JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[The Raven]

Not really. That article has not stood the test of time well and even at the time was based on hearsay, as admitted by the nature of the article itself.

Given the absence of any mention of Mikoyan and Gurevich along side the JF-17 today, we know that their involvement was eventually extremely limited. Nothing tangible of it exists at all. Just because they were hired as consultants doesn't mean a whole lot. Doesn't even mean that anything came out of it. In fact, how about we try to find a single credible/official source stating that the JF-17 is based off the Mig-33 design.

Then the picture below further discredits the accuracy of that flightglobal article.

View attachment 755317




Doesn't matter. My knowledge and acceptance of simple and obvious historical evidence will suffice on this.




You're a car man. Let me put it this way.

This,

View attachment 755318

Evolved from this,

View attachment 755319

I'm only going on what the literature and news reports were stating at the time, and maybe I'm showing my age, but it was fairly well known that Mikoyan was heavily involved with the FC-1 project. It's also important to note that things were made more confusing when the same name (Super-7) was still being used, before it was officially referred to as FC-1/JF-17. Sure, these days there's no explicit mention of the project heavily using Russian design assistance, but then again the Chinese don't mention the fact that the WZ-10 attack chopper is a Kamov design, or the involvement of IAI and the Lavi design in the J-10, go figure.

Managed to find an archived version of the original Flightglobal article with text below, take it for what it is.

https://web.archive.org/web/2014071...icles/mikoyan-joins-chengdu-on-fighter-25623/

CHENGDU AIRCRAFT (CAC) has teamed with Mikoyan MAPO to design and produce a new single-engine fighter to replace China's now defunct Super-7 project

The FC-1 is being developed as a private venture funded by CAC, China National Aero-Technology Import and Export (CATIC) and Pakistan. The aircraft is aimed principally at the export market, with the Pakistan air force expected to be the initial user.

CATIC is pushing for support from Aviation Industries of China (AVIC) and is confident of selling the lightweight fighter to China's PLA air force.

The aircraft has been under development since 1991, and is now in the detailed design phase. Two partial forward- and rear- fuselage mock-ups have been completed. A single-seat prototype is scheduled for a first flight in 1997. A two-seat aircraft is also planned.

Production is due to start in 1999 at CAC. Pakistan Aeronautical Complex will initially, produce parts for the FC-1 and is discussing the establishment, of a second production line.

Mikoyan is providing design support and has seconded a team of engineers to CAC. The aircraft resembles an earlier Mikoyan design given the internal designation MiG-33. The design, developed in the early 1980s, was intended as a light dogfight aircraft.

The FC-1 has been designed around the 80kN (18,300lb)-thrust Klimov RD-93 turbofan. The engine is an improved modular development of the RD-33 engine, which was also intended to power the MiG-33.

The FC-1 design, however, differs with adoption of twin side-mounted air intakes. Liyang Machinery of Guizhou, plans to produce the RD-93 under licence in China.

It will feature seven hard-points, including wingtip pylons for PL-7/10 short-range air-to-air missiles. A pulse Doppler multi-role radar has yet to be selected. Pakistan is expected to make a decision on its own avionics suite and weapon system within three to five months.

 

[araz]

those who are interested to read mention article plz click here

it will be interesting to know those rumours

Bhai.
Iam a simple man and have no sources inside PAF or any AF. WAhatever I say is based upon my understanding of events or information which I-have read up during the last 60 years or learnt from Ex PAF people who once frequented this forum
. Windy or @Aeromerix are the people in the know along with @Blacklight.
A

 

[araz]

I'm only going on what the literature and news reports were stating at the time, and maybe I'm showing my age, but it was fairly well known that Mikoyan was heavily involved with the FC-1 project. It's also important to note that things were made more confusing when the same name (Super-7) was still being used, before it was officially referred to as FC-1/JF-17. Sure, these days there's no explicit mention of the project heavily using Russian design assistance, but then again the Chinese don't mention the fact that the WZ-10 attack chopper is a Kamov design, or the involvement of IAI and the Lavi design in the J-10, go figure.

