What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Read Line 3. Yep that is right, it is what you posted. I am not making it up. You said it... and you can not cover it with Teflon.

Project 33 was started at around the turn of the decade in the late 70s. It was dropped by Russia in 1986. It was sold to China in 1998.

Any more objections from you will lead me to draw the only inescapable conclusion that you are either mad or blind or both. An alternative hypothesis could be that I have lost my mind and am arguing with the most ultimate troll on PDF.

Would you like me to post up a scan of the relevant page from Jane's?
 
.
I think that the number of hard points is perfectly suited to its design.
change of topic perhaps kind sir!! You are wily sir but I am far too old to fall for it. your selective reading needs to change and respond to the whole post rather than a thrifty pirruette through the post
araz
 
.
Project 33 was started at around the turn of the decade in the late 70s. It was dropped by Russia in 1986. It was sold to China in 1998.



Would you like me to post up a scan of the relevant page from Jane's?

Teflon strikes again. Forced to admit that you have made a mistake, you would rather go and find refuge in Jane's pages.

Would you, or would you not admit that you wrote that JF-17 was designed in the 70s? Mind you this is not what Jane's is saying. It is actually contradicting your stance about JF-17.

If you continue with this, you would be looking at a thread ban, so mind it.
 
.
Project 33 was started at around the turn of the decade in the late 70s. It was dropped by Russia in 1986. It was sold to China in 1998.



Would you like me to post up a scan of the relevant page from Jane's?


so janes is your holy grail in this matter? they have made plenty of mistakes in past, dont out your money on them.

jf-17 is not based on mig-33, most obvious difference is intake positioning of the two.
 
. .
so janes is your holy grail in this matter? they have made plenty of mistakes in past, dont out your money on them.

jf-17 is not based on mig-33, most obvious difference is intake positioning of the two.

Yes Sir, the JF-17 is not based on the MiG-33, and Jane's must be wrong in this matter.
 
.
The history of the JF-17 reveals that it's development is not as simple as some might suppose. The Mig-33 project did have it's input if the sources are correct. I wouldn't use the words 'based on' too keenly, it implies many things which aren't likely to be true.
 
.
The history of the JF-17 reveals that it's development is not as simple as some might suppose. The Mig-33 project did have it's input if the sources are correct. I wouldn't use the words 'based on' too keenly, it implies many things which aren't likely to be true.

Besides, what does it matter? The JF-17 is a great aircraft for PAF.

Just like the A-5 was a totally different aircraft from the F-5 because of the nose cone and side intakes (or not), it still made for a great CAS plane for PAF.
 
.
Project 33 was started at around the turn of the decade in the late 70s. It was dropped by Russia in 1986. It was sold to China in 1998.



Would you like me to post up a scan of the relevant page from Jane's?


According to your theory every plane on which work was started in 80 is 2nd genration??? So what's your take about F-16 which program was started in 70??? Is F-16 also 2nd generation ??? What about F-16 block 52???

Every plane takes its admiration from some plane nothing is built from scratch.. Mig 33 was russain counter to F-16 so in that case JF-17 is same like F-16 and if F-16 is 2nd generation I'm happy to call JF-17 2nd generation with some tweaks of avionics...
 
.
According to your theory every plane on which work was started in 80 is 2nd genration??? So what's your take about F-16 which program was started in 70??? Is F-16 also 2nd generation ??? What about F-16 block 52???

Every plane takes its admiration from some plane nothing is built from scratch.. Mig 33 was russain counter to F-16 so in that case JF-17 is same like F-16 and if F-16 is 2nd generation I'm happy to call JF-17 2nd generation with some tweaks of avionics...

Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale are both 80's projects the difference comes to composites, other strengthening material lowering RCS, capabilities/electronics/avionics, weapons.
 
.
The JF-17 is what it is: An 80s design based on 70s technology, that arrived in the 21st century with a fresh suite of electronics and fresh paint.

Everything starts from something. There are people who say that American space capability exited in the 60's due to German's captured V2 in WWII (almost 80 years ago). Is that really true?
Similarly, the -22 is the most lethal and stealthy plane every existed. But it's design was taken initially from the -15, and it was to becomes a successor of the -15 program. Today, the Raptor doesn't look anything like a -15 and can fry half the squadron of -15 or -16 before it can be seen or an effort is made to counter it. So does that mean the -22 is an late 60's design???

The JFT has similarites with the -16, the -20 and the -18, it looks like a cross between the three. What Russia sold to China, if you see its blue print was a smaller -5 or something in Red and White colors and small wings like the -104 Star fighter. Does the JFT look anything like that? Is the capability, avionics on par with the -16 or the -5 of the 60's? I don't think there were BVR missiles outside of the US military that can attack even 20 miles out or PGB or LGB's. You are comparing Apples and Oranges..
 
.
Everything starts from something. There are people who say that American space capability exited in the 60's due to German's captured V2 in WWII (almost 80 years ago). Is that really true?
Similarly, the -22 is the most lethal and stealthy plane every existed. But it's design was taken initially from the -15, and it was to becomes a successor of the -15 program. Today, the Raptor doesn't look anything like a -15 and can fry half the squadron of -15 or -16 before it can be seen or an effort is made to counter it. So does that mean the -22 is an late 60's design???

The JFT has similarites with the -16, the -20 and the -18, it looks like a cross between the three. What Russia sold to China, if you see its blue print was a smaller -5 or something in Red and White colors and small wings like the -104 Star fighter. Does the JFT look anything like that? Is the capability, avionics on par with the -16 or the -5 of the 60's? I don't think there were BVR missiles outside of the US military that can attack even 20 miles out or PGB or LGB's. You are comparing Apples and Oranges..

Yes, it has already been proven that Jane's is in error. Stupid hacks, them editors!
 
. .
A poor kid got brainwashed by the anit-Chinese western media who cannot even put their hands on the Chinese aircraft.

Yeah, Chinese technology is beyond the West's understanding totally. I am sure that the latest Chinese aircraft can destroy anything else in the world, and this sophisticated know-how is also found in the excellent JF-17.
 
.
A poor kid got brainwashed by the anit-Chinese western media who cannot even put their hands on the Chinese aircraft.

Interesting. While I agree that JFT has good capability for Pakistan - India scenario or for other smaller countries....it didn't really mean that the Chinese tech is the best. The JFT's capability has a LOT of input from Pakistan due to their exposure to the -16's. There is no "anti-China" Western media that discusses JFT as it is a small plane and has no significance to the West.........thought I'd remind you of that. Seems like you have a very high nationalistic opinion of your Chinese products which aren't combat proven and still lack years from a tech and quality's standpoint. But I'd also admit that you guys are making a lot more than before so good for you. But just be realistic about your assessment of your technology and capability....
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom