JF-17 "Extremely close" to the MIG-29: Mikhail Pogosyan

[anathema]

In my understanding, any job for which a country likes to induct MIGs is doable with JFT at 1/3rd of induction and half of operational price. Ofcours MIG could still be better at few aspects but JFT outsmarts it for many others as well. Comparing MIGs stronger sides and then claiming MIG is 10% better at "a" and 20% better at "b" doesn't give it the "leap" for which 3 times more money should be spent. Also, JFT is 200%-300% better than MIG in terms of economy of induction and operation.

Please explain the bold parts. How did you arrive at those exclusion ?

 

[graphican]

Please explain the bold parts. How did you arrive at those exclusion ?

Cost of Mig29 - $29 Millions (Wiki)
Cost of JFT - US$ 15 million (Wiki) but depending upon configuration, can very between $10 million to $17 million.

Operational cost of any single engine jet is nevertheless half as compared to double engine jet + one of the fundamental principles that JFT was built upon was ease and economy of maintenance. Subject specialists can explain this part better. Also the maintenance of single engine fighters is bound to be low than a twin engine fighter. Do we disagree on that?

 

[anathema]

Cost of Mig29 - $29 Millions (Wiki)
Cost of JFT - US$ 15 million (Wiki) but depending upon configuration, can very between $10 million to $17 million.

10 Mil really ? AFAIK - The cost of Block I JF17 is upwards of 17 million dollars. You can check my conversation/posts with Taimi on this very thread. Block 2 will be more especially if you incorporate western avionics.

Operational cost of any single engine jet is nevertheless half as compared to double engine jet + one of the fundamental principles that JFT was built upon was ease and economy of maintenance. Subject specialists can explain this part better. Also the maintenance of single engine fighters is bound to be low than a twin engine fighter. Do we disagree on that?

I dont disagree with the fact that Double engine has more maintenance costs associated with it. However it is never half that of a single engined fighter (if it is powered by the same engine) -- for the simple reason of number economics -- more the engines , less the whole sale cost -- less engines more the costs and like wise. However to say that induction cost of JFT will be 1/3 might be stretching a bit too far - This is more so because JF has yet to mature , PAF has yet to calculate operating costs.

 

[Dazzler]

It happens all the time, we send out few of them, more come and take their place, it seems like there is some kind of organized planning.

I sent 2 trolls yesterday, and we got more today, doing the same circling thing with stupidity filled posts.

@Taimikhan, they need to accommodate a huge chunk of their population some where. Also, they are in a dire need for a good hobby apart from cricket

@Anathema,

It has been discussed repeatedly that JFT/FC-1 configuration can vary from a baseline 10 mil to moderate 15-17 mil depending on the goodies asked by customer. Egyptian version is likely to be around 15-17 mil because they want the JFT version with a few changes such as radar etc. Azerbaijan was offered a price of 10 mil for their FC-1 versions having all Chinese equipment including ty-5b zero zero ejection seats instead of MK-16LE (now known as PK-16LE) and other unspecified items.

 

[Quwa]

The thrust-to-weight ratio varies continually during a flight. Thrust varies with throttle setting, airspeed, altitude and air temperature. Weight varies with fuel burn and changes of payload.

For aircraft, the quoted thrust-to-weight ratio is often the maximum static thrust at sea-level divided by the maximum takeoff weight.

In cruising flight, the thrust-to-weight ratio of an aircraft is the inverse of the lift-to-drag ratio because thrust is equal to drag, and weight is equal to lift.

Please keep in mind that the PAC website has not been updated for a very long time & since its the source of info for many other sites , hence the Info is not accurate.
Moreover actual weight of the aircraft , actual RCS , Avionics and Radar capabilities , BUS and DataLink info is classified secret & whatever is available over the Internet is General specs for general public to see.

wait for Nov , we will see how it flies in Zuhi airshow.

...and regarding avionics, radar, ECM/EW, etc...advertised stats are there for potential export clients/market, not domestic use - which would include PAF (as it is a co-developer & producer).

 

[siegecrossbow]

@Taimikhan, they need to accommodate a huge chunk of their population some where. Also, they are in a dire need for a good hobby apart from cricket

@Anathema,

It has been discussed repeatedly that JFT/FC-1 configuration can vary from a baseline 10 mil to moderate 15-17 mil depending on the goodies asked by customer. Egyptian version is likely to be around 15-17 mil because they want the JFT version with a few changes such as radar etc. Azerbaijan was offered a price of 10 mil for their FC-1 versions having all Chinese equipment including ty-5b zero zero ejection seats instead of MK-16LE (now known as PK-16LE) and other unspecified items.

Whoa wait only 10 million for the Azerbaijiani? I thought that the baseline was at least 15 million. If it were really 10 million China and Pakistan probably just set the all time record for the least expensive Fourth gen fighter EVER.

 

[karan.1970]

@Taimikhan, they need to accommodate a huge chunk of their population some where. Also, they are in a dire need for a good hobby apart from cricket

Whats the point of over generalizing? I can easily make a similar comment about Pakistani members needing to take a break from the mess in their country but that wont be right. If you find some Indian member trolling, target your comments on them and not on India.

 

[Quwa]

dont troll reported

Factual statements don't equate to trolling...

How can JF-17 be "reverse engineered" given the scale of airframe differences between the F-7/MiG-21? Did this defence "analyst" open two JPEG files and compare the fuselage design and conclude it was based on MiG-21? Real analysts hit the ground to closely inspect, measure, compare, etc, before reaching such conclusions...and if they appropriately analyzed JF-17's DSI; its wings (7 pylons but CAD concept shows 9); its tail; the nose and canopy changes (affecting drag); heavier weight and larger airframe (to house a powerful turbofan); use of composites in fuselage etc...they'd realize its a completely different design. So who was this "expert" author? Is he an aerospace engineer who has access to the JF-17's blueprints, CAD concepts, partially-built airframes and what not? And then he talks about maneuverability and WVR without accounting for JF-17's actual TWR (which isn't easy to research as we've seen for the last 30 pages) nor take into account its use or eventual use of HMD/S & HOBS missiles of 4th (MAA-1B) and 5th (A-Darter or PL-ASR) generation?

As I said earlier...factual statements don't equate to trolling...but you know what is trolling? Its when a newbie poster decides to copy and paste 9th rate verbal diarrhea on paper written by an amateur with clear biases and no aerospace expertise loaded with pre-discredited statements FROM a website notorious for some of the most racist and ignorant two-face scumbags...

That is trolling, and I don't need to report you myself because I'd imagine a few others already have by now...

 

[Hulk]

I think JF17 is comparable to a 4th generation. Also looking at data available it seems Russia sold lot of design to China when they badly needed money. Now when they are slightly better off they are getting peronoid about loosing deals to China. So basically. China has arrived in aviation and last hurdle is the engine. As per Russia they wil not sit idle and work on new technologies to stay competitive in market. Congrats to China.

 

[Kompromat]

I think JF17 is comparable to a 4th generation. Also looking at data available it seems Russia sold lot of design to China when they badly needed money. Now when they are slightly better off they are getting peronoid about loosing deals to China. So basically. China has arrived in aviation and last hurdle is the engine. As per Russia they wil not sit idle and work on new technologies to stay competitive in market. Congrats to China.

Which design ?

 

[anathema]

Which design ?

There are talks doing rounds in parlay and other web sites that JF17 is based on single engined Mig fighter 35 fighter -- ..i believe he is talking about those.

 

[Hulk]

Which design ?

I just heard from the news video posted in this forum itself. Couple pages back.

 

[saurabh]

The thrust-to-weight ratio varies continually during a flight. Thrust varies with throttle setting, airspeed, altitude and air temperature. Weight varies with fuel burn and changes of payload.

For aircraft, the quoted thrust-to-weight ratio is often the maximum static thrust at sea-level divided by the maximum takeoff weight.

In cruising flight, the thrust-to-weight ratio of an aircraft is the inverse of the lift-to-drag ratio because thrust is equal to drag, and weight is equal to lift.

This is why I sasked how it is calculated. Cause if it is Max thrust/MTOW, than it will be well below 1 even for a 100 kN engine. Here we can safely assume that thrust of Russian engine has not been significantly increased (it is extremely difficult and no body generally modifies purchased engines.)

Please keep in mind that the PAC website has not been updated for a very long time & since its the source of info for many other sites , hence the Info is not accurate.

I also listed CAC website as source. Even if that is not accurate, and we consider a weight reduction of 1000 kg as mentioned by some members, Max thrust/MTOW would still remain below 1, cause engines are still 86 kN Russian ones.
Also, twr would remain slightly below Mig 29 for same configuration.

Moreover actual weight of the aircraft , actual RCS , Avionics and Radar capabilities , BUS and DataLink info is classified secret & whatever is available over the Internet is General specs for general public to see.

This is something we can argue only over the available specs.

If somebody can explain the radar comparison: I somewhere read that MKI cannot use radars of PAKFA cause its engines are not power full enough. Can it be generalised? Like Mig would have more power for radars etc due to it being twin engined than JF-17 in current config?

 

[TaimiKhan]

This is why I sasked how it is calculated. Cause if it is Max thrust/MTOW, than it will be well below 1 even for a 100 kN engine. Here we can safely assume that thrust of Russian engine has not been significantly increased (it is extremely difficult and no body generally modifies purchased engines.)


I also listed CAC website as source. Even if that is not accurate, and we consider a weight reduction of 1000 kg as mentioned by some members, Max thrust/MTOW would still remain below 1, cause engines are still 86 kN Russian ones.
Also, twr would remain slightly below Mig 29 for same configuration.



This is something we can argue only over the available specs.

If somebody can explain the radar comparison: I somewhere read that MKI cannot use radars of PAKFA cause its engines are not power full enough. Can it be generalised? Like Mig would have more power for radars etc due to it being twin engined than JF-17 in current config?

Normally for understanding purposes the T/W ratio is calculated by adding the empty weight + fuel and the figure gotten is used to divide the total thrust figure. Its done in the same metric figures, Lbs or Kgf.

I won't be going in much details, but JF-17s weight has been reduced by a few hundred KGs after limited composite material usage in the latest models, also the thrust of the engine is slightly more then what we know publicly.

I have no publicly stated sources to back it up as there is none for now, so if one wishes to believe, that's fine, if someone doesn't, plzz don't bother to argue as the argument would be futile knowing how it will end.

 

[saurabh]

Normally for understanding purposes the T/W ratio is calculated by adding the empty weight + fuel and the figure gotten is used to divide the total thrust figure. Its done in the same metric figures, Lbs or Kgf.

Not arguing with you but, that would be a misnomer than, cause in war time, fuel would be limited but weapons would be carried with max weight !

I won't be going in much details, but JF-17s weight has been reduced by a few hundred KGs after limited composite material usage in the latest models, also the thrust of the engine is slightly more then what we know publicly.

I have no publicly stated sources to back it up as there is none for now, so if one wishes to believe, that's fine, if someone doesn't, plzz don't bother to argue as the argument would be futile knowing how it will end.

I have no problem believing reduction in weight, be it 3 figure or even 4 figure reduction. That is possible. But can you elaborate a bit about better thrust?
Why and how would the Chinese increase the thrust of a Russian engine, it would give hard time to even the manufacturers themselves. Are you saying that the engines have better specs than what the manufacturer publicly state or Chinese have modified them?