What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

First of all JF-17 can drop a LGB, this talk of absence of a relevant pod is incorrect. In CAS missions it is actually considered better to have a ground spotter who is in a much better position to decide where to spot and direct a delivery. And in such cases LGBs can be dropped from 20-25kms depending upon altitude.
LGBs are also a less desirable option relevant to GPS based PGMs, first because of lower range, less accuracy and also they are effected by weather as well as smoke. GPS based PGMs are the ones which are more accurate and provide much more stand-off ranges and are supported on JF-17. Benefit of a Sniper like pod is basically reconnaissance not targeting. In term of an FLIR pod more desirable in long term will be to secure a pod with dual use video FLIR for long range arial 'identification' purposes.
 
.
JF17 must carry extra fuel, more armaments and have a better ground clearance. If wings can not be extended then the length / Spine must be extended or increased in height (like the one on the dual seat model) so as to accommodate at least an extra 750 to 1000 ltrs. The nose cone must also be increased in dia so as to incorporate both an AESA and an IRST within the nose cone itself potentially leaving a vital weapon station free for armament. Going by the same principle a newer pod station should be evaluated near the air intakes. The above if coupled with a bigger wing area can lead to an increased area which can be used for landing gear folding into wings / extra fuel in wings and/or extra station per wing.

I have no idea why so many guys want modifications in JF-17 structure unless there are serious issues with this jet. If there are any please elaborate it.

Wing design is a compromise and a balancing act, too low wing loading will result in better turn rates but much higher drag. This is why a certain amount of wing loading is actually desirable. Modifying the wing will completely disrupt the requirements this jet is designed for and will actually be a big negative. Also keep in mind very large LERXs which are about 1/5 of each wing although there purpose is not only lift but also AOA.
An AESA radar is very desirable, also IRST in poded version will be much better for certain reasons. Weapon stations is not an issue as there is enough room for two stations for pods on fuselage and most probably be in future block. But expanding the nose will be worst thing to do as this will certainly affect lateral stability and will result in decreasing AOA.
I think that for some reason unknown to me there is an impression here that fuel is low. The internal fuel fraction is adequate and with its configuration of drop tanks JF-17 gives loiter time which is comparable with other jets which provide excellent loiter times such as F-18.

JF17 will not mature into a mature, modern and a fearsome aircraft till PAC takes a decision and convinces AVIC to work together for some major structural changes. The new block 3 should be locked up with an improved or a newer engine option (be it RD93MA, RD33 or WS13) and then structural modifications should be decided so as to allow ample time to conduct assessments including the wind tunnel tests. The way forward is to think outside the box.
I think present engine and its slightly higher SFC may the issue for guys here talking up about low fuel. Most probably a newer version will get inducted but I doubt that it will be based on a chinese engine, there are still issues with them. It will still be a RD- 93 with FDAC.
The reason this engine has a bit higher SFC at some settings is because it has been modified to have a higher mil thrust. Check other jet fighters specs and you will see that their mil thrust is usually between 50-65% of full thrust. JF-17s engine's been modified to produce a higher mil thrust for a reason. I'll give you a pointer, search for F-16N of US Navy, check its specs, same as any other F-16 block 30, but if you can find, find what was its top speed in certain configuration at altitude at mil thrust.
 
.
I have no idea why so many guys want modifications in JF-17 structure unless there are serious issues with this jet. If there are any please elaborate it.

Wing design is a compromise and a balancing act, too low wing loading will result in better turn rates but much higher drag. This is why a certain amount of wing loading is actually desirable. Modifying the wing will completely disrupt the requirements this jet is designed for and will actually be a big negative. Also keep in mind very large LERXs which are about 1/5 of each wing although there purpose is not only lift but also AOA.
An AESA radar is very desirable, also IRST in poded version will be much better for certain reasons. Weapon stations is not an issue as there is enough room for two stations for pods on fuselage and most probably be in future block. But expanding the nose will be worst thing to do as this will certainly affect lateral stability and will result in decreasing AOA.
I think that for some reason unknown to me there is an impression here that fuel is low. The internal fuel fraction is adequate and with its configuration of drop tanks JF-17 gives loiter time which is comparable with other jets which provide excellent loiter times such as F-18.


I think present engine and its slightly higher SFC may the issue for guys here talking up about low fuel. Most probably a newer version will get inducted but I doubt that it will be based on a chinese engine, there are still issues with them. It will still be a RD- 93 with FDAC.
The reason this engine has a bit higher SFC at some settings is because it has been modified to have a higher mil thrust. Check other jet fighters specs and you will see that their mil thrust is usually between 50-65% of full thrust. JF-17s engine's been modified to produce a higher mil thrust for a reason. I'll give you a pointer, search for F-16N of US Navy, check its specs, same as any other F-16 block 30, but if you can find, find what was its top speed in certain configuration at altitude at mil thrust.
I have no idea why so many guys want modifications in JF-17 structure unless there are serious issues with this jet. If there are any please elaborate it.

Wing design is a compromise and a balancing act, too low wing loading will result in better turn rates but much higher drag. This is why a certain amount of wing loading is actually desirable. Modifying the wing will completely disrupt the requirements this jet is designed for and will actually be a big negative. Also keep in mind very large LERXs which are about 1/5 of each wing although there purpose is not only lift but also AOA.
An AESA radar is very desirable, also IRST in poded version will be much better for certain reasons. Weapon stations is not an issue as there is enough room for two stations for pods on fuselage and most probably be in future block. But expanding the nose will be worst thing to do as this will certainly affect lateral stability and will result in decreasing AOA.
I think that for some reason unknown to me there is an impression here that fuel is low. The internal fuel fraction is adequate and with its configuration of drop tanks JF-17 gives loiter time which is comparable with other jets which provide excellent loiter times such as F-18.


I think present engine and its slightly higher SFC may the issue for guys here talking up about low fuel. Most probably a newer version will get inducted but I doubt that it will be based on a chinese engine, there are still issues with them. It will still be a RD- 93 with FDAC.
The reason this engine has a bit higher SFC at some settings is because it has been modified to have a higher mil thrust. Check other jet fighters specs and you will see that their mil thrust is usually between 50-65% of full thrust. JF-17s engine's been modified to produce a higher mil thrust for a reason. I'll give you a pointer, search for F-16N of US Navy, check its specs, same as any other F-16 block 30, but if you can find, find what was its top speed in certain configuration at altitude at mil thrust.

Hi,

What is being written needs to be understood in the context of what is being said and not what you are reading.

What you are hearing is---larger size---more fuel---bigger aircraft----what they / me want to say---we need a " shining sword " from somewhere someplace---we asked for a banana---you gave us a potato---.

Potatoes are very nutritious---you can't live without them---but then the bananas have a utility of their own---they prevent you from having muscle cramps---and keep the mobility going.

I am a close to 30 years car salesman---when I say car sales man---at a car dealership in the U S----everyone os a salesman---assist manager, finance manager, sales manager, general sale manager, General manager---they are all salesmen---.

So when a customer says to me I am just looking---I already know that os not what he or she means---what they mean is that they have not found a vehicle yet, they have not come across a sales person they want to deal with, they have credit issues that they are embarrassed to talk about, they owe too much on the trade in vehicle and don't know if they can get out of it, they don;t have a down payment, they don't know if they can get financed--and many other thing.

So---for me to make a sale---I am peeling the information like a layer of onion---one at a time to get to the gist of the matter.

It is the same issue here sir---I understand that you have been butting heads against a wall and trying to make us understand---what we are saying is---that we do not see a RUSTAM PEHALWAN in our air force---.

And we are not that stupid that we do not know that our air force strike package is an incomplete package.

So--thatis where the talk of a larger JF17 come in---.

The wonderful news is that you air force types have fckd up the relationship with the U S so bad---by your stupid threats to the U S congress---that sanctions are another step closer---.
 
.
Sorry to say so, but are we still in the JF-17-thread related to news ??

Maybe we should rename this one into "wishes on how the JF-17PLUS should evolve even if I have no idea, who should pay for it ?"

Guys ... can we stay realistic ??

Deino
 
.
Hi,

What is being written needs to be understood in the context of what is being said and not what you are reading.

What you are hearing is---larger size---more fuel---bigger aircraft----what they / me want to say---we need a " shining sword " from somewhere someplace---we asked for a banana---you gave us a potato---.

Potatoes are very nutritious---you can't live without them---but then the bananas have a utility of their own---they prevent you from having muscle cramps---and keep the mobility going.

I am a close to 30 years car salesman---when I say car sales man---at a car dealership in the U S----everyone os a salesman---assist manager, finance manager, sales manager, general sale manager, General manager---they are all salesmen---.

So when a customer says to me I am just looking---I already know that os not what he or she means---what they mean is that they have not found a vehicle yet, they have not come across a sales person they want to deal with, they have credit issues that they are embarrassed to talk about, they owe too much on the trade in vehicle and don't know if they can get out of it, they don;t have a down payment, they don't know if they can get financed--and many other thing.

So---for me to make a sale---I am peeling the information like a layer of onion---one at a time to get to the gist of the matter.

It is the same issue here sir---I understand that you have been butting heads against a wall and trying to make us understand---what we are saying is---that we do not see a RUSTAM PEHALWAN in our air force---.

And we are not that stupid that we do not know that our air force strike package is an incomplete package.

So--thatis where the talk of a larger JF17 come in---.

The wonderful news is that you air force types have fckd up the relationship with the U S so bad---by your stupid threats to the U S congress---that sanctions are another step closer---.

My apologies, most of your examples and analogies look irrelevant.

Shinning sword analogy looks to me to be more a subjective perception of some one. Let me know why do you thing JF-17 is not a shining sword?

Why do you think that strike package of our airforce is an incomplete package? please do not give more of car analogies, let me know specific tactical or operational limitations.

Why do you want a larger JF-17? what purpose will that serve in terms of tactics etc.
 
.
jf-17 in the current small form is difficult to afford for Pakistan and many countries with similar smaller econmies. had it been a large size aircraft it wouldn't have even left the drawing board because of cost

at best we can hope nad PAF should achieve some improvement in range via newer versions of rd-93 /ws13 and 1-2 additional hard points under the fuselage, similar in line to what is going to happen the gripen c , the gripen NG(which is not in service yet)
and may be IRST/AESA
geripen-ng_weaponsystems.jpg


some smart engineering could lead to 1-2 hard points under the fuselage
 
.
jf-17 in the current small form is difficult to afford for Pakistan and many countries with similar smaller econmies. had it been a large size aircraft it wouldn't have even left the drawing board because of cost

at best we can hope nad PAF should achieve some improvement in range via newer versions of rd-93 /ws13 and 1-2 additional hard points under the fuselage, similar in line to what is going to happen the gripen c , the gripen NG(which is not in service yet)
and may be IRST/AESA
geripen-ng_weaponsystems.jpg


some smart engineering could lead to 1-2 hard points under the fuselage


Hi,

There would have been more buyers for the larger size----remember size is important---regardless of what they say---. Size has a power of its own---the visual effects creating a fear and awe are also very important in a major weapon.

Size is a state of mind---the bigger it is---better it must be. The size in itself is at a constant war with utility---it provides a sense of security and being looked after.

JF 17 in its size is a beautiful aircraft and it is the ideal size for a highly skilled air force---. But being built by an air force that is solely responsible for its procurement is perfect for pakistan---but not for many other countries---where politicians are making the decision to purchase it.

You can very well undertsand the problem with this aircraft---that the air force has been forced to make a twin seater aircraft on the demand of the perspective buyers to correct its earlier error in judgement.
 
.
I am having a strange feeling that this design is off the shelf and both Pak and CHina were not taking any risks with this project ,Concept from the start was to replace our A5/F7/Mirages not F16 .Also Target market was similar to ours having operating the similar kind ,WHere it went wrong .

PAF and CATIC assessment of market
PAF & CATIC didn't coupe up with modern Tech since Chinese systems were step behind infact more step behind
PAF did not involve or to our knowledge Turkey or Italy in development (why i say this as Both countries could have added more value) .

In the end this product fits our needs ,Do this ? If yes Sales are Bonus ,We dont need Big F17 we need big proven platforms J10/SU35 probably ,but their is already a thread about J10 and why we dont need it . Pak has to get off F16 saga it is pulling us back and it is a shame that all operators of F16s are switching to F35 and we dont know what to get ,Probably idea is to open another junk yard (Mirages) this time it will be F16 from all over the world .

JF17 is a small nimble bird ,First we need to see its full potential ,I am even not confident about Block 3 specs and when it will be there and here we are discussing about enlarged F17
 
.
I am having a strange feeling that this design is off the shelf and both Pak and CHina were not taking any risks with this project ,Concept from the start was to replace our A5/F7/Mirages not F16 .Also Target market was similar to ours having operating the similar kind ,WHere it went wrong .

PAF and CATIC assessment of market
PAF & CATIC didn't coupe up with modern Tech since Chinese systems were step behind infact more step behind
PAF did not involve or to our knowledge Turkey or Italy in development (why i say this as Both countries could have added more value) .

In the end this product fits our needs ,Do this ? If yes Sales are Bonus ,We dont need Big F17 we need big proven platforms J10/SU35 probably ,but their is already a thread about J10 and why we dont need it . Pak has to get off F16 saga it is pulling us back and it is a shame that all operators of F16s are switching to F35 and we dont know what to get ,Probably idea is to open another junk yard (Mirages) this time it will be F16 from all over the world .

JF17 is a small nimble bird ,First we need to see its full potential ,I am even not confident about Block 3 specs and when it will be there and here we are discussing about enlarged F17

are suggesting that we should restart the jf 1 project
 
.
are suggesting that we should restart the jf 1 project
No only way forward should be to join any 5th Gen ,freeze JF17 design try to integrate what ever goodies are available ,gadgets and other stuff,only mod i would like to see may be Engine and thats it ,Dont produce more than 200 finish it by 2020 launch MLU programe and prepare to retire these by 2035/2040 max .
 
.
I am having a strange feeling that this design is off the shelf and both Pak and CHina were not taking any risks with this project ,Concept from the start was to replace our A5/F7/Mirages not F16 .Also Target market was similar to ours having operating the similar kind ,WHere it went wrong .

PAF and CATIC assessment of market
PAF & CATIC didn't coupe up with modern Tech since Chinese systems were step behind infact more step behind
PAF did not involve or to our knowledge Turkey or Italy in development (why i say this as Both countries could have added more value) .

In the end this product fits our needs ,Do this ? If yes Sales are Bonus ,We dont need Big F17 we need big proven platforms J10/SU35 probably ,but their is already a thread about J10 and why we dont need it . Pak has to get off F16 saga it is pulling us back and it is a shame that all operators of F16s are switching to F35 and we dont know what to get ,Probably idea is to open another junk yard (Mirages) this time it will be F16 from all over the world .

JF17 is a small nimble bird ,First we need to see its full potential ,I am even not confident about Block 3 specs and when it will be there and here we are discussing about enlarged F17


Hi,

This is not an " off the shelf " design----. It is a very well thought of design---. The F16 could also have been a replacement---but the planning was bad---.

Sometimes---in the begining---you don't go out of the way to make the promises. That is why challenging the F16 in the initial stages was not the right thing to do.

The major setback was the Thales avionics----they got cancelled---the JF17 had to start from the scratch for the avionics----.

Paf never made the wise decision---. They never sank the hook deeper into the french between 2002--2005---. The aesa equipped thales avionics would have taken the JF17 closer to the Block 60 than the blk 52's---.

The hook was the Rafales---even 24 of them would have made a world of difference and a submarine deal would have been icing on the cake---.
 
.
i kinda agree here, instead of buying new f-16s there, we should have gone for rafale and thunders upgrade
but than again india had already floated 128 MRCA project and it would have been difficult to get it

the f-16s upgrade though was not a bad desicion but it was paid by USA anyway

Hi,

In don't recall the RFI for Rafale in 2002-03. But there were eager beavers to sell aircraft to pakistan---even sweden tried real hard.

Originally it was for the Mirage 2k for india---. I think that changed o Rafale in 2004 or 05.

Remember---during this time---paf had tested the Gripen hard---and tested the Rafale as well.
 
Last edited:
.
Hi,

This is not an " off the shelf " design----. It is a very well thought of design---. The F16 could also have been a replacement---but the planning was bad---.

Sometimes---in the begining---you don't go out of the way to make the promises. That is why challenging the F16 in the initial stages was not the right thing to do.

The major setback was the Thales avionics----they got cancelled---the JF17 had to start from the scratch for the avionics----.

Paf never made the wise decision---. They never sank the hook deeper into the french between 2002--2005---. The aesa equipped thales avionics would have taken the JF17 closer to the Block 60 than the blk 52's---.

The hook was the Rafales---even 24 of them would have made a world of difference and a submarine deal would have been icing on the cake---.
Precisely we lost our best friend and probably a Veto Ally to India ,Means Has France at our back ,China /France would have paved the way for SC/NSG seat now we are back to one ally China .I beg to differ for F16 replacement the code name F17 was given to show it is one step a head to F16 but with utmost bad planning we still lack certain key elements that F16 Block 52+ has .Regrading design F17 design was based on Mig series design Mig 33 /37
mig-35d.jpg


20150829093655825.jpg
 
.
Intermediate MK ,

That is the word to remember because that is an officer's education and aptitude to qualify for a force.

You can take brass and polish it all you want, it won't make it gold.

This argument of yours is not relevant to this discussion but shows your mental level at best.

Intermediate is also the requirement to start many other professions and their educational paths. Including doctors, engineers, business and IT professionals. The professionals in military services, like in other professions, need to take many courses and trainings to get further. Major courses such as staff or war studies and many minor one related to your field, just like in other professions. Because of the nature of profession details of such studies and trainings and detail of their content do not come out in public as is the case with other professions.

I have heard this stupid argument in person as well from people in other professions who think that they are the only ones who end up studying and learning all their career and when you actually start mentioning some of yours they humble down.

It is much easier to criticise or tease other and try to look like an expert about a profession you know nothing about but much tougher to actually excel.
 
.
KG-600 airborne self protection jamming pod (aspj) is being pushed as an advanced high powered jammer to be used in intense EW environment for the jf-17. Already being employed by strike/ interdiction platforms like JH-7, SU-30/J-11 series, H-6 bombers and is serving in the PLAAF. Seems like Chinese didn't like us going for INDRA's EW suit for jf-17.

16iw1eh.jpg
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom