JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[FuturePAF]

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


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

An Engine change is needed because the design of the JF-17 needs to be Scaled up for the EW Variant (the engines are nearly the same diameter but the ws-10 is 0.7 meters longer) and you get more room for loitering as well as more power to all the jamming equipment (3 sides Aesa, IRST, 2 DFRM wing pods, and 3 Jamming pods, as well as two HARM missiles and two WVR Missiles)

The weight alone requires a larger platform to allow the plane to still have enough agility to protect itself let alone protect other fighters

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.

Yes retesting a "new" design will take time, but you will get a platform that will be a lot more effective. Also a large platform will have the range to protect fighters while they attack into enemy territory, not just defend our own territory. A slightly larger design could allow the PAF to change its doctrine from Defensive only to the option to carry out Offensive actions.

 

[Ultima Thule]

An Engine change is needed because the design of the JF-17 needs to be Scaled up for the EW Variant (the engines are nearly the same diameter but the ws-10 is 0.7 meters longer) and you get more room for loitering as well as more power to all the jamming equipment (3 sides Aesa, IRST, 2 DFRM wing pods, and 3 Jamming pods, as well as two HARM missiles and two WVR Missiles)

The weight alone requires a larger platform to allow the plane to still have enough agility to protect itself let alone protect other fighters

not possible engine length does matters, you need to redesign whole rear fuselage @FuturePAF

 

[FuturePAF]

not possible engine length does matters, you need to redesign whole rear fuselage @FuturePAF

I don't think you get what I'm saying. PAF goes to CAC and Asks them to Design a NEW Plane that looks like the JF-17 only bigger and powered by the WS-10. The F-18C and The F-18E.

Here is a picture to show you a similar case:
The F-18C Hornet is on the Bottom, the F-18E Super Hornet is on top
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18ef/f18e_03.jpg

They may look nearly the same but the Super Hornet is bigger. It has a longer range and that is why the US Navy could Replace the F-14 with the Super Hornet because it was redesigned to fit to meet the needs the regular hornet could not.

Please read the difference between the two designs
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0121b.shtml

 

[LKJ86]

I don't think you get what I'm saying. PAF goes to CAC and Asks them to Design a NEW Plane that looks like the JF-17 only bigger and powered by the WS-10. The F-18C and The F-18E.

Here is a picture to show you a similar case:
The F-18C Hornet is on the Bottom, the F-18E Super Hornet is on top
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18ef/f18e_03.jpg

They may look nearly the same but the Super Hornet is bigger. It has a longer range and that is why the US Navy could Replace the F-14 with the Super Hornet because it was redesigned to fit to meet the needs the regular hornet could not.

Please read the difference between the two designs
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0121b.shtml

If so, why not consider J-10C directly?

 

[Deino]

If so, why not consider J-10C directly?

Exactly my point since years. There are constantly ideas from some fan boys to "simply" enlarge the JF-17 by about 25-30 % or even to "simply" mate a second engine .... as if engineering would be that easy.

 

[Beast]

If so, why not consider J-10C directly?

PLAAF is not very keen to export J-10 series fighter....

 

[LKJ86]

PLAAF is not very keen to export J-10 series fighter....

There is J-10CE at Zhuhai Airshow-2018.
And J-10C has flied to Pakistan for the first time, instead of J-10B.
As we know, J-10C still is not allowed to be showed at Zhuhai Airshow-2018.

 

[FuturePAF]

If so, why not consider J-10C directly?

That is a valid option as well. I suggested it on another Thread. The J-10 we saw this yer at Zhuhai look like it can do a good job of Dodging Enemy missiles and protecting itself from enemy fighters with it maneuverability. A Force of only 40 J-10s would be enough to to give each PAF Squadran 2 Growler Planes to protect the rest of the fighters.

Either way, The PAF needs a more powerful engine to power the electronics in a Growler Plane and the J-10s agility and current availability make it a better option.

If the PLAAF is bring the J-10 to the Shaheen 7 exercise this year in Pakistan. The PAF should consider it for a future EW Platform. The economies of scale should keep the price low, and the current readiness of the design means it can be ready in a few years to counter the Rafale, Su-30MKI, and S-400 through Jamming.

While PAF waits for the JF-17 Block 3, the factory at Kamra can add the tools to put together the J-10s if the PLAAF doesn't have the capacity to spare for a 40 Plane J-10 Order.

 

[Beast]

There is J-10CE at Zhuhai Airshow-2018.
And J-10C has flied to Pakistan for the first time.

Yes but that doesn't mean anything... J-10CE exist only as a model and not real ready prototype unlike Z-10ME, FTC-2000G and given China financial power, if it's wants some weapon to be export. It can be exported without problem. As F-7, L-15, FTC-2000 and JF-17 demonstrated.

J-10 will always remain just a PLAAF project.

 

[LKJ86]

Yes but that doesn't mean anything... J-10CE exist only as a model and not real ready prototype unlike Z-10ME, FTC-2000G and given China financial power, if it's wants some weapon to be export. It can be exported without problem. As F-7, L-15, FTC-2000 and JF-17 demonstrated.

J-10 will always remain just a PLAAF project.

The pic from @Windjammer:

This is an obvious signal from PLAAF.

 

[Ultima Thule]

I don't think you get what I'm saying. PAF goes to CAC and Asks them to Design a NEW Plane that looks like the JF-17 only bigger and powered by the WS-10. The F-18C and The F-18E.

Here is a picture to show you a similar case:
The F-18C Hornet is on the Bottom, the F-18E Super Hornet is on top
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18ef/f18e_03.jpg

They may look nearly the same but the Super Hornet is bigger. It has a longer range and that is why the US Navy could Replace the F-14 with the Super Hornet because it was redesigned to fit to meet the needs the regular hornet could not.

Please read the difference between the two designs
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0121b.shtml

Then will not anymore jf-17 @FuturePAF because its structurally/mechanically different from jf-17 @FuturePAF

 

[Beast]

The pic from @Windjammer:
View attachment 524137

This is an obvious signal from PLAAF.

I tell u, it doesn't mean anything.. They are sending pilots to gained experience and fiendship.

 

[Kompromat]

JF-17 should always (ideally) have been the size of an F-16.

 

[FuturePAF]

Then will not anymore jf-17 @FuturePAF because its structurally/mechanically different from jf-17 @FuturePAF

Yes it would be a different plane, just like the Hornet Vs. Super Hornet.
Lets drop the idea of the larger JF-17 and just say the PAF needs 40 J-10s to do the EW Role. They are in Pakistan now for the Exercise, and I hope the PAF considers the J-10 for its EW Need. I Also hope the picture above signals the PLAAF are OK with allowing export of the J-10C to Pakistan.

 

[salman-1]

J10C is an ideal choice. What we lack is $s. Building another fighter is not a viable option for Pakistan right now.
But is there a Growler version in place? No its not even developed by China yet. A EW is built when you already using the basic platform. If China has not built it yet then how can we get it. If Rd-93ma is acquired then it might be a possibility to make Jf17E. We have to wait for blk3 first.