What Chinese Sub-Systems are needed for the JF-17 to match the F-16 Block 70?

[Deino]

You mean all the air forces conducting 1v1 DACT are wasting their time?

No, but I try to explain it as simple for as I could since you seem to want to hear "YES, for sure ... just give it this and then it win this fight to death!", but it is not that simple.

Again regardless the not yet known capabilities of the KLJ-7A it is surely not better than a F-16 Block 70 AESA.
The weapons even if a great are again not better than any weapons a F-16 Block 70 would carry ...
and finally - even You won't like it - alone flight capability-wise, thrust to weight ratio, turn rates, climb rates and maneuverability, the JF-17 will never be a match.

So in essence your desperate attempt "but they will enlarge the radome's diameter a bit" - which is IMO highly unlikely - will in no way bring any advantage against a F-16 Block 70.

Forget it ... your Mazda MX-5 will always remain what it is, not in the same league of a Porsche.

 

[CriticalThought]

No, but I try to explain it as simple for as I could since you seem to want to hear "YES, for sure ... just give it this and then it win this fight to death!", but it is not that simple.

Assume for a moment that the Rafale and Typhoon are participating in DACT for the very first time. What do you think, they generals will orchestrate an air campaign to test the capabilities? They very first test is 1 v 1 which provides insight in isolation. Once this baseline is established, more complex tests can be arranged.

Again regardless the not yet known capabilities of the KLJ-7A it is surely not better than a F-16 Block 70 AESA.
The weapons even if a great are again not better than any weapons a F-16 Block 70 would carry ...
and finally - even You won't like it - alone flight capability-wise, thrust to weight ratio, turn rates, climb rates and maneuverability, the JF-17 will never be a match.

So in essence your desperate attempt "but they will enlarge the radome's diameter a bit" - which is IMO highly unlikely - will in no way bring any advantage against a F-16 Block 70.

Forget it ... your Mazda MX-5 will always remain what it is, not in the same league of a Porsche.

This is self-reinforcing, circular logic. The Thunder has been performing DACT vs Block 52 for a decade now, and based on that input we are moving into Block 3.

You have absolutely no idea about the performance parameters of the Thunder. It matches the Viper in T/W, turn rates, climb rates, and 'maneuverability' whatever you mean by that. The Thunder is already quite the match. You need to seriously update your knowledge before commenting on a subject.

 

[Dante80]

You have absolutely no idea about the performance parameters of the Thunder. It matches the Viper in T/W, turn rates, climb rates, and 'maneuverability' whatever you mean by that. The Thunder is already quite the match. You need to seriously update your knowledge before commenting on a subject.

How? I mean, what exact info are you depending on here? I was under the impression that there are lot of things that we currently don't know about the platform.

Take T/W for example. Do we know the engine thrust and overall weight characteristics of block 3?

 

[Deino]

...
You have absolutely no idea about the performance parameters of the Thunder. It matches the Viper in T/W, turn rates, climb rates, and 'maneuverability' whatever you mean by that. The Thunder is already quite the match. You need to seriously update your knowledge before commenting on a subject.

Actually I think this again is wishful thinking and in the end we must agree to disagree.

But let me ask you a question: Do you have full comparative data available concerning the flight performances? I admit I don't have but I have seen a F-16 Block 50 in aerial display and I saw the Thunder at Zhuhai, I even spoke with former MiG-21 pilots who now fly the F-16 and both said, the Thunder is nice, but never ever a match against the F-16.

 

[CriticalThought]

How? I mean, what exact info are you depending on here? I was under the impression that there are lot of things that we currently don't know about the platform.

Take T/W for example. Do we know the engine thrust and weight characteristics of block 3?

Forget Block 3, Block 1 does the job.

With numbers from

https://pac.org.pk/Jf-17

and missile weights from Wikipedia (using online conversion from kg to lbs)

PL-5 Weight: 83 kg = 182.984 lbs
SD-10 Weight: 180 kg = 396.832 lbs
2 PL-5 + 2 SD-10 = 1159.632 lbs

Empty Weight of Thunder = 14520 lb
Total Internal fuel = 5130 lb
Weight with 100% internal fuel + 2 PL-5 + 2 SD-10 = 20809.632
Weight with 50% internal fuel + 2 PL-5 + 2 SD-10 = 18244.632
Max engine thrust = 19000 lb
T/W at 100% internal fuel = 0.91
T/W at 50% internal fuel = 1.04

Also look at this:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/max-g-turn-rate-approx-jf-17-14-4-deg-s-vs-f-16-13-33-deg-s.485164/

WARNING: Computation in OP is WRONG. Mr Chuk Bamu has provided correct numbers further in the thread, and other senior posters have commented that neither jet is pulling max rate turns.

Actually I think this again is wishful thinking and in the end we must agree to disagree.

But let me ask you a question: Do you have full comparative data available concerning the flight performances? I admit I don't have but I have seen a F-16 Block 50 in aerial display and I saw the Thunder at Zhuhai, I even spoke with former MiG-21 pilots who now fly the F-16 and both said, the Thunder is nice, but never ever a match against the F-16.

See above.

 

[Deino]

...
See above.

As I said, all You want is to play quartets game.

None of these numbers you list is in any point better or advanced than the F-16's. At least not in any issue that matters in aerial combat.

 

[CriticalThought]

As I said, all You want is to play quartets game.

None of these numbers you list is in any point better or advanced than the F-16's. At least not in any issue that matters in aerial combat.

Given these numbers, Thunder Block 1 has at least 50% chance of taking on F-16 Block 52 in a pure BFM fight.

 

[LKJ86]

Given these numbers, Thunder Block 1 has at least 50% chance of taking on F-16 Block 52 in a pure BFM fight.

Can you introduce the informations about the air combat training between JF-17 and F-16 in PAF?

 

[Dante80]

Forget Block 3, Block 1 does the job.

With numbers from

https://pac.org.pk/Jf-17

and missile weights from Wikipedia (using online conversion from kg to lbs)

PL-5 Weight: 83 kg = 182.984 lbs
SD-10 Weight: 180 kg = 396.832 lbs
2 PL-5 + 2 SD-10 = 1159.632 lbs

Empty Weight of Thunder = 14520 lb
Total Internal fuel = 5130 lb
Weight with 100% internal fuel + 2 PL-5 + 2 SD-10 = 20809.632
Weight with 50% internal fuel + 2 PL-5 + 2 SD-10 = 18244.632
Max engine thrust = 19000 lb
T/W at 100% internal fuel = 0.91
T/W at 50% internal fuel = 1.04

Also look at this:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/max-g-turn-rate-approx-jf-17-14-4-deg-s-vs-f-16-13-33-deg-s.485164/

WARNING: Computation in OP is WRONG. Mr Chuk Bamu has provided correct numbers further in the thread, and other senior posters have commented that neither jet is pulling max rate turns.



See above.

Thanks for the info. Using public sources and approximates, here is what I get for F-16

AIM-9X Weight = 188 lbs
AIM-120D Weight = 350 lbs
2 AIM-9X + 2 AIM120D = 1076 lbs

Empty Weight of F-16 blck50 (not 70/72) = 18,900 lb
Total Internal fuel = 7,000 lb
Weight with 100% internal fuel and missiles = 26,976
Weight with 50% internal fuel and missiles = 23,476
Max engine thrust = 28,600 lb
T/W at 100% internal fuel = 1.06
T/W at 50% internal fuel = 1.21

In what possible way does the Thunder match that as you said? The kinematics and energy retention difference is extraordinary. Have in mind that I did not use the block 70/72 engine rates too.

 

[CriticalThought]

Thanks for the info. Using public sources and approximates, here is what I get for F-16

AIM-9X Weight = 188 lbs
AIM-120D Weight = 350 lbs
2 AIM-9X + 2 AIM120D = 1076 lbs

Empty Weight of F-16 blck50 (not 70/72) = 18,900 lb
Total Internal fuel = 7,000 lb
Weight with 100% internal fuel and missiles = 26,976
Weight with 50% internal fuel and missiles = 23,476
Max engine thrust = 28,600 lb
T/W at 100% internal fuel = 1.06
T/W at 50% internal fuel = 1.21

In what possible way does the Thunder match that as you said? The kinematics and energy retention difference is extraordinary. Have in mind that I did not use the block 70/72 engine rates too.

Because after a certain point, T/W becomes irrelevant. Let's review T/W or the thrust to weight ratio. It is a measure of how quickly an aircraft will accelerate upwards when it acts like a dead weight. Is that how aircrafts behave during combat? The max climb rate needs to factor in the lift to drag ratio. You can get a feel for it from open source videos. Thunder is no slouch in climb rate.

 

[Akasa]

The main problem is: You cannot compare a JF-17 Block XYZ to the Block 70 F-16C. Regardless what fancy avionics like AESA radar you fit, how much you modernise the comm, IFF and data-sharing capabilities it remains a different class of fighter. That's a fact and these endless wishfull-thinking ideas to enlarge the airframe, to put a WS-10 or whatever are either impossible or would result in a new aircraft.

It's in fact like trying to compare a decently pimped up Mazda MZ-5 with the true Porsche 911 in its latest edition.

Are you adopting this perspective due to the JF-17's limited airframe size and engine thrust?

 

[Imran Khan]

china did not have such systems you need from USA
engines
radar
avionics
missiles
bombs
CFT
pods
air frame
landing gears
tires
conopy
ejection seat

 

[JohnWick]

The Chinese radar is not theory but reality.

 

[Deino]

Given these numbers, Thunder Block 1 has at least 50% chance of taking on F-16 Block 52 in a pure BFM fight.

Which one please?? Not only estimating ... give a true argument what performance parameter is on par or better to an F-16 and how you come to the conclusion of 50%?

Are you adopting this perspective due to the JF-17's limited airframe size and engine thrust?

Not at all. But again ... give a true argument what performance parameter is on par or better to an F-16 and how you come to the conclusion of 50%?

 

[JohnWick]

Which one please?? Not only estimating ... give a true argument what performance parameter is on par or better to an F-16 and how you come to the conclusion of 50%?

Sir,
Hippocampus and corpus callosum of your brain is the real and true reason which unable to understand the difference between F-16 blk52 and jf-17 blk1.