JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[SQ8]

Money hai to Honey hai.

Warna maamla funny hai.

 

[Viper0011.]

Following is a Russian R-77 with foldable fin. However, I have not seen any picture of R-77 hanging on a pylon of an aircraft in this configuration.

The R 77 uses thrust vector and that's one reason why the fin's are foldable. This simply outlines TVC based high maneuverability during flight as you can change altitude extremely quickly due to TVC. I don't think there is a huge RCS issue here with having fold-able and unfolded fins.

 

[Kompromat]

The R 77 uses thrust vector and that's one reason why the fin's are foldable. This simply outlines TVC based high maneuverability during flight as you can change altitude extremely quickly due to TVC. I don't think there is a huge RCS issue here with having fold-able and unfolded fins.

Just an odd question. Have you served in the US military, if not what's your profession?

 

[syedali73]

The R 77 uses thrust vector and that's one reason why the fin's are foldable. This simply outlines TVC based high maneuverability during flight as you can change altitude extremely quickly due to TVC. I don't think there is a huge RCS issue here with having fold-able and unfolded fins.

The fins fold for internal carriage or when being transported (not to be confused with being carried aloft by a fighter) only. They do not fold when carried externally. Any picture of a FLANKER or FULCRUM airborne with R-77's will clearly show that the missiles have their fins unfolded.

Above statement is from a senior member 'SOC' from the Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums. This statement appears to be correct because I also found this "Folding fins indicate internal-carriage version ofR-77 is in development" from an article in Flight Global. Please read the article here: http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1995/1995 - 1983.PDF

 

[Viper0011.]

Any picture of a FLANKER or FULCRUM airborne with R-77's will clearly show that the missiles have their fins unfolded.

Above statement is from a senior member 'SOC' from the Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums. This statement appears to be correct because I also found this "Folding fins indicate internal-carriage version ofR-77 is in development" from an article in Flight Global. Please read the article here: http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1995/1995 - 1983.PDF

I don't think I was disagreeing with you. My point (if you re-read my post) was entirely different actually. Of course, if you want internal carriage, then you need to save space and fins folded would do that. But....the SAME fins are there for a whole different purpose to begin with.
These are there for flight controls. In flight, these fins, when have the ability to change physical dimensions, in turn redirect missile's after burning force and diversify propulsion characteristics due to which, the missile or object's altitude changes much faster than a traditional non TVC object. Remember, TVC's basic purpose is to alter the altitude during flight.

 

[The SC]

There are three foundational rules regarding designing a radar low observable body:

- Control of QUANTITY of radiators.
- Control of ARRAY of radiators.
- Control of MODES of radiation.

Folding the fins falls under rule 2.

The idea is that if you control the quantity of reflecting structures, aka radiators, rule 2 would get progressively less problematic. So unless you are able to collapse the fins into a point where the missile would be a smooth cylinder, anything less and you would still be left with rule 1, which leads to rule 2.

Inner cavities for the fins with pop up possibility with springs, that should keep the missile as a smooth cylinder..

 

[fatman17]

FC-1/JF-17 Thunder Dragon/Thunder

First revealed in 1995 as the successor of the cancelled Sino-US Super-7 project, FC-1 (Fighter China-1, max TO weight 12,700kg, max speed M 1.8, service ceiling 16,920m, max weapon load 3,900kg, ferry range 3,480km, combat radius 1,352km, max g load +8.5) is being developed by CAC/611 Institute (with some technical assistance from Russian Mikoyan OKB) as a "medium tech", light weight fighter/ground attack aircraft carrying a relatively cheap price tag (~$20m). As a fighter designed for export, its main customer is expected to be Pakistan who also shares 50% of the total cost (around $150m). It may also compete with second-hand F-16s to seize the market created by the retirement of Mig-21s, Mirage III and F-5s. Currently powered by a Russian RD-93 turbofan (upgraded RD-33, rated 8,795kg with a/b), it may also be powered by a locally produced WS-13 Taishan once the engine is ready. The A-6 style "V" shaped air-intakes are believed to provide smooth air flow to the engine at high AoA. The fire control radar is thought to be a Chinese KLJ-7V2 X-band multi-functional PD radar (track 10 and engage 2 simultaneously, look-up range 75km, look-down range 45km for RCS=3m2). A European high performance radar (e.g. Italian Vixen 1000ES AESA) has been planned in later batches. Other electronics include an NVG compatible glass cockpit (EFIS) with three 8"x6" color MFDs, HOTAS, AIFF, 1553B data bus and INS/GPS. Weapon load includes both short (PL-5EII/PL-9C/AIM-9M) and medium-range AAMs (SD-10A). LGBs (LT-2/LT-3/GBU-16), GPS/INS guided bombs (LS-6), anti-radiation missiles (Brazilian MAR-1 or Chinese LD-10) and IRST/laser designation pod (WMD-7) can also be carried for ground attack missions. Up to 2 C-802AK AShMs can be carried for anti-ship missions. For high value fixed targets, the new CM-400AKG standoff supersonic ASM can be carried. For self-protection purpose a KG300G ECM pod can be carried. The development schedule of FC-1 was repeatedly delayed caused by various problems, such as lack of funding, the reluctance of western countries to supply advanced avionics, as well as the revised specifications set by PAF to counter the threat from India's LCAs. These specifications included a true BVR attack capability with active radar guided medium-range AAMs (SD-10). However, FC-1's prospect in the domestic market had diminished, as PLAAF had committed to the more advanced J-10 as its new generation fighter along with J-11 and was reluctant to take any FC-1s due to its less advanced design and a Russian engine. After lengthy negotiations, Pakistani government finally signed the contract with CATIC and CAC/611 in 1999 and gave the "go ahead" order to the much delayed project. The development was further accelerated after PAF recommitted the project and confirmed FC-1's technical specifications in detail in February 2001. A full-scale mock-up was quickly constructed. A total of 6 prototypes (01-06) would have been built at CAC. The 01 prototype rolled down the assembly line on May 31, 2003 with two small wing fences. Its maiden flight took place on August 25, 2003. The 03 prototype first flew on April 9, 2004 without the two small wing fences. The 04 prototype was expected to fly by the end of 2005 with full suite of avionics but this was delayed until April 2006 due to several structural modifications. They include new diverterless supersonic inlets (DSI/Bump) similar to those of American F-35 to reduce weight and achieve better performance. A large rectangular-shaped fairing is installed on top of the vertical tailfin which may house ECM equipment. Its flight control includes a Type 634 quadruplex digital FBW in pitch axis and a duplex analog FBW in roll axis. A UV band MAWS has been installed at the root of the vertical tailfin to provide rear hemisphere coverage. Two enlarged F/A-18 style LERX are thought to offer higher AOA as well. The first flight of 04 prototype took place on April 28, 2006, and 06 prototype on September 10, 2006. The first two pre-production JF-17s (PAF designation Joint Fighter-17, 00 batch/07-101 & 102) were delivered to Pakistan on March 2, 2007, with the nose-tip pitot tube removed. The 01 batch of 6 JF-17s (08-103 -- 08-108) were delivered between March and April 2008. The contract for PAF to acquire another 42 JF-17s assembled by PAC was singed on March 7, 2009. The first two (09-109 & 110) were built by CAC. The first JF-17 (09-111) in the batch of 4 assembled by PAC rolled out on November 23, 2009. The production of the 50 Block I was expected to conclude by the end of 2013 with another 50 Block II to follow in 2014. Besides Pakistan, several Asian and African countries also expressed interest in FC-1/JF-17, including Egypt, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Azerbaijan and Myanmar, but so far no firm order has been placed. FC-1 passed design appraisal in December 2009. The first taxiing test of FC-1 powered by an indigenous WS-13 took place on March 18, 2010. A further upgraded variant (JF-17 Block II/JF-17A?) featuring an IFR probe, improved avionics (including secure datalink with ZDK-03) and precision-guided weapon capability (including SD-10 AAM & C-802K AShM) has been under development as well. It will be supported by the PAF Il-78MP tanker. The Block II variant is expected to be followed by the Block III, which might feature a more powerful engine (WS-13?) and additional types of weapons. A tandem-seat trainer version (JF-17B?) was first unveiled at the 2013 Paris Airshow by CATIC, which has the electronic compartment removed from top of the vertical tailfin. However so far PAF has showed no commitment to this design. The latest news (June 2014) indicated that the first two JF-17 Block IIs are being assembled at PAC. First flight is projected by the end of the year. It is expected that all the Block I JF-17s will be upgraded to the Block II standard in the future as well.
- Last Updated 8/19/14

 

[mughaljee]

Oscar or Nabil Bahi,
please tell us in simple.
JF-17 Block-II will be better then current F-16 which we have. ?

 

[PK_Patriot]

ses thrust vector and that's one reason why the fin's are foldable. This simply outlines TVC based high maneuverability during flight as you can change altitude extremely quickly due to TVC. I don't think there is a huge RCS issue here with having fold-able and unfo

ability during flight as you can change altitude e

Oscar or Nabil Bahi,
please tell us in simple.
JF-17 Block-II will be better then current F-16 which we have. ?

Block 52 -> no comparison, unless we have Aesa Radars on JF-17 and engine improvement

 

[SQ8]

Oscar or Nabil Bahi,
please tell us in simple.
JF-17 Block-II will be better then current F-16 which we have. ?

No. It will be comparable to the F-16 MLU in terms of Air to Air Avionics and certain ECM capabilities. But is inferior in payload and combat radius along with vertical manoeuvrability.

 

[PK_Patriot]

No. It will be comparable to the F-16 MLU in terms of Air to Air Avionics and certain ECM capabilities. But is inferior in payload and combat radius along with vertical manoeuvrability.

Say NO to extra judicial killing of cats ............. No pussy cats or remove cats

 

[shanis]

No. It will be comparable to the F-16 MLU in terms of Air to Air Avionics and certain ECM capabilities. But is inferior in payload and combat radius along with vertical manoeuvrability.

that things i was saying about JF 17 ... ... our new JF-17 block 1 and infect block 2 is not capable like our old F-16's ... then how can we match with modern and latest aircrafts ... leave 5th generation how can we match like 4 and 4.5 generation like su 35 mki, su 30mki, eurofighter typhoon, rapale, gripen etc ....

we much have now AESA upgrade system in our aircraft's ... but sad, i am not looking in near future AESA system in our aircraft's ....

 

[syed_yusuf]

Like any other fighter it will be better in few areas but lack ok n others

Blk52 has range and thrust with better payload

Blk2 thunder has similar avionics but better range of weapons inferior load near similar range

Blk2 will bring versatility and new dimension to the force

 

[nomi007]

plaaf jf-17

 

[Viper0011.]

No. It will be comparable to the F-16 MLU in terms of Air to Air Avionics and certain ECM capabilities. But is inferior in payload and combat radius along with vertical manoeuvrability.

What about electronic of Block 52 (outside of ECM as you said its inferior in JFT)?