Jf-17 Vs. Fc-20 In Dogfight

[S10]

An amateur way to put a case into perspective, If JFT is so inferior, why PLA is still flying obsolete Q5, J7s and J-8IIs? Are they on par with J-10s aerodynamic performance? NO!

It all comes down to requirement, look at the projects they have under their belt, from J-20 to J-30, to J-11 xx, 15, 16, JH-7xx and what not. If you had any idea how much money, resources and time a single project R&D costs...

JFT perfectly fits the PAF, almost by default, a highly agile 4th generation aircraft that has a hostile neighborhood with plenty of toys to play with.

For PLAAF, the situation is much worse, they have Uncle Sam, Japan, Taiwan, India, even Vietnam in the backyard so they need heavy, long range and advanced aircraft in service ASAP.

Lastly, despite all this, the ground attack variant is still an option for PLAAF as a replacement for Q-5 and possibly for J-7s since they have not ruled it out and are still testing it.

It's certainly not amateur way of putting anything. Q-5, J-7 and J-8 series are obsolete by modern standards, and they are slowly being retired. Due to the size of PLAAF and limited funding, they are still in service today. J-10, J-11 and JH-7 are taking their place, although not on 1:1 ratio. Notice JF-17 is not in the mix. JF-17 has always been a side project for CAC with the aim of assisting Pakistan. It was never meant to and never will match the capabilities of J-10. As far as replacement for Q-5 goes, no chance for JF-17 either. L-15, JH-7 and Z-10 have filled the CAS role nicely.

 

[S10]

The answer would still be No. Different platforms fill different needs. What is ideal for us is not necessarily ideal for China. Give you another example. F16s have won against F15s and18s in mock combat. However the USAF does not abandon all f15s and 18s in favour of F16s. Size determines range number of armaments and loiter time which a small country like pakistan does not really need therefore our choice for JFT. China has a large land mass and needs large fighters with longer range and longer loiter time. Therefore for their Lo Hi combo they will use J10and J11 respectively. For our Lo Hi combo we will need JFT and J10/F16s.
Araz

Actually, JF-17 has longer range and combat radius than J-10. However, that's the only two things it has advantage over its bigger cousin.

Compared to JF-17, the J-10 has:

- Greater payload
- Greater speed
- Higher service ceiling
- Higher thrust to weight ratio
- Higher G-limit
- More advanced weaponery
- More advanced avionics package

Don't get me wrong, JF-17 is a capable platform for its price point, but simply cannot meet the requirements of PLAAF.

 

[sicsheep]

to answer the OP's question, yes FC-20 should be superior in many ways, and is more likely to win in a dog fight.

if you look carefully, PLA has mostly adopted only mid- heavy weight aircraft in recent years. J-10, J-11, the development of J-20, and navy adoption of J-15.

Most countries try to go for a high-low combo thus to build a effective force under the budget. but the thing is, as of 15 years ago, we've had pretty much all "lows" and very little "highs", so there is no sense in adopting more "lows" before the old stuff retires.

 

[Fsjal]

This thread is BS.
Of course the FC-20/J-10 will win. The JF-17 is comparable to the MiG-21/J-7, while J-10 is like that of an F-16. Also, the performance of the J-10 is better. It is faster, flies higher and has high rate of climb, compare to JF-17. If we look at the J-10B, it's radars are way better than JF-17 radar.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Actually, JF-17 has longer range and combat radius than J-10. However, that's the only two things it has advantage over its bigger cousin.

Compared to JF-17, the J-10 has:

- Greater payload
- Greater speed
- Higher service ceiling
- Higher thrust to weight ratio
- Higher G-limit
- More advanced weaponery
- More advanced avionics package

Don't get me wrong, JF-17 is a capable platform for its price point, but simply cannot meet the requirements of PLAAF.

What it has is a more capable and powerful engine which allows J-10 to be all of what you mentioned.

Jf-17, has an engine that can let the aircraft do only "so much".

Luckily for us that "so much" is only what we want the aircraft to do.

 

[S10]

What it has is a more capable and powerful engine which allows J-10 to be all of what you mentioned.

Jf-17, has an engine that can let the aircraft do only "so much".

Luckily for us that "so much" is only what we want the aircraft to do.

The JF-17 is designed as a third generation fighter that can be affordable to developing countries. Thus, the point is not whether it can compete with a higher end platform such as J-10, but whether it fits the needs of Pakistan. In this case, JF-17 is almost tailored made for PAF. It is very cost-effective, which is the only thing that matters. By the way, more powerful engine for JF-17 is coming, in league of EJ-200 and F414.

Also keep in mind, PAF will be operating J-10.

 

[SBD-3]

to answer the OP's question, yes FC-20 should be superior in many ways, and is more likely to win in a dog fight.

if you look carefully, PLA has mostly adopted only mid- heavy weight aircraft in recent years. J-10, J-11, the development of J-20, and navy adoption of J-15.

Most countries try to go for a high-low combo thus to build a effective force under the budget. but the thing is, as of 15 years ago, we've had pretty much all "lows" and very little "highs", so there is no sense in adopting more "lows" before the old stuff retires.

Its not just the generation but many factors contribute towards overall quality of the plane's dogfighting potential. In dogfight three factor's crucial 1) the agility of weapons and weapons system 2) the shape of the plane 3) The TWR.
For example, when French rolled out Mirages for Israel, the vintage Mig-17 were being flown by Egyptians. However, a typical Israeli Pilot in mirage would never engage the Mig-17 in a turning fight since the shape of mirage meant that it would bleed speed very quickly and thus would lose out a turning fight against Mig-17. So Mirages often used Yo-Yo maneuvering thus capitalizing on their superior Thrust. Similarly USAF's Phantoms though technologically far superior, would also not do the same against Mig-19s of Vietnamese airforce. Primarily because 1)F-4s had no guns 2) Heat Seekers were of first generation and would easily be defeated by Migs when they were flying low. The best bet for USAF pilots were to stay at a distance, get a tone, fire and run. The best bet for vietnamese was to lure the phantoms in a turning fight, keep them engaged until they were low on fuel and become desperate, close in and hunt them down with the guns.
In weapons, I dont think there is any significance difference between the two in dogfight. Both can fire HOBS missiles (PL-5E has 60 Degree of HOBS ability). As regards to shape, JF-17's best bet is to lure FC-20 in a turning fight or fight at trans-sonic levels where the conventional shapes like JF-17/F-16 perform better. FC-20 can make quicker and tighter turns due to its delta wings but would bleed very quickly and thus need higher-TWR to maintain its turning performance.

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

Its not just the generation but many factors contribute towards overall quality of the plane's dogfighting potential. In dogfight three factor's crucial 1) the agility of weapons and weapons system 2) the shape of the plane 3) The TWR.
For example, when French rolled out Mirages for Israel, the vintage Mig-17 were being flown by Egyptians. However, a typical Israeli Pilot in mirage would never engage the Mig-17 in a turning fight since the shape of mirage meant that it would bleed speed very quickly and thus would lose out a turning fight against Mig-17. So Mirages often used Yo-Yo maneuvering thus capitalizing on their superior Thrust. Similarly USAF's Phantoms though technologically far superior, would also not do the same against Mig-19s of Vietnamese airforce. Primarily because 1)F-4s had no guns 2) Heat Seekers were of first generation and would easily be defeated by Migs when they were flying low. The best bet for USAF pilots were to stay at a distance, get a tone, fire and run. The best bet for vietnamese was to lure the phantoms in a turning fight, keep them engaged until they were low on fuel and become desperate, close in and hunt them down with the guns.
In weapons, I dont think there is any significance difference between the two in dogfight. Both can fire HOBS missiles (PL-5E has 60 Degree of HOBS ability). As regards to shape, JF-17's best bet is to lure FC-20 in a turning fight or fight at trans-sonic levels where the conventional shapes like JF-17/F-16 perform better. FC-20 can make quicker and tighter turns due to its delta wings but would bleed very quickly and thus need higher-TWR to maintain its turning performance.

HOBS without hmd?

 

[SBD-3]

HOBS without hmd?

HOBS can be fired with Helmet Mounted Sight. HMD is an enhancement over HMS.

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

HOBS can be fired with Helmet Mounted Sight. HMD is an enhancement over HMS.

but JF17 doesn't have hms either.

 

[SBD-3]

but JF17 doesn't have hms either.

The missile PL-5 IIE is HOBS supported, Sights exists for a while now. So if there is a need, it can be readily available. I am stating this since I am not aware whether it is in use with PAF or not.

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

The missile PL-5 IIE is HOBS supported, Sights exists for a while now. So if there is a need, it can be readily available. I am stating this since I am not aware whether it is in use with PAF or not.

thats not the point. JF17 still can't fire a missile in HOBS mode, J10 most probably can

 

[SBD-3]

thats not the point. JF17 still can't fire a missile in HOBS mode, J10 most probably can

Again I am not aware of it being used on J-10 as well. If you have any concrete evidence in this regard, you are more than welcome to correct me.

 

[Arsalan]

thats not the point. JF17 still can't fire a missile in HOBS mode, J10 most probably can

HMS is part of the block wise upgradation program and we may well see it in Blk-II. HOBS missiles are no problem after that for JF-17.

The Helmet Mounted Sight options and possibilities for JF-17 have been discussed in detail on relevant thread and you can find information there.

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

HMS is part of the block wise upgradation program and we may well see it in Blk-II. HOBS missiles are no problem after that for JF-17.

The Helmet Mounted Sight options and possibilities for JF-17 have been discussed in detail on relevant thread and you can find information there.

Didn't Oscar say that only upgrades in blk II will be IFR and some software updates?