JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 Xiaolong

[Kunal Biswas]

In 2012, they will be bring out the JF17 Blk 2. The main improvements are the addition of IRF, the development of a twin seat version, adding datalink and development of an export version JF17.

happy with the performance of the KJL7, so no immediate plans to switch to AESA (KJL7 specs: detection range for fighter sized target 130km; can track 16 targets and engage 2 at the same time; have SAR mapping capability)

The Chinese indigenous engine is currently undergoing flight testing and may be a while before it is fitted to a JF17

500kg GPS guided weapon with 60km range and CEP of 15m, the other was a 250kg laser/IIR+GPS guided weapon with a range of 65km and CEP of 5.3-7.5m; SD10 and other weapons.

 

[LurkerBaba]

C/C++ is the language in which FIrmware must have been written. Download/Upload is in form of Binary Code through SPI or Parallel Port Programmer.

The JF-17 codes are written in C language and to modify and upload it use C language..

But for the data extracting process one use simple application developed for such operation..

In most Fighter Planes Ada is used for Avionics and Flight Control Laws.

However, programming in Ada is quite tough. JF-17 along with the F-35 uses C++

Ada is also widely used in the Civil Aviation sector, Space and Medical Industry.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

However, programming is Ada is quite tough. JF-17 along with the F-35 uses C++.

Interesting.....

Didn't knew..

 

[Shaitan]

The PAF's IL-78MKPs were spotted at Chengdu three days ago for loading the CAC-built JF-17s in semi-knocked-down condition and ferry-flying them to PAC Kamra.

 

[Apollyon]

with a plethora of new weapons that are operational on the jet, including the SD-10 Beyond Visual Range air-to-air missile, PL-5EII medium range air to air missile, WD-7 targeting pod, LT-2 1,000lb (454kg) laser guided bomb, C-802 anti-shipping missile and LS-6 Extended Range 1,000lb (454kg) bomb – converted from a dumb bomb into a 'smart guided missile' courtesy of a guidance kit which boosts its range to around 40 miles (60kms).

Source: Airforce Daily, November 2011 Issue, Alan Warnes (from baki phorum)

:shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked:

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Source: Airforce Daily, November 2011 Issue, Alan Warnes (from baki phorum)

:shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked:

Nothing shocking, A MIG-21 can carry the same if programmed..

 

[charlyondfi]

Hmm, so those are only brochure figures.
...
A 3 Ton payload is too less to be a DPSA if all that goes into fuel alone. 2 tons of external fuel +1 ton of bombs, not possible.
...

The brochure says 3000l (1100l x2 + 800l x1) for those 3 external tanks, not 3 tons. Guess that's why it claims can carry BVM x2 + WVM x2.

Normally I used 0.8 to calculate my fuel weight, which had never failed me - unless my pilot days had gone too long and lapse in memory.

So if you got those 3000l x0.8 as 2400kg weight, then you do have some buffer for those missiles in A/A mode.
-- PL-11 is ~220kg each and R-73 (AA-11) is ~105kg each, respectively.
Perhaps that's how brochure claims it. And in A/G mode someone (Kunal sir?) put a 1000 km range there

Just my wild guess/calculation on paper. I have never flied a JF-17. And this kind of fuel weight count, balancing, and consumption really depends on experiences. I am open to correction, nevertheless

 

[shiphone]

some simple facts:

the standard A2A payload of JF17 is:

2 BVM----------SD-10/10A（PL12） not PL11. it weights 200kg
2 WVM----------PL-5E II not R73 it weights 83kg

------------------------------
the possible replacement of RD93 is WS13
the texi test took place in Mar 2010

 

[Armand2REP]

Some simple facts:

SD-10A uses Russia's AGAT seeker and as yet not cleared for third party export
Only dummy carry trials have been conducted on JF-17
PLAAF standard BVRAAM is PL-11 with no evidence of SD-10 proliferation
PAF's desire for RDY-3 over KLJ-7 brings into question if it is even capable of guiding BVRAAMs to adequate distances
There is no replacement for RD93
A two year old taxi test with no further development means WS-13 = DOA

 

[p2prada]

The brochure says 3000l (1100l x2 + 800l x1) for those 3 external tanks, not 3 tons. Guess that's why it claims can carry BVM x2 + WVM x2.

