JF17 now maritime strike role

[usman jutt]

Hi
why can't we convert JF 17 into twin engine platform with some other changes in design and having AESA/IRTS and 11 hard points instead of spending money on new platforms?
@MastanKhan

 

[JamD]

Hi
why can't we convert JF 17 into twin engine platform with some other changes in design and having AESA/IRTS and 11 hard points instead of spending money on new platforms?
@MastanKhan

Welcome to the forum dear friend. Please use search function for this question as this topic has been discussed to death previously on multiple threads.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi
why can't we convert JF 17 into twin engine platform with some other changes in design and having AESA/IRTS and 11 hard points instead of spending money on new platforms?
@MastanKhan

Hi,

Thank you---. Jf 17 in its current format has a unique utility of its own. There is a reason why this size was chosen. For reasons---I will not discuss them.

Now to compliment the JF 17---as it is already a successful design---a modification must be done to make it a slightly larger aircraft---around 20% larger than the current size---but still keeping the current size in production---like the Japanese F 2 to F16.

There is a more powerful & modern engine available with better fuel economy---better power out put and it must have a higher load carrying capacity---around 6500---7500 kg---.

This aircraft could basically cover where the F16 would be let off.

If a twin engine twin tails is considered---then there is the J11---J16----.

For a single tail version twin engine---the JH7B is a very capable and competent aircraft.

The su35 is a great aircraft---but there are a lot of strings attached.

Remember----you cannot keep building on your own all the time----you need to get something from existing manufacturers---the reason being---you need to strengthen your defences---.

Paf has deceived the nation for 30 years now----. The nation is paying a very heavy price for its incompetence.

 

[MastanKhan]

Absurd Argument Do you Have Technical Data To Back you Claim

The Internal Fuel Capacity of Jf-17 is Mere 2,350 kg

On other Hand Mig-29K Has Internal Fuel Of 4560 Kg

I Don't Know Why Mods Give Positive rating Without Verifying It Technically


Also Which ASHM will Take out carrier From 300Km Really Do you think It Wouldn't Be a Nightmare For USN Carrier Group.Its Not technically Viable What you just stated Your Arguments Has Less Technical arguments To Hold ground

Hi,

You need to respond in the same technical terms used by the poster that you challenged---.

Otherwise---it seems like you do not have the ability to understand the post in the context it was written in.

 

[Gufi]

Now to compliment the JF 17---as it is already a successful design---a modification must be done to make it a slightly larger aircraft---around 20% larger than the current size---but still keeping the current size in production---like the Japanese F 2 to F16.

Making a new aircraft from the current frame is an expensive and useless endeavour at this stage. You know better then most posters the many factors that go into increasing the size of the plane. It is not as simple as stretching the body and throwing on an engine, and with the style this plane is made even adding a stronger engine will test the frame.
Beyond our scope at this time and honestly redundant in the age we are in to invest more into a new jet which is not going to be ready for years.
A better option and honestly the only short term option would be JH7Bs from the Chinese inventory or some J11s but even that is on the expensive side.
Honestly I think our air force is currently hoping there is no war in the foreseeable future and killing time.

You need to respond in the same technical terms used by the poster that you challenged---.

you should have pointed out that number of engines really matters when comparing internal fuel...

 

[Thorough Pro]

and how many engines does Mig29 have? Two! thus double consumption
4560/2 =2280 kg per engine which is less than 2350 kg

Absurd Argument Do you Have Technical Data To Back you




Claim

The Internal Fuel Capacity of Jf-17 is Mere 2,350 kg

On other Hand Mig-29K Has Internal Fuel Of 4560 Kg

I Don't Know Why Mods Give Positive rating Without Verifying It Technically


Also Which ASHM will Take out carrier From 300Km Really Do you think It Wouldn't Be a Nightmare For USN Carrier Group.Its Not technically Viable What you just stated Your Arguments Has Less Technical arguments To Hold ground

 

[barbarosa]

Change is must because no body can close ocean in the jug.

 

[cerberus]

Making a new aircraft from the current frame is an expensive and useless endeavour at this stage. You know better then most posters the many factors that go into increasing the size of the plane. It is not as simple as stretching the body and throwing on an engine, and with the style this plane is made even adding a stronger engine will test the frame.
Beyond our scope at this time and honestly redundant in the age we are in to invest more into a new jet which is not going to be ready for years.
A better option and honestly the only short term option would be JH7Bs from the Chinese inventory or some J11s but even that is on the expensive side.
Honestly I think our air force is currently hoping there is no war in the foreseeable future and killing time.


you should have pointed out that number of engines really matters when comparing internal fuel...

There also many factor like
Aircraft abilities to carry largrer MTOW & payload
The which 1.5 ton more than JF-17 and 13 harpoints to carry more extended fuel to carry larger drop tanks
The Ferry range of Mig-29K with 3 drop tanks is 3100Km if add IFR into scene it will be close to 4000KM

Combat radius of MiG -29k is 1300km+

Hi,

You need to respond in the same technical terms used by the poster that you challenged---.

Otherwise---it seems like you do not have the ability to understand the post in the context it was written in.

Yes i will weight for my detailed answer im
At my office right now

 

[MastanKhan]

Making a new aircraft from the current frame is an expensive and useless endeavour at this stage. You know better then most posters the many factors that go into increasing the size of the plane. It is not as simple as stretching the body and throwing on an engine, and with the style this plane is made even adding a stronger engine will test the frame.
Beyond our scope at this time and honestly redundant in the age we are in to invest more into a new jet which is not going to be ready for years.
A better option and honestly the only short term option would be JH7Bs from the Chinese inventory or some J11s but even that is on the expensive side.
Honestly I think our air force is currently hoping there is no war in the foreseeable future and killing time.


you should have pointed out that number of engines really matters when comparing internal fuel...

Hi,

Saab has done it with the Gripen at a very nominal cost---moved the wheels outwards---thus giving more room for fuel on the fuselage tank.

Technically---it is much easier to make 10-20% modification---remember---the dusleage is a modular design---room for different engines of similar capabilities---it should be a 50 million project---a 100 at the most---.

Now this is staying with the single engine---a replacement for the F16---and still keeping the smaller JF17 in production.

The utility of the JH7B does not go away.

[QUOTE="Gufi, post: 8264817, member: 164979"

you should have pointed out that number of engines really matters when comparing internal fuel...[/QUOTE]

Hi,

I just wanted him to think what he did---. There are issues you can address and there are comments you let them be---.

 

[ghazi768]

Absurd Argument Do you Have Technical Data To Back you Claim

The Internal Fuel Capacity of Jf-17 is Mere 2,350 kg

On other Hand Mig-29K Has Internal Fuel Of 4560 Kg

I Don't Know Why Mods Give Positive rating Without Verifying It Technically


Also Which ASHM will Take out carrier From 300Km Really Do you think It Wouldn't Be a Nightmare For USN Carrier Group.Its Not technically Viable What you just stated Your Arguments Has Less Technical arguments To Hold ground

Pardon me, I mentioned 'fuel fractions'. Fuel weight itself is useless, fuel to weight ratio is more important and can tell you how much legs that fighter jet has got. Also if one jet is twin engined than it needs to have a higher fraction.

I think there should be some content on Mig 29's short legs on internet. Try searching for 'fighter town' 'laage', one german and two US pilots also gave interview in journals, you can search for that as well.

If MTCR regime is not in place, many of these same AShM will have ranges much in access of 300 kms.

 

[Imran Khan]

it was a maritime fighter also since it was on papers

 

[cerberus]

I think there should be some content on Mig 29's short legs on internet. Try searching for 'fighter town' 'laage', one german and two US pilots also gave interview in journals, you can search for that as well.

Yes In Know that But the Interview Of Which you Are Mentioned are For German Mig-29U/B Which Itself Is Downgraded Version Of 'Fulcrum' series

Combat Radius of Mig-29 is 850 Km that Extended in Contest to Mig-29K which has Combat Radius of +1300 Km
Combat Payload is Also increased to 5700Kg

If MTCR regime is not in place, many of these same AShM will have ranges much in access of 300 kms.

Yes that But Not Feasible In EW Environment.For Example an Carrier battle Group Has Radar Surveillance of 500-600Km
In Real war time Scenario AShm Only Feasible when it is Launched From NEZ of the Missile And to And Defect From Air-defense of battle Group

 

[ghazi768]

Yes In Know that But the Interview Of Which you Are Mentioned are For German Mig-29U/B Which Itself Is Downgraded Version Of 'Fulcrum' series

Combat Radius of Mig-29 is 850 Km that Extended in Contest to Mig-29K which has Combat Radius of +1300 Km
Combat Payload is Also increased to 5700Kg

Yes that But Not Feasible In EW Environment.For Example an Carrier battle Group Has Radar Surveillance of 500-600Km
In Real war time Scenario AShm Only Feasible when it is Launched From NEZ of the Missile And to And Defect From Air-defense of battle Group

My apologies, I think I have made my arguments clear in detail in my post about STOBAR carriers.

Mig 29 B/UB are same as carried by IAF which later have been upgraded with I think a french avionics package, air frame and performance wise there hardly any difference. And lower combat range of Mig 29 is an established fact, I hope you are not too much injured or in denial of it.

Mig 29K is actually a heavier version based on Mig 29M with modified and extended wings for naval operations but also has the same low fuel fractions.

Payload matters only if you are able to 'takeoff' with it. STOBAR ski-jumps put a limit on how much you can take-off with. Also because of physics of restraining (capturing) a jet fighter with arresting wires, landing with so much un-used payload is a bigger problem. During gulf war 1, US naval fighters dumped 80% of total payload they flew with because of this very problem. It had been discussed in many defence journal at after that war, try searching for it.

Also STOBAR carrier (whether Indian or Chines or Russian) still do not host air-refuelling tankers like US Navy therefore are very limited in how they fuel up their jet fleet.

What you are mentioning as Combat range most probably is cruise range, both are different things. Even than such cruise range on just internal fuel for Mig 29 is too suspect.

 

[cerberus]

Introduction of Jf-17 in numbers (with more squadrons in southern command in future) will completely change the scenario in Arabian Sea in respect of Pakistan and India. PAF/PN will be in much better position to execute sea denial and blockage of Persian Gulf especially with the introduction of land based AShM batteries capable of targeting ships in range of 300+ km.

Land based Batteries Will First which Will Be Taken Out By on Combination Of Destroyer & Frigate
By Indian Navy operate combination Of Klub-Series CM & Brahmos CM
They Also Vulnerable to Air Attack by Carrier Based Fighters With Kh-35,and KH-31 the Indian naval air operate

First JF-17 have got better sortie rates because of low serviceability requirements which means that more operations can be launched in defensive or offensive modes. Indian carrier based fleets will be more limited in this respect. They are STOBAR with ski-jumps, ski-jump put more stresses on airframes of jet fighters and increases serviceability and decreases force availability especially in a multi-day intense campaign. Also they have to take-off with half the payload and fuel and than later refuel in air via buddy-buddy air-refuleing which increases operational complexity and reduces range and reduces fighter fleet available for strike or carrier group defence. In an intense campaign that will further reduce availability. PAF on the other hand will be in position to throw more and more sorties if it goes offensive against one or both carriers, difference will be significant.

Source Of this Claim Any Article Would Be feasible to Substantiate this theory

Mig 29K already have shorter ranges because of lower fuel fractions than comparative fighters. There carrier CAP and strike ranges are already significantly less than Rafale (which can do a carrier CAP at 185 km for 2 hours with three 1250 ltrs tanks with six AAMs) and F-18 E (which can do a carrier CAP at 265 km for 2 hours and 15 minutes with 480 gallon tanks and 4 AAMs) while Mig 29K will be forced to take smaller payloads and will require lot of buddy-buddy re-fuelling to have 100+ km CAPs in access of an hour. Their strike ranges and sortie rates will be significantly reduced as well.

On the other hand Jf-17 has very good fuel fraction on internal fuel and can fly longer and farther than Mig 29K and with 2 drop tanks can easily manage 800+ kms with certain allocations for furballs with mixed sorties, some carrying BVRs for air-superiority to build pressure on carrier fighter fleet and others moving in to finish the job with AShMs. Equipped with CM 400 and C 802 they do not even need to get closer and can off-load their payloads in 200-300 kms range.

This Impractical Argument you are Unaware of the Capabilities of Mig-29K which has 1300 Km Combat radius of Gives It Edge in Combat Missions From CBG Environment

="ghazi768, post: 8265331, member: 175327"]Mig 29K is actually a heavier version based on Mig 29M with modified and extended wings for naval operations but also has the same low fuel fractions.

No Its Not the ASR Requirment Of Mig-29K Was
Choosed For Indian Navy At First Place
The MiG-29K, unlike the early MiG-29, can both conduct aerial refueling and "buddy" refuel other aircraft.
MiG-29K has two widely spaced RD-33MKs. The early prototypes were fitted with two RD-33K turbofan engines, each with afterburner thrust of 86.3 kN (19,800 lb) and a possible take-off thrust of 92.2 kN (20,723 lbf) for shipborne operations

One factor favouring the MiG-29K over the Su-33 in the Indian decision was the larger size of the Su-33, which further limited the number of aircraft on deck

Modifications were made to the MiG-29K for Indian requirements, including the Zhuk-ME radar, RD-33MK engine, a combat payload up to 5,500 kg, 13 weapon stations, and updated 4-channel digital fly-by-wire flight control system. It is compatible with the full range of weapons carried by the MiG-29M and MiG-29SMT. The MiG-29KUB made its maiden flight at the Zhukovsky test centre on 22 January 2007

Versions in Service: MiG-29K; Single-Seat Multirole Fighter.
...........................MiG-29KUB; Two-Seat Multirole Fighter/Trainer.

Take Off Weight (Normal): 18,550 kg (40,895 lbs)

Take Off Weight (Maximum): 22,400 kg (49,383 lbs)

Maximum Combat Load: 5500 kg (12,125 lbs)

Maximum Speed: 1296 knots (1491 mph; 2400 km/h) - high altitude.
.......................670 knots (771 mph; 1240 km/h) - sea level.

Maximum Rate of Climb (at sea level): 17,760 metres/min (58,260 feet/minute)

Operational Ceiling: 18,000 metres (59,055 feet)

Maximum Fuel Load: 5240 kg (11,552 lbs)

Maximum Combat Radius: 459 nautical miles (528 miles; 850 km) - with internal fuel.
..................................702 nautical miles (807 miles; 1300 km) - with external fuel tanks.
..................................1889 nautical miles (2174 miles; 3500 km) - with in-flight refueling.

My Source Most Reputed India Defense Portal
Source :http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/weapons/current/125-mig-29k.html

 

[knight11]

and how many engines does Mig29 have? Two! thus double consumption
4560/2 =2280 kg per engine which is less than 2350 kg

Wrong calculation. With double engine, the thrust is high, but you don't pull the full throttle in the whole flight profile and donnot represent twice the range with a single engine, because for a single engine, to generate the same thrust/or comparative thrust, you need higher throttle.

The other advantage of Twin Engine is

1. STOL -- Short take off distance -- MIG-29 can airborne in 200 Mt.

2. Better thrust -- Gives advantage in close combat maneuvour

3. More Safety -- Failure of one engine but plane could be flown and landed with single engine.

4. Bigger Fuserlarge and strong Airframe due to KEEL.