JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

Tempest II said:

View attachment 137346

Click to expand...

link plz ....

Tempest II said:

View attachment 137346

Click to expand...

Damn,are we expecting a video of cm-400akg firing by JFT?

Tempest II said:

View attachment 137346

Click to expand...

Anchor

HRK said:

link plz ....

Click to expand...

Here:

Tempest II said:

View attachment 121140
Here is my post from July 2010 quoting the same 1:1.1.

Click to expand...

1(thrust)/1.1(weight)=~0.91

For normal takeoff weight of JFT (9100kg) that comes around ~8300kg thrust which fits perfectly with RD93 spec...

If RD93ma is put into it then the two will increase to more than 1 provided that normal takeoff weight does not increase to more than 9300kg.

farhan_9909 said:

Damn,are we expecting a video of cm-400akg firing by JFT?

Click to expand...

HRK said:

link plz ....

Click to expand...

Don't raise your hopes yet, the picture on TV is one of the photoshop @Najam Khan made. Check serial number 10-132

Bilal. said:

1(thrust)/1.1(weight)=~0.91

For normal takeoff weight of JFT (9100kg) that comes around ~8300kg thrust which fits perfectly with RD93 spec...

If RD93ma is put into it then the two will increase to more than 1 provided that normal takeoff weight does not increase to more than 9300kg.

Click to expand...

22000 lb of thrust (equivalent to ~ 98 KN)figure is clearly written in the article,

so as you have calculated thrust:weight ratio => 9800 (thrust) / 9100 (weight) = 1.0769 ~ 1.1

HRK said:

View attachment 137352

22000 lb of thrust (equivalent to ~ 98 KN)figure is clearly written in the article,

so as you have calculated thrust:weight ratio => 9800 (thrust) / 9100 (weight) = 1.0769 ~ 1.1

Click to expand...

The RD93 thrust part is pure speculation on the writer's part and not a direct quote from Wg Cdr Ronald.

Plus, it's thrust to weight ratio not weight to thrust ratio, meaning

1:1.1 = 1/1.1 = ~8300/9100 = ~0.91

CM-400AKG (courtesy of HDLSL)

This supersonic standoff missile was first on display at the 2012 Zhuhai Airshow as part of FC-1/JF-17's "complete" weapon package. Unlike most modern ASMs flying at the low altitude, the missile flies a rare high ballistic trajectory, powered by a solid rocket motor. It appears that CM-400AKG may have evolved from the earlier SY-400 SRBM. Therefore the effectiveness of such attack profile is still unknown. Some specifications: weight 900kg, max range 240km, max speed Mach 5.5 (at diving stage?). It has INS during the mid-course and utilizes active radar/passive radar/IIR seeker with target-recognition capabilities at the terminal stage, which may improve its accuracy. The missile is claimed to be capable of terminal maneuver of some degree to avoid interception by SAMs. CM-400AKG is speculated to have been designed to attack fixed or "slow moving", high value ground targets. Up to two CM-400AKGs can be carried by an FC-1/JF-17. A small yellow dorsal antenna was installed probably to provide the datalink between the missile and the aircraft. It has yet to see when CM-400AGK will enter the service with PAF.
- Last Updated 10/20/14

Bilal. said:

The RD93 thrust part is pure speculation on the writer's part and not a direct quote from Wg Cdr Ronald.

Plus, it's thrust to weight ratio not weight to thrust ratio, meaning

1:1.1 = 1/1.1 = ~8300/9100 = ~0.91

Click to expand...

In the same article, it is mentioned that block II will carry 3000lbs more payload than block I through strengthening wing roots.

Bilal. said:

The RD93 thrust part is pure speculation on the writer's part and not a direct quote from Wg Cdr Ronald.

Plus, it's thrust to weight ratio not weight to thrust ratio, meaning

1:1.1 = 1/1.1 = ~8300/9100 = ~0.91

Click to expand...

bhai jaan weight as '1.1' does not make sense by any far fetched way, can you explain weight = 1.1 of what .... ???

secondly how would you account additional weight of 3000 lb (1360.7771 or ~1361 Kg) in this calculation as the weight will be around 10461 Kg

> 1361 (additional weight)+ 9100 (current max take off weight) = 10461 Kg

so as per the supposed "8300 Kg thrust" the TWR would be (8300/10461 = 0.7934) ~ 0.8 which is not possible to be accepted by anyone for the 2nd block of a 4th generation Multirole Fighter Jet

now calculate again with additional weight of 1361 Kg and 9800 Kg thrust figures for block-II:

TWR = (9800 /10461 ) = 0.9368 again its not the ideal '1 or above 1' figure but a respectable figure for a LIGHT WEIGHT FIGHTER with respectable amount of WEAPON WEIGHT on it.

so it is safe to 'assume' that the 'current block-I' of JF-17 is enjoying the 1.1 TWR, but this value will come down to 0.93 TWR due to the additional weight in block-II.

In the end I would say that anyone of us could be right or wrong in his analysis /calculations so wait for the future to be unfold.

HRK said:

bhai jaan weight as '1.1' does not make sense by any far fetched way, can you explain weight = 1.1 of what .... ???

Click to expand...

It means that for every 1.1 unit of weight it has 1 unit of thrust. Like for each 1.1 kg there would be 1 KgF of thrust.

secondly how would you account additional weight of 3000 lb (1360.7771 or ~1361 Kg) in this calculation as the weight will be around 10461 Kg

> 1361 (additional weight)+ 9100 (current max take off weight) = 10461 Kg

so as per the supposed "8300 Kg thrust" the TWR would be (8300/10461 = 0.7934) ~ 0.8 which is not possible to be accepted by anyone for the 2nd block of a 4th generation Multirole Fighter Jet

now calculate again with additional weight of 1361 Kg and 9800 Kg thrust figures for block-II:

TWR = (9800 /10461 ) = 0.9368 again its not the ideal '1 or above 1' figure but a respectable figure for a LIGHT WEIGHT FIGHTER with respectable amount of WEAPON WEIGHT on it.

so it is safe to 'assume' that the 'current block-I' of JF-17 is enjoying the 1.1 TWR, but this value will come down to 0.93 TWR due to the additional weight in block-II.

In the end I would say that anyone of us could be right or wrong in his analysis /calculations so wait for the future to be unfold.

Click to expand...

TWR is calculated for normal takeoff weight not max takeoff weight so the whole additional payload can't be assumed to be added to normal takeoff weight. In fact, normal take weight might still remain the same. We don't know what the normal takeoff weight of block 2 would be so its too early to speculate.

On the other hand at 98KN the TWR of RD-93 would be close to 10 that's more than EJ200, M88 and F-414. Do you imagine that some minor tweaks have achieved a performance level beyond these engines while Russia's own upgrade RD-93MA has achieved just ~92KN? It would require a major undertaking to upgrade to such level.

Actually 98KN is ~10000Kg ~22000 lb i.e. 11 ton class ...
This will improve the current initial climb rate from 249 m/s to somewhere around 280+ m/s for block-I.
But in all the presentations by CAC in Dubai Air Show and elsewhere to-date... climb rate has never been stated to be greater than 249 m/s.
Also the 9100Kg is the normal AA load and not max take off weight (that would be 12,700Kg for block-I).
The 9100Kg normal load will only be affected by any addition to the dry weight of the engine and nothing else.
The additional 1361Kg max load increase will take the max take off weight to 14061Kg for block-II.

Just my 2 cents.

Bratva said:

Link from where you copied the picture ?

Click to expand...

fyjs.cn/bbs, a chinese military forum.
As the photo's watermark suggests.