What's new

JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF

Lightning Soul

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Mar 25, 2012
46
0
30
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
What is so different about JF-17 that China would not want to induct it ? Countries dp not make top notch combat aircraft and use it for export only. Those days are long gone. I realize it is hard to accept the JF-17 is 2nd rate platform. But all the evidence points to it.
Okay Smartypants, by your logic US Lockheed Martin developed a 2nd rate platform in the form of F-16 Block 60 version and exported it to UAE only as USAF or USN hasn't inducted the current said platform (as of yet) :lol:
 

Capt.Popeye

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 5, 2010
11,940
12
14,912
better compensation than Air India or even a 100% hike in salaries. Additional funds for special mission aircrafts, trainer pilots, Naval Pilots etc, i guess
Not feasible, not workable, not necessary.
After the age of 48-50, most ServicePilots fly much less, or they are into ranks that involve less flying...... to eventually little flying. That is when the "exit-policy" must begin to kick in and can allow release of the Pilots into the Civilian Stream. At that age, Pilots can still fly for airlines.
 

amardeep mishra

FULL MEMBER
Mar 8, 2012
1,315
25
2,608
Country
India
Location
India
Observance of the control surfaces in flight to guess if an aircraft have at least pitch relaxed stability is difficult, but it can be done. That is why there are so many cameras of many types at airshows. High frame rates will help display surface deflections at time intervals of milliseconds. If the video shows the jet remains nose up but the horizontal stabs is parallel to the body, taking trim deflections into consideration, odds are very good that the jet have at least pitch relaxed stability. The jet is simply moving too fast and maneuvers too quick in execution for the human eye to discern.
Hi dear @gambit
I was not here in city hence did not see your comment. What you just described in your comment above classify as speculation,i can not take it as a definite proof for it needs sound mathematical framework. I am sure you'd have read my comments and seen that i dont indulge in speculations. Your explanation (that you composed as a reply to mine, seems very practical and useful for a laymen who might not be able to appreciate the beauty of lets say various algorithms that are used to find set of equilibrium points in R8 or R12(where the length of state space vector is either 8 or 12,more traditionally 8))- i suspect is user's(pilot's) point of view? Mine on the other hand was more academic(researcher's point of view),on the lines similar(albeit no where close) to works of mc'ruer,blakelock et al. I would love to carry forward this discussion.My main contention was and it still is- JFT lacks a RSS because the designer have no where mentioned that it has instability- particularly in longitudinal plane.
 
Last edited:

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
19,827
160
54,361
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Hi dear @gambit
I was not here in city hence did not see your comment. What you just described in your comment above classify as speculation,i can not take it as a definite proof for it needs sound mathematical framework. I am sure you'd have read my comments and seen that i dont indulge in speculations. Your explanation (that you composed as a reply to mine, seems very practical and useful for a laymen who might not be able to appreciate the beauty of lets say various algorithms that are used to find set of equilibrium points in R8 or R12(where the length of state space vector is either 8 or 12,more traditionally 8))- i suspect is user's(pilot's) point of view? Mine on the other hand was more academic(researcher's point of view),on the lines similar(albeit no where close) to works of mc'ruer,blakelock et al. I would love to carry forward this discussion.My main contention was and it still is- JFT lacks a RSS because the designer have no where mentioned that it has instability- particularly in longitudinal plane.

Oye puttar---hun bas kar dey---jaan chad dey----bahut ho gai aiy.
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
25,519
138
23,512
Country
United States
Location
United States
Hi dear @gambitI was not here in city hence did not see your comment. What you just described in your comment above classify as speculation,i can not take it as a definite proof for it needs sound mathematical framework. I am sure you'd have read my comments and seen that i dont indulge in speculations.

My main contention was and it still is- JFT lacks a RSS because the designer have no where mentioned that it has instability- particularly in longitudinal plane.
You may not like to speculate, but fortunately for most of us who were, or still are, in the defense related fields, speculations are necessary.

No, speculations are not proofs and no one ever said they are. But if you see in front of you components of a pistol, what would or should be a logical path, if not a speculation ? Likewise, behaviors are manifestations of rules, or at least influences into an established framework of rules, and if you look at these behaviors as components of a final product, avoidance of speculation will get you nowhere. Or to put it another way: Speculations <=> Progress.

I call to your attention the defection of of Soviet pilot Viktor Belenko with a MIG-25 to the West (Japan) back in 1976. You can bet your next yr's salary that there were plenty of speculations from examinations of the aircraft's various parts once we disassembled it. There were confirmations of some speculations, and dismissals of others.

Your explanation (that you composed as a reply to mine, seems very practical and useful for a laymen who might not be able to appreciate the beauty of lets say various algorithms that are used to find set of equilibrium points in R8 or R12(where the length of state space vector is either 8 or 12,more traditionally 8))- i suspect is user's(pilot's) point of view? Mine on the other hand was more academic(researcher's point of view),on the lines similar(albeit no where close) to works of mc'ruer,blakelock et al. I would love to carry forward this discussion.
Here is my take on how came across: airheaded.

And I said that kindly.

Am not saying you are stupid. I will take you at face value on who/what you claimed to be. But from an instructor's perspective, and I have been in that position in/out of the military, laymen would be much more appreciative if a learned person in a certain field would speak to them in language they could relate to. Some may decided to enter that field and in that case, you will have gained converts. Kudos to you. But most will walk away with deeper general insights about that particular field as to how it affects their daily lives in any degree.

I was never a 'researcher' of any kind but an executor of those frameworks of rules created by researchers. On the aircraft, I made sure it behaved exactly as its designers intended. In the classroom, I showed people the principles that formed the foundation of those rules and expect my trainees to obey those rules. For those of us who have the burden of instructions, any 'researcher' who ventured out of his venue and stands in front of an audience not educated in his field, but take no responsibilities on learning how to talk to laymen, generally do more harm than good to his field of expertise.

Am going to give you two examples of the importance of learning how to instruct: Top Gun and Fighter Weapons School.

Either patches are not awarded unless the pilot passed the instructor course. There is a saying that is intended to be derisive towards teachers: Those who cannot do, teach.

The USAF and USN completely destroyed that insult. If a pilot want to wear either patch, he must be able to do and teach. What he learned, either at Top Gun or Fighter Weapons School, he must have the instructional skills to disseminate to his fellow pilots at the squadron level. The reasoning is that if most of the squadron is lost in combat, then the ace pilot is no good to the war. That is why back in WW II, the US military sent its top flyers home after X number of combat missions so they can teach others on how to fight and win. The result was that the overall quality of new pilots from the US, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan differs wildly with the US have the advantage. The US is far less interested in producing aces than we are at raising the bar for everyone. That is why a sergeant in the USAF have the authority and responsibilities equivalent to that of an officer in other air forces.

This little corner of the Internet is not even a classroom. Even an Internet-based course, the instructors have some kind and level of personal rapport with his/her students. This forum is not it. You storming in here with your arcane math matrixes and language are not enlightening to most. In short, if you do not have the skills of instructions, or the personal inclinations to learn how to instruct, do not venture out of the lab.
 

Sinnerman108

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 20, 2009
7,713
-6
8,111
Country
Pakistan
Location
Saudi Arabia
Hi dear @gambit
I was not here in city hence did not see your comment. What you just described in your comment above classify as speculation,i can not take it as a definite proof for it needs sound mathematical framework. I am sure you'd have read my comments and seen that i dont indulge in speculations. Your explanation (that you composed as a reply to mine, seems very practical and useful for a laymen who might not be able to appreciate the beauty of lets say various algorithms that are used to find set of equilibrium points in R8 or R12(where the length of state space vector is either 8 or 12,more traditionally 8))- i suspect is user's(pilot's) point of view? Mine on the other hand was more academic(researcher's point of view),on the lines similar(albeit no where close) to works of mc'ruer,blakelock et al. I would love to carry forward this discussion.My main contention was and it still is- JFT lacks a RSS because the designer have no where mentioned that it has instability- particularly in longitudinal plane.
I have a feeling this guy will go far and high in his career.

Much more than what accomplished engineers, scientists, pilots, designers only dream to get to.

If I may speculate, he has managerial tendencies.

@MastanKhan
 

Bossman

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 11, 2010
3,205
-6
4,315
Hi dear @gambit
I was not here in city hence did not see your comment. What you just described in your comment above classify as speculation,i can not take it as a definite proof for it needs sound mathematical framework. I am sure you'd have read my comments and seen that i dont indulge in speculations. Your explanation (that you composed as a reply to mine, seems very practical and useful for a laymen who might not be able to appreciate the beauty of lets say various algorithms that are used to find set of equilibrium points in R8 or R12(where the length of state space vector is either 8 or 12,more traditionally 8))- i suspect is user's(pilot's) point of view? Mine on the other hand was more academic(researcher's point of view),on the lines similar(albeit no where close) to works of mc'ruer,blakelock et al. I would love to carry forward this discussion.My main contention was and it still is- JFT lacks a RSS because the designer have no where mentioned that it has instability- particularly in longitudinal plane.
Our resident fake is back after a few weeks of hibernation to get his a$$ kicked again. I have destroyed his logic so many times that I am convinced that I will win the next Noble prize for both Mathematics and Physics and maybe even literature
 

Signalian

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Aug 18, 2015
7,286
226
19,925
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
JF-17 has 7 hardpoints.

Apart from multiple ejector racks, is there any way to increase the hardpoints to 9 or 11?

How can wing loading be increased to accomodate extra missiles on multiple ejector? And also if extra hardpoints are added ?

Will a better engine and structural modification on fuselage also be required apart from wings ?

Mig 29 has 7 hardpoints.

Mig 29M and Mig 35 have 8 + 1 centreline hard points.

Mig 29K has 13 hardpoints. Multi lock BOMB carrier is same as multiple ejector rack ?
 

amardeep mishra

FULL MEMBER
Mar 8, 2012
1,315
25
2,608
Country
India
Location
India
This forum is not it. You storming in here with your arcane math matrixes and language are not enlightening to most. In short, if you do not have the skills of instructions, or the personal inclinations to learn how to instruct, do not venture out of the lab.
@gambit
Just because majority of folks do not appreciate or understand what constitute a "definitive proof" doesnt mean i will stop talking that way. I did not storm anywhere,i was merely presenting my view(just like you are doing) although in a more mathematically exact manner. SO what is the problem now?

I have a feeling this guy will go far and high in his career.

Much more than what accomplished engineers, scientists, pilots, designers only dream to get to.

If I may speculate, he has managerial tendencies.

@MastanKhan
My dear friend @Sinnerman108
Instead of calling names and belittling someone else dont you think it would have been just prudent and sufficient to prove me wrong based on far more credible facts and scientific literature? Believe me i will be more than happy to accept it!

I call to your attention the defection of of Soviet pilot Viktor Belenko with a MIG-25 to the West (Japan) back in 1976. You can bet your next yr's salary that there were plenty of speculations from examinations of the aircraft's various parts once we disassembled it. There were confirmations of some speculations, and dismissals of others.
Well i am sure that was "more than just speculation" as you would have to use a lot of engineering analysis to ascertain to a great degree the performance of the jet.For instance-
1)They had the whole plane,the could have just run the CFD simulations in FORTRAN to find the flow pattern
2)They would have analyzed the wing profile to determine the stability
3)THey would have found out the peak/average power of the radar and also the effective aperture of the radar,from these two they would have calculated the instrumented range of the system to a fairly decent degree of accuracy.
You see i am not saying they would not have made any educated guess(even educated guesses in this case are based on strong engineering foundations) during this postmortem excercise of foxbat,but a lot of results came from very solid engineering analysis.Thats all.

And dont you think it would have been far more useful and logical to just furnish a statement or a research literature from the designer(CATIC in this case) that JFT does indeed have RSS.I would happily accept it.
 
Last edited:

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
19,827
160
54,361
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
@gambit
Just because majority of folks do not appreciate or understand what constitute a "definitive proof" doesnt mean i will stop talking that way. I did not storm anywhere,i was merely presenting my view(just like you are doing) although in a more mathematically exact manner. SO what is the problem now?



My dear friend @Sinnerman108
Instead of calling names and belittling someone else dont you think it would have been just prudent and sufficient to prove me wrong based on far more credible facts and scientific literature? Believe me i will be more than happy to accept it!



Well i am sure that was "more than just speculation" as you would have to use a lot of engineering analysis to ascertain to a great degree the performance of the jet.For instance-
1)They had the whole plane,the could have just run the CFD simulations in FORTRAN to find the flow pattern
2)They would have analyzed the wing profile to determine the stability
3)THey would have found out the peak/average power of the radar and also the effective aperture of the radar,from these two they would have calculated the instrumented range of the system to a fairly decent degree of accuracy.
You see i am not saying they would not have made any educated guess during this postmortem excercise of foxbat,but a lot of results came from very solid engineering analysis.Thats all.

And dont you think it would have been far more useful and logical to just furnish a statement or a research literature from the designer(CATIC in this case) that JFT does indeed have RSS.I would happily accept it.

Hi,

Mr. Mishra----just wanted to make sure---do you have a job in this field or any other field. Are you gainfully employed----or are you just doing research work for a degree!

I call to your attention the defection of of Soviet pilot Viktor Belenko with a MIG-25 to the West (Japan) back in 1976. You can bet your next yr's salary that there were plenty of speculations from examinations of the aircraft's various parts once we disassembled it. There were confirmations of some speculations, and dismissals of others.

.
Hi,

If I go out on a limb---I can say that he has no clue what the deal was with the MIG25 and Major Victor Belenko---what the U S assessed it to be and what they found out what it was---.
 

Spectre

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 4, 2015
3,735
46
6,087
Country
India
Location
India
@gambit
Just because majority of folks do not appreciate or understand what constitute a "definitive proof" doesnt mean i will stop talking that way. I did not storm anywhere,i was merely presenting my view(just like you are doing) although in a more mathematically exact manner. SO what is the problem now?



My dear friend @Sinnerman108
Instead of calling names and belittling someone else dont you think it would have been just prudent and sufficient to prove me wrong based on far more credible facts and scientific literature? Believe me i will be more than happy to accept it!



Well i am sure that was "more than just speculation" as you would have to use a lot of engineering analysis to ascertain to a great degree the performance of the jet.For instance-
1)They had the whole plane,the could have just run the CFD simulations in FORTRAN to find the flow pattern
2)They would have analyzed the wing profile to determine the stability
3)THey would have found out the peak/average power of the radar and also the effective aperture of the radar,from these two they would have calculated the instrumented range of the system to a fairly decent degree of accuracy.
You see i am not saying they would not have made any educated guess during this postmortem excercise of foxbat,but a lot of results came from very solid engineering analysis.Thats all.

And dont you think it would have been far more useful and logical to just furnish a statement or a research literature from the designer(CATIC in this case) that JFT does indeed have RSS.I would happily accept it.
Among all this, a point to note is that if RSS was there there then shouldn't it would have been advertised as JF-17 is seeking export customers.

Regards
 

amardeep mishra

FULL MEMBER
Mar 8, 2012
1,315
25
2,608
Country
India
Location
India
Are you gainfully employed----or are you just doing research work for a degree!
I am working for my degree of course-IIT madras,however i have worked on various projects- real ones involving engineering framework that i just discussed(BEL among other things). And since they are engineering framework of general nature -i can discuss it here.
Infact to your surprise,USAF have even released the F-18 aircraft model that folks like me can use to design actual control.And by aircraft model i mean 8x8 system matrix,control vector and output vector that one can obtain by linearizing the 8 non linear and coupled differential equations around a particular equilibrium point using jacobian. Now thats where generous USAF comes in- they have given out all the technical parameters ranging from moment of inertia values for x,y and z axis,L is to D values,mass etc etc that one would need to linearize the non linear differential equations.Not only that they went ahead to provide the stability derivatives- very very important from control perspective

I can say that he has no clue what the deal was with the MIG25 and Major Victor Belenko---what the U S assessed it to be and what they found out what it was
And how exactly can you say that Mr @MastanKhan
Unlike you i have actually seen a foxbat up close.I spent my entire childhood in one or the other IAF bases,so assuming that i am oblivious to foxbat or what US might have gained out of balenkov's defection is a grave mistake.
Anyways back to the topic- Dont you think it would have been far more fruitful had anyone of you simply furnished a simple scientific literature from the design agency- CATIC in this case regarding the presence of RSS on JFT?I am still waiting for that response and believe me i will gladly accept it!
 
Last edited:

Sinnerman108

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 20, 2009
7,713
-6
8,111
Country
Pakistan
Location
Saudi Arabia
@gambit

My dear friend @Sinnerman108
Instead of calling names and belittling someone else dont you think it would have been just prudent and sufficient to prove me wrong based on far more credible facts and scientific literature? Believe me i will be more than happy to accept it!
.
I only made a prediction,
no need to let your insecurities rule you.
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
25,519
138
23,512
Country
United States
Location
United States
@gambit
Just because majority of folks do not appreciate or understand what constitute a "definitive proof" doesnt mean i will stop talking that way.
Talk 'that way' to an appropriate audience.

I did not storm anywhere,...
Yeah...You did.

On this forum, I have managed to clear up a lot of confusion about 'stealth' and avionics without using a single math equation. Most confusion in the laymen have to do with misunderstanding about general principles, not math. A lot of people here are educated, just not in the fields under discussions. Talking to them in simple language is not being condescending but understanding and sympathetic since we all started out ignorant some time. I presented my arguments, then support with credible sources. Those who have some technical education can verify for themselves of those sources. That is all you or I need to do.

i was merely presenting my view(just like you are doing) although in a more mathematically exact manner. SO what is the problem now?
That you lost a lot of people in the process.

Yours seems to be a desire to impress, not educate. There is a difference.

Well i am sure that was "more than just speculation" as you would have to use a lot of engineering analysis to ascertain to a great degree the performance of the jet.For instance-
1)They had the whole plane,the could have just run the CFD simulations in FORTRAN to find the flow pattern
2)They would have analyzed the wing profile to determine the stability
3)THey would have found out the peak/average power of the radar and also the effective aperture of the radar,from these two they would have calculated the instrumented range of the system to a fairly decent degree of accuracy.
You see i am not saying they would not have made any educated guess(even educated guesses in this case are based on strong engineering foundations) during this postmortem excercise of foxbat,but a lot of results came from very solid engineering analysis.Thats all.
You missed the point -- COMPLETELY.

The point was about the role of speculation and the limits of the same. The book 'MIG Pilot' is an aviation classic. The US did not have time to properly examine the MIG-25. All we had time was disassembly and examine the parts as best we could. Before that, there were rampant speculations on the MIG-25, ranging from its technology to its combat role. Upon examination of the individual parts, a lot of speculations proved wrong and a lot proved correct. Both correct and incorrect seriously affected policies in both political and military.

For example...The fact that the -25's engines have limited Mach capabilities led US to speculate the -25's combat utility. For the longest time, our speculation about Soviet technology have been they were behind the West, that changed with the MIG-25 in that we thought its technology surpassed ours, then changed back upon close examination of the jet. I have seen the official technical assessment and in my opinion: The MIG-25 is a piece of shit.

Speculations are not merely useful but actually necessary. You can analyze something down to the nuts and bolts but if you do not venture to guess on what it is and what it does, your policies remains static and that could get dangerous. Corporations do this all the time, whether to make computer chips or to make a new perfume. It is dangerous in the sense that you could lose market share, imperiling your company's bottom line, or you could produce national security policies that could make you lose a war. Speculations provides initiatives, even if just to explore the alternatives. At best, you would be heading in the correct direction.

And dont you think it would have been far more useful and logical to just furnish a statement or a research literature from the designer(CATIC in this case) that JFT does indeed have RSS.I would happily accept it.
Far more useful ? Yes. But an educated guess would be useful enough to start moving.

Policy makers seldom have the luxury of certainty, especially not the kind the laws of nature provides.

In the absence of absolute certainty from the JF-17's designers regarding pitch only instability, there is nothing wrong with making an educated guess about the same. Nothing wrong and absolutely necessary. Speculations must be made about Pakistan's technical capabilities and future products, which in turn will influence national security policies by anyone who sees Pakistan as a competitor or even a hostile.

In my opinion, the JF-17 is a technically superior product in this time than the MIG-25 was in its time. And I have no access to any technical data on the jet. Am going just from personal experience and public information. If I am a military adviser to my President, do you really think am going to tell him that because I lack the math, I cannot give any advice ?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom