JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 Xiaolong

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,647
Country flag
It means our LCA will be far more capable then JF17 . Bad choice by Pakistanis.
That is what they get for relying on Chinese military producers. Poor quality and outdated technology.
 

ahmedsid

Top Gun
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
2,960
Likes
248
That is what they get for relying on Chinese military producers. Poor quality and outdated technology.
The Chinese Offered what they could!!! They themselves are hard pressed for good fighters, and rely on Russia for almost everything!!! The Pakistanis shouldnt have expected much!!

BTW, awesome Article, What will the Pakistanis have to say about it? :)
 

BunBunCake

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
405
Likes
75
Without the RDY-3 and MICA missiles, the JF-17 is nothing but a blunder. Doesn't look like PAF is ever going to get it and they have already started production with Chinese avionics and the old Grifo-S7 radars they already license assemble. The Thunder Blunder is little more capable than the F-7s they are replacing.
True, but they are cheaper, and also the thunder does have newer technologies (when coming to Radar, Cockpit)---But not many.

It means our LCA will be far more capable then JF17 . Bad choice by Pakistanis.
Not really, in a dog fight, it'll be more capable (obviously it's engine sucks, it can't maneuver as well as the LCA).
You don't know what will happen in BVR. You don't know about it's radar, you don't know about it's missiles.

Still, there is no clarity as to what avionics, missiles, radars will go into JF-17, that's how hopeless condition it is in.
Just because you can't find information about it on the internet doesn't mean it's "hopeless".

That is what they get for relying on Chinese military producers. Poor quality and outdated technology.
Actually, no. It's not using outdated technology. The only thing that this article focused on was the Engine. That's got nothing to do with China. Russia's providing them the engines. And we can see here that the thrust these engines provide aren't enough for the air craft. Bad choice by the designers. It'll definitely reflect well on the aircraft's operational life also.

The Chinese Offered what they could!!! They themselves are hard pressed for good fighters, and rely on Russia for almost everything!!! The Pakistanis shouldnt have expected much!!

BTW, awesome Article, What will the Pakistanis have to say about it? :)
Pakistan only wanted this JF-17 to increase it's numbers + replace their old AC. They are planning to get 200 some of these. They only cost $15 million a unit. And once production picks up, we can expect it to be even lower. No other country except china could make a fighter this cheap. Pakistan is desperate. We say they're stuck with China. They'll tell us China's their best friend ^.^ and they love working when them :D
 

BunBunCake

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
405
Likes
75
Some parts of this article makes sense, and some of it's just STUPID and crap. This is obviously an Indian who wrote it.

But the reality is far from it- China having spent significant amount of money into a fighter which it is never going to use most probably forced Pakistan to accept its avionics to offset some of its development costs. Chinese who are known for their self reliance first and quality next, are further downgrading JF-17s capabilities with their poorly copy-pirated avionics.
How in hell do you copy someone else's avionics when the radar is different, the pods are CHINESE, and this is written in C++. Name me another fighter that uses C++ for it's avionics.

Along with their dubious weapons, any chance of JF-17 maintaining BVR edge over its adversary's front-line combatants, for the most part, is unlikely.
Stupid and un needed. No facts to back it up. Jf-17 can carry the PL-11, 12. Calling the PL-12 dubious is like calling the R-77 dubious.

Even in close combat JF-17 lacks what it takes to win the fight.
This only talks about dogfights. It doesn't mention BVR capacity. Don't throw away the plane just by it's dog fighting abilities. Same goes with the F-35. It can't move past 4g's.

So why is Pakistan still inducting more and more of this fighter, which its critics increasingly call it Junk Fighter – 17 ?
Indian Critics do that.

The third source, the Chinese, at that time were still flying their reverse engineered Mig-21s. In those circumstances, "Never again" was the motto of PAF and it instantly jumped into the project of further reversing the reverse engineered Mig-21, known as Super-7(a.k.a Super F-7) to obtain self reliance.
Stupid, pointless. No question, this guy is saying the JF-17 is loosely based on the Mig-21/F-7

This writer would rather have an upgraded a Mig-23MLD than a JF-17 any day.
Yeah, get a new engine, radar, cockpit design, avionics, air frame changes.
 
Last edited:

BunBunCake

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
405
Likes
75
Please direct me to such information (if available).
There is none available on the internet =)
All information and updates on the JF-17's not released openly to us like the LCA's status.

It's the Chinese. =omg=
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,748
There is none available on the internet =)
All information and updates on the JF-17's not released openly to us like the LCA's status.

It's the Chinese. =omg=
As they say, "Show me the picture otherwise it has never happened". As long as such information is lacking on JF-17, it will be assumed that it is not in a pristine condition. So, you should keep your wisecracks to yourself if you don't know about it and stop questioning others.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
726
That is what they get for relying on Chinese military producers. Poor quality and outdated technology.
Main reason of relying on Chinese is financial condition of Pakistan. they cannot afford western planes.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,796
Country flag
Western countries also don't want to risk having their planes being sent to China from Pakistan.
 

charlie

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,102
Likes
1,002
Country flag
why the chinese designer are themselves not denying it that the fame they used was of mig 21 when designing J17 then why are you denying it well the thing is the chinese bought the russian Mig 33 design with was a single engine aircraft which was based on mig 21 but their airforce didn't feel the need of the aircraft so they scrapped the project but the chinese went ahead with the design and again that was russian counselling in the project too so u see even the chinese are not capable of building the complete aircraft by them self i dont know why pakistani jump when they come to know that J17 was based upon mig 21 design. mig 21 was one of the best aircraft every produced in the history
 

Dark Sorrow

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
2,313
Likes
2,245
Country flag
How in hell do you copy someone else's avionics when the radar is different, the pods are CHINESE, and this is written in C++. Name me another fighter that uses C++ for it's avionics.
F-35 uses C++ so does F-16.
A lot of civilian planes like Boeing 747 use a super set of C++. The are used because a lot of commercially available avionics and software are written in C++. C++ is use because it is easy, reduce cost as several package are readily available and modifying currently available package is also easy.
 

fulcrum

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
191
Likes
87
Man, you really did a good job. I am impressed, +10 from me.
Thanks DS.

It is good that they are too obsessed with the Junk fighter, when in combat PAF and its people with released that it is not what it has been claim and compared with. Pakistani always argue with good radar and BVR it will take on any fighter (MKI) if that would have been true the same could have made glider or propeller driven WW-I aircraft with BVR and good radar even cheaper alternative.
Exactly! it's nothing more than a rickshaw of a fighter.

Excellent article Fulcrum. You have punched many holes in the, joke of a fighter, JF-17's capabilities. Pakistani have larger egos owing to their inferiority complex to Indians in many aspects and they would like to massage such egos by making outlandish claims to hyphenate themselves to India but none of their claims stand the scrutiny Click here to enlarge. Let them be in their own cuckoo land, which will come crashing down when it faces Su-30MKIs of IAF.
Thanks Daredevil.
Their egos are indeed immense. Be it naming the North korean missiles after Prithivi RC's victor or claiming this joke fighter is their creation, they have done it all.

This is obviously an Indian who wrote it.
And you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Uchiha? Oh god, don't tell me you're a Narutard.

How in hell do you copy someone else's avionics when the radar is different, the pods are CHINESE, and this is written in C++. Name me another fighter that uses C++ for it's avionics.
What the? Avionics have many components apart from processors. An LCD alone has many sub-components in it which has nothing to do with the C++ Architecture. When you are trying to counter-Argue, use some brain cells.
Besides, are you aware a processor can run more than one Software? I guess not.

Stupid and un needed. No facts to back it up. Jf-17 can carry the PL-11, 12. Calling the PL-12 dubious is like calling the R-77 dubious.
Oh.. so PL-12 which has not even been exported outside China is suddenly on Par with R-77 which is the primary weapon of the IAF and several other Airforces. Are you on Crack? China which is still several years behind Russia in Aerospace, is suddenly on Par with China? China which makes reverse engineered copies whose record is well known, is better than the Russians?



Indian Critics do that.
I don't believe Armand is Indian. He's calling it a Blunder already.

Stupid, pointless. No question, this guy is saying the JF-17 is loosely based on the Mig-21/F-7
Looks like you're saying this without knowing the amount of reverse engineering the Chinese can do with a J-7. They even based their J-8 on J-7s. They even experimented with chin and belly intakes on J-7s. Hell even this junk fighter has intakes on the belly in the chinese version.

Yeah, get a new engine, radar, cockpit design, avionics, air frame changes.
That's why I said, an "Upgraded". Give the fact that even a Mig-21 is upgraded, this isn't very far behind if any operator is interested. The current engine is more than suficient. Or else, Saturn are already offered their AL-31s for an engine upgrade. And no need for Airframe changes Narutard. A Bison like upgraded Mig-23MLD can whip junk fighter's ass anyday in Dogfight or BVR.
 
Last edited:

dineshchaturvedi

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
534
Likes
104
Country flag
Given choice I will like to overestimate not underestimate enemy. Would like to hear expert from Pakistan. In places we have seen debate on JF17 Vs LCA I have not seen LCA as clear winner. I also saw article about LCA's drag. Would rather like to improve LCA then feel satisfied. If any anyone doubts my love for LCA check my avatar.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
726
Given choice I will like to overestimate not underestimate enemy. Would like to hear expert from Pakistan. In places we have seen debate on JF17 Vs LCA I have not seen LCA as clear winner. I also saw article about LCA's drag. Would rather like to improve LCA then feel satisfied. If any anyone doubts my love for LCA check my avatar.
Lca as a plane may be a little Inferior to JF 17 as its yet to enter operation and mark 2 will be a lot better than what it is now. BUt now a days its not only about planes. we have Radar, weapons and Electronic warfare suit as well. LCA outscore JF17 in each department and there is scope for huge development so it will be even better than what it is now.
 

BunBunCake

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
405
Likes
75
F-35 uses C++ so does F-16.
A lot of civilian planes like Boeing 747 use a super set of C++. The are used because a lot of commercially available avionics and software are written in C++. C++ is use because it is easy, reduce cost as several package are readily available and modifying currently available package is also easy.
Ok,

- How do you copy a 747's avionics and use it for the Jf-17?? (absurd)
- The Chinese don't have access to the F-35.
- The F-16, under least cases, they may have gotten a hold of. In that case, the Avionics used in the F-16 can't be copied over to a Russian/Chinese product. It's that simple. Western avionics are only compatible with WESTERN components. And using these avionics as a base and modifying them from to fit the Chinese products is pointless, I would write my own instead. You would get a better product, and it's less time consuming by doing that.

And Russians use ADA (for the Su-27).
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,796
Country flag
The Chinese have priced these planes at roughly 40 million a piece , for this price or a little more money a country can buy a real warplane.
 

BunBunCake

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
405
Likes
75
Exactly! it's nothing more than a rickshaw of a fighter.
I'm glad people here agree with you. Come look at their reactions when I call Arju* the Ar-Junk.

And you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Uchiha? Oh god, don't tell me you're a Narutard.
Thanks, you must know what it is =)
@You're not an Indian?
I think I've made the right assumption ^.^

What the? Avionics have many components apart from processors. An LCD alone has many sub-components in it which has nothing to do with the C++ Architecture. When you are trying to counter-Argue, use some brain cells.
Besides, are you aware a processor can run more than one Software? I guess not.
No one's stupid enough to code the avionics in 10 different languages. I can understand if the Radar was coded in a different language, but everything else wouldn't be coded in multiple languages. Now tell me what language each component of this aircraft is coded in, since you want to be a smart ass and say the cockpit has nothing to do with the C++ architecture.

So, what'd they do here? Integrate C++ with Java, PHP, ADA, C? :emot15:


Oh.. so PL-12 which has not even been exported outside China is suddenly on Par with R-77 which is the primary weapon of the IAF and several other Airforces. Are you on Crack? China which is still several years behind Russia in Aerospace, is suddenly on Par with China? China which makes reverse engineered copies whose record is well known, is better than the Russians?
Give me proof saying the PL-12 is not capable. If you want to say something, give me proof. I don't want your Indian blogs written by fanboys. Give me proof.

I don't believe Armand is Indian. He's calling it a Blunder already.
He's not a professional critic is he? (no offense man). In that case, I praise the Jf-17.

Looks like you're saying this without knowing the amount of reverse engineering the Chinese can do with a J-7. They even based their J-8 on J-7s. They even experimented with chin and belly intakes on J-7s. Hell even this junk fighter has intakes on the belly in the chinese version.
Your brain hasn't grown has it.
You're trying to tell me AGAIN, the Jf-17 was based off the J-7.
What is the LCA based on? Mig-21? They both have delta wings.

That's why I said, an "Upgraded". Give the fact that even a Mig-21 is upgraded, this isn't very far behind if any operator is interested. The current engine is more than suficient. Or else, Saturn are already offered their AL-31s for an engine upgrade. And no need for Airframe changes Narutard. A Bison like upgraded Mig-23MLD can whip junk fighter's ass anyday in Dogfight.
:emot15::emot15:
I will mark this quote "Saturn are already offered their AL-31's" For what? The Mig-21????
And you don't need air frame changes?

:emot112:
:emot15:

You need to stop making an idiot out of yourself and bringing in personal remarks into this discussion. I too can type your bla bla. I only refrain to do so as I have some sense.
 

BunBunCake

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
405
Likes
75
Lca as a plane may be a little Inferior to JF 17 as its yet to enter operation and mark 2 will be a lot better than what it is now. BUt now a days its not only about planes. we have Radar, weapons and Electronic warfare suit as well. LCA outscore JF17 in each department and there is scope for huge development so it will be even better than what it is now.
LCA 'as a plane', I'm assuming you're talking about it's airframe?
LCA is has a much superior design than the Jf-17. It can demolish the thunder in a dogfight anytime (with a fairly decent pilot of course).
Also, you can't compare the LCA with the Thunder, mainly because (i'm mentioning again) You don't know anything about it's BVR capacity.

(for people who say again, that "Show me the picture otherwise it doesn't exist") GO look up the B-2's Radar, stealth. And the F-22's RCS. Using that logic, you'll have to conclude that the F-22 and B-2 are useless because no where is the exact RCS of the F-22 mentioned. And the B-2's radar's details are unknown. Except for it's name =))
Some specifications are given out for the thunder, but using those alone you can't compare everything about the plane.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,748
(for people who say again, that "Show me the picture otherwise it doesn't exist") GO look up the B-2's Radar, stealth. And the F-22's RCS. Using that logic, you'll have to conclude that the F-22 and B-2 are useless because no where is the exact RCS of the F-22 mentioned. And the B-2's radar's details are unknown. Except for it's name =))
Some specifications are given out for the thunder, but using those alone you can't compare everything about the plane.
B-2s Radar is already known (APQ-181 radar). And nobody gives you RCS in public. What is there in open source in not always true but one can get ball-park RCS based on an Aircrafts design characteristics.

The problem with JF-17 is that it is still not known that what Radar, weapons system, avionics will go into it in the future (if you know give me the links). There is a difference between not knowing specifications of already existing bell and whistles and not knowing what bells and whistles are present or going to be present.
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top