JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[Thunder_Rider]

I'm saying that 1.5 hours of endurance isn't low. Most fighters cruise speed is around 900km/h if you multiply it with 1.5 you get a 1350 km of range. Which should be equivalent to ~600 km combat radius.

Thanks for the detailed insight.

So, 1.5 Hours endurance (1350 km range) is in it's (JF-17's) clean configuration or with 3 external fuel tanks ?

 

[OTTOMAN]

View attachment 259501 View attachment 259502
is it true news?
پاکستان کا امریکہ کو جے ایف 17تھنڈر کی ٹیکنالوجی بارے بتانے سے انکار

When Pakistan's nuclear secrets can land in hands of US president, and India can copy Pakistani centrifuge design.... I doubt that JFT technology is any more classified, especially after Zardari appointed staff.

 

[aftab_s81]

When Pakistan's nuclear secrets can land in hands of US president, and India can copy Pakistani centrifuge design.... I doubt that JFT technology is any more classified, especially after Zardari appointed staff.

What is the source of this info that Endians have copied our centrifuge design?

 

[Windjammer]

 

[Exocet]

Thanks for the detailed insight.

So, 1.5 Hours endurance (1350 km range) is in it's (JF-17's) clean configuration or with 3 external fuel tanks ?

Clean configuration most likely. With 3 external fuel tanks combat radius should be around 1000 km.

 

[nomi007]

paf also need to focus on paint job

showing spots on fuselage

 

[Sulman Badshah]

What is this? A full sized model with CFT's ?

just a picture of block 2

 

[Thunder_Rider]

Clean configuration most likely. With 3 external fuel tanks combat radius should be around 1000 km.

Thanks again.

Tell them they are idiots if they want canards fitted on JFT. Canards are for Deltas which in certain maneouvres bleed energy and therefore have problems with their lift. To circumvent this smaller winglets are added to give the aircraft more lift. The JFT has root lextensions calle LERX which impart lift and therefore serve the same purpose as Canards. Read up on Canards to answer the idiots. But the best thing to do is to keep away from idiots as idiocyand laziness are infectious and can harm your brain.
A

I have a question Sir.
If LERX serve the same purpose as to Canard, why is it that the JFT's maneuverability is still not on-par with fighters like Gripen or lets say the F-16's ? Why does it seem so 'under-powered' ?

 

[Viper0011.]

JF 17 Thunder should have canards like Gripen/J-10 aircrafts to increase its maneuverability?

I put Canards on my Mercedes to improve maneuverability and ended up cutting a lot of other cars chassis that people were driving in lanes next to me. Nevertheless, the Police took the Car and the Canards and I had to pay a hefty fine. Still no manueverability.

The moral of the story....don't just silly put Canards into any chassis whether its a car or an air-frame. There is a whole different logic and science behind Canards!!!

If LERX serve the same purpose as to Canard, why is it that the JFT's maneuverability is still not on-par with fighters like Gripen or lets say the F-16's ? Why does it seem so 'under-powered' ?

Its not Lerx, its the Engine, plus less use of composites and more Aluminum!!

 

[TaimiKhan]

Thanks again.


I have a question Sir.
If LERX serve the same purpose as to Canard, why is it that the JFT's maneuverability is still not on-par with fighters like Gripen or lets say the F-16's ? Why does it seem so 'under-powered' ?

Who said JF-17 is less in maneuverability compared to Gripen or F-16 ?

In simulated aerial dog fights, JF-17s has held its own against F-16s. Due to under powered engine compared to F-16s, in vertical flight JF-17 has disadvantage, in horizontal axis its as good as the F-16.

Maneuverability wise JF-17 is superb. It was designed by keeping in mind the aerodynamics of F-16, that is why it looks so much like it.

 

[aftab_s81]

Maneuverability wise JF-17 is superb. It was designed by keeping in mind the aerodynamics of F-16, that is why it looks so much like it.

It looks more like F-18 than F-16. However, under-powered engine is an issue which needs to be addressed. Anybody has update about WS-13 engine?

 

[TaimiKhan]

It looks more like F-18 than F-16. However, under-powered engine is an issue which needs to be addressed. Anybody has update about WS-13 engine?

The LERX look as F-18s, rest of the stuff has more resemblance to F-16.

 

[ice_man]

Thanks for the detailed insight.

So, 1.5 Hours endurance (1350 km range) is in it's (JF-17's) clean configuration or with 3 external fuel tanks ?

we badly need an aerial refuelling option in JF17s just 1.5 hours loiter time is not good enough for CAP operations.

 

[Windjammer]

The LERX effect.

 

[araz]

Thanks again.


I have a question Sir.
If LERX serve the same purpose as to Canard, why is it that the JFT's maneuverability is still not on-par with fighters like Gripen or lets say the F-16's ? Why does it seem so 'under-powered' ?

The PAF pilots who have piloted both the Bl15s and JFT would beg to differ with you on the maneuverability issue. Secondly how do we know that the Gripen is more maneuverable than the JFT. SO far I personally have not read anything to that effect so if you have please produce it and we can talk about it. I am not disagreeing with you but merely questioning your source for the statement.
A

Its not Lerx, its the Engine, plus less use of composites and more Aluminum!!

True. But there was a reason for this.For PAF it was a case of baby steps in the aeronautical field. We needed to have a plane the technology and the materials for which we could handle and absorb the technology. The cost factor also had to be kept in mind.China was at that time still coming to grips with composites and as such we had no source to acquire the technology from. So we relied on Aluminium alloy frame along with some titanium. I think in block 3 they may make changes and introduce more composites. But then again we are currently capped at 58% on building the airframe. Do we invest in composites but then, do we progressively increase our share in the air frame build up and bring it progressively up to 100% or invest in composites. Aluminium Titanium alloys are very light and strong so what advantage do we have in spending much more to make negligible savings on weight. This is another issue that faces us. Obviously some tough choices would have to be made at some stage but at the moment it is a case of making do with the best that we have.
A

Who said JF-17 is less in maneuverability compared to Gripen or F-16 ?

In simulated aerial dog fights, JF-17s has held its own against F-16s. Due to under powered engine compared to F-16s, in vertical flight JF-17 has disadvantage, in horizontal axis its as good as the F-16.

Maneuverability wise JF-17 is superb. It was designed by keeping in mind the aerodynamics of F-16, that is why it looks so much like it.

Taimi.
F16 is a much bigger plane and the thrust to weight ratio is better than JFT. But with a reported TWR of 1.09 we cannot really call the JFT underpowered. Yes we can always do with a better and more powerful engine but it would be to power an AESA radar and other goodies which will be on Bl.3. So I do have an issue with calling the JFT underpowered.
A