What's new

Pakistan will soon get J10

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sir, i never said we need the source codes nor was the discussion abt it, i was just making a point to the kid that if provided with source codes integration can be done on the JF-17, since it has the capability to get integrated with western weapons since it uses western protocols. I am talking about the capability of the jet.

Hope you get my point.

Ah I see, the jet is capable of integration IF source codes are made available. Got it.

Sarkar
You heard the tale all night only to ask in the morning who Laila was? Please read his full response first. Anyways How are you and where have you been.
Araz

LOL! Who is this Laila? :P

I am fine, AlHamdoLillah. (I still remember our long overdue discussion on a certain topic, delayed due to my laziness. :) )
 
.
Yes composite material does make a fighter jet superior, how you define capability of fighter jets?

No it doesn't, it's just one part that can add advantages and the capability of a fighter won't be changed much either as well. Gripen has a lower RCS because of of using composites but mainly RAM coatings, which JF 17 B1 doesn't seem to have yet. On the other side, it offers the same multi role and weapon carrying capability as the JF 17 too. Both can be used for interceptions or CAS, while the Block 2 upgrade of JF 17 will make it equal to Gripen C/D in terms of avionics, mid air refuelling too.
Both are totally comparable fighters, but the one is more advanced by design and developments, which results into higher costs again and that was against PAFs requirements to have a cost-effective backbone fighter.
 
.
No it doesn't, it's just one part that can add advantages and the capability of a fighter won't be changed much either as well. Gripen has a lower RCS because of of using composites but mainly RAM coatings, which JF 17 B1 doesn't seem to have yet. On the other side, it offers the same multi role and weapon carrying capability as the JF 17 too. Both can be used for interceptions or CAS, while the Block 2 upgrade of JF 17 will make it equal to Gripen C/D in terms of avionics, mid air refuelling too.
Both are totally comparable fighters, but the one is more advanced by design and developments, which results into higher costs again and that was against PAFs requirements to have a cost-effective backbone fighter.

First thing I was not comparing Gripen and JF-17 because I don't believe in comparing aircraft's and I have cited the reason in my previous post, second thing I was just talking about Composite materials and remaining things about aircraft being static. You yourself stated that " it's just one part that can add advantages" then contradicts by saying that "capability of a fighter won't be changed much either", how after increase in payload, capability of aircraft not increase? If two aircraft's are same on every parameters except payload then not just for me but for others also one with higher payload will be considered superior because composite materials solve many problems starting from manufacturing to ease in maintenance.

Lets come to what you compared about two different aircraft's built for different purposes: Multi-role capacity of Gripen C/D is far better than present JF17 Block 1 (in terms of range, payload, types of weapons, radars among few) and weapon carrying capacity of Gripen C/D is 5300 Kg while JF-17 block 1 is just just 3795 Kg, if you doubt then check it from their websites i.e. Saab's and from jf-17.com website, so your second claim is false.

Third thing I am no astrologer so can't say whether one aircraft in development stage will be at par or will be superior to Gripen C/D.
 
.
second thing I was just talking about Composite materials and remaining things about aircraft being static. You yourself stated that " it's just one part that can add advantages" then contradicts by saying that "capability of a fighter won't be changed much either"

Not really, I said composites alone don't change much at the capability of the fighter, as it is just one part of advantages. Add it with RAM coatings, ducted intakes and other signature reduction features and you have an advantage at RCS. Increase the engine thrust besides the weight reduction and you have a dramatically improved TWR...

If two aircraft's are same on every parameters except payload then not just for me but for others also one with higher payload will be considered superior because composite materials solve many problems starting from manufacturing to ease in maintenance.

First of all, a higher payload must not be the result of composites materials, but of any airfame strenghtening or thrust upgrades to the engine. Secondly, you are highly mistaken that the payload tells you how capable a fighter is, because it tells you nothing about the number of hardpoints, how many heavy and wet stations the fighter has and what weight limits these stations have. The Eurofighter for example has a payload of 7500Kg with 13 x hardpoints, which looks great on paper and for fanboys, but in reality the hardpoint layout was desiged for A2A operations mainly and therefor it has a lot of operational limitations in other roles (no dedicated pod stations, which occupies an important heavy / wet station in strike roles, the centerline station is highly size limited, the use of cruise, stand off or anti ship missiles is limited to just 2 stations, which leaves only a single possible config that offers very limited range...). The Gripen NG can carry more weapons, especially in deep strike config than the EF, although it has 1500Kg less payload and just 10 x hardpoints!


Lets come to what you compared about two different aircraft's built for different purposes: Multi-role capacity of Gripen C/D is far better than present JF17 Block 1...so your second claim is false.

Again wrong, because you must compare Gripen A/B and it's capabilities to JF 17 Block 1, or as I did, Gripen C/D to JF 17 Block 2, because these are the versions at a common tech and capability level and when you do that, you will see that the differences are by far not as bad as you think!

Third thing I am no astrologer so can't say whether one aircraft in development stage will be at par or will be superior to Gripen C/D.

You don't have to, there are a lot of infos already known about the Block 2 upgrade, check the JF 17 info pool.
 
.
Ah I see, the jet is capable of integration IF source codes are made available. Got it.



LOL! Who is this Laila? :P

I am fine, AlHamdoLillah. (I still remember our long overdue discussion on a certain topic, delayed due to my laziness. :) )

Laila as in Laila Majnoon.
You are welcome to contact me when ever you want .
Regards
Araz
 
.
JF17 Block 1 (in terms of range, payload, types of weapons, radars among few) and weapon carrying capacity of Gripen C/D is 5300 Kg while JF-17 block 1 is just just 3795 Kg, if you doubt then check it from their websites i.e. Saab's and from jf-17.com website, .

jf17.com is not a good updated source

specs of blk1 -- blk2 is on its way

http://i.imgur.com/lc23o.png
http://i.imgur.com/360Za.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/RsYlX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vMojW.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/DjPSE.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Uz7Xk.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5qMEz.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1ZRDj.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/2e240er.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0QHaN.jpg[
http://i.imgur.com/k0Ivr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/wUjov.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Uz7Xk.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kSWmW.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/LnIZj.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vu4uE.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/E72Rq.jpg


KLaNd.png
GVFjn.jpg






*specs taken from dubai air show presentations and jf-17 brochures

*the conditions ,parameters under which climb rate / thrust to wt etc have been evaluated might not be standardised or fully disclosed

*All the values ive posted are from open published sources , so if there are confusions , its upto the companies to clear up

*..... however jft blk1 is not that obsolete as you suspect .. its better than gripenA & thats why i didnt use gripenA's specs.. I used a somewhat comparable block's specs

* we dont know the exact RCS of jft ... If jft was a canards fighters , some people wouldve jumped up and down saying it has greater rcs due to canards

* we dont know the wing loading of the fighter
[ a ground attack role fighter generally has a higher wing loading -
low wing loading is for performing at higher altitudes---multirole aircraft has to find a proper balance..]

* we dont know the AoA of jft -- f-18 has one of the highest values .. and jft would be comparable
[prominent lerx/strakes---> upto 50% increase in max lift , low/moderate swept wing---> better at lower speed performance , spin resistance etc ]

* methods of rcs reduction is a natural step forwards and hopefully would be employed in blk2 along with other gadgets we are reading about in the jft info pool


Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-wa...nard-non-canard-fighters-2.html#ixzz1yRDYa5ke

http://www.robotechresearch.com/rpg/vehicles/ebsis/gripen/gripen.htm
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/gripen/








credits sancho
TWRs

Afaik a good way to calculate the TWR is:

Thrust in kN / G (Earth surface gravitational field strength of 9.807 m/s²)

=> / emptyweight + internal fuel => TWR


With the figures you gave in your comparision of JF 17 and Gripen, it would be like this:

JF 17 B1:

84,5/ 9,8 = 8622

6411+2300 = 8711

8622 / 8711 = 0.99 (rounded to the 2nd digit)


If we take the specs from PAC Kamra site, we have to take 14520lb (6586Kg) emptyweight to account, which changes the results to 0.97 (rounded to the 2nd digit)


Same way for Gripen C:

80,5/ 9,8 = 8214

6800+2270 = 9070

8214 / 9070 = 0.91 (rounded to the 2nd digit)




However lets come back to the topic of j-10
 
.
jf17.com is not a good updated source

specs of blk1 -- blk2 is on its way

Thank you for your information but sir according to your data,

External load carrying capacity of Gripen C/D should be = Maximum take off weight - Empty weight - internal fuel capacity
that gives 14000 - 6800 - 2270 = 4930 kg

Similarly External load carrying capacity of JF 17 block 1 should be = 12700 - 6411 - 2300 = 3989 Kg

while if you visit Gripens official website then you will find that
External load carrying capacity of Gripen C/D = 14100 - 6800 - 2000 = 5300 Kg
 
.

Based on the facts above, JF-17 is actually superior to JAS Gripen apart from the payload capacity. There isnt much difference in radar range in up look detection and down look detection is actually better.
And this is block 1 that we are comparing with the C/D Gripen, block 2 will actually surpass it in all aspects.
 
.
^^^ How can the JF-17 have a claimed climb rate of 250 m/s which is 15,000 meters per minute compared to 5,500 meters per minute for the Grippen, when their T:W ratios are not all that different?
 
.
^^^ How can the JF-17 have a claimed climb rate of 250 m/s which is 15,000 meters per minute compared to 5,500 meters per minute for the Grippen, when their T:W ratios are not all that different?

maybe because of max take-off weight of JF-17 is lower but yea I see what you are saying.. JF-17 seems to have x3 the rate of climb if we read 250 m/s for JF-17 vs 92 m/s for Grippen correctly ..

maybe .. the key words are max climb rate for JF-17 vs .. climb rate at sea level for Grippen
 
.
maybe because of max take-off weight of JF-17 is lower but yea I see what you are saying.. JF-17 seems to have x3 the rate of climb if we read 250 m/s for JF-17 vs 92 m/s for Grippen correctly ..

maybe .. the key words are max climb rate for JF-17 vs .. climb rate at sea level for Grippen

That could be the explanation.

Just for comparison, an F-16 has about 250 m/s max climb rate. Does the JF-17 match that?

I think the Gripen is comparable too for this parameter.
 
. .
Although if they did used the composites and along with RD-93B and Retractable in Flight refueling probe and PAC done JV on developing FLIR along with the present IRST Pod. Then it will have much better performance then what is know. And after the flight of PT-06 in 2006 they can move towards a dual seat of this aircraft and finalize it in 2008 to enter into production.
 
.
Although if they did used the composites and along with RD-93B and Retractable in Flight refueling probe and PAC done JV on developing FLIR along with the present IRST Pod. Then it will have much better performance then what is know. And after the flight of PT-06 in 2006 they can move towards a dual seat of this aircraft and finalize it in 2008 to enter into production.
Flir can be added on pod ?
 
.
Based on the facts above, JF-17 is actually superior to JAS Gripen apart from the payload capacity. There isnt much difference in radar range in up look detection and down look detection is actually better.
And this is block 1 that we are comparing with the C/D Gripen, block 2 will actually surpass it in all aspects.

i have read these details a number of time but really am kind of confused on some points, the JFT is said to have ferry range of 3482 Km and a maximum extended range with external tanks at 3000Km, how is this possible? am i confusing the ferry range and Extended range? i mean, how can normal ferry range be greater then range with external tanks?

i also don't understand how can we we say that based on these JFT is superior to Grippen. they are on par at best. for example,
Grippen have better payload, JFT have more range, Grippen have more speed and better T/W ratio and JFT can gain more height. in radar, Grippen have more up-look range and JFT have better down-look range. both carry almost similarly capable weapons and Grippen can carry one more then JFT.

PLEASE, this is not a remark but a question and will appreciate is someone can tell me how we can say the JFT is proved better.

for me, both of these are on par as for now but the new block might well see improvements in JFT.

and yes, we can not forget the Grippen-NG EW suite! need to develop something comparable as well and not much is know about JFT EW capabilities.

regards!
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom