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

[monitor]

I differ a little bit with @MastanKhan . in 27 February engagement JF-17 was successful in spite of having little weapons hard point or weak engine because Indian with much superior SU-30 MKI Mirage 2000 mig-21 Bison understatement Pakistan air force . they only consider the machine but forget about the man behind the machine who can change calculation which ultimately happened on 27 February .

 

[ZAC1]

Since the topic is based on Bigger Engines, here is a comparison of speed to date, here is a video clip I found last week...

The JF-17 currently ranks #32 out of 36. Now I do want to point out that this list has some dated Aircrafts, aswell.

Teja is on 20th no n rafaele on 30

 

[ziaulislam]

View attachment 549534



View attachment 549536

There is a maximum load capacity with respect to weight. The current engine can handle extra munitions already, as seen in pic. Is a newer engine worth the investment still ? How much more munitions will JF-17 be able to carry with new engine (considering weight of munitions and take off weight) ?


View attachment 549538

JF-17 is already (Block II) doing much more than it was envisioned for, where as Block III will be another major upgrade, hopefully with a powerful radar. For carrying more powerful jammers, a variant of Electronic Warfare JF-17 can be formed, with same engine, but different electronic payload.


Would a bigger engine also effect RCS of JF-17 ?

Would climb rate get better, if a newer engine is used, but also if more hard points are added which means more ordnance and wing loading?

Discussion is based that what can we do to increase thunder efficiency with as limited changes to airframe as possible?

Answer would be better dry thrust and efficient engine, reduce weight with new material, single hardpoint for pod (simply due to evolution of warfare means every fighter needs a pod) and if feasible CFTs for extended mission range

If more changes made that's better but minimum are above

Of course we already know AESA is confirmed, HMD is also confirmed IMO based upon recent interview published by lead designer of CAC.

 

[Kompromat]

RD-93MA

 

[Mentee]

Hi,

Paf will prove that you don't need more powerful fighter aircraft engines---you need them with optimal power---. What you need more is technology and knwoing how to use it---.

The US or UK or Russia or Sweden or France---all these people have proved nothing---.

The Paf in one sortie has DEBUNKED all their claims of air combat---all those aircraft able to dance on their behinds mean nothing---it is technology---tactics---training train & training that makes the difference---.

I told you guys in the other thread---. Paf has shaken up the world of air combat as it was known---.

That Little Chicken Hawk has trashed the Master Blaster to kingdom come---.

What do you think @Khafee @Irfan Baloch @Mentee

Wwr is a possibility if bailing out another friendly aircraft but there's a 90%+ chance that while escorting a damaged friendly those escorting or that being escorted gonna take a bvr hit - - - - - - - -


And after witnessing the 4.5 generation aerial weapon systems ACTUALLY at work on both sides - - - - - - the rules of engagement have been changed for ever.


For a relatively short legged airforce like paf all they need is first jam the crap out the enemy , release bvrs/standoff weapons
at the radar blips , and scoot back to reload.

There's no point in strutting in or around the enemy with only wvr's


In the words of president musharaf

Targets select kro, maaro, vapis land kro, reload kro, phr maaro

maaar maaar k lasha'n PA deo.


Only if we could take out the Indian airforce in the initial two or three blows using standoff and bvr munitions then the Indian naval muscle shall also retreat - - - - - -.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

For heavier loads we need entirely different heavier aircraft . Jf17 airframe has limitations , it is designed for light multirole fighter.
We know how india played with airframe of Tejas, how much this delayed their project.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Hi,

Paf will prove that you don't need more powerful fighter aircraft engines---you need them with optimal power---. What you need more is technology and knwoing how to use it---.

The US or UK or Russia or Sweden or France---all these people have proved nothing---.

The Paf in one sortie has DEBUNKED all their claims of air combat---all those aircraft able to dance on their behinds mean nothing---it is technology---tactics---training train & training that makes the difference---.

I told you guys in the other thread---. Paf has shaken up the world of air combat as it was known---.

That Little Chicken Hawk has trashed the Master Blaster to kingdom come---.

What do you think @Khafee @Irfan Baloch @Mentee

Military aviation and airforces of the world ( depending on their country's relations with Pakistan) are either grudgingly acknowledging PAF surprise triumph (india complains lack of Rafale for its doubtful air strike & PAF cheating by usung F16s) or in total admiration for its daring raid and air victories American aviators who have dealt with PAF and other veterns are asking their leadership to rethink its policy towards a cold war ally that stood up to Soviets and beat them too
Turks and Arabian posters on web are terming PAF win as their own.

