Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 24, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
October 18, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed
April 5, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject China (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Unit Cost[edit]

Any reference to the unit cost? Seems too high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftab s81 (talkcontribs) 11:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents[edit]

I removed the accidents and incidents section as the one entry was not of note but this has been challenged. Military aircraft by the nature crash all the time and unless it kills somebody notable or hits something notable then really it is not worth including and suggest it should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, self-reverted. Faizan 17:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Combat radius[edit]

Anyone dubious about that combat radius stat? It's not backed up by the source of other performance data. 840 miles just sounds very high given that an F-16 of roughly the same size is stated as having a combat radius of "340 mi (295 nmi, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs" and a Gripen is stated as "800 km (497 mi, 432 nmi)" (no loadout given). Both have greater ferry ranges than the JF-17. Le Deluge (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am. A combat radius of 1352 km is very very highly unlikely, even for a heavy fighter like a Raptor or Sukhoi. On the other hand, HAL Tejas with almost same MTOW and loadout has a radius of 300-400km! Maybe that range included in-flight refueling? I have no clue. ƬheStrikeΣagle 06:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I too have got no clue, but I have seen that the news sources support this radius. The recent Chinese deal report also says: "a top speed of Mach 1.8 at altitude of 55,000 ft and combat range of 840 miles". Any ideas? Faizan (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Have we got any source contradicting this value of combat radius? Faizan (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
For something as technical as this, I wouldn't rely on general media, as I rather suspect many of them get their numbers from Wikipedia. I'd only trust specialist sources like Flight or Janes. A proper figure would mention loadout and flight profile and we have neither. I suspect km and miles have been confused - 840km with an air-to-air loadout might be plausible. I don't have a recent enough copy of Janes to hand - anyone? Le Deluge (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Ferry range without air to air refuelling can be calculated by firstly calculating total fuel load out ie internal (2300KG) + external drop tanks 2520 kg (2 X 1100 = 2200 litres + 800 litres = 3000 litres X .84kg/litres atf = 2520kg). ie total fuel load out of 4820 kg. From RD 33 specifications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_RD-33#RD-93 specific fuel consumption dry thrust is 75kg/Knh which is equivalent to 3705kg/hr for JF17. At subsonic speed of mach 0.9 and using 3705kg/hr fuel consumption and 4820kg fuel load, ferry range comes to 1430 kms. For any errors include +-10% as I have omitted taxing and take off consumption which can be compensated by lower thrust in air (at the same time reducing speed). I would recommend finding a reliable source for ferry range and combat radius as it is not supported by references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.250.97 (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 11:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The Article is quite long (>75 KB), so please try to split it into reasonable subpages. X mark.svg Not done
    Repeating the same cite over and over again is unecessary Yes check.svg Done Faizan (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    Inconsistency: Block 2 and Block II Yes check.svg Done
    Please use American or British English, not both. Yes check.svg Done
    Has a bunch of jargon that most readers don't understand (for example "fairing"). Doing...
    Lead and Infobox
    Citations are Unecessary in the lead and infobox Yes check.svg Done Faizan (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Development section
    Dup link to Thomson-CSF Yes check.svg Done
    Link to fighter, bomber, Pakistan, and interceptor Yes check.svg Done
    Operational History section
    Should change title to Service History Yes check.svg Done
    Dup links to Rao Qamar Suleman and Nigeria Yes check.svg Done
    Design section
    Dup links to Head up display and multi-function displays Yes check.svg Done
    The JF-17 can be armed with up ... Yes check.svg Done
    Variants
    "Mach 2.0+" would do better as "over two times the speed of sound" Yes check.svg Done Faizan (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Has a "dubious-discuss" and a "citation needed" tag in the "Specifications (Block 1)" section. Yes check.svg Done Faizan (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    Has 8 dead links in the article.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Thanks for starting the review, there was a huge backlog. I am taking exams but will try to get this completed as soon as possible. Regarding the 8 dead links, these articles of Janes and Aviation Week were either deleted from their websites or were moved to the paid archives. I could not find them in the available archives too, I cannot find the substitute sources. Faizan (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Universal British English is being used in the article. Faizan (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, regarding the jargon, I propose that the text be abridged. Aircraft fairing is a component of the airframe, but I am also sure that most readers have not heard about it before. Faizan (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
No reasonable split can be made. Generally article is split when it crosses 100 KB. General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is >114 KB. So split is unnecessary. Faizan (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Confusing[edit]

"...The first prototype, PT-01, was rolled out on 31 May 2003; it was transferred to the Chengdu Flight Test Centre by June 2003..." Is that supposed to mean that the day it rolled out it transferred straight to the test centre? If yes, then it should say that. Moriori (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "Number built" from infobox[edit]

Bilcat has removed "Number built" from the infobox stating that it is unreferenced. Also not replying on his talk page. Per WP:LEAD all of the references were shifted to the lower article and the "Number built" is verifiable in the sub-section Production versions. Faizan (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The number quoted isn't really cited in the body of the text - what is stated is that 50 Batch I aircraft have been produced + four prototypes, with production of Batch II aircraft taking place from December 2013 at a rate of possibly 16/year. Simply stating 50 in the infobox without qualification is misleading - it should either be cited (and qualified as to when the figure applies)in the infobox or omitted.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
An IP changed the number in the infobox from 50 to 60, without citing a source, of course. I changed to back to 50, and added the citation needed instead of removing it then. Information in the infobox, especially numbers, dates, and prices, generally needs to be cited, as these are easily changed, and we shouldn't make editors search through fairly long and heavily-referenced articles like this one for a source. Notwithstanding that the infobox is not really the Lead, WP:LEADCITE states: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." (Emphasis mine.) - BilCat (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The number 50 is outdated, and given that 16 units are produced per year, still instating number 50 would be wrong. Regrets. Faizan (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)