JF-17 Thunder still under evaluation by the PLAAF

[SQ8]

In comparison with ipad it is bad for sure.... for premium product you have to pay premium...thumb rule.

Yes but its not a thumb rule that if the Ipad has a capacitive screen the Aaakash cannot match it.
Your analogy has little ground.. because then the Mitsubishi evo IX does 0-60 kph faster than the ferrari 599GTB fiorano yet costs a lot less.
Again, its a layman's analogy you are trying to fit into your understanding of aircraft.
The MMRCA competitors failing at high altitude tests has more to do with their design parameters, their engine performance at altitude etc. The MMRCA competitors are the cutting edge of todays operational warcraft less the F-22.
Their premium is not just for their performance in flight.. its for their electronics and associated weaponry.
Otherwise there are aircraft older than the MMRCA competitors that would fly circles around them.

The logic that expensive A failed so less costly B should also fail.. is for the lack of a better word.. comic.

 

[sachin@india]

Yes but its not a thumb rule that if the Ipad has a capacitive screen the Aaakash cannot match it.
Your analogy has little ground.. because then the Mitsubishi evo IX does 0-60 kph faster than the ferrari 599GTB fiorano yet costs a lot less.
Again, its a layman's analogy you are trying to fit into your understanding of aircraft.
The MMRCA competitors failing at high altitude tests has more to do with their design parameters, their engine performance at altitude etc. The MMRCA competitors are the cutting edge of todays operational warcraft less the F-22.
Their premium is not just for their performance in flight.. its for their electronics and associated weaponry.
Otherwise there are aircraft older than the MMRCA competitors that would fly circles around them.

The logic that expensive A failed so less costly B should also fail.. is for the lack of a better word.. comic.

Let me put in a different way...there is a thing called capability and effectiveness. Suppose a craft has the capability of dropping bomb but what is about the effectiveness or precision of the attack ? Having capabilities doesn't put the craft in the same league. I agree that I'm a layman but would be glad to know on which parameters it outscores other ? A single engined light weight aircraft performing better than twin engined ac is just great ...

 

[SQ8]

Let me put in a different way...there is a thing called capability and effectiveness. Suppose a craft has the capability of dropping bomb but what is about the effectiveness or precision of the attack ? Having capabilities doesn't put the craft in the same league. I agree that I'm a layman but would be glad to know on which parameters it outscores other ? A single engined light weight aircraft performing better than twin engined ac is just great ...

Ever heard of the F-4 and the F-5?
or the F-4 and mig-21?
The former having two big powerful engines and loaded with avionics could not match the F-5 in a turn.

Your analogy is there.

another example.
Hot and high performance is not related to how much power you have..
The Mi-6... largest helicopter in the world for its time, a powerhouse.. had trouble coping with the mountain regions where the relatively lightweight and much cheaper Lama(chetaks) could stroll along easily. It was not that the Mi-6 did not have a good power to weight ratio.. its just that its design and its engines could not cope with the conditions which the French machine could.

Its not just being bigger is better.. which is why the F-18 superhornet could not match requirements that the Rafale did.
You cannot take an aircraft at face value and declare it good or bad for what it is.

At the same time.. just because a certain luxury vehicle from say BMW or Merc could not climb to Ladakh.. does not automatically disqualify an offering from Toyota or Maruti from doing the same.

 

[sachin@india]

Ever heard of the F-4 and the F-5?
or the F-4 and mig-21?
The former having two big powerful engines and loaded with avionics could not match the F-5 in a turn.

Your analogy is there.

another example.
Hot and high performance is not related to how much power you have..
The Mi-6... largest helicopter in the world for its time, a powerhouse.. had trouble coping with the mountain regions where the relatively lightweight and much cheaper Lama(chetaks) could stroll along easily. It was not that the Mi-6 did not have a good power to weight ratio.. its just that its design and its engines could not cope with the conditions which the French machine could.

Its not just being bigger is better.. which is why the F-18 superhornet could not match requirements that the Rafale did.
You cannot take an aircraft at face value and declare it good or bad for what it is.

At the same time.. just because a certain luxury vehicle from say BMW or Merc could not climb to Ladakh.. does not automatically disqualify an offering from Toyota or Maruti from doing the same.

Dear Sir, aren't we are taking about multirole aircraft ? the examples that you are giving are basically customized to suit particular situations. There may be exceptions I'm not denying. Let me give the parameters where jf-17 outperforms other multirole acs. lets talk about the specific. Thanks.

 

[SQ8]

Dear Sir, aren't we are taking about multirole aircraft ? the examples that you are giving are basically customized to suit particular situations. There may be exceptions I'm not denying. Let me give the parameters where jf-17 outperforms other multirole acs. lets talk about the specific. Thanks.

Multirole aircraft or not.. the basic parameters of Thrust, weight ,lift and drag apply to them as equally as they do to a cessna 172.

 

[sachin@india]

Multirole aircraft or not.. the basic parameters of Thrust, weight ,lift and drag apply to them as equally as they do to a cessna 172.

I'm fine with your dodging....

 

[SQ8]

I'm fine with your dodging....

There is no dodging. You are fairly unclear in what you ask.
If your objective was to know how the JF-17 meets hit and high performance conditions I have made it clear to you.
If you objective is to appease your ego by belittling the JF-17 in front of the MMRCA.. I have no time for you.
Please be clear what you want instead of making feeble attempts at being a smart alec.

 

[sachin@india]

There is no dodging. You are fairly unclear in what you ask.
If your objective was to know how the JF-17 meets hit and high performance conditions I have made it clear to you.
If you objective is to appease your ego by belittling the JF-17 in front of the MMRCA.. I have no time for you.
Please be clear what you want instead of making feeble attempts at being a smart alec.

Listen mate ...I just ask you about the specific as you were saying that jf-17 has done pretty well at high altitude...but I just gave the example of MCRA competition in which few were not able to perform well at high altitude ..after that u gave me some example which are basically customized solutions for specific conditions. and how have made it clear the excellent performance of jf -17 at high altitude without going into any specific ? sorry for my comprehension skills. I put a scenario why plaaf is not going for jf-17 but no one has given any specific.

 

[SQ8]

Listen mate ...I just ask you about the specific as you were saying that jf-17 has done pretty well at high altitude...but I just gave the example of MCRA competition in which few were not able to perform well at high altitude ..after that u gave me some example which are basically customized solutions for specific conditions. and how have made it clear the excellent performance of jf -17 at high altitude without going into any specific ? sorry for my comprehension skills. I put a scenario why plaaf is not going for jf-17 but no one has given any specific.

Who has told you that the PLAAF has rejected the JF-17(Fc-1). Please give me a source instead of humdrum conclusions.
You gave me the example of MMRCA competition where aircraft in a certain weight class were not able to meet performance conditions . and I showed you how two different weight classes cannot be compared.
A better comparison would be telling me that the Tejas does not do well under those conditions and so how could the JF-17.
But the Tejas has done well has it not? Or now will you change your statement on the MMRCA as well?

What exact performance numbers can you produce for the MMRCA competitors at high altitude?
Fine.. give me Take off distance.. landing distance.. climb rate... payload capability. etc.
for EACH and every one of them.
Then Ill answer your question in exacting detail..

 

[sachin@india]

Who has told you that the PLAAF has rejected the JF-17(Fc-1). Please give me a source instead of humdrum conclusions.
You gave me the example of MMRCA competition where aircraft in a certain weight class were not able to meet performance conditions . and I showed you how two different weight classes cannot be compared.
A better comparison would be telling me that the Tejas does not do well under those conditions and so how could the JF-17.
But the Tejas has done well has it not? Or now will you change your statement on the MMRCA as well?

What exact performance numbers can you produce for the MMRCA competitors at high altitude?
Fine.. give me Take off distance.. landing distance.. climb rate... payload capability. etc.
for EACH and every one of them.
Then Ill answer your question in exacting detail..

look .... you very well know that IAF report are confidential ..but it is well known that fact that a few of them didn't meet the criteria. Lets compare jf-17 with Gripen ng both are single engined craft as LCA is not operational yet. and here we are comparing multi role aircraft not the customized one. The thing i was concentrating on is payload.

 

[Kompromat]

We probably would know about the deployment of the JFT in PLAAF after they would have a few squadrons up n running. This is the Chinese way of doing things.

 

[BATMAN]

Specially, in case when they are using WS-13, media is always waiting to exploit any accident.

They would surely test fly for some time before going public.

 

[SQ8]

look .... you very well know that IAF report are confidential ..but it is well known that fact that a few of them didn't meet the criteria. Lets compare jf-17 with Gripen ng both are single engined craft as LCA is not operational yet. and here we are comparing multi role aircraft not the customized one. The thing i was concentrating on is payload.

Ok then.. (just in case I still am not sure what you mean by "customized")
Btw..the Gripen NG has not yet been built.. its was the Gripen C that filled in for its planned upgrade in the MMRCA trials.


The gripen C has a max loaded weight of 14000 kg pushed along by 80.5Kn(in afterburner) engine.
The JF-17 has a max loaded weight of around 12500 kg pushed along by 84Kn(afterburning) engine
The gripen C(tested at ladakh) has a normal takeoff run of around 600m fully loaded at near sea level conditions. Lets assume that at altitude it becomes 800m.
The JF-17's data according to the official website is 600m fully loaded near sea level conditions. How bad could it get at altitude?
800m?
The JF-17's took around 1/4th of the farnborough runway to take off with 3 fuel tanks.. 1/4 of 2500m(approx length of both runways at fanrborouogh by official data World Aero Data: FARNBOROUGH Runway 06/24) at sea level. So its logical that the data on the website is mostly accurate on takeoff dist.

So the JF-17 having similar parameters as the Gripen C .. HAS managed similar performance at sea level.
Whilst being able to fly further.

Since no data exists at altitude, Ill have to rely on knowing that tests of the JF-17 have taken place at Skardu at 7316ft and have been better than expected.
Since you cannot verify the gripen performance either other than claimed by Indian members here that it too was better than the other at Leh at 10000ft.

Now coming to payload.
The Gripen C carries max fuel internally 2270kg..add this to its empty weight of around 6800 kg.. it leaves 5000kg of payload capacity remaining from its max takeoff weight of 14000kg.
The JF-17 carries 2300 kg of fuel internally as well, add this to its empty weight of around 6600kg..it leaves around 4000kg of payload capacity remaining from its max takeoff weight of 13000kg.

The Gripen has the T/W ratio close to 1:1... which the JF-17 also matches.

So .. in conclusion.
The Jf-17 manages a similar takeoff roll to the Gripen C carrying around 1100 kg less but is able to fly 1880nm to the Gripens 1750nm. Draw the rest of your conclusions yourself as any other detailed data for the Jf-17 is not stated in internet links.

And oh... the Gripen C costs around $69 million.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

The JF-17 costs around $15 million.

 

[ziaulislam]

sir
a deal signed four years ago(42 for 800 million$) meant the cost of thunder to be around 20 million for PAF. obviously this was without R&D or any major profits ?
so wild guess would take the price at around 25-30 million today?
FC-1 Xiaolong / JF-17 Thunder, China / Pakistan - Airforce Technology

about the empty weight of thunder, there have been many figures from 6400-6600, which is more accurate?

 

[Icewolf]

well jf-17 is in PLAAF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Air_Force