PAF seems to have got that secret mix of minimum deterance (due to limited resources) maximum efficiency and outrageous tenacity of taking on bigger foes (soviets and Indians)
This is like a killer app we call PAF (like tony stark and his suit)
Let the mix of ground and airborne support do heavy lifting of surveillance situational awareness and let the medium size jets do the dance
Shooting down 1 or 2 jets will be enough in an encounter as it Has such dramatic effect
so no more hardpoints needed for the heck of it

I would like to move the discussion to what about mirage replacement?
Their design and capability has made them useful for a specific purpose
A specific variant of jf 17 might be needed to fulfil that

 

[CriticalThought]

The OP trues to generalize based on a single data point. This is attrocity against rational thinking and common sense. Although people around the world are acknowledging PAF's success, no one is completely writing off IAF. Had PAF been allowed to press the advantage that day, it could have comprehensively crippled IAF's Western command. But even then, it would be called an opportunistic win. The realistic comparison between PAF and IAF isn't just based on targets of opportunity, but also the overwhelming response that India as nation would have given.

Behind PAF's inaction lye a few Pakistani weaknesses: lack of strategic depth, weak economy, and minimal defence against saturation from supersonic missile threats. A wise decision maker would accept this reality and work towards removing them.

Next, let us analyze the case where IAF strikes with full preparation and full backing from Israel and America. Even if an initial saturation strike is discounted, Pakistan's reliance on manned aircrafts as the tip of the spear is a weakness. You cannot defend the homeland without a multi-layered defence network in place, and tactics for the efficient interplay between fighter aircraft, drones, and SAMs. And this network must cover all approaches, including friendly skies. Once this is in place, India has no other option but launch a saturation strike. At that point, quick reaction time will be of utmost importance.

Last of all, if India is able to orchestrate a persistent offensive, then eventually air battles must take place. In that case, you simply cannot rely only on BVR. Feb 27th is no proof for sole reliance on BVR engagements.

 

[Rafael]

JF 17 just needs a hard on and not anymore hard points when engaging the IAF.

 

[War Thunder]

Hi,

Some posters are still wanting a bigger engine ( not understanding that a more powerful engine would also put more stress on the frame as well thus reducing the life of the frame).

Some are wanting more hard points---actually most are wanting more hard points---and I do not know what they would do with them---.

The combat on the 27th proved a few points and shattered many a myth---. What it proved was---what I have been saying for a longtime---and what analysts have stated over the decade---most aircraft getting into a conflict will die without launching their missiles.

It proved to be 100% correct---the only aircraft that fell on pour side---had all its missiles intact---. Supposedly---the SU30 that we shot down---also did not launch any missiles---.

So---the myth for having a large number of missiles and spraying them in the air against other aircraft like a water coming from a hose has been busted so far---we are talking about CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT and not the 5th gen aircraft for the matter of discussion---.

What has also come true is that the one who fires the first shot---has a better chance of survival amongst equal type of aircraft---.

Now why I would ask for a 25% larger aircraft---it was for the reason that it could carry two large 1000 Kg weight category AShM---the reasoning behind the japanese F2.

The second reason was---as the technology would advance---there would be better availability of modular techno gizmos that could be mounted all around on the aircraft in designated spots---giving it a better 360* situational awareness---basing it on the fact that the one who can see better---either thru the electronic eye or thru his own eyes would have better situational control of the skies---.

For air forces with similar capabilities---lock---launch and dash would be the key to a successful operation---.

So again---whomsoever has better situational awareness will control the roost---.

More money needs to be spent on these items rather than those for show---. The proof is in the pudding now---. Now let us focus on conveying the right message and change our thinking---even though it is very difficult to get thru the skulls of my pakistani brethren and children---.

You can't compare a single surprise and bait mission with an extended war. The amount of payload and thrust matter a lot in extended conflict zones, specially when achieving air superiority ain't gonna happen quick enough.
Having an extra pair of SD-10 or PL-15 can make the difference between killing 2 SU-MKI's or 4 - 5 of them from a range out of their reach, in one go with a single jet.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

You have not much clue

You can't compare a single surprise and bait mission with an extended war. The amount of payload and thrust matter a lot in extended conflict zones, specially when achieving air superiority ain't gonna happen quick enough.
Having an extra pair of SD-10 or PL-15 can make the difference between killing 2 SU-MKI's or 4 - 5 of them from a range out of their reach, in one go with a single jet.

Hi,

On similar parameters---you cannot change the parameters of the aircraft mid-stride---.

It is what it is---it has proven a certain point---now dwell on it---.

 

[CHACHA"G"]

Hi,

Some posters are still wanting a bigger engine ( not understanding that a more powerful engine would also put more stress on the frame as well thus reducing the life of the frame).

Some are wanting more hard points---actually most are wanting more hard points---and I do not know what they would do with them---.

The combat on the 27th proved a few points and shattered many a myth---. What it proved was---what I have been saying for a longtime---and what analysts have stated over the decade---most aircraft getting into a conflict will die without launching their missiles.

It proved to be 100% correct---the only aircraft that fell on pour side---had all its missiles intact---. Supposedly---the SU30 that we shot down---also did not launch any missiles---.

So---the myth for having a large number of missiles and spraying them in the air against other aircraft like a water coming from a hose has been busted so far---we are talking about CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT and not the 5th gen aircraft for the matter of discussion---.

What has also come true is that the one who fires the first shot---has a better chance of survival amongst equal type of aircraft---.

Now why I would ask for a 25% larger aircraft---it was for the reason that it could carry two large 1000 Kg weight category AShM---the reasoning behind the japanese F2.

The second reason was---as the technology would advance---there would be better availability of modular techno gizmos that could be mounted all around on the aircraft in designated spots---giving it a better 360* situational awareness---basing it on the fact that the one who can see better---either thru the electronic eye or thru his own eyes would have better situational control of the skies---.

For air forces with similar capabilities---lock---launch and dash would be the key to a successful operation---.

So again---whomsoever has better situational awareness will control the roost---.

More money needs to be spent on these items rather than those for show---. The proof is in the pudding now---. Now let us focus on conveying the right message and change our thinking---even though it is very difficult to get thru the skulls of my pakistani brethren and children---.

This is what I am saying on topic form long time : JF-17 is JF-17(light next gen bird) ,,,,,,, We have to replace older F-6s and F-7s with block III JF-17 ,,,, And JF-17 is blessing for Pakistan. ,,,,,,,,, We can added better engine and more composite material in airframe latter , we can do that in future MLU of JF-17 block III ,,,,,,,,, Right now we have to make sure we can add advance EW suits and Advance weapons to Block III and we keep R&D On, and bring JF-17 block III with AESA on production line ASAP...…….
And on Bigger bird , I also agree with you , We need medium aircraft that can take some good seize bombs and also have advance EW suits and advance radars ……. We can go for J-10 , , J-10 can take H series bombs and it also can take 2 AShms (because of seize) ….. J-10 have delta wing (some extra advantages because of wing shape ) ….. We have to replace Mirages , better way is single engine Jet some thing like J-10 with TOT so we can integrate Mirages Amo on Them ……… This will be affordable option just like JF-17.
Most important : Remember J-10 is China's front line fighter , China will spend billion of $$$$ for Advancement (R&D) of the J-10 programme , that will save PAF time and Money.....

 

[war&peace]

Well, I don't think it is feasible to do any major changes to the airframe. blk-3 is ready to enter the serial production soon. Also, such changes means a different A/c altogether and it won't economically feasible. Rather J10C present a great alternative if bigger size and more hard points are desired. Pakistan should invest more in the next gen A/c i.e. Project Azm while design a bigger JF17 does not make much sense.

 

[messiach]

Finally.
Yes, you will see that sooner than later.

I would like to move the discussion to what about mirage replacement?
Their design and capability has made them useful for a specific purpose
A specific variant of jf 17 might be needed to fulfil that

@MastanKhan
A larger, higher thrust fan is not haram. The question is what does it take to provide greater thrust & to provide greater thrust with efficiency with faster, cost-effective, reliable servicing. Engine maintenance is a significant service provision article, with highest reported CI anywhere.

 

[CHI RULES]

The OP trues to generalize based on a single data point. This is attrocity against rational thinking and common sense. Although people around the world are acknowledging PAF's success, no one is completely writing off IAF. Had PAF been allowed to press the advantage that day, it could have comprehensively crippled IAF's Western command. But even then, it would be called an opportunistic win. The realistic comparison between PAF and IAF isn't just based on targets of opportunity, but also the overwhelming response that India as nation would have given.

Behind PAF's inaction lye a few Pakistani weaknesses: lack of strategic depth, weak economy, and minimal defence against saturation from supersonic missile threats. A wise decision maker would accept this reality and work towards removing them.

Next, let us analyze the case where IAF strikes with full preparation and full backing from Israel and America. Even if an initial saturation strike is discounted, Pakistan's reliance on manned aircrafts as the tip of the spear is a weakness. You cannot defend the homeland without a multi-layered defence network in place, and tactics for the efficient interplay between fighter aircraft, drones, and SAMs. And this network must cover all approaches, including friendly skies. Once this is in place, India has no other option but launch a saturation strike. At that point, quick reaction time will be of utmost importance.

Last of all, if India is able to orchestrate a persistent offensive, then eventually air battles must take place. In that case, you simply cannot rely only on BVR. Feb 27th is no proof for sole reliance on BVR engagements.

In Syria losses on Side of Bashar and his allies were mostly due to shear jamming by USA/Nato, the Russian provided SAMs though are capable enough yet could not be used effectively as they were mostly jammed. Similar tactics are were used by IAF there many times. Pakistan just like India should try to acquire anti satellite capability along with EW superior capabilities unknown to USA and India both.