Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 107

Thread: JF-17 vs J-10 vs LCA

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,649
    I would really like to see your figures Paralay. I see you have used the classic method developed during WWII and looks to me you are using the standard Russian / Soviet method. You are keeping Su-27 as the standard I assume.

    I think it may be interesting to factor the following in:
    1. Logistic efficiency & Servicibility (should include operational costs, turnaround time)
    2. Combat Efficiency (this should include things like range, payload, aircombat effectiveness, electronics & avionics)

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,269

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    108
    So how does F-CK-1 compare?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,991
    F-CK-1 has lower TWR engines and weaker electronics overall.

    F-CK-1 looks better than FC-1 or Tejas in my opinion. If Taiwan gear wasn't neutered it would be right up there in between.
    Go Huskers!

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,269
    Each parameter is compared with the same parameter Su-27 (air-to-air) or Su-24 (air-ground). In the cells of the formula, you can see it

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    F-CK-1 has lower TWR engines and weaker electronics overall.

    F-CK-1 looks better than FC-1 or Tejas in my opinion. If Taiwan gear wasn't neutered it would be right up there in between.
    I completely forgot about the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo. It is a very decent light combat aircraft.

    Even if you you look at the original version, it is not that weak compared to the FC-1. The original version had a AN/APG-67 variant. It can track 10 and engage 2 targets. F-CK-1 was the 1st fighter a/c in Asia to carry an indigenously developed Active Radar Homing AAM (The TC-2). Those 2x TFE1042-70 engines can push the F-CK-1 to Mach 1.8 in afterburner. Also remember Remember the F-CK-1 started a major upgrade in 2011 including the RADAR, EW, etc. It should give the FC-1 a good run.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FCK1- (3).jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	86.3 KB 
ID:	256185   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FCK1- (4).jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	40.0 KB 
ID:	256186   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FCK1- (1).jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	49.8 KB 
ID:	256187   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FCK1- (2).jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	83.1 KB 
ID:	256188  

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    1,607
    Here is my revised light combat aircraft list for comparison:

    For me the winner by quite a margin goes the JAS-39. In Air-to-Air, Python-5 and Derby armed Tejas would be quite formidable. For Anti-ship roles JF-17 can carry (or at least will carry) CM-400AKG and CM-802AKG. This is pretty interesting capability and off-course JF-17 must have the lowest price tag.

    SAAB JAS-39:


    HAL Tejas:


    CAC/PAC JF-17:


    AIDC F-CK-1:

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    992
    For me the winner by quite a margin goes the JAS-39. In Air-to-Air, Python-5 and Derby armed Tejas would be quite formidable. For Anti-ship roles JF-17 can carry (or at least will carry) CM-400AKG and CM-802AKG. This is pretty interesting capability and off-course JF-17 must have the lowest price tag.
    Do you mean JAS-39C or JAS-39E? Why do you think it is better by a wide margin?
    Why do you think LCA better than JF-17 and CK-1?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    Do you mean JAS-39C or JAS-39E? Why do you think it is better by a wide margin?
    Why do you think LCA better than JF-17 and CK-1?
    Well regarding the Tejas vs JF-17, the point was about air-to-air weaponry. Tejas has test fired Derby and they are trying to integrate Python-5. It has already test fired R-73. DASH HMDS used with the HOBS missiles should give the Tejas a major advantage. When it comes to the the JF-17 I have so far only seen them carry the PL-5EII for WVR. This the cheapest of the WVR missiles sold by China. I haven't even seen the PL-9C which is larger and has better specifications, but even it doesn't compare to the Python-5. Don't think the JF-17 uses any HMDS for the moment either. Things could change if the PAF integrates either A-Darter or PL-10E to the JF-17. The other thing is the fly-by-wire system. JF-17 has Digital Quadruplex FBW system in the pitch only while the Tejas has a All-axis Digital Quadruplex FBW. When it comes to EW systems, countermeasures, etc and how effective they are I have know idea. You generally don't get much info on them. Radar wise Tejas for the moment has EL/M-2032 but will get EL/M-2052 while the JF-17 has KLJ-7 v2 and later blocks will get KLJ-7A AESA. But. when it comes to air-to-surface the JF-17 has some very interesting options including the CM-400AKG, CM-802AKG, CM-102, LS-6, MAR-1 and so on.

    Gripen (excluding Gripen NG and her variants for the moment) has nearly 250 built so far and is in service with 4 Air-Forces. When it comes to armament alone it is as if you combined the Tejas and JF-17 into one. AIM-9, IRIS-T, A-Darter, AIM-120, Meteor, AGM-65, RBS-15, KEPD 350, etc, etc....

