JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 2]

[SBD-3]

JF-17 is best option for PAF but i m not satsfied by hard points n radar of this bird. PAF needs better options

well yes I agree Hard Points are less but PAF would know that as well i think Blk2 will come up with more hardpoints

 

[Zarbe Momin]

Please see the specification of JF-17 in detail posted above, increasing hard points would increase the weight...I think JF-17 is designed to have 7 hard points, because its wheels are under the wings.
Please also see the video in the DF in which both F-16 and JF-17 are performing a tight turn adding more JF-17 was not on full military power and it performed turn in almost equal time...just imagine if its flying with full military power

F-7 also have 7 hard points. A multirole fighter should have more hard points now a days. At moment wheels of JF-17 opens upto some extent in wings like F-7 and reduce the palce to adjust another hard point but minor changes by following JAS-39 design back wheels can open under belly to backwards rather than to open in wings sidewards. Secondly hard points can be increased by using better composite materials in wings and in overall sturcture. But to use this option we need better engin also. JH-7A also use Pylon which can carry three air to air missels (Two visual range and one BVR). JF-17 should have atleast 9 hard points.

 

[Arsalan]

F-7 also have 7 hard points. A multirole fighter should have more hard points now a days. At moment wheels of JF-17 opens upto some extent in wings like F-7 and reduce the palce to adjust another hard point but minor changes by following JAS-39 design back wheels can open under belly to backwards rather than to open in wings sidewards. Secondly hard points can be increased by using better composite materials in wings and in overall sturcture. But to use this option we need better engin also. JH-7A also use Pylon which can carry three air to air missels (Two visual range and one BVR). JF-17 should have atleast 9 hard points.

changing the position of wheel wil take lot of new design parameters and lot of changes wil have to be made so it is very unlikely! however i think that the right choice will be to use pylons thatcan carry to missiles! atleast two such pylons, one on each wing will increase the weapon number to 9 and that will be good enough! this can be made possible easily once we get a more powerfull engine and also if we reduce weight by using more composities!

that is, in my view, the solution to the hardpoint issue of JF17@

regards!

 

[muse]

We say that the JF-17 is a multi-role aircraft, however; it may more precisely be defined as a point defence aircraft - the short legs of the JF-17 suggest that it is not a multi-role in the sense that the f16 or f15 are.

Hard points might be more relevant if we were to suggest a greater emphasis on a CAS mission.

 

[Arsalan]

We say that the JF-17 is a multi-role aircraft, however; it may more precisely be defined as a point defence aircraft - the short legs of the JF-17 suggest that it is not a multi-role in the sense that the f16 or f15 are.

Hard points might be more relevant if we were to suggest a greater emphasis on a CAS mission.

sir even for a A2A role 7 hardpoints are not enough at all! we need atleasst four BVR and two or four WVR missiles along with a spare hardpoint for fuel tank or groung attak munition as if the fight is bieng going on in enemy territory!

regards!

 

[zavis2003]

DEARS JF17 would nt be the front role

ok

so a SEcond line fighter menas the one who can defends at inner borders . JF 17 is not made to fight RAPtor or MKI . but if so happens one missile and one clear shot would be required
I think now a days it is not possible for one to become a MM ALAM. as
2 jets are seemed enogh for any mission other then for overall superiority
........

 

[zavis2003]

it is not possible to improve any more ist blocckkkkk
imrovements and ur suggestions for 2nd block are accepted by me

 

[niaz]

sir even for a A2A role 7 hardpoints are not enough at all! we need atleasst four BVR and two or four WVR missiles along with a spare hardpoint for fuel tank or groung attak munition as if the fight is bieng going on in enemy territory!

regards!

We mustn’t overlook the fact that Jf-17 is essentially a low cost small plane. At empty weight of approx 14,000 lbs it is nearly 5,000 lbs lighter than F-16A. Therfore it will be short legged and will carry less ordinance.

Grippen is no doubt in the same weight class but at least 0.5 generation ahead; built with greater percentage of composite materials and more powerful engine. However 3 times more expensive. Therefore an unfair comparison.

Besides, why do we need 6 missiles in interception mode. I would say 2 BVR +2 should be enough with internal gun for ground attack. One would want as little weight as possible when one is fighting another aircraft so that agility is not compromised.

 

[leonblack08]

Sorry for not being able to follow the thread from beginning.I have a question regarding the price of Jf-17.

The project is supported by China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation for the Chinese side. Each individual aircraft is expected to have a fly-away cost of around US$8-15 million.

ONLINE - International News Network

Does Jf-17 really cost that low?I was expecting something around 20-25 million dollars.Can anyone verify it?

 

[SBD-3]

Besides, why do we need 6 missiles in interception mode. I would say 2 BVR +2 should be enough with internal gun for ground attack. One would want as little weight as possible when one is fighting another aircraft so that agility is not compromised.

Agreed but will we leave the role of deep strike on mere falcons? remeber when falcons around US infulence is always there they can jam the planes any time they want as I know (Differences in openion expected) we should Prepare JF-17 as a substitute of Falcons ASAP if Thunders are to be kept as interceptor ok we can develop a deep stike version in limited numbers

 

[wangrong]

Sorry for not being able to follow the thread from beginning.I have a question regarding the price of Jf-17.

The project is supported by China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation for the Chinese side. Each individual aircraft is expected to have a fly-away cost of around US$8-15 million.

ONLINE - International News Network

Does Jf-17 really cost that low?I was expecting something around 20-25 million dollars.Can anyone verify it?

J10A(about 30million)

JF17(about 12million)

 

[SBD-3]

J10A(about 30million)

JF17(about 12million)

1) FC-20 will have with a flyaway price of $41 million USD
2) FC-1 has gone to near about 20 Million a piece after current upgrades and the price will depend on how upgarded or customized model is needed Azarbaijan was negociating in the price tage to 16 to 18 millions a piece with Pakistan

 

[Arsalan]

We mustn’t overlook the fact that Jf-17 is essentially a low cost small plane. At empty weight of approx 14,000 lbs it is nearly 5,000 lbs lighter than F-16A. Therfore it will be short legged and will carry less ordinance.

Grippen is no doubt in the same weight class but at least 0.5 generation ahead; built with greater percentage of composite materials and more powerful engine. However 3 times more expensive. Therefore an unfair comparison.

Besides, why do we need 6 missiles in interception mode. I would say 2 BVR +2 should be enough with internal gun for ground attack. One would want as little weight as possible when one is fighting another aircraft so that agility is not compromised.

i agree with all of your points sir and that is what i pointed to!
but sir
though it is a low cost plane but following the current situation we will have to depend on this plane and to form it the back bone of PAF. i agree that for superior end we will have F16 and FC20 but surely we wont want the JF to sit idel! so for me increasing the use of composite material to make it able to carry a bit more payload is worth spending a bit more money o it! all the changes may not be possible in first block but for second block it will be the right choice. two BVR are a bit too samll number, it will do fine with 4 BVR and 2 WVR as having $ BVR in arsenal gives the pilot the liberty to shoot multiple missiles on a target thus increasing the success rate. the Su30 carries the same advantage that with so many BVR it caries, it leaves the target plane by least amount of chance to escape by firing two or even more missiles. we may not afford such practice of shooting multiple missilesas they are expensive but still in some cases we will require them.
what do you people think of this?

regards?

 

[SBD-3]

i agree with all of your points sir and that is what i pointed to!
but sir
though it is a low cost plane but following the current situation we will have to depend on this plane and to form it the back bone of PAF. i agree that for superior end we will have F16 and FC20 but surely we wont want the JF to sit idel! so for me increasing the use of composite material to make it able to carry a bit more payload is worth spending a bit more money o it! all the changes may not be possible in first block but for second block it will be the right choice. two BVR are a bit too samll number, it will do fine with 4 BVR and 2 WVR as having $ BVR in arsenal gives the pilot the liberty to shoot multiple missiles on a target thus increasing the success rate. the Su30 carries the same advantage that with so many BVR it caries, it leaves the target plane by least amount of chance to escape by firing two or even more missiles. we may not afford such practice of shooting multiple missilesas they are expensive but still in some cases we will require them.
what do you people think of this?

regards?

well it is debatable that it should carry 4 BVRs
Look SU-30 is a strike plane not an interceptor when you are entering the enemy air space expect more numbers of interceptor than you so thats why it carries more BVRs.I am sure PAF would hve done a cost and benifit analysis before goin with7 HPs

 

[Tempest II]

What is the range of the JF-17 with only the centre external fuel, 4 X MRAAMs and 2 x SRAAMs?

Let me try this:
Internal fuel = 2,300kg
External fuel = 1,100 + 800 + 1,100 = 3,000kg
Total fuel = 5,300kg
Combat radius = 1,352km on 5,300kg of fuel.
Now lets remove the two wing tanks.
Combat radius on internal fuel and center external tank only
= ((2,300 + 800)/5,300) x 1,352
= (3,100/500) x 1,352
= 0.5849 X 1,352
= 790km.

I would therefore say the plane can do 7900km with a center fuel tank, 4 SD-10s and 2 PL-9s. Consider also that in future JF-17 will have aerial refuelling!