What's new

JF-17 Fighter: China's Weird MiG-21 and F-16 Hybrid

For any nation requiring a fourth generation fighter at less than half price of block 52, or gripen the thunder is perfect

Capability wise both the block 52, and gripen look better planes .

Maybe block three can bridge gap let's wait and see

I will not compare tejss to current thunder as first squadron has only nine planes and foc Is still months away
 
So what if the Chinese were there as part of the Lavi exchange. That doesn't mean jack squat. You speak as though the Israelis were selling everything they can to the Chinese. I don't deny the Chinese involvement in Lavi, but you must be joking about the Chinese simply copying the Lavi when they already made the J-9 design before the Lavi even hit the drawing board.

What do you mean the best they could do was the J-8? Of course that was the best they could do, that's why J-9 failed and they took it back to the drawing board. It's obvious you missed the part where I said Grumman got involved in J-9 and subsequent projects after, including the Super 7. They developed the JF-17 and J-10 right after.

It's really funny. People make fun of other countries when things are going bad. But the minute they succeed, "Oh, yeah, Americans helped them". "No, French helped them". "No, Israelis helped them". News flash, moron, nobody "helps" anybody. Whatever you see is the hard work of the people involved. I doubt you even know how consultancy works.
And you're not insulting JF-17 calling JF-17/J-10 is based on J-7 on no bases @randomradio :blah::blah::blah: and correct your reading about J-8/J-9, early J-8 infact enlarge twin engine J-7 but lot of aerodynamic changes and J-8II no match for latest J-7 series only using upgraded J-7 engines, as for J-9 the main reasons for cancelling not having suitable engine for J-9 (REMEMBER J-9 WAS BEING THE SINGLE ENGINE JET FIGHTER) thats the main reasons for cancelling the J-9 but the J-10 project started couple of year after J-9 cancellation when Chinese started a development of WS-10 (a version of CMF-56 with afterburner bought with Boeing 737 or Airbus i cant remember correctly in middle to late 80) and J-10 project further kick off when the Su-27 deal signed with Russia is confirmed and extra AL-31F deal singed for J-10 production/testing @randomradio :p:;):enjoy:

helping other country is not bad thing/ embracing for any country to absorb higher tech, there were lots of examples in the past that like in world war 2 German Me-262 sent to Japan to copy, similarly British radars and engines sent to USA to study/copy under licence and British also export Nene to Soviets etc etc, so why you guys ashamed/embraced yourself by not admitting your TEJAS/LCA is using lots of tech from west absorbed by indian aviation industries it not shame full act after all @randomradio :disagree:;):enjoy:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually Americans did help Pakistan in JF-17 project by imposing Pressler amendment on us in 1989 which gave impetus to PAF to seek an alternative of F-16s in future which, now, has arrived. Other than that, US role = ZERO.
 
Last edited:
Dassault-Breguet was involved in the LCA project during the early stages of development. The French assisted and a few years later the Americans did too.....they tested the flight control laws on the F-16 VISTA.

Bilal Khan 777 also wrote that the LCA was designed in France by Dassault as a cheap knockoff of the M2K. Smaller and less capable. And this was way back in the day.
 
Actually Chinese did help Pakistan in JF-17 project by imposing Pressler amendment on us in 1989 which gave impetus to PAF to seek an alternative of F-16s in future which, now, has arrived. Other than that, US role = ZERO.
I believe you meant the Americans ?
 
Most of the discussion on this thread has no head and tail. To discuss the topic you need to know the back ground of Air craft designing. All those who are saying that JF-17 was a derivation of Mig-33 are wrong. The first and Major difference is the Air intakes. JF-17 has a 'S' shape side air induction which was not available for any air craft fully other than F-22. The benefit of this air intake is the Radar never sees the engine face. So please think again what is happening here. JF-17 is tecnology tester for 5th gen and this shows why JF-17 has a very low RADAR cross section.

Schematic-diagram-of-the-rectangular-S-duct-diffuser.png
 
USA never helped in JF-17 production. LOL!

USA was in fact opposed to Pakistani-Chinese cooperation. LOL!

He is not saying directly but indirectly, US did help Pakistan in Aerospace technology back in the 60s and Pakistan received a wind tunnel from US back in the 60s which was installed at Korangi Creek
 
Thanks for the fact loaded post with strong referances. So it appears like this. JF-17 is a Us influenced, Chinese designed aircraft that is noe exported to be Pakistan "build/assemble" basis. Much like our much touted car industry.

Ahh well at least we get to spray it and apply PAF decals ........

Not quite. While I have no idea of Pakistan's technological input in the JF-17, this aircraft was PAF's brainchild from the beginning, i.e. Project Sabre II. Pakistan realised the need of a relatively more homegrown solution and 'self reliance' way before the US sanctions. Credit where credit is due. We scouted for available platforms to build upon since a brand new platform design was in no way wise for us. The Chinese had all the rights to the earlier Mig-21 design and production and hence it was the obvious choice for us to base our initial attempt on and, as mentioned before, very wisely so. Enjoying good military relations with the US at the time we naturally enlisted their help in a venture in which both the Chinese and us were barely amateurs (something which was later emulated by the South Koreans and the Japanese, albeit with a lot more success). From the onset CAC and Pakistani specialists were involved in the project along with the Grumman design team, as per every report and all the articles I quoted before. At one time it was even planned to outsource critical technologies such as the engine and the radar from the US (this idea of western outsourcing of subsystems keeps resurfacing even today). Some reports at the time indicated that there were even proposals for the manufacturing to be divided between the three. However, the Tienanmen incident and Pakistan's withdrawal citing economic restrictions and, reportedly, political bs threw a spanner in the works. The project all but died while the idea and concept was kept alive on the Chinese drawing boards and in the hearts of PAF. After the US sanctions and the absence of further F-16 deliveries Pakistan tried to make do with the Mirage Rose Upgrades and F-7 purchases but it was obvious that they weren't going to be enough. With a change in government (as is the story with all our weapons procurement plans) the PAF found renewed support for reviving the project. Thus the Chinese were contacted again and the project started gaining momentum once more. While the project had remained stagnant, except on the drawing board, since the Pakistani and Grumman withdrawal, the requirements of PAF, the modern military aircraft technological standards and the Chinese and Pakistani expertise had not. By this time the project was named 'Super-7' (the name the Chinese had given to the Sabre II Project after Pakistan's withdrawal) and had already experienced design evolution from the SABRE II project, first under collaboration of the Chinese with Grumman and then by the Chinese alone. Yet again Pakistan became the party which was driving the project's vision and gave it impetus while relying on Chinese technological expertise (which had grown exponentially in the past years) supplemented by PAF's understanding of the modern Fighter Jet Concept. While the Chinese now did not require this project (owing to the J-10's development) they did still realise its export potential. The design of and requirements from the project evolved rapidly, so much so that the project went from a heavily modified Mig-21 design to a new aircraft based on the Mig-21 to a brand new aircraft design having its roots in previous designs that were based on the Mig-21 (except in the minds of our eastern friends). This is also when, befittingly, the name of the project was first changed from 'Super-7' to 'Super 7/FC-1' and then to 'JF-17/FC-1' denoting the massive departure from the original design and concept. The name 'Super-7' still persisted colloquially in the press and even with the people involved in the project up until 2003, e.g. Gao who was in charge of the project in 2003.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Jun/66954.htm
https://www.dawn.com/news/106435

and then this on a Pakistani government website in 2003 before the first prototype was revealed,

super7.jpg

"Super Seven PAF's new multi-role combat aircraft that will soon take to the air. The aircraft currently under development in a joint Sino-Pakistan programme."

http://www.paf.gov.pk/super7.html

The JF-17 today is a completely different aircraft from what its 'grandfather projects' were first envisioned to be and it continues to change and evolve driven by PAF's vision and needs. It is not even the aircraft that was first named the JF-17 and in a few more years it wont even be the aircraft that was first put into production.

So no, I disagree. The JF-17 is by no means a paint job. It was in fact envisioned, driven and run by Pakistan as much as by China, if not more. In my view, it is a story, brimming with romanticism, of the underdog overcoming the impossible out of nowhere, typically Pakistani.

The irony is that while our Indian friends are hell bent on downplaying our efforts, achievements and involvement in the project to zero, our own people are hell bent on denying Pakistan the sheer ingenious with which we approached and achieved this project, all because being grandfathered by projects based on the Mig-21 somehow not only, inexplicably, hurts their insecure egos but also lessens the JF-17's capabilities. I mean the guy in charge of the project and the Pakistani government were calling it Super-7 up until 2003. Nothing of what I've said is new, all this used to be widely known, accepted and acknowledged on this very forum but now we have different people with different agendas posting here. Every single one of them, apparently, a stronger authority on the matter than the one before. We've already destroyed our official historical narrative because of our insecure egos, why not another feather in the cap?
 
Last edited:
I have some even better, the JF-17 PT01 itself with "Super-7" painted on its side.

fc1.jpg


and another with the Pakistani flag instead of the Chinese,

fc1-10.jpg


And then of the Maiden flight of the first prototype with Super 7 written on the tail,

fc1-2.jpg


And then of the same aircraft landing,

fc1-3.jpg


jf-17-thunder-043.jpg



Even these pictures wont be enough. Do I also need to post pictorial proof of the SABRE II project's evolution in to the Super-7 and then its iterative evolution into the JF-17? Because i can. The official Grumman documents detailing the evolution from the Project SABRE II design to the early Super 7 design are readily available online.

To try to re-write history is completely dishonest and unbecoming.

If only you knew what that meant.
 
Last edited:
Bilal Khan 777 also wrote that the LCA was designed in France by Dassault as a cheap knockoff of the M2K. Smaller and less capable. And this was way back in the day.

I wish the French did, then we would have inducted the LCA 10 years ago.

The fact that the JF-17 is based off of the various iterations of the Mig-21 is a credit to its design. Had the JF-17 been a cheap independent design, and not a derivative of the Mig-21, it would have been a very risky project and the end product would have likely been junk.
 
I wish the French did, then we would have inducted the LCA 10 years ago.

The fact that the JF-17 is based off of the various iterations of the Mig-21 is a credit to its design. Had the JF-17 been a cheap independent design, and not a derivative of the Mig-21, it would have been a very risky project and the end product would have likely been junk.
@waz @The Eagle please control the troll of @randomradio thanks
 
Block III will have heavy use of composites and AESA radar, that is confirmed. Furthermore, the construction of the Block I was modular for ease of maintenance. This was a lesson learned from flying and maintaining the F-16 that was later on incorporated in JF-17 at design stage.
 
Most of the discussion on this thread has no head and tail. To discuss the topic you need to know the back ground of Air craft designing. All those who are saying that JF-17 was a derivation of Mig-33 are wrong. The first and Major difference is the Air intakes. JF-17 has a 'S' shape side air induction which was not available for any air craft fully other than F-22. The benefit of this air intake is the Radar never sees the engine face. So please think again what is happening here. JF-17 is tecnology tester for 5th gen and this shows why JF-17 has a very low RADAR cross section.

Schematic-diagram-of-the-rectangular-S-duct-diffuser.png
I thought you mean the F-35. DSI intaker in jf-17 is like F-35 not F-22. F-22 use CRATE intaker.

China does have a lot of Russian engineers from USSR. So when they came they bring in their tech is quite reasonable. JF-17 is somehow like mig-33 project, but it is not mig-33.
 
I thought you mean the F-35. DSI intaker in jf-17 is like F-35 not F-22. F-22 use CRATE intaker.

China does have a lot of Russian engineers from USSR. So when they came they bring in their tech is quite reasonable. JF-17 is somehow like mig-33 project, but it is not mig-33.

Mig 33 is totally different thing than jf-17 th difference between mig33 and jf17 is to much. Both jets have totally different aero dynamic properties. F-35 is totally based on jf17. Put a bigger engine into jf17 and take all weapons in internal bay and you get. F-35. F-22 was the only jet at that time which was using the intake system used by jf17.
 
Mig 33 is totally different thing than jf-17 th difference between mig33 and jf17 is to much. Both jets have totally different aero dynamic properties. F-35 is totally based on jf17. Put a bigger engine into jf17 and take all weapons in internal bay and you get. F-35. F-22 was the only jet at that time which was using the intake system used by jf17.
That's a good one...
 
Back
Top Bottom