JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[FuturePAF]

i had no idea that was him. he is reveered and well respected in USdefence circles ... he was a big fan of pakistani pilots.. trained them and got them in top gun school.. two of pakistani pilots topped the school back in 60s and 70s

Still a Fan of the PAF

https://twitter.com/x/status/597974829053050880

https://twitter.com/x/status/931153924731445254

 

[mingle]

The man---the myth---A True Legend---checking out the JF17---. That must have been a heel of an occasion for him to see this aircraft---.

Now that the two seater is here---he can get a ride in it too---.

MK is it him???

 

[MastanKhan]

MK is it him???

Sure looks like him---. Where would this picture be taken---and if it is him---he must have a genuine interest in the aircraft to check it out.

It is like being blessed by your Grand Father---. What a unique experience---.

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

Check last two pages of this thread. I said it first.


*Pats himself on the back*

Sure looks like him---. Where would this picture be taken---and if it is him---he must have a genuine interest in the aircraft to check it out.

It is like being blessed by your Grand Father---. What a unique experience---.

 

[mingle]

Sure looks like him---. Where would this picture be taken---and if it is him---he must have a genuine interest in the aircraft to check it out.

It is like being blessed by your Grand Father---. What a unique experience---.

PAF should invite him again for ride at B he would love To

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

Budda ho gya hai. Must be hard for him to travel I'm 22 and 20 hour flights to Pakistan for me are a pain in the butt for me. Chuck is in his 90s. Do the math.

PAF should invite him again for ride at B he would love To

JF17 is catching on I think. Especially in DCS community. Whoever made that decision deserves to be commended, next get JF17 in Ace Combat.

 

[SABRE]

As defense attaché and not instructor but flew f-86 over Himalayan’s and Karakoram ranges

If I am not mistaken, his autobiography states that he was assigned a role of advisor to PAF. Thus, I said the "instructor." Anyway, thanks for the update.

 

[air marshal]

Who is this Gentleman

He's Captain (R) Jan Muhammad Sadiq from PIA

 

[Windjammer]

Who is this Gentleman

General Chuck Yeager

View attachment 599710

The man---the myth---A True Legend---checking out the JF17---. That must have been a hell of an occasion for him to see this aircraft---.

Now that the two seater is here---he can get a ride in it too---.

Guys please confirm before making any statements,
He's NO General Yeagr rather He is Captain (R) Jan Muhammad Sadiq from PIA.

 

[Talon]

General Chuck Yeager

View attachment 599710

That is Captain Jan Muhammad Sadiq ex PIA pilot.You got it wrong bro.

 

[Dazzler]

@Hodor @Windjammer

Thanks for correction folks.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Damn you interrupted the comedy show

He's Captain (R) Jan Muhammad Sadiq from PIA

 

[m52k85]

Posted this on another thread on a JF-17 being multirole, but I guess this is the more appropriate place. Apologies if these have been discussed before as well, but would be nice to have it in one set of posts. Block-I vs Block-II: Features and Operational Implications:

If I remember correctly, it was only when the block-IIs came out that they got data-links and "enhanced load carrying capacity", which probably means the 1,000 pounders/ dual 500 pounders under each wing on no. 2 and 6 stations. Together with 3 tanks as well.

Is DCS accurate in suggesting that center line tank is not droppable? Quite a few pictures of Jf-17 in A2A config are without a centerline tank, infact I don't think I can see a picture of A2A config with one.

If the above is true that means, the 50 block-Is are:
1. Inferior in CAPs due to slightly shorter range of radar (v1 vs v2), and lack of data link which improves situational awareness, and a relatively inferior EW package (I would hazard a guess that Indra ones were introduced on Bk2)
2. Inferior in bombing punch due to lesser load i.e 2 smaller bombs vs 4 of blk 2.
3. Anti-shipping role seems the config where Blk 1 and 2 are near par.

Ofcourse, retrospect incorporation of Blk 2 features would solve each each point, here is my take on easiest to incorporate changes first, along with the reasons I think so:
1. Data link addition. Reason: Home grown, presumably least structural changes needed.
2. Wing strengthening. Reason: again PAC are responsible for making wings.
3. EW suite: foreign involvement required, so probably most cost prohibitive (for lack of a better word)
There was also news of "improved avionics" in blk2, don't know what that means, could be alluding to the EW suite.

Does anyone know if these changes have been applied to blk-1 also?

P.S. I know of internal pluming upgrade in blk-2, lets leave it out for now.

@messiach @airomerix @Ipcha Mistabra would appreciate your take on these points as well.

 

[airomerix]

Posted this on another thread on a JF-17 being multirole, but I guess this is the more appropriate place. Apologies if these have been discussed before as well, but would be nice to have it in one set of posts. Block-I vs Block-II: Features and Operational Implications:

If I remember correctly, it was only when the block-IIs came out that they got data-links and "enhanced load carrying capacity", which probably means the 1,000 pounders/ dual 500 pounders under each wing on no. 2 and 6 stations. Together with 3 tanks as well.

Initial Block 1s had a few deficiencies with regards to wing roots. It prevented them after sustaining hard turns with heavy payload such as SD-10's, LGB's etc. Fortunately, it was found out rather quickly and remaining thunders were manufactured with improved wing roots. The initial batch of Thunders were reworked once they clocked 800 hrs. ARF has been busy.

Furthermore, there has been a significant use of composites in Block 2 which has solved the challenges of increased payloads, range and concerning factors.

Is DCS accurate in suggesting that center line tank is not droppable? Quite a few pictures of Jf-17 in A2A config are without a centerline tank, infact I don't think I can see a picture of A2A config with one.

Drop tanks can always be jettisoned. We just haven't seen a JF-17 come back from a combat mission. It would be clean.

If the above is true that means, the 50 block-Is are:
1. Inferior in CAPs due to slightly shorter range of radar (v1 vs v2), and lack of data link which improves situational awareness, and a relatively inferior EW package (I would hazard a guess that Indra ones were introduced on Bk2)

Not true. Block 1's and Block II's are similar in A2A capability. They have the same radar. Block II's radar had some tweaks and same were applied to Block I's. We have a division in PAC called APF (Avionics Production Factory). It works on these projects. It has a really cool JF-17 simulator too!

2. Inferior in bombing punch due to lesser load i.e 2 smaller bombs vs 4 of blk 2.

Nope.

3. Anti-shipping role seems the config where Blk 1 and 2 are near par.

Yes.

Ofcourse, retrospect incorporation of Blk 2 features would solve each each point, here is my take on easiest to incorporate changes first, along with the reasons I think so:
1. Data link addition. Reason: Home grown, presumably least structural changes needed.
2. Wing strengthening. Reason: again PAC are responsible for making wings.
3. EW suite: foreign involvement required, so probably most cost prohibitive (for lack of a better word)
There was also news of "improved avionics" in blk2, don't know what that means, could be alluding to the EW suite.

Does anyone know if these changes have been applied to blk-1 also?

P.S. I know of internal pluming upgrade in blk-2, lets leave it out for now.

@messiach @airomerix @Ipcha Mistabra would appreciate your take on these points as well.

All the mentioned limitations have been minimized between Block I and Block IIs.

JF-17s USP is its upgradability. However, Block III has major structural modifications with regards to its fuselage, hence we cant make Block I/II's into Block III's.

 

[HRK]

hence we cant make Block I/II's into Block III's

avionics upgrades are possible later at some stage for blk-I and blk-II upto blk-III .... ??