What's new

Capabilities of PAF Dassault MIRAGE-III/V.

Should Pakistan upgrade its Mirages to South African Cheetah standard if not Beyond?

  • Yes

    Votes: 181 59.0%
  • No

    Votes: 126 41.0%

  • Total voters
    307
.
Can JFT with delta ..will be ecnomical replacement for our aging mirages
 
. .
Can JFT with delta ..will be ecnomical replacement for our aging mirages
Yes - but no. Just as you can raise and pit huge 4x4 a suzuki cultus.. it isn’t an efficient solution.
Delta isn’t some magical solution but rather a stable platform for bombing. However, paired with the very light JF-17 offers no advantage.
 
.
Yes - but no. Just as you can raise and pit huge 4x4 a suzuki cultus.. it isn’t an efficient solution.
Delta isn’t some magical solution but rather a stable platform for bombing. However, paired with the very light JF-17 offers no advantage.
Make sense, but they why PAF plan to replace JFT with mirage later on, how they fit in strike role as it is
 
.
I just wish that those who are new to this particular thread or any other thread would read up what has already been discussed on those threads.
I assure you there are no more mirage related questions that have not been answered already very professionally on this thread by the experts.
Please start from post #1 and you will get all your questions answered, and save some bandwidth while at it
 
.
Yes - but no. Just as you can raise and pit huge 4x4 a suzuki cultus.. it isn’t an efficient solution.
Delta isn’t some magical solution but rather a stable platform for bombing. However, paired with the very light JF-17 offers no advantage.

But what if an NG version was created in the medium weight category? Fraternal twins with cropped delta and delta. Yin and Yang. Flanker and Fulcrum.
 
. .
But what if an NG version was created in the medium weight category? Fraternal twins with cropped delta and delta. Yin and Yang. Flanker and Fulcrum.
Wont work - think of all the aspects apart from when you add aerodynamic surfaces. Structural changes go well beyond it into each fuselage section, changing strength to accommodate for additional loads that increases weight and expenses - will the existing engine even suffice?

If you really look at the Mirage 2000 vs 4000 you will see how much of them is different even when seemingly the same. The F-2 to F-16 with its enlarged wing has structural issues. You are just better off with a clean sheet design instead of trying to constantly rework something so that it doesn’t resemble what it started from but still carries the initial limitations over.

Go back to the requirements document for the JF-17, does it still hold true to those? If it does then it was a success and it’s ok to leave it at that. You’re better off with a new platform for other requirements.

After all, the US Navy had requirements led to the superhornet which barely shares 35-40% with the legacy hornet - it also costs more and isn’t that good of a WVR aircraft.

The Jf-17 has growth potential but should be kept limited to weight reduction and power increase along with it. Avionics are shrinking in size(most of the weight today is power supply circuits and protection (hard cases, heavy wiring etc) that will help the performance along.

But if it turns out the Indians are changing their fleet different then the requirements will change again and maybe the JF-17 loses its relevance.

At the end, the JF-17 isn’t the goal -fulfilling the air staff requirement is.
 
.
Wont work - think of all the aspects apart from when you add aerodynamic surfaces. Structural changes go well beyond it into each fuselage section, changing strength to accommodate for additional loads that increases weight and expenses - will the existing engine even suffice?

If you really look at the Mirage 2000 vs 4000 you will see how much of them is different even when seemingly the same. The F-2 to F-16 with its enlarged wing has structural issues. You are just better off with a clean sheet design instead of trying to constantly rework something so that it doesn’t resemble what it started from but still carries the initial limitations over.

Go back to the requirements document for the JF-17, does it still hold true to those? If it does then it was a success and it’s ok to leave it at that. You’re better off with a new platform for other requirements.

After all, the US Navy had requirements led to the superhornet which barely shares 35-40% with the legacy hornet - it also costs more and isn’t that good of a WVR aircraft.

The Jf-17 has growth potential but should be kept limited to weight reduction and power increase along with it. Avionics are shrinking in size(most of the weight today is power supply circuits and protection (hard cases, heavy wiring etc) that will help the performance along.

But if it turns out the Indians are changing their fleet different then the requirements will change again and maybe the JF-17 loses its relevance.

At the end, the JF-17 isn’t the goal -fulfilling the air staff requirement is.
Could a better/new bird be built using a good percentage of old Thunder parts? Things like the actuators, tail parts, FBW system, cockpit, avionics, hardpoints, Fire control systems etc..? And save money on developmental costs?
Like how the Super Hornet shares underpinnings of a regular Hornet? Or the F-8 Crusader and the A-7 Corsair? Or how the Chinese sprouted an entire family of Fighters based in the MiG-19 and MiG-21?
Basically using the JF-17 parts bin.... Maybe a twin engined variant like the J-8, which uses J-7 engines.
 
.
Three types together, Mirage IIIRP, Mirage VPA & Mirage IIIDA.

1630615916782.png
 
. . . . .

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom