JF-17 Block-3 -- Updates, News & Discussion

[randomradio]

Gripen e numbers are not correct when you look at the * sign you will understand ..

e.g gripen states the payload is at 50% fuel which is stupid..while simultaneously quotes the range being empty.. ...

A better number which cannot be messed up with is MTOW

which gripen E is 1600kg and F16E is 21000kg almost 35% difference

All max ranges, also called ferry range, are without weapons payload, at best 2 AAMs, but nothing more than full fuel.

Also, you generally can't carry max fuel and max payload at the same time. MTOW is always less than structural limit. Not to mention, it's practically impossible to reach max payload anyway. For example, even though the MKI has been advertised to carry 8T, it can realistically only carry 6T at max, whereas lighter aircraft carry only 2T at best, without counting fuel.

MTOW isn't a good indicator. For example, the 16.5T Gripen E comfortably beats the 22.5T Mig-29K in range. Yeah, the Mig-29K carries more fuel, but it's all burnt away faster than in the Gripen, not counting the cost associated with operating the Mig-29.

The Gripen has been designed in such a way that it can carry the same payload to the same distance as the F-16. For example, the internal fuel load of the Gripen E is 3400Kg feeding a 98KN engine, while the latest B70 carries only 3200Kg of fuel and feeds a 145KN engine. This compensates for the lack of CFTs on the F-16. And the weapons layout design on the Gripen E is better than on the F-16.

So, depending on how you design the aircraft, the JF-17 will comfortably be able to match the F-16 B50 with just a 100KN engine.

But of course, there's always the J-10, shortcut to the same capability as the F-16 with minimum investment.

 

[ziaulislam]

All max ranges, also called ferry range, are without weapons payload, at best 2 AAMs, but nothing more than full fuel.

Also, you generally can't carry max fuel and max payload at the same time. MTOW is always less than structural limit. Not to mention, it's practically impossible to reach max payload anyway. For example, even though the MKI has been advertised to carry 8T, it can realistically only carry 6T at max, whereas lighter aircraft carry only 2T at best, without counting fuel.

MTOW isn't a good indicator. For example, the 16.5T Gripen E comfortably beats the 22.5T Mig-29K in range. Yeah, the Mig-29K carries more fuel, but it's all burnt away faster than in the Gripen, not counting the cost associated with operating the Mig-29.

The Gripen has been designed in such a way that it can carry the same payload to the same distance as the F-16. For example, the internal fuel load of the Gripen E is 3400Kg feeding a 98KN engine, while the latest B70 carries only 3200Kg of fuel and feeds a 145KN engine. This compensates for the lack of CFTs on the F-16. And the weapons layout design on the Gripen E is better than on the F-16.

So, depending on how you design the aircraft, the JF-17 will comfortably be able to match the F-16 B50 with just a 100KN engine.

But of course, there's always the J-10, shortcut to the same capability as the F-16 with minimum investment.

No its not...gripen marketing team are messing up with figures by changing parameters ..one parameter you cannot change is max take off weight which is constant ..now i know you have history of not believing simple facts so lets disagree here ..

A 150kn engine plan and 100kn engine plan cannot have identical payloads

 

[VCheng]

A 150kn engine plan and 100kn engine plan cannot have identical payloads

It depends on how heavy the airframe is, among other things.

 

[randomradio]

No its not...gripen marketing team are messing up with figures by changing parameters ..one parameter you cannot change is max take off weight which is constant ..now i know you have history of not believing simple facts so lets disagree here ..

Saab hasn't messed with anything. But yeah, we can agree to disagree.

A 150kn engine plan and 100kn engine plan cannot have identical payloads

That's entirely dependent on design. Like Rafale (150KN) vs Gripen E (100KN). But at the same time, F-16 vs Rafale, the Rafale is so much superior even though it has the same thrust level.

 

[ziaulislam]

Saab hasn't messed with anything. But yeah, we can agree to disagree.



That's entirely dependent on design. Like Rafale (150KN) vs Gripen E (100KN). But at the same time, F-16 vs Rafale, the Rafale is so much superior even though it has the same thrust level.

7.6+7.6+3.4=18.6 but MTOW is 16.5
In other word if you load the plane to maximun you will have no place to put the fuel in
Lol

And this is the official presentation from SAAB

And yeah let's disagree on simple maths

 

[randomradio]

7.6+7.6+3.4=18.6 but MTOW is 16.5
In other word if you load the plan to maximun you will have no place to put the fuel in
Lol

And this is the official presentation from SAAB

I already said it before:
Also, you generally can't carry max fuel and max payload at the same time. MTOW is always less than structural limit. Not to mention, it's practically impossible to reach max payload anyway.

MKI = 18.5+9.5+8 = 36T
Su-35 = 18.5+11.5+8 = 38T
But both jets have MTOWs of 34.5T. Structural limit is 38.5T. So with full fuel, they can't carry full payload.

On the left, you will find Gripen C also facing the same issue.
6.8+5.3+2.4 = 14.5T. But MTOW = 12.5T. So with full internal fuel realistic payload is only 3.3T.

This applies to the F-16 also.
B52 MTOW = 19T
Empty = 8.6T
Fuel = 3.2T
Payload = 19-(8.6+3.2) = 7.2T

With CFTs at 1.7T and 3 fuel tanks at 4.2T, just the tanks with fuel alone is 5.9T. So the F-16 also has to sacrifice range or payload for an actual mission.

