Re: JF-17 Analysis and Updates
Recent Improvements Analysis
LERXs would have certainly improved the high AoA handling of the plane, while the DSI would have improved the low end acceleration and power curve of the engine, while reducing weight by removing variable intake mechanisms. As the LERX would have increased the lift and move the center of lift forward, the DSI would have reduced frontal weight further. That may affect the relaxed stability margin of the plane.
The avionics are coming off surprisingly nicely. I think the PAF has been pushing the Chinese avionics industry harder than the PLAAF. The cockpit seems more cleaner and "glassier" than the J-10 or even the J-11B, though it would be nice if the FC-1 gets the J-11B's wide angle HUD, a request that can be fulfilled in a moment's notice if the PAF asks for it. I like the low visibility radome, and the small pitot (used to measure angle of attack) won't interfere on the radar returns as much as the pitot on the J-10.
The KLJ-7 radar has an amazingly compact and well packaged back end, neat and small, not like the jungle of wires and switches like the radars on the J-8F and JH-7A, or for that matter on the Indian LCA.
Pitot head in the latest JF-17 has been replaced by a Rotary Multifunctional Probe. This new probe was produced by Chinese Department of Comprehensive Planning Department, China Aero Products Division, and Department of airborne equipment and technology development and in consultation with French company Thales.
The basic reason for the large scale changes to the FC-1 has been that Pakistan found her requirements going up, given the new Indian military buildup, with Su-30MKI and Mirage-2000s being fielded in numbers. Secondly, The US decision to sell advanced F-16s to Pakistan. Both these factors forced the FC-1 project team to improve the FC-1 to stay relevant.
LGBs for the FC-1
The LS-6 appears likely to be the bread and butter precision bomb kit for the FC-1. The program was begun in 2003 and testing has now been completed, perfectly timed with induction of the JF-17s in Pakistan. Guidance is provided by a dual inertial package coupled with satellite navigation. The weapons family will be capable of using three GPS systems, including the U.S. GPS, the Russian GLONASS and China's own Beidou system. The 500-kg LS-6 has a maximum launch range of 60 km.
Chinese program management vis-à-vis US/Europe
A truly remarkable feature of the FC-1 has been the willingness of its development team to improvise. Significant changes have been made mid-program and even at the very end of the program timetable.
This is in contrast to Western design houses where original frameworks are strictly maintained – notice the F-22 and the Eurofighter, where certain design parameters where doggedly followed when they could have clearly done better by changing course midway.
This reminds me of my Organization Behavior and Organization Theory class; the western style of planning is culturally different from the eastern style – objectives are fixed at the beginning while in the east, we are willing to move the objective around a bit. Obviously, neither is “better” than the other, but each has its benefits and costs. However, I think the JF-17 benefited from this immeasurably. Otherwise Pakistan would be taking delivery of the original Super 7 airframe at perhaps $20 million per plane.
Aboulafia on JF-17
The FC-1 has come under a lot of fire from every quarter that one can think of. One prominent quarter was from Mr. Aboulafia of the Teal Group. He originally wrote:
"If you put it (JF-17) head to head against an F-16, it would probably last about five seconds”
Thinking perhaps that he has not been aware of the later developments of the FC-1, I contacted him to find out more, and whether he was still sticking to his guns. This is the response I got from him:
I do [still stand by my statement], with twosmall caveats. One is that although we aviation fans love our planes, the side with the superior AWACS/AEW, satellite, and C3I links is going to have a huge advantage. But assuming we're looking at two planes with equal amounts of external sensor access (or no access), and assuming equal pilot training, the F-16 would win in seconds. For beyond visual range combat it's APG-68/AMRAAM combination would out-shoot the Elta 2032/AMRAAM wannabe on the FC-1 (other radars proposed for the type are worse, particularly the Grifo). For closer in combat the F-16's thrust-to-weight ratio outclasses the FC-1's. In either case the F-16's EW systems are considerably more sophisticated. Also, the FC-1 and its systems have never been tested in combat, which makes a huge difference in effectiveness.
The second caveat, of course, is which F-16. An early A model would have a harder time than a recent C model. All of this ignores the much greater reliability of the avionics and engines on the F-16. We have no idea what mission capable rates are on an FC-1; I suspect they're relatively low, especially for the RD-93.
Lets take a deeper look at the arguments:
“For beyond visual range combat it's APG-68/AMRAAM combination would out-shoot the Elta 2032/AMRAAM wannabe”
Firstly, the FC-1 and Elta pairing is old news and has been proved otherwise. The radar you’re comparing with is the KLJ-7. Leaving aside the fact that it is appalling for an aviation expert to not know this, it is not improbable that the KLJ-7 is of the same generation as the APG-68, given recent comparison statements by the PAF.
And even if at the end of the day you have marginally better radar, it in no way means you’re going to thump your opponent (and that too in mere 5 seconds). If that were the case then the F-15s would be swatting out the F-16s in air combat training, which goes against results from virtually every Red Flag event. Further, with AWACS on both sides, you might find that you don’t have a better situational awareness in any case because AWACS has evened the field (again, all this is merely considering a theoretical marginal advantage in detection range).
Comparing the AMRAAM to the SD-10 is another major question mark. The SD-10 has greater range while being more bulky. This means that AMRAAM may be slightly more agile. No clear advantage exists for either except that AMRAAMs are battle tested. Last but not the least, it may be of some interest to Mr. Aboulafia that even in the highly unlikely event that F-16s are knocking out FC-1s like flies, for an AMRAAM to launch and reach a target 50 Kms away, it would take more than 5 seconds for sure.
“For closer in combat the F-16's thrust-to-weight ratio outclasses the FC-1's”
We all wish WVR combat were that simple. With modern high off-bore sight missiles maneuverability becomes less relevant. Even if we take the unrealistic view that such missiles will not be available, you still find that a TWR margin of 0.07 at best will only give you a marginal advantage. Clearly, nothing that would be a decider in combat.
Again, one can look to Red Flag results.
“The F-16's EW systems are considerably more sophisticated.”
Perhaps the most solid part of Mr. Aboulafia’s rather flimsy argument is this. China has traditionally lagged behind in EW. However, the new generation that the JF-17 entails is a couple of generations ahead of anything seen before. This includes a fully integrated EW suite, the level of integration being in the same plain as the Rafale or the Super Hornet. A good deal of information has emerged on the surprising advancement in this regard. For instance, one such advancement is that the EW system can directionally beam energy, creating the same impact as a large electronic warfare airplane in that particular direction.
The whole point becomes moot in any case because Pakistan would never receive the full EW suite but only a monkeyfied version of it, given the sensitive technologies involved. The US is unlikely to package its F-16s with anything that would be something new for the Pakistanis / Chinese to discover, come next U-turn in the mercurial Pakistani-US relations.
Mr. Aboulafia, we expect better from a serious aviation analyst. But then the Teal Group has never been known for its balanced views when it comes to a product competing with LM or Boeing.
What's Cooking in Chengdu
There are indications that Chengdu is becoming a major cooperation hub for Pakistan and China. Hints are flying that more is brewing at Chengdu than the FC-1 and the J-10 sourced from the ever reliable pshamim of pakdef. Apparently a consulate and a halal restaurant is opening up to accommodate the soft side of all these project ventures. Personally I would like to see a single engined stealth fighter come out of Chengdu, as much as the reports are that its going to be a twin engined plane. Whatever is cooking in Chengdu, its likely to be halal for the PAF.
Future Modernization Roadmap
I think the future modernization of the JF-17 in PAF service will be along two more blocks – first 50, next 100 and final 100. It may be that the first 50 will be modernized after the last block.
The first 50 will include Chinese avionics and weapons, RD-93 engines and at best a foreign IR missile. The second block is likely to incorporate the WS-13 engine, Western radar and missiles and various augmenting sensors. These may include the Selex Vixen radar and the MBDA Meteor or perhaps the AMRAAM. The reason for this is that the SD-10 is untested, and AESA radar development is still not mature in China. Further, the SD-10 is a bit heavier than its Western counterparts and is less suited for the light fighter class than say, the Mica or the AMRAAM would be. AMRAAM of course would be ideal given that there would be commonality with the F-16s. Even if an AESA is not bought for the second batch, a western radar that allows the integration of the AMRAAM, even if it is not necessarily more advanced than the KLJ-7 would definitely be welcome. A HMD/S such as the Guardian or the Cobra with a HOBS missile would also be something the PAF is likely to be looking at. Some minor stealth features may also be incorporated in the second block.
The third block would possibly incorporate a Chinese AESA and perhaps a Chinese ramjet BVR missile (given that the speculated Meteor buy does not go through).
It is also likely to be more stealthier than any previous blocks. I would personally like to see provision for two BVRs to be kept semi-recessed, centerline and one behind the other, while the IR missiles stay on the wing tip. This could be a good trade-off between stealth and performance on a limited airframe.
A few readily available upgrades can also be borrowed from the J-11 program, including the new 3D holographic wide angel HUD and the optical missile approach-warning receiver. These should go into the JF-17s from the very first block.
RD-93 / WS-13
One of the bigger issues with the RD-93 is its inability to be completely smoke free. While it has been significantly decreased, some smokiness still remains. No such problem is likely to exist with the WS-13. Reliability and MTBF as well as better fuel efficiency are key elements where the WS-13 also likely trumps the RD-93.
What is however truly impressive about the RD-93 and even considering all its misgivings, is the acceleration and quick response it can achieve. The engines' response is virtually instantaneous. Whether the WS-13 can match this would be interesting to note, although perhaps not as relevant or important.
he WS-13 is slightly smaller but heavier by about 7.6%. It proportionately achieves much higher dry thrust – 13.5% greater while proportionately lower thrust at full afterburner – only 6.24%. This is typical given the higher bypass ratio. The WS-13 is also more fuel efficient, both because of technological reasons and because of the higher bypass ratio. Lower bypass ratios tend to be more ideal for high flying air superiority types while higher bypass ratios seem better for light and small(er) types. Typically, during an engines development to maturity, engine weight tends to go down.
It is therefore likely that the potential for the WS-13 to improve in this quarter is reasonably good. Further, its higher dry thrust would be more useful to the FC-1 because of its limited fuel. The biggest factor however, would remain reliability. The reported 33% rejection rate with the RD-93s is mind blowing. At the end of the day, it is likely that the PAF will choose the more reliable engine.
A Comparison of the FC-1 / J-10 Pairing
There have been various comparisons between the FC-1 & J-10 pairing, including the F-16 & F-15 pairing and the F-20 & F-16. However, one comparison pairing still to be analyzed is the MiG-29 and Su-27 pairing. If you think about it, the FC-1 is the equivalent of a single engined MiG-29 and the J-10 a single engined Su-27. The difference between them is relatively (and admittedly not absolutely) the same. Given that the modern equivalents of these planes – the MiG-35 and the Su-35 are even more closely matched in terms of performance, radar capability and range, the point of painting the FC-1 & J-10 pairing black seems perhaps a bit more tenuous.
True, if we classify both the FC-1 and the J-10 as lawn darts, both seem fall in the same category. But the point here is, (1) can they be both considered lawn darts? And (2) Is the vague classification of a lawn dart relevant extraneously derived from a 1960s study? In fact, if you take a modern J-10, it is very likely going to out-range a legacy F-15A. The FC-1 better fits a category best described as “super light” while the central theme of a “lawn dart” (that of being short ranged point to point intercept) seems irrelevant to the J-10 that has enough legs to do more than a few circles around the lawn.
