• Sunday, September 15, 2019

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

Discussion in 'JF-17 Thunder' started by EagleEyes, Aug 25, 2009.

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

    EagleEyes PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Messages:
    16,778
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Ratings:
    +25 / 15,611 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. niaz

    niaz PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Messages:
    4,646
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Ratings:
    +175 / 9,387 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    There is no denying that JF-17 is not quite in same the league as the modern aircrafts such as Euro fighter, Rafael or Grippen. However one must examine availble options taking into consideration technical as well as financial constraints. Foremost being fact that JF-17 is meant to be a workhorse of the PAF and therefore needs to be free from any potential sanctions threat.

    A work horse by definition needs to be sturdy, easy to operate & maintain as well as be inexpensive. Since we have been involved with this aircraft from the beginning; maintenance and training would be cost effective. Another advantage, which is difficult to quantify, is the technical know-how gained in the design and manufacture of modern aircrafts.

    Therefore for PAF needs of a competent aircraft in large numbers, JF-17 fits the bill.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 20
  3. hj786

    hj786 SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    773
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Ratings:
    +0 / 376 / -0
    So we can say that the pitch axis-only FBW was to save time during the development/testing stages rather than to reduce cost?

    But the debate continues on how competent a fighter it actually is. The main argument by the detractors being that if it isn't as good as any of the Euro-canards, it isn't competent enough.
    ----

    Something I recently came across:
    IAR-95
    The Romanian IAR 95. Development was cancelled due to high costs. Looks quite similar to the FC-1/JF-17.
    A model of its dual seat version:
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. greatsequence

    greatsequence FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    753
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Ratings:
    +0 / 373 / -0
    I thought it was jf-17 whats going on.
     
  5. Oscar

    Oscar ADVISORS

    Messages:
    32,205
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Ratings:
    +319 / 61,732 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Quite similar is an understatement.
     
  6. IceCold

    IceCold PDF VETERAN

    Messages:
    14,521
    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Ratings:
    +5 / 14,464 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Apart from DSI and dual seat, it looks like a carbon copy of the JF-17. Even hard points seem to be equal in number.
     
  7. greatsequence

    greatsequence FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    753
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Ratings:
    +0 / 373 / -0
    This could be an answer to the fast development of jf-17 thunder.
     
  8. sancho

    sancho PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    13,011
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Ratings:
    +27 / 10,499 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Germany
    The nose of JF is a bit bigger or? But the rest is really so similar, crazy!
     
  9. wild peace

    wild peace FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    350
    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Ratings:
    +0 / 120 / -0
    Dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu decided in 1968 to bring the Romanian aviation industry back to life, as it had almost stoped existing after WWII, and you've probabily heard of the IAR-80/81 which is considered on of the best fighters of WWII. To limit the dependency of the Socialist Republic of Romania's Air Force on foreign (mostly Soviet) aircraft and technology, Ceauşescu asked for the building of three aircraft types that would meet the curent AF needs at the time: a multirole subsonic fighter-bomber aircraft, a trainer with secondary light attack and fighter roles and a multirole supersonic fighter.
    The first two aircraft were designed, built, tested and equiped the AF, but the third project never left the drawing board.

    The resulting fighter-bomber was the IAR-93 Vultur (Eagle) or J-22 Orao in Yugoslavia is not supersonic as somebody here sugested! It's maximum speed is slightly more than 1000 km/h. It no longer flyies for RoAF, but I think the Serbs still use it.

    The trainer and light attack aircraft is the IAR-99 Şoim, subsonic, of course and modernized by Aerostar and Elbit. It serves RoAF and will continue to do so for many years to come, as it is a modern advanced training aircraft that allows pilots to train for aircraft such as the MiG-21 Lancer, F-16, F/A-18, Gripen and so on. It also has a very advanced, low-cost, training system capable of simulating weapons, radar (the aircraft does not have a real radar) and threats.

    IAR-95 Spey, the one that never left the drawing board did so because it had no engine capable of giving the aircraft the ability of flying at (at least) Mach 2.5. Wind tunnel tests showed that the aircraft would mearly reach Mach 2 (so, more than 1.4, aaaditya ), and so it was redesigned ( IAR-101, IAR-S projects) and then stoped.
    :pop::coffee:
     
  10. wild peace

    wild peace FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    350
    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Ratings:
    +0 / 120 / -0
    But there is a big difference in wings section. JF-17 is delt and has more extended leading edges than IAR. Also nose section is very different. Doesnt seem like FC-1 is a copy of IAR.,:no:

    But with all of you guys effort if it is ,this doesn't mean the FC-1 is a copy of the IAR-95. The IAR-95 never flew, as it never had an engine... well... it had a few engines, but only on paper, as no country interested to give Romania a fighter engine and they could not develope one in Romania.
    The IAR-95 was supposed to be a bigger, more modern version of the F-4 Phantom, it had two engines, but as they couldn't get the F-4's Spey engine the brits were using on their F-4s, they redesigned it with the MiG-21 engine in mind, and thus it became a single engine fighter. They were several modifications, several versions of the IAR-95, but as they could not get an engine that would push the aircraft through Mach 2.5, the project was droped in '88. This is the short story of the IAR-95.
    Now, if we flourish the idea that FC-1 looks similar to the IAR-95, and the Chinese are known for copying designs in almost any field, but the Su-27 looks similar to the MiG-29, the Alpha Jet looks similar to the Hawk, the IAR-99 looks similar to the MiG-AT, the MB-339 and some other trainers... these are not copies, answers to the same problems. To my eye, the J-10 looks like a cross-over of the F-16 and the Typhoon, but it's not a copy of either.
    Could the Chinese have been inspired by the IAR-95? It's possible. Is the J-9/FC-1 a COPY of it, a replica? I do not think so.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  11. Munir

    Munir PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    2,756
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Ratings:
    +11 / 2,604 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Germany
    Nopes... It has one extra wing hardpoint so it is the future of JF17... The wing is different.It starts low while JF17 starts as mid... And it has only flaps like F16 acting as flaperons..



    But indeed carbon copy...
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2009
  12. sherdil76

    sherdil76 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    371
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Ratings:
    +0 / 184 / -0
    'Asal se behtar' photostate :D as claimed by most local copy-shops
     
  13. Arsalan

    Arsalan MODERATOR

    Messages:
    17,530
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Ratings:
    +55 / 21,297 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    well if one look at this picture it do look quite similar to the JF17 but for better comparison let us look at them simultaneously:
    IAR95


    JF17

    i tried to get a picture of JF17 from the same angle but this is the best i could find, lets hope it serves the purpose.
    now by looking at them in one glance there are lot to differences in the design, for example;
    1. the wing support for JF starts right from the air inlet whereas for the subject it is somewhat backward from the inlet.
    2. in Jf17 the front wing are right at the vertical middle of the inlet whereas as incase of IAR 95 it is at the bottom!
    3. the distance between front and rear wings for JF17 is lesser then it is for IAR95
    4. the nose is altogether different.
    5. even the tail of both these planes is different, this can be picked if you just ive them a look!
    6. the JF17 engine outlet is extended somewhat outward for the main fram whereas in IAR95 it ends right where the tail flaps end!

    well to sum up the debate, the words by Mr. Wild Peace say it all
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2009
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  14. ThePatriotReport

    ThePatriotReport PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Messages:
    4,109
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Ratings:
    +3 / 5,721 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Hard to find a picture from that angle. But this is what I came up with. It sure looks quite identical to the JF-17. The Chinese are well known for their design thefts. Perhaps they combined the IAR-95 with some indigenous R&D for the final product? The point is, the IAR-95 never reached its production phase and is classified as an abandoned project. JF-17 Thunder on the other hand is a successful project and would definitely become a strong contender in the future in terms of reliability, cost-effectiveness and mass production.



    e1fd3e28af88f2ca679e84749a6b9647.jpg

    787501778e13b5d548d83d5a78daabaf.jpg
     
  15. echo 1

    echo 1 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    508
    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Ratings:
    +0 / 146 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    the tail is also different on jf-17
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.