It is an old and often repeated story that the Soviet MiG Project 33 fighter design influenced the Chinese/Pakistani JF-17, and in my opinion, there is NOTHING in it. The FC-1 aka JF-17 had already well advanced through the original CAC conception, then through the Sino-US cooperation with Grumman under the Super-7 name – and finally by CAC with Pakistani participation. When the “Russians†stepped in, that at least in my opinion it was much too late to gain any substantial redesigns by adding Project 33 (often known incorrectly by its never allocated designation of MiG-33)-genes. Additionally, I’m also convinced that Project 33 ever progressed far to have anything to meaningfully contribute. All I have seen from the Project 33 are a few quite crude desk models and drawings, but I have seen no true detailed blue-print. As such, I’m quite sure, the Russian participation was to modify the airframe – eventually most of all the intake’s airflow – to fit a different engine. As such their contribution was mostly one of engine integration, similar to the integration of the AL-31FN to the J-10.
My main argument for this is that the external shape of the JF-17 fixed, and here I must add a rather weirder idea than Russian influence. It is barely known fcat, that China had originally its foot in the door in the Romanian IAR-95 fighter project, which was to use a WS-9 – aka a RR Spey Mk. 202 (?) – as its powerplant.
And if you compare this very early IAR-95 wind-tunnel model with an early JF-17/FC-1 wind tunnel model in Pakistan, it has at least, I’m my, opinion, more similarities (besides a different tail, saw-tooth in the wing’s leading edge and a slightly different aka lower-placed wing) than to any Project 33 model I know.
In consequence, I would rate Jane’s report as on a major Russian involvement on the design as false – and I know there is a similar claim for the J-10-Lavi connection, all based on an interview with an unknown (he wanted to remain anonymous) Russian technician, who was allegedly involved in that project.
I would say there was for sure a certain Russian involvement, but that certain engineer simply hyped up this involvement – may be to diminish the Chinese part, or to over-emphasize the Russian, or perhaps his own personal contribution – and now after decades it is a de facto accepted fact on social media and no-one is willing or even able to check the facts.
Re: “… a de facto accepted fact on social media and no-one is willing or even able to check the facts.” Some time back I concluded it was more about willingness than about ability & more about feelings than data.
An illustration: haven’t been on it for a few years but I was on F-book for a few years a bit over 5 years ago, an example of what happened somewhat too frequently was one time I messaged a friend saying the thing they just shared was exposed a hoax several years back and it would be wise to take a couple moments to check these things before sharing them and furthering the lies: they replied that they were too busy to take that time and then immediately posted about their accomplishments playing Farmville for the previous 3 hours. Uh-huh, too busy, got that. I eventually concluded that the feelings, emotions, people get from certain things are far more valuable to the person than the truth about those things is, if knowing the truth about a matter would threaten the fulfilling feelings they get from sharing that matter then the truth, the reality, is expendable in favor of favorable feelings.
And I would submit that multiple data sources now show us that reality is indeed considered expendable, and even undesirable, within the world of social media.
Ugly F-16
Some dates on the photos/models and a timeline would be helpful.
It grew from the Mig-21 aka J-7 as the Chinese copy.
The Grumman help to give side intakes instead of the nose is mentioned and of course they have done some other interesting features including air intake bumps to divert boundary layer ( another Grumman idea from early 50s) and what looks a F-16 vertical tail and some leading edge extensions.
But good on them for bringing an oldy but a goody up to date