200 FC1 WILL BE PROCURED BY CHINA
150 JF17 WILL BE PROCURED BY PAKISTAN

AND HUNDREDS OF AC TO EXPORT

care to give us more information about the FC-17? is it different from the J-10? :headbang:

I think its smarter and cheaper to buy these Chinese FC1 Multirole jet fighters for our Philippine AirForce and its cost is $10-15 million only compared to US F16s which is about $30 million and above. Besides spare parts for these aircrafts will be a lot cheaper too. I believe there are no strings attached that comes from buying these jets. Look at Vietnam, they buy their guns and military equipments from China too and they used these same weapons against China when the Chinese tried to teach the Vietnamese some lessons on Cambodia.

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00307001

http://sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1.asp

gritpaladin,


you should have posted here the concise specs of the warbirds first so that we may know what to choose. :armycheers:

pics too, please. :armygrin:

lets wait first how the FC1 performs as operated by pakistan and Bangladesh, but I think its a good interim BVR fighter for PhilAF.

Here is a few article on the Chinese FC1 (Super7) Multirole Figher aircraft :

The FC-1 (Fighter China-1) Xiaolong, initially known as Super-7, is the single-seat, single-engine, multirole fighter aircraft developed by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAC) for export market. Currently three prototypes are flying. A joint venture between CAC and Pakistani Aeronautical Complex (PAC) will begin initial production of 16 aircraft in 2006. The designation of the aircraft in the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) is Joint Fighter-17 (JF-17) Thunder. It is still not clear whether the PLA Air Force will eventually acquire any of this aircraft.

DESIGN

The FC-1/Super-7 was originally defined as a low-cost third-generation air-superiority fighter aircraft to replace the MiG-21/F-7 Fishbed and Northrop F-5 series in service with many developing countries. With the participation of MASPG, the aircraft was re-branded as a lightweight, high-performance, multirole attack fighter aircraft featuring fly-by-wire (FBW) flight-control, beyond-vision-range (BVR) combat capability and much improved aerodynamic performance. These has also steered the unit price of the aircraft up by 50%, from the original US$10 million to US$15 million.

The aircraft has delta wings and a conventional tail, and might be capable of aerial refuelling without significant modifications. The aircraft can be tailored to meet the different customers with various operational and budgetary requirements—from low-cost options fitted with Chinese indigenously designed avionics to higher-performance options incorporated with Western developed weapons and avionics.

WEAPON

The aircraft has 7 stores stations, including one under the fuselage, 4 under the wings, and 2 wingtip mounted, with up to 3,800kg weapon payload.

The aircraft is of beyond-vision-range (BVR) attack capability with the SD-10 medium-range air-to-air missile (MRAAM) developed by China Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute (LETRI, also known as 607 Institute). The aircraft also carries two short-range AAMs on its wingtip-mounted launch rails. The options include U.S. AIM-9P and Chinese PL-6, PL-8, and PL-9.

The aircraft can carry a special pod allowing day/night delivery of laser-guided weapons. In addition, it can also carry unguided weapons such as iron bomb and unguided rocket launchers.

AVIONICS

The avionics suite onboard the FC-1/JF-17 is said to be Chinese design, comprising a head-up display (HUD), infra-red search-and-track system, night-vision goggle capability and ring-laser gyro inertial navigation system with GPS input. To achieve better aerodynamic performance, the FC-1/Super-7 is also equipped with a digital dual fly-by-wire (FBW).

The fire-control radar is expected to be selected among Israeli Elta-2032, Italian FIAR Grifo S-7, and Russian Phazotron Kopyo. The JF-17 Thunder fighters in service with the PAF will be fitted with the Italian Grifo S-7 fire-control radar, which has 25 working modes and a non-break-down time of 200 hours. The radar is capable of look-down, shoot-down, as well as for ground strike, but lacks multi-targets tracing and attacking capability.

POWERPLANT

One Russian-made RD-93 turbofans, rated 49.4kN dry or 81.4kN with afterburning. China has reportedly imported five RD-93s from Russia to power the prototypes, but agreement of further purchase and re-export of the engine in together with the fighter aircraft has yet been reached. China may seek to power the aircraft with an indigenously-developed powerplant.

SPECIFICATIONS

Crew: One
Wingspan: 9.00 m
Length: 14 m
Height: 5.10 m
Weight: Empty 6,321 kg; Normal take-off: 9,100 kg; Max take-off 12,700 kg; Max weapon payload 3,800 kg
Maximum Weapon Load: 3,600 kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 1.6
Range: Ferry range 3,000 km; Operational Radius 1,352 km
Service Ceiling: 16,500 m
Maximum Climb Rate: N/A
+G Limit: 8.5

The FC-1 (Fighter China 1) Xiao Long (Brave Dragon), also known as J-9?, is a single engine, single seat multipurpose fighter aircraft developed jointly between China and Pakistan. Externally the Chinese FC-1 fighter resembles the proven US F-16 Fighting Falcon, but its overall performance compared to western standards remains uncertain.

The FC-1 fighter has been developed to supersede aging combat aircraft currently in active service with the PLAAF. The FC-1 fighter will be also provided to export customers with an estimated acquisition cost of $10-15 million per aircraft. Actually, Pakistan would be the first export customer with a lot more nations worldwide joining the FC-1's export customer list.

Gritpaladin,

Sorry to say this bro but you sound like a PRC sales agent. Philippine Airforce is referred to as PAF not PhAF. PhAF sounds like the Philippine Airforce of Pampanga, just like jhun, dholly and hetch-bee-oow (HBO) ok?

Don't you wonder why the PAF fanatics are not answering your query?

Let us all be practical with what our AirForce needs? Perhaps u have a better idea than mine...Anyway the topic is about PAF buying FC1 jets and for all you know our Military Brass have prepared our 5th Fighter Wing pilots to be sent to China to do assessment with acquiring these jets.

But it was call-off on the last minute. I guess the US has to do with the decision of not pursuing to acquire these jets since it would signal Uncle Sam that our country will no longer lean on American support for military hardware.

I am positive that its OK for our Fighter Pilots to fly FC1 jets as long as their needs are provided ...I had a friendly conversation with an AirForce pilot and he told that its OK for them. Our pilots are really frustrated of said acquisition of F16s, KFirs, Migs and Mirages and nothing happens....

I support the acquisition of Israeli KFIRs if its for the good of having an Air Defense and Interdiction since KFirs price tag is below $10 million......But forget about acquiring US jets since the Americans won't sell those jets for a cheaper price than acquiring a brand-new FC1 or JF17 jets for only $10-15 million dollars a piece.

If you are against having relationship with the Chinese coz of Uncle Sam then why not acquiring those jets from Pakistan instead. At least the avionics and engine could be Western...and Pakistan is also manufacturing these jets for their own needs.

I rest my case, we all can spot the chinglish in your statements. Nothing wrong with that, address the issue on who you represent and people here will be honest to you in return.

Youre usage of grammar has a hint of aussie and mandarin. like...


"But sadly to say, it was call-off on the last minute"

or

"Why not asked some of the 5th Fighter Wing pilots about this? I am positive that its OK for them as long as their needs are provided or meet...Fighter Jets for them"

or

"I am also in support of acquiring Israeli KFIRs if its for the good of having an Air Defense"


I am a pain the ass ain't I? a filipino should crack up with the jokes I spun, no reaction means no social or cultural links. Ang dali nyo naman ma CI.

Folks,

Check this.



FC1 info:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/fc-1.htm

Specifications:

Contractors Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group (CAIG)
Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC)
Projected [1999] Actual [2004]

LENGTH 13.95 meters 14.9679 m

HEIGHT 5.02 meters 4.77485 m

WING SPAN 9.5 meters 9.4646 m

MAX T-O WEIGHT 12,500 kilograms 12,474 kg
Empty weight 6,411 kg
Normal takeoff weight 9,072 kg
Maximum landing weight 7,802 kg
Fuel weight 2,268 kg
Weapons load 3,629 kg
Thrust/weight ratio >=0.9

MAX LEVEL SPEED 1031 knots Mach 1.6

MAX RANGE / Ferry range 864 nautical miles 2,037 km

SERVICE CEILING 16,000 meters 15,240 m

T-O RUN 500 meters 609 m

LANDING RUN 700 meters 823 m

Armament
23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon
6 - PL-7 AAM
6 - PL-10 AAMs
ASMs, bombs

gritpaladin,


Your warbird is not a bad piece.

They look awesome as well, in fact.

BTW, Pakistan and China bought these because they are partners in the development of this aircraft.

Since these are still being developed and tested, it will be better for us to monitor how these jets will match their western counterparts.

Probably, when the right time comes, about 3 to 5 years from now, the Philippines can finally make a decision on this.

The Chinese should first test its performance by holding air combat exercises with other fighter aircraft manufacturers like that of the makers of F16, F15, F18, Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon or Rafale.

With that, our country can easily make a judgement if buying the FC1 is timely or shall it wait further until the FC1 becomes comparable to its western counterparts, if in case by that time the price REMAINS COMPETITIVE.

I believe, if the Chinese and Pakistani developers will continue to develop this warbird, the FC1 will surely get a healthy share of the market.

:thumb: :thumb:

BEAUTIFUL!

We should integrate western avionics and weapons and even israeli weapons and avionics if Pakistan would not object.

Based on the specification the JF17 has no helmet mounted bore sight targeting device. most modern fighters have those.

the fighter look like a cross between an F5 and F16

the FC-1 is still under development although i think it will be a "good buy" for the Philippines if "it knows how to play its cards well". :demon:

oh... maybe we can also consider getting the J-10 (Lavi), which is already being marketed by China to potential buyers.






J-10 MULTI-ROLE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT


The Jian-10 (J-10) is the multirole fighter aircraft developed by 611 Aircraft Design Institute (Chengdu) and built by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAC). Development of the J-10 began in 1984 and the first low-rate initial production variant was delivered to the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) in 2002. Around 300 aircraft are expected to be built. The J-10 is available in two variants: the single seat fighter J-10A and the two-seat fighter-trainer J-10B.


PROGRAMME

The J-10 fighter was developed in the early 1980s as a counter to the Soviet Union’s emerging fourth-generation fighters such as the MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker. The original requirement was air superiority, but the break-up of the Soviet Union and changing requirements shifted development towards a high-performance multirole fighter aircraft to replace the ageing J-6s and J-7s that are the backbone of China’s air force. The J-10 is based on the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI)’s Lavi fighter. After the Lavi programme was cancelled in 1987, its design was taken over by CAC, and IAI carried on with the development of avionic equipment.

The PLAAF originally planned to fit the J-10 fighter with Western-made turbofan engine and fire-control radar. Following the event in June 1989, the U.S. and other Western countries imposed an arms ban on China, which almost traumatised the J-10’s development. However, the end of the Cold War enabled China to seek advanced aviation and defence technologies from its new alley Russia, who agreed to provide the AL-31F turbofan engine to power the J-10. As a result, the rear portion of the J-10’s airframe had to be re-designed to fit the Russian powerplant, and this has caused further delays in the aircraft’s development.

The J-10 first flew in 1998, but the aircraft suffered serious problems with the fly-by-wire (FBW) software, which resulted in the loss of the No.2 prototype and its pilot in 1999. After some re-design work, the revised J-10 successfully flew in 1998. By 2000 a total of six prototypes (1001~1006) had been built. Three more prototypes (1007~1009) were built between 2000 and 2002. The low-rate initial production of the J-10 was authorised in 2002, and the first batch is expected to include about fifty aircraft fitted with Russian AL-31F engines. The two-seat J-10B fighter-trainer aircraft successfully flew in 2003.

The J-10 is expected to achieve initial operating capability by 2005~2006, and the first operational regiment of the J-10 is reported to be the PLAAF 44th Aviation Division based in Sichuan Province. The PLAAF was estimated to have a total requirement of 300 aircraft, but this may be reduced to less than 100 as a result of the introduction of the more capable Su-30MK multirole fighter. The CAC is also trying to replace the Russian AL-31F with the indigenously developed WS-10A, which is said to be a Chinese copy of the AL-31FN. The J-10 may become available for export market in 2005~2006.


DESIGN

The single-engine J-10 fighter is similar in size to the Lockheed Martin F-16, with a rectangle belly air intake, low-mounted delta wings and a pair of from canard wings. The design is aerodynamically unstable, to provide a high level of agility, low drag and enhanced lift. The pilot controls the aircraft through a computerised digital fly-by-wire (FBW) system, which provides artificial stabilisation and gust elevation to give good control characteristics throughout the flight envelope. The J-10 is also the first Chinese-made fighter to be fitted with a large two-piece bubble canopy to give the pilot a better view in close air combat.

COCKPIT

The J-10's cockpit is fitted with three flat-panel liquid crystal multifunction displays (MFDs), including one colour MFD, wide field-of-view head-up display (HUD), and possibly helmet-mounted sight (HMS). It is not know whether the HMS is the basic Ukrainian Arsenel HMS copied by China's Luoyang Avionics, or a new helmet display featured briefly at the 2000 Zhuhai air show.

The pilot manipulates the J-10 by the Iron Bird quadruple (four channels) digital fly-by-wire (FBW) system. The pilot is also aided by advanced autopilot and air data computer.


RADAR

The J-10 is reported to be fitted with an indigenous KLJ-3 pulse-Doppler fire-control radar developed by Nanjing Research Institute of Electronic Technology (also known as 14th Institute). The KLJ-3 radar, which might be based on early variant AN/APG-66/68 technology, is said to have a maximum detecting range of 100~130km (attacking range 80~90km), and is capable of engaging two targets simultaneously. The radar system was tested on a Y-7 aerial radar testbed before being fitted on the J-10.

Russian company Phazotron is prompting its Zhuk-10PD, a version of the system in later Su-27s, with 160km search range and ability to track up to six targets. Israel has also offered its Elta EL/M-2035 radar for competition.

For low-level navigation and precision strike, a forward-looking infrared and laser designation pod is likely to be carried F-16-style on an inlet stores station. A Chinese designed pod similar to the Israeli Rafael Litening was revealed at the 1998 Zhuhai air show.


POWERPLANT

The initial low-rate production J-10s are powered by the 27,500lb-thrust (120kN) Russian Lyulka-Saturn AL-31F turbofan rated at 17,857 lb (79.43 kN) dry and 27,557 lb st (122.58 kN) with afterburning. The same powerplant is also being used by Chinese air force's Su-27s and Su-30s. Lyulka-Saturn reportedly delivered 54 AL-31F turbofan engines to China between 2002 and 2004. These are the AL-31FN model with special modifications to be fitted in the J-10.

China is also developing its own WS-10A turbofan powerplant, and it could be fitted on the later versions of the J-10. An all-aspect vectored-thrust version of the AL-31F was revealed for the first time at Zhuhai Air Show 1998, leading to speculation that this advanced engine may wind up on the J-10, potentially conferring phenomenal manoeuvrability.


WEAPONS

The fixed weapon on the J-10 is a 23mm internal cannon. The aircraft also has 11 stores stations - six under the wing and five under the fuselage. The inner wing and centre fuselage stations are plumped to carry external fuel tanks. Fixed weapon is a 23-mm inner cannon hidden inside fuselage.

In addition to the PL-8 short-range infrared-guided air-to-air missile reportedly derived from Israeli Rafael Python-3 technology, the J-10 could also carry Russian Vympel R-73 (AA-11) short-range and R-77 (AA-12) medium-range missiles equipped by Chinese Flankers. It may also be fitted with indigenously developed PL-11 or PL-12 medium-range AAM for BVR combat.

For ground attack missions, the J-10 will carry laser-guided bombs, YJ-8K anti-ship missile, as well as various unguided bombs and rockets. Some missiles currently under development such as the YJ-9 ramjet-powered anti-radiation missile may also be carried by the J-10.


SPECIFICATIONS

Crew: 1 (basic variant); 2 (fighter-trainer variant)
Dimensions: N/A
Weight: N/A
Max Speed: Mach 1.2 (sea-level) or Mach 2.0 (high altitude)
Range: Combat radius over 550km
Service Ceiling: N/A
Max Climb Rate: N/A
G Limit: N/A

Advantages that i see are .. bubble cockpit design, radar, BVR and probably the cost.

Main disadvantage is this thing; (corrected :armyLol: )

The Chinese should do something to correct this.

BTW, China's aggresiveness and the effort they put into this undertaking will definitely give China a good market share eventually.

