JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Gentelman]

KAI T-50 Golden Eagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check out what radar it uses... EL/M-2032

T-50 golden eagle is same as JL-15, advance trainer but why did it fitted with such powerful radar for a trainer?

According to the latest rumour, if customer fork out slightly more money, a PESA radar is ready to be used on JL-15.

Check out the latest spec of JL-15. The final configuration is fitted with 2 afterburner that can produced 4200kg thrust of engine each. Which means final 8400kg of thrust, Enough to match JF-17.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ract-chinese-l-15-jet-trainer-production.html

The T-50 Golden Eagle design
is largely derived from the
F-16 Fighting Falcon , and they
have many similarities: use of
a single engine, speed, size,
cost, and the range of
weapons.[10] KAI's previous
engineering experience in
license-producing the KF-16
was a starting point for the
development of the T-50.
and Lockheah Martin is involved in development and specification of T-50..
It is using tech from Britans,US and Israel not a single from China so comparing T50 (21-30 MUSD) with JL-15(10-15USD) is completely a shi*.....

 

[Gentelman]

It was never meant for local consumption..was built as an export product.
if the plane is that useless..why its always used as a trusted chase plane for j-20?

@Safriz that man looks like a troll and false flagger and is ruining this thread...
he should be banned...
about L-15 it's combat radius,takeoff weight,BVR capability and airframe lifetime along with speed are enough factors to keep it as a trainer....

 

[Beast]

@Safriz that man looks like a troll and false flagger and is ruining this thread...
he should be banned...
about L-15 it's combat radius,takeoff weight,BVR capability and airframe lifetime along with speed are enough factors to keep it as a trainer....

It's more like you can't accept the reality. Please update yrself the later specification of JL-15, the thrust I quote is back with link and facts. JL-15 can pull 8.5G , LERX for high angle of attack. It's combat radius is comparable to JF-17, so as the weapon payload. The china domestic make engine will code name WS-11. 100% made in china like K-8.

Didn't my word come true , there will be no twin seater JF-17 in near future. So you going to ban me just becos I stated something true? It's from yr Air Marshal words that no twin JF-17 seater. Of cos, he will not stated china is refusing planning to make one or demanding a huge fee for such development.

 

[PakShaheen79]

I am unable to understand why it is such a big deal if there is no twin seater of JFT? If PAF is saying that there is no twin-seat version then there is none required. There are other means to train a pilot for the plane. (Simulators or may be JL-15)

I don't think it is that much a problem.

@ Beast: I am sorry but I don't believe that AVIC didn't know that they will have to share the profit of JFT exports. They knew it all along. May be PAF evaluate simulator's performance and decided to go for that instead going for a conversion version with twin seats or may be PAF also acquire JL-15 or other trainer considering the financial viability.

I think problem here on PDF is that first we assume things as a truth out of rumors and when they don't turn out as truth we start reacting. This is not first time. In the past too, on many other issues, authenticity of news was not considered before they were assumed as truth only for turning as rumors later on.

 

[Jango]

I think problem here on PDF is that first we assume things as a truth out of rumors and when they don't turn out as truth we start reacting. This is not first time. In the past too, on many other issues, authenticity of news was not considered before they were assumed as truth only for turning as rumors later on.

Quoted for truth.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

I am unable to understand why it is such a big deal if there is no twin seater of JFT? If PAF is saying that there is no twin-seat version then there is none required. There are other means to train a pilot for the plane. (Simulators or may be JL-15)

My friend, Its same as PAF said they are not interested in J-10 at the moment because they had no cash in hand and now no twin seater required mean they can't make one. Get the fight over, time will clear it all.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

BTW when we say TWIN SEATER it doesn't just mean a trainer, it's also used in A2G strike / attack rolls, mission workload very much shifts to the navigator. Weapon selection - guidance, target selection, monitoring ground and surrounding, navigation etc. is done by the navigator and pilot can focus on flying. Thats why PAF prefer F-16B for strike missions. Twin seater has its own benefits, don't compare JF-17 with F-35 a 5th gen aircraft, its good that flight training is done on SIM but it cannot be matched with F35 pilot training programme. All the 4th get aircrafts have twin seater version and they are mainly used as strike aircrafts rather than a trainer. You can name them Rafale, Gripen, EF2K, F18, F16 etc ... Stating that, we don't need a Twin seater Thunder because all the training is done on SIM, doesn't make any sense to me at all. Its China who has played its cards and bulleid Pakistan to drop JF-17B idea for its Trainer market.
Nevertheless PAF was keen to develop a TWIN SEATER a couple years back (as per AFM as well), and suddenly they find out they really don't need a twin seater. Apart from other factors CASH is another issue we have to go for the twin seater.

JF-17B picture issued in AFM 2010 issue.

 

[fatman17]

My friend, Its same as PAF said they are not interested in J-10 at the moment because they had no cash in hand and now no twin seater required mean they can't make one. Get the fight over, time will clear it all.

PAF is interested but the chinese dont have permission for the export of the russian engine. thats why when J-10 matures with a chinese powerplant then you will see J-10B in PAF livery - question is when?

BTW when we say TWIN SEATER it doesn't just mean a trainer, it's also used in A2G strike / attack rolls, mission workload very much shifts to the navigator. Weapon selection - guidance, target selection, monitoring ground and surrounding, navigation etc. is done by the navigator and pilot can focus on flying. Thats why PAF prefer F-16B for strike missions. Twin seater has its own benefits, don't compare JF-17 with F-35 a 5th gen aircraft, its good that flight training is done on SIM but it cannot be matched with F35 pilot training programme. All the 4th get aircrafts have twin seater version and they are mainly used as strike aircrafts rather than a trainer. You can name them Rafale, Gripen, EF2K, F18, F16 etc ... Stating that, we don't need a Twin seater Thunder because all the training is done on SIM, doesn't make any sense to me at all. Its China who has played its cards and bulleid Pakistan to drop JF-17B idea for its Trainer market.
Nevertheless PAF was keen to develop a TWIN SEATER a couple years back (as per AFM as well), and suddenly they find out they really don't need a twin seater. Apart from other factors CASH is another issue we have to go for the twin seater.

JF-17B picture issued in AFM 2010 issue.

at the moment the PAF is 'adapting' to the financial crunch but eventually a 2-seater version will be necessary as numbers of the JFT increase to 150 and beyond.

 

[araz]

BTW when we say TWIN SEATER it doesn't just mean a trainer, it's also used in A2G strike / attack rolls, mission workload very much shifts to the navigator. Weapon selection - guidance, target selection, monitoring ground and surrounding, navigation etc. is done by the navigator and pilot can focus on flying. Thats why PAF prefer F-16B for strike missions. Twin seater has its own benefits, don't compare JF-17 with F-35 a 5th gen aircraft, its good that flight training is done on SIM but it cannot be matched with F35 pilot training programme. All the 4th get aircrafts have twin seater version and they are mainly used as strike aircrafts rather than a trainer. You can name them Rafale, Gripen, EF2K, F18, F16 etc ... Stating that, we don't need a Twin seater Thunder because all the training is done on SIM, doesn't make any sense to me at all. Its China who has played its cards and bulleid Pakistan to drop JF-17B idea for its Trainer market.
Nevertheless PAF was keen to develop a TWIN SEATER a couple years back (as per AFM as well), and suddenly they find out they really don't need a twin seater. Apart from other factors CASH is another issue we have to go for the twin seater.

JF-17B picture issued in AFM 2010 issue.

In addition to cash there may be other confounding factors that you have not considered. You put a second seat on where the avionics pack sits. You would need to replace it somewhere and a dorsal spine would probably mean less fuel and therefore ferry range. If you increase the fuel capacity it would mean enlarging the plane itself, which would not only require an engine with better thrust which is a problem at the moment, but redesigning which would add to the cost. What PAF/ CHENGDU are doing is saying we have the plan in last stages of development , we need a partner to help develop it and bear some of the cost of the design changes. Another factor to consider is a slightly larger JFT wit ha couple more hardpoints suddenly changes categories and goes into middle weight category which then threatens J10B. This is something that the Chinese would not want at the moment. I hope this makes sense.
Araz

 

[Beast]

I am unable to understand why it is such a big deal if there is no twin seater of JFT? If PAF is saying that there is no twin-seat version then there is none required. There are other means to train a pilot for the plane. (Simulators or may be JL-15)

I don't think it is that much a problem.

@ Beast: I am sorry but I don't believe that AVIC didn't know that they will have to share the profit of JFT exports. They knew it all along. May be PAF evaluate simulator's performance and decided to go for that instead going for a conversion version with twin seats or may be PAF also acquire JL-15 or other trainer considering the financial viability.

I think problem here on PDF is that first we assume things as a truth out of rumors and when they don't turn out as truth we start reacting. This is not first time. In the past too, on many other issues, authenticity of news was not considered before they were assumed as truth only for turning as rumors later on.

AVIC knew its a 50/50 joint venture. But it never knew , PAF is going have a change of spec and AVIC itself is going to inject addtional fund to complete the project. This make a 50/50 split on profit non feasible from a AVIC point of view. But AVIC make full use of this venture to train up large number of young aviation designer talent like Yang Wei and his team using JF-17 as a testing ground for lots of new features and concept developed by AVIC for future project.

To PAF, not having twin seater is not a big deal. SInce they can use their F-16B to trainer up many qualify F-16 pilot before they move on the experience pilot to JF-17.

But if you wanted to capture small airforce market, small airforce who don't have the luxury of owning F-16 or other advance fighter. They need to save cost by combining trainer and fighter concept into one. Great example is Philippine Airforce who initially wanted to go for F-16. But it proves too costly. Getting the 2 in 1 Korean T-50 golden eagle will be a better solution. It will eliminate the addtional need of trainer for training and conversion cost while still can use the T-50 fitted with Israel Elta EM-2032 as a front line fighter if need.

JL-15 is born under this concept to cater for the small airforce market.

 

[PakShaheen79]

AVIC knew its a 50/50 joint venture. But it never knew , PAF is going have a change of spec and AVIC itself is going to inject addtional fund to complete the project. This make a 50/50 split on profit non feasible from a AVIC point of view. But AVIC make full use of this venture to train up large number of young aviation designer talent like Yang Wei and his team using JF-17 as a testing ground for lots of new features and concept developed by AVIC for future project.

To PAF, not having twin seater is not a big deal. SInce they can use their F-16B to trainer up many qualify F-16 pilot before they move on the experience pilot to JF-17.

But if you wanted to capture small airforce market, small airforce who don't have the luxury of owning F-16 or other advance fighter. They need to save cost by combining trainer and fighter concept into one. Great example is Philippine Airforce who initially wanted to go for F-16. But it proves too costly. Getting the 2 in 1 Korean T-50 golden eagle will be a better solution. It will eliminate the addtional need of trainer for training and conversion cost while still can use the T-50 fitted with Israel Elta EM-2032 as a front line fighter if need.

JL-15 is born under this concept to cater for the small airforce market.

Sir, Just for my own education, can you share a link stating that PAF didn't share the additional financial burden after specs were revised. Thanks in advanced. I am sorry but your claim sounds as if PAF is an immature entity.

For the second part of your post, I think if that is the case, then we will have to evaluate JL-15's performance against T-50's in context of small air forces and trends of export clients of affordable fighters which, as you stated yourself, must have trainer/fighter combined in one. Only that comparison can put JL-15 into prospect.

BTW when we say TWIN SEATER it doesn't just mean a trainer, it's also used in A2G strike / attack rolls, mission workload very much shifts to the navigator. Weapon selection - guidance, target selection, monitoring ground and surrounding, navigation etc. is done by the navigator and pilot can focus on flying. Thats why PAF prefer F-16B for strike missions. Twin seater has its own benefits, don't compare JF-17 with F-35 a 5th gen aircraft, its good that flight training is done on SIM but it cannot be matched with F35 pilot training programme. All the 4th get aircrafts have twin seater version and they are mainly used as strike aircrafts rather than a trainer. You can name them Rafale, Gripen, EF2K, F18, F16 etc ... Stating that, we don't need a Twin seater Thunder because all the training is done on SIM, doesn't make any sense to me at all. Its China who has played its cards and bulleid Pakistan to drop JF-17B idea for its Trainer market.
Nevertheless PAF was keen to develop a TWIN SEATER a couple years back (as per AFM as well), and suddenly they find out they really don't need a twin seater. Apart from other factors CASH is another issue we have to go for the twin seater.

JF-17B picture issued in AFM 2010 issue.

Still the irony is, despite being single seated, the strike weapons were the first to be integrated on JFT. Any idea why?

 

[Beast]

Sir, Just for my own education, can you share a link stating that PAF didn't share the additional financial burden after specs were revised. Thanks in advanced. I am sorry but your claim sounds as if PAF is an immature entity.

There is never any news nor info of PAF injected new fund into JF-17 for pt04, please enlighten me if you have info. Thanks!

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

In addition to cash there may be other confounding factors that you have not considered. You put a second seat on where the avionics pack sits. You would need to replace it somewhere and a dorsal spine would probably mean less fuel and therefore ferry range. If you increase the fuel capacity it would mean enlarging the plane itself, which would not only require an engine with better thrust which is a problem at the moment, but redesigning which would add to the cost. What PAF/ CHENGDU are doing is saying we have the plan in last stages of development , we need a partner to help develop it and bear some of the cost of the design changes. Another factor to consider is a slightly larger JFT wit ha couple more hardpoints suddenly changes categories and goes into middle weight category which then threatens J10B. This is something that the Chinese would not want at the moment. I hope this makes sense.
Araz

Does it really require to increase the size of the jet to adjust second seat ? F-16B/D, Gripen-B/D, J-10S, LCA, M2k-B/D etc. are a few single engined jets, which one of them has increased size for second seat. I agree that redesigning is required to some extent but just to adjust second seat and required avionics. For this purpose either spine is enlarged for avionics placement and fuel storage OR nose length is increased to shift avionics from cockpit's behind to front OR radome is reduced to carry small diameter radar so that available space can be filled with shifted avionics. This is not that easy as i described it here. Developing a JFT-B is required, R&D facility, funds, experienced engineers & a PARTNER of course. We have assembling facility but no R&D dept, No funds, Thank God we have experienced engineers and a partner as well but he don't want to see a JFT-B because it will be threat to its advance trainer program just because we have 50/50 shares in the project.
I don't know why you guys don't want to believe in it but i know that JFT is a highly capable multirole fighter in affordable price, if a twin seater is developed which posses all the capabilities of JFT-A plus it can be used as trainer as well then say by by to JL-15, JL-9 etc etc. moreover Pakistan will share 50% profit in case of a sale whereas L-15, Jl-9 are totally Chinese Khait ke Molli .... JAGO MERI KOOM K MASSOM AWAM JAGO, YAHA KOI KISIS KA NAHIN HOTA.

Still the irony is, despite being single seated, the strike weapons were the first to be integrated on JFT. Any idea why?

If you try to read my post again, you will realise that i wasn't talking about CAPABILITY but FLEXIBILITY.
JF-17 can perform all the task on single seater as well but Twin seater reduce workload of pilot. PAF mostly uses F-16B for strike mission in tribal areas, ANY IDEA WHY ?

 

[PakShaheen79]

There is never any news nor info of PAF injected new fund into JF-17 for pt04, please enlighten me if you have info. Thanks!

Sir, you made a claim hence the onus of providing the source is upon you not me. I didn't make that claim. Please don't try to flip the question. Answer it please.

 

[PakShaheen79]

If you try to read my post again, you will realise that i wasn't talking about CAPABILITY but FLEXIBILITY.
JF-17 can perform all the task on single seater as well but Twin seater reduce workload of pilot. PAF mostly uses F-16B for strike mission in tribal areas, ANY IDEA WHY ?

Yes sir, I did read your post and we all know flexibility comes with capability. Also, modern sensor suits and electronics have provide pilots of single seat fighter jets the "Flexibility" which previously was limited to dedicated strike platform. But you still didn't answer my question that why strike weapon integration was completed and done first on JFT. A little pondering on this fact can reveal that what PAF had in mind for strike role configuration of JFT since its inception and why there is no twin seater in making.

As far as PAF using F-16B in FATA is concerned, IMHO, because F-16B is the most sophisticated dedicated strike platform, with more payload capacity than any other platform in PAF, and on which PAF pilots have ample amount of experience to ensure maximum precision and minimum collateral damage since it is being used inside Pakistani territories with many innocent lives in target area. But that is what I think of it which may be totally wrong as it is a matter of operational planning and strategy of PAF to combat terrorism.

Now please try to ponder upon the fact about integration of strike package on JFT. Just look how many A2G weapons it can carry