LCA Tejas vs JF-17 Thunder

[SPIEZ]

It is "Chinese engineering" - the airframe is based upon Mig-21 airframe (J-7, J-8 etc). The engine is a copy of Russian Al-31. The Avionics is a mix of copied Russian, French and Israeli ones and the the Radar is a copy of Russian radar.
The system software is Chinese/ Pakistani and the missiles are Chinese (based on Russian design).

And the puke's call it their very own aircraft when none of it seems to come from there

 

[p2prada]

Is that why the codes were written in C++ and not in Ada

Codes are in C++ only because the Pakistanis don't have a large pool of technicians who know ADA.

 

[p2prada]

It is "Chinese engineering" - the airframe is based upon Mig-21 airframe (J-7, J-8 etc).

Naa, seems like an original design which took some inputs from Mig-33 or any other equivalent aircraft which never made it out of USSR factories.

The engine is a copy of Russian Al-31.

No. You are actually talking about J-10 in this point as well as the one above. JF-17 is a different design. It has the Mig-29s RD-93, not even the RD-33 Series 3 engines.

The Avionics is a mix of copied Russian, French and Israeli ones and the the Radar is a copy of Russian radar.

Nothing French on the JF. Israeli equipment could be there because technology was transferred to China at one point of time. Derivatives of the Israeli tech could be used.

The system software is Chinese/ Pakistani and the missiles are Chinese (based on Russian design).

The SD-10 seems to be closer to South African missiles like R-Darter.

 

[ace009]

Naa, seems like an original design which took some inputs from Mig-33 or any other equivalent aircraft which never made it out of USSR factories.

No. You are actually talking about J-10 in this point as well as the one above. JF-17 is a different design. It has the Mig-29s RD-93, not even the RD-33 Series 3 engines.

Nothing French on the JF. Israeli equipment could be there because technology was transferred to China at one point of time. Derivatives of the Israeli tech could be used.

The SD-10 seems to be closer to South African missiles like R-Darter.

Except for the Engine (indeed it is RD-93) you are wrong on all counts ... take a look at this picture

The MiG-33 design you are talking about was actually known as Project 33 - an interceptor fighter design that was cancelled in the Mid 1980s. It was based upon the venerable MiG-21 design, but with better engine and avionics. Take a look at the comparable pictures below and you will see what I mean.



The "real" MiG-33 was a MiG-29ME, an upgraded MiG-29 designed for export, which looks very different from the JF-17 thunder - with twin engines and a distinct Mig-29 airframe.

Photos: Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-33 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

Some more reports about how the FC-1 / JF-17 was designed, conceived and developed.

Pakistan's JF-17 V/S India's LCA-Tejas; Comparison With Latest Figures | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis

Pakistan nears FC-1 avionics decision

China and Pakistan agree on Super-7 fighter development work

The SD-10 or PL-12 as it is better known -

The new PL-12 active guided air-launched anti-aircraft missile uses the radar and data link from Russia's very capable Vympel R-77,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/pl-12.htm

 

[p2prada]

The MiG-33 design you are talking about was actually known as Project 33 - an interceptor fighter design that was cancelled in the Mid 1980s. It was based upon the venerable MiG-21 design, but with better engine and avionics. Take a look at the comparable pictures below and you will see what I mean.

I am one of those few people on the planet who don't believe the Chinese blatantly copied design without thought or process. Like I said, "some" inputs were taken from existing designs like Project 33. Just like how some inputs may have been taken from Israel's Lavi for the J-10.

FC-1

I also have a picture of the Mig-33(Project 33) and it looks nothing like the Mig-21. Will post it once I find it.

The SD-10 or PL-12 as it is better known -

The R-77 uses a Russian seeker. The PL-12 which followed uses a Russian seeker. The Astra uses a Russian seeker. So, should I say the Astra was derived from PL-12(SD-10). I guess not.

Some pics,

R-77

Astra

Look closely at the fin designs.

And this,

PL-12

R-Darter
Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

Just for comparison, look at Israeli Derby,

Pictures speak more than a thousand words. It is we who ripped off R-77, not the Chinese. The Chinese ripped off the Derby or actually the R-Darter missile but the position of the fin is not exactly as the Darter.

 

[ace009]

I am one of those few people on the planet who don't believe the Chinese blatantly copied design without thought or process. Like I said, "some" inputs were taken from existing designs like Project 33. Just like how some inputs may have been taken from Israel's Lavi for the J-10.

FC-1

I also have a picture of the Mig-33(Project 33) and it looks nothing like the Mig-21. Will post it once I find it.



The R-77 uses a Russian seeker. The PL-12 which followed uses a Russian seeker. The Astra uses a Russian seeker. So, should I say the Astra was derived from PL-12(SD-10). I guess not.

Some pics,

R-77

Astra

Look closely at the fin designs.

And this,

PL-12

R-Darter
Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Just for comparison, look at Israeli Derby,

Pictures speak more than a thousand words. It is we who ripped off R-77, not the Chinese. The Chinese ripped off the Derby or actually the R-Darter missile but the position of the fin is not exactly as the Darter.

