FC-1 more beter more multi-roled etc. So any comparision in the future would be a mis-match

While that being said i dont see the FC-1(if it enters service by the time a conflict starts) will be deployed along the taiwan strait. It would take up money and space for the Big boys eg the J-11 J-10 and the Su-30MKK. Its more like a force multipled if it enters service. to fill the ranks in chinas more distant areas like tibet xingjiang or any areas which wouldn't see heavy service

EDIT: Forgot sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDC_Ching-kuo

 

[tphuang]

Looking to debate Gollevainen? Im going to call your bluff here

Where are those silly chinese comparisions?. If you found them give me their links and lets see if their silly or not

You said
"For me, the FC-1 has always looked and appeared to be very similar with the Taiwanese IDF. I'm not saying that those two planes are identical, just that they have some similar features"

And
"Well it's my lay obinion (i did say "to my EYES")"

Where was performance mentioned there. It looks like your trying to compare them visually to me and i would imagine the structure of the comment to a lot of other people?. Or you going to change your statement half way? John kerry Sir?

I'll be the first to make the comparision. The reason why no one compares those two fighters is because people like big flashy in your face things not the little details(FC-1). I dont actually know anyone which will compare the fighters without looking at the weapons it is carrying. Anyway i dont think anyone has compared these fighters for a reason or another.

But in most forums this topic is banned because it insights nationalism.
eg. FC-1 vs LCA - Rafale vs EF - MFI vs F-22 - Tu-160 vs B-1

5years ago you would see the russians and americans bashing eah other who would have won the cold war comparing stats and figures and what not(still going on). The french and british were bashing each other to. Now its the indians chinese and pakistanis. regional rivalries turned digital. And trust me every comparision that could be made has been made. Everything from what you look like to what you eat to what your country looked like in the middle ages. And trust me the FC-1 has probaly been compared to the Ching-kuo as well as been compared to the F-22(never seen it happen but indians told in me some forum). As well as the LCA been compared to the B-2 in stealth with its percentage of composites and russian RAM paint. This one i was in the disscussion

Lets see.
FC-1

Thrust - rated 49.4kN dry or 81.4kN with afterburning

Max Speed - Mach 1.6
Operational Radius 1,352 km
Service Ceiling - 16,500 m
Empty - 6,321 kg
Maximum Takeoff 12,700 kg
Max weapon payload 3,800 kg

Ching-kuo

Thrust - rated 54kN dry or 84kN with afterburning

Max Speed - Mach 1.8
Operational Radius 1100 km
Service Ceiling - 16,800 m
Empty - 6,500 kg
Maximum Takeoff 12,250 kg
Max weapon payload N/A

But these stats dont tell us the correct information. The Ching-kuo has a little under 3KN of thrust on the FC-1 while it is 1.6 for the FC-1 and 1.8 for the Ching-kuo. The FC-1 Is also about 200kg lighter than the Ching-kuo and assuming maxium speed is done doing a clean confirguration it would seem the Ching-kuo is overstating speed or the FC-1 is hiding speed. But the nswer is propably mis-information by jorunalist.

The Pakistani FC-1/JF-17 is rumoured to be getting the Grifo-7 which has a detect range of 55km while the Ching-kuo 39 km (look down), 57 km (look up). So the FC-1 will be a disadvantge of 2km in that situation. While it cannot be ruled out a more powerful radar seeing as how the FC-1 is going to be armed with a 70km missle so it is a possbility that a longer rnage radar is in the works

No matter how hard i tried i cannot find the range of the Sky sword II. But I will assume it is not as good as Aim-120A/B missiles which the taiwanese are now planning to buy more of the Aim missiles so it would be assumed that the Sky Sword II is not up to this standard. The SD-10 is going to be armed on the FC-1 and it has a rnage of 70km which is comparable to the Aim-120C so i say the advantage in BVR is the FC-1 owing to the range of the missile. Longer range = Bigger NEZ

Maintance?. Two engines need more help then one ,sufficient ?: . Not knowing the actual hours needed for each aircraft engine i would think two is harder than one. The RD-93 is a more refinded version of the RD-33 so it has come under that revision on the maintance and efficency of the RD-93

I would like to do a better comparision when the FC-1 comes into service and the new "super" FC-1 which is being rumoured from having a superstealth type major revision to a modification of the intakes to DSI. The problem with the Ching-kuo is it is the dark horse of taiwan and no major uypgade is being planned in the near future or the distance future while the pakistanis are pushing chian to make the FC-1 more beter more multi-roled etc. So any comparision in the future would be a mis-match

While that being said i dont see the FC-1(if it enters service by the time a conflict starts) will be deployed along the taiwan strait. It would take up money and space for the Big boys eg the J-11 J-10 and the Su-30MKK. Its more like a force multipled if it enters service. to fill the ranks in chinas more distant areas like tibet xingjiang or any areas which wouldn't see heavy service

EDIT: Forgot sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDC_Ching-kuo

you should've learnt by now. Never use wikipedia as your source.

Prototype 4's maximum speed is actually mach1.8, so it's the same as F-CK. If you compare the avionics, I'd say they are probably comparable to each other. FC-1 uses duplex FBW, F-CK uses triplex FBW. The radar used right now on FC-1 is KLJ-10. Its figures is mysterious, by I think 80 KM look up detection vs 3 m^2 target is quite reasonable.

I'd say AIM-120C kicks SD-10 easily (or PL-12). I think NEZ for 120C is 50 KM (not sure about v5), but it's only 30 to 40 KM for SD-10.

 

[chinawhite]

tphuang,

Wheres your sources of information?. If i told you the J-10 was better than the F-22 in a chinese forum and said i was a CAC engineer you would believe me. Its just forum rumours sterming from a mis-read article or mis-information. Chinese forums have a lot of mis-information (all those PS photos). And you use Kanwa as a source!!!!. One of the worst sites to even read or make reference to. One of them was completely stupid. It was a picture of chiense officers making a military exchange in france and then it was turned into (in big bold letters) CHINA DUMPS J-10 FOR RAFALE.

etc. Chinese forums and any chinese information which has not seen proof is almost certainly a lie. And Wforums or Centurychina and Top81 is mostly good for pictures but anything else like Super J-10 or Super- FC-1 is cleary made up. One chiense advertisment had a sign stating that the J-10 can supercruise and in every chinese forum rumours where made etc.

From the figures i posted it suggest that the FC-1 does have a higher speed or that the Ching-kuo developers are over stating their speed. Mach 1.8 seems like a very high number for such a small engine and heay load

you should've learnt by now. Never use wikipedia as your source.

And why is that?

If their source is right if their information matches the source and if your just getting stats why woukldm'y wikipedia be a good source?. Wikipedia wraps their articles in a easy to read format for reference. I like to use it just because of that reason. Going through hundreds of sites and finding some information at the bottom of about three full pages of reading is kind of boring and yes i use to do that.

And for every article i read i always look into their source to check it out. Bias lies and what not

I'd say AIM-120C kicks SD-10 easily

maybe, maybe not. Give me offical figures for both in the same situation and then we'll see. But i wasn't comparing it to the Aim-120C but Sky sword II which i made the argument about it being less capable than the Aim-120A/B

 

[webmaster]

Wikipedia is not reliable as noted in this and other threads. People can easily change the information to match their own interest and liking, etc. Wraping text in easy to read format is no big deal, any website can do that.

 

[chinawhite]

Their sources are right their information is right and verifled. Why is this any wrost than any other article that someone has written?

Theres a difference between getting some figures and getting someones opinion. While i do not use wikipedia for opinions i do use them for general performance figures. I also looked at Sinodefence and Pakistaniidefence.com for the numbers to see if their right but i only used them after i finished writing. But the reason i used wikipedia as the main source is because they have both aircraft in the one site. And partly because the only stats you could find for the Ching-kuo was there

One of their sources is
Defencetalk.com .How un-reliable could that be

 

[webmaster]

Because ANYBODY can go in and CHANGE it to THEIR OWN liking. ANYONE can change ANYTHING in wikipedia. It is good source of "information" but not reliable information. Their external links area, etc. may not be as unreliable because external links are not wiki based.

 

[tphuang]

tphuang,

Wheres your sources of information?. If i told you the J-10 was better than the F-22 in a chinese forum and said i was a CAC engineer you would believe me. Its just forum rumours sterming from a mis-read article or mis-information. Chinese forums have a lot of mis-information (all those PS photos). And you use Kanwa as a source!!!!. One of the worst sites to even read or make reference to. One of them was completely stupid. It was a picture of chiense officers making a military exchange in france and then it was turned into (in big bold letters) CHINA DUMPS J-10 FOR RAFALE.

Getting offensive now.

I use Kanwa as a source for certain news. Things that are related to Russian imports to China or stuff Russians are offering to China. I use my prior knowledge to judge whether the info is correct or not. For example, people have been claiming all sorts of speed and range for YJ-62, but I know most of it is rubbish. I know the stuff about dumping J-10 for Rafale is rubbish.

etc. Chinese forums and any chinese information which has not seen proof is almost certainly a lie. And Wforums or Centurychina and Top81 is mostly good for pictures but anything else like Super J-10 or Super- FC-1 is cleary made up. One chiense advertisment had a sign stating that the J-10 can supercruise and in every chinese forum rumours where made etc.

read some of my posts regarding, I said everywhere that super J-10 is Russian propoganda. I never even heard of super FC-1.

From the figures i posted it suggest that the FC-1 does have a higher speed or that the Ching-kuo developers are over stating their speed. Mach 1.8 seems like a very high number for such a small engine and heay load

Mach 1.8 is the number reported by Janes. It's number given in an airshow. That's the new spec for FC-1. Nobody knows exactly what the speed of Mach 1.8 is achieved under.

And why is that?

If their source is right if their information matches the source and if your just getting stats why woukldm'y wikipedia be a good source?. Wikipedia wraps their articles in a easy to read format for reference. I like to use it just because of that reason. Going through hundreds of sites and finding some information at the bottom of about three full pages of reading is kind of boring and yes i use to do that.

as webmaster said, that's why I said using wikipedia is a bad practice.

And for every article i read i always look into their source to check it out. Bias lies and what not

awfully biased of you to assume that I do not.

maybe, maybe not. Give me offical figures for both in the same situation and then we'll see. But i wasn't comparing it to the Aim-120C but Sky sword II which i made the argument about it being less capable than the Aim-120A/B

yeah, I misread that part, my bad.