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

[A.P. Richelieu]

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 ?

The Su-22 is the export version of the Su-17, a fighter-bomber that first flew in 1966.
It is an upgrade of the earlier Su-7 that first flew 1955.
Russia withdrew them from service 20 years ago.
It was cannon-fodder already in the Yom Kippur war in 1973.

 

[messiach]

So many time-event critical technologies and test-beds were created in-house w/o CATIC assistance. Micro-miniature ball bearings for FC surfaces instrumental in FC-1 & J10 development were all in-house developed. That alone makes it as capable as any 4th gen fighter & that includes later gen. F16.

 

[rcrmj]

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

dare to be more spesific? you are not the one who has experiences in high tech feilds in this forum```but to my very experience dealing with Indian for more than a decade, I dont take Indian's words or opinion too serious

And "initially" winning in Turkey can be confirmed by sources?
You have better change the Wiki, because that says that the claim was not true,
and it was never selected.
It also implies it is just a clone of a Patriot system, China might have gotten from Israel.

OMG, this is what you know or believe`````man, I guess I wasted time with another extreemly ignorant yet stereotyped amature```

 

[ghazi768]

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.



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.

@WebMaster I replied to this yesterday but when I posted my reply, something was showing above the post that it is already in moderation and now that message is completely gone. I am confused by this, why it went into moderation immediately when I posted and why it is now completely deleted?

now @A.P. Richelieu, you are still playing with numbers and the best you can come up with some forum or blog posts. Here at-least have a more reputable source to argue, aviation today: http://www.aviationtoday.com/2017/0...cs-upgrades-extend-usaf-f-16-service-life-50/

It argues for already flying fighters to worthy for 12000 hours but USAF no doubts is seeking a new SLEP for getting the certification.

Now when forums and blogs starts mentioning 12000 hours for new F-16s, I'll enjoy the new marketing flyer by SAAB which will hike its hours up to 12000 to remain competitive.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

@WebMaster I replied to this yesterday but when I posted my reply, something was showing above the post that it is already in moderation and now that message is completely gone. I am confused by this, why it went into moderation immediately when I posted and why it is now completely deleted?

now @A.P. Richelieu, you are still playing with numbers and the best you can come up with some forum or blog posts. Here at-least have a more reputable source to argue, aviation today: http://www.aviationtoday.com/2017/0...cs-upgrades-extend-usaf-f-16-service-life-50/

It argues for already flying fighters to worthy for 12000 hours but USAF no doubts is seeking a new SLEP for getting the certification.

Now when forums and blogs starts mentioning 12000 hours for new F-16s, I'll enjoy the new marketing flyer by SAAB which will hike its hours up to 12000 to remain competitive.

So what, it confirms what I am saying.
JF-17 is 4,000 flight hours - confirmed by PAC.
F-16 (except early versions) is 8,000 or even 12,000 hours.
The "cheap" JF-17 will need to have the cost of life extension included to have a comparable price.

 

[messiach]

Fighter jet lifespan is not in 'flight hours'. This is a layman term of no consequences, means nothing to AeSp community. The term is pressurization cycles. Lifespan depends on pressurization cycles or PClc. Every time jet is pressurized pre-flight, wings/fuselage/centrelines are therefore stressed under pressure and eventual material fatigue can develop. That is why we need regular NDE - UPA testing. Modern jet materials have a low index for PClc rel fatigue. Lifespan is a regularly irregular variable, with no constantly assigned value.

now [USER=152476]@A.P. Richelieu, you are still playing with numbers and the best you can come up with some forum or blog posts. Here at-least have a more reputable source to argue, aviation today: http://www.aviationtoday.com/2017/0...cs-upgrades-extend-usaf-f-16-service-life-50/
[/USER]

 

[ghazi768]

Fighter jet lifespan is not in 'flight hours'. This is a layman term of no consequences, means nothing to AeSp community. The term is pressurization cycles. Lifespan depends on pressurization cycles or PClc. Every time jet is pressurized pre-flight, wings/fuselage/centrelines are therefore stressed under pressure and eventual material fatigue can develop. That is why we need regular NDE - UPA testing. Modern jet materials have a low index for PClc rel fatigue. Lifespan is a regularly irregular variable, with no constantly assigned value.

Thanks for explaining it far better than I can, that is what I was trying to explain. Air-frames get fatigued, to be honest I did not know that much about PCIc but fatigue and general wear & tear is common and different for different air-frames. Also data is kept if G exceeds certain limits and there are policies based on this for inspection. JF-17s haven to accumulate (per frame) that many hours i.e. near to 4000 to make a general assessment about viability of how much longer they can continue further overall.

 

[Arsalan]

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.

I do not see PAF operating more than 72 (MAX) fifth generation fighters due to high costs but i may be just me.

@Dazzler @notorious_eagle @araz @fatman17 ??

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.

J10B was put on hold as it was reported to offer NEAR similar capabilities than what we have planned for JF17. We would have loved more F16s since we are good with them but that too seem to be a closed chapter. However i hope this turns out to be a blessing in disguise and will push our authorities to further improve and build on JF17 program. Lets see.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Measuring in "flight hours" is of course assuming a certain profile of usage.
Real aircraft will deviate from this profile.
When You design, you either have no clue, and then You can't tell,
or You set a goal of x hours according to the profile (or use PCIc),
and make sure the design meets that goal.
The key thing is that the JF-17 appears to have a shorter life than many other contemporary
fighters, so the cost of service life extension should be added to the price if
you compare it with the others.

 

[ashok321]

Measuring in "flight hours" is of course assuming a certain profile of usage.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

View attachment 407202

It is more complex for military engines, since they more often work at the limits.
Since engines are replacable, the effect on service life of the airframe is not that significant.

 

[ashok321]

It is more complex for military engines, since they more often work at the limits.
Since engines are replacable, the effect on service life of the airframe is not that significant.

Engines are serviced as per the hours flown.
Manufacturer recommended time period varies from one engine maker to another.
The critical approach in engine life is the Time Between Overhaul or TBO.

 

[messiach]

Flight hours is a vague term means nothing to us. This 4000, 6000 etc are very broad unqualified terms. Read my posts on overhauling somewhere on the forum.

JF-17s haven to accumulate (per frame) that many hours i.e. near to 4000 to make a general assessment about viability of how much longer they can continue further overall.

 

[Blue Marlin]

I do not see PAF operating more than 72 (MAX) fifth generation fighters due to high costs but i may be just me.

@Dazzler @notorious_eagle @araz @fatman17 ??


J10B was put on hold as it was reported to offer NEAR similar capabilities than what we have planned for JF17. We would have loved more F16s since we are good with them but that too seem to be a closed chapter. However i hope this turns out to be a blessing in disguise and will push our authorities to further improve and build on JF17 program. Lets see.

well they need 110 top notch fighters to eventually replace the f16's whilst the more pressing matter would be the matter to replace the mirage iii/v which should have retired yesterday. so you need to figure out where the j31 will go.

lets be real here the jf-17 is not gonna replace the mirage's they meant to replace the j-7's.

to replace the mirage a void of 170 jets needs to be filled.
80/85 mirage iii multirole/recon
85 mirage v attack

i wont be surprised if the j-31 takes the attack/multirole position whilst the j20 can be purchased post 2025 to replace the f16's as a long range fighter is needed.
by that time the economy would have improved and so would have the defence budget.
your not paying billions upfront for a fighter its spread across many years.

not

 

[Arsalan]

well they need 110 top notch fighters to eventually replace the f16's whilst the more pressing matter would be the matter to replace the mirage iii/v which should have retired yesterday. so you need to figure out where the j31 will go.

lets be real here the jf-17 is not gonna replace the mirage's they meant to replace the j-7's.

to replace the mirage a void of 170 jets needs to be filled.
80/85 mirage iii multirole/recon
85 mirage v attack

i wont be surprised if the j-31 takes the attack/multirole position whilst the j20 can be purchased post 2025 to replace the f16's as a long range fighter is needed.
by that time the economy would have improved and so would have the defence budget.
your not paying billions upfront for a fighter its spread across many years.

not

IF we go down that road and opt for two different fifth generation fighters, i think TFX a more likely choice compared o J20. However it is just my guess worth taking with a pinch of salt here

Time will tell.

I would however again say that we still need 100-120 more planes in JF17 Blk III + category. Without them the numbers do not make any sense.