PLA-MKIIwhat does the FC-1 have to do with all this conversation? Isn’t there a thread for this?
PLA-MKIInow add a few su-30s / mig-31s and they’ll be good to go
PLA-MKIIhttp://wiki.livedoor.jp/namacha2/d/F-CK-1%C0%EF%C6%AE%B5%A1%A1%D6%B7%D0%B9%F1%A1%D7
A little bit of scrolling is in need. After over a decade in service some user may realize, that the F-CK-1 had went through some modifications, like the engines and that a new variant from that is on offer right now.
It is of further notice, that the F-CK-1 seems to offer a better view from cockpit and the related situational awarness.
The F-CK-1 is no attack aircraft, but it will operate over Taiwan most of the time. ETs will give enough loiter-time, when the fuel fraction is optimised for air-combat not far from home.
It still speaks volumes, when Pakistan is looking for western avionics for its JF-17!
Interesting, thanks, thats the new upgrade isn’t it? i notice the CFTs. so they finally went with the garrett upgrades they rejected in the 80s!
I wouldn’t read too much into Pakistan going for western avionics, they’ve always done this and they look to maintain some sort of qualitative edge there. for instance they are looking at the vixen radar and even the rbe-2, neither of which have a chinese equivalent. also the guardian might be chosen, again no equivalent in the chinese arsenal.
PLA-MKIII must also point out that this figure is incorrect, despite the fact you often see it used.
Reference the earlier discussion in the thread regarding the top end speed.
Maximum speed is somewhere around Mach 1.6 or so, and as far as the FC-1 goes, I’ve seen a similar figure. I don’t know where Mach 1.8 came from.
Of course 1.6 or 1.8 it doesn’t really matter as the difference between the two is trivial and the length of time either of the two jets could sustain such speeds is fairly short.
As another poster pointed out, the max load of AAM’s is six, which is comparable with both the Mirage 2000 and the F-16 (both of which carry a maximum of six AAM’s).
Standard load with the recent improvements is four TC-2 BVR weapons and two short-range TC-1 AAM’s plus the internal 20-mm gun……not bad for a light fighter.
I don’t know why you’d laugh at it being compared to the FC-1 because I can assure the internal systems of the F-CK-1 are light years ahead of those on the FC-1 unless the latter is getting some brand-new set I’m not aware of…..maybe from IAI or something….
The F-CK-1 and JF-17 (or FC-1 whichever you’d rather call it) are actually fairly evenly matched.
Well, could you provide sources for your top speed of the FCk-1 at 1.5 rather than 1.2? All the available sources I have come up with indicate 1.2. Nowhere have i read 1.5. Your comparison of thrust based speed estimates is technically flawed, but am willing to look at what sources you have. The last figures for the FC-1 are mach 1.8. This has been indicated before in various threads and forums on the fc-1. You must realize that the FC-1 has diverterless inlets which significantly help it reach higher speeds, recall the test pilots comments on the f-16 with the DSI. aerodynamics also play a huge part, as does the higher friction rates for two engines. If you look at cockpit pictures of both planes the generational difference is clear (at least to me).
I would still like to know the combat radius figures for the fck-1. I think that would be another Achilles heel for her. 4 bvrs and 2 wvrs are quite a loading, i’d see it when i believe it when the original fck-1 was destined for 4wvrs or 2 bvrs.. further, having the hypothetical possibility of carrying such a warload is different from actually being able to do so in wartime or being able to do so at combat speeds and altitudes necessary (along with the necessary agility).
PLA-MKIIi was looking for some specs and can’t seem to find the range of the fck-1. anybody has those figures?
with a top speed of 1.2 mach versus the fc-1’s 1.8, low weapons load of 4 short range AAMs or 2 medium range AAMs, the Fck-1 clearly lags behind its modern contemporaries. i can’t seem to locate its combat range but my guess is its not comparable. I find it hilarious that its being compared with the mirage 2000, or even the fc-1 / lca. the best thing about this plane are its looks – if looks could kill this would be it.
PLA-MKIIThe ballistic missile i was referring to was codenamed Tipu. And it was different from the SLV program. More of a 3 stage shaheen if memory serves me right. So a solid fuel solution.
I think for the SLV, they are working on a liquid propollent. More of a Ghauri followon.
I frankly don’t know a great deal about it, I actually thought it was a combination of liquid and solid fueled rocket stacked together. 😀
PLA-MKIIKaduna, I think that it won’t be a cruise missile at that range. The last I heard they where planning a SLV and my guess is that the project will be complete before 2015.
Thanks SOC, glad we can have a civilized discussion.
PLA-MKIIVikasrehman
People are not coming to the conclusion because of the secretive nature of these project but because of your own govt claims.After first test you claim the missile is ready for induction and 100% made in pakistan people will question it.
The thing is, thats the first test that we know about. Just like the JF-17 flight was the “first flight” and it was doing all kinds of maneuvres. That proves nothing.
PLA-MKIIWhat do you mean moving the engine to the rear reduces armour. I know a lot of tankers think having the engine in front in some APC or tank models improves protection but in reality it just improves the crews ability to get in an out of the back. And engine is not the same as armour. It is much softer than armour… even a solid slug from a shotgun will go straight through a car engine and with a 16 cylinder engine there are a lot of tubes carrying fuel that can be ruptured… in a hot engine that will almost always start a fire as you can’t use safety foam in fuel lines like you can in fuel tanks.
The insignificant level of protection for the pilot created by having the engine in front of him is no great loss. Armour around the Pilot therefore also protects the engine behind him so it performs the same dual role as it does when the engine is in front and the engine armour protects both the engine and the crew.
A turboprop engine is also much smaller than an inline piston engine, which was a serious for WWII Russian fighters like the Migs where big long relatively heavy engines dominated the design and not in a good way. It also frees up the belly of the aircraft to allow a big gun if that is wanted without the problems of a propeller in the way.
What I mean is the structural armor, that such an arrangement, with the wings on the sides can afford. This was really the key innovation in the IL-2. Its what made it considerably lighter than the equivalen conventional warplane that was armored to the same level.
About Engines – your average engine, if you took out all the fancy gizmos has not gone as far as people believe in the last 50 years. But obviously, we’d need a better engine on “our” IL-2. (or our IL-10)
PLA-MKIII have spent some time in Pakistan and have had some first hand knowledge of this country, so much so that from originally having a negative opinion about it, I’ve genuinely come to like it. The thing with R&D in Pakistan is that its really no competition – in the civilian sector. There are a few centers of excellence but by and large they lag way way way way behind. However, there is military R&D, and thats a completely different thing. They spend serious cash on these “sensitive” projects and invest in serious human capital. A neighbor of mine while I was there was a nuclear scientist – with a PhD from UCLA!! and with full scholarship and substantial research papers to his name. One seriously brainy chap. I’d have dinner with them sometime and all his fellow collegues would be talking about research publications in what not. And he’s not unique – there are a couple of thousand scientists of his caliber working on these military R&D stuff. Then there are hordes of others – less qualified. Overall they number in the 10s of thousands.
I once also had the fortune of being family friends with a fellow who was part of the F/A-18 team and did serious work in the cockpit of that plane. When I met him he was working for the Pakistan government on some secret “black” project. Perhaps it was the JF-17 for all I know. Last but not the least there was this local college I attended for some time and a graduate of theres (this really geeky brainy kid) simply vanished for half a decade after he came up with some kind of a guidance system for missiles. He was apparently working for the government on some project or other.
Another anecdote: I once had the fortune of visiting Kamra and a neighboring base, on a school trip that a class mate and friend helped arrange (his dad was a retired famous PAF pilot). I got to see first hand an F-7 with Martin baker seats, sidewinders and all kinds of other gizmos. I still recall that the officers where taken aback by my knowledge of aviation. Definitely a very professionally run place. I saw mirages being taken apart down to their bare bones and being rebuilt from there. I also saw some kind of a fancy looking radar on one mirage’s nose. I believe they will build the JF-17s at that place.
