JF-17 Block-3 -- Updates, News & Discussion

[GumNaam]

Look dude empty weight of F-15 =28,000 lbs

payloads of EX =30,000 lbs

max fuel of EX = 13,445 lbs

lets add these numbers = 28,000 +30,000 +13445 = 71,445 lbs

and it have 2 29,000 lbs engines = 58,000 lbs

so can it be fly with weight exceeding the thrust, please do explain me???

yes it can...recall that weight is inversely proportional to velocity while mass is constant. so with speed, the "weight" of the aircraft will reduce. HAVING said that though, since it is still under the influence of gravity, it will still have a limit to what the weight would get minimized down to based on the velocity. so your point may STILL be valid in that when the aircraft is going it at its max speed with full thrusters firing, the reduced weight may STILL be more than the full thrust output. I don't remember the equation of physics that calculates the weight based on the speed.

 

[The Raven]

Look dude empty weight of F-15 =28,000 lbs

payloads of EX =30,000 lbs

max fuel of EX = 13,445 lbs

lets add these numbers = 28,000 +30,000 +13445 = 71,445 lbs

and it have 2 29,000 lbs engines = 58,000 lbs

so can it be fly with weight exceeding the thrust, please do explain me???

I don't think you know how thrust to weight ratio works. Early version F-14 Tomcats had a TWR of less than 1.

 

[GiG]

Look dude empty weight of F-15 =28,000 lbs

payloads of EX =30,000 lbs

max fuel of EX = 13,445 lbs

lets add these numbers = 28,000 +30,000 +13445 = 71,445 lbs

and it have 2 29,000 lbs engines = 58,000 lbs

so can it be fly with weight exceeding the thrust, please do explain me???

Even by this calculation the thrust to weight ratio will be around 0.8 which is more then enough for flying

 

[White and Green with M/S]

I don't think you know how thrust to weight ratio works. Early version F-14 Tomcats had a TWR of less than 1.

yeah i know better than you, all fighter in 50s and in 60s had a thrust to weight ratio less than 1, so our JFT has also thrust to weight ratio less than 1 and T/W ratio is not static term its is variable term and will change during the flight/operation of the jet

Even by this calculation the thrust to weight ratio will be around 0.8 which is more then enough for flying

no fighter jet can do cap with this extreme payloads, to reduce wear and tear on the air-frame and on from engine payloads should be reduced significantly 15,000 lbs or less

 

[GiG]

yeah i know better than you, all fighter in 50s and in 60s had a thrust to weight ratio less than 1, so our JFT has also thrust to weight ratio less than 1 and T/W ratio is not static term its is variable term and will change during the flight/operation of the jet



no fighter jet can do cap with this extreme payloads, to reduce wear and tear on the air-frame and on from engine payloads should be reduced significantly 15,000 lbs or less

The max takeoff weight of F15 as stated in boieng website is 81000 lbs. if we fallow your calculations it is flying at 71445 lbs which is way less then its maximum carrying capacity. I suggest look into TWR and basic physics by your understanding b-52s will be sitting stones.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

The max takeoff weight of F15 as stated in boieng website is 81000 lbs. if we fallow your calculations it is flying at 71445 lbs which is way less then its maximum carrying capacity. I suggest look into TWR and basic physics by your understanding b-52s will be sitting stones.

ok lets agree to disagree dude, and any fighter jets are not equipped with max payload for every mission it significantly imbalance the fighter jet, i wont agree with your logic

 

[GriffinsRule]

yeah i know better than you, all fighter in 50s and in 60s had a thrust to weight ratio less than 1, so our JFT has also thrust to weight ratio less than 1 and T/W ratio is not static term its is variable term and will change during the flight/operation of the jet



no fighter jet can do cap with this extreme payloads, to reduce wear and tear on the air-frame and on from engine payloads should be reduced significantly 15,000 lbs or less

Your story just changed from not being able to take off to not able to do CAP due to wear and tear.
Regardless of if any air force would fly in such a config (24 AAMs) is not the debate here. It is easily capable of taking off and flying w these loads and has plenty of internal fuel and CFTs to compensate, not to mention mid-air refueling.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Your story just changed from not being able to take off to not able to do CAP due to wear and tear.
Regardless of if any air force would fly in such a config (24 AAMs) is not the debate here. It is easily capable of taking off and flying w these loads and has plenty of internal fuel and CFTs to compensate, not to mention mid-air refueling.

what can do you with a drag of 24 AAMs, can fly by wire of F-15 compensate that, its truly helpful for me that you explain me that problem bro???

 

[GiG]

what can do you with a drag of 24 AAMs, can fly by wire of F-15 compensate that, its truly helpful for me that you explain me that problem bro???

This from 2 years ago for f15qa

12AAM and with the world most advanced mission computer. Help yourself

 

[White and Green with M/S]

This from 2 years ago for f15qa

12AAM and with the world most advanced mission computer. Help yourself

ok thanks now back to the topic of block-3 discussion

 

[GiG]

ok thanks now back to the topic of block-3 discussion

You’re welcome

 

[araz]

What???

With how much certainty you can say my first fox-3 is gonna hit it's mark? No one can tell.

This is not how it's works. You don't fire a missile and bug out and return to base to get another one. Sometimes you fire more than one for one target before cranking hard to defend.

Please read my post again. My post specifically mentions" when a missile is fired at you". I dont think once you get the warning from your MAWS you will continue to hunt for bogies. You will jettison your load and start evasive procedures. The typical workhorse will load up with either 2+2 or4+2 in the air defence role. Anything more would not be practical. Modern day missiles fired in their NEZ are not to be trifled with.
I am very happy for any Ex PAF/AF of any denomination to correct me if Iam wrong.
Regards
A

 

[JamD]

I think once you are in an arena and a missile is fired at you, all your energy would be concentrated on defending and escaping that missile. At that time you would jettison any load that you have and head home. This is why I think modern fight with bombtrucks off loading missile after missile would not be seen in a fight between two equal adversaries.
So in short it is a case of firing first and returning to base to reload.
A

I believe this is exactly how the PAF thinks. However, PAF must keep the range advantage otherwise SU-30s and Rafales armed with missiles that even slightly outreach ours will be disastrous for PAF since they can launch many more at us. The idea is to cause the IAF missile trucks to go on the defensive or bug out. I believe PAF is actively working towards maintaining the range advantage. Furthermore, PAF aims to overcome the number of missiles launched thing with a higher sortie rate than IAF. This is a difference in doctrine really. The idea is that it is harder to dodge a single missile each from two opponents than two missiles from one opponent.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I believe this is exactly how the PAF thinks. However, PAF must keep the range advantage otherwise SU-30s and Rafales armed with missiles that even slightly outreach ours will be disastrous for PAF since they can launch many more at us. The idea is to cause the IAF missile trucks to go on the defensive or bug out. I believe PAF is actively working towards maintaining the range advantage. Furthermore, PAF aims to overcome the number of missiles launched thing with a higher sortie rate than IAF. This is a difference in doctrine really. The idea is that it is harder to dodge a single missile each from two opponents than two missiles from one opponent.

You know what could make all this easier? UCAVs networked to a manned fighter (or AEW&C) with its own BVRAAMs. I believe they call it "air teaming" or "loyal wingman." It'd really suck if India was working on it and we didn't show anything for it, amirite... (ok to be fair, I think -- like BVR in the 1990s -- the PAF wants it, but like the SD-10/AMRAAM, it'll probably be an imported stack from China or Turkey).

 

[GriffinsRule]

The idea of carrying 8 or 12 missiles is that one aircraft can engage say 4 targets with 2 missiles each and if his wingman does the same, whether the opponent has 6 or 10 aircraft, if the 2 fire first, the opponents regardless of their numbers will have to disengage and go defensive.
Being a missile truck, with very high speed and altitude advantage of an F-15, combined with longer ranged radar will give it a first shoot capability and the aircraft performance will help it's missile engagement zone.
That's why I still prefer PAF buying even one squadron of Typhoon over any other aircraft. It's performance exceeds anything in IAF and even in token numbers they can act as a force multiplier.