They must check all those concerns though, because buyers ... HAVE MANY OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM.

Once they see something that is not done right, then that will give them reason to look for the other options.

:thumb: :thumb:

WHAT THE?! :armyeek:

err...mr. flipz, either you need to improve your vocabulary of aviation terms, or you really need to replace those contacts you're wearing!

the statement you quoted clearly reads: "design is aerodynamically unstable, TO PROVIDE A HIGH LEVEL OF AGILITY, LOW DRAG AND ENHANCED LIFT" - anyone is free to correct me if i'm wrong, but a design that makes a fighter plane more agile (quicker to react to pilot inputs), have less drag (less air resistance making it inherently faster), and need less thrust versus total wing area to generate lift (upward motion) sure as hell looks like a POSITIVE to me!

i think you misinterpreted the term "aerodynamically unstable", but this is a common design feature built into every Western combat aircraft since the F-16: F-16, F/A-18, Mirage 2000, F-117, Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, F-22, F-35 - all are aerodynamically unstable aircraft, the reason for this is easily seen when one looks at a scientific definition of the terms "equilibrium" and "stability"

a traditional airplane is designed to move away from level flight only when the pilot "tells" it to, i.e. when he shifts the control column left to cause the plane to roll left, and it's designed to keep rolling until the pilot brings the column back to center - that in a nutshell is what's meant by aerodynamic stability, or the ability of a plane to return to a "position of equilibrium": level flight, rolling left/right, pitching up/down - all are positions of equilibrium because the plane will tend to stay level or keep rolling/pitching until it is "disturbed", a disturbance in turn means anything that causes a plane to depart from level flight or to stop rolling/pitching, in short to leave a position of equilibrium. the most common form of disturbance is not weather or wind direction or mechanical failure - commonsensically, it is simply pilot input or the direction the pilot moves the aircraft controls.

for a fighter plane, the disadvantage to this is that it takes effort and thus time to cause a plane to go in the direction its pilot needs it to, which is not a problem when he's making a routine turn - but what if he's being chased by a heat-seeking missile?

the F-16 design team's brilliant solution: create a plane that is already trying to move left, right, up, or down even before the pilot touches the controls. how in the world does one achieve this? - by creating your own disturbances, to wit



the vapor trailing above the Viper's wings are vortices of air artificially-induced by the strakes or wing extensions attached to either wing's leading edge, in the pic these strakes are clearly visible from right behind the plane's nose down to the roots of the leading-edge flaps. the purpose of these strakes is to rapidly speed up the flow of air over the F-16's wings - graphically demonstrated by the vortices - the effect is to increase lift or, more precisely, force the plane's nose to pitch up. this effect is not just happening because of what the plane is doing in the pic, this effect is happening every second that the F-16 is in the air - in short, the F-16's nose is not just trying to move up, it is VIOLENTLY trying to move up. since these vortices are present over both wings, the plane is not only trying to zoom upwards, it is also trying to roll in both directions (left and right) at the same time.

so why doesn't the damn thing simply spin out of control? - that's what a flight control system (FCS) or fly-by-wire is for: no pilot no matter how skilled can control a plane that's trying to go in all directions at once, so it is up to a computer to automatically move the F-16's control surfaces (ailerons, elevators, rudders) to resist or trim the plane's tendency to leave controlled flight, which tendency the computer not only "senses" but actually predicts. incidentally, since the plane's wings and nose are constantly trying to go their separate ways, this means that the airframe suffers incredible stresses inflight, which is why the F-16 also pioneered the use of super-strong composite materials (like carbon fiber) because ordinary metals simply aren't up to the task.

so how can all of this provide "a high level of agility, low drag and enhanced lift?" - for one, unlike a stable aircraft, there is no resistance to pilot inputs since the plane naturally "wants" to go in the direction the pilot needs to anyway - which is only partly true since the plane actually wants to go in all directions. for reducing drag and enhancing lift, the real obstacle to the latter is the need to accomodate a pilot, but since the need for a human bieng to directly control a plane is removed, the designers can concentrate on making the plane's shape as aerodynamically efficient as possible (the next advance would be to get rid of the pilot altogether, but then UCAVs are another story), also, since the plane uses composite materials - which are stronger, smoother, lighter, and more flexible than regular metals - the designers have a much easier time translating that desired shape into reality.

the net effect of aerodynamically unstable designs and automatic FCS is that the F-16 and similar aircraft literally fly without the aid of their pilots, the person sitting in the cockpit is technically not a "pilot" at all but a soldier whose job is not to fly the plane but to perform the mission assigned.

and FOCUS is an advantage any way you look at it!

the main technical disadvantage that I see as far as the FC-1 is this:

compare that to the Gripen

we have here yet another short-legged fighter plane. although the FC-1 has almost the same internal fuel capacity as the Gripen, its engine (Klimov RD-93) is heavier and longer than that of the Gripen (Volvo RM12 aka GE F404), making that engine less fuel-efficient, not surprising since the RD-93 happens to be a version of the notoriously gas-guzzling RD-33 of the MiG-29.

another problem with those engines

the Russians are only willing to supply RD-93s for Chinese FC-1s to avoid pissing-off the Indians. so then what pray tell would be powering the Pakistani and other export FC-1s?

another thing, the price: $10-15 million? - as posted in another thread, second-hand F-16 MLUs are being offered to Chile for $7.5 million each. also, Air Forces Monthly mag quoted the last Thai F-16 ADF deal at $132 million for 16 planes, or around $8 million each, the same mag reported Bahrain being offered 20 F-16 MLUs at $200 million or $10 mil each. "$30 million" is the pricetag of a brand-new USAF standard F-16C, so pricewise the FC-1 is advantageous only against brand-new MRFs, not against second-hand but still better performing multirole fighters.

the reason why i keep harping about range is the assumption that the Philippines will be acquiring only a limited number of airframes. for 16 or less aircraft to cover the whole archipelago it is absolutely necessary that they be able to reach any point in the country with a useful payload taking-off from a central location. what's the point of having jet fighters that can only protect the 200 miles around Manila?

It's not the glasses nor the vocabulary, i guess it's because i am doing things too hastily. :armyLol:

Kaya mali mali minsan words. :funnypost:

Sorry po. Sige mas mas mas mas mas mas babasahin ko mabuti para mas tama letra. :armycheers:

Yung aviation terms eh.. quoted ko lang from the ealier post. malay ko kung engot yung nagsulat nun. :funnypost:

Sige na nga klaruhin natin. He should have said ...

.. "The design is aerodynamically unstable, which prevents it from getting a high level of agility, low drag and enhanced lift."

Alam ko naman yun, kaso pinabayaan ko na lang kc naintindiahn ko naman sya. :armyLol:

So with that, the range or "fuel efficiency" becomes a vital factor in choosing what MRF to buy.

Fuel efficiency also addresses the concern on fuel cost, right?

The FC1 design needs more redesign, if this is the case.

The FC1 still has several concerns to address effectively before if can penetrate the world market.

Cute design aint enough. Performance is still what counts most. :exactly:

Haven't you read my topic about the joint strike fighter being developed by both China and Pakistan? :headbang:

Commando,

Based on the that thread you said about, with the primary consideration on range, what can you say about this?

1) For our main fighter squadron, a dozen or two of F16 jets.

2) For our bases near Palawan and in Zambo, we should at least field a dozen Gripen for each base.

The Gripen, considering their much shorter distance from the threat, will be the one that will intercept the enemies first while the F16s, based in VAB or Clark or Basa will follow if in case the level of threat is great.

The timely response of the Gripens will either hold the aggressor at bay or deny it the chance to penetrate further ...

... while the Falcons are still crossing Mindoro's airspace.

Is that a good setup?

I believe we also need to setup another base for the Gripens far up north in Ilocos Norte or Cagayan.

BTW, despite the concerns weve discussed above, ....

... why is it that the poll keeps getting the YES votes?

Are the Chinese guys doing their trick here? :funnypost:

so why aren't they also posting? :armygrin:

the Swiss are contemplating adding the Gripen to their arsenal, which makes sense since they're a landlocked country - plus they already have the F/A-18, which shares the Gripen's engine.

I RUN OUT INTERNET


PLEASE SPE CIFIY WHY YOU CHOOSE NO OR YES

OKAY THE 4TH PROTOTYPE HAVE NOT BEEN YET FLOWN

WHY MANY ARE ASKING THE QUESTION

IT IS GOING FOR A LOT OF CHANGES INCLUDING DSI

I WILL POST SOME OF THE SPECIFICATION

THE INFO ABT THE FC1/JF17 AND THE PICS ARE OLD ALREADY


IT HAS IMPROVED A LOT

Chow,


Maybe you can help us get more info about this improved version. :thumb:

a lot of the changes are still unclear and there is no guarantee that they will show up in 04. If we compare and contrast the "old" JF-17 (01,03AND 02) against the "new" JF-17 (04), we could find out the following differences:

1. The front fuselage has been redesigned with a smooth and round contour forward of the DSI "BUMP".

2. The geometric shape of the tailplane has been redesigned with a somewhat larger surface area.

3. The flaperons (starboard and port) have been changed to a one piece configuration extending from the wing root.

4. The leading edge flaps look different and appear to have been redesigned.
5. The tailfin and rudder show minor modifications.

6. An antenna fairing is added near the top of the tailfin.

7. The location, size and geometric shape of the air intake has been completely redesigned due to the DSI "BUMP".

8. The nose cone appears slightly larger.

credit one of my friend

some stuff which will be in the JF17/FC1 and is in it

tri-axial quadruplex FBW
digital automatic flight/navigation system
jamming system
HUD
3 MFD
HMS
Refuling probe
jf17 to jf17 refulling or buddy to buddy refulling

SD10/BVR more better missilies will be there

Chinese engine/Russian engine
Radar Chinese FC1 or Western radar JF17
Naval version of JF17, which will carry Chinese deadly Anti Ship Missilies

china already look for ukraine for several thing i think HUD , HMS

and many others to come



ADD NOW THERE WILL BE 2 SEATER TRAINER, AND MUCH MORE BETTER NEWS IT CAN DO EVEN ATTACK MISSION, KIND OF ATTACK LIKE F18

FC1 CONTINUES TO BE REDESIGNED


A reliable source introduced to Kanwa the latest development in the production of the 4th FC1 fighter. Firstly, as it was reported by Kanwa earlier, the 4th FC1 fighter will be fitted with China-made KLJ10 fire control radar system. In addition, this fighter has undergone some structural adjustment. FC1 put on display at Zhuhai Air Show 2004 is actually the mock-up of the 4th FC1 fighter finished a short time ago. Analysis of this mock-up fighter reveals that the connecting portion between the mainar, tailfin and the fuselage is reinforced with strip-shaped structure so as to control vortex flow of the aircraft. Meanwhile, the internal capacity of the air-intake channel is also larger. Through such improvements, FC1 has a much better manoeuvrability as it still adopts longitudinal dualplex FBW system and conventional mechanical operation for transverse control. In addition, the problem of smoking due to the sufficient air intake will disappear after such improvements.

the prototype is compared to F16 A/B BLK15

but the production will be far more superior

some one said i cant well remmeber it will be as good as F16 C/D BLK 40/42

but always inferior to BLK50/52

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PAF satnds for Philippines Air Force i know that I wrote PHAF so ppl dont get confused by saing Pakistan air force

if i did hurt some ones fellings then sorry :specool:

china engine problem solved

not everyone get that, strings or stuff are attached always.
i dont know abt the PH, overall looking in every way it is good for PAF to have FC1 or JF17

embargo prone, sanction
look all the way
how abt if there is a leader who said something Then USA put arms embargo
then your 8 millions F16 will be screwed
also other reasons is there.
FC1 will be more superior then MLU hopefully, add a little bit more money.

JF17/FC1

REMMEBER JF17/FC1 IS A LIGHT WEIGHT MULTI ROLE FIGHTER

COST 10 TO 15 MILLIONS

F10/J10

TO FIGHT AGAINST THE F16 AND SLIGHTLY MORE MANUVERABLE THEN F18 SUPER HORNET. BETTER SUPERIOR THEN SU27, SOME WAYS ARE AS GOOD AS SU30.

COST 20 TO 25 MILLIONS

YES WE ALREADY ORDERED, WE THE 1ST NATION TO DO SO, SHOW INTEREST AND ALSO BUY

2007 and after by then for export and full production

you must be kidding me, it will not be held, look at the ac you are saying it to have excersie, it is in a diferent league.
f16,f18, gripen
then you say f15
and then you say EF and Rafale

lol :headbang:

Many african counties shown interest and will buy, Saudi want to buy a lot of it, Iran also,

most of the buyers will be from Africa, Middle East and Asia

depends, if you want you can maybe but, you must buy bulk, another one If the USA allows Israeli to do it. It be good, if you choose russian or german france stuff.

ANY WAY JF17 WILL HAVE ITALIN RADAR

BANGLADESH AIR FORCE ON FC1/JF17

BUT ALL SOURCE SHOWS BAF WILL GET FC1 WHICH IS 10 MILLIONS EACH

SEVERAL MONTHS AGO
SEEN SEVERAL ARTICLE , CHINESE SOURCE IN ENGLISH

SOMEONE FROM THE CHINA AIR FORCE, I THINK GENERAL NAME LEE SAID "BANGLADESH AIR FORCE WILL GET 12 FC1 BY 2006"

OTHER SOURCE SAID BANGLADESH PLACED AN ORDER ALREADY WITHOUT INDIACATING THE NUMBER OF AC BEEN ORDERED

ALSO SOME RUMOURS BAF WANT 100 FC1/JF17 TO REPLACE 1/3 OF IT AIR FORCE AC. TO REPLACE F7 AND A5 AND MIG19.

(ALL VERSION, A/B AND NAVAL VERSIONS)

10 AC * 12 MILLIONS USD = 120 MILLIONS FOR THE AC
THEN SPARE TRAINING WEAPONS TRANSPORT ETC..
MAY BE 130 TO 140 MILLIONS OVERALL

Grifo 7 most probably will be putten in FC1 jf17

As most of us know, the vast majority of BVR engagements occur within 25-30km...and the Grifo 7

link for the radar

http://www.pac.org.pk/KARF/griffo.htm

made in pakistan, license


GRIFO-7 RADAR: Grifo-7 radar is a coherent Pulse Doppler digital fire control system designed to improve air to air and air to ground performances of air crafts specially F-7 P/PG. It is fitted in aircrafts nose. This radar system provides an air combat mode with two different acquisition modes which are "bore-sight" and "super search" The Doppler processing of both the modes allows target detection and track at all the altitudes in lookup and look down geometry.

Lets wait and see how the FC perform as used by Pak and Bangladesh. Most Chinese products manifest quality related defects within 2 years or even less.

Rather than buy these let's lease them first for a few years (while we research on them as we develop our own MRF).

I know the advantages of the JAS-39 Gripen. But the thing is, we can't afford it. The JF-17 is more within our grasp. :armyroleyes:

:thumb: that's the spirit, Chowdhury. better to go down fighting than to just keel over...

can you please name that Chinese-made engine that will go into the FC-1, my friend? is it the Kunlun II? the WS-10A? please, i prefer not to rely on conjecture.

it is no secret that all US dealings of a certain nature come with "strings attached". knowing that, it should be equally obvious that the mere intention to purchase arms from someone other than the US, especially a rival like China, will undoubtedly bring down the wrath of the American government. now, should the US withdraw its support to the Philippines' anti-terrorist campaign, will the communist People's Republic of China step in and help it contain the communist New People's Army? what do you think?

also, it is equally common knowledge that the regime in Beijing is hardly shy when it comes to pressuring other states to abase themselves to its desires, witness its policies with regard to Taiwan. should it enter into military ties with the former, might the Philippines simply be exchanging the devil we know for...

finally, have you ever heard of this place called the Spratlys...

you neglected the most important technical objection offered, which is range. none of the modifications you enumerated address the FC-1's internal fuel carriage, the most important factor. what holds for an ultra-modern but range-deficient machine like the Gripen also goes for the FC-1: before it can use its agility or its avionics, it has to get to the where the enemy is first.

perhaps the short-range FC-1 is a suitable aircraft for a country with extensive land borders like Pakistan, but the Philippines has no land borders, it requires an aircraft that can travel long distances overwater with a useful payload. could you please explain how the FC-1 meets this most crucial requirement?

From what I know the ChiCom version will be equipped with a licensed copy of a Russian engine. The Pakistani version will be equipped with a Western engine.