JF-17's various initial design phases & design resemblances

[WarFariX]

super 7 images anyone???

 

[skybolt]

 

[WarFariX]

thnx

 

[Sinnerman108]

In terms of percentage,

what would be the weight difference between a plane designed for carrier use and a plane which is not please ?

That is true, but that is not proof that the F-15 came from the MIG-25 in any way. You have to have some knowledge of how aircrafts are designed and how long it takes to field an aircraft, from conception to mass production.

The average time span from conception to mass production is about 10 yrs. But instead of mass production, let us use first flight as the first flight is usually the final proof of concept and to convince the government that the aircraft is beyond airworthy.

The MIG-25's first fight was in Mar 1964. The F-15's first flight was in Jul 1972. Essentially, both aircrafts were under parallel development. Just because the MIG-25's first flight was earlier than the F-15's, that does not mean we knew about it EXACTLY on March 1964.

First flights usually do not have 'Top Gun' style maneuvers. First flights are always to prove the airframe's airworthiness and that it can perform basic maneuvers such as aileron rolls, touch and go, and so on. No one chases the aircraft to simulate combat. After the official first flight, the aircraft would be take apart, not completely, and examined for any distress. Any panels that are not in place, any airframe cracks, etc. From first flight, it can take several yrs towards mass production.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-25.htm

The MIG-25 was finally 'introduced', meaning make available for the military, in 1970. We knew about the MIG-25 before 1970, but not in 1964. As much as I believe in US technological prowess, there is no way the US could have developed the F-15 from the MIG-25 in a couple of yrs -- just from a 2D satellite photo.

 

[skybolt]

 

[MastanKhan]

In terms of percentage,

what would be the weight difference between a plane designed for carrier use and a plane which is not please ?

Hi,

There should not be much of a difference other than a heavy duty landing gear and possibly a strengthened frame.

 

[gambit]

In terms of percentage,

what would be the weight difference between a plane designed for carrier use and a plane which is not please ?

What you are asking about require one aircraft to be used by land and carrier forces.

The F-4 was used by the USAF, USN, and USMC. But the F-4 was originally designed for the Navy, so we have no distinct land vs sea versions to answer your question. When the USAF took on the F-4, we simply flew it 'as is'.

The F-18 Super Horney is a different fighter from the F-18 Horney, despite their outward similarities. The Super Horney was designed from paper to be more tumescent, carry a larger load, and can penetrate deeper. The differences are too great to be used to answer your question.

The F-111, my first jet, was supposed to have different versions that were uniquely fitted for land and carrier use, but the land version had so much problems that the carrier version never made it off the drawing board. So we cannot use the F-111 either to answer your question.

The F-16, my second jet, had initial interest from the Navy, but that interest was short lived. So the F-16 is out of your question.

Not exactly out...Really...

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/v-1600-the-carrier-capable-f-16-that-wasnt/

Making the necessary changes to allow the F-16 to operate at sea meant the V-1600 had a three-foot greater wingspan and was almost three feet longer than an F-16A. The structural and other changes added nearly 3,000 pounds to the empty weight of the aircraft, and increased the maximum takeoff weight over the F-16A’s by 10,000 pounds, from 35,400 to 44,421 pounds.

The fighter -- on the American side -- to answer your question would have to be the new F-35.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm

For non-US fighters, it will be difficult since not too many countries have aircraft carriers, but am sure someone on this forum can research for you.

 

[PakEye]

Hi,
There should not be much of a difference other than a heavy duty landing gear and possibly a strengthened frame.

Why PAF follow the F-16 as role model for JF-17 and proudly announced that is equal to F-16 and why they are developing the JF-17 through Block by Block as Block-I, Block-II rather than they can customize the frame design of JF17 for dual engine and the needs of future challenges ?

 

[Sinnerman108]

Bummer ..

I wanted to estimate the % difference in complexity ( material science, engine ) that are added up once a
plane is designated for naval use as well as trade offs, in terms of reduction in load carrying.

I guess this question will have to wait ..

What you are asking about require one aircraft to be used by land and carrier forces.

The F-4 was used by the USAF, USN, and USMC. But the F-4 was originally designed for the Navy, so we have no distinct land vs sea versions to answer your question. When the USAF took on the F-4, we simply flew it 'as is'.

The F-18 Super Horney is a different fighter from the F-18 Horney, despite their outward similarities. The Super Horney was designed from paper to be more tumescent, carry a larger load, and can penetrate deeper. The differences are too great to be used to answer your question.

The F-111, my first jet, was supposed to have different versions that were uniquely fitted for land and carrier use, but the land version had so much problems that the carrier version never made it off the drawing board. So we cannot use the F-111 either to answer your question.

