JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 Xiaolong

[HariPrasad-1]

You literally had to explain it?

Just imagine that somebody tries to open it. Can it be opened. The one part of the hinge is fixed on body and other on canopy. How can it be opened? Somebody has photoshoped it to troll Porkies.

 

[Bleh]

Mynmar air force j 17 thunder fighter
Mynmar air force inducts j 17 thunder fighter

@FalconSlayers that's from Block1?.. Can't be from these version.

 

[Marliii]

Jf 17 is ugly there is no competition for it

 

[ladder]

@FalconSlayers that's from Block1?.. Can't be from these version.

Myanmar bought FC1 and not JF-17.
They named it Ruby Thunder.
I am trying to make a distinction because I feel the IP of FC1 is with China ( exclusively) and JF17 is jointly held between Pak & China.

You can think of Barak8 and MR SAM as an example. Barak 8 IP is with Israel exclusively, while MR SAM is jointly hold. MR-SAM has India supplied parts while Barak 8 is 100% Israeli product.

One may argue, JF17 and FC1 are one and the same. Correct. But only it ended up like that in the end as Pakistan couldn't secure western avionics and Italian radar for it.
JF17 was meant to be Chinese design with western avionics.

So, although Pak may be happy with the sale to Myanmar. I don't think they got paid as an IP partner. What they might have got paid for was as component supplier/ vendor.

It is probably agreed upon by both the parties that countries where China has influence, China will market FC1 and where Pakistan has influence, JF17 will be marketed.

In Nigeria both China and Pakistan had influence but Pakistan Air force had worked closely with Nigerian airforce in the past while servicing the Nigerian F7. Also they have/ had trained air officers of NAF. So Pakistan took the lead and so JF-17 was sold.

In terms of veto to sale either FC1/ JF17 to a third country, China has veto on sale of both FC1 and JF-17 but Pakistan has no veto for FC1 sales.
The same was observed in the sale of FC1 to Myanmar. The deal was made public when Pakistan had taken a strong stand against Myanmar over Rohingya issue.
It was a loss of face for GoP, as it was accused of duplicity. Opposing Myanmar over Rohingya but approving sale of Fighter jets to the same country. But did they really give consent? Or were they even asked for consent? I tend to agree with the second.

 

[Bleh]

Myanmar bought FC1 and not JF-17.
They named it Ruby Thunder.
I am trying to make a distinction because I feel the IP of FC1 is with China ( exclusively) and JF17 is jointly hold between Pak & China.

You can think of Barak8 and MR SAM as an example. Barak 8 IP is with Israel exclusively, while MR SAM is jointly hold. MR-SAM has India supplied parts while Barak 8 is 100% Israeli product.

One may argue, JF17 and FC1 are one and the same. Correct. But only it ended up like that in the end as Pakistan couldn't secure western avionics and Italian radar for it.
JF17 was meant to be Chinese design with western avionics.

So, although Pak may be happy with the sale to Myanmar. I don't think they got paid as an IP partner. What they might have got paid for was as component supplier/ vendor.

It is probably agreed upon by both the parties that countries where China has influence, China will market FC1 and where Pakistan has influence, JF17 will be marketed.

In Nigeria both China and Pakistan had influence but Pakistan Air force had worked closely with Nigerian airforce in the past while servicing the Nigerian F7. Also they have/ had trained air officers of NAF. So Pakistan took the lead and so JF-17 was sold.

In terms of veto to sale either FC1/ JF17 to a third country, China has veto on sale of both FC1 and JF-17 but Pakistan has no veto for FC1 sales.
The same was observed in the sale of FC1 to Myanmar. The deal was made public when Pakistan had taken a strong stand against Myanmar over Rohingya issue.
It was a loss of face for GoP, as it was accused of duplicity. Opposing Myanmar over Rohingya but approving sale of Fighter jets to the same country. But did they really give consent? Or were they even asked for consent? I tend to agree with the second.

Ok thnx. Got it.

The Jf-17s were built & supplied by PAC tho. So that it can be technically called Paki, China doesn't manufacture it themselves.

 

[ladder]

Ok thnx. Got it.

The Jf-17s were built & supplied by PAC tho. So that it can be technically called Paki, China doesn't manufacture it themselves.

Who supplied the first 3 JF-17 Block B ( dual seater) to Pakistan? Which assembly line ( jigs and fixtures) was used for the assembly of those three?

 

[Akula]

Who supplied the first 3 JF-17 Block B ( dual seater) to Pakistan? Which assembly line ( jigs and fixtures) was used for the assembly of those three?

And who is testing block 3?

 

[Bleh]

Who supplied the first 3 JF-17 Block B ( dual seater) to Pakistan? Which assembly line ( jigs and fixtures) was used for the assembly of those three?

PAC Kamra... They actually did the modifications for it themselves.

And who is testing block 3?

China... Any new tech development will come from them. Pakis can modify & streamline the manufacture etc.

 

[ladder]

PAC Kamra... They actually did the modifications for it themselves.

this is another year end....as usual, PAC handed over this year's JF-17 production yesterday. PAF's JF-17B trainer production is almost over. the first four came from CAC and PAC manufactured and delivered 8 last year . and in 2020 PAC completed another 14 which means all the 26 sets contract has been.....

 

[WarriorIndian]

PAC Kamra... They actually did the modifications for it themselves.

I beg to differ on this one. The duel seater first flew in China and was made and tested in China before PAC Kamra started assembling it for themselves. The first 4 were from China and the remaining 22 from PAC Kamra.

 

[Bleh]

I beg to differ on this one. The duel seater first flew in China and was made and tested in China before PAC Kamra started assembling it for themselves. The first 4 were from China and the remaining 22 from PAC Kamra.

Yeah, it seems I was wrong. My bad... Didn't know that much about Jf-17.

 

[WarriorIndian]

Yeah, it seems I was wrong. My bad... Didn't know that much about Jf-17.

You dont need to know JF-17, you just need to know the Pakis. They aint capable of building it without Chinks

 

[IndianHawk]

Now we all know jf17 is stuff of junk . But there is this report laying bare how junk it actually is.

China-Pakistan's all-weather multi-role fighter JF-17 turns out to be failure

According to a report by Pentapostagma, the aircraft's capability is judged by the avionics, weapons and engine equipping it and the JF-17 fails to hit the mark in most areas

www.livemint.com

So how reliable is this pentapostagma ?? Which published the report!

 

[IndianHawk]

Now we all know jf17 is stuff of junk . But there is this report laying bare how junk it actually is.

China-Pakistan's all-weather multi-role fighter JF-17 turns out to be failure

According to a report by Pentapostagma, the aircraft's capability is judged by the avionics, weapons and engine equipping it and the JF-17 fails to hit the mark in most areas

www.livemint.com

So how reliable is this pentapostagma ?? Which published the report!

Ok so this a Greek newspaper. Makes sense as Greek have interest in how mirages performed.

 

[Annaa]

Jf17 can lock tejas jet in 44km range
Right??

 

[Bleh]

Jf17 can lock tejas jet in 44km range
Right??

FOC doesn't have jammer. I wouldn't send it to dogfight... And Mark1A will have self-protection jammer. Locking range will depend widely on its effectiveness.

 

[porky_kicker]

PAC Kamra... They actually did the modifications for it themselves.
China... Any new tech development will come from them. Pakis can modify & streamline the manufacture etc.

Seriously ?

In the case of jf17,
Only the developer can come up with the toolings , jigs etc
Only the designer can undertake modifications and certify the same. The designer has to be in the loop. Porkies don't even have credible wind tunnels. Our universities have far better ones .

Porkis did no modification themselves , the Chinese came up with the modifications , tested and certified them . The porkies were assistant to the Chinese, involved mostly with flight testing.

Assembling and construction of fuselage is not a achievement by any stretch of imagination , even Congo will do that with proper training and relevant manufacturing equipments.

For the sake of the members can you post a single subsystem or LRU designed and developed by porkies for jf17 ? forget about developing the aircraft, alone or jointly.

 

[Bleh]

Seriously ?

In the case of jf17,
Only the developer can come up with the toolings , jigs etc
Only the designer can undertake modifications and certify the same. The designer has to be in the loop. Porkies don't even have credible wind tunnels. Our universities have far better ones .

Porkis did no modification themselves , the Chinese came up with the modifications , tested and certified them . The porkies were assistant to the Chinese, involved mostly with flight testing.

Assembling and construction of fuselage is not a achievement by any stretch of imagination , even Congo will do that with proper training and relevant manufacturing equipments.

For the sake of the members can you post a single subsystem or LRU designed and developed by porkies for jf17 ? forget about developing the aircraft, alone or jointly.

Yes, yes srry ab maaf kar do. I've already been called out

Give a 2nd opinion on this instead. That'll help...

AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

Mk 1 itself will compete with f 35 , mk 2 will all together different beast . Yup. Not in terms of the processing power or maybe even avionics, but otherwise, yeah. Role will be the same. Strike aircraft. Same as Rafale.

defenceforumindia.com

 

[FalconSlayers]

@FalconSlayers that's from Block1?.. Can't be from these version.

Actually Myanmar didn’t buy the JF-17 Blunder, they bought the Chinese variant, the original FC-1 Xiaolong, which has all Chinese avionics and equipment compared to majority wester avionics in JF-17 Blunder.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Η αποδόμηση ενός μαχητικού: Γιατί το JF-17 του Πακιστάν είναι μια αποτυχία

Το αεροσκάφος απέχει πολύ από τις σχεδιασμένες δυνατότητές του, καθώς είναι ένα μαχητικό που αναπτύχθηκε με χαμηλής ποιότητας κινεζική αεροηλεκτρονική και όπλα

www.pentapostagma.gr