To b honest, even that brochure doesnt lessen the confusion. It has URL for catic’s website, and FC-1’s specs there r quite different (probably not updated).
http://web.catic.com.cn/cpwin.asp?as_lm1=3&as_lm2=1&as_lm3=%20&as_lm4=%20&as_dm=4

Those radars mentioned have multiple tracking ability and two of them are less complex than the Grifo S-7.
It is typical of modern radars to have multiple tracking abiltiy. Factory sources did quote that FC-1 has requirements for multiple tracking. Common sense tells you that this will be the requirement for the S-7 radar as well.

I second that.
I just came across an article from flight international (16 June 1999), which states that most powerful version of RC400 can track up to 24 targets, eight of which can be targeted simultaneously, with automatic prioritisation of four.

Now we all know that two main contenders for JF-17 were RC-400 and Grifo-S7. Currently, there r some indications that PAF would opt for latter, and i’d be damn surprised :confused: if Grifo S7 (especially considering the fact that it was referred to as the most advanced version of Grifo…including Grifo 2000…by Fiar officials at Ideas 2003 ) doesnt offer multi engagement capibility while its main competitor RC-400 is offering 8. :rolleyes:

Sorry. Clarification. Thrust should be 8300kg, which is the same as the RD-33 and unchanged.

Found something relevant on PDF…just an excerpt from an article.

Aviation Week & Space Technology
Vol. 153, No. 8 (2000)
Russian Engine Makers Jockey for New Orders
ALEXEY KOMAROV

Meanwhile, the St. Petersburg-based Klimov plant is working on the RD-93, an in-depth modification of the MiG-29’s RD-33 turbofan, developed for an order from China. According to Klimov General Director Alexander Sarkisov, the RD-93 was developed to power China’s new light multirole fighter, the FC-1 (Super-7), designed by the Chinese Aircraft Industrial Group in a joint program with the Mikoyan design bureau. The engine’s dry weight is 1,055 kg., dry thrust is 5,040 kgf. (11,090-lb. thrust) and full afterburning thrust is 8,300 kgf. (18,260-lb. thrust).

Sarkisov does not exclude the possibility that the RD-93 and an upgraded RD-33 with thrust-vectoring nozzle, dubbed the RD-133, could be offered to power combat aircraft, including MiG-29 tactical fighters, in several other countries.

Fab fighter…but now after seeing that price tag ($95 mil) im thinking is it really worth it? :confused:

As for PAF, even if they were interested, i dont think they would remain so after seeing this hefty price. Saudis may turn out to b a potential candidate though, and i have heard that BAE have offered them 50 pieces…but the quoted price was around $2.5 bil :confused:

In 1990s, everyone assumed that a russian 5th gen fighter will b in F-22 class. However, recent reports (probably couple of years old) quoting russian officials indicate that it’ll more a JSF type fighter. Nevertheless, its quite difficult to envisage its real status at this stage, as im sure the project will continue to eveolve in the foreseeble future.

That said, there r a few things which are worth questioning.
1. Both F-22 and JSF have taken billions in terms of R&D. Does russia have that sort of money, even if one takes into account low russian costs.
2. Even if another country like india or china funds this project, how much money would it require and how long will it b b4 this fighter with state of the art new gen avionics can b put into service?
3. We all know how expensive F-22 is turning out to b. Without taking into account its R&D, unit price will be around $130 mil. OTOH, JSF is envisaged to b much cheaper fighter assuming 2000-3000 units r produced. Now, if a russian 5th gen fighter is indeed fielded by (say) 2015, i cant imagine too many units being produced…and if so wot would b its unit price like?

Do we have any *official* PAF word on whether Russia has authorized RD-93 to be produced for Pakistan?

Well various reports from mainstream media after official briefing have said that JF-17 will use RD-93, which indicates that Russian must have authorised its use. In fact, AFM (oct 2003) issue also mentined that RD-93 has been selected. It was back in 2001 (or 2002?) when russia made a fuss about engine supply, but the issue seems to have been resolved quite quickly. I think the bigger question at present is whether RD-93 will b supplied by Klimov or licence produced in china under the designation of rD-93.

Any word on how many flights have taken place?

No idea…but quite a few since the second prototype is already out and the aircraft enetred the supersonic regime on April 9.

Any word on exactly what technology/advancement Pakistan has contributed for this project?

Not any info available on this one apart from the fact that a small number of pakistani engineers was working on the project along side a much larger contingent of their chinese counterpart. But in any case, pakistani contribution (if any) is unlikely to be of significant nature as this is their first attempt in this regard.

I dont have any experience in any media.
Yet i assume that to get something published in a high profile magazine such as Janes, the actual report has to go through various hands (including that of editor’s) which should reduce the overall margin of error.

PS. This is not to say that Janes is error proof.