The F-16, my second jet, had initial interest from the Navy, but that interest was short lived. So the F-16 is out of your question.

Not exactly out...Really...

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/v-1600-the-carrier-capable-f-16-that-wasnt/

The fighter -- on the American side -- to answer your question would have to be the new F-35.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm

For non-US fighters, it will be difficult since not too many countries have aircraft carriers, but am sure someone on this forum can research for you.

 

[araz]

Why PAF follow the F-16 as role model for JF-17 and proudly announced that is equal to F-16 and why they are developing the JF-17 through Block by Block as Block-I, Block-II rather than they can customize the frame design of JF17 for dual engine and the needs of future challenges ?

Because when you compare an item you relate it to something which is a benchmark for single engined fighters and something which you have to boost.On both of the points there should be no argument.
A

 

[MastanKhan]

Why PAF follow the F-16 as role model for JF-17 and proudly announced that is equal to F-16 and why they are developing the JF-17 through Block by Block as Block-I, Block-II rather than they can customize the frame design of JF17 for dual engine and the needs of future challenges ?

Hi,

The reason for 3 Blocks is as follows---. First---the expected engine for the aircraft did not mature---but no big deal---RD93 did good---.

The BLKs became apparent when the French EW suite did not materialize---so they had to put together a temporary EW suite in the aircraft that they had built---so it became the BLK1----.

Then they starting looking for an EW package that could come close to the French---which is the current one---so it became BLK 2---.

Realizing that they have fallen behind---they are working on an EW suite to be at par with the french suite that they were supposed to have 8 years ago---so that would become the BLK 3---.

There have been other modifications as well---air to air refuelling---upgraded RD93 engine---stronger wing roots / wing ( I believe )---but the BLKs are basically based on the type of EW suite---.

 

[Dazzler]

Hi,

The reason for 3 Blocks is as follows---. First---the expected engine for the aircraft did not mature---but no big deal---RD93 did good---.

The BLKs became apparent when the French EW suite did not materialize---so they had to put together a temporary EW suite in the aircraft that they had built---so it became the BLK1----.

Then they starting looking for an EW package that could come close to the French---which is the current one---so it became BLK 2---.

Realizing that they have fallen behind---they are working on an EW suite to be at par with the french suite that they were supposed to have 8 years ago---so that would become the BLK 3---.

There have been other modifications as well---air to air refuelling---upgraded RD93 engine---stronger wing roots / wing ( I believe )---but the BLKs are basically based on the type of EW suite---.

It almost seems as if you just want to increase your post count. Here is what three blocks were meant for.. by the way, the original plan was for five blocks incorporating upgrades to keep them obsolescence proof.

1. Blk 1 was to test whether the plane as a weapon system works efficiently or not. The engine, chinese avionics, radar, ew and weapons integration all had to be done in this blk. while certifying weapons as they are tested and integrated.

2. Blk 2 was meant as a finished article with weapons, radar and sensore certified. It was also to house improvements like a new ew, upgraded radar, newer weapons, secure datalink, newer co.munication gear, IFR and other minor improvements.

3. Blk 3 would house major changes such as radar, improved engine either ws or rd-93ma, both are being tested in china. Itll also house regular improvements, software enhancements to accommodate newer avoinics and weapons. There are many options on the table.

Keep in mind that the Italians came with attractive offers a few days ago. They want to have a bigger slice of pie and dont want to miss out this time like they did with the Grifo-S

Lastly, the Indra ew suite in blk 2 is better than anything that French had ever offered to us. Its multimode, powerful, excellent threat detection and LPI capability, can even jam or disrupt multiple frequencies simultaneously.

As of now, single and dual pod configurations are being tested on blk 2.

 

[khanasifm]

Looks like small enough pod which can be added to the under intake pylons when additional 2 stations are introduced

 

[Thorough Pro]

With no dedicated hard points for EW pods, dual pod can only go on a dedicated EW aircraft with just two VVR or BVR missiles. Alternatively two separate planes can carry two different pods, if they can be flown separately/independently for the same effectiveness.

RD93MA is that ready? I thought I read somewhere that it would be ready in 2019.

View attachment 344863
As of now, single and dual pod configurations are being tested on blk 2.

 

[Dazzler]

With no dedicated hard points for EW pods, dual pod can only go on a dedicated EW aircraft with just two VVR or BVR missiles. Alternatively two separate planes can carry two different pods, if they can be flown separately/independently for the same effectiveness.

RD93MA is that ready? I thought I read somewhere that it would be ready in 2019.

Atleast two rd93ma were shipped to china for testing purposes on jf-17.