JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[PakShaheen79]

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex JF-17 Project Team in their official press release disclosed the upgrades of Block-2 which were fixed IFR, Data link, and upgraded avionics. No IRST was mentioned in it.

did that press release said that these are the final and absolute upgrades?

 

[farhan_9909]

personally i think too

IRST should be installed as it is nt a space tech and we have already seen IRST on J-10B.

IRST is much more necessary than AESA

 

[Emmie]

personally i think too

IRST should be installed as it is nt a space tech and we have already seen IRST on J-10B.

IRST is much more necessary than AESA

IRST is not like an inevitable system when you have AWACS... Altho IRST has its own advantages.

I would rather prefer AESA over IRST when given only one choice..

 

[SQ8]

did that press release said that these are the final and absolute upgrades?

Yes they are, there will be NO way to tell the Batch-2 apart from batch-1 except for the IFR probe.

 

[Pak47]

lots of updates that we were talking about are infact too modern..very few airplanes have AESA. even the indian MRCA aircrfts have AESA in testing stage. same goes for the IRST.
retractable air refueling probe is good but there isnt much harm in a fixed one.

but still i thin k PAF should opt for IRST atleast if they cant get an AESA

according to wiki.. JF-17 already has IRST

Infra-red search and track - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

of course.. this is wiki though..

 

[farhan_9909]

IRST is not like an inevitable system when you have AWACS... Altho IRST has its own advantages.

I would rather prefer AESA over IRST when given only one choice..

BT AESA would be expansive as well as a tech nt 100% mastered by china

though we are confirmed about AESA as it is already seen on j-10B and nt costy at all

 

[TaimiKhan]

^ Taimi another main problem i sense, If PAF is developing inhouse solution for Chinese data link to work with other western counterparts then wouldn't export variants of JF-17 would cause a problem? for example, Egypt is interested in JF-17's but they had F-16's and they would like to data link JF-17 and F-16's then wouldn't it be a overhead that they also had to use in house solution? Wouldn't it be a turn off for those who had western aircrafts but the JF-17 they are buying has not a generic Data link with them which do not be easily data linked with Western jets?

PAF is making an inhouse solution, majorly for secrecy reasons as well as letting all the assets talk to each other, even then the ground stations will play an important role in the warfare. The true command and control would be coming from the ground control stations. JF-17 can be installed with Chinese data link, and so can be with western data link system, since the JF-17 follows the western / NATO MIL-STD protocols, and anything made to work on these standards/protocols be it Chinese, European or American, can work with anything. Link 16 is a data link system comprised of specific hardware & then governed by software. So even Chinese can make a Link 16 system, which will need then software tweaking, to let the assets start talking with each other. If our solution works, we can even offer that to any international buyer. Current JF-17s have a western communication system and the data link capability it has is based on western tech, so we can make these radio sets into talking with each other if we want to.

So, don't worry about it, whatever the customer wants can be provided, but issue would be will the Americans let Egyptians use their F-16s to talk to a Chinese platform.

 

[SQ8]

BT AESA would be expansive as well as a tech nt 100% mastered by china

though we are confirmed about AESA as it is already seen on j-10B and nt costy at all

Cost is not the only factor.. take it like this.. can you fit a big turbo intercooler for a new engine that needs it to produce the performance upgrade you want on your car?
What massive changes will it need? and can it even be supported?
What if there was not enough space to fit it? what if the cost were prohibitive for an alternative solution..and your car is being touted as the most cost effective sports car yet?
Would that expense(which you CANNOT afford) not take away the core nature of fame for the car; cost effectiveness??
Since doing it will drive the cost up and you can get a used Mazda Mx-5 that gives similar performance(with a little investment) as well..

 

[Donatello]

according to wiki.. JF-17 already has IRST

Infra-red search and track - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

of course.. this is wiki though..

If it had IRST, then we would usually be able to see it...like the the FLIR on the Mirages and the the spherical IRST mount on the front of cockpit on J-10, Mig 29s etc......

 

[farhan_9909]

Cost is not the only factor.. take it like this.. can you fit a big turbo intercooler for a new engine that needs it to produce the performance upgrade you want on your car?
What massive changes will it need? and can it even be supported?
What if there was not enough space to fit it? what if the cost were prohibitive for an alternative solution..and your car is being touted as the most cost effective sports car yet?
Would that expense(which you CANNOT afford) not take away the core nature of fame for the car; cost effectiveness??
Since doing it will drive the cost up and you can get a used Mazda Mx-5 that gives similar performance(with a little investment) as well..

well sir in short than i dont need such a car that cannot even afford or accomodate a IRST.
IRST is almost must in aircrafts now.
and the proposed price of JFT II is 25millions USD.and if the price of JFT I is 15millions than with the extra 10 millions the IRST wont be a problem at all.

---------- Post added at 12:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 AM ----------

though i am sure PAF will surprise me with JFT II once it is displayed public

 

[SQ8]

well sir in short than i dont need such a car that cannot even afford or accomodate a IRST.
IRST is almost must in aircrafts now.
and the proposed price of JFT II is 25millions USD.and if the price of JFT I is 15millions than with the extra 10 millions the IRST wont be a problem at all.

---------- Post added at 12:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 AM ----------

though i am sure PAF will surprise me with JFT II once it is displayed public

Why not? if it offers you so much at so low a cost..
IRST will not be coming in the Block-II.. I can assure you..
You have to forget the impression of a Block-II.. its not going to be a new airplane.
Even PAC does not call it that..
its referred to as a "Continuation of co-production of aircraft".. Batch-II.
The Term Block-II was a misnomer in an attempt to liken the aircraft to the F-16 that stuck.
the F-16 had 1,5,10,15,20,25,30,40,42,50,52,60 numbers for blocks.
Of which the major change for block 10->15(which was interestingly implemented across the older fleet as well) was the change of tailplane design.

Let me give you an example of changes in these various blocks:
difference from F-16 block-1
Block-5:On Block 5, the gray radome was introduced, which became standard for all later Fighting Falcons. The Block 5 production batch totaled 197 aircraft. These aircraft were also upgraded to Block 10 specifications under Pacer Loft I and II. Block 5 F-16s have the same blade UHF antenna under the intake as the Block 1, as well as the small stabilator. Differences with the Block 1 are inconspicuous, involving modifications to improve reliability and mission-ready rate.

Block-10:The F-16s still had the blade UHF aerial and small tail. Differences with Block 5 aircraft are again internal improvements with no apparent external modifications. Some USAF Block 10 aircraft were later (1987-1993) retrofitted to block 15OCU standard

Block-15: the Block 15 introduced MSIP Stage I changes to the F-16A/B starting with subblock 15Y and continuing through subblock 15AZ. More than a year earlier, in February 1980, these modifications were already effective on the F-16C/D production. The changes expanded the F-16s growth potential by allowing improved capabilities in the air-to-ground and BVR missions.

One major modification was the addition of two hardpoints to (and structural strengthening of) the chin of the inlet, designated hardpoints 5L and 5R. To offset the shift in center of gravity caused by the weight of these two additional hardpoints (and eventual stores attached to them), the extended horizontal stabilator (the so-called "big tail", 30% increase in area), was fitted. The new tail also provided better stability and more authority for out-of-control situations. It changed lift-off rotation speeds and allowed stable flight at higher angles of attack.

The AN/APG-66 radar on the Block 15 Fighting Falcons was provided with an early version of a track-while-scan mode for greater air defense capability. The F-16s were also equipped with Have Quick I secure UHF radios, and internal provisions for the AIM-7 were made. Additional structural strengthening was performed to allow an extra 1000 pounds of ordnance to be carried on the underwing points. Last but not least, pilot comfort was enhanced by improving the cockpit air conditioning.

The Block-15 had improvements in avionics, and airframe.. but before that.. over 612 aircraft were delivered which were virtually identical.

 

[farhan_9909]

Why not? if it offers you so much at so low a cost..
IRST will not be coming in the Block-II.. I can assure you..
You have to forget the impression of a Block-II.. its not going to be a new airplane.
Even PAC does not call it that..
its referred to as a "Continuation of co-production of aircraft".. Batch-II.
The Term Block-II was a misnomer in an attempt to liken the aircraft to the F-16 that stuck.
the F-16 had 1,5,10,15,20,25,30,40,42,50,52,60 numbers for blocks.
Of which the major change for block 10->15(which was interestingly implemented across the older fleet as well) was the change of tailplane design.

Let me give you an example of changes in these various blocks:
difference from F-16 block-1
Block-5:On Block 5, the gray radome was introduced, which became standard for all later Fighting Falcons. The Block 5 production batch totaled 197 aircraft. These aircraft were also upgraded to Block 10 specifications under Pacer Loft I and II. Block 5 F-16s have the same blade UHF antenna under the intake as the Block 1, as well as the small stabilator. Differences with the Block 1 are inconspicuous, involving modifications to improve reliability and mission-ready rate.

Block-10:The F-16s still had the blade UHF aerial and small tail. Differences with Block 5 aircraft are again internal improvements with no apparent external modifications. Some USAF Block 10 aircraft were later (1987-1993) retrofitted to block 15OCU standard

Block-15: the Block 15 introduced MSIP Stage I changes to the F-16A/B starting with subblock 15Y and continuing through subblock 15AZ. More than a year earlier, in February 1980, these modifications were already effective on the F-16C/D production. The changes expanded the F-16s growth potential by allowing improved capabilities in the air-to-ground and BVR missions.

One major modification was the addition of two hardpoints to (and structural strengthening of) the chin of the inlet, designated hardpoints 5L and 5R. To offset the shift in center of gravity caused by the weight of these two additional hardpoints (and eventual stores attached to them), the extended horizontal stabilator (the so-called "big tail", 30% increase in area), was fitted. The new tail also provided better stability and more authority for out-of-control situations. It changed lift-off rotation speeds and allowed stable flight at higher angles of attack.

The AN/APG-66 radar on the Block 15 Fighting Falcons was provided with an early version of a track-while-scan mode for greater air defense capability. The F-16s were also equipped with Have Quick I secure UHF radios, and internal provisions for the AIM-7 were made. Additional structural strengthening was performed to allow an extra 1000 pounds of ordnance to be carried on the underwing points. Last but not least, pilot comfort was enhanced by improving the cockpit air conditioning.

The Block-15 had improvements in avionics, and airframe.. but before that.. over 612 aircraft were delivered which were virtually identical.

i do agree with 15mn USD JFT is giving us more than enough bt with the increase of 10million price we need atleast modification like IRST,more hardpoints etc

low cost doesnt mean here that we will stick with low cost through jft program bt the futures blocks also means that it will have more goodies in it

Though i am never disappointed from JFT.
even imagining replacing of f-7 and mirage without JFT scare me

 

[SQ8]

i do agree with 15mn USD JFT is giving us more than enough bt with the increase of 10million price we need atleast modification like IRST,more hardpoints etc

low cost doesnt mean here that we will stick with low cost through jft program bt the futures blocks also means that it will have more goodies in it

Though i am never disappointed from JFT.
even imagining replacing of f-7 and mirage without JFT scare me

Yes we will.. PAF swears by it.
IRST is a good addition , not a must... Everything in the JF is what is must in a modern combat aircraft and OF A RESPECTABLE CAPABILITY.
However.. if tomorrow there is a low cost option for the PAF to add IRST to the JF, rest assured they will not hesitate to consider it.
The JF-17's name is Thunder.. but is should have been called JCEF.. Joint Cost effective Fighter...hmm.. Rhymes with JSF.. I likes. Me gonna use it now.

P.S.. the only thing that will change current PAF plans is money. Big loads of MONEY.

 

[farhan_9909]

Yes we will.. PAF swears by it.
IRST is a good addition , not a must... Everything in the JF is what is must in a modern combat aircraft and OF A RESPECTABLE CAPABILITY.
However.. if tomorrow there is a low cost option for the PAF to add IRST to the JF, rest assured they will not hesitate to consider it.
The JF-17's name is Thunder.. but is should have been called JCEF.. Joint Cost effective Fighter...hmm.. Rhymes with JSF.. I likes. Me gonna use it now.

P.S.. the only thing that will change current PAF plans is money. Big loads of MONEY.

well actually i am disappointed because since my start into military tech i am fighting in favor of JFT II with AESA and ws-13 with indians.
so my expectation increased alot as the rumours of AESA were throughout the internet.

 

[Dazzler]

We still DO NOT know for sure what radar the BLK 2 will house in its radome. It is still a mystery for me because my source and Huitong still maintain it will be an AESA. Airchief says otherwise. Mystery continues....