Assessment | JF-17 Thunder, a 21st century F-20 Tigershark ?

[Superboy]

I'm going to have to go with a no on this one. While the wings and tail resemble those of F-20, the nose resembles that of Mirage 2000. IMO JFT is a unique plane in the light fighter class.

 

[VCheng]

Hi, there is problem with the comparison between F-20 and JF-17.

Before I even discuss, let me say just because an aircraft project came into certain era/time/year doesn't mean it would remain the same aircraft/technology through of its life cycle/age as VCheng tried to portray, it was a poor assessment on his part as a research/dev member. F-15 was conceived in 70's but it no longer is the same aircraft technologically and airframe wise there have been alot of additions/changes and use of composites lighter stronger airframe compared to 70's not to mention avionics/weapons and other systems/mechanics.

Even for the sake of comparison it can't be compared the project ended period. Just because it had GE Engine and AN-APG-67 doesn't qualify to be compared and given plus point over FC-1/JF-17.

I have consistently and clearly highlighted the fact that the platform has been developed since its inception several decades ago, and will continue to do so in the future. However, the assessment that it is a older design airframe and engine technology is also was and remains correct.

Right now there are no substantial composite parts in the airframe and the engine remains underpowered with poor smoke performance and MTBO. However, the addition of an IFR probe mitigates the small internal fuel capacity and the ability to carry standoff weapons will make this a very useful little aircraft once they are fully integrated in the next few years.

My title or lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on the fairness of my assessments, which are always as honest as I can make them. If there is any expectation that the grant of this, or any other, title will influence this honesty, then it is sadly mistaken, please note that very clearly.

 

[Luftwaffe]

I have consistently and clearly highlighted the fact that the platform has been developed since its inception several decades ago, and will continue to do so in the future. However, the assessment that it is a older design airframe and engine technology is also was and remains correct.

Right now there are no substantial composite parts in the airframe and the engine remains underpowered with poor smoke performance and MTBO. However, the addition of an IFR probe mitigates the small internal fuel capacity and the ability to carry standoff weapons will make this a very useful little aircraft once they are fully integrated in the next few years.

My title or lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on the fairness of my assessments, which are always as honest as I can make them. If there is any expectation that the grant of this, or any other, title will influence this honesty, then it is sadly mistaken, please note that very clearly.

you are contradicting your statements every now and then at one place you say platform has been developed on the other hand you say it is 70's 80's product, make up your mind. Explain older design airframe notion, what do you want a 4th/4th+ generation to look like that is the most unprofessional comment on your part "older design airframe". @Oscar and specially @Najam Khan if you are somewhere land on this Thread. By your logic F-404 GE is also a product of 1978+ as well No? I am sure you have read about RD series RD-93 is a much better variant of RD-33 basic conceived in 76 and SMR95. 100% composites used in an aircraft won't keep it to that generation it would become 4.5+ gen you should know by now already the purpose of JF-17/FC-1. All in all one can't compare an aircraft that is in cold storage rather in bone yard to an aircraft that will continue to be developed over the years, F-20 couldn't even complete with F-16 block 15. Since the thread is about comparison you should compare rather than dissing FC-1/JF-17 same as you did in JF-17 Thunder Threads.

 

[Joe Shearer]

well dint get your point sir while mine was a simple queri any way please do go in detail if possible thanks

to start with how about a comparrision between light fughters in the sub continent
JF17 Blk 1 - Tejas MK 1 - Mirage - 2000 - F 16 BLK 52

Thanks in advance

A little unfair.

His point was that in a multi-model comparison, with information for three or four models all having to be represented on the same page, less detail can be put up for each model than is possible for a two-at-a-time comparison.

Anyone who wishes to compare one with another can easily do this from the set of comparisons that @Aeronaut seems to be building up. We just have to take the characteristics of any one of the target planes, and make a comparison directly with the characteristics of any other of the targets.

Once he finishes it, a lot of the fuss and bother will be eliminated.

Bearing in mind, of course, that no paper comparison will ever substitute for an actual test flight by a trained pilot. This is the best that we can do in a defence analysis journal.

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

 

[Kompromat]

Yea the JF-17 has a MUCH larger wing area, the length is similar, and JF-17 also has greater ground clearance. It all adds up to the weight which should explain the difference and Thrust to Weight Ratio, therefore the greater agility F-20 displayed.

 

[HAIDER]

Northrop was a huge company, and F-5 sales were stellar. General Dynamics didn't have the political power to take on Northrop. As a light fighter, F-20 didn't have the combat radius required by the US air force. F-20 sales would have been stellar if Northrop was allowed to market the plane to overseas markets.

I have noticed US govt always help companies and give them breathing space, by even buying unfit gadgets . The most recent example of replacing of KC air refueling tanker. Contract awarded to Boeing .....someone from Boeing has strong lobby inside defence dept???

Anyway..lots of people quote Chuck Yeager....

1) Yeager was on the Northrop payroll when he said that
2) While the F-20 has plenty of thrusties it -20 was not rated to 9g so I suspect it could not hang as tight a sustained turn rate as the Viper
3) Given the relative wing shapes, I doubt the F-20 could pull any more instantaneous g's than the Viper (did it have any leading edge lift enhancers?)
4) Less payload; less range]

 

[SQ8]

My title or lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on the fairness of my assessments, which are always as honest as I can make them. If there is any expectation that the grant of this, or any other, title will influence this honesty, then it is sadly mistaken, please note that very clearly.

Tinted assessments usually. Made through the manipulation of figures and facts. As are all fair assessments. Be it Carlo Kopp or Pierre Sprey. Hence, they cannot be taken at any stage as the final word.... yours have your bias of experience.. not just technical but by nationality.. as have mine. People should realize that. How much it takes before the nationality starts spilling into the technical bits.. is the true gauge.

@Luftwaffe There is as such nothing revolutionary behind the airframe of the JF-17.. it is reflective of a design that would have flown well in the 70s...but then.. so are many aircraft flying today based on those designs and are very effective at what they do. However, the F-20 is based on the F-5..and is much older and different in design concepts.
One might say that the F-20 was a 60's era design updated with 80's ideas.. while the JF-17 is a late 70's era design philosophy updated with early 2000's ideas.

 

[Manticore]

Compare Aircraft
A quick comparison [I have not done any verification] - you can update specs if you have newer ones

it was a quick comparison I found in under 5minutes - I was trying to find the specs of initial blocks of mirage and f16 @Oscar



comparison published during f20 publicity
http://i.imgur.com/Aphl81D.jpg

jft/gripen
http://i.imgur.com/O2B9O4M.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/JxOwXWU.jpg

 

[SQ8]

There is no denying the significant development the platform has undergone, as I have mentioned time and again. But that the roots of the project and the basic airframe remain in the 80s quite firmly as well is equally clear, spun as much reality might be.

I hope you are well too.

Agreed. The project stemmed from the Sabre-II.. which had Grumman input. Interestingly ..the F-7E and its derivatives(MG,PG,BG) all owe their existence to Grumman engineers who thought of the cranked delta as an idea to improve the original F-7(Mig-21F) wings. (there is even a picture of a sketch they did of the change). Once that idea proved infeasible, there were further studies undertaken by Grumman(and the Chinese) for a more greater redesign of the F-7 airframe.

From here(and before the 89 breakup).. there was one last attempt at redesign of the airframe to give a much better performing fighter.

However, after 89. this idea pretty much died out. The Chinese kept going with the idea and eventually found the Mig-33(albiet in very early design stages)..and came up with the design we know from the 1998 Singapore airshow. The project however, just stood in hiatus until 2000 when it was finally unfrozen in the PAF.. engineers were picked out of AMC and some fresh ones from CAE(upto a maximum of 100 at any time) since the Chinese plainly told the PAF that their manpower was then committed to the J10.. This team then worked with the Chief Project designer to finalize the blueprints.. exact specifications.. to come up with the first prototype. However, that was still not the end of it as the design was STILL undergoing development.. the Chinese had "researched" DSI and had data.. that was integrated into the airframe.. the LERX expanded.. and that became what is PT-4.

@Manticore The ranges for the aircraft seem skewed.. some are with the external fuel and others without.

 

[SQ8]

it was a quick comparison I found in under 5minutes - I was trying to find the specs of initial blocks of mirage and f16 @Oscar

There is one image you posted somewhere of an early Super-7 design.. its a front view of a mock up in white, blue and red. It was quite a frequent image early on.. but now its rarely seen.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Compare Aircraft
A quick comparison [I have not done any verification] - you can update specs if you have newer ones

comparison published during f20 publicity
http://i.imgur.com/Aphl81D.jpg

jft/gripen
http://i.imgur.com/KLaNd.png
http://i.imgur.com/JxOwXWU.jpg

Best Post of This thread manticore @ anty body ... Sirji U Rock

so it shows that tiger shark and tejas have same engine but tejas engine produces 2000 lbf more thrust while tejas flows .1 mile below the service cealing of tiger shark but tejas carries much more and flies farther one thing most striking i first saw in your post is that tejas empty wieght it says is 5680 and MTOW is 13500(7820 W & FLoad ) while tiger shark is much lighter 5090 while MTOW is 11920 ( 6830 W & F load) = Tejas carries more but tiger shark flies 24 miles more than tejas & tejas(3000 KMs MR) flies 240 Kms more than tiger shark 2760 Kms

while JF17 EW = 6411 while MTOW = 12700 (6289 F&W load ) & has maximum range 3480 Kms

so it means tejas carries more and has most power full engine and decent flight ceiling and better avioniks and radar and wepons suite than both tiger shark and JF 17


while M2K is more in league of F16s and both have simmilar dimensions , service ceailing , weight and performance

 

[SQ8]

so it means tejas carries more and has most power full engine and decent flight ceiling and better avioniks and radar and wepons suite than both tiger shark and JF 17

No it doesnt.

 

[GURU DUTT]

No it doesnt.

care to explain how

 

[SQ8]

care to explain how

You care to explain how it does? You made the claim.