What's new

JF-17II (concept)

i know,the 2 seater version seems to be good it can be used for strikes and ew but about the block-2 version may have a completely new dimension in software, avionics ,airframe materials,engine,radar,weapons but extensive design and hardware changes will be expensive,even USN created a new strike platform super hornet based on the smaller hornets airframe,i am saying that changes similar to that are likely ,but completely new airframe:undecided:i am sceptical.and i never said that it is going to be abandoned,jf-17 is a proven platform and paf will try to buil its strength around it till the next decade but a completely new aircraft on its own seems economically not viable but a jv with china is,150 may be produced with the plane evolving in every batch and it will continue to evolve and the last batch may have very advanced 5th gen tech(like gripen NG) but the plane cannot be called fifth gen and after that paf can make a transition to next generation platform by 2018-20.correct me if i am wrong.

The reason i use the word abandon was to actually stress on the commitment that we have with this platform. JF-17 even at this stage will see some structural changes. According to the ACM last interview prior to this one, he emphasized PAFs desire to increase the hard points from 7 to 9 and work is also in progress to achieve that, so there is a structural change as wing span has to be increased to accommodate. Same stands for the two seat version, you have to enlarge the fuselage to accommodate the second cockpit and avionics. JF-17 will see changes and up-gradations every 5 - 10 years depending upon the needs however a completely new design, well i cant comment on that, some suggest it would be a completely new design rather a more innovative raptor style design with added stealth features while others suggest that there will be modifications in the current airframe and not that Raptor style with minor stealth features. But in any case JF-17 will see an AESA radar, a domestic engine WS-13, composite materials and more hard points as compared to now along with IFR and IRST.
 
senor you also seem to have very little knowledge in aviation.you just cant say tejas is no match for jf-17 justify your argument.lca has a very unstable delta wing,4channel flyby wire,composites,it has so much western influence,good avionics,radar(elta-2052) of course under powered but the path looks clear for new engine.you have any link for f-16 blk40 vs jf-17.if it is so good then why you go for f-16(sorry begging),i dint expect this from you being a think tank,that reply of mine is just a move to stoke up argument ,but didnt expect you.jf-17 has metal airframe,2channel flyby wire which is bad for maneuvrability,jf-17 has higher wingloading than tejas.
please reply


Bro, I am sorry to say but after reading your comments I could conclude that you don’t have the slightest of idea that how FBW works or what are the parameters by which an aircrafts performance is judged…So let me make an attempt here… :enjoy:

But, before we discuss your point regarding fly by wire (FBW) , please bare with me for few more lines so that I can clarify you on some little things and give you some background that how FBW evolved…

When we speak about aircrafts maneuvering, we are talking about 3 axes: Roll, Pitch , Yaw….Roll is provided by ailerons, Pitch by elevator and Yaw by rudder…Until few decades back, the movement of all fight controls was either manual or they were hydraulically powered and operated….BUT remember that aircrafts were still very much maneuverable and controllable in all axes….What FBW did was, take away all the mechanical rods, jacks, servos, lubricants, pulleys bla bla out and replaced it with wires and computers…So lots of weight saving and enhanced operational capabilities…AND the aircrafts were still maneuverable too !!!

FBW increased the aircrafts maneuverability by letting them fly in the maneuvering envelops of speed instability range or shall I call it as the unstable range…Computers assist pilots to fly at those critical edges and each channel controls the all 3 axes of the flight …

Now as your point of 4 channels versus 2 channels, it has absolutely nothing to do with aircrafts control or maneuverability but with Safety and Redundancy ….Aircrafts’ can even perfectly fly on a Single channel and can be controlled in yaw/roll/pitch….The four channels (quadruple) are in order to prevent loss of complete control signals in the case of failure of one or even two channels……While it is always advantageous to have more channels but do note that aircrafts can perfectly fly and perform all maneuvers on a single channel also……If you still think that number of channels has anything to do with maneuverability, then please explain it here…I am sure that PAC,Kamra and Chengdu will also benefit from it..:coffee:

OK, onto the Wing Loading (WL)…for our hon readers who don’t know what’s it, WL is achieved by dividing aircraft’s weight by the wing area , or it can also be termed as weight per unit area of wing…..Lesser the WL , better it is…Higher WL means lesser rate of climb, lesser payload carrying ability, poor turn performance and poor engine-out performance…..Aircraft designers do attempt to cater poor WL by improving other parameters like t/w ratio or lowering overall aircraft weight etc…

However, when comparing aircrafts, there are 100s of parameters that should be taken into consideration, few of the major ones being, T/W ratio, engine thrust, aircraft ceiling, speed, WL, wing aspect, weight etc etc….One should never pick one parameter in isolation to make any comparison…all factors need due importance ….so just being better in WL, doesn’t mean anything…try to see the bigger pic..Check the following data regarding WLs, do you make anything out of it or guess which aircraft is better than other…Does the below numbers prove anything in isolation????:-

Mirage-2000-------84.92 lb. per Sq. ft
F-16C--------141.03 lb. per Sq. ft
Su-30------ 71.43ib per Sq. ft.
F-22 Raptor -----43 lb. per Sq. ft.

BTW, on papers, F-86 Sabre was far inferior to its nemesis Hawker Hunter…But history has shown the real comparison…;)

This thread specifically relates to JF-17II (concept), please don’t turn into another ‘’ my willy is bigger than your willy’’ thread….And if you have nothing to add to the JF-17II concept or you don’t like the plane, then you are welcome to move on buddy….

P.S : As far as for Murad K, he has probably flown more hours than you have driven anything with wheels…so do not challenge his experience with Aviation…
 
Last edited:
x_ man
Thank you for this informative post. It has again explained an important aspect of aviation to novices like me. As to Mr Messy ,I wouldnt pay much attention to him. Till yesterday he couldn't even spell properly. A gentle nudge sorted that out. i am sure a few more nudges will probably develop his writing skills a bit more. And I am sure he will learn to respect while counterarguing:p:lol::D.
As to the new concept, I have seen these pictures before. It does come to my mind that it requires a lot of changes for questionable benefit, as with external weapons bay, stealth factor does not come into it entirely. So one wonders what the cost v/s benefit exercise would show.
There is one fact which I would not doubt, which is the design will progress from its current form. Although how many changes would be visible in the current tranche is what I eagerly want to see.
Your response would be eagerly awaited
WaSalam
Araz
Araz
 
Dear Araz

How will Thunder of 2025 will look like, is anybody’s guess ? When F-16 A/B was conceived in late 70s, nobody could imagine that after 25 years, F-16 could look like this



JF-17 is still evolving and will continue to do so…the aircraft has lots of potential and internal space as well to house further avionics. Its future design will primarily depend upon its present operational performance, future utility , choice of weapons available, envisaged roles etc etc….

Thunder isn’t operational yet and its future employment/utility will be dictated by its success in its present role…As far as stealth/internal bays are concerned, I have my doubts about that…After almost 30 years of service and with numerous modifications, F-16 isn’t stealth yet or employs internal bays…IMO, either an aircraft is designed stealth from its conception, or its very difficult to convert into stealth later during its operational cycle…

The pics of JF-17 II at the start of thread seems more like a work of an aviation enthusiast to me rather than any official version....But who know what lies in future for Thunder..
 
Public perception

Single engined unlike FGFA (F-16/F-35)
Non-Internal weapons unlike FGFA (F-16)
DSI air intakes (F-35)
Two tails V shaped and a single engine (F-35)
8 wing pylons (F-16)
Small delta wings, almost same size as an (F-16)
 
f-16i sufa is the most recent f-16.

first jf-17 has to have a decent mechanical radar before rushing for an aesa which is tehnology at the highest.

only the most advanced countries like us,russia,israel,japan.

jf-17 has not been tested with bvr so how is it being inducted.i dont beleieve in chinese development and production quality when it comes to defence equipment.

israel has been an example on how developing nations must produce defence equipment.

f-86 beat hunter because paf sabre had sidewinders and hunters had only cannons.this is history.
 
f-16i sufa is the most recent f-16.

first jf-17 has to have a decent mechanical radar before rushing for an aesa which is tehnology at the highest.

only the most advanced countries like us,russia,israel,japan.

jf-17 has not been tested with bvr so how is it being inducted.i dont beleieve in chinese development and production quality when it comes to defence equipment.

israel has been an example on how developing nations must produce defence equipment.

f-86 beat hunter because paf sabre had sidewinders and hunters had only cannons.this is history.

The news does not really cover much of what has been or has not been tested on board the JF-17. The current radar of the JF is better then what we had on the F-16 A/B, i.e APG-66. Also RC-400 is on the table as well. We will go with the current radar KLJ-7 with the first 50 batch. It will also be enough to estimate the capabilities of the jet. But beyond that we will certainly try to find an AESA radar for the jet probably of Chinese orgin. Israel is a classic example of how defence equipment is produced but then again one has to keep in mind the amount of technology that Israel can attain from the West. Things get really tough when it comes for Pakistan.
 
how to make words appear in the blue box like you did.klj-7 never heard about it.

pakistan has to have its hand on latest radars so to compare with klj-7.china

next super power also got lavi design from us.

israel has western technology but most is its own,it gets only financial help and little technological help.

tavor,rascal,merkava better than west.

this is my last year at idf.tavor is much better than ar,m-4,m-16.acurate less weight more damage impact.

none can match jerusalem,i like merkava 4 it is the best,i have ride it.
 
how to make words appear in the blue box like you did.klj-7 never heard about it.

I don't know what do you mean by the words that appear in the blue box however as for the KLJ here's the link:

KLJ-7 Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


pakistan has to have its hand on latest radars so to compare with klj-7.china

next super power also got lavi design from us.

israel has western technology but most is its own,it gets only financial help and little technological help.

tavor,rascal,merkava better than west.

this is my last year at idf.tavor is much better than ar,m-4,m-16.acurate less weight more damage impact.

Pakistan is trying to get a western radar for the JF-17 and that is why i mentioned the RC-400 along with MICA. Also yes indeed Israel had its fair share in the development of the J-10 thanks to the canceled Lavi project but today's J-10 is a completely different story and i don't understand how it is related to the JF development. JF-17 development is based on the experience of the PAF with the F-16s and it started off from the super 7 project and now has evolved into a completely different platform.

none can match jerusalem,i like merkava 4 it is the best,i have ride it.

Merkava is an Israeli tank if i am not mistaken. Are you from the Israeli army?
Tank is good but how is it related to what we are discussing.:undecided:
 
i asked about the box in which my words are written and your words are written outside box.you also seperate my words and reply.

merkava is israeli different from other tank at present,it is full israeli technology and is better than west.

every jew must undergo 3 year service in at 18 age idf.this is my last.

i read about defence weapons a lot.derby is better missile than mica u can try it,elta make some best radars in the world.
 
..........f-86 beat hunter because paf sabre had sidewinders and hunters had only cannons.this is history.

Welcome to the forum Levi..

I do agree with you, PAFs Sabres were AIM-9B equipped BUT can you please let the house know that how many Sabre Vs Hunter kills involved AIM-9B?? .:azn:

Let me put you at ease…In the air-to-air combat of the 1965 war, the PAF Sabres claimed to have shot down 15 IAF aircraft, comprising of nine Hunters …

Sqn Ldr MM Alam alone shot 5 hunters in few minutes over Sargodha….he is one of the PAFs top ace..All his kills were pure gun shots……Heres the guy:-

b11cad4f57a3ae0edfe6ba23cbf359f9.jpg


Sqn Ldr Sarfraz Rafiqui shot down one hunter before his guns jammed…He later lost his life in the same mission…

Flt Lt Younus Hussain shot two hunters …again GUN kills…

So this makes 8 gun kills, I am sorry I couldn’t verify the 9th kill whether it was gun or missile, may be Sir Murad K or somebody else can verify this….

Please don’t you start all over again that Sabre had 6 guns and Hunter had 4…:disagree:

So this is history......I hope you will be able to show some appreciation for the PAF guys now…:enjoy:
 
i asked about the box in which my words are written and your words are written outside box.you also seperate my words and reply.

This is known as quoting. You will fine the quote button beneath every post. Press that and the rest you will understand what to do.

merkava is israeli different from other tank at present,it is full israeli technology and is better than west.

I know and as far as i have read it is also the first tank which is actualy based on the inputs and suggestions of the armed forces personals. Correct me on this one.

every jew must undergo 3 year service in at 18 age idf.this is my last.

Well good luck then. Do you plan to join the army after the completion of this three year service?

i read about defence weapons a lot.derby is better missile than mica u can try it,elta make some best radars in the world.

Well unfortunately we cannot try it, reason being the relationship between the two sides. However do not underestimate about the performance of MICA. Also MICA will not be the only missile in our inventory, the list also includes the ARMRAAM 120c-5, and SD-10. So we have quite a bit of choice with our BVR platform.
 
pakistan air force had good pilots.i read in history.

they were trained by americans and learned.israeli pilots also respect them but i heard in time they lost edge while us,israel,india pilots were studying modern tactics and training machines,planes, simulator paf was left behind because of neglect of government and official and finance problem.

it is said that israeli train indian and indian also train indian pilots in what they know.

it is sad that you pilots didnt continue from 1965,1971.
 
@levi eshkol

welcome to the forum... its nice to have a jew in this forum:azn:
Its called quotes... its one of the tools on upper right hand side of your massage box.. and if you wanna quote somebody you copy and paste it between Quotes Quotes.. hope that helps..

regarding JF-17... first 50 batch will be of chinese variant with all chinese avionics.. then next 100 batch will feature French avioncis and radar RC-400 "used in mirage-2000", and gradually first 50 batch will be also upgraded with French stuff.. PAF requirement is 250 so 150 JF-17 has been addressed then comes the requirement for a more advance JF-17 version.. that should have 9+ hard points from 7, more powerful engine WS-13, better avionics, AESA radar, etc... their is no plan of inducting AESA radar on first 150 JF-17s...
over all.. the air to air missile package will compress of.... BVR: MICA, SD-10, and maybe Aim-120C5 or R-Darter... WVR: ASRAAM R-Darter, or Aim-132, AIM-9M-8/9...

As for F-86 vs Hunters... only 1 squadron of F-86 were modified for heat seekers during 65 war... most kills were conducted by guns and missiles had only 30% hit rate..
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom