What's new

JF-17X- A Pakistani Stealth Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.
I read somewhere that KFX isn't going to be 5th gen, but rather similar in performance to advance F-16 and that they will still need foreign (American) technology assistance.

KFX aims to be 4+ fighter. It will rely on foreign engines/weapons at least.
 
.
It is really nice to know that so many qualified people are taking part is such a positive debate. Everything ispossible and anything that one man can do, other can do.

Designing and building a stealth fighter is not easy but also not impossible. You gotta adopt three important elements to your design:
Low diameter
Single theme angles &
Low Radar signature paint

Drones are the best platform to step into era of stealth designing. Success would follow after success of Stealth Reconnaissance Drones.

Today's jet fighters are too vulnerable to the dark electronic warefare technologies that we haven't even heard about.

Ever heard about "City Stoppers"?

Electrno-magnetic Pulse devices, that dirupt all sort of electronic instruments in a vast area, will be used in any future war between the nations.

Similarly, small countries like Pakistan should also focus on developing Electro Magnetic Pulse devices that Pakistan should be able to launch into the space to target any hostile Sattelite which is helping enemy to target Pakistan's infrastructure.

All military powers of the world are too dependant on Sattelite support to destroy a rather poorly equipped country in a shortest possible time. So the best is to target enemy sattelites before the battle begins. If you are afraid to destroy them with a direct hit, at least you can disrupt them by exploding EMP devices on it's path over your country's air space.

If we manage to develop such technology, nobody can touch Pakistan.
 
.
I see project KFX as history..
If KFX is going to rely on foreign engines and vice versa than F-15SE is fairly a better deal.
 
.
Let us take a look at the 'Hopeless Diamond'...

F-117 History
Hopeless Diamond

During 1975, Skunk Work engineers began working on an aircraft which would have a greatly reduced radar cross section that would make it all but invisible to enemy radars, but would nevertheless still be able to fly and carry out its combat mission. The technique that they came up with was known as faceting, in which the ordinarily smooth surface of the airframe is broken up into a series of trapezoidal or triangular flat surfaces. The surfaces were arranged in such a way that the vast majority of the radar incident on the aircraft will be scattered away from the aircraft at odd angles, leaving very little to be reflected directly back into the receiver. An additional reduction in radar cross section was to be obtained by covering the entire surface of the aircraft with radar absorbent material (RAM). One of the disadvantages involved in the use of faceting on aerodynamic surfaces was that it tended to produce an aircraft which was inherently unstable about all three axes - pitch, roll, and yaw.
In the beginning, Lockheed created, not an aerodynamic model, but a low radar observable one. Lockheed engineers wanted to see how far they can 'push' this envelope. The result was the 'Hopeless Diamond' that is less radar reflective than the current F-117. The negative to that was the shape was so unflyable no matter how much they toyed with flight controls avionics and algorithms. As the shape evolve into a design that is controllable, could accommodate a pilot and some weapons load, the evolved design became more radar reflective than the 'Hopeless Diamond' shape.

This led to the philosophy of 'balanced stealth' where the aircraft should have these 'low points':

- radar reflection
- infrared
- acoustic
- visual
- contrails
- engine exhaust

Is it desirable to have zero infrared or exhaust emission? Yes, but if the aircraft is detectable in radar reflection or contrails then the cost and expense of reducing infrared and exhaust to zero was excessive. When cost is taken into consideration, and we must, then ALL detectable signatures should be reduced to a proportionate level to each other. In other words, testings should be done so that once infrared emission is reduced to where radar reflection became the dominant signature, time to stop work on infrared and redirect resources to reduce radar reflectivity.

This is very much applicable to modifying an existing aircraft design to become more 'stealthy' than its previous evolution, as in this 'balanced' approach.

Take the current JF-17 and measure its 'clean configuration' RCS. Then gradually load it with the various external doo-dads such as bombs or fuel tanks or targeting pods. All along the way take RCS measurements, the more precise the better. Now work on the base airframe. Install all the RAM anywhere possible. Shape the outer body as much as possible without compromising ESTABLISHED aerodynamic stability.

Now here is the clincher...

If, once re-loaded with all the various configurations of external doo-dads, this newly evolved JF-17 does not record at least a %50 reduction in measurable RCS at the same distance from prior measurements, then it is clear that the majority of the radar reflectivity came from the externals and not from the aircraft itself. This is why the RCS of a clean F-16 at 150-200 km distance is the official 'unofficial' standard for RCS reduction goal, either for a new design or modifying an existing one. The F-16 is small enough to make it difficult to detect across the entire spectrum and most fighter aircraft's radar antenna size limits their effective range to between that 150-200 km.

Same for infrared. For the modified clean JF-17, did its lowered radar reflectivity factor elevate infrared emission to the highest vulnerability? If yes, then stop working on radar reflectivity and redirect resources to do something to the engine. Once all known efforts tried and still infrared give the aircraft away BEFORE its radar reflectivity does, then a somewhat 'balanced' reduction between radar and IR have been achieved.

Same for contrails. If some outer airframe modifications to reduce radar reflectivity increases contrails, then one must bear the cost of such a wasted effort. Contrails should not be taken lightly. At the right environmental condition, an aircraft's contrails can be as nearly visible as the radar detectability distance. No shortages of contrails stories from WW II or later. Or this ==> Contrail Science - The Science and Pseudoscience of Contrails and Chemtrails

So is it possible to reduce the JF-17's detectability across the known spectrum? Yes. But one does not know to what degree until there is a dedicated exploratory program for it. Good luck.
 
.
JF-17X- A Pakistani Stealth Fighter

Are we going to get stuck at number 17 ? Do you know any number greater than 17 ? How about JF-17S space fighter in 2100 and JF-17G intergalactic fighter in 2150.

....., the US wouldnt have spent $50 billion on an F-22 but made a F-16X, F-14X and what not and Russia would have been having a SU-30X and Mig-29X

There will be no Stealth JF-17...EVER... .

Exactly !
 
.
Good job by Gambit and there is quality input though out this post.
We need jet builders in all our Enginnering Universities because solid air power guarantees protection of a country's strategic assets. Enemy would think thrice before bullying Pakistan. This country needs Sattelite Busters cause once the monster loses his eyes, you can hit him anywhere you want.

No one can stop Pakistan from becoming a super power because this country is blessed with rivers, ocean, minerals, fertile land and intelligent people.
We just need to strengthen our agriculture and defence capability.
Somebody got to take care of deadly corruption and inflation, which are far more dangerous than terrorism.
 
.
I honestly think This thread is like prehistoric dinosaurs....every now and then a poster digs this old thread out
 
.
Dear Hasnain, this is what happens when you stick to web based forums for too long.... you will feel much better if you start doing something practically.
There is no harm in being optimistic about your country.
AllahHafiz.
 
.
Dear Hasnain, this is what happens when you stick to web based forums for too long.... you will feel much better if you start doing something practically.
There is no harm in being optimistic about your country.
AllahHafiz.

Being optimistic is something appreciable but at the same time being realistic should also be the objective of a convincing debate....I can still remember that the thread opener was with out a source and even though i searched a lot... but I wasn't able to find it. There is no harm in being optimistic, but there should be a clear line between optimism and fantasy:coffee:
 
. .
no stealth fighters any time soon.

btw an enemy AWACS greatly reduces stealth ability so I don't think PAF will see the need to spend so much money on something that vulnerable. The Chinese have already developed a radar that scans below 2 GHz (but too much clutter) so there is no stealth below that range.

The JF-17 is too small to have internal weapons carriage to make it stealthy in the first place, plus the radar cross-section is too big unless we redesign the wings and fuselage and the air-intakes.
 
. .
ya its right. you need to change control surfaces, major contours and also the exhaust design. for stealth feature, its RCS must be reduced by incorporating airframe design changes which results in change in aerodynamic performance of aircraft. so it is not feasible to apply stealth on JF-17. Moreover, its not in future plans of JF-17. So dont just carried away by hypothetical videos on youtube....
 
.
Please dont take this as trolling

A little of perspective is needed with this JF17 semi stealth business or sino pak fifth gen project business.

JF17 is a low cost budget fighter. The totally development cost was very small in deed. The fly away cost of $15m reflects the time. energy and the technology in the project.

BY THE WAY I THINK ITS A FINE PLANE FOR SOUTH ASIAN NEEDS AT very little cost.

COMPARE the marginally bigger J10/FC20 project which has been in development longer 3 times the budget and costs $30m each. YET it is not in the same catagory as Typhoon or Rafale projects in terms of cockpit tech ,electronics radar and jammers.

To develope a REAL FIFTH gen fighter you need to compare time and cost with a similar project

PAK FA will cost upwards of $15 billion and will not enter service with Russia before 2018 and india 2020 and both these countries have huge advantages that are not open to either pakistan or china.

In india case access to open western Europe or israeli technology esp in cockpit sensor fusion and radar work
Russia vast aero space edge over china and succesful building projects and base in place already.

WITH THIS MIND BE CAREFUL OF EXPECTING A SUPER JF17 semi stleath fighter ever arriving and even if it did dont expect this before 2020
 
.
1.we fought the russians in 80s we shot down many of their jets and lost only one of ours
2.we shot down ef 2000s of raf in red flag
3.you lost three wars from us
4.we are the only sucessful airforce against isreal
and why you are dumb ???
COZ YOU HAVE GOT WORST CRASH RECORD IN THE WORLD LOLZZZZZZZZZZZZ:rofl:
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom