JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Bilal.]

Well, it really depends on requirements. As such the computer regulates the leading edge slats too. The roll and yaw inputs also go into the computer that coordinates it with the servos in the tail. So its more of a hybrid than separate systems.

Yes it's a hybrid system but still a full FBW will surely save weight and space.

Not possible. Chinese said it would take 2 years for them to build full fbw for JF-17

Actually, in a recent interview they said it's available as an option, at additional cost of course.

 

[Bratva]

Yes it's a hybrid system but still a full FBW will surely save weight and space.

Actually, in a recent article they said it's available as an option, at additional cost of course.

But it would take two years to design and manufacture a full fledge fbw, they also said it. Since Block 2 price has increased to 20-25 million. As per chinese it would add a 10 percent increase in cost if anyone wants full fbw. By the time we reach block 3. Price would reach 30-35 million. So PAF would not take a risk of adding a full fbw

 

[Bilal.]

But it would take two years to design and manufacture a full fledge fbw, they also said it. Since Block 2 price has increased to 20-25 million. As per chinese it would add a 10 percent increase in cost if anyone wants full fbw. By the time we reach block 3. Price would reach 30-35 million. So PAF would not take a risk of adding a full fbw

Hmmm... That would be a bummer... But if we want it to be a force in the 4th gen fighter market we should go for it.

 

[Munir]

it is almost 2014. We are going to assemble/build 50. In 2016 we will start block 3. That means 25 per annum. C'est simple.

Some people do not understand the price difference. Block 1 is 15 million. Block 2 is 20-25 million. That is 33%-66% increase. You guys still think (with still same engine) that it is just a few things? Maybe.

The design looks like a modification of an existing block 1 but no way a definitive design as in block 2. It will be not a lot different (location) but this is just a fast way to test the sustem. You can add a pipe and locate it more up front just like J10. I see many posters on several forums copied my post in a Chinese forum. Great.

 

[Jungibaaz]

If these things are on along with AESA and updated engine I will feel fulfilled

I don't understand one thing though, JF-17 has pretty much the same dimensions as an F-16 yet every now and then we hear it is too small to fit xyz or there is no space for abc. It has become somewhat of a mystery for me.

F-16 and JF-17 are similar.
But the JF-17 is a light weight, the F-16 I'd class as medium weight, it's a heavier bird.
Just like J-10 which in fact is even heavier, people falsely pin JF-17 in the same size and weight category as the J-10 and F-16.

 

[Bilal.]

F-16 and JF-17 are similar.
But the JF-17 is a light weight, the F-16 I'd class as medium weight, it's a heavier bird.
Just like J-10 which in fact is even heavier, people falsely pin JF-17 in the same size and weight category as the J-10 and F-16.

I understand, I was talking specifically about internal space, it's length is 49 feet, F-16 is 49 feet 5 inch. Of course I don't expect JFT to carry 7000kg payload but internal space should not be any bigger issue than an F-16 unless it's carrying bulky internal equipment, for instance, the hybrid flight control system.

 

[Dazzler]

wait for blk 2 till june 2014

 

[Superboy]

I understand, I was talking specifically about internal space, it's length is 49 feet, F-16 is 49 feet 5 inch. Of course I don't expect JFT to carry 7000kg payload but internal space should not be any bigger issue than an F-16 unless it's carrying bulky internal equipment, for instance, the hybrid flight control system.

JF-17 and F-16 are different sizes classes. Size class is determined by engine size. JF-17 is the same class as Gripen, Tejas. J-10 is the same size class as F-16, Mirage 2000, Rafale, Typhoon, F/A-18.

 

[Bilal.]

JF-17 and F-16 are different sizes classes. Size class is determined by engine size. JF-17 is the same class as Gripen, Tejas. J-10 is the same size class as F-16, Mirage 2000, Rafale, Typhoon, F/A-18E.

Yet Gripen(ng) is slated to carry AESA, internal SPJ, IRST where as the same equipment is facing space constraints in JFT. Plus, as I said my comparison with F-16 was purely in terms for dimensions not other performance criteria in which case the length is virtually the same. The only thing that makes sense is as Oscar explained, I.e., production technique, internal equipment, etc.

 

[Informant]

What engine testing? WS-13? And what's the point when we are still stuck with rd-93 in block 2?

We have signed a deal for 100 RD-93's. WS-13 is being tested for future endeavors with China. Patience young Padawan.

 

[Bilal.]

We have signed a deal for 100 RD-93's. WS-13 is being tested for future endeavors with China. Patience young Padawan.

Patience is the hardest thing obi wan kenobi

But ok let's wait till 2016.

 

[Informant]

Patience is the hardest thing obi wan kenobi

But ok let's wait till 2016.

An year more than 16. Engine maturity takes atleast 5 years. So many cycles.

 

[Zarvan]

How positive are your? The refuelling system for the Mirage came from the South Africans... its only natural they added their expertise to the JF-17.

Jeez.. I wonder.. if our usual fanboys with stealth block-II ideas are going to shut up now or not.



Considering I've been saying this since 2011..I wonder how long will they go on till the mystery about the third block is to be cleared.

Sir. Discussion will continue until PAF itself tells what avionics and radar and how much weapon load is increased

 

[Manticore]

Everything [design/internal space] revolves around the engine --- thats the actual difference between f16 and jf17

the pw100 is so good that russians needed two rd33s in mig29 --- of which we have only one in jft in the form of rd93


the cost increases in blk2 might be due to upgradation but inflation should also be accounted for

 

[Donatello]

No finalization on dedicated hardpoint.. HMDS in testing already and the IRST was on the wish list but there is no space so a podded one might suffice.

Again, block-II has only begun and block III is still on the requirement analysis stage.

Oscar,

Podded optronics is fine when needed in a FLIR mode for ground targeting, but putting a pod underneath the aircraft would restrict it's field of view...no?

Just like the main Radar is always forward mounted, so should the IRST. Which makes me wonder, why can't they incorporate IRST in front of the canopy section, like on J-10/Rafale etc.