Chinese FC-1
-
Not to be carried away with Singapore's NGF.
China has just successfully tested the FC-1. On the surface, the FC-1 looks like the JAS-39 Gripen and is said to be comparable to the F16. Conveniently, China would probably have about several hundred FC-1 and export this fighter to other countries, includling Pakistan which has dubbed it the FC-17 there.
What I would like to know is what other missiles does it carry apart from the PL-12 (comparable to the AMRAAM) and the PL-9. Does China have any PGMs or do they have any ASMs for the FC-1?
What about its radar, reputed to be comparable to the Girfo-S-7 but without the multiple track-while-scan modes found on newer radars such as our APG-68(V)5 on the F-16C/D.
Also, have you wondered how Chinese programmers work on their software for the FC-1 radar, electronic-warfare suite and main mission computers. Do they write the program code in English or do you think they use Mandarin?!
IMHO, in any modern fighter, its not the hardware that counts that much, such as what engines, airframe, missiles, bombs etc that any PR department would like to tell you. But its the software that drives all the hardware from the missiles to the sensors and the soft skills of the pilot that matter a lot more. Any comments? -
Not to be carried away with Singapore's NGF.
China has just successfully tested the FC-1. On the surface, the FC-1 looks like the JAS-39 Gripen and is said to be comparable to the F16. Conveniently, China would probably have about several hundred FC-1 and export this fighter to other countries, includling Pakistan which has dubbed it the FC-17 there.
What I would like to know is what other missiles does it carry apart from the PL-12 (comparable to the AMRAAM) and the PL-9. Does China have any PGMs or do they have any ASMs for the FC-1?
What about its radar, reputed to be comparable to the Girfo-S-7 but without the multiple track-while-scan modes found on newer radars such as our APG-68(V)5 on the F-16C/D.
Also, have you wondered how Chinese programmers work on their software for the FC-1 radar, electronic-warfare suite and main mission computers. Do they write the program code in English or do you think they use Mandarin?!
IMHO, in any modern fighter, its not the hardware that counts that much, such as what engines, airframe, missiles, bombs etc that any PR department would like to tell you. But its the software that drives all the hardware from the missiles to the sensors and the soft skills of the pilot that matter a lot more. Any comments? -
Do you mean the J-10?
-
Do you mean the J-10?
No, there is another aircraft formally called the Super 7 or the FC-1. The Pakistanian callsign is JF-17. Its a joint project between China and Pakistan.
Although there are reports from the west that China will not deploy the FC-1. I doubt they will give up such a good opportunity. The aircraft comes designed for three radar types - Israeli, Italian and Russian.
Plus the SD-10 or PL-12 missile is as good as the AMRAAM, but the Italian radar that the export model is based on, the Girfo-S-7 radar cannot track multiple targets and engage them.
So, I wonder how effective the PL-12 missile will be in such an aircraft.
Given that, my understanding is still based on the AIM-7M which is semi-active homing, where the radar of the host aircraft illuminates the target and communicates with the missile through a duplex communication channel until the final stage when the missile's own radar takes over in say the last few miles. But that is not how the AMRAAM works.
I wonder as such if anybody can enlighten me on how active homing missiles, such as the PL-12, AMRAAM and MICA-RF are guided to their target and how does it work without the plane's radar help.
Thereby fire-and-forget missiles can also be said to give the launching aircraft stealth-like capabilities as the firer is not exposed to counter-radar scans and IFF identification from opposing aircraft and this missile launch is not subjected to early electronic-countermeasures jamming errected by the target aircraft.
I am a bit hazy on this area so I would need any help that is forthcoming to correct the wrong explanations that I have put up.
You can read more about the FC-1 at www.sinodefence.com[/quote] -
Here is a good explanation of SARH (semi-active radar homing), its unclassified:
Semi-active radar homing, or SARH, is a common type of missile guidance system, perhaps the most common type for longer range air-to-air and ground-to-air missile systems. The name refers to the missile itself being a passive detector, while an offboard radar provides a signal for the missile guidance system to "listen to" when it reflects off the target.
It superseeds my feeble understanding....
The basic concept of SARH is that almost all detection and tracking systems consist of a radar system, so duplicating this hardware on the missile itself is wasted. In addition, the resolution of a radar is strongly related to the physical size of the antenna, in the small nose cone of a missile there isn't enough room to provide the sort of accuracy needed for guidance. Instead the larger radar dish on the ground or launch aircraft will provide the needed signal and tracking logic, and the missile simply has to isten to the signal and point itself in the right direction.
Contrast this with beam riding systems, in which the radar is pointed at the target and the missile keeps itself centered in the beam by listening to the signal at the rear of the missile body. In the SARH system the missile listens for the reflected signal at the nose, and is still responsible for providing some sort of "lead" guidance. The advantages are twofold. One is that a radar signal is "fan shaped" growing larger, and therefore less accurate, with distance. This means that the beam riding system is not terribly accurate at long ranges, while SARH is largely independent of range and grows more accurate as it approaches the target -- the "source" of the signal it listens for. Another addition is that a beam riding system must accurately track the target at high speeds, typically requiring one radar for tracking and another "tighter" beam for guidance. The SARH system needs only one radar set to a wider pattern.
Early SARH systems typically required the tracking radar to continually point at the target, known as "lock on". Electronic warning systems could listen for this signal and thereby alert the target pilot that a missile launch was likely to take place. However advances in the electronics in both the missile tracking systems and the radars have largely eliminated this in modern systems.
SARH is typically not all that accurate. A number of additional systems are then used to "fine tune" the guidance, including additional information coded in the radar signal (phase angle for instance) and typically some sort of proximity fuse and often even a terminal guidance system. -
Specifications
Contractors Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group (CAIG)
Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC)
Projected [1999]----------------------------------------------------------- Actual [2004]
LENGTH 13.95 meters ----------------------------------------------------14.9679 m
HEIGHT 5.02 meters -------------------------------------------------------4.77485 m
WING SPAN 9.5 meters--------------------------------------------------- 9.4646 m
MAX T-O WEIGHT 12,500 kilograms ------------------------------12,474 kg
Empty weight -----------------------------------------------------------------6,411 kg
Normal takeoff weight 9,072 kg
Maximum landing weight 7,802 kg
Fuel weight 2,268 kg
Weapons load 3,629 kg
Thrust/weight ratio >=0.9
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
T-O RUN 500 meters ------------------------------------------------------609 m
LANDING RUN 700 meters ---------------------------------------------823 m
Armament 23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon
6 - PL-7 AAM
6 - PL-10 AAMs
ASMs, bombs -
source http://www.navlog.org
The FC-1 has a choppy history. Originally envisioned as gradually replacing the F-7, MiG-21 and Q-5 fighter jets currently in service in China and with some of its allies, the single-seat, single-engine multi-role fighter aircraft derived from the Chengdu J-7 (F-7) has largely been overtaken by events and technology. The F-7 is China's version of the 45-year-old MiG-21. The Q-5 is the Chinese bomber version of the even older MiG-19. The FC-1 – said to be similar in performance to the MiG-27 -- is designed to carryout the dual missions of air-to-air and air-to-surface attacks.
Back in the Détente Days of the 1980s, China signed a $550 million agreement with Grumman to modernize its J-7 fighter under the so-called "Super-7" upgrade, but this agreement was cancelled in early 1990. China turned to its Russian semi-allies and, as a substitute for the original Super-7, China developed the FC-1 (Fighter China-1) lightweight multipurpose fighter initially based on the design for the Super-7.
Development of the fly-by-wire, 1.6 mach-capable FC-1 has reportedly cost approximately $150 million, with half coming from Pakistan, which will replace its F-7M/P airplanes. Unit costs have reportedly risen from $ 10 million to $ 15 million per copy, although the “stripped” export version of the US F-16 goes for $ 20 million. The Russians are using the FC-1 as a continuation of the scrapped MiG-33 (R33) program developed in the 1980s.
In the past 17 years, as China's enthusiasm for the FC-1 has cooled, Pakistan has grabbed the baton, perhaps to counter India's Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Project, and plans to buy as many as 150. While final systems are uncertain, the FC-1 may carry the Israeli Elta 2032 or Italian FIAR Grifo S-7 fire-control radar. The Grifo S-7 is specially designed for the FC-1/Super-7, with lookdown, shoot-down capability, plus single-target ground strike mode. According to some reports, PakistanÂ’s anti-Israeli politics dictate that the PLA Air Force variant of the FC-1 would never be fitted with any Israeli system, but rather, either the Russian Phazotron Kopyo radar or Italian Grifo. The FC-1 has seven stores stations and can carry the AIM-9P, PL-9, and Magic-2 short-range AAMs, plus the AIM-7E and Aspide.
Just to drag this saga out even further, latest reports say that Russia is now refusing to supply the airplane’s RD-93 engine. If this additional hurdle is overcome, not just Pakistan is a likely customer. Beijing is reportedly targeting “poor countries” for the FC-1, said The Guangzhou Daily recently. -
I can well imagine why Chinese interests have cooled off... With 2 competing projects, the J-10 and FC-1 going on at the same time, their cash expenditures must have been horrendous. Anyway, it appears that the FC-1 is inferior to the J-10 and the only reason why the FC-1 is still being developed is to act as a sop to the Pakistanis...
Anyway, aren't the Chinese developing their own turbofan, the WS-10? Can't it be used for the FC-1? -
Unlikely that the chinese will want to spend more money on the FC-1 even if its a good fighter, though perhaps as a light fighter it may not be in the same class as the J-10, J-11 (Su-27 variants). I think the Chiense may still buy a few hundred FC-1 as second-line fighters to replace the Q-5, J-6 and J-7 if it does not have enough fighters to go around.
-
HAH! Wait til u see the FC1 go into Gerwalk mode!