JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Edevelop]

Had the intakes been on the lower side, just like F-16 or J-10, then height would have been increased, but since the air intakes are on the sides, thus the height is less compared to the ones having intakes on the under side, but still JF-17 has good ground clearance.

Except for Indians, i don't see anyone else complaining that JF-17 looks like a Mig-21. From which angle does it looks like a Mig-21 ?? Do the wing design match ?? Does the nose matches ?? Does the air intakes match ?? Rudder ?? Elevators ?? heck the landing gear mechanism is different too.

JF-17 is unique in its own way. DSI is its uniqueness.

And the changes you are suggesting, will render the idea of JF-17 useless. With what you are suggesting, why then go for JF-17, why not then get J-10 as it has what you are asking, bigger dimensions, bigger everything. Why have 2 aircraft having the same characteristics.

JF-17 is to be a light weight multi role aircraft, which would be supplemented with a medium role MR aircraft in the shape of J-10s & F-16s.

So, keep JF-17 a light weight multi role aircraft, which has lot of room for further improvement and it will be improved. By the I'm not saying JF-17 is 3rd gen but if we want to sell it then we must do what our customers would expect. Egypt rejected it and maybe its cuz of that reason

It may become the 21st Century Mig-21, but its not a Mig-21 from any angle or characteristic.

I thought this fighter jet was built so our engineers could gain experience in building it in Pakistan and hence to decrease our our air force defence budget. We don't need to get J-10 if JF-17 blk 2 gains composites, bigger nose (diamond shaped with AESA radar), modern avionics, IRST, air refuelling probe----- The J-10 is far more expensive. I think its 40 million a piece. I am a big fan of JF-17 and realistically if we are going ahead with such modernization equivillant to that of J-10 then those days are gone when we used to call it a " light multi role jet". Even if we try to improve the airframe then still i believe we would be saving a couple of million dollars.

 

[Manticore]

i think paf is making the jft as capable as possible-- this will lift the workload from j10 and f16 , so that the bulk of their missions would be deep penetration rather than babysitting the jft -- this is a sensible and cost-effective approach i.e if you cant buy many j10, atleast use them mostly for deep strikes so as to provide the paf with an offensive punch

 

[TaimiKhan]

I thought this fighter jet was built so our engineers could gain experience in building it in Pakistan and hence to decrease our our air force defence budget. We don't need to get J-10 if JF-17 blk 2 gains composites, bigger nose (diamond shaped with AESA radar), modern avionics, IRST, air refuelling probe----- The J-10 is far more expensive. I think its 40 million a piece. I am a big fan of JF-17 and realistically if we are going ahead with such modernization equivillant to that of J-10 then those days are gone when we used to call it a " light multi role jet". Even if we try to improve the airframe then still i believe we would be saving a couple of million dollars.

JF-17 Blk 2 can not replace what J-10s can do, that is more heavier payload and capable to go more deeper inside enemy territory and also capable to stay for longer time periods in the air.

JF-17Blk2 can not replace the role of a J-10, having the AESA, IRST, refueling probe etc etc doesn't means it becomes superior to J-10, JF-17 will still be having a weak engine, thus limiting its capability to take heavier load, longer range.

JF-17 will remain a light weight fighter in its current dimensions, yeah the goodies in it will be advanced to its maximum.

 

[TaimiKhan]

i think paf is making the jft as capable as possible-- this will lift the workload from j10 and f16 , so that the bulk of their missions would be deep penetration rather than babysitting the jft -- this is a sensible and cost-effective approach i.e if you cant buy many j10, atleast use them mostly for deep strikes so as to provide the paf with an offensive punch

That is the approach, make JF-17 as modern as possible, but it being a light fighter jet with lot of inhouse production, the operational costs would be down, but it will be able to give a good fight as any other jet in its category, and leave the heavier workload to the big brothers J-10 & F-16s.

 

[monitor]

I thought this fighter jet was built so our engineers could gain experience in building it in Pakistan and hence to decrease our our air force defence budget. We don't need to get J-10 if JF-17 blk 2 gains composites, bigger nose (diamond shaped with AESA radar), modern avionics, IRST, air refuelling probe----- The J-10 is far more expensive. I think its 40 million a piece. I am a big fan of JF-17 and realistically if we are going ahead with such modernization equivillant to that of J-10 then those days are gone when we used to call it a " light multi role jet". Even if we try to improve the airframe then still i believe we would be saving a couple of million dollars.

Every Pakistani must be big fan of their indigenous Fighter but that cannot ignore the reality . JF-17 is a capable fighter and will be more capable in coming year but still it will be inferior to J-10 in range pay load etc because J-10 it self can be ungraded as we have already seen in the form of J-10A and now J-10B, so ultimately it will remain comparatively more powerful then JF-17 even though JF-17 will get upgraded time to time . At the end J-10 will be slated as 4th generation+++ fighter where J-17 may be evolve at best as a 4th generation+ fighter .

 

[Bratva]

I have some questions. there was a weapon testing prototype for JF-17 made in 2005/06. Why all these were not tested and integrated on to JF-17?

Again in 2008 4 SBP JF-17 reached Pakistan but we heard SD-10 integrated on JF-17 late 2010 because of interfacing problems.

When we had a weapon and avionic testing prototype for JF-17 4-5 years ago why didn't we test this things then instead after inducting 20-30 JF-17 we are still integrating them!

It's same like we are installing our first MESMA AIP on our agostas after 12 years

Can taimi khan or nabil give their analysis on this?

 

[ANG]

Every Pakistani must be big fan of their indigenous Fighter but that cannot ignore the reality . JF-17 is a capable fighter and will be more capable in coming year but still it will be inferior to J-10 in range pay load etc because J-10 it self can be ungraded as we have already seen in the form of J-10A and now J-10B, so ultimately it will remain comparatively more powerful then JF-17 even though JF-17 will get upgraded time to time . At the end J-10 will be slated as 4th generation+++ fighter where J-17 may be evolve at best as a 4th generation+ fighter .

Hi, let's kindly please avoid the JF-17 versus J-10 debate, as this has been discussed to death. They are two different platforms, designed for significantly different roles. One does not compare the F-16 to the F-15, the Mirage 2000 to the Rafale, or the MiG-29 to the Su-30, etc.

The JF-17 was designed around specific PAF guidelines set for a lightweight fighter. The J-10 is a heavyweight fighter/interceptor.

 

[S-A-B-E-R->]

Every Pakistani must be big fan of their indigenous Fighter but that cannot ignore the reality . JF-17 is a capable fighter and will be more capable in coming year but still it will be inferior to J-10 in range pay load etc because J-10 it self can be ungraded as we have already seen in the form of J-10A and now J-10B, so ultimately it will remain comparatively more powerful then JF-17 even though JF-17 will get upgraded time to time . At the end J-10 will be slated as 4th generation+++ fighter where J-17 may be evolve at best as a 4th generation+ fighter .

of coures that is the difference between a light weight and a medium weight fighter . about the 4+++ or 4+ well what ever tech j10 ll get i am shoure jf will get those too.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

Izmir - Turkey

 

[Shahzad Sultan]

nice pics bro

 

[TaimiKhan]

I have some questions. there was a weapon testing prototype for JF-17 made in 2005/06. Why all these were not tested and integrated on to JF-17?

Again in 2008 4 SBP JF-17 reached Pakistan but we heard SD-10 integrated on JF-17 late 2010 because of interfacing problems.

When we had a weapon and avionic testing prototype for JF-17 4-5 years ago why didn't we test this things then instead after inducting 20-30 JF-17 we are still integrating them!

It's same like we are installing our first MESMA AIP on our agostas after 12 years



Can taimi khan or nabil give their analysis on this?

Problem is, JF-17 went through evolutions starting from Pt-01 to Pt-04 (DSI intakes one), Pt-04 was the final version in its evolution with respect to design, since it was a redesigned version thus its flight performance / parameters first had to be checked before anything else is integrated with it. So, Pt-04 was the only final version of the aircraft, thus checking out everything on it was not a feasible solution. So, Pt-04 was tested and once its initial flying parameters were obtained, then more JF-17s were made for further testing and evaluation the flying characteristics. 4 JF-17s then came into being, which in a way were themselves prototypes and more testing happened in Pakistan on them.

In aircraft manufacturing, things go slow, each and everything has to be thoroughly checked before going to next stage. Once everyone was done with the flying related stuff or near its end, then came the integration of the other things in it. That is why integration has been slow. And weapons integration is the last step before giving the aircraft FOC status, and that part is going on currently. And weapons are not tested just once, but many times to make sure that reliability would be there and chances of failure or mishaps don't occur.

Plus, with respect to SD-10, the initial version did not matched our requirements, so once the version required by us was developed, then we started to test it on the aircraft. Just look at the recent pics of Pt-06 with C-803 missiles, they are just dummy missiles which first would be tested for the flying characteristics of the aircraft once they are on it and may be integration of the avionics with the missile. After this trial, then will come the stage where live missiles would be tested.

And the step of producing JF-17s in numbers even though weapon integration has not been completed is a good step, as instead of having weighted for the full integration to happen and then start producing JF-17s, we have JF-17s already in numbers and once the weapon integration is done on prototypes, then simultaneously all the produced JF-17s will get updated and their software would get updated to incorporate the latest weapon systems available for it. Thus in just one go we will have 30 or so fully operational JF-17s with us.

Current JF-17s are at IOC status.

Also, would like to add, since there was so much going on with respect to JF-17, there was no final version of the radar, avionics suit or weapon systems that it would have been unwise to test unfinished or less capable systems with each other. Once final version of radar was finalized, final version of SD-10 came into being, then integration was started.

 

[Zabaniyah]

One question: Does the JF-17 still use C++ programming?

 

[S-A-B-E-R->]

One question: Does the JF-17 still use C++ programming?

yes it does.

 

[TaimiKhan]

One question: Does the JF-17 still use C++ programming?

Yups, hasn't been changed yet, nor any plans to change it.

 

[Zabaniyah]

yes it does.

What are the advantages of using C++ over ADA?