What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

Moon

FULL MEMBER
Oct 27, 2014
1,966
2
2,363
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
you can get meteor but you would need something that can fire it too
that is gripen, rafale or typhoon

typhoon seems to be the only opption but its expensive to buy and even more expesnive to maintain
Link-17 with the Thunder and an AEWC, to fully utilize it I guess.
 

Danish Moazzam

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Dec 26, 2015
77
0
98
Country
Pakistan
Location
Bahrain
A model of Thunder with Vixen Aesa if the power requirement are met. Then Meteor can be used. There were talks on it
 

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
19,795
160
54,282
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I would request you to kindly watch series of interview of Shahid Latif at YouTube channel of Abid Andleeb he clearly mention that S-7 project was a failure and was based on J-7 ... but when he became project chief he revised ASR of the project and used F-16 as base model ..... name of the project was not changed to JF-17 till later stages .... as far as I remember change of name to JF-17 was done with the production of 4th prototype

Additionally you could search interview of ACM Saeed Anwar shaib as well which many years ago was shared at this forum, he also in that interview indirectly acknowledge the failure of original Super-7 (which was the fighter aircraft design related to refinement of J-7 design and avionics) and he was doubtful about Chinese aviation capabilities of that time ....
Hi,

It is technically impossible for 2 decade experienced top notch F16 operator to design something as obsolete as something based on the Mig 21.

Millenium 7 described it very well in his video about another product---. For those who want to learn---find the viedo and learn.
 

Scorpiooo

FULL MEMBER
Apr 22, 2020
960
0
926
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Hi,

It is technically impossible for 2 decade experienced top notch F16 operator to design something as obsolete as something based on the Mig 21.

Millenium 7 described it very well in his video about another product---. For those who want to learn---find the viedo and learn.
Can you plz share link
 

Munib

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Jan 27, 2014
13
1
13
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
I have a question that might have been answered somewhere in this forum so please do share the link if so.

Why is the landing gear of the jf17 so short? From the photos the clearance with drop tanks looks to be about 1m for the wings and probably half under belly. Never mind my guesses but seems low.
I suppose the right question to ask is if the plane would benefit from longer legs and what limitations do short legs have.
 

Dreamer.

FULL MEMBER
Apr 1, 2018
445
0
398
Country
Pakistan
Location
Saudi Arabia
I have a question that might have been answered somewhere in this forum so please do share the link if so.

Why is the landing gear of the jf17 so short? From the photos the clearance with drop tanks looks to be about 1m for the wings and probably half under belly. Never mind my guesses but seems low.
I suppose the right question to ask is if the plane would benefit from longer legs and what limitations do short legs have.
Where aircraft are concerned short (or long) legs has an entirely different meaning....i.e. it refers to an aircraft's range.

What you are referring to is called ground clearance. And less ground clearance does have its disadvantages.....such as not being able to carry certain weapons among other things. Increasing the ground clearance is however a bit more complicated than just putting a longer rod for the landing gear. Those more knowledgeable about aircraft design can explain better.
 

razgriz19

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 28, 2009
4,214
0
3,512
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
I'm no design engineer but space in one big reason. F-16s landing gear is in it's belly so it stands taller when measuring ground clearance from the wing.

JF17 doesn't have much space in the belly so landing gear is attached to the wing just like Mirage. However Mirage is a low wing aircraft and flat underneath so it has more clearance available to carry larger or oddly shaped weapons.

I'm sure the designers had their reasons for placing everything where it is and keep in mind the aircraft was develop on a $500 million budget, that's tiny compared to what other countries spend developing their aircraft.
Where aircraft are concerned short (or long) legs has an entirely different meaning....i.e. it refers to an aircraft's range.

What you are referring to is called ground clearance. And less ground clearance does have its disadvantages.....such as not being able to carry certain weapons among other things. Increasing the ground clearance is however a bit more complicated than just putting a longer rod for the landing gear. Those more knowledgeable about aircraft design can explain better.
 