The FAS report is outdated and was written before the FC-1 came out - read it and you can clearly see that. Also, the "MiG-33" they mention was never produced or deployed and was a name given to project 33 by the west. The only few "pictures" available on the net are of models for http://Project 33 or izdeliye 33 - like this ...

Are you trying to make a point here? The Astra might be a rip-off from R-77 - that does not mean the PL-12 is not. The PL-12 missile design has been evolving for the last 12 years - yet, the fuel type, the guidance system, the seeker, the electronics are all from R-77. Read the link from globalsecurity.org, which is more updated ...

I have this feeling that you cannot accept that you may be mistaken.
China does copy from other countries - at times they did it blindly, although nowadays less and less as they understand more of the tech specs than in the 1980s.

 

[jat]

Naa, seems like an original design which took some inputs from Mig-33 or any other equivalent aircraft which never made it out of USSR factories.

No they did not. They did need help with integration of the RD-93 engine though but the Mig-33 is based on the Mig-29 airframe. The Mig-33 design has intakes on the bottom like the J-10 but the entire design of the Mig-33 is one large wing for lift. The JF-17 is cigar shape and very conventional like the JF-17 even in build quality of the air frame to reduce costs and time but expect maintenance to be higher than the Tejas given the number of parts.

Nothing French on the JF. Israeli equipment could be there because technology was transferred to China at one point of time. Derivatives of the Israeli tech could be used.

As far as now its Chinese avonics the PAF is still trying to figure out how to arm it with western avonics.

The SD-10 seems to be closer to South African missiles like R-Darter.

The SD-10 atleast in trails used the same seeker which is in the R-77 so does the Astra? so that should give some insight. AFAIK the PAF does not have SD-10. The JF-17 has no HMS sight simply targeting and that to with an older generation of WVR missiles, while Gripen and Tejas have HMS and Tejas has R-73 for WVR combat.

The MiG-33 design you are talking about was actually known as Project 33 - an interceptor fighter design that was cancelled in the Mid 1980s. It was based upon the venerable MiG-21 design, but with better engine and avionics. Take a look at the comparable pictures below and you will see what I mean.

Mig-33 was based on the Mig-29.

Notice how the airframe is one big wing just like the Mig-29.

 

[p2prada]

The FAS report is outdated and was written before the FC-1 came out - read it and you can clearly see that. Also, the "MiG-33" they mention was never produced or deployed and was a name given to project 33 by the west. The only few "pictures" available on the net are of models for http://Project 33 or izdeliye 33 - like this ...

Project 33 was a Russian designation, Izdeliye 33.

Are you trying to make a point here? The Astra might be a rip-off from R-77 - that does not mean the PL-12 is not. The PL-12 missile design has been evolving for the last 12 years - yet, the fuel type, the guidance system, the seeker, the electronics are all from R-77. Read the link from globalsecurity.org, which is more updated ...

Best of luck if you think you know what's inside the missile. Nobody knows. Fuel type, guidance system, electronics etc may or may not be form the R-77 simply because no one knows. So, you are making it up. All we know is the seeker was used, not anymore.

I have this feeling that you cannot accept that you may be mistaken.
China does copy from other countries - at times they did it blindly, although nowadays less and less as they understand more of the tech specs than in the 1980s.

You can't make exact copies unless you have blue prints for the design. Su-27 was copied because they had the design. But R-77 is still not available for ToT.

The Project 33 version is not a Mig-21 variant though the design looks similar. It is not a high altitude interceptor like the Mig-21 it is meant for low altitudes.

Plenty of places where I have said I don't know or I stand corrected. As far as this thread goes, I know what I am talking about.

 

[p2prada]

No they did not. They did need help with integration of the RD-93 engine though but the Mig-33 is based on the Mig-29 airframe. The Mig-33 design has intakes on the bottom like the J-10 but the entire design of the Mig-33 is one large wing for lift. The JF-17 is cigar shape and very conventional like the JF-17 even in build quality of the air frame to reduce costs and time but expect maintenance to be higher than the Tejas given the number of parts.

Do you know there is a LCA model with canards? Check it. Also read up the difference between inputs and blatant copying, to understand where I stand.

As far as now its Chinese avonics the PAF is still trying to figure out how to arm it with western avonics.

Don't think they are. They are importing Chinese avionics even for Block II versions.

The SD-10 atleast in trails used the same seeker which is in the R-77 so does the Astra? so that should give some insight. AFAIK the PAF does not have SD-10. The JF-17 has no HMS sight simply targeting and that to with an older generation of WVR missiles, while Gripen and Tejas have HMS and Tejas has R-73 for WVR combat.

JF-17 has a Chinese HMS. They use WVR missiles of the same generation as the R-73, like PL-9 and Aim-9L. They seem to be looking at the South African option though.

Tejas Mk2 will carry the Dash IV with Python V and Derby with Astra coming up later. R-73 and R-77 are not the primary weapons.

We can replace the R-77 seeker from Astra with the MICA EM seeker. From what I know we may have already done it. That does not make the missile a French copy. Check the airframe for PL-12 and R-Darter. Look at R-77 and Astra too. You will notice differences.

Mig-33 was based on the Mig-29.
Notice how the airframe is one big wing just like the Mig-29.

But we aren't talking about a Mig-29 derivative. We are talking about Project 33 which is a single engine aircraft. That was the first Mig-33. Ace has a picture of it in his post.

 

[DMF]

Designed by the Russians that is.

Russia involved, but it's the USA at the beginning. When India imported mig29, Pak want to introduce F16, the same time ask China to make some thing cheap and good. In 1987 begin a bid to procure the engine, the R.R and pratt and whitney Co. got in the picture, Northrop Grumman got involved in 1988 to develop the airframe, Chengdu air Co. sent 6 engineers to stay with them, but 1989 incident ruined this cooperation, then the Soviet collapsed, Mig Co. lost to Suhkoi at home, need find customer, they fond to chance to participate to develop this FC-1. this JP-17is a four countries cooperation, really not bad, cheap and good for a small country air force. Chengdu now very busy, other wise will make more improvement on this plane, but they use this plane to test new technology, such as DSI, and some thing else, if test good, then use for J10 or J20.

 

[SPIEZ]

Russia involved, but it's the USA at the beginning. When India imported mig29, Pak want to introduce F16, the same time ask China to make some thing cheap and good. In 1987 begin a bid to procure the engine, the R.R and pratt and whitney Co. got in the picture, Northrop Grumman got involved in 1988 to develop the airframe, Chengdu air Co. sent 6 engineers to stay with them, but 1989 incident ruined this cooperation, then the Soviet collapsed, Mig Co. lost to Suhkoi at home, need find customer, they fond to chance to participate to develop this FC-1. this JP-17is a four countries cooperation, really not bad, cheap and good for a small country air force. Chengdu now very busy, other wise will make more improvement on this plane, but they use this plane to test new technology, such as DSI, and some thing else, if test good, then use for J10 or J20.

That's interesting. USA helped build a Chinese plane ?

 

[nimo_cn]

That's interesting. USA helped build a Chinese plane ?

Well, they did give assistance, though the assistance was aborted after 1989.

There is still a Chinese J8 in America, which was send there for a cooperation program named "Super 8" if my memory serves.The program failed after Americans imposed an embargo on China, but Chinese still managed to learn something from this program, all of which was used on FC-1.

 

[SPIEZ]

Well, they did give assistance, though the assistance was aborted after 1989.

There is still a Chinese J8 in America, which was send there for a cooperation program named "Super 8" if my memory serves.The program failed after Americans imposed an embargo on China, but Chinese still managed to learn something from this program, all of which was used on FC-1.

Why spend so much on FC-1, if you are not planning to use them yourselves. Instead the effort could have gone to J10 or J20. Or was the experience from the plane used to develop the J10/J20 ?

 

[ace009]

Well, they did give assistance, though the assistance was aborted after 1989.

There is still a Chinese J8 in America, which was send there for a cooperation program named "Super 8" if my memory serves.The program failed after Americans imposed an embargo on China, but Chinese still managed to learn something from this program, all of which was used on FC-1.

Actually USA, UK, France and Israel were all giving assistance to China in the 1980s to design and develop new combat aircraft. This was seen as a cold war equation - "Enemies enemy is my friend". China was an enemy of the Soviets, hence deemed a "friend". However in 1989 Berlin wall came down, Cold war was over and Tienanmen Square happened - China lost it's "advisors" and the "super J7 project" was canned - only Israel kept helping China under the radar - subsequently Lavi was tunred into J-10.
The "advises" and helps that China got for Super J7 was later used to develop FC-1 (JF-17). Which is ahy the JF-17 has Mig-21 pedigree with Russia's project 33 inputs as well as some French and Israeli input in avionics.

 

[cir]

 

[cir]

 

[cir]

attention should now be directed to a stealth version of the FC-1。 Let's call it FC-2。

when will India unfurl a stealth LCA？2012？2013？

should make interesting comparison then。

 

[p2prada]

No. LCA's RCS is supposedly much lower than that of JF-17. Supposed to be 3 times smaller than the Mirage-2000. JF is not that small.

The LCA Mk2's final design is yet to be seen, so it is obvious the aircraft will have added stealth benefits, even more so if ADA takes inputs from MRCA aircraft in the design.

But JF-17 has already beaten the LCA Mk1 in delivery schedule and is operational, let's see if the avionics match up. Right now LCA is more advanced.

 

[jat]

attention should now be directed to a stealth version of the FC-1。 Let's call it FC-2。

when will India unfurl a stealth LCA？2012？2013？

should make interesting comparison then。

If you want to that you'll have to change the entire airframe. The JF-17 was originally designed and conceived as using metal parts. That still hasn't changed much only a small portion of parts are compisote and everything else is still metal and because the structure of the airframe will not allow you exceed a certian portion of the airframe. Its like trying to turn a Su27 into a stealth aircraft. Sure you can reduce RCS increase comisote parts but its not stealth.
Rafale, Gripen, Tejas all were concieved from the beggining to use massive amounts of comppisote materials hence the design of these aircraft reflected that in the initial construction to reduce stress at certian areas. The Tejas skin is 90 percent compisotes.

 

[Armand2REP]