JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Ultima Thule]

The advantages of a delta wing in terms of fuel capacity and load carrying can not be ignored. The frontal RCS of a pure delta is smaller than that of a conventional configuration (Mirage 2000 RCS vs F-16 RCS).
Addition of canards would indeed increase the RCS but is important for maneuverability. With advances in engineering, I would imagine that we could have something like fold able or retractable canards.
This would require us to make space for the retracting/folding machinery. However this along with Divert-less Supersonic Inlets would mean a very small frontal RCS. In the Indo-Pak scenario, the PAF will be forced to fight defensively with occasional shallow thrusts into Indian territory for targeting strategic infrastructure of Indian military. So a delta with very small frontal RCS is our best option. To engage in WVR combat, the canards would be unfolded to increase maneuverability.
Power plant as I imagine would be twin RD-93MAs (a variant specifically being designed for the FC-1) that would have better thrust and fuel consumption, compared to original RD-93. Fuel consumption and maneuverability can be further refined with thrust vectoring. So the fighter will have enough range for
To make a proper Fifth Gen fighter, networking with the rest of the fleet would be very important along with other goodies like IRST, AESA radar, stealth coatings and an internal or semi-recessed weapons bay.

yes you right but pure delta wings are bad for agility/maneuverability at subsonic speed but at supersonic/transonic speed they are good agile/maneuverable jets, canard may increase a agility of the jet but may increase front/head on RCS over the pure delta wing, and you suggest the retractable canard they add weight and complexity of the jet, and most important thing is that if you fly that jet in a war situations lets suppose extended canard to increase maneuverability/agility enemy will see you early and if you retract canard to improve RCS then you lost maneuverability/agility so your idea on retractable canard is ridiculous/ not applicable @Armchair-General TVC more complex/ weight and maintenance prone but suitable and only option left for projet AZM just my 2 cents bro @Armchair-General

A Mirage 2000 has 1/3rd the RCS of an F-16. With present technology, it is possible not to need a canard by having a V tail and thrust vectoring. This would reduce drag, further increasing range and sustained turn rates. Sometimes the best solutions are the simplest ones. This would be a bit like a smaller YF-23 with smaller V tail and with thrust vectoring, at least if Syed Yusuf has his way.

I do think Syed Yusuf has a good idea here.

pure delta wing has low maneuverability/agility at subsonic speed as compare to tailed delta wings they show better sustain turning rate but worse at rapid turn rates @Armchair , they are good at supersonic/ transonic maneuverability/agility though @Armchair

 

[Armchair]

The Mirage 2000 has worse sustained turn rates than F-16s but better ITR... its always good to know what you are talking about before posting...

 

[Armchair-General]

yes you right but pure delta wings are bad for agility/maneuverability at subsonic speed but at supersonic/transonic speed they are good agile/maneuverable jets, canard may increase a agility of the jet but may increase front/head on RCS over the pure delta wing, and you suggest the retractable canard they add weight and complexity of the jet, and most important thing is that if you fly that jet in a war situations lets suppose extended canard to increase maneuverability/agility enemy will see you early and if you retract canard to improve RCS then you lost maneuverability/agility so your idea on retractable canard is ridiculous/ not applicable @Armchair-General TVC more complex/ weight and maintenance prone but suitable and only option left for projet AZM just my 2 cents bro @Armchair-General


pure delta wing has low maneuverability/agility at subsonic speed as compare to tailed delta wings they show better sustain turning rate but worse at rapid turn rates @Armchair , they are good at supersonic/ transonic maneuverability/agility though @Armchair

The canards would be deployed as soon as the jet enters wvr combat range of enemy fighter or detects a jet at such range.

 

[Ultima Thule]

The canards would be deployed as soon as the jet enters wvr combat range of enemy fighter or detects a jet at such range.

Then may increased RCS by they different radars eg enemy SAMs radars, enemy AWACS, Enemy EW radars and all in all enemy's fighter jet radars thats my point @Armchair-General

 

[MastanKhan]

The canards would be deployed as soon as the jet enters wvr combat range of enemy fighter or detects a jet at such range.

Hi,

Youngman---Paf cannot even add a folding fuel probe---you talk about folding winglets---.

Do you understand the factor of difficulty involved in that venture????

 

[GriffinsRule]

Hi,

Youngman---Paf cannot even add a folding fuel probe---you talk about folding winglets---.

Do you understand the factor of difficulty involved in that venture????

Not to mention a folding/recessed canard is a pretty useless exercise in engineering. If you are worried about the frontal RCS of an aircraft, the canards at that point would be acting more of less like wings/lifting surfaces. Their use in agility would come into play in the WVR arena anyways.
But even if we assume the canards would cause a slight increase in the RCS in the frontal profile, which I imagine you have in mind when the aircraft are coming in to intercept the enemy fighters head-on...would they not be hauling weapons on wing-stations as well which more or less makes the entire exercise of engineering deployable canards a fruitless exercise.

There are many other problems with such a design, for example, having to write a much more complex set of code for the flight control systems. It would also create another element that can break down or malfunction, creating needless headaches, if say only one of the two canards were to fully deploy or open up.

 

[Armchair-General]

If not retractable canards then how about canards that simply fold to the side.

 

[Shabi1]

For super maneuverability canards are no longer required since advent of TVC for eg SU-30 to Su-35. And even TVC is an unnecessary expense/complication with advent of HOBS missiles. Even F-16 Block-60s have been offered with TVC via LOAN (Low observable axi symmetrical nozzle) but AIM-9X paired with JHMCS offered enough WVR advantage that no recent operator has opted for it. J-20 Canards purpose is probably better lift

Project Azm can only be speculated for now and we can share our own opinions, my personal analysis is it will be a rebranded and modified J-31 since this will ensure to meet time frames, but no way to confirm. I don't think we will get any concrete updates at least 1-2 years. It can be discussed on it's own thread.

Lets just keep the discussion back at JF-17.

 

[ALi Rizwan]

Hi,

Youngman---Paf cannot even add a folding fuel probe---you talk about folding winglets---.

Do you understand the factor of difficulty involved in that venture????

Mastan sb can you share one example of Folding Fuel Probe on a Lightweight Aircraft?

Rafale claimed to have very small RCS but use fixed fuel probe.

 

[Ultima Thule]

If not retractable canards then how about canards that simply fold to the side.

Both are unfeasible idea @Armchair-General

Mastan sb can you share one example of Folding Fuel Probe on a Lightweight Aircraft?

Rafale claimed to have very small RCS but use fixed fuel probe.

No light weight jet has a retractable fuel probe @ALi Rizwan

 

[ALi Rizwan]

No light weight jet has a retractable fuel probe @ALi Rizwan

it was directed too Mastan Sb who think PAF is incapable to install retractable fuel probe on Lightweight fighter.

Although Advance 4.5 Low RCS Rafale use fixed probe even though its bigger plane.

 

[araz]

yes you right but pure delta wings are bad for agility/maneuverability at subsonic speed but at supersonic/transonic speed they are good agile/maneuverable jets, canard may increase a agility of the jet but may increase front/head on RCS over the pure delta wing, and you suggest the retractable canard they add weight and complexity of the jet, and most important thing is that if you fly that jet in a war situations lets suppose extended canard to increase maneuverability/agility enemy will see you early and if you retract canard to improve RCS then you lost maneuverability/agility so your idea on retractable canard is ridiculous/ not applicable @Armchair-General TVC more complex/ weight and maintenance prone but suitable and only option left for projet AZM just my 2 cents bro @Armchair-General


pure delta wing has low maneuverability/agility at subsonic speed as compare to tailed delta wings they show better sustain turning rate but worse at rapid turn rates @Armchair , they are good at supersonic/ transonic maneuverability/agility though @Armchair

IMPORTANT:- This post is in response to the general gist of the conversation rather than a specific poster.
Can someone answer me as to why we are trying to literally reinvent a wheel. The PAF when it asked for theJFT had examples of Mirages, and had evaluation of the Gripen and possibly J10 as well(Although this has been contested). It chose a Non Delta design keeping its requirements in mind.Instead of the Canards it chose the LERX for more or less the same purpose and we have a pretty maneouverable jet. So why do we want to destroy it all so we can have a canard Delta project which was never required.
Even if we go down the line of thinking, who is going to help us make those changes? Forget the Chinese as they would want you to buy the J10C which you dont want to buy in any case. Will the French help you and at what cost? Will the Swedes help you and at ewhat cost? The redesign and testing and certification will set you back 3-5 yrs and a Billion dollars at least. The new platform will have teething problems and will require more time to iron out the problems. Add another 12-18 months. So at the end of 2024 you may have a product which your Air force never wanted, whose design characteristics will remain unknown and you will be short of a billion Dollars. Then what is your demand for the said platform and given the billion dollars and a 30 million manufacturing cost for say 40 platforms plus development cost of 25 million $, you have a 55 million dollar dud which is out of time and place. So allow me to ask you all, is it not better to induct the J10C if the Delta with Canards is what you want in the first place. With The chinese building characteristics and speed you could have the platofrm with you in 3 yrs on long term loans at the same rate.
So where is the advantage? By the way the J10's range is not much more than that of JFT so your main requirement of longer loitering time remains unmet. It certainly has more hardpoints but the belly ones are suitable only for dumb bombs. So the dream of more armaments remains unmet as well.
So the whole hypothesis is falling to the floor fairly quickly.
A

 

[devil302]

Guys myanmar aircraft inventory show 4 jf17 in service does any one have any idea that when were they delivered

 

[Imran Khan]

View attachment 472769 View attachment 472770 Guys myanmar aircraft inventory show 4 jf17 in service does any one have any idea that when were they delivered

they were in tests last time in china sir

 

[denel]

For super maneuverability canards are no longer required since advent of TVC for eg SU-30 to Su-35. And even TVC is an unnecessary expense/complication with advent of HOBS missiles. Even F-16 Block-60s have been offered with TVC via LOAN (Low observable axi symmetrical nozzle) but AIM-9X paired with JHMCS offered enough WVR advantage that no recent operator has opted for it. J-20 Canards purpose is probably better lift

Project Azm can only be speculated for now and we can share our own opinions, my personal analysis is it will be a rebranded and modified J-31 since this will ensure to meet time frames, but no way to confirm. I don't think we will get any concrete updates at least 1-2 years. It can be discussed on it's own thread.

Lets just keep the discussion back at JF-17.

Canards do offer an advantage as they are easier to put in vs tvc; in cheetah we had both plus hmds/hobs.