JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[Viper0011.]

I don't think J-31 will effectively prevent MKI / Rafael / PAKFA, we are slowly lagging behind.

I agree. J-31 by itself won't do as you guys will be adding like 2-4 squadrons of it. There needs to be a more credible platform in between -16's Block 52 would help. Or the JFT block III has to show a lot more from a structural, power plant and avionics standpoint. J-10B IMO is not needed as you'll have too many platforms that are similar but yet J-10 will require huge investments for infrastructure, training, etc.

 

[Shabi1]

The JF-17 is and never was intended as a direct alternative to the F-16. It was intended as an aircraft with with FBW, easier maintenance, 4th gen weapons and advance avionics, better performance than the Mirages, F-7 & A-5s. But not the endurance or payload capability of an F-16. It is intended as a reliable workhorse which could perform all roles at a lower cost. A jack of all trades. We should not expect any more from it, and although its an excellent aircraft for what it was intended for we shouldn't consider it as the premium fighter in PAF. The priority is not to make it more advanced with AESA and other modifications, the priority is to have it operational with all its weapons systems and replace the F-7s and Mirages ASAP.

PAF does need a specialist air superiority fighter like the F-104s it once had. We had only 13 F-104s equipping a single sqd but they had a huge psychological impact, so even with low numbers PAF knows how to utilize an asset. We do have the 18 F-16 Blk-52s right now but they should be a stop gap till the J-31 is available. J-10 and F-16s are in the same league, we can't afford to spend extra on a capability we already have.With our limited resources if PAF manages to raise even a single sqd of air-superiority specialist fighters deployed on CAP/Interception with rest assets providing backup, it would be a huge game changer.

So the plan right now should be and what I think PAF is following is improve the backbone by phasing out all the oldies with a future up gradable platform like the JF-17, induct new missiles and tactics. And once a air superiority game changer available induct that to tackle the adversary advanced fighters.

 

[shorver]

I'm sure

Source?

 

[PK_Patriot]

The JF-17 is and never was intended as a direct alternative to the F-16. It was intended as an aircraft with with FBW, easier maintenance, 4th gen weapons and advance avionics, better performance than the Mirages, F-7 & A-5s. But not the endurance or payload capability of an F-16. It is intended as a reliable workhorse which could perform all roles at a lower cost. A jack of all trades. We should not expect any more from it, and although its an excellent aircraft for what it was intended for we shouldn't consider it as the premium fighter in PAF. The priority is not to make it more advanced with AESA and other modifications, the priority is to have it operational with all its weapons systems and replace the F-7s and Mirages ASAP.

If Jf-17 thunder was never intended for AESA then PAF must change intentions!

 

[Chak Bamu]

If Jf-17 thunder was never intended for AESA then PAF must change intentions!

JF-17 Block III is not finalized, but AESA has always been expected to be introduced with it. You can go to Interviews thread and read more about it. Also, the JF-17 Information pool threads are good sources to read.

 

[kbd-raaf]

So I've been told off by @Oscar in another thread. Would somebody be kind enough to link me to an interview which details the Pakistani developments in the JF-17.

 

[SQ8]

So I've been told off by @Oscar in another thread. Would somebody be kind enough to link me to an interview which details the Pakistani developments in the JF-17.

Start here and go backwards if you are actually honest enough to know information.
JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5] | Page 180
JF-17 Thunder - Information Pool | Page 41

 

[SQ8]

Oh yes, I'm forever in the pursuit of knowledge.

The 41st page in the information pool thread had links to a paper which the poster referred to as proof of Pakistani engineering contribution. The poster fails to understand that is clearly post hoc analysis done with commercial CFD technology in order to validate results obtained from a wind tunnel. (ANSYS Fluent

This clearly indicates that this is not a DSI design study, as empirical results are sought after CFD analyses has validated the design concept and not vice versa. Moreover such analysis is done every other day in university engineering departments the world over.

http://enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-920.pdf



I will continue reading the thread and will post here if I find myself to be incorrect in the belief that the attitude control (which interestingly you linked me to a few months ago) is the largest Pakistani contribution to the JF17.

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Kamra - Avionics Systems Co-produced Projects << This is the link by the way.



edit: To give you an idea of what I meant in the previous thread. This is a similar analog gyroscopic attitude controller that I have at home: (this was used in a torpedo, but the principles remain the same)

What about the interview that you requested? Guess you conveniently ignored that to continue your agenda

And Please refrain from posting pointless bull regarding the similarity of something as trivial as that. By your logic a stick shift car from the 40's is the same as one built today. All the refinements and everything go out the door with that idiocy.

If this is the idea that your perception that holds that much technical weight as the ramblings of someone who insists that we should stick to making car canopies from glass since they did the job just as well.

So unless you have ANYTHING to add regarding the interview that you were given the link to, with its CLEAR cut statement on the level of co-development. I would suggest you refrain from what is essentially nothing more than refined trolling and not comment on the aircraft again.

 

[kbd-raaf]

What about the interview that you requested? Guess you conveniently ignored that to continue your agenda

And Please refrain from posting pointless bull regarding the similarity of something as trivial as that. By your logic a stick shift car from the 40's is the same as one built today. All the refinements and everything go out the door with that idiocy.

If this is the idea that your perception that holds that much technical weight as the ramblings of someone who insists that we should stick to making car canopies from glass since they did the job just as well.

So unless you have ANYTHING to add regarding the interview that you were given the link to, with its CLEAR cut statement on the level of co-development. I would suggest you refrain from what is essentially nothing more than refined trolled and leave this thread.

Yes that article was the first thing I read. I will continue working my way backwards and once I chance upon the page with the interview I will either retract or confirm what I was saying.

I was being a bit unkind in the previous thread where I compared a modern digital feedback attitude controller to a WWII era gyroscopic attitude control setup. What was done with a spindle and a stick (figuratively) is done with fibre optics today.

But I must emphasise that a FOG is not blackboxed technology, the Sagnac effect is widely documented and many universities exist which can replicate FOG conditions within the lab.

However, I am not trivialising this work. It is one thing to have all the scientific material available to you and another thing to get a device which functions according to design requirements under military conditions.

I will continue reading the information pool thread and please understand that while this might have begun as one upsmanship in the previous thread, it is now purely a search for knowledge.

 

[SQ8]

Yes that article was the first thing I read. I will continue working my way backwards and once I chance upon the page with the interview I will either retract or confirm what I was saying.

I was being a bit unkind in the previous thread where I compared a modern digital feedback attitude controller to a WWII era gyroscopic attitude control setup. What was done with a spindle and a stick (figuratively) is done with fibre optics today.

But I must emphasise that a FOG is not blackboxed technology, the Sagnac effect is widely documented and many universities exist which can replicate FOG conditions within the lab.

However, I am not trivialising this work. It is one thing to have all the scientific material available to you and another thing to get a device which functions according to design requirements under military conditions.

I will continue reading the information pool thread and please understand that while this might have begun as one upsmanship in the previous thread, it is now purely a search for knowledge.

The question is not the search for knowledge. Upmanship has its value for the petty postings of yesterdays duplicate IDs. If anything, i have posted time and time again explaining the development of the aircraft and honestly.. I am SICK and tired of doing it and having to find the usual pointless and rather pithy argument that Pakistan contributed nothing more than measly avionics to this aircraft.
For me , it is not just an insult via reference to national pride..but personal pride in the work of some very good friends and colleagues.

 

[kbd-raaf]

The question is not the search for knowledge. Upmanship has its value for the petty postings of yesterdays duplicate IDs. If anything, i have posted time and time again explaining the development of the aircraft and honestly.. I am SICK and tired of doing it and having to find the usual pointless and rather pithy argument that Pakistan contributed nothing more than measly avionics to this aircraft.
For me , it is not just an insult via reference to national pride..but personal pride in the work of some very good friends and colleagues.

Fair enough, I will be retracting my post once I find the material you referred to.

 

[Fahad Khan 2]

I agree. J-31 by itself won't do as you guys will be adding like 2-4 squadrons of it. There needs to be a more credible platform in between -16's Block 52 would help. Or the JFT block III has to show a lot more from a structural, power plant and avionics standpoint. J-10B IMO is not needed as you'll have too many platforms that are similar but yet J-10 will require huge investments for infrastructure, training, etc.

all these 5th gen are good in to reach near target but not in fight i think may be iam wrong that but 4.75 gen fighter will beat 5th in fight in near fight...
we definetly need some new f16 to counter threat of 250 mki and for expected rafael..
if we cant get f16 then j10b should be our next option..

 

[Donatello]

The question is not the search for knowledge. Upmanship has its value for the petty postings of yesterdays duplicate IDs. If anything, i have posted time and time again explaining the development of the aircraft and honestly.. I am SICK and tired of doing it and having to find the usual pointless and rather pithy argument that Pakistan contributed nothing more than measly avionics to this aircraft.
For me , it is not just an insult via reference to national pride..but personal pride in the work of some very good friends and colleagues.

Yaar why do you have to constantly mash your head in the wall with fools? Just ignore. They don't matter anyway.

 

[SQ8]

Yaar why do you have to constantly mash your head in the wall with fools? Just ignore. They don't matter anyway.

Because this patience and tolerance is what made us different from the Shitholes run by our counterparts from across the border. out their you are banned before being heard if you dont toe the line or carry a Pakistani flag. But frankly I am starting to see merit in their policy and have started applying it a little.

 

[shanis]

Indian government is also too much corrupt, but problem was democratic governments of Zardari having no interest in any welfare or military projects. NS is trader too, he has no interest in defense. So bad for PAkistan as Benazir and Musharaf gone

Yes in musharaf time ... we did alot for our defense and we were going for J 10b but Zardari and NS did noting for defense ...

Well if India goes for Rafale than we definatlely need to go for 72 + J 10 B or C

yes must go india has 200 SU mig 30 with AESA ... and now India going for rafale too /// now we must need more then 200 aircraft jf 17 thunder with AESA and near 72 + J 10 B or C...

If Jf-17 thunder was never intended for AESA then PAF must change intentions!

agreed