JF-17 Nose Redesign Feasibility?

[Dazzler]

One correction, thunder's nose as of now is 664 mm

 

[S-A-B-E-R->]

Depends on the Size of Radar's Antena.

actually i mean creating more space beneath the pilot cuz that area have a bigger diamater so we can push up the cockpit just like f16 and push at least the radar avionics back to give the antinna some room..

 

[Avatar]

So much fuss over a nose job ! Let the surgeons decide

As an Indian I would indeed like PAF to acquire good combat aircrafts. That would make things much more interesting !

I will be happy if JF-17 is proven to be as effective as F-16 block 52s in near future... that is sure to get India's aviation industry working !

 

[ANG]

Hi, I started this thread, and appreciate the discussion. I talked with one of my friends and he was able to shed some light on this matter. He mentioned two key things.

The first thing was supersonic aircraft design is guided by the "Equal Area Rule". On a very high level this entails that going from the nose of the plane back to the tail, equal sections/blocks of the plane should have the same surface area size. That is why the fuselage of a plane is pinched like a coke bottle around the wing section. The smaller fuselage surface area is required for the additional wing surface area in that section. As such, increasing the nose size might necessitate redesign in areas further back, as the frontal surface area will increase.

Secondly, if the nose diameter/size increases, the drag coefficient will increase, and this will probably require more thrust and a more powerful engine. Take care.

 

[araz]

Hi, I started this thread, and appreciate the discussion. I talked with one of my friends and he was able to shed some light on this matter. He mentioned two key things.

The first thing was supersonic aircraft design is guided by the "Equal Area Rule". On a very high level this entails that going from the nose of the plane back to the tail, equal sections/blocks of the plane should have the same surface area size. That is why the fuselage of a plane is pinched like a coke bottle around the wing section. The smaller fuselage surface area is required for the additional wing surface area in that section. As such, increasing the nose size might necessitate redesign in areas further back, as the frontal surface area will increase.

Secondly, if the nose diameter/size increases, the drag coefficient will increase, and this will probably require more thrust and a more powerful engine. Take care.

This is highly informative.But my question is even more basic. Why do we need to redesign a nose so early in a plane's development when we desperately need them to replace a lot of planes of the 50s era. The thing is we need to have these planes datalinked. If we have that whether their radars can be detected or not becomes irrelevant, as they will be off in any case and be guided by the Awacs. With small planes their cross sectional area is going to be small in any case and we could probably reduce it more with RAM paint and more composites. These are the needs of the time and we need to replace our older planes.
As to the nose issue itself___ its current diameter is 644mm. You could probably fit a decent PDradar into that to begin with . With the passage of time, I suspect we will :A) have more vendors supplying AESA radars. And
B) I suspect we will get more miniaturized versions which might not need to have the nose changed. The gripens nose dia is 700mm and they are talking about incorporating the Vixen 1000, so we might be able to make only a few changes to get to that level.However this is only for the third tranche
Araz

 

[ANG]

Hi Araz, I completely agree with your assesment. We should not be worrying about the nose diameter. If you watch this video/clip, it is explicitly mentioned that the JF-17 was designed solely for the PAF requirements. Hence radar size/shape was incoporated and optimized from the start. I am a layman in this field and was just trying to get some answers.

I also agree that the PAF needs to retire its A-5s, earlier model Mirages and F-7's with the JF-17 as soon as possible. Moreover, getting more hardpoints, using composites and alloys that reduce weight and RCS, an IRST, conformal fuel tanks, IFR, and a more powerful engine are higher priorities. Also, the radar can also be improved with a more powerful emitter. Thanks!

 

[mughaljee]

So its mean , the current "Nose" is sufficient for our purpose.

 

[jagjitnatt]

So its mean , the current "Nose" is sufficient for our purpose.

Bang on. I've being trying to explain that for so long now.

Anyways, I hope other Pakistani member agree with you at least.

 

[Kompromat]

Bang on. I've being trying to explain that for so long now.
Anyways, I hope other Pakistani member agree with you at least.

Laut kay Budhu ghar ko aye

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Hi, I started this thread, and appreciate the discussion. I talked with one of my friends and he was able to shed some light on this matter. He mentioned two key things.

The first thing was supersonic aircraft design is guided by the "Equal Area Rule". On a very high level this entails that going from the nose of the plane back to the tail, equal sections/blocks of the plane should have the same surface area size. That is why the fuselage of a plane is pinched like a coke bottle around the wing section. The smaller fuselage surface area is required for the additional wing surface area in that section. As such, increasing the nose size might necessitate redesign in areas further back, as the frontal surface area will increase.

Secondly, if the nose diameter/size increases, the drag coefficient will increase, and this will probably require more thrust and a more powerful engine. Take care.

Yeah you can do that...but the project will end up like the LCA...if you are ok with it then go ahead...there will be more delays and cost escalations. Instead induct first and then make modifications.

 

[nakodo]

Nose redesign is completely feasible. But PAF needs to settle down on a radar first and then see if it is at all required.

There will have to be other changes to the plane since it will alter its aerodynamics, handling, payload etc. I assume there will have to another set of test flights for yet another IOC.

Only things required are incentive, time, skill & money in the coffers.

 

[nakodo]

going from the nose of the plane back to the tail, equal sections/blocks of the plane should have the same surface area size. That is why the fuselage of a plane is pinched like a coke bottle around the wing section. The smaller fuselage surface area is required for the additional wing surface area in that section.

Could you explain how that is applicable here (it is only true with jf-17 because it needs to redirect incoming air to the jet engine but not the other planes IMHO):

Infact the nose probably can never have the same surface area as the anywhere else along the fuselage. What you are saying is basically a cylinder, if you add a cone on top for piercing thru air, then you have something like a marker shaped Agni 3. The idea in a missile must be to create minimum turbulence while it is flying in the atmosphere and has very little need for maneuvering. Not sure how the same principle applies to a/c, if what you say was true there would be no canards esp. and other control surfaces to steer the plane.

 

[chinapakistan]

Why chinese src? You searched it from chinese sites?

 

[Jigs]

Wouldn't it be better to modify what you have rather then redeveloping something completely new. And also please elaborate what else is average on the plane. Thanks.

I think he means currently the JF-17 is a average 4th gen fighter and there is nothing false about that. It doesn't have anything in it that makes it superior to newer block F-16s (block 40 and up) which are also 4th generation fighters.

But for the price and options it fits what Pakistan needs. As for Radars there is only so much you can do to the nose of a lightweight fighter to give it a large radar.

 

[Sapper]

I have been constantly digging around for more information on radar sizes, and found some new information.
I am updating the radar specs for a few more aircraft.

I can be wrong about some of these specs, so please contribute to make it as fool-proof as possible.

1. JF17 (prototype 1)--------600mm ... 282,745 mm2 (assuming circular Radome)
2. *JF17 production-----------664mm ... 346,278 mm2 (assuming circular Radome)
3. Mirage 2000--------------674mm ... 356,787 mm2 (assuming circular Radome)
4. *F16------------------------740x480 ... 278,973 mm2 (elliptical Radome, Unconfirmed)
5. Su30----------------------~1000mm . 785,397 mm2 (assuming circular Radome)
6. F15------------------------~1000mm . 785,397 mm2 (assuming similar to Su30)
7. *Rafale--------------------550mm ... 237,582 mm2 (circular Radar Antenna)
8. *Mig35--------------------700mm ... 384,845 mm2 (Zhuk-AE/FGA35 Antenna)
9. *F18-----------------------700mm ... 384,845 mm2 (Unconfirmed if Radome or antenna)
10. *Eurofighter--------------~750mm ... 441,786 mm2 (Unconfirmed speculation)
11. *LCA----------------------650mm ... 331,830 mm2 (Circular Antenna, Radome Unknown, but will be bigger)
12 *Grippen-------------------~600mm ... 282,745 mm2 (PS-05/A Antenna, Radome will be bigger)

Some updated figures may be wrong ... since i tried my best to find at-least 3 sources to site my claims ... found less than that for some info i have posted above. So forgive me for any mistakes.

Regards,
Sapper