JF17:---More Hard Points Bigger Engine---Why!!!!!

[Myth_buster_1]

What the another one gonna do?

keeping distance and waiting for opportunity.

 

[niaz]

A bit more speed as well as ability to cruise at supersonic or at high subsonic speed (say about Mach 0.95) would undoubtedly be advantageous. The former allows a quick getaway and the second ability to reach the scene of the battle quickly without the use of afterburner; hence JF-17 with a more powerful engine would be preferable.

Modern ‘jet to jet’ engagement is largely a BVR affair. In the BVR environment, the fighter pilot must possess a high ‘Situational awareness’ and the fighter aircraft needs to be equipped with superior avionics ( Radar, anti-jamming device and other sensors ) and low radar signature i.e. Stealth technology. Only when these two are complemented by the superior ground control radar and AWAC systems, victory in the 21st-century dogfight is ‘Probable’.

While more hardpoints provide more load-carrying capacity, the fighter also needs bigger engines to compensate for the additional load else the agility is compromised. IMHO, in addition to the AESA radar, what JF-17 needs is a bit more powerful engine to give better acceleration & Mach 2 speed and more stealthy features.

PAF’s next priority, excluding replacing Mirages & Mig21s; should, therefore, be improving electronic warfare capabilities and state of the art AWAC & ground control systems.

 

[Haris Ali2140]

A bit more speed as well as ability to cruise at supersonic or at high subsonic speed (say about Mach 0.95) would undoubtedly be advantageous. The former allows a quick getaway and the second ability to reach the scene of the battle quickly without the use of afterburner; hence JF-17 with a more powerful engine would be preferable.

Modern ‘jet to jet’ engagement is largely a BVR affair. In the BVR environment, the fighter pilot must possess a high ‘Situational awareness’ and the fighter aircraft needs to be equipped with superior avionics ( Radar, anti-jamming device and other sensors ) and low radar signature i.e. Stealth technology. Only when these two are complemented by the superior ground control radar and AWAC systems, victory in the 21st-century dogfight is ‘Probable’.

While more hardpoints provide more load-carrying capacity, the fighter also needs bigger engines to compensate for the additional load else the agility is compromised. IMHO, in addition to the AESA radar, what JF-17 needs is a bit more powerful engine to give better acceleration & Mach 2 speed and more stealthy features.

PAF’s next priority, excluding replacing Mirages & Mig21s; should, therefore, be improving electronic warfare capabilities and state of the art AWAC & ground control systems.

DSI limits thw speed to mach 1.6.

 

[MastanKhan]

U are talking about Wing tip launchers of Block 3?


Are u talking about JF 17 thunder as that fighter aircraft against IAF?

Hi,

Most includes " amongst all the fighter aircraft"---.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

It is not a mistake on the part of the AVM---. Two BVR's and two WVR are perfect for this aircraft in its current configuration---size and utility---.

These aircraft will hardly be able to fire two BVR's before they try to buzz out of the combat arena---and as it has been assessed by the americans that most fighter aircraft would die without launching any of their BVR missile load---.

Perfect for Block 3 also?

 

[MastanKhan]

Perfect for Block 3 also?

Yed

 

[Deino]

DSI limits thw speed to mach 1.6.

Do you realyl think the J-10C and J-20 are limited to M. 1.6?

 

[Shabi1]

DSI limits thw speed to mach 1.6.

That is a misconception, I thought the same once too.

J-10C has DSI yet specs say Mach 2.2

J-20 has DSI and it is rated for Mach 2+

 

[Haris Ali2140]

Do you realyl think the J-10C and J-20 are limited to M. 1.6?

That's what has been said that DSI limits the speed to less then mach 2.

 

[FuturePAF]

If the JF-17 Eventually fields the WS-19/WS-13IPE, and if the performance eventually matches the max planned GE F-414 thrust values (26-28,000 lb), would the JF-17 be able to have similar performance envelope kinematically as the F-16 Block 52? The F-16 Block 52 has the F110-GE-129 at a maximum thrust of 28,900 lbf (129 kN)?

I ask because it seems the PAF wants to make the JF-17 the best it can be so that it doesn't have to buy any other 4th gen fighter (other than more F-16s if the become available)

At the higher thrust (and possibly super-cruise), the JF-17 may be able to match or even exceed the range of the F-16 if fitted with Conformal fuel tanks. It may also be able to carry a similar weight of munitions, although on a smaller number of pylons, which could be the limiting factor.

The Higher thrust may be the missing link between middle of the pack, and top of the line fighter, similar to the Gripen E/NG. The Gripen is so good, the Swedes seem to be content with just fielding that fighter for the foreseeable future, and hold of on development a 5th gen fighter.

 

[MastanKhan]

If the JF-17 Eventually fields the WS-19/WS-13IPE, and if the performance eventually matches the max planned GE F-414 thrust values (26-28,000 lb), would the JF-17 be able to have similar performance envelope kinematically as the F-16 Block 52? The F-16 Block 52 has the F110-GE-129 at a maximum thrust of 28,900 lbf (129 kN)?

I ask because it seems the PAF wants to make the JF-17 the best it can be so that it doesn't have to buy any other 4th gen fighter (other than more F-16s if the become available)

At the higher thrust (and possibly super-cruise), the JF-17 may be able to match or even exceed the range of the F-16 if fitted with Conformal fuel tanks. It may also be able to carry a similar weight of munitions, although on a smaller number of pylons, which could be the limiting factor.

The Higher thrust may be the missing link between middle of the pack, and top of the line fighter, similar to the Gripen E/NG. The Gripen is so good, the Swedes seem to be content with just fielding that fighter for the foreseeable future, and hold of on development a 5th gen fighter.

Hi,

Seemingly the priority of the jF17 was to have a capable engine and a very good EW package and missiles---.

Once that primary goal has been achieved then other issues of a more powerful engine and hard points / conformal fuel tanks can be / will be addressed---.

 

[FuturePAF]

Hi,

Seemingly the priority of the jF17 was to have a capable engine and a very good EW package and missiles---.

Once that primary goal has been achieved then other issues of a more powerful engine and hard points / conformal fuel tanks can be / will be addressed---.

Agreed, a capable and reliable engine as well as a decent EW package alongside modern missiles allows this plane to be relevant in modern aerial warfare.

Currently Block III is being fitted out, but looking to the future we need to keep the WS-13IPE/WS-19 (which is still in development) in mind.

When this higher thrust engine is ready, do you think the higher thrust will allow the JF-17 to have a similar kinematic envelope as the F-16? The JF-17 is excepted to have 3 axis FBW and higher Composite usage, possibly allowing the plane to be re-certified at +9/-3 G maneuverability.

For example; the added thrust may allow the plane to go vertical with a full A2A loadout and still hold on to its energy, more so then currently, which could make the difference in launching or dodging missiles from a more advantageous position to out pilot the enemy fighters. the higher thrust may also allow the plane to hold onto its energy should it, in the unlikely but still possible, need to go to gun in aerial combat.

The added thrust, (alongside an APU) could allow the plane to more effectively operate from dispersed air fields. going from a cold start to 50,000+ feet in only a few minutes. This could be a game changer in intercepting enemy fighters or cruise missiles coming across the border, while being aware the enemy could be masking its maneuvers using commercial civilian traffic.

The current Engine's lower thrust limits the JF-17 from going vertical in a scramble

AM(retd) says in his interviews that he insisted on the aircraft being close to F16 i.e bigger, higher more payload etc. But the chinks insisted on Super 7 resembling looks and performance of F7/Mig 21.

So JF17 is a heavy compromise.

I agree the plane is a compromise fighter, but we are depending on this platform for basically all of our future needs (until project AZM is ready), so a swap to a higher thrust engine could make a dramatic difference. If we don't get any more F-16s; we could be operating 250-300 JF-17s, and with all that is being invested into the JF-17, swapping the engine could bring the plane to nearly the same kinematic capabilities as the F-16s.

Also, please don't use the term "chinks".

 

[MastanKhan]

With Alan Warnes

 

[PakFactor]

With Alan Warnes

I love the smile on Warnes face when he said Indians expected Pakistan to attack at night, but they didn’t they did it at day light. Lol.

Towards the end of the video says PAF is Air Force with the first modern BVR engagement that true?

 

[litman]

I love the smile on Warnes face when he said Indians expected Pakistan to attack at night, but they didn’t they did it at day light. Lol.

Towards the end of the video says PAF is Air Force with the first modern BVR engagement that true?

it was the first incident in which both sides pitched 4th gen air crafts against each other. AIM 120 had a couple of kills before this engagement. USAF used them i think against iraq and shot down few jets but iraq didnt have BVR capability. on 27 feb the world saw the first aerial combat in which PAF launched a text book strike package comprising of strike air crafts, awacs, ELINT air crafts , ground radars and off course the fighters in fighter sweep role against an equally or slightly more capable enemy but the bigger enemy was caught unprepared. i think at the moment AIM 120 is the only combat proven BVR missile in the world with 4-5 kills to its credit.