JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 1]

[Arsalan]

no their is not only one but whole bunch of them
though their would be no point if F-16s are never released, but i personally dont see that happening

.

okes if we do get them,, do you think we need them and can you please specify there role???

why do we need a tanker?? are we going to start a global campaing with our F16z block 15z or what !!!!

 

[Myth_buster_1]

.

okes if we do get them,, do you think we need them and can you please specify there role???

why do we need a tanker?? are we going to start a global campaing with our F16z block 15z or what !!!!

ok i think you are little bit off uptodate.
first of all you should know by now that block 15 will be upgraded to block 52 standard well its called "MLU M3". and they will be able to challenge any non stealth fighter in the world! the Erieye will be pretty much our 24/7 eyes up in the air each doing 7-9 hours each and they need F-16s accompany as well. with the induction of KC-135 our F-16s should comfortably perform in all 4 air commands at onces. so suppose the Navy needs AF support from F-16s which are based a thousand KM and 500Km away. by the time they reach at the battle they would have finished almost half the fuel so the combat time would be really really less!

 

[General Fujita]

just out of curiosity, from the proposed upgrades for jf-17, is it likely that thet later models will include canards, thereby improving its manuverbility?

 

[araz]

just out of curiosity, from the proposed upgrades for jf-17, is it likely that thet later models will include canards, thereby improving its manuverbility?

All the future upgrade proposals that i have seen or heard of do not mention canards, although use of more composites and a double tailed model has been proposed. I personally think that if PAF wanted a canard design it could have been incorporated as PAF had already assessed the Gripen. JF17 was designed for quick integration to fit the requirements of Third world Airforces and does the job ery well consiering the interest it has generated.
Regards
Araz

 

[Arsalan]

first of all you should know by now that block 15 will be upgraded to block 52 standard well its called "MLU M3". and they will be able to challenge any non stealth fighter in the world! the Erieye will be pretty much our 24/7 eyes up in the air each doing 7-9 hours each and they need F-16s accompany as well. with the induction of KC-135 our F-16s should comfortably perform in all 4 air commands at onces.

yaar i wish this is true,,the upgrade topic,,, but the upgrades by americans do not include BVR,, they are for precision ground attacks,,

anyways i m still confused that which far of battel feild we want to fight at for which we need these tankers?? and specially i such large numbers!! Pakistan is not a global operater even our navy is for the protection of our coast lines and it is not a lue water navy!! this has been stated a thousand times by various officials i just want ti say that instead of getting these system which are MAYBE, SOMETIME,SOMEWHERE !! we must pay more attention to more important thimgs,,

invest these funds in JF17 or J10, get some good SAMz which we do not have!!

what do you think,, not as a critic but as a neutral!!!

 

[Arsalan]

just out of curiosity, from the proposed upgrades for jf-17, is it likely that thet later models will include canards, thereby improving its manuverbility?

will it be good??
Advantages:
1.Possibility for very good stalling characteristics without elevator stops.

2.Sometimes a desirable layout from the packaging standpoint: Main wing carry-through behind cabin, pusher engine installation simplified.

3.Synergistic use of winglets for directional stability.

4.In certain cases a simplified control linkage is possible.

5.When wing flaps are not desired (for simplicity as in ultralights, or competition rules as with standard class sailplanes for example) the CLmax of a canard may exceed that of an aft-tail airplane.

6.For unstable aircraft, canard designs may have a CLmax and/or drag advantage.

7.Control authority is larger for unstable canard aircraft at high CL than for unstable aft-tail designs.

Disadvantages:
1.Fuel center of gravity lies farther behind aircraft c.g. than in conventional designs. This means that a large c.g. range is produced or that the fuel must be held elsewhere (e.g. strakes near the wing root.)

2.CLmax problems with flaps or margin on the entire wing: Flaps produce a larger pitching moment about the c.g. on a canard aircraft. This results in the need for both large canard aerodynamic incidence change and high maximum canard lift coefficient. Note that since the value of a S is usually larger for canard designs, Cm0 has a greater impact on L than it does on aft-swept designs.

3.Induced drag / CLmax incompatibility: Canard designs can achieve equal or better CLmax values than conventional designs, and similar values of span efficiency. However, the configurations with high CLmax values have terrible values of e and those with respectable e 's have low maximum lift coefficients.

Directional stability: The distance from the aircraft c.g. to the most aft part of the airplane is usually smaller on canard aircraft. This poses a problem for locating a vertical stabilizer and may result in very large vertical surfaces. (Note, however, that winglets may be used to advantage in this case.)

4.Wing twist distribution is strange and CL dependent: The wing additional load distribution is distorted by the canard wake.

5.Power effects on canard - deep stall: Accidents have been associated with tractor canard configurations for which the propeller slipstream has prevented canard stall before wing stall. The result is a possible deep-stall problem.

6.Finally, and perhaps most importantly, canard sizing is much more critical than aft tail sizing. By choosing a canard which is somewhat too big or too small the aircraft performance can be severely affected. It is easy to make a very bad canard design.

 

[Arsalan]

All the future upgrade proposals that i have seen or heard of do not mention canards, although use of more composites and a double tailed model has been proposed. I personally think that if PAF wanted a canard design it could have been incorporated as PAF had already assessed the Gripen. JF17 was designed for quick integration to fit the requirements of Third world Airforces and does the job ery well consiering the interest it has generated.

that the case with me also, no news of any such modification,,and also for this they will have to make a completely new airframe i guess!! so sounds impossible,,,

 

[Munir]

will it be good??
Advantages:
1.Possibility for very good stalling characteristics without elevator stops.

2.Sometimes a desirable layout from the packaging standpoint: Main wing carry-through behind cabin, pusher engine installation simplified.

3.Synergistic use of winglets for directional stability.

4.In certain cases a simplified control linkage is possible.

5.When wing flaps are not desired (for simplicity as in ultralights, or competition rules as with standard class sailplanes for example) the CLmax of a canard may exceed that of an aft-tail airplane.

6.For unstable aircraft, canard designs may have a CLmax and/or drag advantage.

7.Control authority is larger for unstable canard aircraft at high CL than for unstable aft-tail designs.

Disadvantages:
1.Fuel center of gravity lies farther behind aircraft c.g. than in conventional designs. This means that a large c.g. range is produced or that the fuel must be held elsewhere (e.g. strakes near the wing root.)

2.CLmax problems with flaps or margin on the entire wing: Flaps produce a larger pitching moment about the c.g. on a canard aircraft. This results in the need for both large canard aerodynamic incidence change and high maximum canard lift coefficient. Note that since the value of a S is usually larger for canard designs, Cm0 has a greater impact on L than it does on aft-swept designs.

3.Induced drag / CLmax incompatibility: Canard designs can achieve equal or better CLmax values than conventional designs, and similar values of span efficiency. However, the configurations with high CLmax values have terrible values of e and those with respectable e 's have low maximum lift coefficients.

Directional stability: The distance from the aircraft c.g. to the most aft part of the airplane is usually smaller on canard aircraft. This poses a problem for locating a vertical stabilizer and may result in very large vertical surfaces. (Note, however, that winglets may be used to advantage in this case.)

4.Wing twist distribution is strange and CL dependent: The wing additional load distribution is distorted by the canard wake.

5.Power effects on canard - deep stall: Accidents have been associated with tractor canard configurations for which the propeller slipstream has prevented canard stall before wing stall. The result is a possible deep-stall problem.

6.Finally, and perhaps most importantly, canard sizing is much more critical than aft tail sizing. By choosing a canard which is somewhat too big or too small the aircraft performance can be severely affected. It is easy to make a very bad canard design.

Military planes are optimized for combat and not other principles. Just show me a fighter plane with winglets... Adding these features will turn JF17 into a economic trainer but would be a waste of time and resources if you need a multirole fighter.

 

[Arsalan]

Military planes are optimized for combat and not other principles. Just show me a fighter plane with winglets... Adding these features will turn JF17 into a economic trainer but would be a waste of time and resources if you need a multirole fighter.

ok actually it was stated in a post above that jf17 may be undergoing this modification but i havent learnt about it from any source,,also i have mentioned that

no news of any such modification,,and also for this they will have to make a completely new airframe i guess!! so sounds impossible,,,

so you suggest that this will not be a good design, but yaar now many modren planes are using canard airframes like the eurofighter typhoon and j10, what is that case then??

and as far as i have learnt from the above points this design do have greater manuverability!!so can you please put some light on your clame, it will be useful

regards

 

[zavis2003]

well block 52 F16 has how much BVR Search range?

 

[Black Stone]

anyways i m still confused that which far of battel feild we want to fight at for which we need these tankers?? and specially i such large numbers!! Pakistan is not a global operater even our navy is for the protection of our coast lines and it is not a lue water navy!! this has been stated a thousand times by various officials i just want ti say that instead of getting these system which are MAYBE, SOMETIME,SOMEWHERE !! we must pay more attention to more important thimgs,,

invest these funds in JF17 or J10, get some good SAMz which we do not have!!

what do you think,, not as a critic but as a neutral!!!

Although stengthening the Air Force is a good thing, but don't you think it is better to spend this money on the people of Pakistan given the current economic crisis of the nation?.

