JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[alimobin memon]

Nobody is saying Bested sorry...

"Jf17 performed well against su27"

 

[fatman17]

order of battle
JFT

16 Squadron - Peshawar - 20 aircraft
26 Squadron - Peshawar - 20 aircraft
26 Squadron - Minhas - 9 aircraft

 

[datalibdaz]

order of battle
JFT

16 Squadron - Peshawar - 20 aircraft
26 Squadron - Peshawar - 20 aircraft
26 Squadron - Minhas - 9 aircraft

Sir G...Ive heard news regarding the Max output of RD-93 used by PAF at 98KN from Couple of Mid ranking PAF Officers...I know from this forum Max thrust of RD-93 at somewhere near 86 KN...Which thrust stands correct in your opinion...

 

[graphican]

Sir G...Ive heard news regarding the Max output of RD-93 used by PAF at 98KN from Couple of Mid ranking PAF Officers...I know from this forum Max thrust of RD-93 at somewhere near 86 KN...Which thrust stands correct in your opinion...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-93#RD-93

RD-93
A variant used to power the JF-17 / FC-1. According to JF-17.com "The most significant difference being the repositioning of the gearbox along the bottom of the engine casing." The Klimov poster at Zhuhai 2010 airshow gave the thrust of the engine to be up to 98 kN.[3]

It is officially acknowledged to be up-to 98 KN.

 

[alimobin memon]

After karachi naval base was attacked and orion was destroyed and one damaged. Pakistan armed forces was completely sure that the forums like pakdefence and defence.pk and Google earth is an heaven for terrorists to extract information without any hesitation. They have decided to not to publish many inductions and fleet information publicly.

I dont just think but I believe that the PAC video which was released recently showing new design of jf17 and 49 completely produced was actually documented well ago. at least a 1 and half year ago but published later.

we have even more jf17 now. plus the new RD 93 provided by russia in one of airshow as advertisment did got attention and contract from PAF. I have also heard that now jf17 are carrying easily a payload of 4600kg without hesitation but the mach 1.8 is kept max speed limit. that is fine.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I dont just think but I believe that the PAC video which was released recently showing new design of jf17 and 49 completely produced was actually documented well ago. at least a 1 and half year ago but published

can you post the vedio

 

[ziaulislam]

The T:W ratio of a JF-17 is about 0.85 to 1.

Its not 0.85 , its 0.95-0.97 vs 1.03 of f-16..the figure are widely available and can be even calculated using clean weight and thrust
mirage has t/w ratio of about .91

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Its not 0.85 , its 0.95-0.97 vs 1.03 of f-16..the figure are widely available and can be even calculated using clean weight and thrust
mirage has t/w ratio of about .91

My figure is accurate Sir and I will stand by it: 0.85 to 1.

 

[Bratva]

Its not 0.85 , its 0.95-0.97 vs 1.03 of f-16..the figure are widely available and can be even calculated using clean weight and thrust
mirage has t/w ratio of about .91

It's 0.85 and you are basing your TW ratio on rumours which is totally wrong because Pakistan still using base line RD-93

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-93#RD-93

RD-93
A variant used to power the JF-17 / FC-1. According to JF-17.com "The most significant difference being the repositioning of the gearbox along the bottom of the engine casing." The Klimov poster at Zhuhai 2010 airshow gave the thrust of the engine to be up to 98 kN.[3]

It is officially acknowledged to be up-to 98 KN.

This poster refers to RD-93B which Pakistan still hasn't required. If JF-17 thrust was 98 KN, wouldn't you seen another hard point in Block 2?

 

[sancho]

It's 0.85 and you are basing your TW ratio on rumours which is totally wrong because Pakistan still using base line RD-93

This poster refers to RD-93B which Pakistan still hasn't required. If JF-17 thrust was 98 KN, wouldn't you seen another hard point in Block 2?

The one has nothing to do with the other, once because the poster only shows a Russian / Klimov advertisement for the RD 93 engine and as clearly visible, it shows the "thrust range" of the RD93 / RD 33 in it's varients. That starts at 79kN AB thrust for the early versions, with up to 98kN for the latest once, based on the RD 33MK.
But only because the thrust range is up to 98kN, doesn't mean PAF will go for upgraded RD93, since they prefer the safer Chinese option, which is less capable though. Nor does it mean anything in regard to additional hardpoints, since that requires structural modifications of the airframe, or wings first and not more AB thrust.

The TWR with afterburner with the publically available specs is at least at 0.99, which can be calculated, but we have heared unofficial statements of PAF pilots, that talked about a TWR of 1. However, that is only the AB thrust, while most of the flight performance is done in dry thrust and that's where the RD93 lacks behind comparable fighter engines.

 

[sancho]

Ok lets add sense substance to this -= Comparable in which way, which performance characteristics?

In the niche of low end cost effective-fighters, with cost-effective weapons, that are not restricted by western countries. India in the past had the same limitations from western side and only Russia was available as a counter part to get techs and weapons. Today China is pushing into this market too and mainly is a competitor for Russia and not the western countries and that's where JF 17s and J10s will be competitors for the Mig 29s, or western F16s and Gripens. However, performance wise the J10 is the only really interesting fighter for any export customers, when compared to the Mig, F16s or Gripens, since it offers better 4th gen capabilities, with the same Chinese weapons and avionics packages. The JF 17 B1 and even B2 in comparison offer only very basic 4th generation capabilities, which mainly is important for countries with very low budgets and political restrictions.
The JF 17 interest from Argentina for example is a logical one. They have very little money to spend, most modern western fighters are not affordable, or even available for them, the J10s might be politically restricted, thx to Chinas relations to Brazil, which leaves actually only JF 17s and Russian Migs (possibly F16s). So first comes availability and costs, then only performance, techs and weapon, which gives JF 17 a chance on the export markets. However, the main competitor is an inhouse one, the J10!

The JF-17 is not even in the payload class of the F-16.

That's actually a totally unrealistic argument when you compare facts on paper with the reality!

Yes, on paper PAFs F16s have more payload, more hardpoints, the better TWR and more speed, great!!!
In reality however...,

...which fighter provides PAF with SEAD capability? JF 17
...which fighters provides PAF with cruise missile and stand off strike capability? Mirage and JF 17
...which fighters provides PAF range and endurance extention with IFR? Mirage and JF 17(with Block 2 upgrade)

So the higher payload and number of hardpoints doesn't make any difference, when you don't have the needed weapons and techs to do these cruicial roles!

When you then add the potential upgrade capability of JF 17 even within the next few years, it should be clear that PAF has no way to keep the F16s as prime fighters anymore, since JF 17 and any other new fighter will offer much more operational advantages.

 

[alimobin memon]

I don't have video right now. But I think my grammar might had made u think something else, I am saying block 1 jf17 facility was shown with a 49 serial numbered jf17 block1 in video was shown. by new design as I have said they show a guy in video working on some Model Designing of some different jf17.
Any senior member please post the recent PAC video showing jf17.

 

[Tempest II]

I have posted on a seperate source before that advocates for a low-profile canopy to reduce both IR and radar cross-section. Here is another saying the "bubble canopy" is not "all-singing, all-dancing" and the "low-profile is not neccessarily bad, bad, bad!

 

[ziaulislam]

My figure is accurate Sir and I will stand by it: 0.85 to 1.

the standarad to quote T/W ratio is clean load weight and taking thrust
so 86000n/91000n=0.95
if you quote other figures that will be against the convention of taking loaded weight and thrust (with afterburn)..

other wise an aircraft i s usually loaded with lots of external payload and doesnt use afterburns so in reality T/W is much lower
FOR F-16
12700/12,000=1.05
using baseline thrust of 86kn the T/W comes out to be 0.95, if u use other values it would be higher than this. this value is also quoted offcially
funny people neither believe maths nor offical figures these days!
http://www.pac.org.pk/jf-17

 

[Argus Panoptes]

the standarad to quote T/W ratio is clean load weight and taking thrust
so 86000n/91000n=0.95
if you quote other figures that will be against the convention of taking loaded weight and thrust (with afterburn)..

other wise an aircraft i s usually loaded with lots of external payload and doesnt use afterburns so in reality T/W is much lower
FOR F-16
12700/12,000=1.05
using baseline thrust of 86kn the T/W comes out to be 0.95, if u use other values it would be higher than this. this value is also quoted offcially
funny people neither believe maths nor offical figures these days!
PAKISTAN AERONAUTICAL COMPLEX KAMRA

I do have some rudimentary knowledge of arithmetic, and I also understand our officialdom, but only slightly. Please keep in mind that the JF-17 is heavier than advertised, and its engines as supplied produce less thrust than advertised. With development of the platform it will someday approach those figures. Right now it is at 0.85 to 1.