What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
19,232
160
52,832
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Hi,

Semi stealth technology is not a new concept but an old one---. I have never discussed it---why---no reason to---if general public does not know it---they don't need to know it---.

@TaimiKhan will tell you guys of our version of years ago as to what we did

Illiterate people do not know that the original design of the JF17 was 25% larger design---which got compromised due to certain reason.

Illiterate people do not know that Grippen also upr=graded their aircraft to an almost 25% largest aircraft in the form of a grippen NG---.

Illiterate people also do not know that F18 Hornet also got bigger in the later production years----.

JF17 blk3 is just the begining of changes yet to come in the JF17's---.

And to someone's comment of engine being not powerful enough---.

In modern day air combat---engine is the least of the problems. The F35 is a flying hog---but its electronics would not let your electronic sensor driven missile see it even if it was flying right in front of the face---.
 
Last edited:

m52k85

FULL MEMBER
May 24, 2013
223
0
207
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
The philosophy behind-block 72s-is-different and block 3 uses-the same-principles. This is to stay outside the range of the enemy eadars-and keep your radars-off relying on a netcentric central platform to input who should fire at what. So if you want to do that you can do so with block 3. Semistealth is a misnomer as long as your weapons are mounted on external HPs. From pure observabilitypoint of view you will get caught out. This is the reason for the-silent Eagle to have pods to contain weapons. However with a light weight fighter you cannot do that. This is-why no attempt has been made to contain the weaponry inside pods on the 16s. The rest is-upto you.
A
Consider this scenario, make a semi-stealth aircraft (diamond nose, proper intakes, v-tail and all the necessary edge alignments). On an air-patrol/ interception mission have it take-off with external bvr aams and fuel tanks.

In an engagement it goes to altitude, after-burner to max practical speed for high range bvr shot, drop tanks in the process, get up to speed. At this point the air-craft is still visible to enemy radar due to external aams, assuming comparable aams, radar and spj, both adversaries let their bvrs lose at long ranges, at this point our aircraft is clean and suddenly disappears from enemy radars (MRA, AEWACS and ground radars) does a crank or a split-s, depending on the situation and lo-and-behold the enemy BVR can no longer get an updated track, arrives at the original way-point and has no aircraft to target in its basket.
New tech needing research: jettison pilon to achieve completely clean config.

For a strategic strike role explore the idea of a stealthly hanging a cruise missile. Cruise missiles have been demonstrated to be stealthy by themeslves, next step make them stealthy attached to external of aircraft.

While such a platform will be stealth in very limited roles (strategic-strike and A-A sniping) these two areas are also potential leverage points in a limited or drawn-out conflict. Some benefits of stealth with no loss of capability from previous 4.5 gen.

This is what I understand when the word 'semi-stealth' pops up. We dont have to be 'lakeer ke faqir', there is no harm in doing some original thinking to suit our niche. @MastanKhan
 
Last edited:

Deino

INT'L MOD
Nov 9, 2014
9,175
14
14,274
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
....
Illiterate people do not know that the original design of the JF17 was 25% larger design---which got compromised due to certain reason.
Yes, but then again with a very much different engine and not the current RD-93 ...

Illiterate people do not know that Grippen also upr=graded their aircraft to an almost 25% largest aircraft in the form of a grippen NG---.

Illiterate people also do not know that F18 Hornet also got bigger in the later production years----.
Again with the definition of what's copy or clone you seem to have a different definition of size!
You probably mean by volume and even if it indeed shows a growth of +20%, this is not 25% as you claim

Even more - and only illiterate people would deliberately omit to mention this - Saab had the option for a much more powerful engine with much more thrust (+22.5 %) for roughly similar dimensions, but this is an option CAC/PAC does not have for the JF-17; at least not yet (maybe when the WS-19 is ready).

As such a dramatically enlarged JF-17 in the same way as the F/A-18A/C grew or evolved to the Super Hornet is surely not impossible, but CAC will not do this for cheap, Pakistan cannot afford it alone and it will take time since it would require a new different engine ... and here we would again end up in a type similar to the J-10. But again, only "illiterate people" would omit to tell this in order to look others like fools, as if such a development would be easy, cheap and possible in just a few years.

1600266773564.png

1600267185886.png


JF17 blk3 is just the begining of changes yet to come in the JF17's---.
Let's wait and see ...
 

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
7,801
64
12,124
Consider this scenario, make a semi-stealth aircraft (diamond nose, proper intakes, v-tail and all the necessary edge alignments). On an air-patrol/ interception mission have it take-off with external bvr aams and fuel tanks.

In an engagement it goes to altitude, after-burner to max practical speed for high range bvr shot, drop tanks in the process, get up to speed. At this point the air-craft is still visible to enemy radar due to external aams, assuming comparable aams, radar and spj, both adversaries let their bvrs lose at long ranges, at this point our aircraft is clean and suddenly disappears from enemy radars (MRA, AEWACS and ground radars) does a crank or a split-s, depending on the situation and lo-and-behold the enemy BVR can no longer get an updated track, arrives at the original way-point and has no aircraft to target in its basket.
New tech needing research: jettison pilon to achieve completely clean config.

For a strategic strike role explore the idea of a stealthly hanging a cruise missile. Cruise missiles have been demonstrated to be stealthy by themeslves, next step make them stealthy attached to external of aircraft.

While such a platform will be stealth in very limited roles (strategic-strike and A-A sniping) these two areas are also potential leverage points in a limited or drawn-out conflict. Some benefits of stealth with no loss of capability from previous 4.5 gen.

This is what I understand when the word 'semi-stealth' pops up. We dont have to be 'lakeer ke faqir', there is no harm in doing some original thinking to suit our niche. @MastanKhan
Mairay bhai.
At the ranges you are talking about the JFT EVEN in its current shape and clean configuration will not be visible. There are flaws with your scenario. You will still retain the WVR missiles and unless you are going without them the classical A2A strike package will be 2+2 or 4+2 with one drop tank. Modern day fights will hardly give you the opportunity to let loose all your armaments. The 27/02 engagement we used only 2 AMRAAMS. The likelihood is you will be part of a package with a selection of armaments. I dont see how your scenario will be enacted. However if the enemy radars are blocked you can still use your netcentric abilities to your advantage.
The only problem I have with these khiyali pulaos is that they will probably make no sense to a professional (which I definitely am not) or a person with some idea. These minor changes have to be seen in the light of cost vs benefit analysis and they would probably fail miserably. This is the reason that in spite of these designs having existed since 2009 onwards PAF has not gone down this route. We used to have Munir (RIP) who drew(if I remember correctly) the first JFT with double tails and 9 HPs as well as one with CFTs. While the latter may yet become reality the former has not.
Regards
 
Last edited:

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
13,320
10
11,926
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Yes, but then again with a very much different engine and not the current RD-93 ...



Again with the definition of what's copy or clone you seem to have a different definition of size!
You probably mean by volume and even if it indeed shows a growth of +20%, this is not 25% as you claim

Even more - and only illiterate people would deliberately omit to mention this - Saab had the option for a much more powerful engine with much more thrust (+22.5 %) for roughly similar dimensions, but this is an option CAC/PAC does not have for the JF-17; at least not yet (maybe when the WS-19 is ready).

As such a dramatically enlarged JF-17 in the same way as the F/A-18A/C grew or evolved to the Super Hornet is surely not impossible, but CAC will not do this for cheap, Pakistan cannot afford it alone and it will take time since it would require a new different engine ... and here we would again end up in a type similar to the J-10. But again, only "illiterate people" would omit to tell this in order to look others like fools, as if such a development would be easy, cheap and possible in just a few years.

View attachment 670384
View attachment 670385



Let's wait and see ...
rd 93 is almost a similar engine upgrade from around 83 to 94..it is available and is undergoing testing but for whom?
there is no other single engine jet program?

so its reasonable to assume its for jf17, question is, is it for block 3 or block 4?

if for block 3, why didn't we see major structural changes for jf17block 3(apart from one hard point), it is possible that there are some changes that we dont see in photos.

or is rd93ma meant for block 4?

will block 4 then be structurally a bit different or will PAF simply take the additional thrust without enlarging the jet and do internal changes like adding more fuel and strengthening wings?
 

GriffinsRule

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 18, 2015
2,116
4
2,905
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
rd 93 is almost a similar engine upgrade from around 83 to 94..it is available and is undergoing testing but for whom?
there is no other single engine jet program?

so its reasonable to assume its for jf17, question is, is it for block 3 or block 4?

if for block 3, why didn't we see major structural changes for jf17block 3(apart from one hard point), it is possible that there are some changes that we dont see in photos.

or is rd93ma meant for block 4?

will block 4 then be structurally a bit different or will PAF simply take the additional thrust without enlarging the jet and do internal changes like adding more fuel and strengthening wings?
Were there structural changes in F-16 when its engine was upgraded from F100-PW-100 to F100-PW-200 and then to F100-PW-220/220E?

Also, with just 2 pictures of available showing very minor changes, you cant assume its not for Block 3.
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
13,320
10
11,926
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Were there structural changes in F-16 when its engine was upgraded from F100-PW-100 to F100-PW-200 and then to F100-PW-220/220E?

Also, with just 2 pictures of available showing very minor changes, you cant assume its not for Block 3.
we dont know when rd93ma is coming, till that is answered we cant say much
 

Shah_Deu

FULL MEMBER
Jun 7, 2019
496
0
1,344
Country
Pakistan
Location
Germany
rd 93 is almost a similar engine upgrade from around 83 to 94..it is available and is undergoing testing but for whom?
there is no other single engine jet program?

so its reasonable to assume its for jf17, question is, is it for block 3 or block 4?

if for block 3, why didn't we see major structural changes for jf17block 3(apart from one hard point), it is possible that there are some changes that we dont see in photos.

or is rd93ma meant for block 4?

will block 4 then be structurally a bit different or will PAF simply take the additional thrust without enlarging the jet and do internal changes like adding more fuel and strengthening wings?
Well this engine and related structural changes subject has already been discussed here many times before. Let me add here again, being an automotive engineer i can tell you one engine can produce different power outputs just by playing with its calibration and upgrading critical parts like injectors, lubrication system, cooling system etc but keeping its physical footprint the same thus resulting in no-problems from integration and physical packaging point of view.

Just for reference, the below ISF 2.8 series light duty cummins engines come in various power classes from 109 PS all the way upto 163 PS, with just a change in calibration in control units. I myself have tested the same engine on the test bench with different ECU calibrations resulting in different power and torque curves altogether.

1600453766147.png


The same applies to optimizing jet engines too. For reference, take F100-PW-220 and F100-PW-229. Both have more or less the same physical footprint with some internal peripherals being replaced/optimized resulting in improvement of dry thrust from 65kN to 79kN and wet thrust from 106 kN to 130 kN.

1600454579914.png
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
13,320
10
11,926
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Well this engine and related structural changes subject has already been discussed here many times before. Let me add here again, being an automotive engineer i can tell you one engine can produce different power outputs just by playing with its calibration and upgrading critical parts like injectors, lubrication system, cooling system etc but keeping its physical footprint the same thus resulting in no-problems from integration and physical packaging point of view.

Just for reference, the below ISF 2.8 series light duty cummins engines come in various power classes from 109 PS all the way upto 163 PS, with just a change in calibration in control units. I myself have tested the same engine on the test bench with different ECU calibrations resulting in different power and torque curves altogether.

View attachment 671127

The same applies to optimizing jet engines too. For reference, take F100-PW-220 and F100-PW-229. Both have more or less the same physical footprint with some internal peripherals being replaced/optimized resulting in improvement of dry thrust from 65kN to 79kN and wet thrust from 106 kN to 130 kN.

View attachment 671128
Probably this means that rd93ma will make it to block3
Will wait & see what enhancement in fuel & payload was done for block 3

Rd93 with jf17 wasnt under powered but wasnt overpowered like f15/f16 either ..
Rd93ma alone will give mire endurance with better engine efficiency
 

Shah_Deu

FULL MEMBER
Jun 7, 2019
496
0
1,344
Country
Pakistan
Location
Germany
Probably this means that rd93ma will make it to block3
Will wait & see what enhancement in fuel & payload was done for block 3

Rd93 with jf17 wasnt under powered but wasnt overpowered like f15/f16 either ..
Rd93ma alone will give mire endurance with better engine efficiency
Whether it will make out to the block 3 or not, we will have to wait and see. We would also have to see how much extra thrust the RD-93 MA brings to the table and if the engine service life is affected by the optimizations.
 

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

Top