JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Doctor09]

 

[untitled]

Next to a J-20

Cooool ...... Thundaaaaa

 

[Last Hope]

 

[untitled]

My bad .....

 

[ziaulislam]

wrong they already learn how to use stones for this job . afghans teach them abut it

its a reality that afghan depends too much on us. but there are some utilities they can get from us anywya. as boarder is free.
e.g 99 percent of afgans come to pakistan for treatment of even the most basic medical issues. its a disgrace for NATO and US that dont even have most basic medical equipment in any hospital in afghnistan

 

[nomi007]

jf-17 thunder blck-1 is just aircraft like simple type
but j-17 thunder will be the true warrior

 

[Sapper]

jf-17 thunder blck-1 is just aircraft like simple type
but j-17 thunder will be the true warrior

Dear,

I agree to the fact that JF-17 block-2 will be awsome, rivaling and in some areas surpassing F16-Bl-52 in some areas (if it get AESA).

But, year earlier statement that JF-17 block-1 is simple is inaccurate and fallicious.

JF-17 Bl-1 surpasses F16-Bl-15 in all aspects, with its similar payload, similar RCS, same number of hard-points, same Dumb and PGM capabilities, and similar handling and thrust-to-weight characteristics; but it trumps F16-Bl-15 on account of having better radar than AN/APG-66 and BVR capability. It is clearly in the category of F16-Bl25 ~ F16-Bl30, minus the additional chin pylons for targetting pods. Now if you say F16-Bl30 is SIMPLE, I rest my case.

NOTE: I am not starting F16 vs JF-17 discussion here. Just wanted to cite an example for a non-simple multi-role fighter, Grippen, Mirage-2000, F16, F20, and now JF-17 all fall into the same category. F16 is clearly superior because its bigger, and thus can have more hardpoints (9+2) and the continued upgradation has ensured F16 will serve respectfully till around 50 years after its initial induction.

Regards,
Sapper

 

[Bratva]

Dear,

I agree to the fact that JF-17 block-2 will be awsome, rivaling and in some areas surpassing F16-Bl-52 in some areas (if it get AESA).

But, year earlier statement that JF-17 block-1 is simple is inaccurate and fallicious.

JF-17 Bl-1 surpasses F16-Bl-15 in all aspects, with its similar payload, similar RCS, same number of hard-points, same Dumb and PGM capabilities, and similar handling and thrust-to-weight characteristics; but it trumps F16-Bl-15 on account of having better radar than AN/APG-66 and BVR capability. It is clearly in the category of F16-Bl25 ~ F16-Bl30, minus the additional chin pylons for targetting pods. Now if you say F16-Bl30 is SIMPLE, I rest my case.

NOTE: I am not starting F16 vs JF-17 discussion here. Just wanted to cite an example for a non-simple multi-role fighter, Grippen, Mirage-2000, F16, F20, and now JF-17 all fall into the same category. F16 is clearly superior because its bigger, and thus can have more hardpoints (9+2) and the continued upgradation has ensured F16 will serve respectfully till around 50 years after its initial induction.

Regards,
Sapper

JF-17 has not reached it's full potential yet, there were some integration issues w.r.t SD-10. Weapons are still integrating, No targeting pod has been tested and any PGM tested so far. As far as i know, FOC is not still given to JF-17 , correct me here members, Radar is as good as APG-66 but not surpassing it any way. IFR capability is yet to be added and it should have been added to Block-1 and i'm still amused why they didn't add it in Block 1.

We havent seen SD-10b yet on JF-17 and talk of SD-10 A a above average BVR is ripe here on forum (If we believe what eagle Hanna has said that PAF was not satisfied with the peformance of SD-10A.)

With enemy buying latest 4th generation fighter, the need of High bore of sight missiles become a necessity for PAF and main thing associated with HOBOS missiles is Helmet mounted sight and we haven't seen HOBOS missile or any HMS on JF-17 which it need seriously.

So Let JF-17 reach it's potential, then say that it has surpassed the F-16 Level.

 

[Sapper]

JF-17 has not reached it's full potential yet, there were some integration issues w.r.t SD-10. Weapons are still integrating, No targeting pod has been tested and any PGM tested so far. As far as i know, FOC is not still given to JF-17 , correct me here members, Radar is as good as APG-66 but not surpassing it any way. IFR capability is yet to be added and it should have been added to Block-1 and i'm still amused why they didn't add it in Block 1.

We havent seen SD-10b yet on JF-17 and talk of SD-10 A a above average BVR is ripe here on forum (If we believe what eagle Hanna has said that PAF was not satisfied with the peformance of SD-10A.)

With enemy buying latest 4th generation fighter, the need of High bore of sight missiles become a necessity for PAF and main thing associated with HOBOS missiles is Helmet mounted sight and we haven't seen HOBOS missile or any HMS on JF-17 which it need seriously.

So Let JF-17 reach it's potential, then say that it has surpassed the F-16 Level.

Dear,

Capability is there, Integration is required, I agree, no doubt it needs time to integrate and develop weapons and test them. But it will remain block 1 aircraft, same aircraft, same radar, same avionics, only software upgrades, no hardware change. So after a couple of years of integration and trials, it will be able to carry out all of what i have said earlier. Software upgrades continue as long as the aircraft remain operational, but capability needs to be built in from start.

F16 Bl-15 didnot have BVR AAM support, because of lack of AN/APG 66 to cater for BVR engagements. It required Hardware changes and upgradation to Bl-25 level to allow for software upgrades for BVR enagements to take place. And i am sure you are confusing APG-66 with APG-68-(V)9. APG-68-(V)9 is what F16-Bl52 has, and APG-66 was the radar of F16-Bl15, APG-66 was the legacy model used till '87. Upgrading from APG-66 to APG-68, and adding glass cockpit was SO significant that it required changing designation from F16-A/B to F16-C/D. Similarly changing from APG-68 to APG-80 was so significant that they changed designation to F16-E/F. And by the way, as per my knowledge, KLJ-7 (current version in JF-17-Bl-1 ) is comparable to AN/APG-68-(v)5, but still inferior to AN/APG-68-(v)9. That means we are still 15 years behind in terms of technology, but AESA is coming in block-2, so no worries.

So the bottomline is, capability is already built-in and present in the current Hardware and are on par with F16-Bl25/40, but software requires integrations and trials, just like F16 did in the 80's and 90's. Do remember that F16-Bl52 testbed flew in mid-90's but made into mainstray only in early 2000's when integration was complete.

Regards,
Sapper

 

[Donatello]

Dear,

I agree to the fact that JF-17 block-2 will be awsome, rivaling and in some areas surpassing F16-Bl-52 in some areas (if it get AESA).

But, year earlier statement that JF-17 block-1 is simple is inaccurate and fallicious.

JF-17 Bl-1 surpasses F16-Bl-15 in all aspects, with its similar payload, similar RCS, same number of hard-points, same Dumb and PGM capabilities, and similar handling and thrust-to-weight characteristics; but it trumps F16-Bl-15 on account of having better radar than AN/APG-66 and BVR capability. It is clearly in the category of F16-Bl25 ~ F16-Bl30, minus the additional chin pylons for targetting pods. Now if you say F16-Bl30 is SIMPLE, I rest my case.

NOTE: I am not starting F16 vs JF-17 discussion here. Just wanted to cite an example for a non-simple multi-role fighter, Grippen, Mirage-2000, F16, F20, and now JF-17 all fall into the same category. F16 is clearly superior because its bigger, and thus can have more hardpoints (9+2) and the continued upgradation has ensured F16 will serve respectfully till around 50 years after its initial induction.

Regards,
Sapper

JF-17 does not have a similar payload to F-16s......

 

[Sapper]

JF-17 does not have a similar payload to F-16s......

Please quote usable payload of F16 A/B, i.e. till block 20, with 7 hardpoints.

F16 A/B has 7 hardpoints, 2 of them can carry 1-ton, and 2 are wingtip stations with <100kg. That leaves 3 stations. Center station cannot carry huge loads due to low ground clearance, but still can carry 600~700kg. @ remaining Pylons cannot carry 1-ton, even if they did the total comes to around 4.5~5ton. JF-17 is ~4ton, newer reports suggest 4.5ton allowable. Now thats comparable ... isnt it ?

Regards,
Sapper

 

[Donatello]

You can check it here....

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon


The payload for earlier Block 15s, like the ones PAF operates.....has a payload for external weapons/fuel of above 6,000 Kgs.......whereas the JF-17 has it around 3,600Kgs.......

 

[Sapper]

You can check it here....

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon


The payload for earlier Block 15s, like the ones PAF operates.....has a payload for external weapons/fuel of above 6,000 Kgs.......whereas the JF-17 has it around 3,600Kgs.......

Dear,

Do you mean to F16 have 5 x 1ton stations + 2x wingtip-stations with 700kg loads ??? Please explain .

Please make me a bombing configuration with 6000kg bombs, assuming 2x200 kg amraams on wingtip (although F16A/B cannot launch it).

Regards,
Sapper

 

[Donatello]

Dear,

Do you mean to F16 have 5 x 1ton stations + 2x wingtip-stations with 700kg loads ??? Please explain .

Please make me a bombing configuration with 6000kg bombs, assuming 2x200 kg amraams on wingtip (although F16A/B cannot launch it).

Regards,
Sapper

I don't need to make a bombing configuration. Payload is the weight that an aircraft can carry.....fuel+weapons+pods etc. F-16, whether using 11 hard points or 7, can lift off with more load than JF-17 can.


Am i missing something here, or did you fail to provide the point of your post?

 

[TOPGUN]

Do we know what block 2 of thunder will look like or are we just reling on the photoshop images ? anyone know.