JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[TeesraIndiotHunter]

SD-10A is very close in performance to the AIM-120C series. We did try to buy R-77s from Ukraine but the PAF's tests on SD-10 came with much better results. As for Russian radar, i would not want one (personally). Russians are known for bullying and its better for us to stick with KLJ series as it comes with transfer of technology.

Source? Who said so?

 

[Thorough Pro]

Mig29 have 2 engines, Thunder 1.

"But if we start a mission with 4400-kg of fuel, start-up, taxy and take off takes 400-kg, we need to allow 1000-kg for diversion to an alternate airfield 50-nm away, and 500-kg for the engagement, including one minute in afterburner. That leaves 2500-kg. If we need 15 minutes on station at 420 kts that requires another 1000-kg, leaving 1500-kg for transit. At FL200 (20,000 ft) that gives us a radius of 150-nm, and at FL100 (10,000 ft) we have a radius of only 100-nm.

German remarks on their Mig-29.

Mig 29A max take off weight 20,000 kg
Jf-17 max take off weight 12000+ kg

Jf-17's fuel capacity is just over 2300 kg, thus 45 mins sortie time make sense.

 

[Chak Bamu]

The specific fuel consumption of any engine, including the RD-33 and all variants of the RD-93 are well known in units of lbs of thrust per lb of fuel per hour, and not significantly different for this family of engines.



The initial planes had 4,000 lbs of internal fuel and the newer ones are closer to 5,000 lbs.

I would like to see some references please. Also a little clarification is in order. Which initial planes and which newer ones are you talking about?

 

[razgriz19]

I would like to see some references please. Also a little clarification is in order. Which initial planes and which newer ones are you talking about?

1. Legacy Mig 29 had two rather fuel-hungry old RD-33 engines. JF-17's RD-93 is upgraded and probably has better fuel consumption.

2. Mig 29 is draggy, heavy and is notorious for having short legs.

3. Any mission of JF-17 would at least entail 800L centerline drop tank. The fuel capacity would be in excess of 3000 Kg easily. 2300 Kg is clean configuration, in which the aircraft may have an A2G role within 300 Km or so for maximum ordnance delivery. This means fairly good on-station time given everything.

4. The figure of 45 minutes flight time is a rough calculation and in no way presents the likely scenario.

5. There are rumors that JF-17 fuel capacity had been enhanced. The figures from wikipedia are not necessarily right or correct.

6. When PAF says that they are happy with the aircraft, and AVM Javed Ahmed says that the aircraft possesses a required (read it as decent) on-station time, then that is what it is, IMV.

1. The engine's core remains the same in RD-93 as RD-33, fuel consumption would also be the same. They can't redesign the engine, it would have to be a clean sheet design.
2. i'm not sure about drag, but the weight of is still pretty decent, max t/o 20,000kg (2 engines) vs 12,000kg (1 engine)
And i'm sure you know weight affects the fuel consumption.
3. of course fuel tanks would increase the range, but the we're talking about a clean config range
4. And i once talked to a F-18 pilot and he said a typical mission lasts just under two hours with fuel fuel tanks on F-18.
(F-18 engine specs are about the same as RD-93, and the fuel capacity is about twice as much as Jf-17)
5. I got my numbers from PAC website
6. And i know PAF is happy with it, in fact in an interview (forgot who) mentioned that PAF had strict requirements regarding range and loitering time, it had to be greater than the aircraft it replaces.

 

[VCheng]

I would like to see some references please. Also a little clarification is in order. Which initial planes and which newer ones are you talking about?

The specific consumption figures for this family of engines is about 0.8 lb of fuel per lb of thrust per hour dry and about 1.8 lb of fuel per lb of thrust per hour wet. The prototype design had about 4,000 lbs internal fuel and the planes now flying are at about 5,000 lbs internal capacity.

 

[raazh]

Chak yaar, We should not make huge point out of it. Look, a LIGHT fighter jet cannot have long range/endurance. 45 minutes clean is perfect. Let us look at Pakistani combat area... 6-20 minutes towards the border... If F7P can do it then JF17 is a lot better. People look at "we need mach 2"... By the time you get mach 1 you are probably above Amritsar... That goes for most of the planes. So do you need 1500 combat radius? Maybe above Indian Ocean (that is a hint for getting you know what I said...) but for the rest we have made the best plane we can get. Do remember Lavi... Was that a big plane? Why is J10 bigger? Cause China needs range. Israel does not need the range cause it is small. It needs air superiority. We need that. Surely Israeli need long range strikers to destroy arab nuclear sites etc but that is the same why we need something for the Indian Ocean.

So, I get furious (in a good way) when seniors write stuff that make no sense. If you have JF17 you probably have the cheapest almost the same quality as bock40-50 level (which is to me a medium weight fighterjet). So characteristics can be altered by adding IFR or netcentric warfare. I do not need people telling me that JF17 is not enough. These people are the ones that do no see potential but are good in see the negatives. Tufail got not promoted. Probably this is his payback.

I don't understand the same thing that why do a lot of posters here wish for 8-10 BVR missile loads, unlimited range, super powerful twin engines, >400KM Radar range etc etc .. I would like to share a video of Pierre Sprey, Co-Designer of F16 & A10, who is basically bashing the F35 in the vid but also talks why there is no need for heavy, bomb trucks in the modern battle field. You can search for full video on youtube. Now I do not agree to some of his views but none the less he has 100 times more experience and credibility than me.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

If the JF 17 has 45 minutes of loiter time---then it is a totally WORTHLESS plane. The egyptians found that out in the 73 war---their migs after taking off would be looking for a place to land rather than fight---the israeli phantoms would be waiting for that moment.

I do not accept the 45 minutes loiter time for this aircraft. It has to be more---if not---then the pak air force has committed another act of treason.

 

[VCheng]

Hi,

If the JF 17 has 45 minutes of loiter time---then it is a totally WORTHLESS plane. The egyptians found that out in the 73 war---their migs after taking off would be looking for a place to land rather than fight---the israeli phantoms would be waiting for that moment.

I do not accept the 45 minutes loiter time for this aircraft. It has to be more---if not---then the pak air force has committed another act of treason.

Good point, but PAF now has air-air refueling capability for a good reason.

 

[Donatello]

Hi,

If the JF 17 has 45 minutes of loiter time---then it is a totally WORTHLESS plane. The egyptians found that out in the 73 war---their migs after taking off would be looking for a place to land rather than fight---the israeli phantoms would be waiting for that moment.

I do not accept the 45 minutes loiter time for this aircraft. It has to be more---if not---then the pak air force has committed another act of treason.

It's not 45mins, it's the rough estimate given by Kaiser Tufail sahib, that since JF-17 flew so many hours in 10000 sorties, so the average flight time comes out to be the total hours/10000= which presently gives 45mins. It doesn't mean JF-17 will fly for 45mins, but rather was flown at that rate. Now a sortie could have been 1 hour or 30 mins. The F-7PG had short loiter time, and i am sure PAF took that in design.

 

[Chak Bamu]

The specific consumption figures for this family of engines is about 0.8 lb of fuel per lb of thrust per hour dry and about 1.8 lb of fuel per lb of thrust per hour wet. The prototype design had about 4,000 lbs internal fuel and the planes now flying are at about 5,000 lbs internal capacity.

That is not what I meant. Read my post again. But never mind now. Its not that important.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During design phase PAF could have asked for fuselage to be lengthened a little to improve fuel capacity. They did not do that. And that tells me that the compromise is well worth it, especially when PAF is pleased with the war-bird.

 

[VCheng]

That is not what I meant. Read my post again. But never mind now. Its not that important.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During design phase PAF could have asked for fuselage to be lengthened a little to improve fuel capacity. They did not do that. And that tells me that the compromise is well worth it, especially when PAF is pleased with the war-bird.

Of course the JF-17 meets the needs of PAF very well.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Hi,

If the JF 17 has 45 minutes of loiter time---then it is a totally WORTHLESS plane. The egyptians found that out in the 73 war---their migs after taking off would be looking for a place to land rather than fight---the israeli phantoms would be waiting for that moment.

I do not accept the 45 minutes loiter time for this aircraft. It has to be more---if not---then the pak air force has committed another act of treason.

Mastan sb. the figure of 45 minutes just came out of thin air. One can not take it seriously. It is a gross simplification bordering on misinformation. Perhaps Kaiser Tufail sb wanted to make a point about JF-17 in comparison with F-16. I would not fault him for that, but I would not take this figure seriously at all. With external tanks, JF-17 is said to have an endurance of more than 3 hours. Knowing the fuel capacity, one can guess that a clean JF-17 could fly for almost 1.5 hours. Given demanding fuel usage profile of A2G sortie, one could say that the endurance of JF-17 without external fuel tanks would be close to 45 minutes. That is not actually bad considering that a trip to border and back would likely be a 20 - 25 minute affair. Now add one 800 L centerline tank, and we can go up to one hour.

Given an A2A profile with three drop tanks, JF-17 can spend 3 hours in air on a CAP. Not bad at all for a light fighter which necessarily has to make serious compromises to face off Western 4th gen jets. For PAF, range does not seem to be a serious issue, since border is hardly 25 minutes away from the middle of the country. From forward bases, it is even less. So what is the big deal then?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Hi,

If the JF 17 has 45 minutes of loiter time---then it is a totally WORTHLESS plane. The egyptians found that out in the 73 war---their migs after taking off would be looking for a place to land rather than fight---the israeli phantoms would be waiting for that moment.

I do not accept the 45 minutes loiter time for this aircraft. It has to be more---if not---then the pak air force has committed another act of treason.

I am sure that will be much more but will be kept a secret for all its worth.
take a mean of F-16, and F-20 tigershark for weight and engine as a reference.

I agree even during CAP they will spending more time in refueling on ground then flying CAP if 45 mintues is anything to go by.

by the way.. whats interesting is to find out (or guess) how many times it was topped up on its flight from Pakistan to Farnborugh airshow. now that was some achievement I say

I would have asked one of our dedicated member here but people keep changing their usernames and it doesnt help

 

[Viper0011.]

I agree even during CAP they will spending more time in refueling on ground then flying CAP if 45 mintues is anything to go by.

You guys are missing a key point. When a system is being introduced, majority of the flights are for testing operational avionics, weapons, training, etc. For these roles, 45 minutes may be a standard. Pakistan's depth is not too much so a jet flying at 600 miles an hour (which is pretty normal) should be able to go about 200 miles away, drop off the munitions and come back. Remember, the Pakistan's airspace is also divided by geography via sectors. So it may also be the case that a sector's operational range for missions includes this 45 minute average trip two way.
Also, 200 miles from any airbase in Pakistan means hitting the border and coming back in 45 minutes. So it may also be practicing defensive missions and 45 minutes may be the mean time per defensive sortie before it refuels and takes off again....

 

[Munir]

Hi,

If the JF 17 has 45 minutes of loiter time---then it is a totally WORTHLESS plane. The egyptians found that out in the 73 war---their migs after taking off would be looking for a place to land rather than fight---the israeli phantoms would be waiting for that moment.

I do not accept the 45 minutes loiter time for this aircraft. It has to be more---if not---then the pak air force has committed another act of treason.

Interesting comparisation my friend. Arabs sucked in piloting anything. Camels or planes... Just look on youtube how pathetic their dogfighting was. It is not that israeli pilots are superior but arabs lack dogfighting.

Back to now. You have probably the most guarded airspace in the world. 6-15 minutes to border. Very well trained pilots on our side. JF17 with IFR. Soon we will introduce dual rack btw. The plane are part of netcentric warfare. You do not get up and search... You wait and get in, attack and out. It is not 45 minutes nor a big issue in this arena.