What's new

PAF JF-17 in Farnborough Air Show 2010

.
I spoke to one of the pilots too. He is only 31, been flying for 10 years. was flying the F-16 A/B before.

The big news he told me was: THE RD-93 DOES GIVE THE JF-17 A THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO OF OVER 1:1.1!

The SD-10A works fine and been tested in Pakistan. Will right more tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
.
The thrust ratio of 1:1.1 would be highly desirable on JF-17.
But its still you saying that the pilot told you so to qualify as hear say.
unless someone comes up with a credible source.
 
.
how much more credible can it get.... than hearing from the horses mouth?
 
.
how much more credible can it get.... than hearing from the horses mouth?

The above statement will be true if it was reported by a credible source that the pilot did make such a comment. So as for now this qualifies as a blogger alleging that the pilot said so.
 
.
well yes... but in this case our blogger is reputable and i can trust him conviniently.
 
.
The thrust ratio of 1:1.1 would be highly desirable on JF-17.
But its still you saying that the pilot told you so to qualify as hear say.
unless someone comes up with a credible source.

If a fighter aircraft has thrust to weight ratio 1:1.1 or more than 1 it means it can go up with 90 degree angle like F-16 but still nothing is like this as in video of flypast of March 23rd 2007.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
fly past of 2007 was first flight of JFT and it was flying with limitations.
 
.
Even at that time one of the plane was flown by WC Khalid Mehmood (Current OC of 26 SQDN and one of the pilots at Farnborough Air show). He was flight commander at that time (when this video was made) and flying the plane along with his OC. I went to see 23rd March 2005 fly pass in Sargodha as well and he was flying F16 A/B at that time. He was SQN leader at that time.

If a fighter aircraft has thrust to weight ratio 1:1.1 or more than 1 it means it can go up with 90 degree angle like F-16 but still nothing is like this as in video of flypast of March 23rd 2007.

YouTube - JF-17 - Flypast - March 23rd 2007
 
.
The current airframe with current engine is capable to add two more hard points and routine testing will be required. I am saying this because i was given a solid argument by a friend on this job. Infact, prototype 5 was tested experimentally to carry two more hard points briefly which were later removed. We will see them along with IFR and rest will be avionics modifications in blk 2 and from blk 3, IRST will be integrated. I have seen pics with two additional hard points in CAD imagery but there is a limit to what i can share on JFT.
 
. .
If what i have heard is accurate and PAF incorporates all specified parameters that they deem to integrate in blk 2, then It should be on par with Gripen NG. The reason to say this is because at the moment, JFT has all the accessories that Gripen C had in early 2000s except the amazing Swedish datalink that JFT lacks off course. Just look at the specification of both Gripen C and JFT blk 1 and you will know what i am talking about. Another interesting fact is that since the beginning, PAF had two aircraft as ideal light fighters and were looking to base JFT on a similar pattern to those. PAF showed interest in Gripen as early as 1997 and then again in 2004 because political situation was in a dis array. We got the blk 52s but Gripen was still out. However, capability wise JFT should be equal to Gripen C at least. JFTs current cockpit design is a pure give away of what PAF desired !
 
.
The current airframe with current engine is capable to add two more hard points and routine testing will be required. I am saying this because i was given a solid argument by a friend on this job. Infact, prototype 5 was tested experimentally to carry two more hard points briefly which were later removed. We will see them along with IFR and rest will be avionics modifications in blk 2 and from blk 3, IRST will be integrated. I have seen pics with two additional hard points in CAD imagery but there is a limit to what i can share on JFT.

Can u reply please, why two hard points were removed and IRST will be in 3rd blk. Why not in blk 2, have you confirmed information. Plz.
 
.
Fatigue Testing during prototype stage is taken with great caution especially for fighter aircraft and is a time consuming process. A lot of other technologies are tested during that stage and this is a normal process. You have to test the airframe and every component to the limit. This is why it is called "Fatigue testing" as it makes every component fatigued! JFT is no exception here as PAF also wanted to test it thoroughly for a few years and is doing just that. This was the reason why we are seeing a moderate payload, caution in testing all along with blk 1. But what PAF has discovered so far after three years of testing, they are feeling confident to proceed with more advancements that were experimented during prototyping stage. This is a normal procedure for all advanced fighter all over the world. If initial blk has the capability to handle all threats, i am curious if blk 2 will allow more parity with adversary to to an extent.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom