JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Stick to the topic please.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

i need help here.
can any one tell me,is there any aircraft display program at masroor airbase karachi this 6 or 7 september?or it helds somewhere else in karachi?
how to get there and is there any kind or restriction for common people?
plz do answer it!

 

[BATMAN]

When hardware performance, such as rate of turn, sustainable g or thrust to weight ratio, between competing aircrafts begin to fall within %10 of each other, human factors such as training, experience, skill level and raw talent will have more influence on the outcome when the aircrafts are matched against each other. Note that US adversary air training uses technologically inferior aircrafts, such as the A-4 or the F-5, and routinely the adversary air pilots either outright defeat their opponents or made it very difficult for their opponents to use any hardware advantages in a fight. US Navy Top Gun instructors usually have far more flight hours and were among the top pilots at sea before their duties as adversary air trainers. I worked on a few US Navy F-16N and those F-16s were old A and C models and these pilots still gave their opponents good beatings.

There is no dispute that better man behind the machine matters as much as machine.
I didn't mentioned it because this was not under discussion.
On the subject.. we believe that PAF pilots are best in the world and as i said they have proved it in there battles with india, russia .............

Outside of this %10 margin and numerical superiority will be needed to anticipate and counter advantages created by the superior hardware. For example -- Fighters are g-limited by fuel load and weapons stores, the latter are external and centrifugal forces can do severe structural damages if the limiters are disabled or ignored. The F-16 is g-limited only by external stores and can sustain 9g turns with a full fuel load. It does not mean the aircraft will exceed that human safety figure of 9g with less fuel load.

these sort of practical limitations, conditions, cirumstances make JF-17blk1 an equal match even to F-16blk50/52.

But what it does mean is that the air force that fly the F-16 can afford to base closer to the front line to take maximum advantage of this performance level to have increased time over the battlefield, ground or air, to penetrate deeper into enemy territory, again it is either ground or air, and if there is an aerial combat along the way, the F-16 will have enough fuel to use afterburners as often as he needed without worrying too much about fuel. The fighter that is outside of this %10 margin that goes up against the F-16 will need companions to try to anticipate the F-16's superior maneuverability to bring the F-16 down.

Agreed.. but we are going back to the specs. comparison and we all know that F-16 leads JF-17 in number of hardpoints, and longer loitering time... but JF-17 is a better airframe, better avionics and ecm suite and in war senario we can fly more sorties to over come lag in loitering time and hardpoints.
Most o fabove.. i doubt that PAF had to go up against F-16 any time soon and i was also challenging the other listed a/c.

Specs? The above F-16's fuel load example is only one of many criterias and I am going to expand on fuel a little to give you a sample of this complex issue.

Weapons and fuel are 'consumables', the radar computer is not a 'consumable' item, it is vital to aircraft operations. Weapons and fuel contribute to the aircraft's overall mass and can vary from day to day, making the aircraft's overall mass also a variable, so the goal is 'mass centralization' as mass distribution have a direct relationship to maneuverability. Fuel is unique in that as a liquid, its mass can move inside a container, aka 'sloshing', and the effect is well known from auto racing to boats to space...

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090022238_2009022184.pdf


Basic physics tells us there is no such thing as 'decceleration', only 'acceleration' in the opposite direction and every time an aircraft make a maneuver like the famous split-S, there are 'acceleration fields' everywhere.

So to minimize the effect of fuel and its variable mass, an efficient fuel management scheme must be installed. Engine feed from the main fuselage tanks, but at the same time fuel from the wings are transfered inward into the fuselage tanks, keeping them full. If there are any external wing tanks hanging off pylons, their fuel is transferred up into the internal wing tanks, which then continue to be transferred into the fuselage tanks. Remember, we want to minimize centrifugal effects on mass that is furthest from the main body. Airliners have a different fuel management scheme where wing fuel remain there to maintain rigidity and stability for passenger comfort but that is another issue. For the F-16, how its fuel tanks are designed along with its efficient fuel management scheme contribute to its ability to sustain 9g turns while its fuselage tanks are full. In the real world, nothing is perfect so every fuel storage and management system will always be less than 1. A poorly designed fuel storage system will degrade or even negate any efficiency provided by the fuel transfer system, dragging the entire fuel system further away from 1. Management of 'consumables' will make or break a fighter.

In a typical combat scenario, an F-16 can take-off with a centerline external fuel tank, a 'consumable' item. On its wings will be bombs and missiles, more 'consumables' items. Over the target area, the centerline fuel tank will be empty but the tank itself will be retained. Then bombs are delivered. As the fighter attempts to return home, he is set upon by the opposing air force. He discard the centerline fuel tank to reduce mass. Now he is 'clean' with only missiles whose mass contribute minimal centrifugal effects in a turn. He is also most likely with full or near full internal fuel available for the coming aerial combat. If the opposing fighter have fuel related g-limiter while the F-16 does not, then fuel will be considered a negative factor against the opposing fighter. The F-16 will be able to out maneuver and out accelerate his opponent. The opposing fighter can make up for this deficiency with other factors such as two engines, or a more powerful radar, or along with the more powerful radar are longer distance missiles...etc...etc...But all these other factors cannot fall outside that %10 margin of performance comparability. The more any or all of these other factors fall outside of this %10 margin, the less pilot training, experience, skill and raw talent are able to compensate. I have tools in my garage but even a master mechanic is limited with my tools versus what he can accomplish with his professionally equipped shop.

The base F-16A model is still the standard for small and multi-role fighters in terms of performance. Any evolution, aka lettered (C/D) designations or 'blocks' of models, are essentially add-ons that increased the lethality of this base model. For example -- Changing to a higher output wattage radar or changing the flight control computer from analog to digital also does not affect the g-load capability of the airframe. These changes are described as 'C' or 'H' or whatever letter we want to use. So the answer to your question is mixed for this complex issue.

This is good information and i thank you for hte effort...
Now in reference to JF-17 in strike role, where more fule is critical, air to air refuling can incrase the strike radious of JF-17 and it is enough to destroy more than what we call forward bases and any thing flying into Pakistan from long distance loose its large fuel tank advantage any way!
remember i'm using F-16 as bench mark because i consider it better than any thing in InAf inventory.

If the JF-17 has an all digital avionics system but is g-limited due to varying fuel load, meaning sustainable turn rate is inverse to internal fuel load, then in a turning fight, the odds of losing to an all analog F-16A is good. Notice I said 'odds' as nothing but death and taxes are guaranteed. But if the JF-17 has a more powerful radar and longer distance missile to match, then how superior is the F-16A in a turn is largely irrelevant.

Now this is some thing debateable...where did you got this information that JF-17 fuel managment is inferior to to F-16!!!
JF-17 has better radar than F-16A but you certainly are in no position to compare the maneuvaribility of JF-17 with any aircraft.
On the other hand there should be no doubt that JF-17 has passed PAF's benchmarks very convincingly and we have already slashed our orders of F-16blk52.

Against later F-16 blocks, we have to examine the individual performance criterias, do some analysis and make an educated guess as how capable a JF-17 pilot could be, not will be, against his opponent.
Clear as mud?

PAF will certainly do that but i trust F-16blk 52 may have an edge on specs. and we don't need to compare it on spec. to spec. basis but it is for the buyer to decide if that 5~10% advantage in radar and avionics is required or not.

I hope you will abandon this tendency to make blanket statement after the sample explanation above.

You are right but all these details had been discussed to death in earlier stages of this thread.
At the moment only new thing is new members asking same history and monotonous replies are quite natural.
Don't expect that i will detail JF-17 over and over again, even in future.
but again i appreciate you positive affort very sincierly.

 

[BATMAN]

Hi,

Salute Sir, Mastan.

The F 16 lock onto the su 30 doesnot mean anything---the plane was within pak territory---the IAF let paf lock on---play the game---how far was paf ready to take it---I bet not too far---how about IAF---I believe---all the way----it was used as a bait---paf didnot fall into the trap.

Could be any thing but that lock certainly changed the indian stand on strike missions and quite an embarresment for them at the end.
I personally, doubt that they were testing PAF temprament, i think they were testing their su30 and mirrage 2000 with due permission of uncle SAM.
I'm sure this time around PAF have all the permissions to shoot IAF inavsions so that was a fooly indeed.

Today's warfare is a totally different game---until and unless paf doesnot have BVR's that can kill beyond the range that iaf has----it is bad news---JF 17 is a toy that paf wanted badly---it doesnot bring much to the table till it matures.

No doubt and i believe we have bvr (aam) at the same time PAF will be more focusing on neutralising forward IAF bases with cruise misiles and intercept IAF only when they enter Pak air space as it does not matter how many bombs they drop in indian Punjab.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The situation turned in favour of paf due to the cool headedness of the pilot and the controller--things could have gotten out of hand real fast.

 

[gambit]

Agreed.. but we are going back to the specs. comparison and we all know that F-16 leads JF-17 in number of hardpoints, and longer loitering time... but JF-17 is a better airframe, better avionics and ecm suite and in war senario we can fly more sorties to over come lag in loitering time and hardpoints.
Most o fabove.. i doubt that PAF had to go up against F-16 any time soon and i was also challenging the other listed a/c.

Those are highly debatable as supposedly the JF-17 is fly-by-wire in only one axis. I would not consider that design limitation as 'superior'.

Now in reference to JF-17 in strike role, where more fule is critical, air to air refuling can incrase the strike radious of JF-17 and it is enough to destroy more than what we call forward bases and any thing flying into Pakistan from long distance loose its large fuel tank advantage any way!
remember i'm using F-16 as bench mark because i consider it better than any thing in InAf inventory.

That is true. However, there would be additional logistical demands and dependencies on the battlefield.

Now this is some thing debateable...where did you got this information that JF-17 fuel managment is inferior to to F-16!!!

I have no such information. I was merely being speculative and it is valid that we raise the question as fuel management is crucial to overall aircraft performance.

JF-17 has better radar than F-16A but you certainly are in no position to compare the maneuvaribility of JF-17 with any aircraft.

Yes I can. The g-loading capbility of an aircraft determine its maneuverability and efficient fuel storage and fuel management can either contribute or degrade.

There is the three A-s of g-loading: Available, Attainable and Allowable.

Available g-loading is the result of airspeed.

Attainable g-loading is the result of modern computer assisted flight control system.

Allowable g-loading is structural.

The relationships and interactions between all three types of g-loadings are complex and instantaneous in flight. For example...If a pilot induced a maneuver under available g-load that exceed allowable g-load we have an over-g condition. But if the FLCC decided that attainable g-load should not exceed allowable g-load then after calculating the rate of maneuver the FLCC will limit the maneuver to under allowable g-load. Angle-of-attack also matter. I have seen reports of an over-g condition with a 6g maneuver because of AoA limitations. These are just more examples of what we can use to make comparisons between dissimilar aircrafts that supposedly perform the same tasks.

 

[Sunny4pak]

Eyes on PAF and PAC Kamra when these birds squadren will join PAF i think in Dec 2009. if im right.....?

Regards,
Sunny

 

[Arsalan]

Eyes on PAF and PAC Kamra when these birds squadren will join PAF i think in Dec 2009. if im right.....?

Regards,
Sunny

first squadron will be stationed in peshawar, by the end of this year,,

regards!

 

[PakShaheen79]

Those are highly debatable as supposedly the JF-17 is fly-by-wire in only one axis. I would not consider that design limitation as 'superior'.

No sir

JF-17 is FBW on both pitch and role axises. Its flight control includes a Type 634 quadruplex digital FBW in pitch axis and a duplex analog FBW in roll axis.

Thunder's FBW

 

[MZUBAIR]

For Mr Paritosh.

The Indian contribution is in the form of the missile guidance software...while the motor and the designing is russian.

Somebody is yet to tell me what the PAkistani contribution was in the development of the Thunder.
Even the MKI had known Indian equipment....what does the Jf-17 have that is made in Pakistan?

I am really amazed, that ur hear in defence forum since 2008 and ur still unaware Pakistans contribution in JF-17 project.

Now write down, Pakistans contribution in JF-17 and in future If you need to consult Pakistan contribution in JF-17 u can take ur review ur notebook.

The PAC JF-17 Thunder , also known in China as the Chengdu FC-1 Xiaolong is a light-weight multi-role combat aircraft jointly developed by the Chengdu Aircraft Industries Corporation (CAC) of China and the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex of Pakistan. The "JF" and "FC" designations stand for "Joint Fighter" (Pakistan) and "Fighter China" (China) respectively.

Project cost := US$ 250 million (Pakistan) + US$ 250 million (China) = US$ 500 million

The origin of JF-17 was Saber used by PAF in 1965 and 1971 wars.
The SABER 2 project was between China and USA. But later USA left and PAF joined China.

PAF wanted a jet that have similar technical capabilities as F-16 have but they wanted light weight and agile as F-7 (China).

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex of Pakistan have very strong hand on technical features of F-16. Both the PAC and CAC developed and designed jet frame with benchmark qualities, features and latest avoinics, radar as of F-16 and light weight, agile as F-7. So the target was in mind (F-16 , F-7) which they worked on and formed a jet.

PAC guided technically CAC for airframe, design for Loaded weight airframe 20,000 + lb.
Initially air intake was at bottom as F-16 have (China is using the concept in J-10), but later it was placed on the sides.

Initially it has delta wings (Used in J-10) but later on PAF decision it was modified cropped-delta planform with 2 hard points on edge.

PAF learned from their own and western experiences and design INS, HUD and MFD.

PAF worked on Jet to make it capable of all avionics used in F-16.
Radar & Engine was initially selected from China but laterly PAF will chose western, acc this decision PAF reformed airframe with adequate space for new radar (discussion of PAF with SELEX Galileo is on way) and engine (probabily french).

(One thing more there is no country that develop A to Z parts locally. But yes there are countries that design Jet A to Z and Pakistan is one of them.)

Anyways lets move ahead

In early 2001, a major decision was taken by the PAF to de-couple the platform (airframe) from the avionics systems, enabling design work on the aircraft to continue.
An added advantage would be that as the platform was developed, any new avionics requirements by the PAF could easily be catered for, not easily possible had the aircraft been designed for late-1990s era avionics.
Prototype production began in September 2002 and a full size mock-up of the FC-1/JF-17 was displayed at Airshow China in November 2002.
The first batch of Klimov RD-93 turbofan engines (Developed by Russia) that would power the prototypes was also delivered in 2002.

Prototypes
PT-01 Flight performance verification 2 September 2003

PT-02 Load testing (static ground tests) N/A

PT-03 Flight performance verification 9 April 2004

PT-04 Weapons integration and avionics testing 28 April 2006

PT-05 Fatigue testing (static ground tests) N/A

PT-06 Avionics testing 10 September 2006

One thing more, software used in JF-17 purely written and developed in Pakistan using C++ lanuage.


Success of JF-17 with PAC gave CAC such an experience to develop J-10 (Origin of Lavi), which would be compareable to F-16 Block 52 and later Block 60.

__________________________________________________

Its very hard for me to quote joint efforts of CAC and PAF in few paragraphs but I hope the theme would be understandable for Mr paritosh. And I believe he will not try to flame this valuable thread and appreciade the efforts of those who inject valuable information.

Mr paritosh For furthur information please goto JF-17 thread.

 

[PakShaheen79]

And also add project management there as well. Something very critical for any project to meet its dead lines. It is something where both LCA and Arjun suffered very badly despite having much more technical and financial resources at DRDO'd disposal.

JF-17 is nothing out of this world but for Pakistan and PAF it is very important as it is not just a fighter jet project but it will take aviation industry in Pakistan to next level.

 

[Arsalan]

and perhaps the most important contribution of indians in the LCA project is that of th " great dealy's" that were inflicted all because of hard labour and extreme degree of devotion of the men at DRDO!!
despite all the foregin assistance, the project would have been done with almost a decade ago if it was not for DRDO's supreme efforts to delay it to 2010, refelecting on the track record, the bright engineers and scientists at DRDO may succeed in further delays even beyond 2010 early arrival!!


regards!

moral: look before you leap

 

[sancho]

looking at this great Pic. India should stop comparing with LCA.
http://cnair.top81.cn/fighter/FC-1_04a.jpg.

They will be in the same class of fighters, what makes them very comparable, but we should let them both come into operational service first and then compare their specs. Too many points are still unknown now, so anything we could do now is just speculating.

 

[Engr786]

In short JF-17 is the pulse of PAF

 

[LiberalPakistani]

They will be in the same class of fighters, what makes them very comparable, but we should let them both come into operational service first and then compare their specs. Too many points are still unknown now, so anything we could do now is just speculating.

Disagree with they will be in the same class there is no way Thunder and LCA are in the same class.LCA is a early 4th Gen Fighter while Thunder is Medium 4th Gen Fighter which is comparable to F-16 Blk 40 and the upgraded version will be like F-16 blk 60 with ASEA radar there are both different fighters for different roles to perform in a war