JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Ali_Baba]

Maximum turn tate = 26 degrees per second

Roll rate = 270 dps

View attachment 558136

The TWR rate is wrong. It is lower. Less than 1.0.

 

[araz]

Frontal RCS of F-16 Block 60 is much lower as compared to F-16 Block 52+, the nose looks a bit bigger and Block 60 houses an AESA Radar.


Of all the fan made stuff, i liked this one.
View attachment 558304

Regarding the former, I think my point still stands in that the fighter's RCS increases the moment you put on stuff on hardpoints. So in these dire need times is it really worth spending another 100 million dollars and wait another 2 years for it? I do not think so. However you are more than welcome to debate it.
Regarding the second I could not agree more with you. The bird really looks mean and lethhal.
A

 

[syed_yusuf]

The TWR rate is wrong. It is lower. Less than 1.0.

Provide evidence

 

[Tempest II]

The TWR rate is wrong. It is lower. Less than 1.0.

Seems that is with 50% fuel.

 

[Ali_Baba]

Provide evidence

Here you go. From the manufacturer. It is 0.95...

check out the specs.

https://pac.org.pk/Jf-17

 

[CriticalThought]

The TWR rate is wrong. It is lower. Less than 1.0.

Read the post linked below and follow the Wikipedia link and see the text under the two tables

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/hal-tejas-vs-jf-17.507277/#post-9676156

 

[syed_yusuf]

Read the post linked below and follow the Wikipedia link and see the text under the two tables

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/hal-tejas-vs-jf-17.507277/#post-9676156

Oh well these posters are latest and posted by same manufacturer

 

[Signalian]

Regarding the former, I think my point still stands in that the fighter's RCS increases the moment you put on stuff on hardpoints. So in these dire need times is it really worth spending another 100 million dollars and wait another 2 years for it? I do not think so. However you are more than welcome to debate it.
A

When the word "Debate" (or argument) is used, seems like there is going to be a contest, i prefer to share information and clear concepts( including my own)

You mentioned hard points w.r.t RCS so i thought of example of F-18, where C/D have 9 and E/F have 11 hard points. Where as F-16 Block 52+ and F-16 Block 60 have same number of hard points.

Aviation week states that RCS of F-18 E/F is lower than that of F-18 C/D.
https://aviationweek.com/site-files.../2017/12/12/State of Stealth FINAL 121317.pdf

"The initial Boeing F/A-18’s RCS is believed to be in the 10-m2 realm, but F/A-18C/Ds began incorporating RAM in 1989. The smaller Lockheed Martin F-16’s RCS is believed to be around 1-3 m2; the later C model is slightly stealthier than the F-16A, and signatures have also been reduced under Have Glass programs, which include application of RAM. Later “Generation 4.5” fighters all employ RCS reduction to some extent. The Eurofighter Typhoon program sought to reduce RCS by a factor of four compared to Tornado. The Sukhoi Su-35 claims reduction of 5-6 times over the Su-27. This likely puts the Su-35, along with Dassault Rafale, in the 1-3-m2 range. The F/A-18E/F, which Boeing says employs the most extensive RCS-reduction measures of any nonstealth fighter, is reported at 0.66-1.26 m2."

The above figures could be for clean config aircrafts, so putting weaponry on hard points would increase RCS, but even when loaded the difference in RCS ratio wouldn't get phenomenal because the clean config difference is already a lot.

 

[CriticalThought]

Regarding the former, I think my point still stands in that the fighter's RCS increases the moment you put on stuff on hardpoints. So in these dire need times is it really worth spending another 100 million dollars and wait another 2 years for it? I do not think so. However you are more than welcome to debate it.
Regarding the second I could not agree more with you. The bird really looks mean and lethhal.
A

Since there is no such thing as absolute stealth even with a so called 'stealth aircraft' it comes down to tactics. Putting ammo on the aircraft increases the RCS on some aspects but not all. This is where strategy cones in. If you are an airforce tasked with guarding a certain geographical region, you will evaluate your enemy's capability, and the physical approaches he may take towards yours. If you can rely on a very good radar coverage on the ground and in the air, you may plan to vector in your defenders to meet heads on with the enemy. In that case, the major portion of you aircraft exposed to incoming radars will be the nose and frontal flaps and the front section of your missiles. If you lower the RCS on these, you will achieve your results. This seems to be the theory behind selective stealth adopted in Su-57. Your battle plan will then depend on correct positioning of your 'semi-stealth' assets in relation to enemy assets.

EDIT: BTW, when you read that fighter X reduced RCS by Y percent, do you think it means a 360 degree RCS reduction? RCS has an inherent directionality to it, which is why we talk about 'frontal RCS'. Those reduced numbers inherently imply a certain direction which is often left unspecified.

 

[Khafee]

Apologies in advance - Can someone update me on the Nigerian order for the JFT?

 

[fatman17]

Apologies in advance - Can someone update me on the Nigerian order for the JFT?

3 confirmed 3 on order. Delivery 2019

 

[Khafee]

3 confirmed 3 on order. Delivery 2019

3 confirmed = 3 delivered?

 

[ziaulislam]

Max take off is now almost 30k lbs and max external load almost 9500lbs or 4300 kg plus

Look foreword to block 3 with following configuration
11 stations , 4 each on wings plus centerline and two on intake like f-16 plus internal fuel capacity increased by another 500-700 lbs


Total fuel 5135 lb internal and 800x1 plus 2x 1100 liters external

So 3000 liter internal plus another 3000 liters external for 6000 liter or 10k lbs

View attachment 558188

Unless engine gets a resoanble upgarde what benefit will hardpoints make beyond a separate pod point..none ..also in era of double and triple racks this becomes even more clearer.

I think more important part is whether thunder gets the pod point, IRST, HMD,AESA & RD93MA

 

[CHI RULES]

Since there is no such thing as absolute stealth even with a so called 'stealth aircraft' it comes down to tactics. Putting ammo on the aircraft increases the RCS on some aspects but not all. This is where strategy cones in. If you are an airforce tasked with guarding a certain geographical region, you will evaluate your enemy's capability, and the physical approaches he may take towards yours. If you can rely on a very good radar coverage on the ground and in the air, you may plan to vector in your defenders to meet heads on with the enemy. In that case, the major portion of you aircraft exposed to incoming radars will be the nose and frontal flaps and the front section of your missiles. If you lower the RCS on these, you will achieve your results. This seems to be the theory behind selective stealth adopted in Su-57. Your battle plan will then depend on correct positioning of your 'semi-stealth' assets in relation to enemy assets.

EDIT: BTW, when you read that fighter X reduced RCS by Y percent, do you think it means a 360 degree RCS reduction? RCS has an inherent directionality to it, which is why we talk about 'frontal RCS'. Those reduced numbers inherently imply a certain direction which is often left unspecified.

Sir your comments requested on issues of superior AD of Jets i.e jammer,Flares/Chaffs suppression of heat/smoke/ir signature. As during Indo-Pak latest air skirmish I have read that Indian jets were unable to lock on the Pak jets. Perhaps the strong point of SU57 shall be it's superior defenses rather than stealth.

On other hand I have read that Indian AF is applying RAM coatings on their jets during upgrades do PAF have applied such coatings on Pak jets.

 

[CriticalThought]

Sir your comments requested on issues of superior AD of Jets i.e jammer,Flares/Chaffs suppression of heat/smoke/ir signature. As during Indo-Pak latest air skirmish I have read that Indian jets were unable to lock on the Pak jets. Perhaps the strong point of SU57 shall be it's superior defenses rather than stealth.

On other hand I have read that Indian AF is applying RAM coatings on their jets during upgrades do PAF have applied such coatings on Pak jets.

I have no insider knowledge about tactical/strategic decisions made by PAF or IAF.

I also would take anything coming from the Indian side with a grain of salt. I don't outright dismiss what they say, but I don't outright believe it either.

For the design philosophy behind Su-57, read here about PAF-FA, the prototype that led to Su-57

http://ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html