Some analysis: The R&D center that they’ve developed with respect to nuclear science is seriously no joke. They are way ahead of the stuff we give them credit for. Like any successful company, this sector has been diversifying into various other sectors – in to missiles and now perhaps into aviation. They spend a crazy amount of money on this that they perhaps don’t show on any balance sheet. They also have some of the best brains working on them. I therefore always take it with a grain of salt when someone comes and claims that the Pakistanis are just painting stuff. Its simply hard to believe.
No doubt they would be way better off spending this money and resources for social purposes, but still, its just for Pakistanis to be proud of what they’ve achieved. The Chinese are very rigorous and solid in their engineering. Their only real weakness is a perceived lack of innovation – perhaps engendered by institutional factors. The Pakistanis are on the other hand rough round the edges but highly innovative. They therefore make ideal partners.
PLA-MKIILike poor forward view on takeoff? Like reduced rate of fire for syncronised guns? Life expectancy for an Il-2 was better than some less well protected aircraft in such a role but plenty were shot down. Operating over the front line is dangerous.
Talk can only do so much, I can envision a real victory here. By using a pusher propeller you’d have taken away the main thing wit the IL-2 and IL-10 – structural armor. Without which its no better than any other junk plane in the sky.
Not that I blame you, I personally designed a pusher propeller arrangement originally for this role.
PLA-MKII(1) It probably helped having vast reserves of natural materials, iron ores etc, an indigenous steel industry, virtually unpaid labour and pretty much unlimited supplies of cheap fuel.
(2) With Avgas at £1.30 a litre in the UK and climbing everywhere else you won’t find many applications for a piston engine of nearly 2,000 horsepower.
Moggy
My country has loads and loads of cheap labor. I am forward planning to find an aviation use for it 🙂
PLA-MKIIWouldn’t the modern day adaptation of the Il-2 be embodied in the Su-25 Frogfoot?
As far as the topic title goes, I’d have to say it’s like comparing apples & oranges. They were both superb at the roles they were asked to perform, and though they did do some of the same missions, they went about them in different ways.
I think the Stuka was the better choice for precision attacks, and it could certainly carry heavier individual weapons (i.e. the massive 1800-kg weapons that the Ju-87D could carry under the fuselage) which made it capable of hitting larger targets like ships, but at the same time it didn’t have the strafing power and rocket armament of the Il-2, which means that close air support in terms of simply patrolling low over the battlefield and responding to requests for support was generally better done by the Il-2 in my opinion.
The Stuka was a close air support weapon though, make no mistake about it, and the Il-2 if fitted with a torpedo could kill ships as well as a Stuka with a big bomb. (Did Stukas ever operationally carry torpedoes?)
At the end of the day, as long as they had air cover, they were both very effective as their jobs, and the sheer fact that both are so well-known is a testament to not only their notorious reputations, but their efficiency in combat.
I just go through reading the two Osprey Combat Aircraft titles on the Stuka, and I must say I learned a great deal and I have a new level of respect for Stuka crews and their support folks….they went through some tough times. (Note: I don’t condone the Nazi cause….just a simple respect for the individuals.)
Interestingly your name sake also carried huge loads into the battlefield. I still think that the IL-2 or even the IL-10 can play an effective role today and have many advantages that only a prop can have.
PLA-MKIIBy having a vast country which has experienced war in the recent past; hence, they have a need for quick power-projection into the bush. Angola has also played a positive, stabilizing role in the region by intervening in the Dem. Rep. of Congo and the Rep. of Congo. The DRC is another vast country making an aircraft like the Su-27 extremely useful.
At the same time, the Angolan economy has been strongly expanding, thanks in large part to energy exports. Luanda and the interior cities are all being rehabilitated, and new cities, like Luanda Sul, are being constructed.
Look here for some info on some of the reconstruction in Angola:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=420119
What about Tirith Ungol? hows the rehabilitation there? 😀
PLA-MKIII doubt Israel will be granted an export clearance for the Raptor, in light of the recent back-and-forth with the US over Israeli arms assistance to the PRC. In that light, I hope they never see one, save at an airshow.
They’ll get it, whats the AIPAC for? They knew about the F-15 program way before even congress did. And you and I will have to foot the bill out of our tax mate. Sorry but thats the reality.
Sign In
