JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 1]

[Myth_buster_1]

hey guys i just found this artical on WAFF but with no links.... its suppose to be from a chinese aviation forum...

JF-17 II: Evolution Continued

The JF-17 is a truly remarkable plane. Starting from the basic designs that Chengdu and the PAF were tinkering with, the Super-7 with basically a MiG-21 with side intakes, it has evolved into a completely different beast. The Internet Military Aviation community was taken by complete surprise, almost shock when the JF-17 came out with a modern cockpit, DSI intakes and previously unseen quality of build.

Yet, when even the most ardent followers of the program had thought that the JF-17 had fully evolved, it has once again surprised all of us in its next evolution. It is likely that this evolution is going to take shape after the second batch. Changes are comprehensive and across the board and include greater range, lower RCS, AESA radar and a new engine with greater TWR (thrust to weight ratio).

The lower RCS is to be reached using new materials, including advanced composites. A new RAM paint is also rumored that is said to be similar to that being used on the F-35. The nose will see comprehensive redesign and is rumored to incorporate a new AESA radar set of Chinese origin. The single tail is to be replaced with twin-tails similar to the F-35. A new DSI is also projected that will further lower RCS.

The TWR of the engine is projected to increase with the WS-13, which are likely to go into the second batch. The iteration of the WS-13, possibly the "WS-13A" is likely to go into the stealthier JF-17. This will marginally increase the TWR further from the WS-13, which itself will increase the TWR marginally from the RD-93.

However, this increase in the TWR of the engine will be moderated by the increase in the wing size, greater internal fuel and the twin tails, amongst other weight increases. On the other hand, newer materials and over all weight decreasing projects in turn will moderate these weight increases.

The stealthier JF-17 will incorporate a larger wing, improving higher altitude maneuverability. This is a crucial aspect that is increasingly becoming important in BVR combat, where the higher and faster jets can in some form take pot shots at slower and lower BVR platforms. Another aspect of the larger wing will be increased internal fuel carrying capacity. This is addresses one of the areas that the JF-17 is weaker in - range and the ability to stay on station longer.

The nose, vital areas of the cockpit as well as a whole host of other technical areas will be addressed. the nose will in fact be fully redesigned around a new AESA radar and be formated to lower RCS. The DSI design is also being redesigned to better accommodate and optimize higher altitudes and higher speeds. A second generation of the onboard information collection, dissemination and display will be incorporated.

However, thrust vectoring will not be incorporated, neither will be internal carriage of weapons. This planned version may or may not go into production. However, all, most or many of the changes may be incorporated into the third batch of 50 being ordered by Pakistan. My personal opinion is that this prototype is more of a technology demonstrator. Major changes would not be appropriate unless a major export customer is found. I would think however that all the minor changes, as well as a few crucial major ones will be incorporated. This is likely to include the new engine, as well as the larger wings. Stealth features should also be incorporated but major redesign is likely to be avoided for the 3rd batch production models (such as twin tails and new nose). This version will be targeted for export and will not be part of the Chinese arsenal.

Much of this data is based on rumor, informed speculation and some insider sources.

 

[IceCold]

The only disadvantage that i see in the JF-17 is its less range and only seven hard points. As for the hard points, i think as mentioned by the ACM the work is going on which includes larger wings to incorporate two more hard points and with that the range of the JF-17 will automatically be increased. The lower thrust issue of the JF-17 can be solved by WS-13 or even the speculated RD-93b which has ten times more thrust then the original RD-93. The only thing left will be an AESA radar. I guess for that we will have to wait another decade if not more before the Chinese would be able to come up with their version of an AESA radar similar to that of the US standard. But by then the jet itself will see some major structural redesigning as also speculated by the above mentioned article. Future of the JF-17 seems bright. One can therefore safely assume that by the time India starts getting the deliveries of its MRCA, JF-17 would be ready to take on what the Indians have to offer.

 

[EagleEyes]

Ice,

I dont think there are going to be any design changes at least for the current blocks. JF-17 has enough hard points to perform its roles. I think ACM wants to finally get done with the design changes and start getting them operational as soon as possible. We might of course see changes in the future, but that too not major (like the raptor look).

Air-to-air refuelers will play a major role as far as range is concerned.

 

[IceCold]

Ice,

I dont think there are going to be any design changes at least for the current blocks. JF-17 has enough hard points to perform its roles. I think ACM wants to finally get done with the design changes and start getting them operational as soon as possible. We might of course see changes in the future, but that too not major (like the raptor look).

Air-to-air refuelers will play a major role as far as range is concerned.

Webby there is a video posted here in this thread, the interview of ACM and in that he said about increasing the hard points. That the work is going on to increase the hard points from seven to nine in order to make into an effective bomber. In order to achieve that wings will have to be strengthen and increased in order to accommodate two more hard points. Also there were some reports mentioned about developing a two seat version of the JF-17. So to assume that we might see a completely new JF-17 in coming years, i don't think the idea is too far fetched.

Rest i agree that with air to air refuelers, the range of the JF-17 will be increased however we also need to consider a scenario of war where PAF will be heavily occupied and might not be able to provide air cover to refuelers.

 

[araz]

Webby there is a video posted here in this thread, the interview of ACM and in that he said about increasing the hard points. That the work is going on to increase the hard points from seven to nine in order to make into an effective bomber. In order to achieve that wings will have to be strengthen and increased in order to accommodate two more hard points. Also there were some reports mentioned about developing a two seat version of the JF-17. So to assume that we might see a completely new JF-17 in coming years, i don't think the idea is too far fetched.

Rest i agree that with air to air refuelers, the range of the JF-17 will be increased however we also need to consider a scenario of war where PAF will be heavily occupied and might not be able to provide air cover to refuelers.

Ice cold.
Sorry to be a nit picker, but RD 39 B will have 10% more thrust not ten times. Secondly, if I am not mistaken, WS13 has 10%more thrust than the current RD93. So this may come to fruition sooner than we think. I completely agree with you that some changes are perfectly logical and should be attempted, ie increasing hard points, lowering weight and decreasing RCS. I also have heard ACMs interview where he has mentioned about increasing hardpoints to 9. I think we might see AESA sooner than the a decade. Infact we may well see AESA with the next tranche in 2011-12. JF17 B is very much on the cards as per PAF sources.
The picture you have posted has been posted courtesy of PShamim of Pakdef.info who is a senior PAF pilot and a resourceful gentleman.Personally, I agree with the writer of the article that this may be more of a tech demonstrator than anything concrete, but I guess we have to wait and see.
WaSalam
Araz

 

[Myth_buster_1]

this is very interesting analysis in fact a reply to a defence blogger with a absurd remark of JF-17 being a total inferior fighter...
pretty old stuff but thought maybe some of us might have missed it..

This is a paper to provide a limited comparison of the JF-17 / FC-1 with the Su-30 MKI and to look at Sean O'Connor's analysis to see if in fact, it is a inferior plane that will not stand against the IAF. Sean is a USAF intelligence officer who does some analysis on the side as a hobby and can be found to frequent keypublishing forums as SOC.

To answer SOC's analysis, where the FC-1 / JF-17 is a "tale of an inferior fighter plane", let me first provide the link to his article>> link
Here are some of the salients of SOC's analysis:

The FC-1 will be the primary aircraft for the PAF and the SU-30MKI will be the same for the IAF

This in my opinion is an oversimplification that really takes out the heart of any real analysis of assets. When all is said and done, Pakistan will have 250 FC-1s, Yes, BUT (and there is a big but):

* Only the first 50 will have the basic configuration, later blocks will be significantly more advanced.
* Even the first 50 will have a whole host of features, some of them SOC has underestimated. For instance, the radar can simultaneously engage 4 not 2 as SOC mentions. Also, detection range for something the size of an MKI are likely to be a good deal more than 75 kms. Further, data linking between the fighters and with the radar network and AEW assets means this is even greater, particularly as SOC admits, any such scenario would be over Pakistani territory.
* The PAF is likely to have a 500 fighter airforce and 250 is merely 50% of its air assets. Other assets are perhaps projected to include 100 J-10s and about a 100 more F-16s. While 100 J-10s in my estimate, it makes historical sense as the PAF has typically placed a first order and if they liked the performance, almost always ordered a second batch. You would be hard put to find an aircraft that the PAF liked that they did not order at least (over its lifetime) 100 units of (or wanted to, in the case of the F-16).
* If seems clear that the J-10 will be focused on countering the 230 odd MKI that India will eventually have. Various interviews indicate this. 100 J-10s reflect a good direct comparison to 230 MKI, given the over all exchange ratio between the larger IAF and smaller PAF. Further, in actual operational service this will actually be even better - the twin engined and maintenance intensive MKI, run by less qualified Indian technicians will generate markedly lower sortie rates than PAF's WS-10A fitted J-10s. This is not bias, but a fact based on the Indian maintenance record.

Superiority of the MKI's PESA radar, with a detection range of 160 Km

* AEW&C assets will also negate any advantages the MKI has over any potential encounter with the FC-1 / JF-17. When both sides have this, it levels the playing field for the FC-1 / JF-17
* SOC admits later in his comments section that in fact, detection range of the Bars is (according to Janes, for a 2m squared target), 80-100 km head on. About half what was first estimated, and that assuming a 2m squared target. More probable would be a calculation for 1 meter squared target, and that is being generous, given that the JF-17 is smaller than the F-16, and hides its blades AND has RAM coating.
* Meanwhile, SOC sticks with 75km as the detection range of the JF-17, for a "fighter sized target". Clearly, for the MKI, specially loaded out for offensive operations, this will be way bigger. Again, assuming that what was originally MY estimate of the detection range is in fact accurate (I actually never said 75 kms but > 75 kms, implying a minimum of, rather than a typical range. Further, given revelation of info on the KLJ-7's surpising modernity and the increased radome size on the JF-17, the point becomes even less arguable).
* Later blocks of the JF-17 are likely to have an AESA radar


The Bars radar has Jet Engine Modulation (JEM) technology, allowing for a target to be identified at range by simply analyzing the radar returns from the target's engine compressor face.

* Point is moot when its clear that the FC-1 / JF-17 does not expose its blades AND uses RAM coating, as has been discussed in interviews with officials.

There is also the passive engagement option for the MKI, something else speculated for future FC-1 blocks.

* One must understand the nature of passive engagements, very useful in less sensor rich environments. Its like putting your torch light off in a dark room. However, of limited importance in a well lit room (sensor-rich environment), one that is likely to be the case given the sheer number of radars, AEW assets and fighters on air in the Indo-Pak scenario. Lets not forget its a lot harder to hide, being the size of an elephant.

Some other issues:

* The PAF is actively acquiring an aerial refueling capability. Loitering is significantly lengthened for the FC-1 / JF-17 with aerial refueling.
* Later blocks are likely to be significantly more advanced.
* The Pakfa and the J-13 are not as far away as some people imagine.
* Pakistani J-10s will be a step up from the present J-10s and would easily act as force multipliers.
* Indian MRCA is also to be very seriously considered and countered, so are the present fleet of M-2000s and MiG-29s.
* Many IAF airbases are within easy range of Pakistani cruise missiles. Remember that the best place to destroy an enemy air force is on the ground..



Ultimately, success in the air will be determined by not only system effectiveness and capability, but by pilot skill, and the parameters of the engagement. That being said, it doesn't help to voluntarily go into a fight with one hand already tied behind your back, does it?

* As with the above analysis, it seems clear that nobody is going to a fight with their hands tied behind their back, at least not to me.
* It also does not help going into a football match with half the number the other team has.
* It also does not help if you never build an industrial base, and are forever tied to importing something vital like a fighter plane from abroad. And being dependent on a backstabbing "ally" that will make you pay for every purchase in blood.


Some other thoughts:

Building the right mix is important. Otherwise one ends up with spending billions of dollars on "some fighter" that is a technological miracle but can only afford - even after being the world's super power - less than 200 of them. Yes, the PAF could have afforded perhaps, 250 J-10s and had 100 F-16s and maintained a 350 plane fighter force against a foe having approximately twice that number. However, numbers do count, as has been observed in virtually every major sustained air war thus far, and the ability to take punishment and continue operating after the typical 2 weeks becomes a major issue, specially in a grand-and-classic scenario like the Pakistan - India duo. This is particularly true, now, given the better coordination, control and the rich sensor environment. All of which allow larger formations to engage on both sides. Imagine titanic clashes to take out major enemy air assets such as AWACS, and massive formations to protect the same.

It must be noted that when I say that the J-10s will be earmarked to counter the MKI, it does not mean that the FC-1 cannot handle the MKI. It is an unlikely scenario that in combat, the FC-1 will shy away from the MKI. However, aircombat exercises in China have shown that the J-10 is ideal at close combat against the MKI. Rather than the argument that the JF-17 is an inferior plane, its really quite a different matter. It is hoped that the J-10s, acting as force multipliers. As in the army, you have the regulars and then you have the elites, it does not mean that your regulars are useless inferior cr@p, nor that you build an army of elites only. Numbers surely count, and its always a general's art in knowing the right balance, knowing how valuable each asset is, and employing them optimally.

The best part of SOC's analysis is the consideration of long range SAMs, these might make things a bit more interesting, particularly for the IAF. This will be particularly true if they are well layered and linked to the overall airspace picture. However, present long range SAMs seem prohibitively expensive and this inevitably means something else might need to be left out.

Continuation of the Debate:

The range for the present Chinese radar is very likely to be more than 100 kms; considering that the PAF chief was comparing with PAF F-16s. The PAF F-16s underwent OCU which increased their range and made it close to MLU (see this)

"The Pakistan Air Force currently has the Block 15 F-16A/B model in operation, which has an upgraded APG-66 radar that brings it close to the MLU (Mid-life Update) radar technology. The main advantage is the ability to use the AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles if they were ever to be released to the PAF. Furthermore, the radar is capable of sorting out tight formations of aircraft and has a 15%-20% range increase over previous models. All the earlier F-16s were brought up to OCU standards and have received the Falcon UP structural modification package."

Consider this bit of information, and also that the APG-66 later modification values are against 1m^2 targets which will be further increased against a significantly greater RCS for the MKI.

Now consider statements made by the PAF Chief about the KLJ-7: is *much better* than their APGs (and these are the upgraded OCU APGs).

Secondly if you visit SOC's old post on FC-1 and see the exchange of comments, one poster pointed out that KLJ-7 beat the Grifo- S and PAF did not lowered their requirements (this includes a link that PAF did not lower it's requirement, and on that is by none other than Richard Fischer ). SOC in fact commented that it is a very potent radar looking at some mentioned features.

Clearly, the KLJ-7 was chosen over this "very potent radar" and clearly the PAF Chief mentions that the KLJ-7 is "much better" than the present APGs.


One would also want to ask what is the detection range by JET modulation when intakes are hidden and treated with RAM. Why does one poster think it is more important and potent than detection by using returns from the airframe when clearly returns from airframe of a non-stealthy aircraft will be in abundance.

Another assertion made is that the MKI has phased array and JF-17 has Pulse doppler and MKI can avoid JF-17 lock by using doppler notch where as MKI will have no problems with locking on as it's radar is not PD.

This is what is common knowledge at various forums:
1)Doppler notch has been known since time ancient and tactics against Doppler notch were known by USAF even back in Vietnam Era.
2) According to one of the viper pilots at the F-16 forum, they have way more modes on their radars and just by switching to different mode of detection and maneuvering your aircraft so that there is no 90 degrees between both aircrafts this dopler notch could be taken care of.
3)Another aviator said "no modern AI radar is worth it's salt if it can't resist doppler notch"

All of the above should be on F-16 forums if you search "doppler notch"

Here is a link to the F-16.net dicussion regarding beaming/doppler notch tactic to break lock of a pulse doppler radar.


To me it seems some bloggers out there find it easy to feed garbage to folks thinking they know nothing. With a small Pakistani online community it becomes a recurring problem, yet it seems one would never try this on Chinese posters.

 

[IceCold]

Ice cold.
Sorry to be a nit picker, but RD 39 B will have 10% more thrust not ten times. Secondly, if I am not mistaken, WS13 has 10%more thrust than the current RD93. So this may come to fruition sooner than we think. I completely agree with you that some changes are perfectly logical and should be attempted, ie increasing hard points, lowering weight and decreasing RCS. I also have heard ACMs interview where he has mentioned about increasing hardpoints to 9. I think we might see AESA sooner than the a decade. Infact we may well see AESA with the next tranche in 2011-12. JF17 B is very much on the cards as per PAF sources.
The picture you have posted has been posted courtesy of PShamim of Pakdef.info who is a senior PAF pilot and a resourceful gentleman.Personally, I agree with the writer of the article that this may be more of a tech demonstrator than anything concrete, but I guess we have to wait and see.
WaSalam
Araz

Well yes sir my bad, 10% more thrust and not 10 times. I must have mistakenly written it. However WS-13 according to wikipedia has 7% more thrust to the original RD and not 10 but with that it is also heavier then the original RD-93.
As for the radar well i very well agree with you that the Chinese will be able to develop an AESA radar sooner then a decade, but my point was an AESA radar of a standard similar to the APG-80 of the US will take almost a decade if not more.

 

[araz]

Well yes sir my bad, 10% more thrust and not 10 times. I must have mistakenly written it. However WS-13 according to wikipedia has 7% more thrust to the original RD and not 10 but with that it is also heavier then the original RD-93.
As for the radar well i very well agree with you that the Chinese will be able to develop an AESA radar sooner then a decade, but my point was an AESA radar of a standard similar to the APG-80 of the US will take almost a decade if not more.

Thank you for your response. My figure of 10%comes from Sino defence.today. Perhaps I remembered incorrectly. However, the news of WS13 being heavier that RD93 is news to me. We generally tend to find wiki an unreliable source. It would be kind of you to dig up another source to lay the matter to rest.
As to the issue of AESA radar, my contention was that you may be able to source an equally capable radar from a European source before that. The way technology is advancing these days, that is a significant possibility(perhaps a younger sibling odf RBE2/Selex)..
wa Salam
araz
WaSalam

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Raptor II/ H-4
Primary long range stand off weapon for JF-17...

[url="

- fa 18 hornet AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon JSOW[/url] almost same concept

 

[fatman17]

^^^looks very heavy and cumbersome.!!

 

[Myth_buster_1]

^^^looks very heavy and cumbersome.!!

just effective as Ra'ad.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

RD93

Regarding the latest report that the Russian government has approved China’s export of FC1 fighters fitted with RD93 engines to Pakistan and other 6 countries, Kanwa interviewed the vice general manager of Chernyshev Moscow Machine-building Complex.

Most of us are already aware of RD-93 approval to pakistan but the best part is 6 other customers!!

 

[Myth_buster_1]

hope later batch of 100 are something like this..

 

[IceCold]

hope later batch of 100 are something like this..

I too hope so that later blocks may turn out to be something like this but for know it appears as some kind of photo shop being used in it. Specially the last picture it is clearly a JSF with weapons mounted on the wingtips rather internally. Webby suggested that we may see a new version but not a raptor style and this if built will only be a technology demonstrator. but certainly the future looks bright for the jet. As the sales go up we will have plenty of money for R&D.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

do you see now, why I believe these rumours? it's because they turn out to be true in pakistan's case!

you can pretty much be sure now that up-coming batches for JF-17 will have IFR, IRST, AESA, 9 hardpoints, etc. trust me, things will get a hell of a lot more interesting in our region.