JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[SQ8]

The PAF itself DOES NOT desire an export ....
...Well then someone should tell that guy who keeps showing up at premier Airshows to fly and sell JF-17 thunder and touts the cost benefits of owning a fleet of Thunders versus Western combat aircrafts- to give it a rest. I mean why spend all that money to fly out to UK? and Emirates?

One more thought; the reported breakeven point for this project is 300. Is PAF picking the full tab on this?

Perhaps House of Saud could oblige if they were not busy buying 30+ Billions worth of US hardware. I mean not even a single measly squadron for a Half billion or less.

The PAF DOES NOT desire an export for another three years atleast,
Where did the 300 figure for breakeven come from??And China too is interested in the type.. this is not the A380..

 

[Nishan_101]

Really I was expecting that the final JF-17 before production i.e: PT-6 will have retractable re-fueling probe, RD-93B(RD-33MKK2 with all axis thrust vectoring) and extensive use of composite material. These are the things that they can include in the construction or development of the final prototype and another important thing after it successful flight test a dual seat trainer which can also be used as AJT/LIFT for fighter conversion like L-15, Yak-130 and others do. This will not only attract customers but will also make it more potent and effective in wars and operations as well.

Although you will say that the Block-2 will be much more advance then this, I am not saying that ok we will see this in next version. But I am saying that the next version would be much more capable than the one I supposed above.

My wish was that the Block-2 will look like this with WS-13(100KN):

 

[Edevelop]

 

[farhan_9909]

Really I was expecting that the final JF-17 before production i.e: PT-6 will have retractable re-fueling probe, RD-93B(RD-33MKK2 with all axis thrust vectoring) and extensive use of composite material. These are the things that they can include in the construction or development of the final prototype and another important thing after it successful flight test a dual seat trainer which can also be used as AJT/LIFT for fighter conversion like L-15, Yak-130 and others do. This will not only attract customers but will also make it more potent and effective in wars and operations as well.

Although you will say that the Block-2 will be much more advance then this, I am not saying that ok we will see this in next version. But I am saying that the next version would be much more capable than the one I supposed above.

My wish was that the Block-2 will look like this with WS-13(100KN):

nt only you bt we also expected the swedish retractable though it might be difficult to install this is why a fixd one is selected
RD-93MK is out of scene
wait 4 years more for dual seat one


official nothing like block II is introduced.

do you remember in may when PM visited china and the news about came about urgently deliver of 2nd batch(nt block II)

this is more like a batch II of JFT block 1.

beside this i really like this CGI

 

[SQ8]

nt only you bt we also expected the swedish retractable though it might be difficult to install this is why a fixd one is selected
RD-93MK is out of scene
wait 4 years more for dual seat one


official nothing like block II is introduced.

do you remember in may when PM visited china and the news about came about urgently deliver of 2nd batch(nt block II)

this is more like a batch II of JFT block 1.

beside this i really like this CGI

Partially correct.. the whole idea of a block-II was an unintended misnomer.
The JF-17 is not going to be radically changed. expect incremental changes in the next 50..and fairly noticeable ones in the last 50 of the current planned order. All changes in avionics will be implemented throughout the older airframes gradually in an upgrade.

 

[abdulbarijan]

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

Something new to talk about.

Quite an old picture, but has anyone noticed the F-16 style airbreaks.
If we compare the area near thrust nozzle of F-16 and Jf-17, every one can easily identify that JF-17 has large area.

So what happened to this break concept.
Even other F-16 inspired aircrafts like T-50 & Ching-Kho, both have similar breaking system that resist more air then JF-17 style Airbreaks.

Will this break-style resume in Block-2 JFT. ?

 

[Najam Khan]

Will this break-style resume in Block-2 JFT. ?

What is wrong with the current design? JF-17's landing distance is way shorter than F-16...even better than F-16s with drouge chute. Whats important in landing is good pilot skills and equally good computer.

 

[VCheng]

What is wrong with the current design? JF-17's landing distance is way shorter than F-16...even better than F-16s with drouge chute. Whats important in landing is good pilot skills and equally good computer.

Airbrakes are also used in certain flying maneuvers, not just for landing.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

What is wrong with the current design? JF-17's landing distance is way shorter than F-16...even better than F-16s with drouge chute. Whats important in landing is good pilot skills and equally good computer.

1 - Yes, it Landing distance is shorter because of lightness of JF-17.
2 - Chute is the first priority for any aircraft in PAF.
3 - Good Pilot and computer perform well only with Good components.

No doubt current Breaking system is good for JFT but F-16 style resist more air because of large Fins.
Current JF-17 Air breaks design is similar to Mig-23's design that consist on four small fins.
By Adding these breaks, we can reduce the more landing area and also will be equally use full in manurers just like F-16.
By adding, We can remove chute from tail for more ECM devices, sensors, Jammers or for fuel which will benefit the upcoming Twin seater JF-17 that will be used for A2G purpose as well.

 

[Najam Khan]

Airbrakes are also used in certain flying maneuvers, not just for landing.

Yes, but again there are other major factors involved in such maneuvers. To increase drag and decrease lift use of flaps plays equally important role.

No doubt current Breaking system is good for JFT but F-16 style resist more air because of large Fins.
Current JF-17 Air breaks design is similar to Mig-23's design that consist on four small fins.

This all comes down to design and airflow in JF-17.
JF-17 has large LERx providing enough lift, but at the same time equally good computer keeps an eye on the AOA generated as as result of this lift. Computer, AirBrakes and flaps all play their respective roles in completing one task.

 

[TVVELVEMO$]

The PAF DOES NOT desire an export for another three years atleast,

Oh good for a minute I was worried. But it seems that when a prospective buyer approaches PAF at an airshow; they are told to come back in 3 years at least.....right?

Where did the 300 figure for breakeven come from??And China too is interested in the type.. this is not the A380..

Well I plead guilty to reading most of aviation literature. So I refer you to initial public announcements of FC-1/SuperSabre Porject by CATIC......Too subtle & succinct? I will be revisiting this fine forum in the near future to elaborate if desired.

Did not get the reference to A380. Perhaps you think business plans/accounting principles do not apply to military projects.

 

[ziaulislam]

i dont think so, if a buyer comes now..they can get the aircraft very quickly..as quickly as anyone can offer them i.e starting in about 1.5-2 years

 

[Edevelop]

Have we seen this before?

 

[SQ8]

Oh good for a minute I was worried. But it seems that when a prospective buyer approaches PAF at an airshow; they are told to come back in 3 years at least.....right?



Well I plead guilty to reading most of aviation literature. So I refer you to initial public announcements of FC-1/SuperSabre Porject by CATIC......Too subtle & succinct? I will be revisiting this fine forum in the near future to elaborate if desired.

Did not get the reference to A380. Perhaps you think business plans/accounting principles do not apply to military projects.

They are encouraged to "stay in touch" and shown around the facilities in China. Given a checkride in the simulator etc

The reference to the A380 was for the figure of 300.. we do not need 300 to break even.(although I think the A380 has gone beyond)
Since the customer and the manufacturer are the same... the business plans took that into account.
The aircraft costs around 15 million.. I cant state the EXACT R&D costs.. but they will be recovered a lot quicker than 300.