What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

Status
Not open for further replies.
No need for sleepless nights and days, the Russian says that the JFT is in the same league as MiG29 - maybe they know what they are talking about?


For the obvious reasons, Russians would have to the be the last people on earth to acknowledge that JFT is in par with their MIGs because their admittance to this aspect will make competition rather more real. Getting me?

I wonder if Americans would have said MIGs are "Extremely close to JFTs", everybody would have laughed that who are Americans to judge that. Had it been some resource from India who would have said so, it must have been turned as a joke for which Indian media is already known for and even Indians would've been bashing about their non-serious media. Had it been Pakistan, well.. Indians wouldn't have believed because they would accuse we are glorifying it . Now question is if Indians are not ready to take words of Russia on it, I wonder are these guys immune to convincing and could be convinced ever?

sumum bukmun emyun fahum ya yarjegon.
 
. .
I dont think they'll show vidoes of JF 17 bombings....its more chance that they say F 16 performing better than JF 17 in A2G role in WOT because of some political reasons.

:lol:
well said!
i realy enjoyed your comment!:tup:

on the other hand, JF is reported to have saw action in War against terror! the initial squads are replacing the A-5 A2G and are bound to be evaluated in war conditions, however i think the initianl productions were not perfectly good for A2G roles with less hardpoints but stil it is not important what i think but what PAF does!!!

regards!
 
.
:lol:
well said!
i realy enjoyed your comment!:tup:

on the other hand, JF is reported to have saw action in War against terror! the initial squads are replacing the A-5 A2G and are bound to be evaluated in war conditions, however i think the initianl productions were not perfectly good for A2G roles with less hardpoints but stil it is not important what i think but what PAF does!!!

regards!

Just a question, why do we always talk about more hard points?....7 Hard points are decent enough for CAS...just put a rack on the two and JF would get decent potency. I mean we would not want JFTs to do carpet bombing do we?...for example in WoT JFTs would be taking out designated targets not even suspected hideouts....
 
.
well i guess 7 hard points is pretty decent (thats the problem ) it not excellent it should have at least 9 or 8 hard points
 
.
Just a question, why do we always talk about more hard points?....7 Hard points are decent enough for CAS...just put a rack on the two and JF would get decent potency. I mean we would not want JFTs to do carpet bombing do we?...for example in WoT JFTs would be taking out designated targets not even suspected hideouts....

but dear the current produced have no Air refueling probes this means they will most probably be carrying external fuel tanks.
they will be carrying a targetting pod for CAS role.
they will be carrying atleast two Air to air missiles at wing tips.

now this leaves the bird with:
two hardpoints for bombs if it is carrying two fuel tanks.
one hardpoint for bomb if carrying three fuel tanks.
absolutely no long range air defence missile.

even with bomb rack, the bird will only be able to deleiver two/four bombs and that too flying with out any air protection!

tha is why you will find many people advocating the need on increase in Hard Points!
it may be:
atleast one to accomodate the targetting POD.
better to add three, one for targetting POd and two for two SD-10!

regards!
 
.
two hardpoints for bombs if it is carrying two fuel tanks.
one hardpoint for bomb if carrying three fuel tanks.
absolutely no long range air defence missile.


That maybe because you are reading too much in the "multirole" aspect of the airacft - it is a light fighter, essentially - PAF even uses F7 as a attack aircaft, does that mean it is a genuinely multirole aircraft? opinions differ - in the event of hostilities either the ship will carry tanks or bombs and missiles. After all, it is a light fighter.
 
.
That maybe because you are reading too much in the "multirole" aspect of the airacft - it is a light fighter, essentially - PAF even uses F7 as a attack aircaft, does that mean it is a genuinely multirole aircraft? opinions differ - in the event of hostilities either the ship will carry tanks or bombs and missiles. After all, it is a light fighter.

sir it may not be an air superioity fighter and a land attack bird one in the same time but atleast need to be able to protect itsel from air borne threats even when employed in CAS roles.
for a force like PAF whcih is alway have limited funds that they need to utilize in best possible way, we cannot afford to have different platform to fulfill different roles!

secondly with a new engine always on cards since the birth of the bird, increase in hard point is no big deal!

regards!
 
.
I don't know about this "can't afford" argument - mainly because it does not make sense - see, the aircraft is a light fighter - note the "light" - it can perform other roles but certainly not as you seem to want it to do - it's a single engine "light" fighter - the F16 has a significantly more robust engine - the aircraft does not have long legs either.

Many years ago I did a study on the US reliance on heavy ships as opposed to the Multirole - it's just my opinion, but I found the argument of heavy ships very persuasive, it had the legs, the power, the avionics and weapons to dominate and perform in a multirole function when required.

Now the rationale of the JFT is different because the threat it is designed to tacjle is different - it does not need long legs as the threat percieved, is right across the border, it's a light fighter because the PAF has experience sucessfully developing tactics and deploying such aircraft.

So really, I don't see it in the same light as you and think this hard point stuff is immaterial, it's irrelevent, I just don't see this ship with tanks in the event of hostilities, maybe a tank in the middle for take off possibly but yes, no tanks in hostilities.
 
.
I don't know about this "can't afford" argument - mainly because it does not make sense - see, the aircraft is a light fighter - note the "light" - it can perform other roles but certainly not as you seem to want it to do - it's a single engine "light" fighter - the F16 has a significantly more robust engine - the aircraft does not have long legs either.

