What would you like to have in the JF-17
- Thread starter The SC
- Start date
The SC
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 32,233
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
What BS please, so I can see to that?
Every word and idea in the post comes from reseach and articles, nothing is invented out of thin air.
This is a discussion I have initiated to get some kind of think thank about the possibilities and the potential of new components that can be realistically incorporated into the JF-17.
If there is something that sounds BS to you and you have every right to your opinion, please just come up with a sound rebuttal and keep out of getting personal. It is how we keep a sane discussion otherwise it will just ruin the discussion like it happens in many threads already. So please, I would like to have your opinion, not some baseless bashing for an empty talk to just talk.
I like your posts most of the time and there is no need to get personal, so let's keep it this way.
Last edited:
The SC
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 32,233
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
Super cruise saves fuel, thus it enhances the range, that is its most important feature.
Some experts believe that Both J-20 and J-31 will be inducted by 2017/2018, and that is 2 to 3 years from now, anyone can do the search, I have posted an article about the J-20 and the 2017 possibility of its introduction into the Chinese air force, and continue its refinements afterwards by timely upgrades.
There was another article about the J-31 possibility to be inducted in 2 to 3 years time.
When they (or at least the J-31) will land in Pakistan, that is another question altogether and depends on many parameters.
As for the old article that stated the 2 first blocks as conventional and stealth for 3,4,5th blocks exists on the net. I shall post it when I can or if somebody has gotten the link please post it here.
For the possibility of the J-31 after block too, well, that is my own "speculation" based on the availability date of the stealth bird. It might be wrong or it might prove right, it is just some analysis based on facts collected from different articles.
Luftwaffe
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9,544
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
Supercruise also increases aircraft's heat signature, did you know that, how long would you be using sustained supercruise can supercruise save aircraft from next Gen BVR/WVR?
Achieving genuine supersonic cruise capability hinges on two technological prerequisites. The first is having a powerplant which develops enough dry thrust at altitude to offset supersonic airframe drag. The second is having an airframe design built for low supersonic drag. Unless both conditions are met, supersonic cruise capability is not achievable. So how much is PAF will to spend on JF-17 adding such capabilities would require to spend money on better Airframe for the next 5-7 years PAF is looking to keep the costs down, although personally I think it is impossible.
J-31 is something that could create interest for PAF but my opinion is until PAF achieves 150-200 JF-17s and a good number of F-16s we are not going to see J-31s.
The SC
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 32,233
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
Afterburner
Combat aircraft have had supersonic capability since the 1950s, exploiting afterburners to effectively multiply available thrust and thus overcome the drag rise characteristic of transonic and supersonic flight, as well as improving climb, turn and acceleration performance. The additional thrust advantage of the afterburner comes at a prohibitive price - fuel burn is multiplied severalfold as fuel is injected into the tailpipe and combusted. A byproduct of afterburner use is a dramatic increase in the aircraft's heat signature, the engine plumes becoming effectively an infrared beacon which can be detected and tracked from dozens of miles away.
Supercruise
Having the ability to sustain supersonic speeds without these drawbacks affords numerous advantages in combat. The first of these is that entering an engagement the supersonic fighter has a reserve of kinetic energy which a subsonic opponent does not have. As a result the supersonic fighter can often dictate the terms of the engagement.
More importantly, sustained supersonic speed presents genuine problems in engagement kinematics for an opposing conventional fighter. Even in Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat, air to air missiles have kinematic limitations. To effect a kill a fighter must position itself so the target falls into a 'no escape zone' for the missile type being used. Unless this precondition is met, the missile will likely run out of energy and be unable to engage the target.
In classical intercept geometries, fighters are typically vectored into a head to head closing geometry upon which the player with the earliest firing opportunity, whether afforded by longer radar/missile range, or supporting networking capability, has the advantage. Where both fighters have matched conventional kinematic capabilities, the game well and truly revolves around incremental advantages in missile capability, or situational awareness, provided by onboard or offboard sensors.
This delicate balance, and the advantages yielded by incremental imbalances in missile and sensor technology, will collapse once one of the fighters has the capacity to sustain supersonic speeds. As a result, even modest heading changes by the supersonic fighter, when positioning for the engagement, will force the conventional fighter to go into afterburner early, and typically will create enough separation to ruin the conventional fighter's missile shot geometry. In effect, conventional fighters flying against fighters with sustained supersonic capability usually do not get good opportunities for BVR missile shots. Only a very significant advantage in the kinematic performance of the missiles carried by conventional fighters can offset the advantages held by the player with sustained supersonic capability.
The classical case study is the obsolete Cold War MiG-25 Foxbat, used in reconnaissance, interceptor and defence suppression roles. Capable of sustaining Mach 1.8 class speeds even with external stores, the aircraft proved extremely difficult to engage during the 1991 Desert Storm campaign - the only case study we have of an air battle involving BVR combat and top tier conventional fighters such as the F-15C and F-14 series. While the US and Israelis have successfully killed Foxbats on numerous occasions, invariably this involved carefully setting up an engagement against a target behaving predictably.
The reality is that the situational awareness advantages afforded by modern ISR and networking capabilities only work where the fighters using them have kinematic parity with their opponents. Once the opposing fighter has a significant kinematic advantage, the tables may well be turned. Given that most modern fighter fleet operators have AEW&C capabilities, or are acquiring AEW&C capabilities, the line of argument which presents AEW&C and networking as an air combat panacea is little more than nonsense. The issue of long range Russian 'counter-AWACS' missiles such as the R-172 and R-37 is a consideration in its own right. AEW&C and networking are becoming a common prerequisite, driving the capability contest yet again into other areas - and supersonic cruise will be the next arena in the global competition for air superiority.
Achieving genuine supersonic cruise capability hinges on two technological prerequisites. The first is having a powerplant which develops enough dry thrust at altitude to offset supersonic airframe drag. The second is having an airframe design built for low supersonic drag. Unless both conditions are met, supersonic cruise capability is not achievable.
The airframe issues dictate a wing design typically with 45 degrees or more of leading edge sweep, and suitable fuselage area ruling. Moreover, weapons must be carried internally or in a semi-conformal or conformal arrangment, to avoid a supersonic drag penalty. Pylon mounted missiles are not the preferred strategy. To date, airframe aerodynamics have not been the obstacle in the supercruise game. Engine capabilities have remained the principal obstacle.
A turbofan engine designed for supersonic cruise will be characterised by a much higher turbine inlet temperature than contemporary 'conventional' fighter engines. It is this operating cycle which permits the engine to sustain higher dry thrust ratings at high altitudes. This has also proven to be the primary obstacle to date in building supercruise engines, as it requires advanced materials and advanced turbine cooling techniques.
The first service to recognise the importance of supercruise was the US Air Force, which incorporated supercruise into the early requirements definition of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, which eventually coalesced into today's F/A-22A Raptor. An extensive and expensive engine technology research and development effort led to the design of the Pratt and Whitney F119-PW-100 engine which powers the F-22A. Delivering around 35,000 lbf of afterburning thrust, the F119-PW-100 is the most powerful fighter engine manufactured in the Western world. The simplest qualitative measure of the F119-PW-100's performance is that this engine has a dry thrust performance envelope matching the afterburning thrust envelope of the F100-PW-100 series engines fitted to the F-15C/E and many F-16 variants.
As a result the F-22A is the only production fighter in existence with a genuine supersonic cruise capability and the enormous kinematic advantages this affords in combat. This analyst had the opportunity to discuss the practical aspects of supercruise capability with one of the F-22A test pilots some years ago. Not only were chase fighters unable to keep up, but in mock intercepts flown by F-16Cs and F-15Cs against development F-22A airframes, even modest 20 degree heading changes caused the teen series fighters to abort their intercepts, having burned their fuel down to bingo levels.
Supercruising Flankers?
Rafale has supercruise capability as well as the EF, so the possibility is there for The JF-17, but will depend on an appropriate engine.
You should not confuse the heat signature enhancement by an afterburner with supercruise .
Combat aircraft have had supersonic capability since the 1950s, exploiting afterburners to effectively multiply available thrust and thus overcome the drag rise characteristic of transonic and supersonic flight, as well as improving climb, turn and acceleration performance. The additional thrust advantage of the afterburner comes at a prohibitive price - fuel burn is multiplied severalfold as fuel is injected into the tailpipe and combusted. A byproduct of afterburner use is a dramatic increase in the aircraft's heat signature, the engine plumes becoming effectively an infrared beacon which can be detected and tracked from dozens of miles away.
Supercruise
Having the ability to sustain supersonic speeds without these drawbacks affords numerous advantages in combat. The first of these is that entering an engagement the supersonic fighter has a reserve of kinetic energy which a subsonic opponent does not have. As a result the supersonic fighter can often dictate the terms of the engagement.
More importantly, sustained supersonic speed presents genuine problems in engagement kinematics for an opposing conventional fighter. Even in Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat, air to air missiles have kinematic limitations. To effect a kill a fighter must position itself so the target falls into a 'no escape zone' for the missile type being used. Unless this precondition is met, the missile will likely run out of energy and be unable to engage the target.
In classical intercept geometries, fighters are typically vectored into a head to head closing geometry upon which the player with the earliest firing opportunity, whether afforded by longer radar/missile range, or supporting networking capability, has the advantage. Where both fighters have matched conventional kinematic capabilities, the game well and truly revolves around incremental advantages in missile capability, or situational awareness, provided by onboard or offboard sensors.
This delicate balance, and the advantages yielded by incremental imbalances in missile and sensor technology, will collapse once one of the fighters has the capacity to sustain supersonic speeds. As a result, even modest heading changes by the supersonic fighter, when positioning for the engagement, will force the conventional fighter to go into afterburner early, and typically will create enough separation to ruin the conventional fighter's missile shot geometry. In effect, conventional fighters flying against fighters with sustained supersonic capability usually do not get good opportunities for BVR missile shots. Only a very significant advantage in the kinematic performance of the missiles carried by conventional fighters can offset the advantages held by the player with sustained supersonic capability.
The classical case study is the obsolete Cold War MiG-25 Foxbat, used in reconnaissance, interceptor and defence suppression roles. Capable of sustaining Mach 1.8 class speeds even with external stores, the aircraft proved extremely difficult to engage during the 1991 Desert Storm campaign - the only case study we have of an air battle involving BVR combat and top tier conventional fighters such as the F-15C and F-14 series. While the US and Israelis have successfully killed Foxbats on numerous occasions, invariably this involved carefully setting up an engagement against a target behaving predictably.
The reality is that the situational awareness advantages afforded by modern ISR and networking capabilities only work where the fighters using them have kinematic parity with their opponents. Once the opposing fighter has a significant kinematic advantage, the tables may well be turned. Given that most modern fighter fleet operators have AEW&C capabilities, or are acquiring AEW&C capabilities, the line of argument which presents AEW&C and networking as an air combat panacea is little more than nonsense. The issue of long range Russian 'counter-AWACS' missiles such as the R-172 and R-37 is a consideration in its own right. AEW&C and networking are becoming a common prerequisite, driving the capability contest yet again into other areas - and supersonic cruise will be the next arena in the global competition for air superiority.
Achieving genuine supersonic cruise capability hinges on two technological prerequisites. The first is having a powerplant which develops enough dry thrust at altitude to offset supersonic airframe drag. The second is having an airframe design built for low supersonic drag. Unless both conditions are met, supersonic cruise capability is not achievable.
The airframe issues dictate a wing design typically with 45 degrees or more of leading edge sweep, and suitable fuselage area ruling. Moreover, weapons must be carried internally or in a semi-conformal or conformal arrangment, to avoid a supersonic drag penalty. Pylon mounted missiles are not the preferred strategy. To date, airframe aerodynamics have not been the obstacle in the supercruise game. Engine capabilities have remained the principal obstacle.
A turbofan engine designed for supersonic cruise will be characterised by a much higher turbine inlet temperature than contemporary 'conventional' fighter engines. It is this operating cycle which permits the engine to sustain higher dry thrust ratings at high altitudes. This has also proven to be the primary obstacle to date in building supercruise engines, as it requires advanced materials and advanced turbine cooling techniques.
The first service to recognise the importance of supercruise was the US Air Force, which incorporated supercruise into the early requirements definition of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, which eventually coalesced into today's F/A-22A Raptor. An extensive and expensive engine technology research and development effort led to the design of the Pratt and Whitney F119-PW-100 engine which powers the F-22A. Delivering around 35,000 lbf of afterburning thrust, the F119-PW-100 is the most powerful fighter engine manufactured in the Western world. The simplest qualitative measure of the F119-PW-100's performance is that this engine has a dry thrust performance envelope matching the afterburning thrust envelope of the F100-PW-100 series engines fitted to the F-15C/E and many F-16 variants.
As a result the F-22A is the only production fighter in existence with a genuine supersonic cruise capability and the enormous kinematic advantages this affords in combat. This analyst had the opportunity to discuss the practical aspects of supercruise capability with one of the F-22A test pilots some years ago. Not only were chase fighters unable to keep up, but in mock intercepts flown by F-16Cs and F-15Cs against development F-22A airframes, even modest 20 degree heading changes caused the teen series fighters to abort their intercepts, having burned their fuel down to bingo levels.
Supercruising Flankers?
Rafale has supercruise capability as well as the EF, so the possibility is there for The JF-17, but will depend on an appropriate engine.
You should not confuse the heat signature enhancement by an afterburner with supercruise .
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
Of the two fighters with super cruise ability; Rafael costs about $62-million per aircraft. Eurofighter (Typhoon) costs about $100-million. Thunder costs $20 to $25-million. As already posted everything comes with a cost.
Besides, I have strong doubts that the small JF-17 airframe is capable of receiving engines powerful enough to give it super cruise. Certainly not with the current and future versions of RD-93 or the Chinese Wopen engine.
Besides, I have strong doubts that the small JF-17 airframe is capable of receiving engines powerful enough to give it super cruise. Certainly not with the current and future versions of RD-93 or the Chinese Wopen engine.
monitor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,570
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Future JF-17 should have
*more powerful engine like RD-93MA/MKM or any Chinese equivalent
*Increase loitering time
* more hard point
*IRST
*AESA rader
*CFT
I think JF-17 should evolve into a headache for enemy then just a replacement fighter over next couple of year.
*more powerful engine like RD-93MA/MKM or any Chinese equivalent
*Increase loitering time
* more hard point
*IRST
*AESA rader
*CFT
I think JF-17 should evolve into a headache for enemy then just a replacement fighter over next couple of year.
shanis
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2014
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
for enemies ...
Syed Hussain
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2014
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Thanks for your reply...& the info on Multiple Airborne Missile Launchers was new for me. Mentioned engines though I have studied in detail. WS-10 or the 5th generation WS-15 can never fit into JF-17, for it they are making WS-13 but it's still no good. Any Chinese engine have no chance of achieving international standard quality prior than 2018-20..other than WS-10 which has been under development from quite a long time but its not complied to 5th or 4.5th generation standard which in current era is a must have technology standard.Anyways let's hope for the best.
MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Hi,
A young and knowledgeable Pakistani---good post---now tell me----when there is a plethora of paks on this board claiming to be know it all---but they have no clue about the chinese engine development or the massive hurdles that they are facing----how come you got this information that is different from what many believe in.
Syed Hussain
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2014
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Well hello Sir,
& muchas gracias for your complements
But the answer to your question will be too lengthy, to write down for me & to read for you. If put it simply, I just read, in fact I read a lot & more than that, I worry & care a lot...!
& muchas gracias for your complements
But the answer to your question will be too lengthy, to write down for me & to read for you. If put it simply, I just read, in fact I read a lot & more than that, I worry & care a lot...!
Dr. Strangelove
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,208
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
let me make a list
a nuclear reactors
a death beam
hyperspace engines
sub light engines
a nuclear reactors
a death beam
hyperspace engines
sub light engines
Ra'ad
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
A larger screen (18 inch)
4 TB storage
1080p video recording
iOS installed (ability for: custom apps, automation, control of the aircraft, and custom HUD design)
Smile detection in camera
Satcom for skype
Auto-pilot advanced( auto-flight, auto-take-off, auto landing, auto-stunt manoeuvres)
Bosch speakers surround system
4 TB storage
1080p video recording
iOS installed (ability for: custom apps, automation, control of the aircraft, and custom HUD design)
Smile detection in camera
Satcom for skype
Auto-pilot advanced( auto-flight, auto-take-off, auto landing, auto-stunt manoeuvres)
Bosch speakers surround system
MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Well hello Sir,
& muchas gracias for your complements
But the answer to your question will be too lengthy, to write down for me & to read for you. If put it simply, I just read, in fact I read a lot & more than that, I worry & care a lot...!
Denada-----Well---why don't you unburden yourself and share some of the stuff----it will take some load of you---hehn
Burger Boy
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2010
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
More hard points like 9 or 10
Faster speed at least mach 2
Better T/W ratio
Pesa or aesa radar
Faster speed at least mach 2
Better T/W ratio
Pesa or aesa radar
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report- Latest: Pakistan Space Agency
-
-
-
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report
- Latest: Pakistan Space Agency
-
-
-
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
