Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is JF-17 a 4th generation fighter? (disputed)

The JF-17, while being a cost effective replacement for PAF's older fighters like the Q-5s and the Mirage-3s is not a 4th gen fighter by any stretch of imagination. Its upto date avionics while being capable can't plug one gap that differentiates a 3rd gen a/c from a 4th gen one -- fly-by-wire controls. FBW is ALWAYS the deciding factor in classifying a bird as a beyond 3rd gen a/c. This is not to mean that the JF-17 will not be a capable a/c. Oxymoronic as it may sound, frequently, older gen a/c are more capable than newer gen a/c. The "generation" classification is more a reflection of the technology than capability. Other factors include functions like serviceability and ease of use which, while being better in a newer gen a/c does not increase "capability" per se. To give an example, the F-14 tomcat, which was replaced in USN service by the F/A-18 Hornet is about half a gen behind the hornet but yet, it is capable of many functions the hornet is incapable of.

Anyway, PAF already has a 4th gen fighter in service, the F-16 which its pilots 

have put to good use and the next will be the J-10 !! Therefore, I request everyone :

DO NOT EDIT THE THUNDER DESIGNATION TO 4TH/4.5TH GEN. IT IS GROSSLY INACCURATE.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.224.66 (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor fixes

I added a minor update which was deleted by two people in two different occasions: JF-17 is now a 4+ generation multirole fighter. The 5th prototype its considered 4+. What makes an aircraft 4+ generation is its state-of-the-art avionics not the airframe. JF-17 has full glass cockpit. Other advance avionics are been designed, including a computerized all weather special helmet fully integrated with the aircraft firing control system. New navigational systems, new radar and other high-tech 4.5 generation European and Russian avionics. That can't be consider 4 gen aircraft any more. No official sources in English so far. . --Ehtz28 (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just added more details fixed minor defects User:Ali 786 all the info on the plane is wrong [[[User:202.138.120.65|202.138.120.65]] 12:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Go Around making models be it JF-17 Thunder or LCA. Both look promising oon paper. But war-experience is one thing of which the pilots should be wary of. JF-17 is the rejected MiG-29 design, clearly evident by the swept wings and tails just in the angles of MiG-29. Its just a toy.202.138.120.65 12:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)]

"rejected MiG-29 design" - no such thing. [1]. - Aerobird 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I added some refrences and tidied up the article, sorry for the too many edits. (Faraz 18:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

Re-added external link to JF-17 at grandestrategy.com, someone keeps deleting it. (plamkii12:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

I am, because it is just a blog and not a reliable source. --Mmx1 (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmx1 read the "about us" section of the website grandestrategy.com it does not say its a blog, rather that it is a think-tank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plamkii (talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You can call yourselves whatever you wish, but it is a self-published weblog from individuals with no assertion of notability.--Mmx1 (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Links in headings

Per MOS (headings):

Avoid links within headings. Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly. It is much better to put the appropriate link in the first sentence under the heading.

- BillCJ 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifications

Just a note on Powerplant specs: The space there isn't really designed for extended comments, such as that on thrust-vectoring. THere isn't a section in the text on Engines/Powerplants as yet. Maybe one should be creaed and the extra info placed there. I don't know if the current editors have plans for a section on this, but it's worth considering. - BillCJ 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

the specifications of the JF-17 need to be changed- there are images available from IDEAS 2008 Defence Exhibition held in Pakistan, where PAC Kamra gave specifications for the JF-17. It clearly stated that the max. G load for the JF-17 is 8Gs, not 8.5Gs as mentioned on the wiki page right now. I'll provide the reference for this, as I have pictures taken from this exhibition that showed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirage blue (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Citing Sources

Wow, what an interesting article! Someone put a lot of time into putting all this together. Unfortunately, the information is not cited. Please read wp:cite and choose a method of referencing the text. Otherwise, great article! Alan.ca 08:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea look at the "Ground maintenance equipment" section, its full of BS thats not even cited. Large portions of this article is dedicated for other planes

A lot of that stuff reads like an advertisement. Cleanup desperatly needed! - Aerobird 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Although the Chinese HMS for J-7E/F-7PG has already enjoyed numerous advantages over the latest Russian HMS developed later, how could that be possible??

JF-17 vs HAL Tejas and F-20 Tigershark

I think JF17 is far more advanced than hal tejas and F-20 Tigershark.......thats why i think these two should not be placed in the comparable aircraft list. --Mm11 09:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This category covers more than just advancement, or even capability. These are all single-engine OR indiginous fighters. The Tejas is a contemporary of the JF-17, and probably as advanced except in terms of raw thrust. The F-20 is questionable here, but there is a resemblance between the two, especially the wings. Aerodynamically, the JF-17 is not as advanced as the Tejas, Typhoon, or Raphale (blended wings/fuselage, canards), being more in the class of the F-16 and F-20. So I think the list is good as it stands. - BillCJ 17:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Get a few facts straight JF 17 is NOT a fourth generation aircraft and has the capability roughly comparable to a uprated 3rd generation aircraft I mean the thing is designed around a single russian/Chinese supplied engine(not exactly known for their reliability which is why all modern russian planes are twin engined) and is made from aluminium alloy(NOT even a bit of composites).All fourth gen aircraft are +9G capable the JF 17 isn't... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.254.107.243 (talk • contribs)

Maybe we should say it is an "attempt" at a fourth-generation aircraft. :) Anyway, it's clear it's intended as a cheap alternative to more expensive Western and Russian fighters. It's also primarily for export, as China will probably not buy it in favor of the J-10, as evidenced by the fact it apparently does not have a Chinese J-number designation.

The joint venture between china and pakistan to develop this aircraft is now defunct as Russia has refused to supply engines for this aircraft.

Not true. The production is well on track and the first delivery will be around March, 2007. Chendu circumvents the RD-93 engine embargo by producing a Chinese copy of RD-93, WS-13. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sinolonghai (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

According to my research JF-17 Thunder is far too advance then the Indian built HAL Tejas, many sources confirm that HAL Tejas is not even 4th generation aircraft as mentioned by people on 4th generation jet fighter they consider the HAL Tejas project has been Cancelled/Aborted. As mentioned on HAL Tejas the range of the aircraft is far too less when compared with JF-17 Thunder (2000 kms (Tejas) vs 3000 kms (JF-17) respectively) and the difference in avionics and the cockpit is far too evident, JF-17 being 4.5th generation. —comment was added by Faraz ([[User talk:Faraz|talk])

Please stop removing the HAL Tejas from the Comparable aircraft list. They are very comparable in one respect: they are both attempts at producing somewhat-indiginous high-tech combat aircraft. Whether one is superior to the other in actual combat is not currently known - and hopefully won't ever be. I am neither Indian or Pakistani, and I am endevoring to be as neutral as possible on this matter. I can find Pakistani sources which claim the JF-17 is better, and I can find Indian sources that claim the Tejas is better. Let's stop bickering over this minor issue, and get on with the business of improving the article with verifiable sources, which this one sorely needs. - BillCJ 23:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Faraz, the range of 3000 kms that you mentioned for JF-17/FC-1 is actually its ferry range, and not the combat-range. Ferry range is the range which the aeroplane can fly without carrying any weapon-load (just on internal fuel and external fuel pods).

Does the JF-17 have a gun ? if YES -what type (maybe some kind of a Gsh, or gast/rotary/revolver - style) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.209.6 (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

All in all, the Tejas is comparable to the JF-17, and this comparison will go down in the history of military aviation as being one of the most interesting ones, alongside the ranks of MiG-19--F-86, MiG-29--F-16, Spitfire--Messerschmitt Bf109, and the F-15--Su-30. IAF

I really don't know, how do you compare Jf-17 with white elephant like LCA-Tejas which after eating 5500 crore rupees of Indian Tax payees ,still not completed. According to "The Hindu" news paper of India,"In 2007, it was reported that empirical data indicating that indigenous Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, in its present form, will not be able to meet the Air Staff Requirements (ASRs), the Indian Air Force (IAF) has raised serious questions over the future of the aircraft’s long term induction into the squadron service."

"The IAF has communicated that the Tejas’ performance, both in terms of thrust and its airframe qualities, was still a long way from what was desirable. The Tejas, as per the IAF drawn up ASR, had to be "much, much better" than the MiG-21s. Though the fly-by-wire Tejas has its plus points, data, including from the aircraft’s recent low altitude tests at INS Rajali in Arakonam, showed that this might not be possible with the present configuration.

An Air Force officer said: "We have been given a mandate by the government and with this in mind drawn up an ASR. It has to be met. There is no point in the ADA pressuring us to accept a lower ASR at this stage. For years, at every meeting, the ADA has been saying that the Tejas will comply with the ASR."

It is recently came to knowledge that IAF was not willing to acquire a single LCA jet into IAF fleet,DRDO/HAl representative speaks; "DRDO and HAL representative Shri Antony said in a press conference that "major breakthroughs in the project have been achieved in recent times and he is confident that "it will be in the sky within a few years.Indian Air Force, which was not willing to accept even one of this aircraft earlier, has now decided to receive two squadrons"

Now I'm asking,whats the reason, why they have decided to add two squadrons,while they had planned to induct 200 aircrafts,later on they even refused to take a single aircraft why? its very much logical that DRDO/HAL, whom are jointly working on development of HAL-Tejas.After taking more than 25 years and 5500 crore rupees, it hasn't produced satisfactory results,according to ASR standard,so due to scary of Indian people anger and disgrace globally, IAF came forward to save DRDO/HAL high profiles.

[2] [3]

So,I think it is very unfair that,LCA-Tejas (which is still not operational) is in the "JF-17 comparable aircrafts list",it should be removed on following above mentioned basis,and I also request you that only operational aircrafts should be included. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 03:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Before making such strongly-worded requests, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#See also. In particular: Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate. As you should be able to see, there is no requiremnt or exclusion based on being in operational srvice. As such, I think you would find it hard to gain a concensus to remove the Tejas in particular. They are definitle similar role an era, but also in their primary intended arena of oepration, South Asia. Capability can and has been debated ad nauseum on this and the Tejas talk page, but consider that China is developing several somewhat-indigenous fighters ant this time, and even with delays, the FC-1 is not at the top of their acquisition list. They are primarily developing the JF-17 for Pakistan and other export markets, which says alot about its true capabilities. As for the F-20, look at it and the JF-17, and you see great similarity in their apprearance (totally coincidental, but there is a resemblance), though the JF-17 is a bit larger. In addition, the F-20 was marketed to a number of nations in the 1980s which then went on to develop their own fighters of similar capability, such as the JAS 39 and F-CK-1. SO this isn't a list just comparing in-service aircraft identical in capability, but other factors too. Also, this is one reason I keep removing the Agitatotr's constant additions of larger twin-engine fighters: they just aren't that similar in overall performance/capability, in addition to adding sop many fighters as to make the list meaningles (ie, there aren't many he's leaft out!) I hopes this explains the reasoning a little better for you, but you are welcome to take up the issue at WT:AIR if you like. - BillCJ (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(BillCJ)There shouldn't be no doubt in mind that you're an Indian, However, I would like to talk beyond eye glass of nationalism or patriotism and also on solid grounds. Dear BillCJ, How could you determine the performance of a certain (aircraft) which is still not ready and as well as role,capability or era is concern, question again rises,that how would you judge those aspects before, its completion,Its illogical and injustice to rely upon its developers publicized specifications, which only intension is to show it ,to the Indian Air Force that, its comparable to Jf-17. DRDO sources claim that it would be in the air in 2012? Do you think, they will make this possible just in span of 4 years? Further more if LCA-Tejas is comparable to Jf-17 why Indian Air Force is hesitated to induct the white elephant in its fleet to counter JF-17. The only reason that has forced the Indian Air Force is,its unmatch performance with JF-17 and its capability to counter JF-17. This is further strengthen by the news that IAF decided to counter JF-17 with 126 MRCA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you’re right that FC-1 is not on the top list of China right now as they are working on so many projects, however, bear in mind that JF-17 is cost effective aircraft with decent specifications. You can’t compare JF-17 with J-10, J-11B etc... Which are twice expensive to Jf-17 and have very little edge in form of performace for instance compare J-10 with JF-17? Another thing that great amused me is? That you compared F-20 with JF-17, which isn’t surpring to me. F-20 sale started in late 80s and ended in officially ended in 1990,so you’re saying that Jf-17 is based upon a dump aircraft frame?C’mon..Even the official producer admitted that it’s based upon Mig-21 airframe; however lot more improved than the existing frame. You said that, This isn't a list just comparing in-service aircraft identical in capability, but other factors too” Would like to mention what are those factors? It will not only enlighten me but also the readers or allow me to show you the difference between both? I have a question for you, whats the meaning of operational and under evaluation/Trial? So on following justified basis I'm going to remove LCA from this list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 11:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the appropriate response is, "There should be no doubt in my mind that you're a Paskistani!" However, you could also be Chinese, Iranian, Zimbabwean, or just a fan of the JF-17 from somewhere else in the world. It doesn't matter where I'm from, or where you're from: What matters is a neutral presentation of each aircraft based on reliable sources, regardless of national origins, or the juvenile rivalries between users from those nations. Since you've already made up your mind and reverted, inspite of the fact that the general concensus on this page is against your viewpoint, I will take the matter to the WP Aircraft Project's talk page, and let the concensus of the editors determine how to proceed. This is not the first time WP:AIR has had to intervene in the endless sniping and conflict on Wikipedia between Indians, Pakistanis, and there respective supporters, and, sadly, it shows no sign of being be the last. - BillCJ (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(BILLCJ)Dear me, I am not a Pakistani nor Zimbabwean or Chinese either and neither I'm a fan of JF-17 thunder, there are dozen of aircrafts, more advanced to JF-17 or Tejas whatever etc.., I'm an Israelian from Afghanistan. The reason i'm discussing this jet is that a year ago ,I visited JF-17 article having pretty decent information but now what i'm seeing in here is?disorder and junk of craps.Surprisingly,it also contains a full detailed topic on Indian flanker-C, I'm curious whats the importance of Flanker-C in this article,after all both are two different aircrafts.What I realizes that, it must be the work of Indian fans.Another thing thats astonishing is an under trial aircraft Hal-Tejas. passing through evaluation stages placed in comparable aircrafts.That doesn't make sense to me,that how could you judge the performance of under trial/evaluated plane with an operational one. So,I decided to make justice to the topic, on solid ground and evidences. You talked about neutral presentation, I'm asking adding Su-30-Flanker-C of IAF in JF-17 article is neutral presentation and its twice that you talked about consensus,what does it mean? Let suppose if we have a paper horse and it has vast voters or sympethizers that means that would be considered a real stallion? I don't think so...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone has removed most of the article which went unnoticed until now, the page was vandalised by 129.12.200.49 on 14 March 2007. The following text was removed:

Present status Looking at the status of the development's work, the 4th prototype version of the JF-17 Thunder combat jet has successfully completed its first operational flight in Chengdu, China, on Wednesday, 2006-03-10[4]. The 4th prototype of the JF-17 Thunder combat jet is configured as a multi-role fighter-bomber and is capable of carrying multiple air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. The fighter jet is equipped with advanced electronics and weapons systems. Pakistan will receive the first consignment of 2 aircraft on 2007-03-23, while the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex in Kamra will start manufacturing the JF-17 in 2008. China will start official production in June 2007.

