Talk:JF-17 Thunder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. This article is related to Military of Pakistan. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Article is property cited: criterion not met Article has one or more sections including LEAD: criterion not met Article is comprehensive: criterion not met Article includes some graphics (i.e., pictures or infoboxes): criterion not met Article is free of grammatical errors: criterion not met
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Chinese military history task force

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Not a 4th generation fighter 2 Minor fixes 3 Links in headings 4 Specifications 5 Citing Sources 6 JF-17 vs HAL Tejas and F-20 Tigershark 7 Vandalism 8 Azerbaijan 9 Zimbabwe purchase of the JF-17 10 Copied from an advert? 11 Why so much of Su-30 12 Operators 13 Origin of FC-1 14 Fierce linguist 15 Earthquake

[edit] Not a 4th generation fighter

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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??

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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! - !!!!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fierce linguist

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

[edit] 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)