JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[muse]

Well really that's new - I did not realize it was anywhere on the radar with regard to the JF17 -- thanks for the info

 

[ziaulislam]

RD-93 = 96kN

the poster say 78-98..not 96..its a average thrust we take a mean of 86
i am not an expert juts amateur but most people say that 96 thrust is pushing engine too far

 

[ziaulislam]

another thing is the cost , reliability and maintain engine, rd-93 is vastlyy used, is 6 times cheaaper than western engines which have similar or less capablites....where can we get a cheap engine which is widely used..i dont see any other candidate for this

 

[fatman17]

KAB-1500KR

The most powerful type of PGM currently in service with PLAAF is the KAB-1500KR TV-guided bomb. As a heavy 1,500kg-class bomb with a 1,170kg warhead, KAB-1500KR can be used as "bunker busters" against fixed, "hard" targets such as hardened aircraft shelters and underground command centers. Its TV seeker locks the target before launch, therefore is drop-and-forget. However the bomb can only be dropped in a clear daylight condition, which limits its usage. The accuracy is about 4-7m. Up to 3 KA-1500KRs can be carried by Su-30MKK at a time. Interestingly, no laser-guided weapons have been found in Su-30MKK's weapon package.
- Last Updated 2/10/10

KAB-500KR

KAB-500KR TV-guided bomb is a smaller sibling of the heavy KAB-1500KR. It weighs 560kg and is armed with a 380kg armor piercing warhead. It can lock a static target from 15 to 17km distance in the visibility of 10km and is drop-and-forget. A training round without the warhead was also acquired. Like KAB-1500KR, KAB-500KR can also be used as "bunker busters" against fixed, "hard" targets. The accuracy is about 4m. Up to 6 KA-500KRs can be carried by Su-30MKK at a time. The latest evidence indicated that the bomb can also be carried by the indigenous Q-5L attack aircraft (up to 2 at a time).
- Last Updated 7/21/11

more options for the JFT

 

[Manticore]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/107870-laser-guided-bombs-2.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/99878-standoff-missiles-6.html

added some related info here

 

[Tempest II]

the poster say 78-98..not 96..its a average thrust we take a mean of 86
i am not an expert juts amateur but most people say that 96 thrust is pushing engine too far

I stand corrected, 98kN.

I don’t think I agree. Yes you don’t what to be running your engine on the higher end most of the time, but if 98kN is the maximum given by the manufacturer, then it is more logical to give 98kN AS THE MAXIMUM. Choosing to run the engine at 98kN for 5 seconds, or 5 minutes or 5 hours is something else. The point remains the maximum thrust is 98kN.

If you are presenting a case where the “average” power makes sense, then mention that you are talking about the average – like they do for radar power, they normally give “mean”.

“Most people” don’t matter. They know little about RD-33 workings or the RD-93, and more so the latest and improved versions. What matters is what Klimov are saying unless you can prove otherwise.

On my part I have the Klimov brochure (official) and also the PAF JF-17 pilot I spoke to at Farnborough saying the Thunder has a TWR > 1. Yes I did not record the guy, but if he was at the stand representing the PAF, that, in my view is as good as it gets.

 

[abdulbarijan]

It was really interesting to see the wing loadings of different platforms
The effect of wing loadings:-

*Pros of lower wing loadings:-
1.Will have better lift at a given speed
2.It will generally be able to take off with greater load
3.Less take off speed
4.superior climb rate
5.More efficent cruising performance
6.Superior sustained turn rates

*Pros of Higher wing loadings:-
1.More suited for high speed flight.
2.Superior instantaneous turn rate.
3.More stable aircraft in turbulance etc.

Now lets compare the wing loadings of some aircrafts with our JF-17
USA :-
F/A-18 - 454 kg/m²
F-15 - 358 kg/m²
F-16 - 431 kg/m²

Europe:-
JAS-39 Gripen - 283 kg/m²
Eurofighter Typhoon - 312 kg/m²
Dassault Rafale - 306 kg/m²
Mirage-2000 - 337 kg/m²

Russia :-
Mig-29 - 442 kg/m²
SU-30 MKI - 401 kg/m²
SU-35 - 408 kg/m²
SU-27 - 371 kg/m²

China:-
J-10 - 335 kg/m²

Now lets compare it with JF-17 Thunder
The newly added LERX to PT-04 gave 9% more wing area
now if we add this to the orignal wing area of JF-17 Thunder which is 24.4m² the total wing area comes out to be 26.6m²
If we calculate the wing loading comes out to be 342.1 kg/m²
So if we base our assumptions on just wing loading then:-

JF-17 Thunder will have:-
1.better lift,climb rate,sustained turn rates with less take off speeds and a more efficent cruising performance than westrean aircrafts.
2.Better instantaneous turn rates,stability and is better suited for high speed flights on low altitudes than European platforms.
3.better lift,climb rate,sustained turn rates with less take off speeds and a more efficent cruising performance than Russian aircrafts.
4.Slightly better instantaneous turn rates than J-10.



It is really interesting because the wing loading of the JF-17 is less when generally compared to the jets that excel in instantaneous turn rates and more when compared to the jets with superior sustained turn rates.
It has most similarity with the Mirage 2000 but with a slightly better instantaneous and slightly weaker in the sustained turn rate performances.

......These are for when we only use the wing loading ......

P.S.. take it easy one me guys cuz basically i had no idea what i was writing about the whole time,im just an amatuer with no know how what so ever,i just wanted some members to also comment on the wing loadings a subject that was not discussed in great detail (Im sorry if it was)...

 

[alimobin memon]

i don't remember correctly but if jf17 is upgraded to block2 standards ok but with 3600kg payload i think it is useless there must be some what 5000kg of payload !! there was some topic here in forum where it was stated that payload will be increased but no such news update yet had arrived .

 

[Tempest II]

It was really interesting to see the wing loadings of different platforms
The effect of wing loadings:-

*Pros of lower wing loadings:-
1.Will have better lift at a given speed
2.It will generally be able to take off with greater load
3.Less take off speed
4.superior climb rate
5.More efficent cruising performance
6.Superior sustained turn rates

*Pros of Higher wing loadings:-
1.More suited for high speed flight.
2.Superior instantaneous turn rate.
3.More stable aircraft in turbulance etc.

Now lets compare the wing loadings of some aircrafts with our JF-17
USA :-
F/A-18 - 454 kg/m²
F-15 - 358 kg/m²
F-16 - 431 kg/m²

Europe:-
JAS-39 Gripen - 283 kg/m²
Eurofighter Typhoon - 312 kg/m²
Dassault Rafale - 306 kg/m²
Mirage-2000 - 337 kg/m²

Russia :-
Mig-29 - 442 kg/m²
SU-30 MKI - 401 kg/m²
SU-35 - 408 kg/m²
SU-27 - 371 kg/m²

China:-
J-10 - 335 kg/m²

Now lets compare it with JF-17 Thunder
The newly added LERX to PT-04 gave 9% more wing area
now if we add this to the orignal wing area of JF-17 Thunder which is 24.4m² the total wing area comes out to be 26.6m²
If we calculate the wing loading comes out to be 342.1 kg/m²
So if we base our assumptions on just wing loading then:-

JF-17 Thunder will have:-
1.better lift,climb rate,sustained turn rates with less take off speeds and a more efficent cruising performance than westrean aircrafts.
2.Better instantaneous turn rates,stability and is better suited for high speed flights on low altitudes than European platforms.
3.better lift,climb rate,sustained turn rates with less take off speeds and a more efficent cruising performance than Russian aircrafts.
4.Slightly better instantaneous turn rates than J-10.



It is really interesting because the wing loading of the JF-17 is less when generally compared to the jets that excel in instantaneous turn rates and more when compared to the jets with superior sustained turn rates.
It has most similarity with the Mirage 2000 but with a slightly better instantaneous and slightly weaker in the sustained turn rate performances.

......These are for when we only use the wing loading ......

P.S.. take it easy one me guys cuz basically i had no idea what i was writing about the whole time,im just an amatuer with no know how what so ever,i just wanted some members to also comment on the wing loadings a subject that was not discussed in great detail (Im sorry if it was)...

You have touched on a topic I tried to discuss last month and got no response. I will get into it in the evening when I get home. I would like to understand more about this. What I am not sure and would like to get first is the 24.4 sqm? When did we get the 24.4 figure? Before or after PT-04?

Doesn’t the canards improve the fighter nose-point ability?

Superior thrust should help the sustained turn rate. That’s my view. As you loose less speed.

My view is also that wing-loading will help determine the maximum altitude/service ceiling. I.e. lower wing loading means the plane can fly higher. If so, I then question how the Thunder has a high altitude than the Gripen?

 

[ziaulislam]

I stand corrected, 98kN.

I don’t think I agree. Yes you don’t what to be running your engine on the higher end most of the time, but if 98kN is the maximum given by the manufacturer, then it is more logical to give 98kN AS THE MAXIMUM. Choosing to run the engine at 98kN for 5 seconds, or 5 minutes or 5 hours is something else. The point remains the maximum thrust is 98kN.

If you are presenting a case where the “average” power makes sense, then mention that you are talking about the average – like they do for radar power, they normally give “mean”.

“Most people” don’t matter. They know little about RD-33 workings or the RD-93, and more so the latest and improved versions. What matters is what Klimov are saying unless you can prove otherwise.

On my part I have the Klimov brochure (official) and also the PAF JF-17 pilot I spoke to at Farnborough saying the Thunder has a TWR > 1. Yes I did not record the guy, but if he was at the stand representing the PAF, that, in my view is as good as it gets.

we need to find a technician who really could enlight us ..whats the exact thrust..
but what i know increasing the thrust decreases the life of engine..and thrust limits can be put on on an engine...so even if an engine has a high thrust some limitation are added for sake of engine life.

but if tis true it can attain thrust of 98kn..then there is no reason what so ever for paf to look for any other engine..also it would mean that in terms of engine jf-17 is better than mirage2000 and much better in terms of twr..already with older specification it had a twr of nearly 1..
also it would means indians are idiots to buy g414 engine at rate of 9 million piece

 

[Bratva]

The TWR of JF-17 is 0.95. Which means Engine Thrust is not what Tempest shared with us.

 

[maverick1977]

it will be interesting to see how JF 17 block 2 will look like, as it is discussed that JF 17 will incorporate some stealth features...

Pakistan has come a long way, they caught up in a decade to latest and greatest technology based on self reliance. I am surprised with the pace of this induction and innovation. I am impressed, i am sure the whole world is impressed with this sheer hard effort.

No wonder this nation is a survivor, as a person who has lived in Pakistan, i always knew how talented this nation is, and you guys prove it again and again. I am sure i can say this, sanctions were a blessing in disguise, some will say GOD plans to get you there, i will say HE surely did.

 

[SQ8]

You have touched on a topic I tried to discuss last month and got no response. I will get into it in the evening when I get home. I would like to understand more about this. What I am not sure and would like to get first is the 24.4 sqm? When did we get the 24.4 figure? Before or after PT-04?

Doesn’t the canards improve the fighter nose-point ability?

Superior thrust should help the sustained turn rate. That’s my view. As you loose less speed.

My view is also that wing-loading will help determine the maximum altitude/service ceiling. I.e. lower wing loading means the plane can fly higher. If so, I then question how the Thunder has a high altitude than the Gripen?

Not the canards alone.. having the CG aft, i.e an unstable condition helps as well.
The canards prevent extreme pitchup in such an aircraft..

The F-16 without its canard can still pitch faster than its limiter allows.

 

[VCheng]

You have touched on a topic I tried to discuss last month and got no response. I will get into it in the evening when I get home. I would like to understand more about this. What I am not sure and would like to get first is the 24.4 sqm? When did we get the 24.4 figure? Before or after PT-04?

Doesn’t the canards improve the fighter nose-point ability?

Superior thrust should help the sustained turn rate. That’s my view. As you loose less speed.

My view is also that wing-loading will help determine the maximum altitude/service ceiling. I.e. lower wing loading means the plane can fly higher. If so, I then question how the Thunder has a high altitude than the Gripen?

Have you looked at the wing loading figures for the F-104 and the X-15? Obviously, there are other factors involved in determining the ceiling..

 

[SQ8]

Have you looked at the wing loading figures for the F-104 and the X-15? Obviously, there are other factors involved in determining the ceiling..

Generally a larger wing helps.. the 104 was a manned missile for its day.
The same goes for the X-15.. at the altitudes it reached, there was very little lift coming from the wings.
Climb performance is effected by wing loading.. the U-2 climbs at less power compared to the 104.. but the 104 gets there faster using its better kinetic energy. However.. only the U-2 can sustain that altitude economically.
The 104 needs to stay in burner to keep that high.