JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 2]

[Zob]

see if we try selling our fighters to NK it will be a sucide cuz i think currently the SOUTH has alot of high tech stuff like jammers stealth research going on which we can benefit from. befriending the NORTH now is just another way of spoiling PAKISTANs imagine in the world further. let RUSSIA andchina help the north we sit it out on the bench.

I also wonder which jammers PAF plans to put on board theJF in the near future will they be the ALQ131s....

 

[Munir]

According the US and Indians we got their missile technology... What is wrong in selling les sdangerous conventional weapons? India sponsored Tamil terrorists for decades. We just create a market.

 

[fatman17]

see if we try selling our fighters to NK it will be a sucide cuz i think currently the SOUTH has alot of high tech stuff like jammers stealth research going on which we can benefit from. befriending the NORTH now is just another way of spoiling PAKISTANs imagine in the world further. let RUSSIA andchina help the north we sit it out on the bench.

I also wonder which jammers PAF plans to put on board theJF in the near future will they be the ALQ131s....

if pak-china do sell to NK, i think it will be the FC-1 and not the JF-17 which will be pak-specific. sales to other countries will also be for the FC-1.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

if pak-china do sell to NK, i think it will be the FC-1 and not the JF-17 which will be pak-specific. sales to other countries will also be for the FC-1.

Azerbaijan is currently negotiating JF-17 with pakistan not FC-1.

 

[fatman17]

Azerbaijan is currently negotiating JF-17 with pakistan not FC-1.

could be.!!!

 

[Bull]

According the US and Indians we got their missile technology... What is wrong in selling les sdangerous conventional weapons? India sponsored Tamil terrorists for decades. We just create a market.

Are you equating the NK govt to Tamil tiger terrorists ?

 

[mean_bird]

Some new pics

 

[araz]

Keep them coming Brother
Araz

 

[hj786]

I posted this a few pages back but nobody replied. Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

We know that one of the upgrades being considered for JF is a FLIR/IRST sensor, removing the need to carry IRST/FLIR pods on the hardpoints. But an IRST/FLIR sensor would add a small amount of drag to the airframe if fitted in a similar spot as on J-11 or Typhoon, i.e. above the nose, offset to one side slightly. It may also cause some small reduction in pilot visibility.

Placing the sensor underneath the nose/fuselage would prevent any reduction in visibility, but the drag penalty would still be present. This position may also cause problems in aerodynamics for anything mounted on the centre hardpoint (and other fuselage hardpoints, if pshamim's report that two additional hardpoints will be added "on the fuselage near the air intakes" is true).

After looking at some pictures of the front of JF, I noticed that a possible solution may be to fit FLIR/IRST sensors inside the JF's divertless supersonic intake bumps. The tip of each bump appears to have a good field of view:
Front view:
1833502584_f3014856d8_b - Pakistan Defence Gallery
Front and to one side:
JF-17 Thunder - Pakistan Defence Gallery
Side view:
235 - Pakistan Defence Gallery
One more view from below:
JF-17 Thunder - Pakistan Defence Gallery

The view above the aircraft is restricted because of the angle of the intakes, however:
JF-17 Thunder - Pakistan Defence Gallery

Installing two IR sensors (one in each bump) may cause a higher increase in weight than a single external FLIR/IRST pod, but I think this is a price worth paying to free up an extra hardpoint and reduce drag on the small airframe. Close proximity to the fuel tanks would also mean less coolant lines required to send coolant for the sensors to heat-sinks placed in the fuel tanks.

Thoughts?

 

[mean_bird]

I posted this a few pages back but nobody replied. Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

"Installing two IR sensors (one in each bump) may cause a higher increase in weight than a single external FLIR/IRST pod, but I think this is a price worth paying to free up an extra hardpoint and reduce drag on the small airframe. Close proximity to the fuel tanks would also mean less coolant lines required to send coolant for the sensors to heat-sinks placed in the fuel tanks.

Thoughts?"

First things first...

1. Those "bumps" are not there just as a wastage of space that you can fit the FLIR/IRST into. They are there after some really complex mathematics and computationally expensive as well extensive simulations. They are there to take care of the turbulent boundary layer flow at supersonic speeds. The DSI bump functions as a compression surface and creates a pressure distribution that prevents the majority of the boundary layer air from entering the inlet at high speed.

2. Why do you need two IR sensors? Its like saying, lets have 2 radars....no lets have one more powerful one.

3. Ofcourse, they should work to free a hard point. Like they put that little box on the tail for ECM suite instead of a pod, a Sukhoi/eurofighter style IRST won't be a bad idea.

Yes, it blocks a portion of the Pilots sight, but it won't cause that much of drag or increase in RCS because its directly in front of the cockpit.

Another location could be like this

 

[PAFAce]

Source: JF-17 In Flight

One thing I have noticed a few times when I've seen the JF-17 fly (videos or pictures) is the black smoke out of the engine. Is this an issue with the design of the JF-17 RD-93 engine or just a malfunction in one or two that we've got? Also, why does this happen and how can this be fixed?

Edit

There have been some problems. The engine was emitting black smoke, which makes it easier for the enemy pilot to spot the plane. This puts the pilot in inferior position during a dogfight. It is not clear whether the fuel or the engine was responsible for the smoke and the issue has been resolved.
Source: JF-17 RD-93

Apparently, the problem had been resolved before 2005. Yet, in the picture above, black smoke is quite visible.

Another thing to notice is that the JF-17 painted in Pakistani and Chinese flag colours that flew in Pakistani airspace on March 23, 2007 did not emit any visible black smoke

.

Therefore, I answer my own question. The black smoke issue has been resolved with the RD-93 engine. Some early versions of the JF-17 were probably fitted with the faulty engines, but there is nothing to worry about anymore.

 

[mean_bird]

AFAIK ( I may be wrong), but there are two things responsible.

1. The fuel type used

2. The intakes for the engine. Earlier models had problem with air intakes that let to
insufficient air at high speed and the aircraft somehow mach limited and also more smoky. With the introduction of DSI, things have gone better.

Another possibility could be some adjustment to the engine itself, thereby reducing the smoke emitted.

 

[Zob]

well my answer is this that usually Soviet era or russian in genral use smoky engines look at the MIG29 videos as well or any russian fighter video for that matter!! the russians prefer the power rather than efficeny or less visble trail concept.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,


And so did the PHANTOM jets. But smoke is no big deal for now.

 

[saiko]

well my answer is this that usually Soviet era or russian in genral use smoky engines look at the MIG29 videos as well or any russian fighter video for that matter!! the russians prefer the power rather than efficeny or less visble trail concept.

I think it was really an engine design problem that the Russians overlooked to keep costs down. I am no engine expert, but I can't imagine any reason why a smoke-free combustion chamber would in any way hurt performance.

The Mig-35 program addressed 2 of the biggest complaints about the Mig-29 - lack of range and a smoke trail for enemy AA to follow directly to your plane. And I can't imagine if you're in a close-up fight with someone in your Mig-29A you would appreciate the long trail that leads directly to your 6.