Managed to find an archived version of the original Flightglobal article with text below, take it for what it is.

https://web.archive.org/web/2014071...icles/mikoyan-joins-chengdu-on-fighter-25623/

Thank you. My own understanding remains the same. Super 7 evolution is JL9 not JFT. I also agree that to my understanding Mikoyan was involved in the design phase and the design characteristics of Mig 33 are quite similar to JFT. I have also heard of PAF evaluating the Gripen to get some bearings from it.
A

 

[Trango Towers]

View attachment 752872

I think PAF should look to improve the green layout. I am sure they can do better.

 

[Big_bud]

One preferably uses dedicated aircraft for displays. Keeps the rest of the airframes away from undue structural stress.



Some unknown preference it seems. Has used it before. A Block II with smoke winders.

View attachment 755329

Your answer is plausible, I didn't think of that. Interesting, but I am still a bit apprehensive about it? I am not sure if they really push it that hard in foreign air shows. With crowds below watching, pilot fainting or aircraft crashing is a serious risk, plus they are too close to the ground for being too cocky. I don't think we are witnessing the most extreme manoeuvres anyways that it would risk air frame damage or reduced air frame life? This should not be the only reason they are flying block 1s late after block 2 is out. They could have easily inspected the block 1 air frames and send those ones back to normal duties?

Though good to see in Anatolian eagle exercises all block 2s are participating.

P.S. Thanks for the pic but it might be a good photoshop. Do you know which air show or event this is from? I'd like to confirm it.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Your answer is plausible, I didn't think of that. Interesting, but I am still a bit apprehensive about it? I am not sure if they really push it that hard in foreign air shows. With crowds below watching, pilot fainting or aircraft crashing is a serious risk, plus they are too close to the ground for being too cocky. I don't think we are witnessing the most extreme manoeuvres anyways that it would risk air frame damage or reduced air frame life? This should not be the only reason they are flying block 1s late after block 2 is out. They could have easily inspected the block 1 air frames and send those ones back to normal duties?

Though good to see in Anatolian eagle exercises all block 2s are participating.

P.S. Thanks for the pic but it might be a good photoshop. Do you know which air show or event this is from? I'd like to confirm it.

Not a photoshop, here’s more.

 

[Big_bud]

Not a photoshop, here’s more.View attachment 755432View attachment 755433

Just checked, it seems to be from 23rd March celebrations 2019. I hope they use em in air shows abroad too.

 

[MastanKhan]

Not really. That article has not stood the test of time well and even at the time was based on hearsay, as admitted by the nature of the article itself.

Given the absence of any mention of Mikoyan and Gurevich along side the JF-17 today, we know that their involvement was eventually extremely limited. Nothing tangible of it exists at all. Just because they were hired as consultants doesn't mean a whole lot. Doesn't even mean that anything came out of it. In fact, how about we try to find a single credible/official source stating that the JF-17 is based off the Mig-33 design.

Then the picture below further discredits the accuracy of that flightglobal article.

View attachment 755317




Doesn't matter. My knowledge and acceptance of simple and obvious historical evidence will suffice on this.




You're a car man. Let me put it this way.

This,

View attachment 755318

Evolved from this,

View attachment 755319

Hi,

Funny boy.

 

[krash]

I'm only going on what the literature and news reports were stating at the time, and maybe I'm showing my age, but it was fairly well known that Mikoyan was heavily involved with the FC-1 project. It's also important to note that things were made more confusing when the same name (Super-7) was still being used, before it was officially referred to as FC-1/JF-17. Sure, these days there's no explicit mention of the project heavily using Russian design assistance, but then again the Chinese don't mention the fact that the WZ-10 attack chopper is a Kamov design, or the involvement of IAI and the Lavi design in the J-10, go figure.

Managed to find an archived version of the original Flightglobal article with text below, take it for what it is.

https://web.archive.org/web/2014071...icles/mikoyan-joins-chengdu-on-fighter-25623/

I hope this settles it once and forever all.

"Air Mshl (Retd) Saeed Anwer was the 1st Chf Proj Dir of Super-7 Proj which later evolved into JF-17".

https://twitter.com/x/status/1406990269329805319

Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.

 

[HRK]

I hope this settles it once and forever all.

"Air Mshl (Retd) Saeed Anwer was the 1st Chf Proj Dir of Super-7 Proj which later evolved into JF-17".

https://twitter.com/x/status/1406990269329805319

Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.

I would request you to kindly watch series of interview of Shahid Latif at YouTube channel of Abid Andleeb he clearly mention that S-7 project was a failure and was based on J-7 ... but when he became project chief he revised ASR of the project and used F-16 as base model ..... name of the project was not changed to JF-17 till later stages .... as far as I remember change of name to JF-17 was done with the production of 4th prototype

Additionally you could search interview of ACM Saeed Anwar shaib as well which many years ago was shared at this forum, he also in that interview indirectly acknowledge the failure of original Super-7 (which was the fighter aircraft design related to refinement of J-7 design and avionics) and he was doubtful about Chinese aviation capabilities of that time ....

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I would request you to kindly watch series of interview of Shahid Latif at YouTube channel of Abid Andleeb he clearly mention that S-7 project was a failure and was based on J-7 ... but when he became project chief he revised ASR of the project and used F-16 as base model ..... name of the project was not changed to JF-17 till later stages .... as far as I remember change of name to JF-17 was done with the production of 4th prototype

Additionally you could search interview of ACM Saeed Anwar shaib as well which many years ago was shared at this forum, he also in that interview indirectly acknowledge the failure of original Super-7 (which was the fighter aircraft design related to refinement of J-7 design and avionics) and he was doubtful about Chinese aviation capabilities of that time ....

Yep, but it's still worth commending how he was one of the people who tried getting an original design going at a time when many others didn't think we needed one.

Remember, the Sabre II / Super-7 actually started when we were inducting the F-16. So, when this original team was ideating this fighter, they already had the F-16 in the pipeline.

The Sabre II was supposed to be a complementary design to replace the F-6s. To control cost and complexity, basing the Sabre II directly from the F-7 made sense; they were likely envisioning something similar to the F-20.

The FC-1 / 'New' Super-7 was in response to Pressler, and in this case, the new team decided to go with a more aggressive project (i.e., a clean sheet fighter). However, I think 'using the F-16 as a base model' was simply a part of the actual story.

In the early 1980s, the PAF was also aware of the F/A-18L (and had even asked to see it alongside the F-16). I'd say that the JF-17 ultimately drew more inspiration from the Hornet design (perhaps unintentionally).

 

[VCheng]

they were likely envisioning something similar to the F-20.

It may be instructive for some to compare the specifications for the JF-17, Super 7, F-20 and F-16.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

It may be instructive for some to compare the specifications for the JF-17, Super 7, F-20 and F-16.

The specs for the original Super-7 or Sabre II will be tough to find. It never got far, but they were talking about fitting the GE F404 to it at several points. But the F-20 similarity was more in line of upgrading a legacy design (e.g., F-5 to F-20, and MiG-21/F-7 to Sabre II).

 

[VCheng]

The specs for the original Super-7 or Sabre II will be tough to find. It never got far, but they were talking about fitting the GE F404 to it at several points.

The draft specifications are available, but they are enough to show that the weight classes of the F-16 and the other three jets are in different categories altogether. This not to say that any one choice is better or worse than another, it all depends on the envisioned role for each jet and the resources available to make it possible.

 

[ziaulislam]

I mean if MBDA (folks who make meteor) let's Pakistan purchase CAMM-ER missiles, why would they not allow us to purchase Meteor?
I think they only thing preventing such a thing from happening is Europe's recent tilt against the Chinese.

you can get meteor but you would need something that can fire it too
that is gripen, rafale or typhoon

typhoon seems to be the only opption but its expensive to buy and even more expesnive to maintain