JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[salman-1]

Ground testing has already been done as declared by Air chief in last may, he also mentioned in his interview that by the 29th aircraft there will be 5-6 aircraft's for air testing. That's what we are looking at, then like Mirages a pilot project of re fitting the IFR to 30-40 planes and then carry on

 

[Saint.firewall]

Very Nice to Its improving quickly........... Many new things will be come in this cute bird and inshaALLAH in few years, different country love to have this bird in there operation line.

 

[Shabi1]

Why is the Refueling pod not on demand ?
Just use it when mission requires it ?

Its said to be bolt on, removable if not needed.

 

[RAMPAGE]

but the problem is one of sanctions.

It will still be much less prone to sanctions than our F-16s and not all the JF-17 fleet has to be installed with EJ2x0.

A JF-17 lightened by heavy use of composites and EJ2x0 (120 KN output) will be in the class of Rafale/F-16V and so it will be an alternative to the F-16.

 

[araz]

It will still be much less prone to sanctions than our F-16s and not all the JF-17 fleet has to be installed with EJ2x0.

A JF-17 lightened by heavy use of composites and EJ2x0 (120 KN output) will be in the class of Rafale/F-16V and so it will be an alternative to the F-16.

An engine change will cost as research has to be done and possibly the excess space needs to be sorted. I dont know what the solution to that would be. Is it viable for one squadron as research can run up quite a bill. Secondly you will be set back 5-7 million per unit. " such aircrafts would mean you would be acquiring a third one for hte price difference. With the majority of our fleet needing changing should we go down that route? Lastly two different engines for one fighter bring with it a nightmare of depot maintenance, spare parts storage and repair schedules and different establishments for support. Therefore for one AF we will have two different engines to over haul. Also for the purposes of over hauling to setup facilities for a few squadrons would be another cost to be considered. All in all it is going to be a nightmare we are best off avoiding.
A

 

[RAMPAGE]

An engine change will cost as research has to be done and possibly the excess space needs to be sorted. I dont know what the solution to that would be. Is it viable for one squadron as research can run up quite a bill. Secondly you will be set back 5-7 million per unit. " such aircrafts would mean you would be acquiring a third one for hte price difference. With the majority of our fleet needing changing should we go down that route? Lastly two different engines for one fighter bring with it a nightmare of depot maintenance, spare parts storage and repair schedules and different establishments for support. Therefore for one AF we will have two different engines to over haul. Also for the purposes of over hauling to setup facilities for a few squadrons would be another cost to be considered. All in all it is going to be a nightmare we are best off avoiding.
A

All that will be compensated by the retirement of the Mirages and the F-7s.

Think of this hypothetical medium-weight JF-17 as a third platform in PAF.

 

[araz]

All that will be compensated by the retirement of the Mirages and the F-7s.

Think of this hypothetical medium-weight JF-17 as a third platform in PAF.

2000 pounds more thrust and we could have taken that on board. The flight characteristics of the platform will remaij the same which adds to predictability.
A

 

[RAMPAGE]

2000 pounds more thrust and we could have taken that on board. The flight characteristics of the platform will remaij the same which adds to predictability.
A

Why do we need this additional 2000 pounds thrust exactly?

I'm afraid don't understand the second part of your post. Do explain please.

 

[MastanKhan]

It will still be much less prone to sanctions than our F-16s and not all the JF-17 fleet has to be installed with EJ2x0.

A JF-17 lightened by heavy use of composites and EJ2x0 (120 KN output) will be in the class of Rafale/F-16V and so it will be an alternative to the F-16.

Hi,

A new engine for the JF 17 is a must---the engine must have FADEC---full authority digital engine control---that in itself would be a massive fuel saver---will give it at least 1 1/2 time the flying time if not double and more power.

As the JF17 design is modular---it has the capacity built in to utilize engines of the same class with minimal modifications---that was planned during the design.

Because at that time---the engine was an issue---chinese engine was not ready---.

Now I believe that the EJ200 is smaller than the RD93 and a little lighter as well---and even the chinese engine.

So better thrust to weight ratio---better fuel mileage---lighter in weight----better acceleration---shorter spool up time.

Just want to let you new guys know---the current JF17 at kamra---and a SU30 at srinagar airbase---if the JF17 is taking off from kamra---a sortie of 2 JF17's will be in the air at striking distance of the airfield in srinagar even before the SU30 takes off.

 

[fatman17]

Echelon right

 

[araz]

Why do we need this additional 2000 pounds thrust exactly?

I'm afraid don't understand the second part of your post. Do explain please.

Firstly the additional thrust is to show that for a medium weight fighter you would need additional hardware and some software. Now if you are changing an engine you need to have significant advantage both in thrust and in capabilities. I guessed ( pure estimate) that you would need some additional advantage in thrust to accomodate the additional hardpoints while maintaining the same characteristics.
As to the second point fighters have certain recognizable characteristics. Typically in a war you try and find a weakness in its flight characteristics and behaviour and attack it at its weakest link. You want a fighter to have a different engine but its flying characteristics will remain the same. So most AFs would try and have 2 different types of fighters with some different characteristics to not allow the enemy of familiarity with its flight profile and how it behaves.
A

 

[RAMPAGE]

Firstly the additional thrust is to show that for a medium weight fighter you would need additional hardware and some software. Now if you are changing an engine you need to have significant advantage both in thrust and in capabilities. I guessed ( pure estimate) that you would need some additional advantage in thrust to accomodate the additional hardpoints while maintaining the same characteristics.

120 - 84.4 = 35.6

That is 35.6 KN of additional thrust. Not to mention that the empty weight of JF-17 is much less than F-16 C/D block 52.It will be further reduced by using composites.

As to the second point fighters have certain recognizable characteristics. Typically in a war you try and find a weakness in its flight characteristics and behaviour and attack it at its weakest link. You want a fighter to have a different engine but its flying characteristics will remain the same. So most AFs would try and have 2 different types of fighters with some different characteristics to not allow the enemy of familiarity with its flight profile and how it behaves.
A

So it is your opinion that this disadvantage of having similar flight characteristics outweighs the advantages offered by a locally produced medium weight fighter?

 

[RAMPAGE]

@araz

Sir, Remember that this hypothetical fighter is being proposed as an alternative to the F-16 whose flight characteristics are familiar to our opponents. The same cannot be said about the proposed alternative.

 

[Bratva]

AVIC stall at Singapore aviation show

State-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) has confirmed that it is actively seeking international sales for the Chengdu FC-20 multirole fighter aircraft, the export version of the Chengdu J-10.

Speaking at the Singapore Airshow on 19 February, an AVIC official said the corporation only received official approval to export the FC-20 "in the past few years". He confirmed that the aircraft is being targeted for sales to customers in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and South America but did not elaborate.

AVIC and its export arm, the China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation, are demonstrating the aircraft as a large-scale model at the Singapore Airshow alongside the JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft and the Hongdu L-15 lead-in fighter trainer.

Singapore Airshow 2016: China's AVIC looks to expand exports with FC-20 fighter aircraft | IHS Jane's 360

 

[araz]

120 - 84.4 = 35.6

That is 35.6 KN of additional thrust. Not to mention that the empty weight of JF-17 is much less than F-16 C/D block 52.It will be further reduced by using composites.


So it is your opinion that this disadvantage of having similar flight characteristics outweighs the advantages offered by a locally produced medium weight fighter?

In my humble opinion there ars multiple disadvantages in going down this route. But, Firstly you need to clear the ambiguity around what exactly you want. Our conversation started with EJ2000 engines for JFT. Then it was proposed that adding the EJ2000 engine would convert it into a medium weight fighter (+ weight reduction with composites). Now we have a hypothetical replacement fighter for the 16s. It seems to me and please correct me if I am wrong that your goal posts are changing.
Let us first set our criteria for discussion.
A. A replacement medium weight fighter for the 16s like JFT.
B. How many squadrons as this will have a bearing on costs
C. Commonality of characteristics ---a problem or not?
D. Can PAF/GOP sustain two projects simultaneously or not.
E. What is the proposed outcome for the current JFT--ie project completed or continuing.
Current engine strength of RD 93 is 19600 lbs (96KN) which might be a bit more than the 84 KN you have quoted.
Lets get our criteria set and please feel free to change any of the criteria and then we can talk
Kind regards.