 

[BATMAN]

yaar i wish this is true,,the upgrade topic,,, but the upgrades by americans do not include BVR,, they are for precision ground attacks,,

Pakistan Purchases 500 AIM-120C5 Missiles

AIM-120 AMRAAM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/3524-raytheon-closes-284-m-deal-pakistan-2.html

 

[Myth_buster_1]

yaar i wish this is true,,the upgrade topic,,, but the upgrades by americans do not include BVR,, they are for precision ground attacks,,

oh abbay yaar for onces drop this crappi F-16 conspiracies and rumors! who said our F-16s are only meant for ground attacks?! that pkpolitics needs a good kick at the rear end! i suppose thats where you are getting your information from right?
these oxymoron NGOs anti-military have got nothing to do so they spread their fazuul lil girls rumors around.
sorry no offense to you.
anyways. PAF knows these F-16s inside out more then any one in the world, well other then US and israel. they know their requirements and how to meet them and they will make sure the US does it for them and ACM made it clear that they will never accept handicapped F-16s or in any conditions!
all PAF F-16s will be equipped with APG-68v9 (same as IDAF F-16I).

and lol.. PAF did not order 500 AMRAAMs to keep them in storages or museums.

PAF F-16 new armament package.

Air-2-Air
-500 AMRAAM AIM-120C5
-200 AIM-9M-8/9 (they are the version before the fifth-generation AIM-9X)
-unspecified number of 5th generation WVR : A-Darter or Aim-132
-compatible for MICA

Air-2-ground
-500 JDAM
-800 MK-82 & MK-84
-700 BLU-109 with the FMU-143
-TOT of AGM-154 JASOW (underproduction)

lol i am telling... this is just convincing game by PAF for saying that these F-16s will only be used against WOT. however if needed they will deliver attacks with more precision.
so yes.. they are BVR ++++++ capable! APG-69V9 has a range of 260+ KM aganist SU-30 size target.

anyways i m still confused that which far of battel feild we want to fight at for which we need these tankers?? and specially i such large numbers!! Pakistan is not a global operater even our navy is for the protection of our coast lines and it is not a lue water navy!! this has been stated a thousand times by various officials i just want ti say that instead of getting these system which are MAYBE, SOMETIME,SOMEWHERE !! we must pay more attention to more important thimgs,,

invest these funds in JF17 or J10, get some good SAMz which we do not have!!

what do you think,, not as a critic but as a neutral!!!

with the induction of air refueling tankers...
IN SIMPLE WORDS! MORE TIME IN AIR! AND MORE BATTLE TIME!
do you even know an F-16 can only spend no more then 30min on battle ground! so they get trusty and need argent refueling.

their is no point for investing additional billions of dollars on JF-17 when they are meant to be cost effective yet very capable platforms. however last 100 JF-17 batch i hope will be a improved version of 1st and 2nd block.

frankly speaking, its not worth spending over a billion dollars on just 18 brand new F-16s but still very very capable MRCA and it also includes almost life time spare parts, though i am in big big big favor of block15 MLU program.

SAMs are being taken care now finally.
large number of spada-2000 have been ordered, so the medium long range SAM requirement have been taken care of, now PAF/PA are evaluating long range SAMs.

- FT-2000
- S-300/400?
- SL "surface launched" AIM-120
- SL SD-10
- SL MICA

 

[Arsalan]

oh abbay yaar for onces drop this crappi F-16 conspiracies and rumors! who said our F-16s are only meant for ground attacks?! that pkpolitics needs a good kick at the rear end! i suppose thats where you are getting your information from right?
these oxymoron NGOs anti-military have got nothing to do so they spread their fazuul lil girls rumors around.
sorry no offense to you.
anyways. PAF knows these F-16s inside out more then any one in the world, well other then US and israel. they know their requirements and how to meet them and they will make sure the US does it for them and ACM made it clear that they will never accept handicapped F-16s or in any conditions!

lol i am telling... this is just convincing game by PAF for saying that these F-16s will only be used against WOT. however if needed they will deliver attacks with more precision.

now this sounds intresting and maybe maybe true, i wish the americans are stupid enough to sign the deal thinking that ,,oh yes, these BVRz will be used against AlQaeda,


PAF F-16 new armament package.

Air-2-Air
-500 AMRAAM AIM-120C5
-200 AIM-9M-8/9 (they are the version before the fifth-generation AIM-9X)
-unspecified number of 5th generation WVR : A-Darter or Aim-132
-compatible for MICA

Air-2-ground
-500 JDAM
-800 MK-82 & MK-84
-700 BLU-109 with the FMU-143
-TOT of AGM-154 JASOW (underproduction)

and yes this is very right pakistan did accquired this pack, so maybe what you are saying can be true,

i think it will be upgrades from turkey!!

and by the way what would be the pattren of these upgrade on one hand it will be from and americans and on other we are dealing with turkey can you specify the differences??

 

[Arsalan]

with the induction of air refueling tankers...
IN SIMPLE WORDS! MORE TIME IN AIR! AND MORE BATTLE TIME!
do you even know an F-16 can only spend no more then 30min on battle ground! so they get trusty and need argent refueling.

Combat radius: 340 NM (295 mi, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 2,280 NM (2,620 mi, 4,220 km) with drop tanks
so ????????????

though i am in big big big favor of block15 MLU program.

who is not??
we all want this to happen but want it soon, it will for sure add to the muscels of PAF??