 

[randomradio]

Ofcourse ۔۔۔۔

but f16 has MTOW of 22 vs 16.5
and empty weight of 9.2 vs 7.6

so while empty weight difference is just 1.6 the MTOW difference is almost 5.5 tones..

in other words f16 carries 4 tones of additional fuel and arms as compared to gripen NG in ideal conditions, constrains which will apply to gripen will also obviously apply to f16, unless you think gripen has some other "vodoo"..

now this is simple maths no matter what you say it wont change..thus gripen is a light weight similar to LCA/thunder and f16 is a medium weight aircraft similar to Rafale and hence why PAF needs f16s or j10s if it can afford it

I thought you will do these calculations yourself but you are stubborn as usual

F-16 B52's MTOW is 19T, not 22. So you are just using all wrong numbers.

Also, it's not necessary that Gripen E's MTOW will be 16.5T, that is the MTOW of the Gripen Demo prototype. We still have to wait for Gripen E's specs since it's still in development.

Here's an interesting article. Use it as a reference.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...edium-weight-fighter/articleshow/64214939.cms

Plus you will notice that, from that brochure you posted, even though Gripen's empty weight is 7.6T, its payload listed there is 7.2T, which is just a few hundred kilograms less than F-16's advertised payload of 7.7T.

And as I pointed out before, all these are paper numbers. Actual realistic payloads are very different.

 

[khanasifm]

This type of 3rd under wing pylon for SD-10 class weight 200kg plus pylon weight needs to be added,wing spar/rib 2nd to last before wingtip on the outer wing by strengthening outer wing

Plus one underintake for ldp

 

[Chimgathar]

View attachment 534370

View attachment 534371

View attachment 534372

This type of 3rd under wing pylon for SD-10 class weight 200kg plus pylon weight needs to be added wing spar 2nd to last before wingtip on the outer wing by strengthening outer wing

Plus one underintake for ldp

Guys this illustration has 3 hard points under each wing, will this be Block-3 or just fan art.

 

[ziaulislam]

Guys this illustration has 3 hard points under each wing, will this be Block-3 or just fan art.

No confirmation ..will have to wait and see..we should have an idea by august

 

[GriffinsRule]

Guys this illustration has 3 hard points under each wing, will this be Block-3 or just fan art.

Fan art

 

[randomradio]

Correct... while b60 and b70 has mtow of 22tones due to stronger engine and gripen c has mtow of 14 tones...

۔.payload ...Lol...you missed the whole point...live in your fantasy

Nah, man. F-16 B52 MTOW is 19T. B60 is a bit higher at 20T, but it's inferior to the 19T variant because the internal and CFT fuel loads are the same and only the weight is higher.

There is no 22T F-16, or else it would not have qualified for IAF's first MRCA program which had a 20T weight limit.

Gripen Demo's MTOW is 16.5T. Gripen E should be the same or higher, but its payload will be better than the Demo's.

And look up how payload is distributed on the aircraft anyway.

The JF-17 itself can be brought up to F-16 standards by simply improving its internal fuel capacity with a 100KN engine. 100KN engine doesn't require as much fuel as 130-150KN.

This type of 3rd under wing pylon for SD-10 class weight 200kg plus pylon weight needs to be added,wing spar/rib 2nd to last before wingtip on the outer wing by strengthening outer wing

Plus one underintake for ldp

It's fan art, but it can be done by lengthening the fuselage by 0.5m, which will allow a 10m wingspan. But thrust will have to climb up to 100-105KN from 85KN today.

 

[ziaulislam]

Nah, man. F-16 B52 MTOW is 19T. B60 is a bit higher at 20T, but it's inferior to the 19T variant because the internal and CFT fuel loads are the same and only the weight is higher.

There is no 22T F-16, or else it would not have qualified for IAF's first MRCA program which had a 20T weight limit.

Gripen Demo's MTOW is 16.5T. Gripen E should be the same or higher, but its payload will be better than the Demo's.

And look up how payload is distributed on the aircraft anyway.

The JF-17 itself can be brought up to F-16 standards by simply improving its internal fuel capacity with a 100KN engine. 100KN engine doesn't require as much fuel as 130-150KN.



It's fan art, but it can be done by lengthening the fuselage by 0.5m, which will allow a 10m wingspan. But thrust will have to climb up to 100-105KN from 85KN today.

Hmm...i was talking about block 70 not block52..

Yeah lockheed martin is lying and you are building it at home
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-16.html

Bravo bravo...we should call it "randomradio f16"

F16e/f has a newer engine as compared to previous C/Ds

From Pakistan perspective f16 C/D with CFTs will offer greater range with enough payload..something even the jf17 III cannot replicate ..
If Pakistan plays its card better it might be able to get refurbished f16s similar to Indonesia

Otherwise j10 should be on cards..
I doubt new gen fighter will be ready before 2035 for full induction
By that time expect india to get a full on order on rafale and f18 for its Navy

 

[randomradio]

Hmm...i was talking about block 70 not block52..

Yeah lockheed martin is lying and you are building it at home
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-16.html

Bravo bravo...we should call it "randomradio f16"

F16e/f has a newer engine as compared to previous C/Ds

Meh, I know about the B70, but it neither exists nor has it been offered to you. How about bringing the discussion back to reality?

If you want a Mirage replacement, it's only more F-16 B52 or a modernised JF-17 that can perform at the same level as the B52, which is possible. Talk about the B70 after you officially make a request for it. Even Bahrain is yet to receive it.

Hey, a much better option to replace the Mirage is obviously the F-35. Why not?

From Pakistan perspective f16 C/D with CFTs will offer greater range with enough payload..something even the jf17 III cannot replicate ..

Block III cannot, but a Block IV can.

 

[khanasifm]

New pylon attachment option after strengthening outer wing like f-16 there is enough clearance between pylon points