4th prototype version is said to be redesigned with F-35 JSF style Divertless Supersonic Intakes (DSI) being the most notable feature; according to Lockheed Martin, DSI is more stealthy than other conventional air intakes as well as DSI also diverts turbulent boundary-layer airflow away from the engine inlet[5] [6]

At the 6th Zhuhai Airshow in China, a Unit Training Device (UTD) appearing identical to the earlier mockup of the JF-17 was publically displayed, and the manufacturer of the aircraft, along with other manufacturers of airborne weaponry, provided more detailed information on the projects:

Avionics The 4th prototype includes advanced avionics features such as:

Cockpit Advanced 4.5th generation EFIS with cockpit displays that are compatible with western systems such as those built by Rockwell Collins and Honeywell. The current MIL-STD-1553B data bus can be readily replaced by MIL-STD-1773 fiber optics data bus upon customer's request. The control panel consists of only 3 color screens (20.3 cm × 20.3 cm each). All information is processed and displayed on them. The functions of each screen are exchangeable. Brightness and contrast can be adjusted either automatically or manually. Displays can also be adjusted to be compatible with night vision goggles. Each screen can be re-defined individually. The current CRT display can be readily replaced by LCD upon customer's request, and touch screen option is also available. (However, neither the Chinese PLA Air Force nor the Pakistani Air Force has shown any interests in the touch screen options, and there is no known successful past export either.) HUD is a state-of-the-art system developed by Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC). Many images/information can be displayed at the same time. All HUD and head-down displays are compatible with the standard electro-optical targeting pod that is carried externally. HOTAS control. Intelligent avionics. Avionics system is all-digital and fully integrated. Distributed structure. Two independent but exchangeable (can backup each other) STD-MTL-1553B data buses connect all equipment, plus two powerful control computers (that can also backup each other). Each computer controls one data bus.

Radar

Artist's concept of the JF-17 Thunder in PAF colors and markingsInitially, Pakistan wanted to use the Italian Grifo-S7 radar. However, the Chinese offer had some key advantages over the Italian one, such as compatibility with Chinese weapon systems.

Radar has strong ECCM capacity and multiple modes, such as A2A (both BVR & close), air-to-ground, air-to-sea, terrain avoidance, etc. Terrain following mode is not standard, but can be added upon customer's request by either incorporating an external pod such as the Chinese Blue Sky navigational and targeting pods, or alternatively, the direct integration of the radar itself. It can simultaneously detect 40+ targets, simultaneously track 10 of 40 detected targets, and simultaneously engage 2 of the 10 tracked targets by guiding 2 semi-active radar homing BVR missiles to attack two separate targets. Alternatively, two missiles can be fired at the same target to insure the kill probability. When active radar homing air-to-air missiles are used, the number of targets that can be simultaneously engaged are increased to 4. The detection range for a typical air target of RC 3 m² is 125+ km; looking downrange is 45+ km; range for sea target is 250+ km. When engaging land targets, the Chinese radar can lock on to individual vehicle like American radars do, instead of only being able to lock on to a large group of vehicles like the Russian Phazotron Kopyo (Spear) radar onboard MiG-21-93. Easy to access LRUs with fully digitized solid state electronics and built-in self test functions. Plenty of room for improvement is incorporated in the design so that the current plannar slotted array that can be readily replaced by a passive phased array. Reporgrammable digital processor with open architecture design. Option to incorporate IFF. The internally mounted electro-optics is not standard for JF-17, but the radar is compatible with them for their rapid integration upon customer's request.

I will be renaming "Present status" to "design Characteristics" Faraz 20:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry! I usually try to watch for that kind of stuff, but I missed it! Yes, isome of it still needs sourcing, but that's no reason for an an unexplained deletion, though it probably was vandalism. I'll try to watch the article a litte more closely. Good catch! - !!!!

Azerbaijan

According to the source below, Azerbaijan is interessed in acquiring the JF17 from Pakistan Air Force, I added this to the article:

http://today.az/news/business/39829.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.83.1.6 (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

• Showing interest does not in any way mean "acquisition' or even 'willingness to buy". Avataran

They had shown 'interest' way back during the IDEAS exhibition now the "Azerbaijan Defense Minister Safar Abiyev and Defense Industry Minister Yavar Jamalov are scheduled to make an official visit to Pakistan." its real as the official Azerbaijani government website says it, I believe it. Period. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 (russian). Faraz 22:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, all three sources quoted are from the same newspaper, day.az. There have been no official Azerbaijan government confirmation. Current production run is entirely at CAC and nearly all initial units are to PAF as it is tied to the RD-93 contract. Suggest additional supporting sources or remove the quote. I have a alternative suggestions; to add additional section on countries who have expressed interest but to be confirmed.

Azerbaijan, Egypt, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Myanmar, Iran and Zimbabwe.

10:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Added "Potential customers" section. Thanks! --Henrickson 17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe purchase of the JF-17

Zimbabwe has already placed an order for 12 JF-17 back in 2004. They're yet to be delivered. You can check out the articles on the search engines if you don't believe me.

Zimbabwe bought 12 JF-17s to counter south africas purchase of the JAS-39 Gripen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noorkhanuk85 (talk • contribs) 13:07, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Yes, Indeed Zimbabwe acquired 12 JF-17 in 2004 and paid an estimated 200 million dollars.However, I still don't understand why Zimbabwe still in Potential customers list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 03:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied from an advert?

Adjustable brightness on an HDD isn't exactly worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article?!? Similarly with the rest of the list 87.194.198.122 20:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why so much of Su-30

This plane is a single engined plane and has its own advantages and disadvantages over a twin-engined plane especially in maintenance, however it will have disadvantages too such as lesser weapon load and radar capability due to the twin engine plane's larger size. Anyways this page is about JF-17 and not about Su-30 and gosh it even has a Su-30 photo, which I think doesnt belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.35.12 (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Any justification for adding material on Su-30/Flanker-c? Isn't two different class aircrafts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 05:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear editor (The one who added maintenance section) ,I asked you very simply question regarding adding large portion of material on Flanker-C,any justification why did you add this section? If we didn't receive a logical answer I'm afraid, we will remove this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.221.99 (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed multiple instances of the phrase "Su-30 Flanker", as "Flanker family" should be enough.

By the way, the Flanker family is only an example; one could use F-16 family or MiG-21 family as an alternative (they're single-engine ones, aren't they?), but the Flankers are more known to use proprietary/purpose-built equipment than other combat aircraft. (Note: I didn't originally write that section, but I modified it for clarity and lightweightness.) --Henrickson ^{User talk | Contribs} 04:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The section does read a little better now - however, it is still completely uncited and so could be considered OR.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Operators

I should point out that if countries haven't received delivery of ordered fighters, they're not "operators". While both Azerbaijan and Zimbabwe have stated an interest in buying, as of January 2008, neither is known to have signed a contract. Although China has yet to make a commitment to buying the FC-1/JF-17, as a co-developer and co-producer, I've given it the benefit of the doubt since it "operates" it at least as a developmental aircraft. Let's not count chickens before the eggs have hatched. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur, including on China - If nothing else, they are carying out tests with the aircraft, so that should count. I think I've cleaned that up here before, but oh well! I've removed all the potential uses from the list, along with their flags. Another user just added citations to a few of the entries, so I've kept those entries (without flags!), and moved them to the "Development" section. I'll try to keep a closer eye on this in the future. - BillCJ (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

China has nearly a thousand J-7s in service currently. What other aircraft would they replace those with if not the JF-17? I think it's pretty much given that China is going to induct these into it's airforce. China just likes to be secretive about everything. No one knew about the J-10 until it was in service in numbers. --Zaindy87 (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(Askari Mark) :I don't know, did you miss the news or you may have hidden this news intensionally that Zimbabwe have already paid 200 million dollars for 12 JF-17 thunders aircrafts.[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 06:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That source is about 4 years old, and is from a news collection site, not a direct news source. Is there anything more recent than that stating the purches we ever actually completed? And at lest until deliveries begin, it's a bit premature to list them as n Operator, since they aren't operating anything. China and Pakistan are developing the aircraft, so we generally list them under operators anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm greatly surprised to see the "Potential Customer" topic right below the development topic, I think ,that isn't in proper place, it should be merged as a sub-topic of "Current Operator" which is more appropriate place. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Because this is not an article, there is no real organization to the topics. New topics are generally added to the bottom of the page, as it is easier to to find topics by date that way. No need to fret too much over what is where, just try to read all the topics so you know what has been said before. - BillCJ (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me,freting over what is where? Are you the Admin of Wikipedia or just an ordinary user? Yes indeed its an article.Be mind it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 12:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well i know some of you doesn't care with this but,as of now the philippine air force,is studying what MRF fighter jet they will acquire in 2011 or 2012,im pretty much sure that the jf-17 are one of the jets they are considering to buy.Cause its not just low cost MRF it is also an effective fighter-bomber plane,i saw in one article that the jf-17 is superior when it comes to close to close combat.Well i'm not an expert when it comes to the jf-17/fc-1 fighter jet as much as you guys here,so pls. help me in this topic.well we have a 1.3 billion dollar budget in buying fighter jets.so if we actually buy these jet how many can we buy?.thanks to those who reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabello24 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin of FC-1

Removed: "The FC-1/JF-17 is the Chinese single-engine derivative of the Soviet-era MiG-29 Fulcrum (canceled by Soviet/Russian Air Force in 1979). The FC-1/JF-17 is derived from the "Super 7" project, and not the Project 33 (not to be confused with the MiG-33) or the failed Chengdu J-9. But it might be designated J-9 when it enters PLAAF operational service."

Mutually exclusive. It obviously can not be at the same time a "derivative of the Soviet-era MiG-29 Fulcrum" and be "derived from the Chengdu J-7" (MiG-21). While the official story seems to be that it is supposedly derived from the J-7 this is usually disbelieved in the west and it is widely reported that it is actually a Soviet/Russian design sold to China by the MiG corporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.212.67 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fierce linguist

Can somebody transliterate 枭龙? (Not translate, mind, I know it means Fierce Dragon...) Trekphiler (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Earthquake

Until and unless we have a source that tells us what effect the quake has had on development of the FC-1 in China (if any), is there any point in mentioning it in this article? There's no question in my mind that it should be mentioned in the article on the Chengdu company (and it is), but without something definitive that's relevant to this particular programme, this information seems misplaced here. Thoughts? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'm sure that a defense building was built strong enough to overcome an earthquake besides an attack. All sources I found mention some of the facilities being damaged but no reports of delays in the production. I was going to removed this mention after a month anyways. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed it once, but User:Paknur put it straight back. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been more than 3 months since the eq. I think the facility was able withstand seismic shocks. Also, the source is biased, it is not an official news agency and has bias towards China.

JF-17 similar to Mig 35 and Eurofighter !

I don't think JF-17 is in same class as Mig-35 or Eurofighter. We have to be realistic. 99.229.230.20 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

JF-17 is a 3rd Generation Aircraft

The JF-17 is a 3rd generation aircraft, not fourth. Here are my references to back it up:

[1] From The News, Pakistan: "The JF-17 Thunder is a light combat aircraft, a single-engine fighter with all-weather capability, which Pakistan has developed with the help of the Chinese. It is a *THIRD-GENERATION* fighter that has been so designed that it can take on the fourth-generation fighter aircraft." [The News,Pakistan ^ | 2/8/2008 | Ali Abbas Rizvi ]

[2] From Global Security: "wlet dragon/FC-1 airplane had achieved the *THIRD GENERATION* fighter aircraft synthesis" [5]

Hence, I've changed it to 3rd generation. 128.189.137.17 (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

JF-17 cannot be described as a 3rd generation combat aircraft

The following features of the JF-17 are also found on versions of the McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F-18 and F-15, Lockheed Martin F-16, Sukhoi Su-27/Su-30, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, CAC J-10 and Saab Gripen, ALL of which are referred to as 4th/4.5th generation combat aircraft:

1) High thrust to weight ratio (0.95).

2) Glass cockpit (check pictures, three large screens can be clearly seen providing pilot information).

3) Fly-By-Wire (FBW) flight control system.

4) Multi-mode, pulse doppler fire control radar (KLJ-7), which can guide more than one beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile, each to a seperate target. Also capable of 'look-down shoot-down', and multiple modes include air-to-ground modes.

5) Helmet mounted sights (HMS).

6) LERX - leading edge root extensions. This feature of the airframe refers to the design of the wings, which are extended at the point where they join the fuselage of the aircraft, significantly improving maneuverability.

Another feature found on the production version of JF-17 are divertless supersonic intakes (DSI). The initial version of JF-17 did not have this feature, it was first seen on the fourth prototype. The only other aircraft with this feature is the Lockheed Martin F-35, which is considered a 5th generation aircraft. DSI reduce weight and radar signature. Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2000/articles/july_00/divertless_1.html

How can the JF-17 be described as a 3rd generation aircraft despite having all the features that DEFINE a 4th generation aircraft? Referring to it as a 3rd generation aircraft is preposterous when its contemporaries such as the HAL Tejas are considered 4th generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hj107 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it back to 3rd generation because the two refs say 3rd Generation - if you want to change it you need a reliable source that says it is 4th generation. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

hey come on,this jet was made in the 1980s right so this jet must be considered a 4th generation fighter jet.and how can this be a 3rd gen fighter?,if you fight an f-5 to jf-17 i think the jf-17 will shut down the f-5 in seconds,cause it has far more advanced capabilities than those in 3rd gen fighter jet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabello24 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

By no stretch of the imagination can the JF-17 be termed as a 4th generation fighter. Its structures are completely based on metallic alloys, whereas every other 4th generation fighter uses large percentage of composites. If you compare its Fly-by-wire FCS to that of the other 4th generation fighters such as Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, F-16 Block 50 onwards, Tejas, etc. you'll find that it lags behind. It is primarily a cheap, BVR capable 3rd generation fighter, in terms of technology, comparable at most to an early generation F-16A.

Mirage blue (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Variants section of article

In addition to the above contribution (which i forgot to sign), I would also like to point out that the "Variants" section is innaccurate, even according to its own sources! There are no variants being produced called FC-2, FC-3 or FC-4. Also, shouldn't the table of prototypes and their designations be placed BEFORE the list of production variants? I will amend this section, if anybody disagrees, please discuss. Hj107 (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The references used refer to these variants you need to prove they dont exist with reliable sources or question the quality of the references used. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Information regarding JF-17 generation and variants

With regards to the 3rd/4th generation issue, I can prove that one of the sources (reference 3, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/fc-1-specs.htm) is out of date. If you visit this link, you will notice that this website claims the following specifications: MAX LEVEL SPEED 1031 knots Mach 1.6 MAX RANGE / Ferry range 864 nautical miles 2,037 km SERVICE CEILING 16,000 meters 15,240 m Compare these to the specifications listed on the wikipedia article - they are different.

I believe globalsecurity.org article is listing max speed as Mach 1.6 because this is the max. speed of the first version of FC-1, the first three prototypes, 01, 02, 03. Prototype 04 had notable new features such as DSI (divertless supersonic intakes), noticeably larger LERX (leading edge root extensions) and a small fairing on the vertical tail, similar to the Electronic Warfare fairings on other aircraft, such as the SEPECAT Jaguar. With this version came an increase in max. speed, Mach 1.8. If you check sinodefence.com (http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1_specs.asp), you can see that max. speed is listed as Mach 1.6~1.8, another source of this is Defence Talk (http://www.defencetalk.com/world_military_aircraft/fighters/jf-17_thunder_fc-1_20040730.php). Here you can see that the different prototypes are listed, along with a list of improvements to prototype 04. Max. speed here is again listed as Mach 1.8.

If you visit the link for reference 2, you will see it is simply a newspaper, not an authority on military aircraft. I believe that reference 3 is simply out of date (as shown above) and reference 2 is nowhere near as reliable as others here. If you look at the bottom of the MILAVIA source, you will see it cites Air Forces Monthly, a magazine dedicated to military aircraft, as its source. Unfortunately, credible sources such as MILAVIA and sinodefence do not comment on the generation of the JF-17. Therefore rather than list JF-17 as 3rd generation, would it not be more accurate to list it either as 3rd/4th generation, or not list the generation it belongs too at all? As you may know, jet combat aircraft generations are just general descriptions, different versions of aircraft can belong to different generations.

With regards to the variants list issue, the source http://www.defencetalk.com/world_military_aircraft/fighters/jf-17_thunder_fc-1_20040730.php shows that each prototype is referred to as PT-01, PT-02, and so on. Another source of this is MILAVIA (http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/fc-1/fc-1.htm) - scroll down to half way, read the section with sub-heading "Progress". All three sources I have listed here call the JF-17 "FC-1", they do not mention FC-2, FC-3, etc. Yet two sources refer to different PROTOTYPES (as a pose to "variants") as 01, 02, 03, etc. Also please note that MILAVIA only seems to show pictures of the earlier version prototypes - PT-01 to PT-03, they are easily distinguishable from PT-04 onwards, please check the other sources such as sinodefence for pictures of the later prototpes/versions. I believe there has been some confusion with regards to nomenclature of the different prototypes in certain sources, and this should not be continued on Wikipedia. Hj107 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

With regards to specifications, I would rather go by the CATIC official website: http://www.catic.com.cn/en/Product_Server/products_intro.asp?list=&Content_id=2466&TypeTreeID=1833 and they say, "Max. Mach number 1.6"!

--Tempest II (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice find Tempest! The picture is obviously of the final production version JF-17, rather than the initial 3 prototypes. But do you not think the specifications are of the initial version? CATIC certainly doesn't produce FC-1, only Chengdu Aircraft Cororation (CAC) and Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC). I cant find the CAC website. But the PAC website also has two sets of specifications! Again, one set seems to refer to the initial version, the other to the final PT-04 onwards version:

http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17.html - scroll down to the bottom of the page, claims max. speed as Mach 1.6

http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17specifications.html - scroll down to number 8. Strength and Fatigue Life, claims max. speed as Mach 1.8 (although it seems an odd place to put max. speed).

Lots of other sources also claim Mach 1.8 from PT-04 onwards, including SinoDefence and MILAVIA.

WHat do you think Tempest?

Speaking of which, we should highlight the difference between initial version and final version in the article, similar to how it is done in the MILAVIA source I talked about above. Can somebody do that? Perhaps make another sub-section called "Initial Prototype" in the Development section, highlighting the differences as stated in the MILAVIA source?

Hj107 (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be borne in mind that jet fighter “generations” are first and foremost design generations. The incorporation of individual items of more modern equipment does not necessarily advance it a generation, although it certainly enhances the aircraft’s performance capabilities. You can retrofit technologies developed for fifth-generation aircraft onto a second-generation, but the basic design of the aircraft remains second-gen. What is unique about the FC-1/JF-17 is that it is generally described as a third-generation airframe design developed with fourth-gen systems. That makes it an oddball that’s hard to place within the traditional scheme of generations. To my mind, it should be properly classified as a hybrid 3rd/4th gen aircraft; however, Wikipedia has to go with sources, not opinions (however professional). If you can find a reliable source that describes it along the lines of “a third-generation airframe fitted with fourth-generation systems”, then I think it would be quite fair to change the intro accordingly.

As a note on nomenclature, “FC-1” is how this aircraft is designated; some earlier sources confusingly also use “FC-n” to designate the prototypes, but most now refer to them as “P-01” or “PT-01”, etc. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean Mark. The thing is, you say that it has a 3rd generation airframe, but even the airframe has 4th generation features, namely the LERX and DSI. That added to all the 4th generation systems surely makes a 4th generation aircraft? As for sources, thats the problem! I cant find any sources that say 4th gen. But surely its incorrect to call FC-1 a 3rd gen. aircraft when the only sources for that are a newspaper and a webpage that lists the specifications of the initial version that is significantly less capable? I would be happy to put "3rd/4th generation" if you think its appropriate? Hj107 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not me that says it has a 3rd-gen airframe – I was quoting from what other, reliable sources say; I personally (and professionally) consider it a hybrid. (In fact, though, aside from the LERX and DSI, its airframe is indeed a 3rd gen approach. It might be best described, perhaps, as a Gen 3.75, but that's OR.) This aircraft was listed as 4th gen here and at Fighter aircraft (which was generally fine by me) until someone provided sources (the ones you're referring to) that reliable sources refer to it as "3rd gen". I did do some searching and found further online sources that could be used to support the same point, but like you, I couldn't find any that claimed it was 4th gen. For better or worse, Wikipedia's WP:V policy requires us to go with what can be verified, even if we may feel sure that it's not quite "absolute truth". The opinion of reliable sources may change in time, though, as the aircraft and its actual capabilities become more widely well-known as the JF-17 is sold to countries not so close with reliable information as the PRC; we'll have to wait and see ... or else continue searching for RS's with a more accurate description. For the time being, we should perhaps best describe it as a 3rd gen design which incorporates many advanced, 4th gen systems and features.

Here’s a possibility for the editors here to consider as a rework of the lead sentence:

“…in China, is a single-seat, multi-role fighter aircraft jointly developed by China and Pakistan. While its general layout reflects a third-generation fighter design approach, it incorporates some more advanced features such as leading edge extensions and a diverterless supersonic inlet, and most systems are fourth-generation.”

Comments? Askari Mark (Talk) 22:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're right Mark. Will you please edit the article? I think your reworked sentence is a good idea, its a fair compromise. Hj107 (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there's been no objections, I am making the change. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

More References Confirming that JF-17 is a THIRD Generation Aircraft

Here is an additional reference from the Chinese Embassy to confirm the JF-17 is 3rd generation, in addition to the previous two.

From The Chinese Embassy (http://pk.chineseembassy.org/eng/xnyfgk/t253073.htm): Quote: "Pakistan Air Force officials told APP that the aircraft has comprehensive combat capability of a *THIRD* generation fighter."

From GlobalSecurity (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/fc-1.htm): Quote: "the owlet dragon/FC-1 airplane had achieved the *THIRD* generation fighter aircraft synthesis fighting efficiency"

From The News Pakistan (http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=95173): Quote: "The JF-17 Thunder is a light combat aircraft, a single-engine fighter with all-weather capability, which Pakistan has developed with the help of the Chinese. It is a *THIRD-GENERATION* fighter that has been so designed that it can take on the fourth-generation fighter aircraft."

Please stop changing the article to 4th generation. 154.20.48.251 (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it is not a 3rd generation fighter, and if you read the article it says the aircraft is a 3rd generation but it has some 4th generation features, it does not say it is 4th generation. 4th generation feature is not the same as fourth generation. Please refer to discussion above. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. What are your sources? Janes? I doubt it. If you have legit references, cite them. Otherwise, leave it out. This same stuff has also been occuring on other wikipedia pages. You need to CITE REFERENCES. 128.189.137.17 (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to generations as it is not a hard and fast rule what each generation is and it really is not that important. Considering that nobody can really agree what it should be (and has been shown citation are available for any view you wish). Also please dont shout and suggest you read WP:CIVIL. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I also removed similar aircraft as editors change this daily so without a clear consensus the list has been removed. Please do not add either the generation or similar aircraft without further discussion. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Again Milborne, there is concensus that the fighter is 3rd generation, and I think your edits are misleading. This has been a problem throughout Wikipedia: people have been inflating the generation status of the JF-17. This is more typical of "fanboy" edits throughout Wikipedia that make no reference to reputable sources. I would argue that your edits are misleading as you seem to want to direct readers toward a conclusion that the JF-17 is a more sophisticated aircraft than it actually is. The generation of the aircraft is important and should be at the beginning of the article. If you look at articles for other aircraft, such as the Su-35 you will see the generation specification up front. I've added the 3rd generation back to the article. 128.189.210.186 (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure misleading is appropriate one of my roles is to protect the article and to the end if have seen that the generation of the aircraft is not subject to agreement. You will find if you read my message above and the article lead that the generation of the aircraft is not mentioned. So after originally protecting a consensus from this page and then seeing that others did not agree is why it has been removed, interested to see which part is misleading particularly when you and others points have been considered in that action. The generation of the aircraft is not really that important it is an artificial construct to allow people to say mine is bigger than yours, so bottom line no consensus no generation. MilborneOne (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Users

Should the People's Liberation Army Air Force really be listed under 'users'. Indeed they're evaluating it but theres nothing stopping them from chosing to not introduce it into the PLAAF. Should it not be listed under 'Potential Customers' like Sudan? Then on the otherhand, unlike Sudan, the PLAAF have at least two test models in their possesion. Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

China isn't planning to induct JF-17. It was made specifically for exports. It's mainly for third world countries who can't afford Typhoons and Rafales. I think China willn't induct JF- 17. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The PLAAF is actively evaluating two test models of the FC-1 provided to them by Chengdu. While not designed in tandem with the PLAAF, nor to fill out a specific tender for future service, regardless the JF-1/FC-1 is currently being considered according to most if not all major defence industry sources although there is a good chance it will not enter PLAAF service. We will only know for certain once an official statement is made. The users section is not for speculation. Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Source claiming FC-1 to be 4th generation

http://evolvingprimate.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/jf-17enter-the-thunder/ This source claims that FC-1 is a 4th generation combat aircraft. In support of MilborneOne's comment above, ommitting FC-1 generation claims from the article is the most neutral and accurate option, as generation claims are inherently vague and no professional, as well as neutral, source has been provided. Hj107 (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

FC-1 picture

The picture of the FC-1 shown in the article is clearly the initial prototype version. This can be seen by the lack of electronic warfare fairing on the tail fin, very small Leading Edge Root Extensions and absence of the divertorless supersonic intake bump. I request that the picture be changed to a more up-to-date and therefore more accurate picture of the aircraft. Also, I agree with the comment by Semi-Lobster above regarding users of FC-1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hj107 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if you could find a fair use image of the finalised JF-17 then go ahead and replace the old one Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

JF-17 is equivilent or similar to F-16 Block 15

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/fc-1.htm

"The JF-17 Thunder, whose performance is matched only by F-16s in the Pakistan Air Force's current inventory"

The current F-16s in Pakistans inventories are F-16 Block 15s...

So... any thoughts?

If this is true, then this jet is a complete flying junk... no offense... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Mr Anonymous believes the FC-1 is flying junk. Perhaps he/she would be kind enough to provide a source for this "fact". A source that is not hopelessly out-dated. Hj108 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

According to http://www.jf-17.com/

The detection range is comparable to the APG-66, which is installed on the F-16 Block 15, if not shorter. The Thrust - weight ratio of the F-16 using the F-100 Engine is less than the Jf-17

As far as I know, the F-16 is a 9G capable plane, where as the JF-17 is a 8.5G capable plane according to the above website.

So... Considering the things I can find, calling this comparable to the F-16 Block 15 sounds pretty reasonable.

Oh, one more thing, the JF-17 does have DSI intacks, thats a small edge over the F-16 in general, if im not mistaken.

Anything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in that source does it state FC-1's radar range. What is your source on APG-66's range? The block-15's TWR and turning performance are very good. How does this make the FC-1 flying junk? It has already been stated by the PAF Air Chief Marshal that the Chinese radar and EW suite on FC-1 are better than those on PAF's block 15 F-16. Hj108 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Check the very last section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't the name "FC-1" be included in the title? Hj108 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

We dont normally mix designations in the title Chengdu FC-1 and FC-1 redirects to this page so shouldnt be a problem for anybody searching for it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of article

The article has been vandalised several times by anonymous users. Request moderators ban the the following IP addresses:
24.87.45.232
203.175.69.210
117.201.112.152
116.71.7.59
Hj108 (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have left a level two warning for User:203.175.69.210 talk page, a polite notice for User:24.87.45.232, the other two were not that serious. If you are concerned about vandalism you can report it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Design section changes

Added a new design section Hj108 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to Tejas

I have a source which identifies the JF-17's contemparies as the taiwanese IDF, korean golden eagle, and indian LCA. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/stuck-in-sichuan-pakistani-jf17-program-grounded-02984/ I'm therefore adding the LCA to the "see also" list as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.114.125 (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think T-50 should be added too?Hj108 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it can be. If anyone wants to they can, but the T-90 is an advanced training aircraft, different to full fighter aircraft of course. If anyone wants to they can, but the LCA, and IDF should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 03:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys! ADA confirmed last week that TEjas is 4.5 generation. Whereas JF-17 is close to 4th gen. Here is the source. [6] Please stop posting very old references. They are out-dated. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the reference provided in the article was last updated on 1st January 2009. The updated article is no more than 2 months old as of today. If that is what you constitute as "out of date," perhaps you should look up the meaning of the phrase? How old are the references used in the LCA article?

I think somebody needs to get rid of the nationalistic bias and/or LCA fanboyism. This is an encyclopedia and according to the facts provided by reliable sources, the two aircraft are comparable in size, weight, features and capabilities. The controversy over JF-17's generation class is finished - it has been decided by MilborneOne that it is simply a fanboy contest and need not be taken as fact. Hj108 (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Whom to believe?? A news report or the makers of Tejas ?? Hands down the 2nd because we still no nothing about the actual specifications that aircraft. I am removing Tejas from the list. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is the more neutral source? A dedicated military news website called "Defense Industry Daily" that has many many articles on US, European and other weapon systems, or the manufacturer of LCA? Yup, the news website wins that one. Please stop removing information that has reliable and neutral sources or action will be taken against you. If you can find a similarly neutral and reliable source that says JF-17 is not comparable to LCA, post it here so that we can debate the issue and reach a consensus rather than continue with this immature and childish edit war. Hj108 (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

JF-17 - Aluminium Alloy fuselage and wings

• HAL Tejas - Carbon Composites
• JF-17 - Flight programming written in C++
• HAL Tejas - Flight programming in ADA
• JF-17 - KLJ-7 RADAR - simultaneously track 10 targets and fire at 2(X-band)
• HAL Tejas - EL/M-2032(present RADAR of PVs and LSPs)- simultaneously tracks 10 targets and can

engage 4(pulse doppler)

• JF-17 - weaponload - 3400 kg
• HAL Tejas - 4000-4500 kg

Propaganda shouldn't be brought to encyclopedia. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, propoganda shouldn't be brought to an encyclopedia. So why are you bringing it here?

• LCA - metal alloys and composites
• JF - metal alloys and a little composites, more composites to be used in later versions

• LCA - flight programming written in a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE
• JF - flight programming written in a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE

• LCA - simultaneously tracks 10 targets and can engage 4
• JF - simultaneously tracks 10 targets in Track-While-Scan mode and engages 2

• LCA - weaponload approx. 4000kg
• JF - weaponload approx. 3700kg

Aircraft are comparable, a neutral source confirms it, can you give any source to back up your claims that LCA is not comparable to JF-17? If not, I request you do not edit the article again.

Hj108 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For the time being the LCA will not be added back I think. But as said by Hj108, Defense Industry Daily is a neutral source (at least in talking about foreign technology). Therefore I think it would be reliable. When the Tejas goes operational I will be added back in. Blitzoace (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Blitzoace. Hj108 (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO,having Carbon Composite,on fighter is not effective.If damaged it can't repaired easily.User:Yousaf465

Comparable aircraft list - Northrop YF-17

Should YF-17 stay in the list? Surely if F-16 should be in the list then its competitor, the YF-17, should be present also. Even though the YF-17 never went into production, a larger version of it was produced as a sort of large navalised F-16. YF-17's specifications are much more comparable to those of FC-1/JF-17 than F-18. YF-17 and FC-1 were created under similar principles, a small lightweight combat aircraft.
Hj108 (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The aircraft never went into production... But I suppose it can be left on the list. There's no reason why it should go so it should stay I think.Blitzoace (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

YF-17 is of a different era than the JF-17, while the F-16 has been modernized all along. They also do not look alike, and one has two engines. Thus they aren't similar. Ahould we add teh F-86 because it was a lightweight day fighter too? And perhaps the Hawker Hunter or MiG-21? Let's not go too overboard here, OK? - BillCJ (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for not replying to my post on your talk page BillCJ.

The reason I added YF-17 to the list is because of its similarity with the F-16 in intended role, size, performance. If it is agreed that F-16 and AIDC FCK-1 can be placed in the list, why can't YF-17?

I disagree with your statement in your edit summary that the FC-1 and YF-17 are "not similar in looks or era." Firstly, they do bear some vague similarities in looks. A similar cropped delta planform (although YF-17 wing leading edges are much less swept than those of FC-1), conventional empennage (although YF-17 has twin tail fins, FC-1 has single fin), large LERX, as shown in the below pictures:

http://www.afwing.com/intro/viper%20vs%20cobra/yf17-f18.jpg compared to http://www.defence.pk/images/wallpapers/jf-17-color-designed.jpg

http://www.aircraftinformation.info/Images/YF-17_01.jpg compared to http://www.stratfor.com/files/mmf/1/5/15426af319c5a3b616f67248f93850e89725a010_two_column.jpg

Their intended roles are also similar, both being light-weight fighters (FC-1 has additional multi-role capability, but so would YF-17 had it been chosen over F-16). YF-17 was generally an advanced 3rd generation combat aircraft (as was YF-16/F-16A) that could have been upgraded into a more advanced 4th generation fighter, similar story with FC-1; currently it is an advanced 3rd generation fighter (or a basic 4th generation fighter depending on who you talk to). Therefore arguably they are of a similar "era". More similarities can be found in terms of size:

______________JF-17______YF-17

Length:________14.0 m_____17.0 m

Wingspan:_____9.45 m_____10.5 m

Height:________4.77 m_____5.0 m

Wing area:_____24.4 m²____32 m²

Empty weight:__6,450 kg___7,800 kg

If YF-17 should kept off the list due to being twin-engined, then should the AIDC FCK-1 be removed too? I would appreciate more opinions on this. Hj108 (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not respond because I was sick the night you posted that, and I forgot to replay later. Thanks for assuming good faith and calling everyone's attention to the fact. "Era" means the years something was developed, not "fighter generations", which is usually arbitrary and highly POV. The YF-17 was developed in the 1970s, and the JF-17 primarily in the 1990s-2000s. The AIDC F-CK-1 was also developed somewhat eariler than the JF-17, but it is listed here as it is an internationally-developed fighter for use in lieu of more advanced fighters of the day, though the F-16 was later able to be purchased by Taiwan. But whatever. - BillCJ (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Bill. Seems to me that you can't help seeing the differences whereas I can't help seeing the similarities. I guess there's no point adding YF-17 back to the list since there is a case against it, but I would still appreciate some more opinions on the topic. Hj108 (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there has to be a cut-off line somewhere, or these lists would get very long! I've no problem with more opinions being gathered. - BillCJ (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Hj108 (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Seperate article for F-7 Sabre II

I'm thinking of making a separate article on the F-7 Sabre II (read about it in the Development - Origins section of this article). It was an upgrade of F-7 that was pretty much the predecessor of Super-7/FC-1/JF-17. I have a small amount of information and some pictures of it that can be added to Wikipedia but there's no point in adding that stuff to this article since Sabre-II shared nothing with FC-1 except the basic concept; a small, light-weight, cheap multi-role combat jet with fairly advanced radar and missiles to be built in Pakistan. It was basically an F-7 with two more inboard under-wing hardpoints to carry AIM-9L, new side-mounted air intakes and a solid nose similar to F-20 Tigershark which was to house the F-20's radar. It was abandoned after a 40% cost increase according to some sources. Can anybody give their thoughts on this? Hj108 (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

At a push there is probably an article there - although as (I think) it only got to mock-up stage, you may need to be careful about references to make sure its not an AFD candidate.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. One way to make sure we're going to have enough content on an article like this is to create it in one's userspace, sometimes called a "sandbox page", but this isn't the general sandbox that everyone uses that is wiped every day. This way, one has time to get the article together before going "live" with it, and it really helps to see if an article will be sustainable. I do this on my userspace, and had about 30 sandbox articles at one point; most have either gone live or been deleted as uinsustainable. User:Hj108/F-7 Sabre II would work, and you just click on the link, add content, and save. Because it's not in the mainspace, we can't link to it from any article in the mainspace. I can help you set it up if you want. This also gives other editors a chance to see what you have in mind for an article, and they can help improve it if you ask for the halp. Both this article and the main J-7 article3 are really too long to add much more info on just one variant. If the sources are reliable, it should have no problem being kept, even if someone delete-wonk decided to AFD it! - BillCJ (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BillCJ, this could be a good chance to clear up some room in the J-7 article. Also you should make a point to differentiate it from the Chengdu/Grumman Super-7 project. Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I have set up a sandbox for it on my userpage and will start writing it soon. If anybody wants to help out, please do. I'll use the J-9 article as a template. Hj108 (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't going to work, I don't have sources with enough information. The ones I do have mostly just talk about Super-7 rather than Sabre-II. I am sure Sabre-II is just the PAF name for Super-7. Hj108 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tone and sources

I saw this article on the GAN list. Here are some thoughts about problems with the article. 1) There are long stretches with no inline sources. 2) The article has a promotional tone. Things are described as "optimal", "interesting", or "easy", but it's not clear who is making those POV assertions. 3) There is text that doesn't help the article much.

• The JF-17 is a modern turbofan-powered multi-role combat aircraft designed to give maximum combat effectiveness for minimum cost, incorporating many advanced features that reflect this design philosophy.

That doesn't seem to add anything to the article, since we already know that it is a turbofan-powered multi-role combat aircraft, and the rest is just POV or redundancy.

• The wings make use of slats and flaps to increase lift and drag, helping the aircraft take off while carrying heavy loads and land safely in as short a distance as possible.

How many planes don't have flaps? This seems like an unnecessary detail. It'd be a bit like saying "The landing gear makes use of tires to provide a smoother taxiing."

• As with all modern combat aircraft, the cockpit incorporates full Hands On Throttle And Stick (HOTAS) controls. This means the pilot can control all essential parts of the aircraft, such as the radar and weapon systems, without having to remove his hands from the throttle and centre sticks. This means the pilot need not look down to operate the essential controls during combat, allowing him to keep his eyes focused on monitoring the combat situation

That's a long explanation for something that is common to all modern fighters.

• A countermeasures dispensing system is also present, dispensing decoy flares and chaff to decoy enemy radars and inbound missiles, helping the aircraft evade them. Flares decoy heat-seeking missiles by giving off a very similar heat signature to the aircraft's jet engines, whereas chaff confuses enemy radar systems trying to detect and target the aircraft (such those used by radar-guided air-to-air missiles).

Likewise, all modern combat aircraft have these defenses so it seems extraneous to explain their use. In general this article is pretty good, but it might need a little more work to get to Good Article status.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your views - I wrote most of that stuff and I agree, it contains too much waffle and shouldn't sound like a sales brochure. I'm making changes to the content and language used but need more help and suggestions, please keep the criticism coming.

Hj108 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO,all of these features need mention,but in short only.e.g, countermeasures can be described in just few words.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

For further information you may ask for a peer review.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Edits to Thrust/Weight Ratio

There are several sources claiming 0.95, but user Fawadsyed has changed it to 0.99. After undoing his edits myself, he has insisted that the TWR of 0.99 was calculated by him from the figures provided on the manufacturer's website; Pakistan Aeronautical Complex http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17.html

The following weight figures are stated by that website:
empty 6,411 kg (14,136 lb)
Normal Take-Off Weight 9,072 kg (20,000 lb) (includes 2 wing-tip missiles)
Max Take-Off Weight 12,474 kg (27,500 lb)

Thrust figures:
49.4 kN (11,103 lb st) dry
84.4 kN (18,969 lb st) with afterburner

TWR = Thrust (N) / (Normal Take-Off Weight * 9.81) = 84400 / (9072 * 9.81) = 0.948 = 0.95

I get 0.95, can somebody confirm this calculation is correct? Some of the sources being used on the page, an aviation book and the sinodefence website, indicate slightly different figures for weight and thrust. Since the manufacturer's figures agree with the TWR stated by other websites, should the weight and thrust be changed to the figures provided by the manufacturer? Hj108 (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fawadsyed!

The manufacturer's website mentions

empty weight 6,411 kg

Internal fuel weight 2,300kg

see the figure here http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17specifications.html

Thrust figures:

49.4 kN (11,103 lb st) dry

84.4 kN (18,969 lb st) with afterburner

TWR or Thrust to weight ratio is not calculated with wingtip missiles on. You can check this for all other aircraft like F-22, F-18, F-16, etc. It is calculated on empty weight + internal fuel known as a clean configuration, or 6,411 + 2300 = 8,711 kg. Therefore,

TWR = Thrust (N) / (Weight * 9.80665) = 84400 / ( 8711 * 9.80665 ) = 84400 / 85425.72815 = 0.98799 = 0.99

Most websites and forums like pakdef.info and sinodefence haven't updated their pages for ages. Most of that is based on the first prototypes that flew. We know that from P04 onwards, significant changes took place like DSI reducing weight. In any case, sinodefence is just a site maintained by a forumer. I see no reason to trust it over the manufacturers site. Kindly, do not undo my changes. If you have some reservations, please discuss it here. Fawadsyed (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for undoing your edits, I thought you were just vandalising the article with higher figures to make it look better, I wasn't sure about RD-93's thrust figures. If it is just an RD-33 with modified gearbox position, then shouldn't its wet thrust figure be the same as the original RD-33, i.e. 81.3kN? Maybe the modifications to make RD-93 mean the thrust has increased, plus it is a newly produced engine so probably an updated form of RD-33. I haven't seen a reliable source that says exactly what was modified, so I don't know. Some people might not like the higher figure being used, even though there is a reliable source for it.

Anyway, should a TWR including 2*wing-tip mounted air-to-air missiles be added also? The aircraft always flies with the wing-tip missiles loaded. Hj108 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, there is a clear, internationally accepted forumla for calculating TWR of an aircraft, which does not include armament including wing-tip missiles. Just because the aircraft 'always' carries them does not mean it should go into the calculation. Afterall, aircraft always fly with pilots but we do not add the weight of the pilot to the calculations. Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The RD-93 is a derivative of RD-33. There is no reason to believe they have the same thrust. If you look into the Klimov's website (the manufacturer of engine ), it states the RD-33 family has thrust from 8000-9000 kgf. So different engines in the RD-33 family do not have the exact same thrust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawadsyed (talk Fawadsyed (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

The article was vandalised by user with IP address User:117.199.209.163 at 16:50, March 6, 2009. Can some moderator please take action against this user. Hj108 (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You would would want to add a warning to their talk page. Then after they had been warned(and if they kept vandalizing) you could report them at Wikipedia:AIV.WackoJackO 07:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and gave him a warning(but it is seven days old), next time it would be more timely for you to just warn them yourself, and then report to Wikipedia:AIV if necessary. WackoJackO 07:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh Air Force

The user Fulcrum 29 keeps adding that the Bangladesh Air Force has rejected the JF-17, but has no reliable source to back it up - only a forum. He keeps adding the following text:

"Although initially a very eager potential customer, the Bangladesh Air Force later rejected the JF-17 in after the design failed to meet requirements and as a superior aircraft model, the J-10, was to be available in the international export market by the time BAF intended to implement its advanced multi-role fighter aircraft procurement."

Is this acceptable? Hj108 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:rs for more info.yousaf465

Similar aircraft

As users can not agree what are similar to or comparable articles and are in a constantly adding or deleting. This section is not actually adding any value to the article and has been removed. Please do not re-add without further discussion. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur, and thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As much as I believe that removing the similiar aircraft section for now is a good idea, I don't think this will stop the legion of anonymous users from adding or subtracting things at whim with little to no regard for what transpires on the talk page. Semi-Lobster (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the entire list should be removed, the F-20 Tigershark and F-16 are certainly comparable. You could describe JF-17 as being a large F-20 or small F-16. Hj108 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh goodness, this again... Well once again I'll put up the link to defense industry daily which talks about the JF-17. It's "peers" are the IDF, LCA, and T-50 golden eagle. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/stuck-in-sichuan-pakistani-jf17-program-grounded-02984/

These three aircraft at any rate should be put up on the list I think. The F-20 and F-16 should be as well.

The thing is, we need to know what this "comparable aircraft" list is trying to do. Is it trying to say which plane is similar to another technically, or is it trying to direct readers to similar aircraft (in terms of niche) in a vague fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 06:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

From the page content guide - Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. MilborneOne (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, the JF-17/FC-1, F-20, IDF, Mirage 2000, F-16 and LCA (arguably JAS-39 Gripen also) have a similar role (multi-role), era (late 70s/early 80s to late 90s/early 00s), and capability:

• Fuel efficient turbofan engines for relatively long range and high thrust to weight ratio
• Air intercept radars capable of guiding multiple radar-homing missiles (Track While Scan, multiple target track modes)
• Delivery of wide range of air-to-air missiles, precision guided/unguided munitions
• Computerised flight control systems for high manoeuvrability, "care-free" handling
• Comprehensive avionics suites (glass cockpits, ECM equipment)

Not only that, there is a neutral and reliable source found by Blitzoace:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/stuck-in-sichuan-pakistani-jf17-program-grounded-02984/ Seems to me that there are no sensible arguments against this, only immature and nationalistic ones.

Hj108 (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The above capabilities doesn't represent similar aircraft. Very big differences are visible when observed closely. For example, the JF-17 uses a X-band radar which is comparitively primitive technology, whereas Tejas is at present equipped with advanced versions of 2032 capable of tracking 15 targets. Now let me tell this that J-10 has a similar RADAR of similar capability. And coming to EM suite JF-17 has it's flight software written in C++ which again is comparitively more prone to problems and less-secure than ADA which is used as a standard in other fighters. And you seem to have missed on the fact that Tejas any many other 4+ gen fighter use composites extensively whereas JF-17 at present uses Aluminium alloys. And digital fly-by-wire appeared in 4 gen fighters and is used on 4, 4+ and 5th gen fighters. It does not mean that all of them are similar. And I have to add that high T/W ratio doesn't imply similar generation. If we consider as such, MiG-21 will be comparable MiG-35 and all of the crazy things like that.--Johnxxx9 (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would suggest better introducing better info like rate of acceleration, capability of Electronic suites, RADAR etc before we could arrive at a conclusion on this topic. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That is far beyond "Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one." They don't have to be equal across the board to be similar/comparable. And frankly, when editors of both Pakistani and Indian orign both argue vehemently against excluding the other because "their" fighter is "better" than the other is some nuanced way, that's a pretty good indicator that the fighters are comparable. Indo-Pak rivalry has no place governing content in an international encyclopedia. Granted, both fighters take different approaches in their technology, but low-tech fighters have defeated high-tech fighters many times throughout history, as tech is only one factor. And the JF-17 is not that low tech, and avionics are fairly simple to upgrade in the future. Once combat begins, other factors can come into play, and the constant wear and tear of combat generally favors the low-tech approach. While I hope we never actually have to find out, the level of rivalry expressed here may indicate otherwise. - BillCJ (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

BillCJ its not about which is better or which can beat the other in a fight, but the fact that there is a reliable, neutral source stating the jets are comparable and not one user has given a single valid argument or source to the contrary. I've been told several times that we are supposed to go with what the sources say. Why does this rule apply to subjects of certain nationalities only when it suits users of certain nationalities? Not fair at all.

johnxxx9 your ridiculous arguments prove you have an agenda, being in the comparable aircraft list doesn't mean JF-17 is better than the LCA at all. It means they are similar, nothing more. Are you seriously going to keep arguing that they are not similar based on the programming languages used in their electronic systems? Can you provide a neutral and reliable source to contend with the one provided by Blitzoace: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/stuck-in-sichuan-pakistani-jf17-program-grounded-02984/ Hj108 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the article I found is neutral is that I can't think of any reasons for this site to be on either side of the countries, whether India or Pakistani. It has been pessemestic about the JF-17 before, as one can read, but changes it's views later when times changed. If it was written by a Pakistani or Chinese I can understand it being biased. Besides, I think we're just comparing SIMILAR aircraft here. We're not demeaning any aircraft here. I think I said this to you before when we were talking about the comparable aircraft to the J-10. I mentioned the Eurocanards and F-16, while you continuously mentioned the LCA. Whichever way you look at it the LCA and Thunder are similar. On a different note, I think the list of the JF-17 should include the LCA, IDF, F-20, and maybe early variants of the F-16. BTW, I know the LCA is a source of great pride among Indians. Therefore I will submit that the LCA is probably SUPERIOR to the Thunder. I mean, it took a quarter of a century to develop. It probably is better, if that makes you happy johnxxx9.Blitzoace (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• LOL, Biltz! - BillCJ (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to be a pooft, but here's another source which talks about the JF-17 is a peer to the LCA (or rather vice versa). It even goes as far to say the Thunder has an edge over the Tejas. Global Security usually isn't the most reliable source, they frequently get their information wrong, or is outdated. But having DID and GS both saying the JF-17 and LCA being comparable surely isn't a coincidence. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/jf-17.htmBlitzoace (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

HJ, nothing that I said precludes using reliable sources to back up comparisons,a nd if fact I do support them. My argumants were addressing the issue from a different angle, but sources are what count in the end. - BillCJ (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill I was just pointing out that if sources are what count and good sources are provided, there should be no need to address the issue from different angles.

So are we agreed that the LCA should be added to the list along with F-20, IDF and F-16? What about Mirage 2000? Hj108 (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe LCA and Mirage 2000 should not be added due to their delta wings. Hj108 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure anything has been agreed we really need a consensus from more than two editors and reliable sources. I think the discussion you have had so far just shows it is not easy to come to an agreement. If two aircraft were of a similar role, era, and capability then we should be falling over reliable references. I think we need to be convinced that adding any similar aircraft should add value to the article by assisting the reader. We need to be pretty solid with references or the section will just be a battleground between editors with different agendas. Note the reference quoted above just says ... a comparable peer for India’s still-under-development LCA Tejas, Taiwan’s F-CK-1 Ching Kuo fighters, and South Korea’s F/A-50 Golden Eagle supersonic trainer & light fighter. nothing about F-16, F-20s or Mirages. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well in that source I think it was mentioning comparable Asian fighters. Depends how you read it I think. We can use specifications, or sources to say which aircraft is comparable to which. And the JF-17 uses delta wings, cropped. I'm not sure if the types of wings should be the judge on whether an aircraft is comparable or not. We can use niche and sources as the judge I think, but still. Just my opinion.Blitzoace (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am keeping the differences before everybody. JF-17 has Digital fly-by-wire only in one axis(pitch) while yaw and roll uses FCS. Aircraft like Tejas and Gripen use digital fly-by-wire in all three axis. And we know that FCS is considered fourth generation. Eg. Mirage 2000 etc. How can aircraft of such technology gaps be similar. My arguments are being based on visibly large differences between these aircraft, to be considered similar. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My purpose is not to denigrate any country or any aircraft. While considering similar aircraft there has to be enough generational, operational and technological similarity between any two aircraft. I am just trying to show the gaps that exist between some of the other aircraft and JF-17 and that the gaps are too large to be neglected. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

John, you're putting far too much emphasis on "generational" differences, which is in many ways contrived for marketing purposes by fighter manufacturers. Again, the field compares "similar role, era, and capability" - that's it! Nothing else should be compared here, not generations, technological diferences, or anything else. This isn't rocket science - it's just supposed to be a simple list of similar aircraft. Anything else is irrelevant. - BillCJ (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I was just about to post what BillCJ said, this isn't supposed to be 'exact' list but a rough, basic and short list of 'similiar' aircraft. If we had to list comparable aircraft based on minutia like FCS, the MiG-29 with its mechanical-hydraulic control system could not be compared to anything at all but in its list we have an agreed list of aircraft such as the Mirage 2000 and F-16. Semi-Lobster (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The case of MiG-29 is correct but we are not only looking at the control system of the aircraft. When we say that F-16 Block 60 is comparable to F/A-18 Super Hornet it's because of their similar technologies like AESA radars, similar timeline and many such aspects. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible for FC-1 to have a similar timeline to LCA, that's for sure. Hj108 (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you indirectly saying that Tejas is comparable to Eurofighter then ?? 25 years, 35 years. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, John, he's saying that the Tejas took a quarter of a century to develop, while the Thunder took a much shorter time. Timeline. And anyway, can we just lay down the ground rules of what we're talking about? Cause I think going on about radar, the details is not needed. So really, just a list of light, ~4 generation aircraft: F-16, Mirage 2000, LCA Tejas, IDF.... Any else? Any disputes that people want to have? Once again, this is a list of 'similar aircraft'. It varies with which plane we choose to compare I think. If we choose a cropped delta, it will be compared to any other conventional or delta plane. If it's say a canard-delta, it will be compared to canard-deltas, unless there are planes that are simply too similar that they can't be not placed in a list. eg: If J-10 was to have a list of planes, it would include current delta canards AND F-16 Block 50/52. But not wanting to branch off too much of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My question is that how can a 4 the gen aircraft be comparable to 4+ gen aircraft. We we go as you say then there should be Saab Viggen in the list of comparable aircraft to J-10. That's of course not possible. The case is similar here.--Johnxxx9 (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the J-10 is the 4 gen and Gripen is the 4+ gen? I dunno... I think everyone knows the J-10 is 4+ -_-.Blitzoace (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent - Note that I use an 800x600 monitor most of the time.) Again, this is where the "generational" viewpoint fails: The Saab 37 was built in the 60s/70s, and all but retired when the J-10 was being tested. Oh, wait - the JF-17 may well have served 20-30 years and be out of service when the Tejas does finally enter service. If that does happen, John would have a point! Seriously though, I think we need to try to move on here. Perhaps we can take a sample of the consensus if it's not clear, and try to move forward. The question is, will our mysterious IPs abide by consensus? I've seen no evidence to this point that they will. So what do we lose by leaving the section out? In my view, not a lot except more edit wars. - BillCJ ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 09:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

BillCJ, yes these mysterious IPs(that seem to be intent on "puffing up" the Chinese military on China related articles) don't seem to abide by any consensus. However, that does not mean that consensus shouldn't be enforced...that's just my $.02WackoJackO 11:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Although, I am not necessarily against leaving the "similar aircraft" section out. However, will these "pro China IP warriors" even abide by that?WackoJackO 11:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the year in which an aircraft enters service matters when deciding it's similarity with other aircraft. An aircraft that will enter into service 5 years from now will not necessarily be better than all the present aircraft. Anyway, I am not against Mirage 2000, F-16 and Lavi in the list. But, I would object any aircraft with more advanced 4+ gen technologies and capabilities like Gripen and Tejas. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the fact is that the two (Thunder and Tejas) aircraft are similar, in role and weight. They're practically perfect matches for each other. So.... yeah, don't make me bring up my sources of comparable planes again.. John, why are you vouching that the LCA is so different from JF-17? Is it beleif? Or is it nationalism?Blitzoace (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not just referring to the "Chinese" IPs, but all of the drive-by IPs that just change things without discussion. They can be from any country,a nd pro-any country. In this article, the pro-chinese/Pakistani/Indian IPs tend to be the problems. On other pages, it may be pro-american or pro-european. - BillCJ (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it just so happens that on this article there are a lot of anon IP's trying to puff up Chinese military content. I am not saying anything against Chinese people, or even guessing at the nationality of the people behind the IPs(many geolocate to Canada actually). I am just saying speaking about their edit paterns.WackoJackO 02:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Watch your language

Maybe not an answerable question, & maybe something that needs addressing beyond WPAv, but let me ask it: what "Chinese" are we talking about? Mandarin or Cantonese? As I understand it, the transliteration differs (& I can never keep straight which PRC uses...). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much more than you firsthand, Trek, but there is this great internet encyclopedia site called Wikipedia . . . :) Seriously, Mandarin in the dialect/language used nationally by the PRC, and Cantonese is what's spoken in the south of China, including Hong Kong, and I think Macau also. Was that what you were asking? - BillCJ (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Full fly-by-wire set of controls"

I have a source that states that the latest/production variant of JF-17 has "a full fly-by-wire set of controls": http://usmanansari.com/id16.html This website appears to be a blog, however the writer is a freelance journalist and many of his articles have been published by well-known defence magazines. According to the author, "an edited version of the above article appeared in Vol:8 No.4 of Combat Aircraft". I have read several sources, including a Jane's Defence article, that said the JF-17's partial fly by wire system (in pitch only, with stability augmentation in roll and yaw) was planned to be extended to fly-by-wire control in all axis. Is this one source reliable enough to warrant editing the flight control section of the article? This is the only source I can find. Hj108 (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right that blogs aren't generally used, but that there are blogs by reputable writers in their fields. I think if we can confirm that the claim of full FBW appeared in Combat Aircraft, and in an article, not an editorial or opinion piece, then there would be no problem using it here. But if this is true, it should start to appear in other publications in the near future. - BillCJ (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I may as well wait until other publications state something similar, the development section could use more work anyway. Hj108 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can confirm the claim that the above said article by usmanansari did appear in Combat Aircraft vol. 8 No. 4

here's a link to it so you can verify yourself http://www.combataircraft.net/issues/volume8.php#8-3 (Fawadsyed (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

The Cockpit Photo

"A picture of the JF-17 cockpit, showing Heads Up Disp (HUD)" ... is actually the cockpit photo of a technology demonstrator, or a low fidelity "Flight Simulator". The photo credit should include this (add the word "demonstrator" after cockpit). Will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.50.152 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Official Comparisons, and Rankings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4JYQTep3q8

5:15 Narrator states the JF-17 is On Par, or greater than the F-16 A/B in terms of Performance/Cost, according to American experts.

8:07 Narrator states the JF-17 is close to a 3rd(4th in our terms) generation jet, but not quite on par with 3rd(4th) generation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHur9KNvElE

At 3:35, the video states the JF-17 has a Radar detection range of 80-100KM

So can we get this out of the way? This jet IS out of date, and is hardly better than the early models of F-16s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So what do you want to do? Edit the article to say "this jet is out of date"? It costs 12 million dollars a piece, do you expect an F-22 for that? Hj108 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, This is just evidence to clear out the previous discussions regarding Generation, and equivalence to F-16 Block 15., Yeesh, don't need to get all psycho on me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We've already cleared out the previous discussions regarding generation. The generation thing is not a big deal, it doesn't need to be included in the article. The consensus is it's basically a third gen airframe stuffed with 4th gen avionics technology based on what we know, which isn't very much. The jet has only just finished testing and is still going through weapons integration/trials. So why are you bringing the issue up again?

If you want official comparisons, check out the Defense Industry Daily source provided above that compares it to Taiwan's IDF, India's LCA and Korea's F/A/T-50. Of course, even though there is a neutral source, it cannot be used in the "Comparable aircraft" section because of nationalism of certain users. So much for Wikipedia policy - sorry for using a proper source to write the article, that's not allowed when it involves the LCA. Hj108 (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese system and the western system of using generations are different and its not a simple 1:1 relationship. The simple fact that it is better than F-16A/B (which are more maneuverable than later F-16s btw) is enough to tell its generation since the F-16 is a 4th gen plane.

@Hj109 I don't know where you got the idea of JF-17 having a third gen airframe from. JF-17 had a FBW from day 1, which shows its an unstable design. And from P-04, it has a full FBW system. (Fawadsyed (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

The JF-17 has a Shenyang J-8/Mig-21 originated airframe from day one, while incorporating some 4th generation features. Features such as Sunken in cockpit vs the 4th generation raised cockpit, the fact that the wings are attached on the side of the engine intake, the flat, straight tubular main airframe indicates its 3rd generation origin. While it does have FBW, but it is only on the Pitch axis. Then again, we have to consider the fact that the Performance has no impact on the generation. A mig-21 bison can probably out class an early F-16, but that does not make it a 4th generation aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the video described the Raptor as 4th Generation,the F-16 as 3rd generation, and this jet as almost 3rd generation. Judging by this alone indicates that this is essentially a 3rd (western standard) generation jet with 4th generation upgrades.

JF-17's airframe is from the Shenyang J-8 and Mig-21? I'd like to see the evidence, if you have any. The JAS-39 Gripen has a "sunken cockpit", wings on the side of the engine intakes, a flat straight tubular airframe. Is Gripen a 3rd generation fighter? Nope. By the way, JF-17 has fly-by-wire flight control in all axis from the second prototype variant (PT-04) onwards. The problem is that I have only found one reliable source that is up to date on that, so I haven't updated the article yet.

Fawadsyed, I agree with you, JF-17's airframe is not really 3rd generation, its aerodynamics are too advanced for that. Leading edge extensions, divertor-less intakes, etc. However, there are some valid arguments against it being 4th generation too. The whole generation thing is pretty pointless if you think about it. Some claim the F-16A is 3rd gen because early versions have no BVR attacking capability, for example. Hj108 (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Gripen's 3rd generation like features are really just an optical illusion. Many angles of the plane reveals a different story, especially from the front, or side. take this diagnal picture for reference: http://www.cas2.com/images/JAS39Gripen_000.jpg The gripen has raised cockpit, not "sunken", as you should be able to see the airframe rising significantly from this picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/2006JASGripen1JM.jpg Its all about seeing the entire picture. The Jf-17 is heavily related to the Super-7 which was a 3rd generation project, and are related to the J-8, as seen in this picture: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/shenyang_j-8ii.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm continuing this "debate", you clearly have an agenda.

How come JF-17's appearance makes it 3rd gen, but Gripen's appearance is an optical illusion? Pictures for comparison of "sunk cockpit":

Gripen:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swedish_JAS-39_Gripen_landing.jpg

JF-17:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jf-17_Thunder_at_IDEAS_2008.jpg

http://www.defence.pk/gallery/data/719/08-06-JF-17.jpg

Try following your own advice about seeing the entire picture. JF-17's only relationship to the Super-7 was having the same design company (CAC), the same role (multi-role), the same primary buyer (Pakistan) and being integrated with Western avionics (possibly engine too). Saying JF-17 is based on J-7 or J-8 is laughable, they don't share a single design feature. Not one. Hj108 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Illusion:

Gripen:

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/850/gripen.jpg

JF-17:

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6889/fc1v.jpg

I am going to quote Wikipedia on this.

"It is believed that at some point during these initial test flights, the name Super-7 was replaced by the Chinese designation FC-1 (Fighter China-1) and the Pakistani designation JF-17 (Joint Fighter-17)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus, I don't think you get my original point, that the Chinese State Media has stated it is a 3rd, near 4th generation aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A level side-view of JF-17: http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/jf-17-thunder-taxi.jpg

You can see the canopy seems to rise slightly above the spine. The Gripen's canopy may give slightly better field of view due to its shape, but its nothing like a block 15 F-16 tear-drop canopy. It is far closer to the JF-17 cockpit. Therefore by your argument the Gripen is a 3rd gen plane because of this one feature.

Regarding the "wing line" you have drawn on the FC-1 picture. The part that is "stuck on the intakes" is actually the leading edge root extension, which acts much like the canard of the Gripen, whose canard is also stuck on the intake. Therefore you are again saying Gripen is 3rd gen. The FC-1's intake clearly goes into the fuselage just where the main wing itself starts, same as the Gripen. If you would simply say that Gripen is 4th gen due to the canard design and JF-17 is 3rd gen due to the simple LEX and lack of canards, I'd have to agree. But then again the Super Hornet and F-16C/D/E/F also have a similar wing/LEX configuration.

The line you are quoting was written by me. Super-7 was the Chinese name for the Sabre II, an F-7 modified for the Pakistan Air Force in the mid 80s. The aircraft was completely redesigned in the mid to late 90s when Pakistan came back on board after their F-16s were embargoed by the Pressler Amendment. There was consultation from Mikoyan. Some believe that the JF-17 is based on Mikoyan's cancelled single-engined Mig-29 design. The Pakistani name Super-7 was changed to JF-17 some time during the early test flights to stop any association with the old F-7. If you read the entire section you would know this, there are sources for it too. Saying the FC-1 is based on Mig-21 is stupid because they don't share a single design feature. Everything is completely different. Landing gear, wings, intake, nose, tail, everything.

Your original point is pointless. Which is it? Does it matter? Hj108 (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The JF-17 cockpit is closer to the 3rd generation jets than the 4th generation ones, examples such as J-8II, mig-21. The gripen is much closer to the 4th generation jets, especially in the dual-seat variants. Second, while the intake on the JF-17 indeed goes into the aircraft right after it meets the wings, it still does remain on the same level.

The gripen's intakes steer downwards, under the wings

Canards have little to do with this

I have watched the Chinese documentary of the JF-17, the project started out as the J-7, as the project Super-7, and began working before the 1989, at which time, American cooperation was terminated, and the program grounded to a halt. Then the Chinese negotiated a deal with the Russians for an engine, and in the same year, Mikoyan provided assistance from the knowledge of the Mig-33, but this was only because both were based on the same engine, not to share the airframe. To sum it up, yes, the JF-17 was origionally the Super-7 which was a heavily modified J-7, which was a mig-21. If you think Appearances can judge its origin, then how do you explain J-8II, with the original J-8?

Does it matter? Of course! Every bit of information matters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

JF-17 has a big bulkhead right behind the pilot's head, as do the Mirage 2000 and the Gripen. None of them are close to the canopies of F-16, Rafale, etc.

You said canards have something to do with this. You said JF-17's wing line goes over the side intakes which according to you, makes it 3rd gen. I pointed out that the parts going over the intakes are the LEX, which do a similar job as the canards of Gripen. Gripen's canards are also on the side intakes. The JF-17's intake steer inwards into the fuselage, as do Gripen's. Otherwise how can JF-17 have the tubular airframe that makes it 3rd gen?

http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/images/sp-3.gif A cut-away picture of the new Super-7. They continued the name, not the Mig-21 airframe. Compare to the F-7 Sabre II, the old Super-7: http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/32304

I asked you to find one mechanical feature that they share. You could only come up with appearance related stuff like "tubular airframe" and the canopy shape, which I showed that Gripen (and Mirage 2000) also share to an extent. The JF-17 doesn't differ from the Mig-21 in appearance only. Appearance alone cannot give concrete proof of origin, but it is an indicator. J-8 and J-8II have the same landing gear, wings, turbojet engines, tail/empennage.

You call this information? Wikipedia policy would call it conjecture, original research. I don't know Chinese so I don't know what the speakers in that video are saying. Did they say that J-7 and FC-1 are the same plane underneath? Hj108 (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.pakwheels.com/images/forums/2007/8/25/super7oldaaaa_8XO_PakWheels(com).jpg

Thats the Super-7

Anyhow, the video states the aircraft started out as the J-7, and is heavily modified to become the Super-7, on the design board. When Pakistan joined the project, some more modifications were made, into FC-1/JF-17. The video also stated it is on the same generation as the F-4 Phantom, while having performance reaching early 4th generation, so they called it near 4th generation aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the canopy of JF-17 is closer to that of Mirage III than Gripen or Mirage 2000, which I agree is a 3rd generation feature.

So "the aircraft started out as the J-7, and is heavily modified to become the Super-7, on the design board", I get that. The Super-7 model you showed looks much like a J-7. But what is the nature of the modifications made when Pakistan came on board? From what I have read it was a complete re-design, which makes sense because external features shared are only general features, such as position of intakes. What else do the speakers in the video say? I don't see why they are comparing it to the F-4 Phantom. Seems to me that the ideal comparison would be with the F-20 Tigershark, Upgraded models of Dassault Mirage F1, early models of F-16, etc. Hj108 (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan basically made a request to build a replacement for the old mirages and Mig-21 derivatives. Most of the design work was done prior to Pakistan's entrance, as the project began taking in data, and information, from the Americans and Russians, essentially building the bird itself.

You cannot Possibly redesign the aircraft completely in 2 years, from 1999, to 2001, that was the modification phase, despite that, the video stated Pakistan did not give specifics on the type of aircraft desired, but rather just the purpose. From 2001 to 2003 was the construction of the very 1st one, and the How-To construct it.

The video did not go into details about What Pakistan wanted to be changed.

The only main difference between the Jf-17 and the Super-7 photo is the size of the aircraft, and the proportions of the parts, notably the control surfaces.

While the Video did not make Direct comparison between the F-4, and the JF-17, it did state the F-4 was a key example of the 2nd Generation Jet. Then it stated the JF-17 was a Late 2nd Generation jet, Almost 3rd Generation, but not quite, while having the performance of an Early 3rd Generation jet. Then it stated the F-22 Raptor was an example of a 4th generation jet, while the F-16 is a 3rd Generation jet.

Piece them all together, and you'll get a "time line" of 3rd Generation jet is the F-4, and JF-17, 4th Generation is the F-16, and the 5th Generation is the F-22.

If you want, there is my entire Paraphrasing of the documentary, as best as I could, without including the typical Emotions BS. Part1

1. JF-17 was mean't to beat F-16 in terms of price 2. An American company (I think they stated General Dynamics, not sure), stated that they cannot provide financial support, but they can cooperate on a technological level. 3. 1989, US cuts off weapons trade, including the american cooperation 4. Despite the failure of the program, the aircraft was able to enter American standards? and recieve American help, this was priceless. 5. Without American help, Chengdu Aircraft Corporation is determined to make the aircraft by themselves. 6. Without American help, we looked to Europe, and Russia, but it was just hope. 7. 1991, China went to Moscow to discuss engine deals 8. Later, while returning to China, Mikoyan representative offered [technical assistance since they had experience designing the Mig-33 which was also based around the RD-33 family of engines] 9. US didn't deliver the second batch of F-16s to Pakistan, due to this, Pakistan decided to change its priorities. 10. Pakistan wanted to be able to make their own jets, not just repair what they already have 11. 1999, Pakistan signed an official cooperate agreement for a new style Fighter jet 12. Fc-1 is dubbed Fierce Dragon by the Chinese, and Thunder by Pakistan as JF-17 13. Pakistan payed 50% of the costs 14. 2001, JF-17's basic designs are set, and by the end of 2003 to be the deadline for 1st flight. Part 2 15. When the agreement was signed, the type of aircraft has yet to be decided, and in 2 years, it must be flown. This was an impossible task in our(Chengdu) minds. it takes roughly 50 months to make a flying aircraft in the past 16. 2001 September, Pakistan requested to fly the aircraft Earlier than the requested 2003, to be in september 2003. 17. in 9 months, Chengdu managed to finish the construction designs and begins construction 18. 2003 march 31s, the 1st FC-1 finished construction, 2003 June, FC-1's engine started, and taxied. 19. the 1st four aircraft are experimental. Part 3 20. Now, USA is planing on selling the F-16s Pakistan bought a few years back. (Really?) 21. Pakistan replied and stated they will no longer buy old F-16s, and will seek more advanced jets such as FC-1(This made no sense considering they already half the program), or Swedish? jets 22. a lot of others favor F-16, Mirage 2000, mig-29 prior to Pakistan's test flight 23. Pakistan believes JF-17 reaches 3rd(4th) generation jet performance. 24. Even American experts believe, in the perspective of cost-performance, the JF-17 far surpasses the F-16, and maybe is on par with F-16A/B, but price is significantly less. 25. 1st generation's significance is near Mach 1, eg. Mig-15 26. 2nd Generation's significance is reaching Mach 2, Mach 3. e.g. mig-19, 21, 23, and F-4 27. 3rd Generation's significance is the lack of Speed requirements, but focuses on A2A abilities. e.g. F-16, Mirage 2000, Mig-29, Su-27. 28. 4th Generation's significance is Stealth, and overall performance. F-22 is the only example and is in service with US military. 29. JF-17 already reached 3rd generation's performance. 30. I(military expert in video) think the JF-17 is late 3rd(4th) generation, almost 4th(5th), *no*.. I mean almost 3rd(4th) generation. 31. JF-17 unlike J-7 can fit a Radar on its nose 32. J-7 is essentially a soviet aircraft, it can't be fitted with a radar, only a scanner? with only a basic fire and control system. 33. Because JF-17 requires a radar, the intake cannot be on the nose, but rather on the sides. 34. With this, it presents a more problems such as weight problems, fuel problems, and ending up looking like a completely different aircraft, and no one can tell it came from "the (J-7?)". Part 4 35. I(military expert in video) think only the American F-35 uses this technique(DSI). 36. benefiting in RCS, drag, no negative performance impacts, wing area? 37. Unlike J-7's delta wings, the JF-17 uses trapezoid wings, increasing wing area. 38. The most important feature is the Leading Edge Root Extension, considered to be an important feature on 3rd(4th) generation jets, which helps in AoA maneuvers. 39. JF-17's engine also changed from J-7, which had one pathway, when the exhaust is burnt, it is released directly. JF-17 uses a new engine's biggest advantage is the mixture between cold outside air, and hot inside air, benefiting in Fuel efficiency, and better thrust. 40. JF-17 has FBW installed controlling the aircraft. 41. the greatest range of the radar can reach above 80-100km, and has good air to ground capability 42. The size of the aircraft limits the radar, typically they are around 20km detection range, so 50-60km is enough. 43. Can be fitted with external fuel tanks, missiles, rocket pods 44. JF-17 can attack ground, and naval targets 45. JF-17 can replace j-6, j-7, mig-21 mirage 2, 3 and all of the users of those aircrafts are the target customers for the JF-17 46. JF-17 may be close to the foreign 3rd(4th) generation jets, its intended goal was not to compete with them.

Note, I mixed the JF-17 with Super-7 in my translation, to reduce confusion since this was done for another forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So in that interview, one guy says JF-17 is close to 4th gen, while someone else says it has 4th gen performance. Somebody also said emphasis on manoeuvrability rather than speed is a 4th gen characteristic, this can be seen in the JF-17's design. So the people in this interview are basically saying its closer to 4th gen than 3rd gen.

If they don't go into specific details on what "modifications" are made, then I can only assume it was completely re-designed. You simply cannot fit a turbofan engine as in JF-17 into the same space as a turbojet engine in J-7. Landing gear, intakes, wings, tail, everything is completely different. The design must be altered to the point where it no longer has any relationship to the J-7 except history.

Either way, your original point that it is "hardly better" than the block 15 viper can be shown to be wrong. Hj108 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

New source

Link: http://www.ideaspakistan.gov.pk/ideas2008/downloads/IDEAS2008_EventBulletin_2.pdf

• Pakistan Air Force has a total of 15 JF-17 as of Wednesday, November 26, 2008 (date of article)
• Negotiations taking place with British, Italian and French defence firms over potential avionics and other systems for the JF
• AESA radars have been offered
• An interview with Fabrizio Giuliannini, Executive Group Director Sales and Business Development and Managing Director of MBDA:
  • MBDA: Here in Pakistan, besides the initial supply of the SPADA system, we are following the development of the JF-17 Thunder especially with respect to its missile armaments. We understand there is a big interest in the MICA missile, both the RF and IR versions, from the Pakistan Air Force. The MICA system we are proposing is within a technology package that includes integration with western equipments such as radar and EW suite.

Another pair of sources to be used in the article, an interview with a PAF official involved in the JF-17 programme and the other an article published in a magazine on military aircraft, in the external links section under "Articles". Hj108 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Great job Hj108 finding that ADEAS2008 article. Thanks. Tempest II (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources stating JF-17 is 4th gen

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.179/pub_detail.asp - International Assessment and Strategy Centre

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/3207 - Air Forces Monthly magazine article

Both sources seem to be authoritative and neutral. Hj108 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the article contains a few "Chinese Internet" sources, based on pure speculation, with images that has been floating around blogs, and forums, for ages, and have almost always been discredited for nothing but fanboy art, until shown otherwise.

The second article is from a magazine, of which I am not familiar of.

If you want authoritative statement, look at the CCTV's documentary on the jet. After all, being a Government branch of the CCP, surely they would not have made the mistake claiming it is a 3rd generation. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is best to sign your post. If you are not aware of Air Forces Monthly magazine; you shouldn't be talking about Air Force Aircraft in the first place. Jf-17 did start off as a 3rd Gen. aircraft but with constant review & upgradation of final specs by PAF due to evolving nature of threat assessment; the aircraft can now satisfyingly be termed a 4th Gen.Aaron Pris (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

But what classifies the 4th generation? The performance? or the Origins? Take the Phantom for example, it has been upgraded to an extent where it may infact match early 4th generation jets, but is it a 4th generation jet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The author of the first article believes the J-10's FBW system was developed by Israel. The PL-ASR he talks about is claimed to be a copy of the Denel A-darter by Denel themselves, according to his article. That R-darter look-a-like he mentions? I'm not sure about China but I do know it exists in Pakistan; I can't find official sources for that, but Pakistani officials have stated they used components from the Denel T-darter to make their own precision-guided stand-off weapons.

The newer version of the fighter was not merely an upgraded form of the original, the modifications made are far more extensive than any F-4 upgrade I know of. Didn't you write earlier that the guys in the video said it has the performance of a 4th gen fighter? Hj108 (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that earlier, but you are not getting the point. CCTV, a branch of the CCP, has stated it was 3rd Generation. If you put every internal system, including FBW, into a phantom, does that make it 4th generation? If you strap a jet engine on a Mustang, does it make it 1st generation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But calling it third generation can't be accurate, can it? Its not upgraded with fourth generation features, it incorporates them from the beginning. They built the first prototypes (which already had stuff like FBW) then decided they wanted something better and built new improved prototypes. Not simple avionics upgrades, they made modifications to the airframe for improved performance in flight too; this can be clearly seen in the pictures. In your previous writings you compare the fighter to the F-16A, but just looking at the avionics specifications proves that to be inaccurate - stuff like helmet-mounted display, NVG-compatible glass cockpit, radar (and mid-course update data-link) designed for firing modern active radar homing missiles, tactical data-link, the F-16A had none of these things as far as I know. Certainly the Pakistan Air Force's F-16A Block 15 variant does not. These aren't upgrades, they are there from the start. They were in the specifications before production ever started. Hj108 (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was designed, from the start, to encorporate 4th generation features, but the main airframe itself. The cockpit position, the tubular design, are all very 3rd generation. Plus, who am I, or you to argue with the government who made this bird? I am sure, the CCTV has greater authority on this subject, over Any of our internet sources, and any of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't give me that crap about the CCTV documentary, in your translation they said it has the performance of a 4th generation fighter. If it has 4th gen performance and 4th gen avionics, you're saying it is 3rd generation based purely on the "tubular airframe + cockpit layout"; and looking at pictures like this one proves something is wrong with that argument. The airframe is clearly designed for high AoA agility, unlike 3rd gen fighters. Those sources I provided are not mere internet speculation. Hj108 (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You are quote mining. It states its performance matches early 4th generation fighters. But earlier, it also stated it is late 3rd generation fighter, close to 4th generation. Hence why I brought up the Phantom example. Many Phantom Variants can out perform Early F-16 models, when equipped with newer radar, and counter measure systems. But, Phantom, will Always be classified as a 3rd generation fighter, not based upon performance, but the origin. I could hardly see why the Mirage 2000 is considered a 4th generation fighter, it goes against all other examples of 4th generation aircraft. nontheless Your Very own CCTV source, has stated the JF-17 is a NEAR 4th generation fighter, with the performance of a 4th generation jet. What more is there that needs desputing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is based on: your definition of fourth generation (which does not seem to agree with the fourth-generation jet fighter article and almost everything I've read), your view that the Mirage 2000 is not fourth generation (if the Mirage 2000 is third gen by your definition, obviously the JF-17 must be also), but most importantly, the fact that the Pakistan Air Force considers the JF-17 to be fourth generation. They should know, they've evaluated every European fourth/4.5 gen fighter.

And the Chinese? They have never classified the JF-17 in the 4th generation class. As for Mirage 2000, it is missing many important features, that would aid A2A engagements, such as tail control surfaces, or Canards. It's tailess delta wing design is classic for Interceptors such as the Arrow, F-106, and the F-102. I am not saying the Mirage is an interceptor, however, it clearly draws elements from their designs, which are all, btw, 3rd generation fighters. It, VERY much like the mirage 3, should be classified as a 3rd generation fighter, for its main airframe design. But then again, nobody is calling the mirage 2000 a 3rd generation fighter, however, same could not be said for the JF-17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A popular military aviation magazine (Air Forces Monthly), a respected "think-tank" hired by the US government/military (IASC) and the Pakistan Air Force, who defined its requirements, don't call it third generation.

Hj108 (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese sources are a generation behind so what America calls 4th generation they'll generally call 3rd generation. Compare with Russian 4+ vs 4++. Hcobb (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Does anyone think the design section has too many sub-headings? Any suggestions for the article? Hj108 (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Official comment on performance

In a magazine by Key Publishing called Air Combat (URL: http://shop.keypublishing.com/acatalog/ac.html), there is a high resolution image of the JF-17 and the following quote:

"In close combat the JF-17 excels at being truly agile and responsive to the pilot's commands."

Wg Cdr Ahsan Rafiq, OC JF-17 Test and Evaluation Flight, Pakistan Air Force

Can I add this to the article without being accused of making it up? If so, where in the article would be appropriate? Hj108 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It can be added if it is a reliable quote but I am not sure it actually says anything, basically it flies well. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like how it is very opinionated, and qualitative statement. It doesn't actually provide any solid insight on the maneuverability of the aircraft. We need a reference of some sorts, or some figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Performance, they have included comments like the one given by Wg Cdr Ahsan Rafiq. I believe they can be included and in quotes as appropriate. Tempest II (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that neither, but I am just mr.anomynous, my opinion holds no weight. I am merely saying, words such as "Very", "Extremely", don't say anything about the aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to an image of the picture and quote: http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu320/Aliph_Ahmed_ca/PT1.jpg Hj108 (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

CCTV-7 documentary on FC-1 Xiaolong - Chinese language

• http://space.tv.cctv.com/video/VIDE1248502691044881

I would be grateful if anybody could do a quick translation of the main points, especially any that have not been covered in this article. Hj108 (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Heres my translation. I left out most of the dates and crap. Couldnt understand a word they were saying.

I hate how they kept on spining the words to make it sound more sophisticated.

1. Our aircraft all have certain ways of naming. Fighters have the "J" designation for example.

2. JF-17 uses a different standard of naming, since it started as an internationally developed aircraft.

3. At 2.5 to 3rd generation fighter. (3.5-4 in our terms)

4. *interview* "Doesn't matter the design or performance, I think it is near 3rd generation. (near 4th in our terms)

5. "It took only 4 years to develope since the contract between China and Pakistan"

6. "JF-17 took 20 years of hard work"

7. J-7 was the primary export aircraft at the time, and being 2nd generation, it was out of date.

8. *interview* Pakistan actually wanted a "Poorman's" F-16. Cheaper.

9. 1989 the J-7 II was made, renamed to Super-7.

10. But, China has no suitable engine at the time, so Pratt& Whitney and Rolls Royce Entered the Super-7's engine development.

11. An American company (I think its the Grummans) also entered development. But soon after, the foreign companies pulled out due to something(couldnt understand this part)

Obviously the 1989 incident

12. Super-7 was designed to a 3rd generation standard (4th in our terms)

13. J-10 was dubbed dragon, but is bigger than JF-17, so the JF-17 is named small dragon. And later changed to the current name.

14. JF-17 is on the level of 3rd generation fighter.

Orthographically projected diagram of the JF-17

How about an orthographically projected diagram of the JF-17 like we have here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/GENERAL_DYNAMICS_F-16_FIGHTING_FALCON.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.144.219 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We need to find one that meets Wikipedia's image license rules. This is the reason there are only a couple of pictures on this article, "non-free" images get deleted within days.--Hj108 (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Engine specifications

To the anonymous editor who keeps changing the specs. If you want to make changes to the cited information you must cite valid sources. The Klimov webpage you are citing clearly states "Principal specifications of RD-33" to be 8300 kgf, it also states that "Thrust class" is 8000-9000 kgf. The Pakistan Aeronautical Complex website however gives thrust figures specifically for the RD-93. Whether the PAC figures are correct or not, you need a valid source before you can change them. Your point that "according to jf-17.com the only difference is the gearbox position" is not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, that website is run by an enthusiast, not a professional, and the content is very out-dated. Secondly, that information is not completely correct. According to a PAF official whose statements were published in the Air Forces Monthly magazine (issue July 2004, page 34), the "powerplant will be the Klimov RD-93, a RD-33 engine with modifications to overcome some problems with the original engine." You can see a scanned image of the page here: http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/3206.
--Hj108 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

True origin

The JF-17 is actually manufacture of the MiG-35 design. This is NOT the MiG-29 modernization, sometimes known as the MiG-35 in marketing material! There was a genuine Mikoyan bureau "MiG-35 Tigersharksky" light fighter design, which was not built, because the Russian Airforce decided to procure only twin-engined planes for the future, affording higher reliability and safety.

The MiG-35 plans were then sold off to the chinese, who duely copied and built them. There has not been an indigeniously designed chinese fighter jet so far, the J-10 is Lavi and the JF-17 is from MiG. 87.97.109.177 (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

But from what I've read, the J-10 has many huge differences to the Lavi and the FC-1/JF-17 has many differences to the "MiG-33" light-weight fighter design. --Hj108 (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying FC-1 was a copy of MiG-35 is completely ignorant. The Russian participated the program (technical assistant) after the design of the airframe was completed. (Former staff of AVIC China) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.32.144 (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

China's lost generation

Because of self-inflicted turmoil, China missed out on an entire generation of fighter aircraft and so certain Chinese sources will talk about aircraft that the rest of the world speaks about as being 4th generation as being 3rd generation and aircraft that the rest of the world considers 4.5th generation as being 4th generation.

So when you see their plans for a new Chinese 4th generation fighter they are talking about something about equal to the Super Hornet and their 3rd generation fighters are on the level of the old F/A-18A Hornet. Hcobb (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, China's fourth generation fighter designs are equivalent to the fifth generation of Western jet-powered combat aircraft. I can refer you to an article on the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation website to prove this, it clearly mentions the F-22 as an example of the "fourth generation" of fighters.

Chinese language link: http://www.cac.com.cn/air/content.aspx?id=24

English language link (using Google Translate): http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.cac.com.cn/air/content.aspx%3Fid%3D24&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhgv9QzhIYwUzXEJrIg0Z85_fcV9bg

Some quotes from the article:

"Since the era of jet fighters to enter, has developed three generations. The first generation of fighter aircraft serving the fifties, the aircraft at high subsonic or low supersonic flight within, the aircraft's weapons and electronic equipment is relatively simple, to the U.S. F-86 and the former Soviet Union's Mig-15 as the representative. The second-generation fighter is serving in the sixties, to the U.S. F-4 and the former Soviet Union's Mig-21 as the representative, the aircraft's weapons and electronic equipment has been enhanced. The third-generation fighter is in service since the seventies, and even today are still in service. Third-generation fighter in all aspects of performance are greatly improved over the previous generation, and has begun to use advanced technologies such as fly-by, fighter planes, not only for air, but also began to take into account ground attack. U.S. F-15, F-16, F-18 as well as the Russian Su-27 and Mig-29 is a typical representative of the third-generation fighter.

At present, the fighter's development has entered its fourth generation... As the means of communication and electronic radar warning equipment development, resulting in an unprecedented expansion of the battlefield of modern warfare, in order to adapt to this change, the aircraft's combat radius should also be a corresponding increase, for the fourth-generation fighter requirement proposed supersonic cruise; In order to cope with a powerful enemy radar systems and anti-aircraft missiles, electronic threats, aircraft with stealth capabilities are essential... Together on the fourth-generation fighter aircraft often require tactical and technical performance of the following:

1. Engine when the afterburner is not to open the ability to cruise at supersonic speed;

2. A good stealth performance;

3. High agility and maneuverability, especially post-stall maneuver capability;

4. STOL performance;

5. Visual fighting, super-horizon attack and ground attack capabilities;

6. High reliability and maintainability.

Fourth-generation advanced multi-role fighters both fighting and penetration capabilities, making it an unprecedented expansion of the scope of the attack can be against the war in the full breadth and depth targets. The fourth-generation advanced fighter aircraft of the United States on behalf of the ATF on behalf of the United States models of the ATF (Advanced Technology Fighter) (for example: F-22 "Fighting Falcon"), Russia's S-37 and I.44 and so on. At present the United States F-22 has entered the flight test phase, about service..."

The Chengdu Aircraft Corporation webpage on the FC-1 states that "as a result of contemporary design and manufacture of advanced technology, Xiaolong / FC-1 aircraft at or near the third-generation fighter aircraft's integrated combat performance, can compete with today's advanced fighters." Should this be incorporated in the article's lead section?

Translated CAC webpage link: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.cac.com.cn/product/product_display.aspx%3Fid%3D1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhgtBrvYupLdAa3cKLXVBewwRGx7Mg

Variants section

Should the lines referring to FC-2, FC-3, FC-4 be deleted? Their sources are simply news websites, not authoritative sources. http://www.catic.com.cn/en/Product_Server/products_intro.asp?list=&Content_id=2466&TypeTreeID=1833 In this source, the image clearly shows the later version of the aircraft. You can see the text "Thunder 04" next to the intake, indicating that this aircraft is indeed prototype 04. The text in the above source refers to the aircraft as "JF-17/FC-1", NOT FC-3 or FC-4. CATIC is obviously a much more authoritative source than some random news website. http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1.asp This is another source proving that later version prototypes of the aircraft are referred to as FC-1, not FC-4 as stated in the article.

References - list of codes to insert for citations

JF-17 Thunder article - PAC Kamra website

<:ref name="JF-17 Thunder, PAC Kamra">AMF PAC Kamra "JF-17 Thunder" [[Pakistan_Aeronautical_Complex#Aircraft_Manufacturing_Factory|Aircraft Manufacturing Factory, Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Kamra]] (Date of publication unknown) URL: http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17.html, Retrieved: January 2009</ref>

Later footenotes: 
<:ref name="JF-17 Thunder, PAC Kamra"/>

JF-17 Thunder Detailed Specifications - PAC Kamra website

<:ref name="JF-17 Thunder Detailed Specifications, PAC Kamra">AMF PAC Kamra "JF-17 Thunder - Detailed Specifications" [[Pakistan_Aeronautical_Complex#Aircraft_Manufacturing_Factory|Aircraft Manufacturing Factory, Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Kamra]] (Date of publication unknown) URL: http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17specifications.html, Retrieved: January 2009</ref>

Later footenotes: 
<:ref name="JF-17 Thunder Detailed Specifications, PAC Kamra"/>

Thunder Storm, by Usman Ansari

<:ref name="Thunder Storm, Usman Ansari">Usman Ansari "Thunder Storm – Pakistan’s hopes for the JF-17 Thunder fighter" (Date published online unknown. Published in Combat Aircraft magazine Vol. 8 No. 4, date unknown.) URL: http://usmanansari.com/id16.html Retrieved: May 2009</ref>

Later footenotes: 
<:ref name="Thunder Storm, Usman Ansari"/>

FC-1 (JF-17), SinoDefence.com

<:ref name="FC-1/JF-17, sinodefence.com">SinoDefence.com "FC-1 / JF-17 Multirole Fighter Aircraft" (Date published unknown. Last updated 13 March 2009.) URL: http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1.asp Retrieved: April 2009</ref>

Later footenotes: 
<:ref name="FC-1/JF-17, sinodefence.com"/>

IDEAS 2008 - Possible new engine, DefenseNews.com

<:ref name="New engine, Snecma M53 - defensenews.com">Usman Ansari "100 Countries Expected To Attend IDEAS2008" [[Defense News|Defense News.com]] (Published: 18 November 2008, 17:32 GMT) URL: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3826530, Retrieved: 27 June 2009</ref>

Later footnotes:
<:ref name="New engine, Snecma M53 - defensenews.com"/>

Page 33, AFM magazine, issue July 2004

Information on origins of JF-17 project. Sabre II, Super-7, etc.

<:ref name="Page 33, AFM magazine, issue July 2004">Alan Warnes "Pakistan's Vision: Bridging The Capabilities Gap" [[Air Forces Monthly]] (Magazine issue: July 2004) Page: 33 (can be viewed at URL: http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/3207)</ref>

Later footnotes:
<:ref name="Page 33, AFM magazine, issue July 2004"/>

Improvise and modernise, by Paul Lewis - flightglobal.com

<:ref name="Improvide and modernise, Paul Lewis, 1999">Paul Lewis "Improvise and modernise" (Date published online unknown. Published in Flight International magazine on 24/02/1999) URL: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/02/24/48468/improvise-and-modernise.html Retrieved: 28 June 2009</ref>

Later footenotes: 
<:ref name="Improvide and modernise, Paul Lewis, 1999"/>

JF-17 Specifications

The latest info board is of PAC kamra from IDEAS- Check the link here below for confirmation: http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/index.php?s=f52f10d45e9e41664dc2160be5f2d6e0&showtopic=21073&st=4120&p=1199853&#entry1199853

http://www.pakdef.info/forum/showthread.php?10718-JF-17-related-discussion-November-December-2009/page6

Those forums are pakistani forums saying that was the brochure at IDEAS. I've given 2 separate links confirming that brochure is from IDEAS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.52.238 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on verifiability clearly states that postings on internet forums are NOT sources. See this section. Until a reliable source that is more up-to-date than the PAC Kamra website is found, no changes can be made without compromising on verifiability.

Also, you have exactly the same location and internet service provider as somebody who called me a "fanboy" in his edit summary. If it was you: why do you give links to forums full of fanboys as references?

--Hj108 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Those were pakistani forums, including pakdef.info which is the premiere pakistani source for defence. That placard was from IDEAS 2008 November. The links which you give are from 2006. They are way too old. 122.164.59.176 (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, please understand that forums are not reliable sources. We are not saying that the information you are adding is wrong. Just that the source provided is not reliable enough to be included. If you find a better source for the info, then no problem, it will be updated. --McSly (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You have 2 separate pakistani defence forums with pakistani members attesting that placard was from IDEAS 2008 defence expo. The current links are so old no one uses those specs anymore. Of all the places, only wikipedia is behind, while it should be ahead. Ironic! Those websites are never going to be updated! It's been like that for the past 3-4 years. They just created the website and forgot all about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.59.83 (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article (as is) from editing due to the edit war over specifications, appreciate if you could gain a consensus first before changing or requesting a change to the specs. MilborneOne (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Forums should not be allowed as sources on wikipedia! If certain information is dated, simply use relevant sources to publish! Plamkii (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Plamkii (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)