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,240
    F-CK-1 TWR doesn't look so bad compared to Tejas and JF-17

    empty weight: 6500 / 6560 / 6586 kg
    thrust: 8626 / 9170 / 8707 kg
    TWR empty: 1.32 / 1.4 / 1.32

    assuming wiki numbers are correct...
    Tejas is better, but is also draggier according to reports. F-CK-1 looks very sleek, at least subsonic, supersonic wing sweep is probably a bit low.

    F-CK-1 has an advantage in weapons carriage. It can carry 4 AAMs without pylons, 6 with only 2 pylons.
    Tejas carries all AAMs on pyons.
    JF-17 two AAMs on wing tip stations.

    I would imagine in an A/A configuration this gives the F-CK-1 an edge in performance.


    Yes I like the F-CK-1 except for its nose. It's too much F-16 like but without the underside intake, it looks weird.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    1,607
    Indeed, compared to all others the F-CK-1 have 2x weapons stations for TC-2 AAM similar to the Eurofighter and MiG-31 (these off-course have 4x belly weapons stations). You don't need draggy pylons for the 2x belly hard points.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,991
    F-CK-1 looks more like Japan's F-2A than an F-16.
    Go Huskers!

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,716
    The Tejas carries its LDP on a dedicated fuselage station. That allows it to carry weapons and drop tanks on 7 wing and fuselage pylons. Plus there are tandem wing pylons already certified that allow the Tejas to carry 2 500 lb bombs on a single mid-board pylon.


  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,240
    Well A/G is another matter. I think F-CK-1 is mainly designed for and used in the air defence role and I don't think a targeting pod is available.
    Nevertheless, it can carry 4 bombs under its fuselage keeping the wing stations free:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	g_product_catelog_images_635610767327214589.jpg 
Views:	47 
Size:	81.3 KB 
ID:	256228

    Btw, aren't those 1000 lbs bombs that Tejas is carrying?
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    1,607
    JF-17 weapons load variations:
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	JF17-BDR-1_cleaned.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	77.9 KB 
ID:	256245   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	JF17-LS6-1_cleaned.jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	46.9 KB 
ID:	256246   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	JF17-C802-1_cleaned.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	88.5 KB 
ID:	256247   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	JF17-CM400AKG-1_cleaned.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	87.5 KB 
ID:	256248   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	JF17-MAR1-1_cleaned.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	138.2 KB 
ID:	256249  

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	JF17-various-1_cleaned.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	103.2 KB 
ID:	256250  

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,716
    Eagle, in that load out, can the F-CK-1 carry loads only on 2 wing stations (1 on each wing) and 1 wing tip station? Lack of a targeting pod or lasing pod would mean that another platform would need to lase the target. Has the F-CK-1 been seen with LGBs or just dumb bombs?

    And yes, those were 2 1000lb bombs, not 500lbs. Thanks for correcting my typo.
    Last edited by BlackArcher; 11th October 2017 at 19:46.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,716
    Lacking a dedicated pod hardpoint, the JF-17 will need to use a wing pylon to mount the ASELPOD (reportedly bought from Turkey). Haven't yet seen or heard about its integration with the JF-17, but till Block 2, it lacked this capability or the fuselage hardpoint.

    And why were 2 different AShMs integrated with the JF-17? I understand that the JF-17 needed to take over maritime strike roles from the Mirage in the PAF which explains the expedited integration of AShMs, but why 2 different types?

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,240
    Eagle, in that load out, can the F-CK-1 carry loads only on 2 wing stations (1 on each wing) and 1 wing tip station? Lack of a targeting pod or lasing pod would mean that another platform would need to lase the target. Has the F-CK-1 been seen with LGBs or just dumb bombs?
    I see no reason not to use all wing stations... except MTOW limitations. 2 additional AAMs or 2 bombs might work. Outer wing stations seem to be rated for single stores only anyway.
    There are pics with cluster bombs, GP bombs and the Wan Chien missile. I've never seen LGBs.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,296
    And why were 2 different AShMs integrated with the JF-17? I understand that the JF-17 needed to take over maritime strike roles from the Mirage in the PAF which explains the expedited integration of AShMs, but why 2 different types?
    are you talking about cm-400akg and cm-802akg?

    from what I understand, the former is supersonic and is less of an airbreathing cruise missile than a derivative of the SY-400 which is a short range ballistic missile... whereas the latter is a more traditional subsonic ashm like a late block harpoon or exocet.

    so i think their flight profiles and their flight speeds are probably the big differences between the two

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackArcher View Post
    Lacking a dedicated pod hardpoint, the JF-17 will need to use a wing pylon to mount the ASELPOD (reportedly bought from Turkey). Haven't yet seen or heard about its integration with the JF-17, but till Block 2, it lacked this capability or the fuselage hardpoint.

    And why were 2 different AShMs integrated with the JF-17? I understand that the JF-17 needed to take over maritime strike roles from the Mirage in the PAF which explains the expedited integration of AShMs, but why 2 different types?
    Yes, it does lack a dedicated hard-point for the Pod carriage unlike its bigger sibling the J-10.

    Regarding the why 2 different anti-ship missiles (CM-400AKG Vs C-802)? Well C-802 is actually range of missiles, from the vanilla Radar guided C-802AK/AKD to the CM-802AKG IIR version. These are your traditional sub-sonic sea skimmers. CM-400AKG is completely different animal. It is literally an air-launched ballistic missile with a speed of mach 5 (similar to the Raduga Kh-15). INS/GPS/BDS with terminal IR/TV supplemented by a "passive" radar (similar to anti-radiation? ). CM-400AKG is not a sea-skimmer. It is launched at high altitude and dives at the target at maximum speed.

    Edit:

    I don't know why some call the CM-400AKG a variant of the YJ-12. They operate very differently. From propulsion to guidance to flight-profile. The Export version of the YJ-12 is the CM-302.
    Last edited by QuantumFX; 12th October 2017 at 06:14.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    873
    CM-400AKG is the export variant of the YJ-12 which is a ramjet powered missile with top speed of up to Mach 5 and depending on altitude up to 400 km range. It's designed to kill heavily defended targets like aircraft carriers. JF-17 can carry two of these. There is no lightweight fighter with anything close to this capability.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    715
    Apparently this is the only source attributing CM-400AKG as "export" version of YJ-12.

    https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/20130129.aspx

    ---------
    I agree with Quantum... There is nothing common between YJ-12 which is ramjet and CM-400 which is rocket. They even fly different profile.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    992
    CM-400AKG is the export variant of the YJ-12 which is a ramjet powered missile with top speed of up to Mach 5 and depending on altitude up to 400 km range. It's designed to kill heavily defended targets like aircraft carriers. JF-17 can carry two of these. There is no lightweight fighter with anything close to this capability.
    How about F-2 and ASM-3, range is shorter but it can carry 4 of them

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    873
    I don't know why some call the CM-400AKG a variant of the YJ-12. They operate very differently. From propulsion to guidance to flight-profile. The Export version of the YJ-12 is the CM-302.
    I agree, but that's how it's normally reported. CM-400AKG seems to be more like a scaled down Kh-22 type weapon than YJ-12

    How about F-2 and ASM-3, range is shorter but it can carry 4 of them
    F-2 is a middle weight fighter. ASM-3 is a more sophisticated weapon, much more like a miniature YJ-12, but it is a lot slower.
    Last edited by Multirole; 12th October 2017 at 08:50.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,813
    F-2 is not a lightweight fighter. you can buy 10 JF-17 for price of 1 F-2.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,296
    I agree, but that's how it's normally reported. CM-400AKG seems to be more like a scaled down Kh-22 type weapon than YJ-12
    English language media of Chinese defence developments, including Chinese defence export products, should always be cross checked across a couple of other independent reports to make sure they are accurate, because their record of accuracy is often not the best.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Multirole
    CM-400AKG is the export variant of the YJ-12 which is a ramjet powered missile with top speed of up to Mach 5 and depending on altitude up to 400 km range. It's designed to kill heavily defended targets like aircraft carriers. JF-17 can carry two of these. There is no lightweight fighter with anything close to this capability.
    Manufacturers the world over have adopted ramjet & turbofan/turbojet propulsion for anti-ship missiles (aside from the Soviets/Russians who used it more for nuclear roles), and for good reason. A rocket-propelled AShM is essentially a glide-weapon. It follows a predictable ballistic trajectory making it vulnerable to interception by area-defences and since it can't be throttled its not very good at terminal stage jinxing (end-stage maneuvers would bleed much more energy than a cruise missile).

    It'll likely be effective against corvettes & smaller classes i.e. those equipped only with point-defence missiles & CIWS (read: RAM, Aster 15, Barak-1, etc.) but any ship equipped with longer ranged systems (read: ESSM, Aster 30, Barak-8) will engage it before it arrives at the 'dive-envelope'.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 12th October 2017 at 15:23.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,834
    Are there any pictures of the J-10 or J-11/16 equipped with the CM-400AKG (or a Chinese-variant)?

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    Are there any pictures of the J-10 or J-11/16 equipped with the CM-400AKG (or a Chinese-variant)?
    None. AFAIK CM-400AKG is export only.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,240
    How about F-2 and ASM-3, range is shorter but it can carry 4 of them
    Are we sure about that? It's a pretty large missile, like 50% more weight than the old ASM-1/2 missiles.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES