JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[alimobin memon]

LOL!!!

-First off dont use wiki info

-Secondly JF-17's t/w ratio is 0.966 and if you consider the Kilmov chart at Zhuhai its over 1 as the Thrust mentioned there was 98Kn ..

-Thirdly keep LCA out

-Fourthly if your not satisfied by my answer review these figures of wiki
I mean 9500 Kg with 80.5 KN thrust and a T/W of 1.07...These guys seriously need help with maths ..

Thanks but i looked at several sites.
i looked at JF17.com it had 0.95 too , i never look at one place and believe i do verify .
Can u tell me how to calculate the thrust/weight ratio ?

 

[sancho]

There should be no reason to give out that information unless listed by the manufacturer.

I just asked because I read about the possible use of Ra'ad on JF 17 in one of the other threads and wondered if it could really be integrated on that station and what the (lenght, diameter and weight) limitations for that hardpoint are. According to the following load configs (which didn't include any cruise missiles though), the biggest weapon on the centerline stations seems to be the GBU 10 (lenght of 4.34 m, diameter 460 mm, ~956 kg):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mzeaY-VMqh8/S7gG5bx2tSI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/rHsO3k88WoU/s1600/sp-2.gif

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/9365/fc1weaponsconfigyf0.jpg


Also when you look at the following pic, you can see that a size limitation is needed because of the gears. The payload can't be too long because of the front gear and not too big in diameter because of the rear gears:

That's why I think the only way to integrate Ra'ad would be like right?

 

[sancho]

yup all of us know that too....but it comes down to this what exactly is the cost...which we all dont know for sure..

True, but that doesn't mean we can't think about it logically and when we do so, Block 2 should be more expensive than Block 1 and PAF should pay a lower unit cost than an export customer right?

Dear sir, do you know all about the upgrades in the JF-17 BLK-II?...

I am no mod of IDF and I don't give too much about all the speculations about what JF 17 could have, but here are several reliable sources that pointed the differences between B1 and 2 out in this thread. The comparison between JF 17 Block 2 and Gripen C/D is valid, because both are 4th gen fighters with the same level of techs (multi mode radars, BVR and precision strike capabilities...), but any 4th gen fighter still has different capabilities and my point was that it has higher payload, more hardpoints, better weapon pack and avionics... than JF 17 as I mentioned earlier and therefor is cost-effective as well.

you again forgot the factor cost in the cost to capability ratio....You simply looked at the capability factor here...You admit its the cheapest 4th gen jet available right...

Actually I didn't, but clearly explained that beeing the cheapest doesn't automatically means that you also are the most cost-effective choice as well. Check my earlier post once more and you will see that.

 

[nomi007]

i think paf wanna go for j-20 than j-10. no j-10 in paf, use those funds for j-20

it is very expensive to operate 5th generation jet
Pakistan is interested in f-35jsf but i do not think we can brought before 2020.
best option for paf is chinese j-21 or tai project

 

[sancho]

Guys i have one question that JF17 Trust/weight ratio is 0.95 which also is a important aspect of aircraft maneuverability but all 4th gen fighters have greater for eg: Tejas has 1.07 and f16 has 1.096 so how it is claimed by PAF pilots that it outperforms f-16 in maneuvers 0_o ?

TWR is not the only factor for maneuverability and the specs for Tejas are wrong, so lets leave at that.

You need to believe the Klimov brochure that say the RD-93 has 98kN of thrust ... ... then it all makes sense.

I think you are refering to this:

http://www.mycity-military.com/imgs2/155841_261482811_rd93.JPG

But it says "thrust range of the engine 79 - 98kN, not that RD93 has 98kN!

RD 93 was developed based on RD33 versions and before RD 33 MK with 90kN, so it's more likely that it is based on the RD 33 - 3 series and the thrust specs at Pac Kamra confirms this basically:

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex

19000 lb -> around 84kN AB thrust


The next upgrade of RD 93 will be based on RD 33MK changes, so might offer above 90kN thrust then, but afaik the goal is still to wait for WS 13 to improve and not to buy more Russian engines right?

 

[Last Hope]

it is very expensive to operate 5th generation jet
Pakistan is interested in f-35jsf but i do not think we can brought before 2020.
best option for paf is chinese j-21 or tai project

No Pakistan is not. Pakistan Air Force 'wishes' to have a F-35, but are not interested in buying it, but looking for cheaper and more reliable alternatives.

 

[TaimiKhan]

I just asked because I read about the possible use of Ra'ad on JF 17 in one of the other threads and wondered if it could really be integrated on that station and what the (lenght, diameter and weight) limitations for that hardpoint are. According to the following load configs (which didn't include any cruise missiles though), the biggest weapon on the centerline stations seems to be the GBU 10 (lenght of 4.34 m, diameter 460 mm, ~956 kg):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mzeaY-VMqh8/S7gG5bx2tSI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/rHsO3k88WoU/s1600/sp-2.gif

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/9365/fc1weaponsconfigyf0.jpg


Also when you look at the following pic, you can see that a size limitation is needed because of the gears. The payload can't be too long because of the front gear and not too big in diameter because of the rear gears:

That's why I think the only way to integrate Ra'ad would be like right?

If the weight of Ra'ad CM can be brought somewhere close to 920-50KG, then it can be easily accommodated on the 3 & 5 hardpoints OR both the hardpoints are made strong enough to carry a 1100KG payload or something close to it.

As far as i know, Ra'ad in its current design can be fully accommodated on the center line hard point without any issues.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SUABj-xVTFI/AAAAAAAAAhs/-zQJHms2WmE/s400/Ra'ad+ALCM.jpg

http://www.paffalcons.com/gallery/weapons-defence/images/weapons-defence-5-large.jpg

If the above picture is considered a true mock up of the original missile, i don't see any issue with its width or length in getting it fitted to the center line hard point. Getting it operational on 3 & 5 is the best effective usage of JF-17.

2 Ra'ad CMs, 1 800L center line fuel tank, 2 BVRs at 2 & 6 and 2 WVR at 1 & 7, best configuration for a ground attack mission.

 

[Najam Khan]

The length of JF-17 weapons is:
SD-10: Length 12.89 ft (3.93 m) (ref PL-12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
GBU-10 Paveway II: Length: 14 ft 4in (4.34 m) (ref GBU-10 Paveway II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
MAR-1 : Length 4.03 metres (13.2 ft) (ref MAR-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
Ra’ad: Weight 1,100 kg Length 4.85 m (ref Ra'ad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )


Now comes the question of centerline fueltank’s length. It is less than 5m. Considering the 5.43m the length of 360 gallons F-16 fuel tank. (ref http://airrefuelingarchive.files.wo...-fletcher-art-s-pod-aerial-refueling-tank.jpg )

Based on the available information, Pylon 3/5 aren’t heavy enough to support a 1000kg pay load. Which leaves centerline station as the only option for Ra’ad. Current version of Ra’ad is both heavy and lengthy. As stated by Taimi Khan, If PAF wants ALCM capability on JF-17 then AWC has to come up with its smaller size derivate.

 

[killerx]

JF17 need more hard points for sure or dedicated like F16 on side or blelow intake

 

[Last Hope]

Ra'ad on JF-17?

No hard-point can carry it. The wings would snap off!
The only possible, and available option is the center point. The same as Mirage.
And in the upcoming years, as Ra'ad develops to cover a larger ranger, the weight of the ALCM may differ.

 

[Tempest II]

Based on the available information, Pylon 3/5 aren’t heavy enough to support a 1000kg pay load.

That is not true … … in the presentation by the Engineer in Dubai, they said three weapon stations can carry 1000kg.

 

[Last Hope]

That is nit true … … in the presentation by the Engineer in Dubai, they said three weapon stations can carry 1000kg.

Well, I doubt that. If yes, those three are the the center hard-point, and the ones on either start of wing.

The weight of JF-17 is 6,411 KG. The maximum take-off weight is 12,474 KG. The fuel weights 2,268 KG.
Means, 3,795 KG is available, which can easily carry 3 Ra'ad ALCM. But the problem is, will the Thunder be able to get 1,200 KG on it's wings? (Imagining a PL-5E too).
The C-802/3 weights 715 KG and we saw two of them on the wings.

 

[Tempest II]

Well, I doubt that. If yes, those three are the the center hard-point, and the ones on either start of wing.

I could be getting the numbering system mixed up, but it is the fuselage pylon and the two inner pylons. i.e. the three pylon that carry the EFTs can carry at least 1,000 kg each.

 

[Tempest II]

Found the presentation. It says "3 store stations > 1000kg"

They can carry MORE THAN 1,000kg!

Here http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--MbEtJ9tH...ification+OFFICIAL+PRESENTATION++%2811%29.jpg

and here Pakistani JF-17 Thunder Fighter Jet Detailed:Official Presentation Part II ~ Pakistan Military Review

 

[Manticore]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/71435-jf-17-thunder-information-pool-19.html#post2299460

http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/71435-jf-17-thunder-information-pool-19.html#post2321257