JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Armstrong]

Nope, the JF-17 is built around a core concept.. a core creed.. which is at the heart of everything the fighter is:

Cost-effective and self reliant. If it breaks that.. then its a failure in its main purpose.

Yaraa phir eik cheez tou bataooo : After the last of the 150 Jf-17s have rolled off the line how capable would we be to develop a 4.5th Generation Aircraft, theoretically, if we had the available funds ?

 

[Nishan_101]

So how many Block-IIs are planned? 50? or 110 of these?

 

[Manticore]

Yaraa phir eik cheez tou bataooo : After the last of the 150 Jf-17s have rolled off the line how capable would we be to develop a 4.5th Generation Aircraft, theoretically, if we had the available funds ?

In terms of design, manufacturing technology , metallurgy / composites, rcs reduction or avionics ? In some of these aspects the jf-17 is comparable to other 4+ aircraft

The biggest hindrance is the single light rd93 engine -- I f you want to make a fighter with better range / payload capabilities, you need two rd93 class engines like in mig29 thus doubling the maintenance cost or one better engine like in j10/f16 --- first have engine availability and then design a 4.5+ fighter around it -- or better upgrade jf17 blocks with ifr probe/ better avionics/ stand off precision guided weapons like gripen, get old f16s & upgrade 'em and go for 5th gen designing... which cant occur either due to decreased funds

 

[Basel]

Which news was this? Would you go find it?
In the meantime , I would suggest you not speculate too much in terms of a stealthy JF-17 and hover around the articles and statements which are official..such as interviews of PAC/CATIC personnel and articles in reputed magazines.

I will try to find it, as that news was on a news channel, but I will request all members if anyone of them have that news please post it, as some time back a member also referred to that news about JF-17s.

Here are links of articles which suggest MOU was signed between China & Pakistan for stealthy JF-17.

China-Pak in MoU to Develop Stealth Variant of JF-17 Thunder | ASIAN DEFENCE NEWS
.
China, Pak in MoU to develop stealth variant on JF-17 Thunder
.
PTT ARCHIVE:China, Pak in MoU to develop stealth variant on JF-17 Thunder

Discussed on this forum too, here is link:

China-Pak in MoU to develop stealth variant of JF-17 Thunder

 

[Donatello]

In terms of design, manufacturing technology , metallurgy / composites, rcs reduction or avionics ? In some of these aspects the jf-17 is comparable to other 4+ aircraft

The biggest hindrance is the single light rd93 engine -- I f you want to make a fighter with better range / payload capabilities, you need two rd93 class engines like in mig29 thus doubling the maintenance cost or one better engine like in j10/f16 --- first have engine availability and then design a 4.5+ fighter around it -- or better upgrade jf17 blocks with ifr probe/ better avionics/ stand off precision guided weapons like gripen, get old f16s & upgrade 'em and go for 5th gen designing... which cant occur either due to decreased funds

If you are adding two RD-33/93 then the whole concept changes. Mig 29 for instance needed two RD93s as Russians needed something to counter the punch that single engine F-16 could carry. They didn't have one engine good enough to do the job. The F-16 with GE/PW engine can achieve with one engine what Mig 29 needs two for.

Single engine, more load carrying capability needs a higher class engine, but then the concept doesn't remain light-weight JF-17 anymore, rather approaches that of J-10. More payload, range etc with a bigger engine and bigger MTOW overall.

JF-17 replaces the light fighters and interceptors, i.e. Mirage III/V and F-7s. It offers more hardpoints, way better avionics and radar plus BVR missiles and Air to ground and Air to Sea capability. Plus it's an agile dog fighter.

 

[SQ8]

I will try to find it, as that news was on a news channel, but I will request all members if anyone of them have that news please post it, as some time back a member also referred to that news about JF-17s.

Here are links of articles which suggest MOU was signed between China & Pakistan for stealthy JF-17.

China-Pak in MoU to Develop Stealth Variant of JF-17 Thunder | ASIAN DEFENCE NEWS
.
China, Pak in MoU to develop stealth variant on JF-17 Thunder
.
PTT ARCHIVE:China, Pak in MoU to develop stealth variant on JF-17 Thunder

Discussed on this forum too, here is link:

China-Pak in MoU to develop stealth variant of JF-17 Thunder

The whole thing is third party this and third party that. Look for something from PAC officials directly, they are the most reliable source in such matters. The last interview said nothing.

 

[Basel]

The whole thing is third party this and third party that. Look for something from PAC officials directly, they are the most reliable source in such matters. The last interview said nothing.

Unable to find any thing official from PAC on internet.

 

[RAMPAGE]

The whole thing is third party this and third party that. Look for something from PAC officials directly, they are the most reliable source in such matters. The last interview said nothing.

Sir i remember you were the one who called block II a fanboy's dream and now the officials are talking about even 4th-5th block. Now that even an AESA radar is underdevelopment for the thunders, it is safe to assume that JF-17 will eventually evolve into a 4.5 generation aircraft although expecting anything more from the program would be irrational.

 

[SQ8]

Sir i remember you were the one who called block II a fanboy's dream and now the officials are talking about even 4th-5th block. Now that even an AESA radar is underdevelopment for the thunders, it is safe to assume that JF-17 will eventually evolve into a 4.5 generation aircraft although expecting anything more from the program would be irrational.

I stand by my statement of calling a "Stealth, AESA equipped structure modified, hardpoints etc" Block II a fanboys dream.
I did not say that a block-II would not happen.
Yes they are talking about a 4th 5th block.. but that is years away.. and when it gets to that.. 4.5 generation will be getting old and obsolete.

 

[ziaulislam]

i think AESA and single increase in hard point for pod missions, rd 93 improvement as suggested by russian sources or ws-13 may happen but beyond that its extremely unlikely that any major changes will be done

 

[niaz]

One has to keep in mind that there is always a trade off in the aircraft design. A bigger engine means more thrust but also means more weight thus less agility. Same thing applies to avionics package and more hard points.

J17 is essentially a low cost/ lightweight agile fighter with limited range and endurance. I am not referring to ferry range but fully loaded low-low-low range. Regardless of the wishful thinking, ground realty is that JF-17 would be at a serious disadvantage in a hostile environment patrolled by SU30- Mk1 and Rafael. Therefore JF-17 is more suitable for use within a short distance from friendly territory where, in the event of being out gunned, help can arrive quickly.

In my humble opinion, 150 aircrafts or 9 squadrons of this type are sufficient for PAF needs. That is 3 squadrons each dedicated to air to air, air to ground and defending the 200 mile economic zone in the anti- naval version.

Interdiction/ ground attack deep inside the enemy territory and providing air over to the ground forces in the enemy airspace should be left to heavier longer range aircrafts such as F-16 & J-20 as these aircraft have better chance of survival. Therefore rather than buying JF-17 beyond Block III, funds would better spent on additional F-16 block 52 and/ or J-20.

 

[Donatello]

One has to keep in mind that there is always a trade off in the aircraft design. A bigger engine means more thrust but also means more weight thus less agility. Same thing applies to avionics package and more hard points.

J17 is essentially a low cost/ lightweight agile fighter with limited range and endurance. I am not referring to ferry range but fully loaded low-low-low range. Regardless of the wishful thinking, ground realty is that JF-17 would be at a serious disadvantage in a hostile environment patrolled by SU30- Mk1 and Rafael. Therefore JF-17 is more suitable for use within a short distance from friendly territory where, in the event of being out gunned, help can arrive quickly.

In my humble opinion, 150 aircrafts or 9 squadrons of this type are sufficient for PAF needs. That is 3 squadrons each dedicated to air to air, air to ground and defending the 200 mile economic zone in the anti- naval version.

Interdiction/ ground attack deep inside the enemy territory and providing air over to the ground forces in the enemy airspace should be left to heavier longer range aircrafts such as F-16 & J-20 as these aircraft have better chance of survival. Therefore rather than buying JF-17 beyond Block III, funds would better spent on additional F-16 block 52 and/ or J-20.

Yes, but we have no firm commitment in J-20 or J31 program???

 

[Informant]

Yes, but we have no firm commitment in J-20 or J31 program???

Nothing before 2025

 

[Ping]

If you are adding two RD-33/93 then the whole concept changes. Mig 29 for instance needed two RD93s as Russians needed something to counter the punch that single engine F-16 could carry. They didn't have one engine good enough to do the job. The F-16 with GE/PW engine can achieve with one engine what Mig 29 needs two for.

Single engine, more load carrying capability needs a higher class engine, but then the concept doesn't remain light-weight JF-17 anymore, rather approaches that of J-10. More payload, range etc with a bigger engine and bigger MTOW overall.

JF-17 replaces the light fighters and interceptors, i.e. Mirage III/V and F-7s. It offers more hardpoints, way better avionics and radar plus BVR missiles and Air to ground and Air to Sea capability. Plus it's an agile dog fighter.

Western Propaganda. The reason why MiG-29 came with 2 engines was because of Russian Avionics and not because of the engines. Russian Avionics at that time was very bulky & heavy, and required more power consumption than the western counterparts. All this cannot be given in a small space constraint F-16 class fighter with a single engine, and that's why MiG came up with a medium weight twin engine Air-superiority fighter to counter both the F-16 and the F-15 with shorter range on the frontlines.

Load carrying capability does not depend on the engines, but the Airframe. If the engines are weak and the Airframe is strong, the fighter can still carry more weapons than a fighter which has more powerful engines but a weaker airframe. Only the take-off run will be larger and thrust to weight ratio smaller.

 

[Donatello]

Western Propaganda. The reason why MiG-29 came with 2 engines was because of Russian Avionics and not because of the engines. Russian Avionics at that time was very bulky & heavy, and required more power consumption than the western counterparts. All this cannot be given in a small space constraint F-16 class fighter with a single engine, and that's why MiG came up with a medium weight twin engine Air-superiority fighter to counter both the F-16 and the F-15 with shorter range on the frontlines.

Load carrying capability does not depend on the engines, but the Airframe. If the engines are weak and the Airframe is strong, the fighter can still carry more weapons than a fighter which has more powerful engines but a weaker airframe. Only the take-off run will be larger and thrust to weight ratio smaller.

With one engine, Mig 29 would not have been able to carry much usable weight. Actually, the F-16s with uprated engines can carry more than twin engine Mig29s. The thing is, Soviets were good designers nonetheless. But engines was their weakness. This is where PW/GE/RR took the lead.
Avionics? They don't really take up tonnes of weight.

Whether it was the engine or lighter avionics on F-16s, doesn't matter. F-16 in a single engine role can do as much or more than twin engine Mig29.

Yes twin engines bring the reliability and ability to save the plane if one engine flames out. But with modern engines, again, that's not very often.