Are we able to make an aircraft like F-16?

[Beast]

I'm unsure about the JF-17 but he's right about the F-16.

That is precisely the point. The point about JF-17 is totally wrong.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Yes, with your fake source. Right?

Yes, You are right, it must be fake.... www.pac.org.pk.

But I am not blaming them, they are relying on data from Chengdu,
and most information from that country and it citizens is fake, or?

http://web.archive.org/web/20101024210239/http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17.html

(Go to detailed specification at the bottom)

This is a bit old, so You are Welcome to produce a newer source.
Feel free to produce an updated figure, and don't forget to update the Wiki, which also says
4,000 hours or 25 years, but maybe maintaining the wiki is not of interest,
so PAC employees does not care that is wrong.

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

Really? FN-6 manpack is highly praised by user with strong resistance to ECM and main thing it is the customer who is too cheap to buy the older version of Manpack like QW-1 and QW-2. Dont blame Chinese product when its the customer who has no money to buy better one.

We dont need your opinion about Chinese weapon product when Iraq,Saudi and many other countries purchase large number of Chinese weapons who has nothing but praise of it.

So now you nitpick on spelling after run out of counter arguement? If you bother to check FN-6 and QW-1 sounds like manpack or manpad to you?

You know, MANPACKs and MANPADs are NOT EVEN THE SAME GOD DAMN 'thing'. This is the exact reason why I always force Chinese nationalists to clarify exactly what they are talking about. And then they think it is racist. Likes of @Beast and that other Chinese guy who was calling folks in this thread with all sorts of name are so god damn ignorant that you have to make them spell out what they are talking about and then parse and comprehend what the words or sentences they were groping at. Mostly they are confusing quite a few things all at the same time.

This is a MANPACK

http://www.acorde.com/sites/default/files/datasheets/acmanpack-0.6m_ku.pdf

THIS IS A MANPAD

And then you wonder why people think Chinese Nationalists are a bunch of ignorant fools. He gave example of MANPACKs for a reason. It is one of the RF engineering products on which he had a prior experience and knew what chinese and other vendors provide. He knew his shit but sorry to say, you didn't even bother to look what he was referring to.

Seriously, we all rest our case. Chinese Nationalists on this forum are a bunch of .... well Chinese.

@denel

 

[Beast]

You know, MANPACKs and MANPADs are NOT EVEN THE SAME GOD DAMN 'thing'. This is the exact reason why I always force Chinese nationalists to clarify exactly what they are talking about. And then they think it is racist. Likes of @Beast and that other Chinese guy who was calling folks in this thread with all sorts of name are so god damn ignorant that you have to make them spell out what they are talking about and then parse and comprehend what the words or sentences they were groping at. Mostly they are confusing quite a few things all at the same time.

This is a MANPACK

http://www.acorde.com/sites/default/files/datasheets/acmanpack-0.6m_ku.pdf
View attachment 406620


THIS IS A MANPAD
View attachment 406619

And then you wonder why people think Chinese Nationalists are a bunch of ignorant fools. He gave example of MANPACKs for a reason. It is one of the RF engineering products on which he had a prior experience and knew what chinese and other vendors provide. He knew his shit but sorry to say, you didn't even bother to look what he was referring to.

Seriously, we all rest our case. Chinese Nationalists on this forum are a bunch of .... well Chinese.

@denel

I admit it is a spelling mistake becos of stupid auto correction. Does it detrail from the fact of Chinese manpad like FN-6 and QW-1/2 shoulder SAM which I mention? Are you desperate trying to divert from the original point?

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

I admit it is a spelling mistake becos of stupid auto correction. Does it detrail from the fact of Chinese manpad like FN-6 and QW-1/2 shoulder SAM which I mention? Are you desperate trying to divert from the original point?

The person --@denel-- was referring to MANPACKs as in comm units. You were referring to MANPADs as in shoulder fired missiles. You failed to understand what and why he was talking about. Chinese MANPADs were not even a part of discussion at that point of time. He referred to MANPACKs for a reason. He had first hand information about them and was in a position to compare them with similar products from other countries and he was sharing his experience to support his point about why and what he thinks of Chinese RF technology and engineering.

 

[Arsalan]

Now we need to aim bigger and better!

 

[Mugwop]

Now we need to aim bigger and better!

What do you have in mind brother?

 

[khanmubashir]

I am sorry but these claims are largely unsubstantiated. JF-17 Thunder has good airframe (no doubt) but its primary advantage lay in the aspects that these aircraft are not prone to sanctions and can be customized according to the needs of PAF any time. More importantly, they are suitable for utilizing armaments designed by Pakistan and/or China which is a big relief.

Block-III project represents an effort to bring JF-17 Thunder 'on par' with F-16 in certain aspects but not sure where it will fit because F-16 has continued to evolve as a platform and latest F-16V are truly state-of-the-art.

F-16 Block 52 are the most technologically advanced aircraft in the inventory of PAF at present - no ifs and buts about this - and mostly reserved for top-of-the-line pilots. These are/were the first to grant PAF the capability to conduct precision strikes in night-time conditions and threaten SU-30 MKI in air-to-air engagements.

However;

With F-16, things are high-tech but 'constraints' also follow.

Jf17 Is at 70 % capability of f16 but at half price we can make two at Price of one f16 which would b with strings attached and their collective capabilities would b more then that single f16 and same same ratios would remain for new block 3 vs f16 block 70

 

[Arsalan]

What do you have in mind brother?

The JF17 plan calls for 150 planes in three blocks as of yet. This is what we are getting form all the discussions. Originally the plan was of 150+100=250 planes but as per reports PAF is just looking at those first 150 for now. If this is true, it leaves us with:
150 JF17
70-75 F16
Maximum 70-75 Fifth gen after 2020.
They add to a total of 300 aircraft, too low for our requirment.

What i am talking about here, (just my personal wish and thinking, no source or claims) is to exetend the program beyond Blk-III. To JF17 Blk IV, to JF17NG or a new name altogether based on the lessons learned from JFT project. Make that bigger with more use of composities so overall weight remains in same category, increase the weapon carrying capability to 9+1 hardpoints able to carry 8400-9800 Kg top line weapons from China and other reliable suppliers, AESA, IRST, HMD better EW capability. Get a few EW pods as well that can be used as special mission equipment. Basically some 120 150 planes that may cost close to the expensive 4.5 gen planes but are home made, have top technology (we can use some of the goodies from the fifth gen plane that we go for into this plane as well) and takes the total strength to 420-450 aircrafts atleast.

 

[lastone]

Jf17 is a chinese russian variant and frankly though india is a big customer of the russians , recent events dont give me much confidence.
Turkey shoots down russian su24 fighter jet.
Usa shoots down syrian jet su 22.

The worrying thing about both these events esp russian , is that the planes had no situational awareness in a war zone. These were easy kills.
Now su24 in russian hands had no idea when it was lit up ? Neither did any ground radars etc warn this plane. Does not instill confidence in plane or its radar.
America has finetuned its war machines in the various conflicts it starts.

 

[BetterPakistan]

The JF17 plan calls for 150 planes in three blocks as of yet. This is what we are getting form all the discussions. Originally the plan was of 150+100=250 planes but as per reports PAF is just looking at those first 150 for now. If this is true, it leaves us with:
150 JF17
70-75 F16
Maximum 70-75 Fifth gen after 2020.
They add to a total of 300 aircraft, too low for our requirment.

What i am talking about here, (just my personal wish and thinking, no source or claims) is to exetend the program beyond Blk-III. To JF17 Blk IV, to JF17NG or a new name altogether based on the lessons learned from JFT project. Make that bigger with more use of composities so overall weight remains in same category, increase the weapon carrying capability to 9+1 hardpoints able to carry 8400-9800 Kg top line weapons from China and other reliable suppliers, AESA, IRST, HMD better EW capability. Get a few EW pods as well that can be used as special mission equipment. Basically some 120 150 planes that may cost close to the expensive 4.5 gen planes but are home made, have top technology (we can use some of the goodies from the fifth gen plane that we go for into this plane as well) and takes the total strength to 420-450 aircrafts atleast.

PAF has about 374 operational fighter jets and this is our requirement in total. I guess PAF has a new plan like:-

150 JF-17 (all upgraded to block 3 standard)
76 F-16
36 J-20/31

which makes a total of 262 which are less than 112 of our present jets. If I am not wrong PAF is looking into J-10b and may go for a large number of this jets to counter rafale because that su-35 deal is dead.

 

[ghazi768]

Yes, You are right, it must be fake.... www.pac.org.pk.

But I am not blaming them, they are relying on data from Chengdu,
and most information from that country and it citizens is fake, or?

http://web.archive.org/web/20101024210239/http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17.html

(Go to detailed specification at the bottom)

View attachment 406616

This is a bit old, so You are Welcome to produce a newer source.
Feel free to produce an updated figure, and don't forget to update the Wiki, which also says
4,000 hours or 25 years, but maybe maintaining the wiki is not of interest,
so PAC employees does not care that is wrong.

You are actually playing with numbers here and if you know things than are plainly dishonest..

F-16 designed life was (and is for those straight out of a production line) 4000 hours. Those which were near this than went through multiple life extension programs which included thorough investigation of airframes and bulkheads and repairs to extend their life for another 4000 hours. USAF is now planning another life extension program for its F-16s for another 4000 hours.

We do not need to extend airframe life of JF-17s they are almost brand new.. once we reach such a situation than we can do cost/benefit analysis of whether to extend life of older airframes or manufacture newer ones. This is the benefit of manufacturing your own fighters.. you do not have to ask god damned SAAB or LM to sell them another fighter for a pound of flesh or please for life extension just because one in service is showing signs of fatigue..

 

[Blue Marlin]

The JF17 plan calls for 150 planes in three blocks as of yet. This is what we are getting form all the discussions. Originally the plan was of 150+100=250 planes but as per reports PAF is just looking at those first 150 for now. If this is true, it leaves us with:
150 JF17
70-75 F16
Maximum 70-75 Fifth gen after 2020.
They add to a total of 300 aircraft, too low for our requirment.

What i am talking about here, (just my personal wish and thinking, no source or claims) is to exetend the program beyond Blk-III. To JF17 Blk IV, to JF17NG or a new name altogether based on the lessons learned from JFT project. Make that bigger with more use of composities so overall weight remains in same category, increase the weapon carrying capability to 9+1 hardpoints able to carry 8400-9800 Kg top line weapons from China and other reliable suppliers, AESA, IRST, HMD better EW capability. Get a few EW pods as well that can be used as special mission equipment. Basically some 120 150 planes that may cost close to the expensive 4.5 gen planes but are home made, have top technology (we can use some of the goodies from the fifth gen plane that we go for into this plane as well) and takes the total strength to 420-450 aircrafts atleast.

if this new bird is going to carry 9-9.5 tonnes then it would need to be twin engined. how about both the j-31 near term and the tfx in the latter term(post 2025) the mixture of the two would big various pieces of tech to pakistan from two suppliers rather than one.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

You are actually playing with numbers here and if you know things than are plainly dishonest..

F-16 designed life was (and is for those straight out of a production line) 4000 hours. Those which were near this than went through multiple life extension programs which included thorough investigation of airframes and bulkheads and repairs to extend their life for another 4000 hours. USAF is now planning another life extension program for its F-16s for another 4000 hours.

We do not need to extend airframe life of JF-17s they are almost brand new.. once we reach such a situation than we can do cost/benefit analysis of whether to extend life of older airframes or manufacture newer ones. This is the benefit of manufacturing your own fighters.. you do not have to ask god damned SAAB or LM to sell them another fighter for a pound of flesh or please for life extension just because one in service is showing signs of fatigue..

The Block 40/50 are built for 8,000 according to this.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...6-fighter-jet-could-fly-92-years-theory-14290

Comment from F-16.net
Not entirely right. The F-16 was designed for 4,000 hours. This was the case for the block 1/5/10/15 airframes. From block 25 onwards (and including blocks 30/32, 15OCU, 20 and even some 40/42) were designed for 6,000 hours. Halfway the block 40/42 production run and thus including block 50/52/60) the airframes were designed for 8,000 hours. Retrofits and adjustments to the older airframes of block 15, 15OCU, 20, 20MLU, 25, 30/32, 40/42 also made them able to fly this designlimit of 8,000 hours. To make sure all those airframes and even the new-build were effectively able to catch up to that number a lot of reinforcements to those airframes were also made (viewable by the I-shapes on the fuselage on different positions).

Gripen is built for 8,000 flight hours according to this:
https://saab.com/globalassets/comme...s/whatever-your-past-the-future-is-gripen.pdf

Nothing dishonest at all.

Jf17 is a chinese russian variant and frankly though india is a big customer of the russians , recent events dont give me much confidence.
Turkey shoots down russian su24 fighter jet.
Usa shoots down syrian jet su 22.

The worrying thing about both these events esp russian , is that the planes had no situational awareness in a war zone. These were easy kills.
Now su24 in russian hands had no idea when it was lit up ? Neither did any ground radars etc warn this plane. Does not instill confidence in plane or its radar.
America has finetuned its war machines in the various conflicts it starts.

I read somewhere that the Hornet fired an AIM-9X at the Su-22 but the Su-22 avoided
that missile by firing chaff (strange! , flares would make more sense),
and the Hornet then separated itself and fired an AMRAAM for the kill.
If this is true, the Syrian was definitely aware of the threat.

 

[lastone]

some europeans are doing just fine, they have advantages in specific areas like optical, CNC, precision engineering and etc respectively, but none of them have a wide or even complete industrial spectrum or technological know-how like China and U.S has, which enables us to make comlicated holistic systematic projects.

another problem facing them is the U.S, that for decades its policy is to make all the European countries into U.S industrial and financial eco-system, so even some individual countries like Sweden can be able to develop advanced 4th gen fighter, but it wont be possible if Sweden left the eco-system. their technologcial sharing are quite deep and profound. so it is 1+1>2 thing for them....but at our end, we actually "reinvent" lots of things, takes much longer time, compromise in realiablity in the begining, however the long term positive effect is grandiose as we can see now!

Having worked with european , chinese and american equipment , i have to say you are highly delusional.

[/QUOTE]
I read somewhere that the Hornet fired an AIM-9X at the Su-22 but the Su-22 avoided
that missile by firing chaff (strange! , flares would make more sense),
and the Hornet then separated itself and fired an AMRAAM for the kill.
If this is true, the Syrian was definitely aware of the threat.[/QUOTE]
So su22 with syria is not adequately armed with a2a missiles or has no chance against a f18 ? What options does it have against a f16 or f18 ?