JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Moon]

you can get meteor but you would need something that can fire it too
that is gripen, rafale or typhoon

typhoon seems to be the only opption but its expensive to buy and even more expesnive to maintain

Link-17 with the Thunder and an AEWC, to fully utilize it I guess.

 

[Danish Moazzam]

A model of Thunder with Vixen Aesa if the power requirement are met. Then Meteor can be used. There were talks on it

 

[ghazi52]

NAF721
Photo by Zohaib Malik

 

[MastanKhan]

I would request you to kindly watch series of interview of Shahid Latif at YouTube channel of Abid Andleeb he clearly mention that S-7 project was a failure and was based on J-7 ... but when he became project chief he revised ASR of the project and used F-16 as base model ..... name of the project was not changed to JF-17 till later stages .... as far as I remember change of name to JF-17 was done with the production of 4th prototype

Additionally you could search interview of ACM Saeed Anwar shaib as well which many years ago was shared at this forum, he also in that interview indirectly acknowledge the failure of original Super-7 (which was the fighter aircraft design related to refinement of J-7 design and avionics) and he was doubtful about Chinese aviation capabilities of that time ....

Hi,

It is technically impossible for 2 decade experienced top notch F16 operator to design something as obsolete as something based on the Mig 21.

Millenium 7 described it very well in his video about another product---. For those who want to learn---find the viedo and learn.

 

[Scorpiooo]

Hi,

It is technically impossible for 2 decade experienced top notch F16 operator to design something as obsolete as something based on the Mig 21.

Millenium 7 described it very well in his video about another product---. For those who want to learn---find the viedo and learn.

Can you plz share link

 

[ghazi52]

 

[ghazi52]

In Turkey

 

[Imran Khan]

Hi,

It is technically impossible for 2 decade experienced top notch F16 operator to design something as obsolete as something based on the Mig 21.

Millenium 7 described it very well in his video about another product---. For those who want to learn---find the viedo and learn.

sir gustaakhi maaf

 

[ghazi52]

 

[OverandOut]

I have a question that might have been answered somewhere in this forum so please do share the link if so.

Why is the landing gear of the jf17 so short? From the photos the clearance with drop tanks looks to be about 1m for the wings and probably half under belly. Never mind my guesses but seems low.
I suppose the right question to ask is if the plane would benefit from longer legs and what limitations do short legs have.

 

[Dreamer.]

I have a question that might have been answered somewhere in this forum so please do share the link if so.

Why is the landing gear of the jf17 so short? From the photos the clearance with drop tanks looks to be about 1m for the wings and probably half under belly. Never mind my guesses but seems low.
I suppose the right question to ask is if the plane would benefit from longer legs and what limitations do short legs have.

Where aircraft are concerned short (or long) legs has an entirely different meaning....i.e. it refers to an aircraft's range.

What you are referring to is called ground clearance. And less ground clearance does have its disadvantages.....such as not being able to carry certain weapons among other things. Increasing the ground clearance is however a bit more complicated than just putting a longer rod for the landing gear. Those more knowledgeable about aircraft design can explain better.

 

[razgriz19]

I'm no design engineer but space in one big reason. F-16s landing gear is in it's belly so it stands taller when measuring ground clearance from the wing.

JF17 doesn't have much space in the belly so landing gear is attached to the wing just like Mirage. However Mirage is a low wing aircraft and flat underneath so it has more clearance available to carry larger or oddly shaped weapons.

I'm sure the designers had their reasons for placing everything where it is and keep in mind the aircraft was develop on a $500 million budget, that's tiny compared to what other countries spend developing their aircraft.

Where aircraft are concerned short (or long) legs has an entirely different meaning....i.e. it refers to an aircraft's range.

What you are referring to is called ground clearance. And less ground clearance does have its disadvantages.....such as not being able to carry certain weapons among other things. Increasing the ground clearance is however a bit more complicated than just putting a longer rod for the landing gear. Those more knowledgeable about aircraft design can explain better.

 

[GriffinsRule]

A key consideration for having shorter ground clearance is also ease of accessibility and servicing the aircraft. That translates to most panels that in easy reach for technicians and ground crew and thus potentially quicker turn around time.

Space on a smaller airframe also makes having shorter landing gear beneficial as any savings can translate into more room for fuel.

Check out how low the wings of the Saab's Gripen are in comparison, another small jet that is famous for ease of maintenance and quick turn around time in the field.

Of course Gripen is a better designed aircraft in comparison to the Thunder due to the greater experience Saab has in aerospace design. But to offset the lower ground clearance just means you need to develop more compact smart weapons, which is now the trend anyways in any modern air force.

 

[ghazi52]

"Crew Chief Inspecting JF-17's Rudder"

Crew chief's direct aircraft maintenance crews & ensures all procedures of inspections, maintenance, signing & recovering aircrafts are performed correctly & safely. Dedicated crew chiefs are assigned go a single aircraft & are singularly responsible not only for ensuring the successful completion of its maintenance, but for improving it as well.
Never underestimate the soothing effect of a calm & confident crew chief on a nervous trainee about to fly the aircraft on his own for the first time ...

Salute to the crew chiefs...
The charm of flt line is crew chiefs

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I'm no design engineer but space in one big reason. F-16s landing gear is in it's belly so it stands taller when measuring ground clearance from the wing.

JF17 doesn't have much space in the belly so landing gear is attached to the wing just like Mirage. However Mirage is a low wing aircraft and flat underneath so it has more clearance available to carry larger or oddly shaped weapons.

I'm sure the designers had their reasons for placing everything where it is and keep in mind the aircraft was develop on a $500 million budget, that's tiny compared to what other countries spend developing their aircraft.

A key consideration for having shorter ground clearance is also ease of accessibility and servicing the aircraft. That translates to most panels that in easy reach for technicians and ground crew and thus potentially quicker turn around time.

Space on a smaller airframe also makes having shorter landing gear beneficial as any savings can translate into more room for fuel.

Check out how low the wings of the Saab's Gripen are in comparison, another small jet that is famous for ease of maintenance and quick turn around time in the field.

View attachment 757640

Of course Gripen is a better designed aircraft in comparison to the Thunder due to the greater experience Saab has in aerospace design. But to offset the lower ground clearance just means you need to develop more compact smart weapons, which is now the trend anyways in any modern air force.

With the JF-17's ground clearance, I think the issue is more that we lack appropriately sized munitions than anything to do with the JF-17 itself. The Ra'ad v1, for example, was designed for the Mirage III/5, and we did not take the JF-17 into account as, at that time, the JF-17 was not a near-term factor. Ditto for H2/H4.

However, with the Ra'ad 2, it seems like Pakistan is investing more in developing its SOW stack. There is a chance that the JF-17 may be able to carry it. The PAF can continue investing along these lines, e.g., look at a 'Ra'ad Lite' (similar to Turkey's SOM), new-gen glide bombs to replace H2/H4, and other ideas too (e.g., a SPEAR-like ALCM can help too if we can economize it). @JamD @SQ8 @kursed

That said, for the PAF, the JF-17 is an MVP (Minimally Viable Product) in design and role. You'll notice that its precision-attack, anti-ship, long-range air-to-air, and so on are just enough to fight in our region. Now, as the region got more sophisticated, the PAF added more features to the JF-17 so as to maintain the MVP status (e.g., AESA radar, HMD/S, ECM, etc).

This situation is likely due to a lack of funds more than anything. If the PAF could "go ham" on the JF-17 by loading it up with bells and whistles, it would. In fact, when the fiscal situation was relatively better in the 2000s, the PAF spoke to Thales and MBDA for the RDY3, MICA and TopOwl.