First Kamra Made JF17 to Fly on 23rd Nov...

[BlackenTheSky]

wat is that block II..? i am listening it from many ppl..some say we'll make and some say rumuors..plz clearify it

 

[Windjammer]

A JF-17 or two but not THE ONE.

 

[Kompromat]

Yes, it has this problem, but its rumoured that in the next variant of RD93 this problem has been resolved completly and this new engine has 10% more thrust as compared to the current RD93.

would you mid explaining TVC and since i have no knowledge about any single engine fighter jet fitted with TVCN's would this technology can be lucrative for thunder or not if even possible to integrate on it?

Do you think 10% extra thurst can be because of a possibility of a TVC feature , i am asking because i have read somewhere.
Please explain JHMQS if you can ,and infrared look at shoot at capibility and also would an aircraft without TVC but fitted with JHMQS be the answer to the big MKI with TVC in a dogfight?

regards:

 

[Kompromat]

wat is that block II..? i am listening it from many ppl..some say we'll make and some say rumuors..plz clearify it

Hello dear:

The block II is not a rumor , it is planned for The Thunders to appear in 3 blocks , block 1 is that we have right now , Block 2 would be a more advanvced version , many options are being eveluated for the upgrades though i am not sure but it would have a new radar possibally SG/Vixen 1000 AESA or any other.
Arieal refuling probes would come with it , i am not expecting any major airframe changes but in block III you will see imance changes.

Maybe a new avionics suite and a new more reliable engine rumored to be ws-10 but i doubt that because of its size.

All we can do is just wait because nothing will come out before its production.

regards:

 

[marcos98]

 

[SBD-3]

would you mid explaining TVC and since i have no knowledge about any single engine fighter jet fitted with TVCN's would this technology can be lucrative for thunder or not if even possible to integrate on it?

Do you think 10% extra thurst can be because of a possibility of a TVC feature , i am asking because i have read somewhere.
Please explain JHMQS if you can ,and infrared look at shoot at capibility and also would an aircraft without TVC but fitted with JHMQS be the answer to the big MKI with TVC in a dogfight?

regards:

Thrust vectoring is the ability of an aircraft or other vehicle to direct the thrust from its main engine(s) in a direction other than parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal axis. The technique was originally envisaged to provide upward vertical thrust as a means to give aircraft vertical (VTOL) or short (STOL) takeoff and landing ability. Subsequently, it was realized that using vectored thrust in combat situations enabled aircraft to perform various maneuvers not available to conventional-engined planes. To perform turns, aircraft that use no thrust vectoring must rely on only aerodynamic control surfaces, such as ailerons or flaps; craft with vectoring must still use control surfaces, but to a lesser extent.

A Helmet mounted display (HMD) is a device used in some modern aircraft, especially combat aircraft. HMDs project information similar to that of heads up displays (HUD) on an aircrew’s visor or reticle, thereby allowing him to obtain situational awareness and/or cue weapons systems to the direction his head is pointing. Some applications refer to these devices as Helmet Mounted Sight and Display (HMSD) or Helmet Mounted Sights (HMS). For non-aviation applications, see Head mounted displays.


Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS)
JHMCS

After the U.S. withdrawal from ASRAAM, the U.S. pursued and fielded JHMCS in conjunction with the Raytheon AIM-9X, in November 2003 with the 12th and 19th Fighter Squadrons at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. The Navy conducted RDT&E on the F/A-18C as lead platform for JHMCS, but fielded it first on the F/A-18 Super Hornet E and F aircraft in 2003. The USAF is also integrating JHMCS into its F-15E and F-16 aircraft.

JHMCS is a derivative of the DASH III and the Kaiser Agile Eye HMDs, and was developed by Vision Systems International (VSI), a joint venture company formed by Rockwell Collins, Elbit and Kaiser Electronics (Kaiser is no longer affiliated with VSI; it is now equally owned by Rockwell Collins and Elbit's US subsidiary Elbit Systems of America). Boeing integrated the system into the F/A-18 and began low-rate initial production delivery in fiscal year 2002. JHMCS is employed in the F/A-18C/D/E/F, F-15C/D, and F-16 Block 40/50 with a design that is 95% common to all platforms.[9] This may also be intergrated into the system of the F-22.

Unlike the DASH, which is integrated into the helmet itself, JHMCS assemblies attach to modified HGU-55/P, HGU-56/P or HGU-68/P helmets. JHMCS employs a newer, faster digital processing package, but retains the same type of electromagnetic position sensing as the DASH. The CRT package is more capable, but remains limited to monochrome presentation of calligraphic symbology. JHMCS provides support for raster scanned imagery to display FLIR/IRST pictures for night operations and provides collimated symbology and imagery to the pilot. The integration of the night-vision goggles with the JHMCS was a key requirement of the program.

When combined with the AIM-9X, an advanced short-range dogfight weapon that employs a Focal Plane Array seeker and a thrust vectoring tail control package, JHMCS allows effective target designation up to 80 degrees either side of the aircraft's nose.
Three dimension vectoring (pitch and yaw axes)

* Lockheed F-16 Fighting Falcon MATV (SE)
* McDonnell Douglas F-15 ACTIVE
* McDonnell Douglas F-18 HARV
* Mikoyan Project 1.44
* Mikoyan MiG-29OVT (MiG-35)
* Rockwell-MBB X-31 (SE)
* Ryan X-13 Vertijet
* Sukhoi Su-35BM
* Sukhoi Su-37
* Sukhoi Su-47
* X-44 MANTA
* Shenyang J-11
* Chengdu J-10 (SE)

 

[aks]

their would b more hard points in block II

 

[pakistantiger]

there will be new engine new radar and mor hard points and might be little modification in designe on block II

 

[zavis2003]

of course there would be significant improvement in design of thunders to make it a true 3rd block and its meaning would be satisfied
major changes probably be

a more power engine
AESA radar may be more advanced than what are offered for block 1
more hard points , 7 is not a sufficient number here in this case
nuclear strike capaable
conformal tanks for deap strikes
improved HUDs and other avionics

summary it may be equivalent to nows J10

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

how effective is thrust vector in single engine aircrafts?

 

[abbasniazi]

how effective is thrust vector in single engine aircrafts?

Brother, In my humble opinion, the effectiveness is subject to success and failure of an idea.

And as far as TVC is concerned, we all know its a successfull idea, its successful in both twin engined and single engined fighters, but it has been more oftenly applied to twin engines.

In the single engine fighter aircraft, F35 is the best example of TVC.

 

[MZUBAIR]

With this Ratio, we will get 40 JF-17 till the end of 2010. (Avg production is 30 units per annum)

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

30 a year....that sounds reasonable.

 

[gambit]

how effective is thrust vector in single engine aircrafts?

If you mean how effective is thrust vector in giving the aircraft increased flight controls, especially at low speed and/or high angle-of-attack (AoA) situations where aerodynamic forces are at their weakest on the surfaces, then thrust vector is very effective. But if you are asking about how effective is it under pilot controls, then it is a matter of training.

Forget about thrust vector for a moment and take the F-16's cannon. The gun is mounted off axis and when fired the recoil is sufficient to induce a yaw (lateral) movement of the aircraft, most likely throwing the shot off. Because you have elected to design the gun that way, you have induced an additional task for the aircraft/pilot combination -- compensate for that yaw movement. You can chose to have the pilot perform that compensation via rudder pedals, or you can have the flight control computer (FLCS) does it for him. No matter who/what does the compensation task, it must be done. Same thing for the F-15 but because the F-15 is a much larger aircraft, the gun recoil induced yaw movement will not be as pronounced. But you still have to make a decision as to who will perform that compensation task. Another example is asymmetric thrust in a twin engined aircraft. The F-14's and the F-15's twin engines have different spacing between them. The wider the spacing, the greater the asymmetric thrust situation should one engine fail. You can have either the pilot does the compensation or the aircraft does it for him.

The point here is that the less work load for the pilot in flying the aircraft, the better the killer he will be when the time come. But in removing a control function from the pilot, you run the risk of making the aircraft/pilot combination less capable, or perhaps even inferior to his opponent, even if his opponent may be in a less capable aircraft. When I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford, I had a casual meeting with a Harrier pilot who flew combat sorties in the Falklands war between Britain and Argentinia. One Harrier tactic with its thrust vector engine is when the aircraft is being chased, the pilot would enter a loop and at the apex of the loop, he would rotate the thrust to 90 deg, as if he was in take-off/landing mode, except that thrust is being directed upward. The result is a sudden drop in altitude with his opponent overshooting him and repositioned the Harrier into a tail chase to his opponent, at the same time, the pilot would pull back on the stick, pointing the nose ahead of his opponent's trajectory, readying a shoot. It is a physically demanding maneuver, require the pilot to be dexterous and very well aware of his cockpit layout to execute the maneuver instintively and for non-pilots, can be difficult to imagine.

If you remove a task from the pilot and reassign that task to the aircraft, you have to study the task itself to see if it is possible to allow the pilot to have some control of that task when he wants it. Or perhaps even remove the task from the pilot completely. But if you opt to remove the task from the pilot completely, you need to make the aircraft smarter. For example -- The F-16 is a relaxed stability design. The FLCS has sole responsibility in maintaining steady flight as the human pilot simply cannot compensate for aerodynamics deviations because of this relaxed stability design. To make the FLCS smarter, or as smart as possible, GD created the quadruple redundant system with three gyro and two accelerometers assemblies. The system worked so well, even in analog, and so reliable over the decades, that it became the standard configuration to this day for any design from any country that wish to produce a fly-by-wire aircraft.

We know that thrust vectoring is a benefit. We have seen how it can enhance the pilot's lethality in a combat situation. The issue now is how much control do we want to give to either the aircraft or pilot. We know that pilots have varying airmanship, for example, when an Israeli F-15 lost its right wing down to the root, the pilot performed extraordinary dexterity with the stick, throttle and rudder combinations to maintain level flight and successfully landed the crippled aircraft. A less capable pilot would have abandoned the ship, but then what if the F-15's FLCS was programmed to have greater control than the pilot? So what is the balance that would reduce pilot workload and still give him the level of controls he need at the time he wanted based upon how capable he is as a pilot. No matter which way, the thrust vectored engine will require additional training regiments for that air force.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

excellent man.......thanks for taking the time to explain.

This was useful.

I speak occasionally with former and current pilots, and they actually say you would be amazed at how much the recoil can set the craft off course. One doesnt think of these small things that really do matter a hell of a lot. In this situation, i can see why TVC would have great utility

but for high speed evasive maneuvers like trying to break the lock on an A2A (especially heat-seeking), i would imagine dual engine TVC would be substantially more effective.


cheers