JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Abingdonboy]

Can anyone tell me what IFF is fitted to the JF-17 and F-16s of PAF and what datalink the JF-17 has to be able to communicate with the ERIEYE? As I thought the ERIEYE had only Link-16 Datalink and am not sure of JF-17 does have such a system.

 

[Liquidmetal]

Can anyone tell me what IFF is fitted to the JF-17 and F-16s of PAF and what datalink the JF-17 has to be able to communicate with the ERIEYE? As I thought the ERIEYE had only Link-16 Datalink and am not sure of JF-17 does have such a system.

I believe that Pakistan is working on a home grown solution to allow the JFT to communicate with all PAF electronic intelligence assets including the Erieye. The JFT is of course able to data link with the ZDKs.

 

[Alphacharlie]

Link 16 system cant be used with J7 or any Chinese systems, it is compatible with all US European Wepsys.

 

[Abingdonboy]

I believe that Pakistan is working on a home grown solution to allow the JFT to communicate with all PAF electronic intelligence assets including the Erieye. The JFT is of course able to data link with the ZDKs.

Link 16 system cant be used with J7 or any Chinese systems, it is compatible with all US European Wepsys.

SL currently JFT can't link with Erieye? Surely the Erieye can be fitted with the same datalink as JFT and ZDKs so it can talk to all a/c in PAF inventory. Seems rather foolish otherwise to have spent so much money on an AWACS that can only link with a small proption of the fleet.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

reason for FC1 to be considered for carrier could be a logistic reason.?
its much more difficult to keep larger birds on a carrier, may be PLAN is ready to keep smaller birds on its deck. I think more FC1s can be placed on a same carrier than J-10.?

bhai saab

you need a very powerful engine for a short runway and an extremely robust chassis to survive the carrier take-off and landing. unless if you are planning to make a vertical take off version of it. then it would be an entirely different aircraft.

think for a moment, why you see 2 engine aircraft on the carriers? either FC1 has to have an engine the size of F-35 (which is the biggest engine for a single engine aircraft) or modify it to accommodate 2 engines. like I said then it will be something else. not the one we know it now

 

[Luftwaffe]

Seems rather foolish otherwise to have spent so much money on an AWACS that can only link with a small proption of the fleet.

SAAB 2000 Erieye were purchased procured augmenting F-16 Fleet squadrons, how small is small portion regardless of so called small portion F-16s Capabilities are Excellent those AMRAAMs gives hindustan a scare combined with excellent coverage of SAAB 2000 Erieye.

 

[araz]

You may call me crazy for dragging the Thunder in to PLA Navy carrier. Briefly,one of the simmering issue at present is how far J-10 can be improved and upgraded. J-10 is reaching a point where further upgrades may not be possible even though it is a great aircraft. JF-17 is not only inexpensive but has a lot of room to grow. A lot of talks and rumors are circulating, not necessarily that they are all true but they point to ideas that may or could be incorporated. I may state a few of them:

1. The single tall vertical tail may make way for twin tail to make it more stealthy. Also as Chinese have not designed and produced a twin tail yet, there seems to be a desire by the Chinese to introduce their own designed twin tail and introdece it for FC-1/JF-17
2. Twin tail will also reduce the weight
3.Change the circular rcs to diamond shaped cross section to improve stealthiness.
5. Keep the iconic DSI but make modify it due to changes in the nose
6. Increase the rounded edges on the wing. This will not only enable Thunder to perform better at low speed and at low altitude flying
This will also increase the wing tank capacity and increase range
7.Change the spine design and raise the cockpit for a better flight vision
8.Increase the take off weight.

Rest later. My eyes are hurting now.

Thank you so much for the respect shown by many on this forum and others. I am grateful. It is a bonus for old peorson like me to enjoy it at a time when respect for elders by youngsters is wanning in the new world.

P.S. MuradK not his true name, and i joined PAF on the same day but left at different times. He stayed with PAF and I went on to work in Defence industry in UK and USA in 1970s.

Pshamim saheb.
Sir, the rspect given to is well deserved,and we all value your input and the valuable nuggets that you provide are mrely the icing on the cake. This respect s owd by all of us to all who have served the nation so diligently. As to MuradK ,this is the name that he wants to be known by and that is what it remains. I think I echo your thoughts that he is one of the highest ranking PAF officers (retd) on the net. Certainly I think he is one of the most honest people around
Araz

 

[ziaulislam]

bhai saab

you need a very powerful engine for a short runway and an extremely robust chassis to survive the carrier take-off and landing. unless if you are planning to make a vertical take off version of it. then it would be an entirely different aircraft.

think for a moment, why you see 2 engine aircraft on the carriers? either FC1 has to have an engine the size of F-35 (which is the biggest engine for a single engine aircraft) or modify it to accommodate 2 engines. like I said then it will be something else. not the one we know it now

i was commenting on Shamim sahhab post.
by the way i do believe in thrust to weight ratio thunder is pretty good to take off from carrier but it has to sacrifice some payload.
the LCA naval version is suppose to have a lower T/W ratio than thunder yet they are developing it.
real issue why twin engines are used in carriers are probably their range and payload rather than T/W ratios

SL currently JFT can't link with Erieye? Surely the Erieye can be fitted with the same datalink as JFT and ZDKs so it can talk to all a/c in PAF inventory. Seems rather foolish otherwise to have spent so much money on an AWACS that can only link with a small proption of the fleet.

Oscar said in post here that first PAF was working on ground station linkage between F-16S, JFTs and eryinee but now PAF has came up with solution that would allow direct contact.
i believe his words, as this is to what we heard in sometime before from PAF officials

 

[Abdul Quddoos]

bhai saab

you need a very powerful engine for a short runway and an extremely robust chassis to survive the carrier take-off and landing. unless if you are planning to make a vertical take off version of it. then it would be an entirely different aircraft.

think for a moment, why you see 2 engine aircraft on the carriers? either FC1 has to have an engine the size of F-35 (which is the biggest engine for a single engine aircraft) or modify it to accommodate 2 engines. like I said then it will be something else. not the one we know it now

Sir g, what about CFTs..?
Is there any plan to add CFTs in Jf-17s in future to increase its range for long strike missions, a remarkable property that everyone (PAKISTANI) wanna see on thunders..?
With due respect sorry for jumping in again.

 

[Najam Khan]

Sir g, what about CFTs..?
Is there any plan to add CFTs in Jf-17s in future to increase its range for long strike missions, a remarkable property that everyone (PAKISTANI) wanna see on thunders..?
With due respect sorry for jumping in again.

Such structural changes require a lot of cost, effort and time (both in designing and testing). Right now and till 2016) the first requirement is speedy replacement of F-7 and Mirage fleet. Once the old aircraft are retired (and restored) PAF will expand its horizons on JF-17.

Addition of CFTs in Thunders must be done IF it meets the needs and requirements. Military technology is all about need, think for e.g Brazilian AF, added fuselage mounted fueltanks in their F-5s we did similar with F-6s back in the 1980s.

In JF-17 Block-II,the refueling probe will solve most of the range related problems. But still if need arise, PAF will consider some fuselage mounted tanks design too.

 

[SQ8]

Link 16 system cant be used with J7 or any Chinese systems, it is compatible with all US European Wepsys.

And how do you know this?
Have you worked with it? read the standard? Programmed it afresh on a device?

 

[Liquidmetal]

Sir g, what about CFTs..?
Is there any plan to add CFTs in Jf-17s in future to increase its range for long strike missions, a remarkable property that everyone (PAKISTANI) wanna see on thunders..?
With due respect sorry for jumping in again.

You are perfectly correct in stating that we would all love to see CFTs on the JFT. That would be so alaa and also include the refueling probe and we will have a great deep strike weapon. I am also sure that many experts in the PAF and Catic would also like to develop this technology. I can't wait to see these things come to fruition.

 

[pshamim]

Pshamim saheb.
Sir, the rspect given to is well deserved,and we all value your input and the valuable nuggets that you provide are mrely the icing on the cake. This respect s owd by all of us to all who have served the nation so diligently. As to MuradK ,this is the name that he wants to be known by and that is what it remains. I think I echo your thoughts that he is one of the highest ranking PAF officers (retd) on the net. Certainly I think he is one of the most honest people around
Araz

I value and very grateful for the sentiments shown.

 

[Imran Khan]

I value and very grateful for the sentiments shown.

some don't show it like me but we know abut you and we know your place sir jee

 

[pshamim]

bhai saab

you need a very powerful engine for a short runway and an extremely robust chassis to survive the carrier take-off and landing. unless if you are planning to make a vertical take off version of it. then it would be an entirely different aircraft.

think for a moment, why you see 2 engine aircraft on the carriers? either FC1 has to have an engine the size of F-35 (which is the biggest engine for a single engine aircraft) or modify it to accommodate 2 engines. like I said then it will be something else. not the one we know it now

Totally agree. If a carrier version is developed, it will be China specific and will need a stronger engine. Chinese are capable of changing aircraft structure and are already developing new engines, much stronger than the RD-93. These new engines may be introduced in the naval version Thunder/Xiolong fighter. Depending on the configuration of the carrier, Thunder may also require folding wings, and a new undercarriage.