JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Tank131]

I'm aware that JF-17 operates under the PAF, however I was under the impression that the NAVY also operates Mirage V with its own (Navy) pilots on PAF Aircrafts.

I was just wondering if the Navy had any intention of acquiring its own JF-17...

I think the pilots and aircraft (mirage V) are PAF but operating in conjunction with/under the command of PN, but they belong to PAF. I don't think PN has any intention at this point of operating fighters but it operates fixed winged props/jets (P-3C, ATRs, Raytheon/BAE hawkers, fokkers ect).

Block III work has been ongoing, and CAC has a lot of experience turning around prototypes modifications quickly. Air Frame Redesigns might be in store If the PAF pushes for it and is willing to pay for the final product at the higher cost. CAC will be happy to do the work.

What work exactly has been done for Blk 3 itself. I would say it is more correct to say that work has been done on blk 3 components (radars, ew suits, ect). Given the fact that final decisions for the various components are yet to be selected or were recently selected, there remains a lot of work to do (fit them into the airframe, marry the sensors to be integrated into a complete and holistic unit so that the various components talk to each other. Then test the new block prototypes amd certify the systems (all this is especially important if a new engine is also selected).

Their could be some airframe changes in the along the lines of the twin seater but semi-stealth is, in my opinion, for blk 3.

Remember that the time between block 2 prototype/production and inductions was nearly 1.5yrs. This is a bigger jump. I expect it to take 2-2.5 years.

 

[FuturePAF]

What work exactly has been done for Blk 3 itself. I would say it is more correct to say that work has been done on blk 3 components (radars, ew suits, ect). Given the fact that final decisions for the various components are yet to be selected or were recently selected, there remains a lot of work to do (fit them into the airframe, marry the sensors to be integrated into a complete and holistic unit so that the various components talk to each other. Then test the new block prototypes amd certify the systems (all this is especially important if a new engine is also selected). Their could be some airframe changes in the along the lines of the twin seater but semi-stealth is, in my opinion, for blk 3. Remember that the time between block 2 prototype/production and inductions was nearly 1.5yrs. This is a bigger jump. I expect it to take 2-2.5 years.

Three Changes have been hinted to over the years: Increased use of Composites, The Switch over to the Ws-13 and then the Ws-19 Engine, and possibly Quadruple FBW. These three changes alone will require re certification of the air frame. While they other components (Radar, IRST, Avionics, EW Suite, Comms) are being developed and selected, the air frames still have to adapt to the three changes I mention above. The 5 components above are expected to be of a relatively known size and weight, so the designers can go ahead and due the preliminary work of designing the planes for the expected weights and dimensions and adjust them as the components are selected. From the Start of the FC-1/JF-17 program the decision was made to separate these 5 components.

In fact if you look at SAAB Gripen NG they have a similar method where they separate flight critical software from the Rest of the software and swap-able components.

Why I see you point that the design can not be finalized without confirming these components. The Work can be started and reach an advanced stage where dimensions can be tweaked to fit the components. (Also the final products can also be adjusted to fit the size already determined, for example the nose cone size can be used to decided the shape of the AESA Radar. This is how the SABR Radar on the F-16 had to be designed)

 

[BHarwana]

 

[CriticalThought]

View attachment 524039

Quite a babe.

 

[salman-1]

View attachment 524039

Sort of a Chinese F15. Don't tell me it's blk 3.

 

[BHarwana]

Sort of a Chinese F15. Don't tell me it's blk 3.

Nope just a model placed in some office looked very similar to jf-17 so I posted it. Might have been jf-17 if we went for 2 engines. It has nothing to do with China.

 

[YeBeWarned]

Nope just a model placed in some office looked very similar to jf-17 so I posted it. Might have been jf-17 if we went for 2 engines. It has nothing to do with China.

I don't think JF block 3 won't have a twin engine..

@messiach your comments ?

 

[Zarvan]

It is said that JF-17 Thunder has a 3 axis fly by wire system. But the the technical confirmed that it uses a 4 axis fly by wire system. Its a hybrid system, of 75% electronic and 25% hydraulic. Rudder is independent and computer controlled. Horizontal Stabilizers and Allirons are controlled by the fly by wire system. 3 axis fly by wire system is a wrong concept. Every modern fourth generation fighter like F-16, F/A-18, Mirage, Thunder uses a 4 axis fly by wire system. 4 axis FBW is a fourth generation feature. 3 axis is used by planes like Mashak.

 

[CriticalThought]

It is said that JF-17 Thunder has a 3 axis fly by wire system. But the the technical confirmed that it uses a 4 axis fly by wire system. Its a hybrid system, of 75% electronic and 25% hydraulic. Rudder is independent and computer controlled. Horizontal Stabilizers and Allirons are controlled by the fly by wire system. 3 axis fly by wire system is a wrong concept. Every modern fourth generation fighter like F-16, F/A-18, Mirage, Thunder uses a 4 axis fly by wire system. 4 axis FBW is a fourth generation feature. 3 axis is used by planes like Mashak.

Oh bhai search on the internet before you post such things. There is no such thing as four axis FBW. It is quad redundant, three axis FBW. The digital control is exerted on all three flight axes: pitch, roll, and yaw. The machinery is replicated four times to increase resilience.

 

[Basel]

A dedicated EW variant, the jf-17E has been proposed.

Good, means PAF understand that they need their version of Growler, but CFT should be developed for more loiter time or more EW carrying capacity.

 

[FuturePAF]

Good, means PAF understand that they need their version of Growler, but CFT should be developed for more loiter time or more EW carrying capacity.

Agreed, Loiter Time needs to be increased to protect other aircraft as the ingress and egress from the battle space. Although I think Scaling up the design and powering the Growler Variant with the WS-10/15 Engine would be better. A more powerful engine will give more electrical power for the jammers to reach out further. A slightly larger air frame would have an increased loiter time, without the increased drag of conformal fuel tanks.

 

[Basel]

Agreed, Loiter Time needs to be increased to protect other aircraft as the ingress and egress from the battle space. Although I think Scaling up the design and powering the Growler Variant with the WS-10/15 Engine would be better. A more powerful engine will give more electrical power for the jammers to reach out further. A slightly larger air frame would have an increased loiter time, without the increased drag of conformal fuel tanks.

CFT will not put pressure on pocket but increasing the size of JFT will, because it will make it a new bird which have to go full cycle of proper testing and evaluation.

 

[JohnWick]

View attachment 524039

What is this thing.

 

[Ultima Thule]

the WS-10/15 Engine would be better.

F-414 class engine would be fine like WS-13E/RD-93 MA @FuturePAF

Nope just a model placed in some office looked very similar to jf-17 so I posted it. Might have been jf-17 if we went for 2 engines. It has nothing to do with China.

If it will have 2 engine there will be totally new design and not related to any JF-17 variant because it will be internally and externally structurally/mechanically different from JF-17 @BHarwana

 

[Deino]

View attachment 524039

What is this thing.

IMO some sort of a Romanian design under the series of IAR-concepts ... quite funny - and barely known - there was a design called IAR-95, which was planned to use a WS-9 (aka a Spey 202), which not only superficially resembles the later FC-1/JF-17. That design was in fact from the late 1970s.

Your image is one of several concepts under consideration before the FC-1-look alike design was chosen.

.... Just found it: it was called IAR-S