JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[fatman17]

Paris Air Show 2013: Twin-seat FC-1/JF-17 breaks cover:


Author:
Robert Foster, Paris Section:

Last posted:
2013-06-18


Industries of China (AVIC) revealed a twin-seat model of its Chengdu Aircraft Corporation FC-1 export fighter at the Paris Air Show 2013.


AVIC showed off a twin-seat model of an FC-1/JF-17 at Paris. The single-seat version is co-developed and co-produced by Pakistan, which calls it the JF-17 Thunder. A two seat FC-1 has been contemplated since at least 2004, although AVIC officials would not say when a prototype would appear.

Officials refused to comment directly on the two-seat variant's potential performance other than to say that would be only "slightly less" capable in most parameters. They said that the twin-seat FC-1 compensated for the loss of fuel space - and related range - that second seat created by using an elevated and enlarged spine that also conferred more stability and allowed for a smaller vertical stabilizer.

The idea of a twin-seat version of the FC-1/JF-17 was first mentioned by a Pakistan Air Force official at a 2004 defence exhibition. Since then Pakistani and Chinese officials have offered conflicting opinions about the program's status: Chinese officials have usually denied or downplayed the program while Pakistani officials have been skeptical about funding.

The appearance of the model at Paris suggests that AVIC sees potential in the program - and that funding has been found. The model in Paris was shown with full weapons outfit. When asked about potential power plants for the FC-1, AVIC officials confirmed that a FC-1 prototype had been flying with a Chinese-designed turbofan engine, but said it was not yet ready for export and that testing would be needed for several more years.


Related Articles
Pakistani JF-17 to start mid-air refuelling by end of summer, ihs.com/janes, 11.06.13
Singapore Airshow 2012: China sees JF-17 exports 'within five years', ihs.com/janes,16.02.12

 

[muse]

Heellp! What's this mean? :

Officials refused to comment directly on the two-seat variant's potential performance other than to say that would be only "slightly less" capable in most parameters. They said that the twin-seat FC-1 compensated for the loss of fuel space - and related range

 

[Tempest II]

Heellp! What's this mean? :

Check the Gripen data below. The C has different dimensions weights to the D. this will affect aerodynamics, hence performance especiallying considering they use the same engine.

This might be a better source: http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Doc...en/Gripen product sheet/Gripen_Dimensions.pdf

Major dimensions & weights
•
Wingspan:

•
Length:

•
Height:

•
Wing area:

•
Wheel track:

•
Wheel base:

•
Basic empty weight:

•
Operational empty weight:

•
Max stores weight:

•
Max take-off weight, clean:

•
Max take-off weight, with stores:

•
Max internal fuel:

•
Max external fuel:






•
8.4m.

•
14.1m (C), 14.8m (D).

•
4.5m.

•
25.54m2.

•
2.4m

•
5.2m (C), 5.9m (D).

•
6.620mt.

•
7.4mt (C), 7.7mt (D).

•
5.3mt.

•
8.720mt.

•
14mt.

•
2.27mt.

•
3300 litres in three 1100 litre tanks (one under each wing and centreline.

 

[air marshal]

 

[muse]

Check the Gripen data below. The C has different dimensions weights to the D. this will affect aerodynamics, hence performance especiallying considering they use the same engine.

Thanks for the effort, I realize some specs may be different but What does it mean? If performance is effected negatively, why does this make sense? If Range is effected negatively, why does it make sense??

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Heellp! What's this mean? :

Any aircraft is only a set of best compromises. A twin seat version of a small aircraft such as the JF-17 will have three basic issues to deal with: added weight, less space for fuel and avionics, and engine power. A probable compromise will mean that the two-seater will be a little heavier, carry slightly less internal fuel, and have a slightly inferior performance. If you keep the same weight, then you will lose more internal fuel. If you want to keep the same internal fuel capacity, plus the extra seat, then the airframe will have to be modified with a stretch. If you do one or the other, or both, the the engine will need an upgrade to keep the same performance. And so on.

These compromises will then need to be weighed against the advantages a two seater can offer: better training and conversion, electronic warfare, backup for frontline aircraft etc.

 

[muse]

So why and how does it make sense? If it came with a much more powerful engine and payload and range, yes, i would make sense, but if all you get is "compromise" - why opt for it?

 

[Argus Panoptes]

So why and how does it make sense? If it came with a much more powerful engine and payload and range, yes, i would make sense, but if all you get is "compromise" - why opt for it?

The compromise does offer advantages.

Training: Pilots with more experience can teach newer pilots advanced techniques much more effectively and quickly, helping the airforce increase the number of trained JF-17 pilots, without increasing risk.

Electronic Warfare: Putting in a proper EW suite in the back seat with a dedicated officer to run it makes for a potent platform that can accompany other fighter jets on missions where slow lumbering AWACS/AEW aircraft cannot go.

Backup: The two seater can be used as force multiplier for frontline aircraft if needed by using it pretty much as a single seat jet.

 

[sancho]

So why and how does it make sense? If it came with a much more powerful engine and payload and range, yes, i would make sense, but if all you get is "compromise" - why opt for it?

First of all, it's a reduction of capability, because the internal fuel will be slightly reduced and the weight will be increased. Which logically translates into less range and maneuverability than the single seater, however it's only a reduction, not a lack of capability! If the single seater for example has a AB TWR of 1, the twin seater might have less, but still a pretty good one in it's class. Similarly, the reduction of range is not very much, since it's only the internat fuel that will be reduced, while the numbers of external fuel tanks will remain the same and with IFR it doesn't matter anyway.
Secondly, the twin seaters offer operational advantages over the single seater, especially in training or strike roles. Even with all the new systems and computers, the pilot has still a lot of workload during strike missions, which makes a WSO always preferable.

 

[Salman Ahmad]

The compromise does offer advantages.

Training: Pilots with more experience can teach newer pilots advanced techniques much more effectively and quickly, helping the airforce increase the number of trained JF-17 pilots, without increasing risk.

Electronic Warfare: Putting in a proper EW suite in the back seat with a dedicated officer to run it makes for a potent platform that can accompany other fighter jets on missions where slow lumbering AWACS/AEW aircraft cannot go.

Backup: The two seater can be used as force multiplier for frontline aircraft if needed by using it pretty much as a single seat jet.

Nice explanation one thing more is such two seat jet commonly used for naval operations and specialized ground attack where front pilot fly the jet and 2nd is bomber plus navigator.

 

[ssethii]

what about the RCS?

 

[air marshal]

 

[muse]

The compromise does offer advantages.

Training: Pilots with more experience can teach newer pilots advanced techniques much more effectively and quickly, helping the airforce increase the number of trained JF-17 pilots, without increasing risk.

Electronic Warfare: Putting in a proper EW suite in the back seat with a dedicated officer to run it makes for a potent platform that can accompany other fighter jets on missions where slow lumbering AWACS/AEW aircraft cannot go.

Backup: The two seater can be used as force multiplier for frontline aircraft if needed by using it pretty much as a single seat jet.

Yes, certainly, but without new engines and structural changes to handle the weight of new avionics?

See, I'm just a little confused about the novel marketing strategy which favor telling the customer that they will get less - new, not improved with less capablity

 

[A.Razzaq]

anyone can tell me about this ??

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Yes, certainly, but without new engines and structural changes to handle the weight of new avionics?

See, I'm just a little confused about the novel marketing strategy which favor telling the customer that they will get less - new, not improved with less capablity

The key to removing any confusion is to know that a two seater version does not offer "less" capabilities. It is just that it offers a different mix of capabilities that is often very useful to include in the overall mix of aircraft.

And avionics are relatively light compared to the heavy things: engines, fuel, airframe. They do need space, but not a lot compared to the other items.