Normally I used 0.8 to calculate my fuel weight, which had never failed me - unless my pilot days had gone too long and lapse in memory.

So if you got those 3000l x0.8 as 2400kg weight, then you do have some buffer for those missiles in A/A mode.
-- PL-11 is ~220kg each and R-73 (AA-11) is ~105kg each, respectively.
Perhaps that's how brochure claims it. And in A/G mode someone (Kunal sir?) put a 1000 km range there

Just my wild guess/calculation on paper. I have never flied a JF-17. And this kind of fuel weight count, balancing, and consumption really depends on experiences. I am open to correction, nevertheless

Just because the aircraft is rated to carry 3 tons does not mean you carry that much all the time.

Btw, I gave a figure of 2 tons of fuel and 1 ton of weapons, not the max fuel carried. Note that to achieve the max payload of 3 tons while carrying two 500Kg bombs, you can only carry 2 tons of fuel and this is not counting the weight of the empty drop tanks. So, even the benefit of 3 drop tanks cannot be used in a strike mission.

Combine that with the first point and the JF-17 will carry a significantly lesser amount of fuel. Comparatively the LCA mk2 is expected to carry 2.5 tons of fuel externally, 2 R-73s and 2 500Kg LGBs = ~3.7 tons. With a payload of 5 tons, this is achievable.

Anyway fighters of this class aren't expected to carry a lot anyway. With a requirement to be maneuverable small aircraft will be stripped off all weapons including ammunition from the cannon and equipped with only one 500Kg LGB for a strike mission. Once the weapon is expended, the clean and light characteristics of the JF-17 will enable it to escape quickly.

3 tons is cutting it too close even in CAP. 2.4 tons of external fuel with 500Kg of AAMs is too much.

 

[shiphone]

I really hate to do that.... some ID are supposed to be ignored...

1.the final PL12 firing test on FC1 (06 jet) finished in Mar 2011

2.the first flight of FC1 (01 jet) with WS13 took place at 14:57 on Apr 18 2010. it flied 18 minutes.

3.only one jet: J8H/DH could only fire the PL11, the other fighters , J11B ,J10,J8F are using the PL12 now...there is no such rubbish statement : PL11 as the standard BVM in PLAAF...LOL ...such 'standard' only live in your big mouth.

the Open day of PLAAF on 26th this month...pix taken few days ago

J8DF

J10A

the new twin pylons of PL12 on J10A(in fighting unit) ,pic released this month as well.

another screen shot:

 

[shiphone]

screen shot of the PPT on a press conference
... Nov 2011 ,the Turkey Airshow ...Presenter: YangWei-------the Chief Designer of JF17 porject

about the payload of JF17/FC-1 it's 4000 kgs (Max)...normally 3600 kgs

7 store stations, 3 of them have the ability over 1000kgs which could carry the 800L and 1100L drop tanks and C802AK ASM( in this case ,only one 800L drop tank could be carried at the same time).

-------------------------------------

the following pic from the news in Apr 2009. JF17(PT 04 jet) accomplished the Full Payload flight test.

3*800L drop tank + 4*250 kgs Bomb + 2* 80kgs AAM = around 3.3 Tons

---------------------------------------------
emergency Drop test of All Payload...tank first and then the Bombs

 

[p2prada]

@shipone

Brochure figures for new aircraft are suspect.

The picture is a better proof.

Anyway success in a prototype does not translate to success in serially produced units, especially on the ones that were inducted 2 years before this picture was taken.

So, while the Block II or even latest Block I squadron may better represent the picture, I doubt it is the same for the Block Is that have been inducted since 2010.

 

[shiphone]

WS13 and JF17

note: WS13 hasn't finished the National Certification , the latest news(June 2012) said: it is at the final stage of this Certification.

 

[shiphone]

@shipone

Brochure figures for new aircraft are suspect.

The picture is a better proof.

Anyway success in a prototype does not translate to success in serially produced units, especially on the ones that were inducted 2 years before this picture was taken.

So, while the Block II or even latest Block I squadron may better represent the picture, I doubt it is the same for the Block Is that have been inducted since 2010.

with this logic ,the other thread in this sub-forum "LCA VS JF17" would be the biggest joke... or a sarcasm?...LOL,

LCA would be so embarrassed....at least someone could BLA BLA with the pix of JF17 from PAF Units.

-------------------------------------------
JF17 of PAF flied to UK ,ZHUHAI,Turkey and Dubai, with 3 drop tank and 2 PL5E

2010 July...UK .........No.113(SP05) .the 13th JF17 PAF got .

2011 June Turkey....No.116 (SP08)

2011 Nov Dubai...No.128(SP20) No.130(SP22) No.134(SP26)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[shiphone]

and some basic facts for you reference again...

1. there's no so called KLJ-10 radar now.. there is the JL10A radar, and this is for JH7 not for JF17 ...so I thought you guys get confused...and I was quite confused as reading your posts...

2. the KLJ-3 on J10A and KLJ-7 on JF17 are 2 classes of Radars..just like the weight catalog ：Medium fighter（8.9 tons） vs Lighter fighter (6.4 tons) .so these 2 jets won't use the same Radar...and these two radars have totally different tech origins and development trees...one is from Israel ,the other from Italy...

3. the J10A are using the KLJ-3 redar...if you want to compare this model with the MMR on LCA ,I do suggest you check the difference between the ELM2035 and 2032 . take the hint...

 

[farhan_9909]

Some simple facts:

SD-10A uses Russia's AGAT seeker and as yet not cleared for third party export
Only dummy carry trials have been conducted on JF-17
PLAAF standard BVRAAM is PL-11 with no evidence of SD-10 proliferation
PAF's desire for RDY-3 over KLJ-7 brings into question if it is even capable of guiding BVRAAMs to adequate distances
There is no replacement for RD93
A two year old taxi test with no further development means WS-13 = DOA

It means the
PAF official Gen.javed
aswell alan warnes are lying

and you sitting in france know more than them(including the PAF official)

and regarding the sd-10a export(using russian seeker till now itself is a joke)

as per sipri pak received 175 sd-10a in 2011

 

[farhan_9909]

kanwa also reported c-802(fired from jft) hit a target at 90km while the full range is 180km

c802 is for antiship role

 

[Oracle]

kanwa also reported c-802(fired from jft) hit a target at 90km while the full range is 180km

c802 is for antiship role

So you're from the lair of Osama Bin Laden? Please create an introduction thread.

 

[p2prada]

3. the J10A are using the KLJ-3 redar...if you want to compare this model with the MMR on LCA ,I do suggest you check the difference between the ELM2035 and 2032 . take the hint...

KLJ-3 did not come up on Google Search. What kind of information can you provide on that? The size difference is not an indicator of what's going on the LCA, rather the size difference is the same for J-10 and a Mig-21 or J-7, not LCA. 2032 was not good enough for LCA.

As for JF-17, I think you are mistaken.
http://www.selex-sas.com/EN/Common/files/SELEX_Galileo/Products/GRIFO_S.pdf

This radar is not going on the JF-17, or else we would have known through the media about large exports to China or Pakistan. China made it's own radar with the KLJ-7 designation for the JF-17. The KLJ-7/10 designation did not come from me, but from others.

So, nothing Italian about JF-17s radar which would mean a direct development from J-10s array as earlier thought of. Maybe we can speculate the JF-17 will have a new front end while using J-10's back end for the radar.

Anyway, these are pics for the LCA's MMR,

And the antenna array,

...and is nowhere close to EL/M 2032 as far as the way it looks.

Now, if you can provide any kind of details on the "KLJ-3" it would be a better option than sitting around twiddling our thumbs with what could be outdated information. New information is always welcome.