What's new

JF-17B Updates, News & Discussion

.
At last they are the first to choose beauty and the beast.

Yep, I always thought the tail of Block II needed to be swept back more and top needed more of lifting body look. If these changes are in the B they should show up in Block III.
 
.
Another milestone. Don’t look at shortfalls as challenges but look at them as opportunities. PAF has learn a lot from this achievement. Platform in place now just keep upgrading it. Azm-e-nu will give an aeronautical manufacturing industry and 5th Gen jet.
 
. .
IMG_2876.JPG


Jf need to add two more under wing pylons point like f-16
 
. .
I think the only way PAF will buy the B version in numbers will be if it comes with a more powerful engine. Add about 8 -10 kN more dry thrust and such an engine would be a better or near ideal engine for single or dual seat version of thunders alas with a low MTBO.

If the dry/Wet thrust or performance can be increased a bit more then we can see B version being evolved and inducted as a mini ECM aircraft with 2/4 air to air missiles for self protection. Such an aircraft can give you a decent chance of air dominance as it would simply put burden or help neutralize anything the adversary has and give the accompanying aircrafts a better chance to wreck havoc. Will that engine be RD93MA or WS13 is anybody's guess but i hope block 3/ B version moves ahead and away from RD93.
 
.
Any idea, when Pakistan will receive their first B-models? ... or will they wait until Block 03 is finalised and their JF-17Bs will then have the same standard?
Or we may never get any..instead go for a different LIFT
 
.
I think the only way PAF will buy the B version in numbers will be if it comes with a more powerful engine. Add about 8 -10 kN more dry thrust and such an engine would be a better or near ideal engine for single or dual seat version of thunders alas with a low MTBO.

If the dry/Wet thrust or performance can be increased a bit more then we can see B version being evolved and inducted as a mini ECM aircraft with 2/4 air to air missiles for self protection. Such an aircraft can give you a decent chance of air dominance as it would simply put burden or help neutralize anything the adversary has and give the accompanying aircrafts a better chance to wreck havoc. Will that engine be RD93MA or WS13 is anybody's guess but i hope block 3/ B version moves ahead and away from RD93.

Hi,

Why do you people post stupid all the time---what is your FETISH with more horsepower---more hard poitns---more missiles---more ecm pods---all on the same aircraft.

Dedicated ECM aircraft run bare of any weapons
 
.
First of all please mind your language and kindly dont post when ur thought process is clouded.

Secondly, read my post again and read the word mini ecm. From your previous posts i know clearly that you very well know difference between a dedicated ecm aircraft and a mini ecm one. I guess u missed the word mini hence my first point.

Thirdly i did not utter a word about more hard points and missiles i merely said 2 to 4 missiles which basically leaves rest for external fuel tanks and pods. These pods would make it a mini ecm aircraft and would require more power or horse power as u call it.

I have been following this forum for a while and thus i have seen u posting and harping on 25% bigger aircraft, more power, more hard points and more missiles etc. So if anything plz dont put ur fetish cap of all these thinga on my head or anyone elses.

Good day sir
 
.
First of all please mind your language and kindly dont post when ur thought process is clouded.

Secondly, read my post again and read the word mini ecm. From your previous posts i know clearly that you very well know difference between a dedicated ecm aircraft and a mini ecm one. I guess u missed the word mini hence my first point.

Thirdly i did not utter a word about more hard points and missiles i merely said 2 to 4 missiles which basically leaves rest for external fuel tanks and pods. These pods would make it a mini ecm aircraft and would require more power or horse power as u call it.

I have been following this forum for a while and thus i have seen u posting and harping on 25% bigger aircraft, more power, more hard points and more missiles etc. So if anything plz dont put ur fetish cap of all these thinga on my head or anyone elses.

Good day sir

Hi,

A 25% larger aircraft would BY DEFAULT need more hard points---because the function of the utility is also related to the size---.
 
.
I think the only way PAF will buy the B version in numbers will be if it comes with a more powerful engine. Add about 8 -10 kN more dry thrust and such an engine would be a better or near ideal engine for single or dual seat version of thunders alas with a low MTBO.

If the dry/Wet thrust or performance can be increased a bit more then we can see B version being evolved and inducted as a mini ECM aircraft with 2/4 air to air missiles for self protection. Such an aircraft can give you a decent chance of air dominance as it would simply put burden or help neutralize anything the adversary has and give the accompanying aircrafts a better chance to wreck havoc. Will that engine be RD93MA or WS13 is anybody's guess but i hope block 3/ B version moves ahead and away from RD93.

A jamming/ECM asset works best at very long ranges where it can be safely out of the range of enemy missiles. That said, reality is never ideal and you don't want to be at the mercy of a few AEWACS type aircrafts. Redundancy is built based on a cost/benefit analysis. The Thunder remains a light weight aircraft, even with the twin seat version. I wouldnt use it for area jamming. Strike missions where a weapons officer controls laser/TV guided bombs are more likely.
 
. . . .
Back
Top Bottom