GriffinsRule

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 18, 2015
2,662
6
3,988
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
A key consideration for having shorter ground clearance is also ease of accessibility and servicing the aircraft. That translates to most panels that in easy reach for technicians and ground crew and thus potentially quicker turn around time.

Space on a smaller airframe also makes having shorter landing gear beneficial as any savings can translate into more room for fuel.

Check out how low the wings of the Saab's Gripen are in comparison, another small jet that is famous for ease of maintenance and quick turn around time in the field.

1624935588037.png


Of course Gripen is a better designed aircraft in comparison to the Thunder due to the greater experience Saab has in aerospace design. But to offset the lower ground clearance just means you need to develop more compact smart weapons, which is now the trend anyways in any modern air force.
 
Last edited:

ghazi52

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Mar 21, 2007
63,553
73
100,644
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
"Crew Chief Inspecting JF-17's Rudder"

1625059128936.png



Crew chief's direct aircraft maintenance crews & ensures all procedures of inspections, maintenance, signing & recovering aircrafts are performed correctly & safely. Dedicated crew chiefs are assigned go a single aircraft & are singularly responsible not only for ensuring the successful completion of its maintenance, but for improving it as well.
Never underestimate the soothing effect of a calm & confident crew chief on a nervous trainee about to fly the aircraft on his own for the first time ...

Salute to the crew chiefs...
The charm of flt line is crew chiefs
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,709
72
21,879
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
I'm no design engineer but space in one big reason. F-16s landing gear is in it's belly so it stands taller when measuring ground clearance from the wing.

JF17 doesn't have much space in the belly so landing gear is attached to the wing just like Mirage. However Mirage is a low wing aircraft and flat underneath so it has more clearance available to carry larger or oddly shaped weapons.

I'm sure the designers had their reasons for placing everything where it is and keep in mind the aircraft was develop on a $500 million budget, that's tiny compared to what other countries spend developing their aircraft.
A key consideration for having shorter ground clearance is also ease of accessibility and servicing the aircraft. That translates to most panels that in easy reach for technicians and ground crew and thus potentially quicker turn around time.

Space on a smaller airframe also makes having shorter landing gear beneficial as any savings can translate into more room for fuel.

Check out how low the wings of the Saab's Gripen are in comparison, another small jet that is famous for ease of maintenance and quick turn around time in the field.

View attachment 757640

Of course Gripen is a better designed aircraft in comparison to the Thunder due to the greater experience Saab has in aerospace design. But to offset the lower ground clearance just means you need to develop more compact smart weapons, which is now the trend anyways in any modern air force.
With the JF-17's ground clearance, I think the issue is more that we lack appropriately sized munitions than anything to do with the JF-17 itself. The Ra'ad v1, for example, was designed for the Mirage III/5, and we did not take the JF-17 into account as, at that time, the JF-17 was not a near-term factor. Ditto for H2/H4.

However, with the Ra'ad 2, it seems like Pakistan is investing more in developing its SOW stack. There is a chance that the JF-17 may be able to carry it. The PAF can continue investing along these lines, e.g., look at a 'Ra'ad Lite' (similar to Turkey's SOM), new-gen glide bombs to replace H2/H4, and other ideas too (e.g., a SPEAR-like ALCM can help too if we can economize it). @JamD @SQ8 @kursed

That said, for the PAF, the JF-17 is an MVP (Minimally Viable Product) in design and role. You'll notice that its precision-attack, anti-ship, long-range air-to-air, and so on are just enough to fight in our region. Now, as the region got more sophisticated, the PAF added more features to the JF-17 so as to maintain the MVP status (e.g., AESA radar, HMD/S, ECM, etc).

This situation is likely due to a lack of funds more than anything. If the PAF could "go ham" on the JF-17 by loading it up with bells and whistles, it would. In fact, when the fiscal situation was relatively better in the 2000s, the PAF spoke to Thales and MBDA for the RDY3, MICA and TopOwl.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 4, Members: 0, Guests: 4)


Top Bottom