JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

Discussion in 'JF-17 Thunder' started by EagleEyes, Aug 5, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. EagleEyes

    EagleEyes PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    17,506
    Ratings:
    +25 / 15,543 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  2. Donatello

    Donatello PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    10,573
    Ratings:
    +24 / 11,161 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Wow!

    The previous one has 3852 posts.....i wonder how many were actually related to the topic....:blink:
     
  3. TaimiKhan

    TaimiKhan SENIOR MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    8,437
    Ratings:
    +6 / 13,405 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    The definition you have put forward about batch production is the management courses / industrial definition.

    Here in aircraft production, it refers to the orders being placed for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd batch, tranche or whatever you can call it. JF-17 will be inducted in 3 batches of 50 each, is an example of batch production.

    Plz check the below link and see the Production heading and see how Typhoon has been produced in Tranches / Batches depending on orders from customers which also includes some changes in the variants also as per the tranche / batch.

    Eurofighter Typhoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The figure 8 is for the first 8 JF-17s delivered to PAF during 2007-08 for further testing and evaluation at its end not 8 different parts of JF-17s. Its called SBP aircraft as full fledged production had not yet started as no orders received. PAF asked for some JF-17s so that it can test it further in Pakistan as per its own standards and requirements and see what it lacks which can be fulfilled before the final production starts.

    Yes its not called a prototype, but SBP aircraft do work as prototypes for the operator, the manufacturer calls it a prototype, but the user before finally inducting it does needs to do its own tests and evaluations before accepting the final design and in PAF's case, we used these 8 SBP aircraft as prototypes for training pilots, seeing whether it integrates as per requirements with our air defence requirements, communication compatibility, its avionics fully integrated with the PAF requirements and air defence infrastructure, training of ground staff, know how of the system, building of required infrastructure hard and soft both, etc etc, these all could not have been done in China and even if some things had been done, it would have been a very expensive endeavor.

    Thus it were SBP for us another name for prototypes for the PAF the operator of the aircraft, before final production starts and formal induction is done, it has to be fully checked out, we go for serial production and after getting 50, we come to know there is some big problem which all 50 needs to be rectified, just imagine what a nightmare it would be. So this is the usefulness of the SBP aircraft, they work as another kind of prototypes.

    I don't see any absurdness, reason being, would you use the 4-5 LSP Tejas LCAs in your Vayu Shakti exercises ?? Were they used recently even though there were 2-3 LSP Tejas in service ?? No.

    Reason being the IAF will first check them out fully as per their requirements, see if they fully are integrated with the IAF doctrine, infrastructure etc etc and once done, IAF will formally induct them and then you will see them in your next Vayu Shakti exercise.

    Small Batch Production SBP is another name of Limited Series Production LSP which you guys use for your LCA. Purpose is same, only acronym are changed.

    Hope this would be enough to make you understand what is the SBP in PAF's terminology and the difference between a prototype & SBP and also SBP are not used officially as they are not inducted, once the first Sqd was inducted, the first 8 JF-17s would not be called SBPs anymore as now they have become fully operational with the operator PAF and have passed all the parameters set for it.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  4. mughaljee

    mughaljee FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,485
    Ratings:
    +0 / 5,491 / -0
    Sir TaimiKhan
    Have you any information with the RD-93 Engine how much JF-17 can pick load ?
    and if we use WS-13 then how much JF-17 can carry ?
     
  5. TaimiKhan

    TaimiKhan SENIOR MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    8,437
    Ratings:
    +6 / 13,405 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Well the weapon load is somewhere around 3,800-4,000KG, the figure that i know. I know the official figure is somewhere 3,600KG, but due to usage of composites and increased thrust, the weapon load bearing has been increased.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. hataf

    hataf BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    435
    Ratings:
    +0 / 387 / -0
    you used word has been so its already increases or going to be increased in future

    and composites are already used on thunder or going to be used in future....
     
  7. TaimiKhan

    TaimiKhan SENIOR MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    8,437
    Ratings:
    +6 / 13,405 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Composites have already been started to be used, but to a lesser extend, with passage of time, the percentage will increase further.

    Currently JF-17 can take up load upto 3,800-4,000KG and as time goes by and if we did get a more powerful engine, it will go up further.

    With more powerful engine as well as more composites, the weapon load can go to 5,000KG or even more.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  8. mjnaushad

    mjnaushad SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    6,697
    Ratings:
    +1 / 5,144 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    TK..Dont you think 4000 KG is enough weight to carry....Why do we need more.....I mean if a plane carrying let say 4 1000lb Bombs....it will make 470*4 = 1880.......And assuming the missile are 30 to 40 KG each (i really don't know the real weight, Correct me if i am understating it) .....4 missiles *40 = 160 KG

    So with 4 1000lb bombs and 4 missiles....

    1880+160 = 2040 .......We still have almost 2000KG free.......
     
  9. TaimiKhan

    TaimiKhan SENIOR MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    8,437
    Ratings:
    +6 / 13,405 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Grippen can take a 5,000+KG weapon load and the Grippen NG will take around 6,000KG.

    The more weapon load capacity, the better.

    As aircraft then can go up with external fuel tanks, as well as with its weapon payload.

    Check out pictures of a fully loaded Grippen C/D model and then the Grippen NG, you will see the difference.

    An aircraft flies up not just with its weapon load, it needs external fuel tanks also, which weight a lot.

    One SD-10 BVR missile weights somewhere like 200KG, while the WVR missiles weight like 100KG+ depending on the model and variant.

    In future JF-17 would be needing MERs to carry greater quantity of weapons which would also increase the weight also.

    With greater weapon load, it can carry more heavier weapons, like anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles in a single sortie, instead of a single weapon.

    Lots of benefits for a higher weapon load.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 9
  10. mughaljee

    mughaljee FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,485
    Ratings:
    +0 / 5,491 / -0
    WS-13 vs RD-93.

    Length (m)
    WS-13-->4.15
    RD-93-->4.25
    %Diff-->-2.35%


    Diameter (m)
    WS-13-->1.02
    RD-93-->1.04
    %Diff-->-1.92%


    Weight (Kg)
    WS-13-->1135
    RD-93-->1055
    %Diff-->7.58


    Thrust (Full After-Burning, kN)
    WS-13-->86.37
    RD-93-->81.3
    %Diff-->6.24%


    Thrust (Dry, kN)
    WS-13-->56.75
    RD-93-->50.0
    %Diff-->13.50%


    Bypass ratio
    WS-13-->0.57
    RD-93-->0.49
    %Diff-->16.33%

    Sir, TaimiKhan
    Is this thrust quite sufficient for our requirement/needs ?
    After the new engine , What will be the speed difference ?


    (Thanks to Farhan)
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2010
  11. hataf

    hataf BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    435
    Ratings:
    +0 / 387 / -0
    larger load mean can also carry laser pods as well as jamming pods....

    thanks for the information Taimi bahi

    :china::pakistan::china::pakistan::china:
     
  12. Donatello

    Donatello PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    10,573
    Ratings:
    +24 / 11,161 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom


    Yes, but MERs would mostly be used lets say for the SRAAMs or BVR missiles which shouldn't weigh more than 250kg in any case.

    The problem is that because the strongest part of the airframe is right under the fuselage or right next to it, the those 3 hard-points are taken up by fuel tanks, which doesn't leave any space for Anti-ship or cruise missiles which weigh a lot. We cannot put heavy weapons like those under wing.

    So even if we use composites, the total amount of weapons carried is not just determined by the engine output but also what the aircraft airframe can take.

    Su-30 can carry anti-ship missiles under the wings while JF-17 can't, for example.

    For precisely this reason there is no point in making JF-17 carry heavy loads, it's mostly a A-A fighter, so PAF better concentrate on Air to air weapons and avionics. We need J-10 for heavy role and as seen by its 11 hard-points and stronger air frame, we might use those for bombing runs while Jf-17 provide escorts .

    F-16s can be used for backup or air-interdiction roles..
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  13. sancho

    sancho PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    12,828
    Ratings:
    +27 / 10,495 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Germany
    Actually not the increased payload makes Gripen NG interesting, but the airframe changes that increased the number of heavy stations.
    This difference with the increased internal fuel makes it way more comparable to medium class fighters, than just some more payload.
    An actual JF 17 design with increased payload can still carry only fuel tanks, or heavy weapons on 1 x centerline and 2 x wing stations. Gripen NG instead has 2 + 2 heavy weapon stations for fuel, or weapons now, one have to admit that this is a pretty clever solution by the Swedes!
     
  14. TaimiKhan

    TaimiKhan SENIOR MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    8,437
    Ratings:
    +6 / 13,405 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    MERs can be used to carry 250KG & 500KG PGMs also, we did saw JF-17 prototype with MERs having 2 bombs on each MER under each wing.

    The recent FIA had a JF-17 model displayed with an anti-hip missile under the inner wing pylon, also the static display had a C-802 displayed at the inner wing pylon, thus JF-17 can carry 2 anti-ship missiles under each inner wing pylon on each wing and if required 3, with one under the middle pylon.

    So MERs give you lot of flexibility and you can carry smaller PGM bombs and can engage multiple targets in one sortie.

    JF-17 has been designed as a multi-role aircraft, A2A is not its primary role it should be able to do both ground attack as well as air defence, thus it needs to have a payload capacity for taking heavier bombs as well as multiple bombs with MERs.

    And with time the strength of the airframe would be more strengthened and composites would help a lot in this regard as they will provide further strength, enabling the JF-17 to take higher load on its inner and outer wing pylons.

    Here see an image describing JF-17s load bearing capacity under each pylon.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 7
  15. TaimiKhan

    TaimiKhan SENIOR MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    8,437
    Ratings:
    +6 / 13,405 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Gripen NG major change came in the landing gear section which gave it sufficient roam to add 2 more hard points under the fuselage, rest of the hard points remained the same.

    Plus whatever pictures you see of Grippen which i have seen so far, NG also has heavy weapons under the fuselage and the inner most pylons under the wings, the outer ones mostly are seen carrying A2A missiles.

    Plus with addition of pylons, the major reason for NG capable to carry such heavy load came due to its engine, F414 with 98kN thrust compared to the earlier 80kN engine, a big boost for its to carry weapon load.

    So even if JF-17 lacks 2 additional under the fuselage pylons, it can to some what compensate it by using MER under the fuselage also, plus the wings have sufficient room to add one more hard point under each wing.

    But such changes need also a more powerful engine as well as structural strength.

    But yeah, Swedes did a remarkable thing with the NG redesign, but the redesign only became successful with more powerful engine, which is an essential part also.

    JF-17 structure if strengthen, 2 more hard points added under the wings, JF-17 can still carry a lot of heavy load compared to current load.

    Here see the different between older Grippen & the NG:

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 8
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.