Many years ago I did a study on the US reliance on heavy ships as opposed to the Multirole - it's just my opinion, but I found the argument of heavy ships very persuasive, it had the legs, the power, the avionics and weapons to dominate and perform in a multirole function when required.

Now the rationale of the JFT is different because the threat it is designed to tacjle is different - it does not need long legs as the threat percieved, is right across the border, it's a light fighter because the PAF has experience sucessfully developing tactics and deploying such aircraft.

So really, I don't see it in the same light as you and think this hard point stuff is immaterial, it's irrelevent, I just don't see this ship with tanks in the event of hostilities, maybe a tank in the middle for take off possibly but yes, no tanks in hostilities.

do you mean to say that being what you call "Light" mans that it cannot or should not be able to look after itself while engaging enemy at ground i do not agree with it.

look sir, what i am saying is not that it must have lots of waepon loat that can scortch earth and ruine the enemy air but still it need to be able to counter treats both from air and land.

when we call JFT a light, we we continue to say n same line is light weight multi-role aircraft.
now i agree that it wont be as good as som e heavy weights in this "Multi-role" mission but still this do not make sense that if it is carrying bombs, it cannot carry A2A missiles and that this makes sense and that it need to be justified!

i think i have made my point of view clear!

regards!
 
.
JF 17 - Pakistan's Pride

A new aircraft programme for Pakistan has brought benefits not only to the air force but to its aerospace industry. Air Commodore Azfar A Khan (retd) describes how and why the aircraft that marks a milestone in the aviation history of Pakistan was developed.

Date: 05 Jul 2010

When the time came to replace its large, obsolete fleet with modern, lightweight, multi-role combat aircraft, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) opted for a low-cost solution and not pricier Western designs. The result was an aircraft that could be manufactured in Pakistan in collaboration with the People's Republic of China - the lightweight fighter bomber JF-17 Thunder.

Developed by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex and Chengdu Aircraft Industry, China, production is being undertaken at Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Kamra.

The PAF officially inducted its first JF-17 squadron on 18 February this year. Initially, about 10 to12 squadrons are to be produced, but the PAF will ultimately acquire up to 250 pieces. From 2011, 15-16 aircraft will be produced annually, which may eventually be increased to 25 per year.

It is hoped the JF-17 will provide a low-cost replacement for a number of developing countries currently operating ageing MiG-21/F-7 and F-5 aircraft, such as Azerbaijan, Algeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Nigeria. Some of these nations have already confirmed orders.

Specification

The JF-17 is powered by a single Russian RD-93 turbofan engine, a widely used model known to be reliable. The turbofan design gives more thrust and significantly lower specific fuel consumption than a turbojet engine. The engine has gained attention for its acceleration and quick response, with test pilots describing reactions as "virtually instantaneous". Using a single engine also significantly reduces both maintenance time and cost.

"Initially, about 10 to12 squadrons are to be produced, but the PAF will ultimately acquire up to 250 pieces."The aircraft can be armed with up to 3,629kg (8,000lb) of air-to-air and air-to-ground ordnance along with other equipment mounted externally on the aircraft. The glass cockpit, meanwhile, incorporates an electronic flight instrument system (EFIS) and a wide-angle head-up display (HUD), and it has a minimum total field of view of 25 degrees.

The EFIS provides basic flight information, as well as tactical, engine, fuel, electrical, hydraulics, flight control and environment control systems information. The HUD and multi-function display (MFD) are 'smart' (meaning they can be configured by the pilot to show any of the available information), the avionics system is all-digital and fully integrated, and the solid state avionics is of a modular design.

Several radars were tested onboard prototypes of the JF-17, including Israel's Elta EL/M-2032, Russia's Phazotron Super Komar, Italy's FIAR Grifo-S7, Brittain's GEC-Marconi Blue Hawk and France's Thomson-CSF RC-400. However, a Chinese radar was selected for the first batch of craft, although Italy and France are in the running for future contracts, according to reports.

The software written for the avionics comprises more than one million lines of instructions, making use of the concept of open architecture. This software is written using the popular civilian C++ programming language, rather than a military language such as Ada, to better utilise the large number of civilian software programmers available in the market.

Building

The production of JF-17 parts and components begun as far back as 2005 and manufacture of its sub-assemblies started in 2008. The production of major assemblies is undertaken by Pakistan's large public sector units (PSUs), while parts and components are provided by private-sector suppliers.

Pakistan has a highly skilled and trained technical workforce - a prerequisite for the manufacture of an indigenous aircraft - that can be cheaper to employ when compared with other areas around the world. For example, some of the workforce deployed for the production of the JF-17 are retired personnel from the Pakistan Air Force. This manpower is available at a rate of $10 per hour whereas the international market can charge up to $45 per hour.

"The total cost of the JF-17 programme is US$500m."It is this cost-effectiveness that led the PAF to take on the task of making its own aircraft. The unit production cost of a JF-17 translates into approximately US$15 million apiece whereas a multi-role aircraft in the international market is available for US$50m a piece. Overall, the total cost of the JF-17 programme is US$500m, divided equally between China and Pakistan.

Furthermore, Pakistan will earn a good exchange rate through the sale of this aircraft and its associated spares to other countries, keep its retired aircraft workers employed, and provide the country's internal market with new opportunities to build technologies and develop new innovations.

AFT
 
. . . .
two jf-17 caught on google earth at kamra ..
jf17.png


jf172.png
 
Last edited:
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom