CHENGDU REPORTEDLY ACHIEVES MILESTONE IN JF-17 BLOCK-III DEVELOPMENT

[The-Hack]

Here it is
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/ldrat.html

very easily and simple illustration of L/D ................ the lift force push upwards while drag force downwards ...............

I want to know from where do you get those variables of F35
Give your sources bro[/QUOTE]
Ok fine sir, i try to upload relevant file.................. in this file you can see the details of F-35 variants

 

[Ultima Thule]

can you read this 7.8 T/W

And this for only WS-13 not for the whole system

 

[The-Hack]

And this for only WS-13 not for the whole system

Ok, very interesting............. the T/W ratio for aircraft & for engine may deffer from each-other........... can you explain in few lines, please???

 

[Ultima Thule]

Ok, very interesting............. the T/W ratio for aircraft & for engine may deffer from each-other........... can you explain in few lines, please???

Engines have their own weight and produces specific thrust if your engine produce low thrust compare to weight of engine then it called a low T/W ratio engines whereas large thrust engine like f119 has sufficient thrust to overcome weight those type of engine called high T/W engines

 

[Sine Nomine]

NaaMarey bhai. We are all here to learn from one another. Dont let that aspect go. You are far too mind to this humble man and I am not wrothy of such accolades. Where I learn from you I will appreciate it.
A

Sir,one can't have alternate of "experiance"which comes with age.You have more knowledge about these things then i would have at any phase of my days.We are just shooting here and there,we really come here to learn from you guys.

 

[MastanKhan]

If speed is not primary concern for fighter aircraft than why Russia is building those aircraft which having the speed over 2.35 (Sukhoi Su-27, Mig-31)............ china also have majority of fighters which has the speed over 2.0 mach.......... F-35 have the speed over 1.8 mach
....................... you are right in your direction but my point is that speed is much essential for aircraft as all other features have their importance.

Hi,

A design and function is a frame of mind---even though the mig25 could fly mach3---but at that speed its engine would be destroyed.

As long as the aircraft could out fly the speed of the missile coming at it---till then the higher speed formula had support---but now when the missiles outrun the aircraft---there is more focus on sub systems to make the aircraft invisible---have counter measures in place against the missiles---.

And that is the reason that the SR71 does not fly anymore---because it cannot out fly the modern missiles---.

 

[CriticalThought]

And you think F35 has a low L/D ratio then you're wrong, there no L/D ratio available on the net for F35

I don't simply 'think' so, I know so because stealth aircraft in general make a design compromise. Their shape is necessarily non-aerodynamic in order to make them stealthy. This means they need a more powerful engine to get the same speed as a non-stealth jet.

 

[Ultima Thule]

I don't simply 'think' so, I know so because stealth aircraft in general make a design compromise. Their shape is necessarily non-aerodynamic in order to make them stealthy. This means they need a more powerful engine to get the same speed as a non-stealth jet.

No you live past this is not 80 that designer think that either make stealthy or build faster jets, there is cad to do both (MAKE THEM STEALTHY AND BUILT FASTER JETS ) prime example is f22 and by the way who tells you that current stealth jets are non aerodynamic

 

[GriffinsRule]

The F35 is underpowered. They are developing a new engine that will bring up the speed.

Supersonic flight IS actually used during fights:

1. To quickly close the distance. This was actually employed by one of our Viper drivers against encroaching Russian plane.

2. To increase the range and lethality of BVR. A BVR fired from higher speed and height will carry more potential and kinetic energy, resulting in longer range and more force at impact. This is used by Russian Flankers.

3. To quickly escape after launching a nuclear strike. On of the factors limiting the max yield of nuke you can carry is the speed at which you can escape.

4. If your customers require a Mach 2 speed, you will build it just like u had to build the B version to fulfill market demand.

5. Gripen, a plane of similar class, has a max speed of Mach 2. If it is so irrelevant, then why did they put this feature on it?

This is the theory. Should it apply to Thunder? I will leave that for discussion. Personally, I am keenly waiting for the specs of Block 3 to be released.

I really think this whole debate of Mach 2 or 1.8 is basically making a mountain out of a mole hole.
@CriticalThought
1. I agree with closing the distance, though I have no way to validate the example you gave. Regardless, as is the case with our planes, esp JF-17 (as its being the one critiqued here), they are single engine with limited internal fuel capacity. No plane goes Mach 2 with fuel tanks slung under the wings or fuselage. Therefore at full afterburner, you will be bingo very soon if trying to sustain such a speed. Hence it might be useful in terms of interception or a quick egress, but with the geography of Pakistan as is and the distances that need to be covered from any FOB, the little bit of extra speed is not a make or break deal.

2. This is an important point and it is one of the ways the F-22 achieves superiority over rivals. It is able to fly higher and faster for longer duration and coupled with it sensors, able to execute BVR engagements from much greater distances then conventional 4gen fighters. However, to really be able to utilize this capability, the fighter has to be able to supercruise (that is fly above Mach speeds without the use of afterburners and thus reduced fuel consumption. No other aircraft is capable of that feet for any meaningful duration or flight regime (for eg, in a dive) while carrying a weapons load (have to carry internally so no 4gen planes qualify). Hence, while this point is true, and an F-16 or JF-17 etc shooting off a BVR missile at 1.4 mach would be at an advantage vs one shooting off at lower speeds, I don't see PAF or any other regional air forces, including IAF, to really use this at the max of its potential.
We also have to keep in mind that during any conflict, both air forces would be deployed to FOBs as well and with the short distances and flight times involved, not having mach 2 is not a major factor for JF-17.

3. I am not sure if this is entirely correct. WWII bombers were not flying at Mach speeds when they dropped their nukes over Japan. The lower the flight profile of the mission, the greater the need to get out of the blast radius of course, but again, I don't see that as a real possibility anyways. If anything, with the advent of missile in the subcontinent, the delivery system is not going to be aircraft anyways.

4. I can't speak to what other air forces might need or want, however, as with anything, there are design compromises made and they would know that already. DSI for simpler manufacturing, maintenance for slightly lower speed is a trade-off. But its not the same as not having a 2-seater from the get go.

5. Again, Gripen has different design features as well as requirements, mainly the interception of Soviet bombers over the vast ocean spaces. Again, they are not going to go Mach 2 carrying much in terms of fuel tanks or weapons ... It is also quiet possible that mach 2 for Gripen was not the intention or requirement but just a consequence of its design? Again, can only presume here since we have no idea really of what Saab's intention was or what the requirement was for the Swedes.

Should it apply to JF-17? I would argue it is not worth the slight gain we might see at a great cost as its usefulness is not quiet apparent in our theater of operations.

 

[CriticalThought]

No you live past this is not 80 that designer think that either make stealthy or build faster jets, there is cad to do both (MAKE THEM STEALTHY AND BUILT FASTER JETS ) prime example is f22 and by the way who tells you that current stealth jets are non aerodynamic

Try reading actual textbooks on aerodynamics and stealth technology. I have created a dedicated thread on a book about stealth technology. Search for it and read what I have posted there.

I really think this whole debate of Mach 2 or 1.8 is basically making a mountain out of a mole hole.
@CriticalThought
1. I agree with closing the distance, though I have no way to validate the example you gave. Regardless, as is the case with our planes, esp JF-17 (as its being the one critiqued here), they are single engine with limited internal fuel capacity. No plane goes Mach 2 with fuel tanks slung under the wings or fuselage. Therefore at full afterburner, you will be bingo very soon if trying to sustain such a speed. Hence it might be useful in terms of interception or a quick egress, but with the geography of Pakistan as is and the distances that need to be covered from any FOB, the little bit of extra speed is not a make or break deal.

A2A refuelling plays a role here.

2. This is an important point and it is one of the ways the F-22 achieves superiority over rivals. It is able to fly higher and faster for longer duration and coupled with it sensors, able to execute BVR engagements from much greater distances then conventional 4gen fighters. However, to really be able to utilize this capability, the fighter has to be able to supercruise (that is fly above Mach speeds without the use of afterburners and thus reduced fuel consumption. No other aircraft is capable of that feet for any meaningful duration or flight regime (for eg, in a dive) while carrying a weapons load (have to carry internally so no 4gen planes qualify). Hence, while this point is true, and an F-16 or JF-17 etc shooting off a BVR missile at 1.4 mach would be at an advantage vs one shooting off at lower speeds, I don't see PAF or any other regional air forces, including IAF, to really use this at the max of its potential.
We also have to keep in mind that during any conflict, both air forces would be deployed to FOBs as well and with the short distances and flight times involved, not having mach 2 is not a major factor for JF-17.

This is also used by Russian flankers:

http://ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

Also, in one of the recent shows on 6th Sep/14th Aug (don't remember exactly), one of the actual fighter pilots of Thunder gave an interview and clearly stated that they regularly fly high and fast. His words were (approximately) "When we are flying very high we go at supersonic speeds".

3. I am not sure if this is entirely correct. WWII bombers were not flying at Mach speeds when they dropped their nukes over Japan. The lower the flight profile of the mission, the greater the need to get out of the blast radius of course, but again, I don't see that as a real possibility anyways. If anything, with the advent of missile in the subcontinent, the delivery system is not going to be aircraft anyways.

This has always been a consideration in delivery by aircraft. Read up on interviews given by the pilots of Enola Gray. The escape flight, and the little time they had to escape was a very real danger.

(bold added by me)
http://www.strategic-air-command.com/weapons/nuclear_bomb_chart.htm

Weighing in at over ten tons, the Mark 17 was the heaviest U.S. nuclear weapon ever built. It could only be carried by the
B-52. It also had the second highest yield of any U.S. weapon. It was deployed using a single 64-foot parachute. The delay in fall gave the aircraft additional time to escape the blast. Two hundred were produced between July 1954, and November 1955. All retired in November of 1956.

In the context of PAF, there is a reason why Mirages are not being retired still.

4. I can't speak to what other air forces might need or want, however, as with anything, there are design compromises made and they would know that already. DSI for simpler manufacturing, maintenance for slightly lower speed is a trade-off. But its not the same as not having a 2-seater from the get go.

The Block 3 is going to be radically redesigned anyways. This is a personal topic of interest for me and I am waiting with bated breath for the specs to be realized.

One thing that adds fuel to my little 'conspiracy theory' is that AVIC advertises FC-1 with max speed of 1.8 Mach, whereas PAC advertises with 1.6 Mach. IF it can achieve 1.8, it can be pushed towards 2.0. Let us see.

The other interesting evolution is the swept back vertical on the B version. It provides better supersonic flight characteristics due to less impact of shock waves.

5. Again, Gripen has different design features as well as requirements, mainly the interception of Soviet bombers over the vast ocean spaces. Again, they are not going to go Mach 2 carrying much in terms of fuel tanks or weapons ... It is also quiet possible that mach 2 for Gripen was not the intention or requirement but just a consequence of its design? Again, can only presume here since we have no idea really of what Saab's intention was or what the requirement was for the Swedes.

NOTHING on a modern aircraft is merely a 'consequence of design', especially a published max speed. Such publication establishes the role of the aircraft in the eyes of the world and impacts sales. Every modern fighter aims for a Mach 2 max airspeed, and if Thunder is to go head to head with the best of them, it should have this characteristic.

Should it apply to JF-17? I would argue it is not worth the slight gain we might see at a great cost as its usefulness is not quiet apparent in our theater of operations.

It should definitely apply. Because of all the reasons given so far. As a matter of fact, I want the Thunder to have supercruise ability as well.

 

[razgriz19]

Now back up your claims with hard numbers. Show numerically that T/W ratio of F-35 is enough to reach Mach 2.

Ahh Do you remember the Concorde?
It flew Mach 2+

 

[Ultima Thule]

Try reading actual textbooks on aerodynamics and stealth technology. I have created a dedicated thread on a book about stealth technology. Search for it and read what I have posted there.

I have to you knows nothing about aerodynamic f117 is non aerodynamic stealth jet whereas f22 is lot more stealthy and has well design aerodynamic

 

[CriticalThought]

I have to you knows nothing about aerodynamic f117 is non aerodynamic stealth jet whereas f22 is lot more stealthy and has well design aerodynamic

Right, here you have crossed a red line. Now let me tell you this. I find you a general scumbag and a waste of space on the forum. You - I am not going to give you the respect of 'dear Sir' even - need to learn manners.

Ahh Do you remember the Concorde?
It flew Mach 2+

Sorry, I missed the point here. Are we merely reminiscing?

 

[Ultima Thule]

Ahh Do you remember the Concorde?
It flew Mach 2+

But sir Concorde was using variable ramp intake not fixed intake

Right, here you have crossed a red line. Now let me tell you this. I find you a general scumbag and a waste of space on the forum. You - I am not going to give you the respect of 'dear Sir' even - need to learn manners.

What manner i didn't say bad word for to you sir you why you thinks that current gen stealth jets are nonaerodynamics may be they were in the past but not now and care to explain

 

[CriticalThought]

But sir Concorde was using variable ramp intake not fixed intake


What manner i didn't say bad word for to you sir you why you thinks that current gen stealth jets are nonaerodynamics may be they were in the past but not now and care to explain

The word aerodynamic encompasses many elements in the flight profile. There is the aerodynamics of turning, there is the aerodynamics of lift, and then there is the aerodynamics of sheer speed. The angular surfaces needed for stealth are necessarily suboptimal from the point of view of reducing drag specifically, which will reduce their max speed given the same thrust, as compared to a non-stealthy jet.