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.

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 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 (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Update on Combat Radius: AVIC Chengdu Official webpage stated that the ferry range of this aircraft (without external fuel tanks I reckon) to be 2037 kms [1], this is by far the most reliable and official claim of ferry range of this aircraft, since AVIC Chengdu is the developer of this aircraft. Based on this ferry range, it is reasonable to conclude that based on mission profiles, the combat radius of this aircraft is at around 650~800 kms, which is in accordance with the data from FC-1 page on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neytirilover (talkcontribs) 10:09, 13 December 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
    "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:
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)

Sri Lanka[edit]

Does anybody have refs to these "Pakistani media reports"? Hcobb (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@@Hcobb:I searched for it, but I have not found any webpage containing Jf-17 deal details. The reports were only telecast live, All I found is these screenshots given by the official page of Pakistani media outlet. Faizan (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's best to just stay alert and watch for better sourcing for now. Hcobb (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Argentina Export Deal?[edit]

At the Paris Show officials unusually declined to name the customer of their first export deal which will include a Chinese-made turbofan replacing the Russian Klimov RD-93, the same officials stated that the new turbofan had a greater thrust ratio than the RD-93. However, later unconfirmed reports suggest that the customer was Sri Lanka. Twobellst@lk 14:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Issues with main lede photo?[edit]

I thought I would start the section for subsequent discussion. Irondome (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The caption locates the aircraft at the Paris air show 2015, but the image details say it was "uploaded to Commons using Flickr upload bot on 10:29 am, 7 January 2011". Moriori (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I suspect with the recent changes of the main image the caption relates to one of the other images that has been used. MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
OK. Fixed. Moriori (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The current image isn't the best, as the ground clutter is distracting. However, it's better than the ground image, as shows more of the aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks very similar to the Ching-kuo. Never noticed that before. Irondome (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
An airbourne picture for lead is better than the grounded one... but I'm still looking for a better flying picture. There's some really good ones on Flikr etc. but most of them are copyrighted. We should keep an eye out for new pics and replace when a better one is found that's free-use. cӨde1+6TP 00:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

250 airframes produced?[edit]

I have cited FlightGlobal and the Express to give the realistic figure of 66 produced so far. These sources are strong and are compatable with the narrative of the article. 250 is a distant future figure, it is more numbers planned than actually produced. I am sure anyone would want the article to be credible. this fantasy figure damages it greatly. Irondome (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
In fact, 250 is the total strength of PAF, i guess. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 15:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that is not far from the truth. The Pakistani Air Force active types list needs a serious overhaul too. I am seeing inflated numbers. Irondome (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Indeed. I have watchlisted that page now. Will try to improve it in my free time, Cheers! MBlaze Lightning -talk! 16:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)