RookhIs there any particular source regarding the “greater technology TOT”? Pakistan intended much the same for the French package- license production of cockpit avionics, radar, self defense systems such as RWR etc.
Given the closer relationship between the PAF and CATIC/other Chinese companies, particularly in light of the JF-17 program, it’s natural to assume the PAF would receive a greater level of ToT compared to the French, particularly for things such as source codes. The PAF team at Farnborough 2010 mentioned that they are performing a significant amount of the software integration work at PAC Kamra, particulalry for other weapons. I’m not sure if the French option would have provided the same level of flexibility for the PAF. It’s probably significantly easier for the PAF to integrate the MAR-1, RAAD, H-2/H4 and other weapons on the Chinese package than it would have been on the French package.
Also, as mentioned earlier, the French kit had several unique capabilities, especially the IR MICAs.
I think the MICAs was the original reason for the PAF considering the French option. However, as with avionics, given the advances made by the Chinese, perhaps the PAF saw greater long term potential with the Chinese option.
RookhI think that the cost was the real factor behind why Pakistan didn’t go in for the French avionics/weapons combo on the JF-17..no way that they’d be as liberal with credit as the Chinese for the Pakistanis.
It was most likely a number of factors, cost being one of them, although most likely the most important. However, the PAF have stated that there was no significant difference in capabilites between the French and Chinese options, in some aspects, the Chinese package outperformed the French option. No doubt the greater technology ToT and a clearer upgrade path to an AESA option with the Chinese package swung in its favour.
RookhPersonally, I think this deal was a sort of recompense to the specific firms for cancelling the JF-17 deal with a very similar avionics setup. Apart from the stated reason of keeping the Mirage 2000 modern. Otherwise, the long timeframe for delivery does not cut it.
It does appear to be the case, the avionics/radar setup is almost identical to the proposed offer for the JF-17. However, it seems the reluctance of the PAF to accept the offer in light of the Chinese radar/avionics package, not to mention the greater technology ToT, was probably a better decision for the PAF over the long term. Seriously, why is it taking so long for the upgrade?
RookhRemove the nose glass?:eek:
Are you kidding, its the perfect 1st class window view on any aircraft:D
Maybe, it must be quite a view of the landing strip when performing the classic high nose-pitched down approach! 🙂
RookhMass production of fresh Il-76s is largely a thing of the past. The era of this aircraft is slowly gone, no wonder, it was first flown in 1971 which puts it to the era of Mirage F1s, Tornados, F-14As, MiG-27s, Tu-22Ms and C-5s. None of these are in production anymore, many not even in service.
I’m not sure if that is entirley true…we still have hundreds of C-130s flying around the world, with new orders and an active production line, and that was first flown well before 1971, in the early 1950s IIRC.
I think there’s still a valid market for an updated version of the Il-76, although that glass ‘bomb-sight’ type nose should be removed, not quite sure why it’s there in the first place.
Rookhwell,
looks like Egypt is interested in FC-1/JF-17.
single and twin seater.
Interesting, first time I’ve heard of a potential customer for the twin-seat version. Any details on the development of the twin seat version? It seems that it isn’t too much of an urgent issue for the PAF, they appear quite happy with single seat versions for now, and perhaps induct a twin seat version much later, similar to their experience with the J-6 and J-7.
Egypt seems like a natural export customer, as mentioned, their license manufacture of the K-8 and previous experience with the J-7.
RookhThanks for those pics Quantam. I’ve never seen those colour pics of the Mig-33 models before, quite used to seeing that low res black and white pic. It seems they were undecided on the LERX configuration, trying out a ‘dog tooth’ notch type and a more gradual F-18 type. I think some of the earlier FC-1 pics showed a dog tooth notch leading edge.
This is what I’ve been trying (unsuccessfully) to get across; that the original F/J-7/Mig-21 derived project with Grumman (Super Sabre/Super-7) was cancelled, and superceded by the Mig Project 33, which was an LFI concept based around a single RD-33/93 engine. This bid was later rejcted by the Soviet airforce due to the shift towards heavier twin enginned multi-role types (advanced derivatives of the SU-27). It seems the only inspiration from the original Super Sabre/Super-7 was the lateral intakes, as apposed to the ventral F-16 like intake of the original Mig-33 proposal. The PT-01 prototype even had the Mig-29 shark fin of the original Mig-33 concept, which was later updated along with the other changes from PT-04 onwards. What further adds to the confusion is the Mig-33 based project was initially still referred to Super-7, hence why people assume this was based on the previous Mig-21 based Super Sabre/Super-7 Grumman project. Only later was it changed to FC-1/JF-17 when the PAF recomitted to it in the mid/late 90s.
RookhA few years back it was planned, then it seemed have got dropped in favour of storing it on the centre station, however Eurofighter released an artist impression of the Typhoon 2020 a few weeks ago showing a laser targetting pod on it’s left front station on the forward section of the aircraft. So yes, I believe fitting it there is still in their minds.
I believe a few years ago that the RAF showed some concern of replacing an AMRAAM/Meteor in favour of the LDP – hence one of the reasons why it got fitted onto the centre station.
Thanks for the details. I’ve only ever seen operational Typhies with an LDP on the centreline, hence the query, as I’m sure in most cases the centreline would rather be used for a fuel tank.
I can understand the reservations of replacing an AMRAAM/Meteor with a pod, but it still leaves the hardpoints at the rear. And the Rafale can also pnly carry 2 BVRAAM in a similar configuration. Just wondering whether it would provide extra mission flexibility if both the front fuselage hardpoints could be switched to carry pods, one with an LDP, the other with an ECM/EW pod of some sort?
Rookh…but, it still inherits the basic Super-7 fuselage and general layout…
This is what you said.
Remember, the Super Sabre/Super-7 project was based directly on the F/J-7/Mig-21 fuselage, the later FC-1/JF-17 project was based on a new fuselage to house the RD-93 and other structural changes, that’s what I’ve been trying to get across. There’s no denying that lessons learnt from the previous Super Sabre/Super-7 project were used, but just that the two projects used different fuselages.
Rookh^^ Couldn’t agree more. But it’s one thing saying two different aircraft use a similar design approach, and something completely different when you say they use the same fuselage. Using your example, obviously the Mirage 2000 and Mirage 3 are completely different aircraft, there’s no interchangable components or panels, even though both look similar and use the same design approach, i.e. tailess delta.
RookhIs it possible to attach a targetting pod to either the port or starboard forward fuselage hardpoints, where there’s usually AMRAAMs attached?
RookhDoes anyone know what is being referred to regarding the term ‘bend and twist wing profile’ in this rendition of the JF-17 on the CATIC website?
RookhThey seem to be in similar class, but I will not go for the “which is better” quagmire. So….do they have similar performance? Weapons?
Keeping to the spirit of the thread title, a very general compare and contrast of the Gripen, JF-17 and F-20;
JAS-39 Gripen / JF-17 Thunder / F-20 Tigershark
Length: 14.1m / 14.4m / 14.4m
Height: 4.5m / 4.77m / 4.2m
Wing span: 8.4m / 9.0m / 8.13m
Empty weight: 6,800kg / 6,586kg / 5,090kg
Internal fuel: 2,000kg / 2,186kg / ?
Total load capacity: 5,300kg / 3,800kg / ?
Max TOW: 14,000kg / 12,400kg / 11,920kg
Max Speed: M2.0 / M1.6 / M2.0
Service ceiling: 50,000ft (15,240m) / 55,000ft (16,764m) / 55,000 ft (16,764m)
Engine: RM-12 / RD-93 / GE F404
Maximum Engine thrust: 18,000lb (8,164kg) / 19,000lb (8,618kg) / 17,000lb (7,700kg)
Thrust to weight ratio: 0.92 / 0.98 / 1.1
G limit: +9.0, -3 / +8.5, -3 / ?
Ferry range: 3,200km (2,000miles) / 3,480km (2,160miles) / 2,759km (1,715miles)
Combat radius: 800km (500miles) / 1,352km (840miles) / 556km (345miles)
Hardpoints: 8 / 7 / 7
Rookhrookh, a clarification on the FBW please !
Take it easy dude, I missed your previous post.
this says http://cnair.top81.cn/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm
yaw is not mentioned. other sources say different things. PAC kamra does not mention FBW at all.
whom do I believe ?
The PAC Kamra website has this
Flight Control System
â– Composite Flight Control System comprising conventional controls with stability augmentation in roll and yaw axis and fly by wire in pitch axis
â– Quad-redundancy in Fly By Wire System
â– Autopilot with Altitude hold and Attitude hold modes
And IIRC, there was further detail in one of the previous AFM articles or the book published by Alan Warnes, I’ll have a dig round and see if I can find it.
Rookhyes of course the area ruling that defines the exact contours of the fuselage will mean that the fuselage shape will not be exactly the same as the MiG-21’s. After all the chord at the wing root on the FC-1 design is longer, so the shape of the fuselage there will be slightly different and since the diameter of the engine is different, the vertical tail shape is different to keep the area ruling good- but, it still inherits the basic Super-7 fuselage and general layout (such as the intakes which define how the fuselage will taper from there on in) as clearly illustrated in the picture I posted earlier. I don’t think that even you would dispute that.
What that picture showed clearly is that even though the Super-7 was abandoned, whatever preliminary aerodynamic design work had gone into it clearly influenced the layout and shape of the FC-1. As more requirements evolved and CATIC got Russian and Pakistani involvement into the program, the shape and design evolved.
And I don’t deny that the F-16’s wing clearly had an influence on the FC-1’s wing shape. Nor that the Super Hornet’s LERX design influenced those on the JF-17 after it went through a re-design process.
You’re not making any sense at all…
You’ve just highlighted how the JF-17s fuselage can not be fundamentally the same as the Mig-21s, and yet keep banging on about how it’s still ‘basically a Super-7’.
The fact that the JF-17 uses a completely different engine, completely different intakes (DSI eventually), completely different landing gear assembly into the fuselage, different cockpit, different wings, different tail plane…etc would all add up to the necessity of desiging a new fuselage. There’s no way you could configure all those changes into the limited Mig-21/Super fuselage, it’s just too limited in what you can do with it.
Using you logic, the JAS-39 and JF-17 essentially use ‘the same’ fuselage because they look ‘similar’. Have a look at the plan form of the two types on the previous page. Does that also mean the Gripen uses ‘essentially a Mig-21 fuselage’ as well?
Sign In
