JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

[TaimiKhan]

There is a TVC variant in development possibaly its a WS-13 variant but it would take a lot of time if i am not wrong.

I believe we need a potent JHMCS system Backed by New Avionics system , Radar , Sensors , Targeting pods along with a TVC Engine.

That would doubble the Punch !

Taimikhan can give his verdict on this.

China has been since a long time working on the TVC technology, back in 2002 the then Chinese president was seen inspecting a PLAAF facility and testing the TVC engine nozzle. Below is the picture of that visit and him testing that thing.

And once the TVC engine is tested on one engine, it can be applied to any other engine also, provided there is a need.

RD-33 has a TVC variant, which is there in the Mig-35.

But BB, remember, with all the thing that you have said above, the price tag of JF-17 will go up considerably, and the role of a work horse for JF-17 will be lost.

150 JF-17s should be the simple ones, but simple doesn't means not deadly.

TVC will increase the cost of aircraft as well as maintenance problems.

But with a simple 2D TVC engine, HMS and current avionics or a little better ones, without increasing much of the cost, the JF-17 can still become a very deadly aircraft.

Once 150 figure is achieved, and if export orders are received, then PAF should go for a much more advanced version of JF-17, which can then become a front line aircraft.

 

[MZUBAIR]

Guys, in the wing configuration, apart from having a distinctive cranked delta configuration, the F-7PG wing has leading edge slats, which gives the PG version much more agility and low speed handling compared to say the Mirage or the MIG-21 series.

Good post,
Can these cranked delta wing AC's be delievered to Navy with Mirage's after complete induction of JF-17.

Would these delta wing F-7 (versions) be effective for Navy.

 

[MZUBAIR]

Come on. Just check the specs. There is a load of difference between Su27 and Su30. Its just the airframe that is same and for a reason, it is the most maneuverable airframe in the world, why change something that is perfect??

On the other hand check these. There isn't any major structural difference and very minor internal differences too. The only difference is single piece windshield replacing the 3-piece windshield of the J-7P

If the airframe is same....then this means that

One Air frame ...........and u can develop SU-30, SU 27 wilth only modifications in specifications.

Then we can also conclude that SU-27 can be upgraded to MKI..........as u said its only specifications which are different.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Ok Gys, i believe Sapper and some other members have in detail explained the F-7P and F-7PG differentiation, so now get back to the topic. No more of the F-7P & PG stuff.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

Thanks for the correction buddy, albeit i did read somewhere the term slats

u will find slate in M2k,Rafale,Ef2000,LCA,f4,f14,harrier,large passenger and cargo aircrafts besides most of aircrafts contain Leading Edge Slate.
but u will find leading edge flap in F16,f18,f22,f5,f35,jf-17,su27/30, etc.
LEF are different from LES,slate moves foreword and downward hence increases the area of wing that provide lift but LEF works like rare Flaps of aircraft.rather going forward like Slates they just bend downward and do the same job of Slate.

this is what slate is Wapedia - Wiki: Leading edge slats

and read here the LEF.
Emerald: Article Request - Leading-Edge Flaps and Variable Camber: Notes on Some Research Carried Out since 1945

regards

 

[Aslan]

I dont want to start another thread to ask this one question! I can relate it to JF 17, and am sure that it wont be much off topic. If it is I would much appreciate it if some one can pm me the answer.
Lets say for example that tom the Pakistan in collaboration with China decides that they need a naval version of thunder. Why would they have to reconfigure the AC to fit the deal. In simple words why does the same AC have to have 2 different variants one for the AF and the other for Naval purpose. Why cant the same AC be used for both.
Again sorry if I was off topic, curiosity got the best of me I guess.

 

[Super Falcon]

jf 17 made for interceptor role and ground attack role sir

 

[Kompromat]

China has been since a long time working on the TVC technology, back in 2002 the then Chinese president was seen inspecting a PLAAF facility and testing the TVC engine nozzle. Below is the picture of that visit and him testing that thing.

And once the TVC engine is tested on one engine, it can be applied to any other engine also, provided there is a need.

RD-33 has a TVC variant, which is there in the Mig-35.

But BB, remember, with all the thing that you have said above, the price tag of JF-17 will go up considerably, and the role of a work horse for JF-17 will be lost.

150 JF-17s should be the simple ones, but simple doesn't means not deadly.

TVC will increase the cost of aircraft as well as maintenance problems.

But with a simple 2D TVC engine, HMS and current avionics or a little better ones, without increasing much of the cost, the JF-17 can still become a very deadly aircraft.

Once 150 figure is achieved, and if export orders are received, then PAF should go for a much more advanced version of JF-17, which can then become a front line aircraft.

Sir i think all we need is a better radar and avionics package and that would be enough for JHMCS or HMDS either way.

TVC + HDMS will eventually show up in later blocks , though not as capable as Block 52+ but still it would have an advantage over its earlier models.

This is how i see it.

If the french deal goes through that would be great because we will get french HMDS anyway.

But if it doesn't there would be any other systems coming in possibaly an AESA radar too and as we know Thunders would have a Chinese Targeting pod on board.

Here is the Idea.
Combine Integration of AIM-9 , A-Darter , PL-9C , IRIS-T ?, targeting pod , IRST , AESA radar or RC-400? (Chinese AESA solution) , PL-10 , Mica? , AWACS and HMD/S .

Please remember that they are all "planned upgrades" and i have not included anything else so i suppose they are in our budget but if we buy anything else than that will surely increase costs ie a new Electronic warfare system and new Jamming Pods.

When This system will be installed along with a TVC Engine it will make Thunder the most capable air craft in its class and Price tag.

regards:

 

[SEAL]

WS-13

 

[hataf]

WS-13

i can't see your picture

 

[SEAL]

i can't see your picture/QUOTE]


ÎÐÉÈÖ®¼ÒµÄÏà²á - ÍøÒײ©¿Í

 

[Sanchez]

China has been since a long time working on the TVC technology, back in 2002 the then Chinese president was seen inspecting a PLAAF facility and testing the TVC engine nozzle. Below is the picture of that visit and him testing that thing.

And once the TVC engine is tested on one engine, it can be applied to any other engine also, provided there is a need.

RD-33 has a TVC variant, which is there in the Mig-35.

But BB, remember, with all the thing that you have said above, the price tag of JF-17 will go up considerably, and the role of a work horse for JF-17 will be lost.

150 JF-17s should be the simple ones, but simple doesn't means not deadly.

TVC will increase the cost of aircraft as well as maintenance problems.

But with a simple 2D TVC engine, HMS and current avionics or a little better ones, without increasing much of the cost, the JF-17 can still become a very deadly aircraft.

Once 150 figure is achieved, and if export orders are received, then PAF should go for a much more advanced version of JF-17, which can then become a front line aircraft.

China developed both 2D and 3D TVC nozzles. They are modular that can be used on selected engines with minimum modification. Given the present status of Chinese fighters and engines none of the TVC installations has been found beneficial. J-10 has good agility and needs more thrust. J-11B is OK but TH engines need to be matured first. For FC-1/JF-17 WS-13 engines also need maturing and increase thrust. If all the elements are there, TVC engine is no big problem for China.

 

[khanasifm]

ÊÀ½çÂÛ̳Íø£ºÊÀ½ç¾üÊÂÂÛ̳ - ÊÀ½ç¾üÊÂÂÛ̳

Deliver: feiyang on May 04, 2010 01:57:28 transmits the intimate conversation in [world military forum]

　　Fierce Dragon” the fighter plane replacement domestic product WS12 engine's work already started, but was considered originally imitates Russia RD93 WS12, it is said actually unexpectedly imitates US F404!

　　“Taishan” unexpectedly imitates F404?

　　Really Taishan is that fishing 9500, I said that before how a little looks like RD93, the half

　　zt:

　　FC-1 other export models and the domestic version use the FWS12 engine,

　　Is also more than 20 for years has done so-called new pushes, the prototype imitates F404, at present through enlarges to with ease achieves 95KN with RD33 same the thrust force. Then through certain rumors, new FC-1 uses the new material to boost compared to achieves 1.05, already enough could resist the Western three generation of molding machines, what but domestic version is also uses the original engine with this plan not to know.

　　This sends newly the model, already had other countries to look. It is estimated that the market is not small. Pakistan's people participated in the entire journey improvement, (certainly is study), but how does Pakistan is elect not to know.

　　If with the Chinese four generation of navigation electricity, that estimate must wait, if usage Air China, that money is not ordinary.

　　Installed new engine's FC-1 only to slide more than a 400 meters spot to suffice to fly. Heard that complete personnel in March immediately has paid out quite one monthly salary bonus ......

 

[TaimiKhan]

I dont want to start another thread to ask this one question! I can relate it to JF 17, and am sure that it wont be much off topic. If it is I would much appreciate it if some one can pm me the answer.
Lets say for example that tom the Pakistan in collaboration with China decides that they need a naval version of thunder. Why would they have to reconfigure the AC to fit the deal. In simple words why does the same AC have to have 2 different variants one for the AF and the other for Naval purpose. Why cant the same AC be used for both.
Again sorry if I was off topic, curiosity got the best of me I guess.

The naval variant term is used for aircraft which has carrier landing and taking off capability. Naval variants are approx 30% or so expensive compared to a normal fighter variant, reason being the structure of the aircraft has to be strong to take the pounding of carrier landings, which are very hard if you look at carrier landings. Then there are structural materials which are different, as sea environment is different compared to land environment, thus effecting the aircraft structure, plus some other modifications to adjust to the naval carrier operations.

But in our case, when we talk about a naval variant, that means the aircraft should be having a radar which is capable enough to detect ships at long ranges and then able to fire the AShM at the intended target.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

Thunder's old Cockpit.

this one is mock cockpit of first two models plans,dummy aircrafts of thunder.