JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 2]

[fhassan]

OLD THREAD: http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/16086-jf-17-thunder-multirole-fighter.html

Meanwhile, in what is seen as a counter to India’s effort to jointly develop the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) with Russia’s Sukhoi Aircraft Corp, the PAC and CAC in October 2006 inked a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to jointly develop an advanced, stealthy, single-seat and single-engined derivative of the JF-17 Thunder MRCA.

This is interesting.

Can this be confirmed?

 

[ironman]

This is interesting.

Can this be confirmed?

I double,triple,quadruple checked with the author

 

[Tempest II]

I double,triple,quadruple checked with the author

However he says the JF-17 now has a different radar other than the KLJ-7. ... ... MURADK said the same a couple of weeks ago. He then says it is the KLJ-10, which is plausable considering that Janes ( KLJ-7/10 Fire Control Radar (FCR) (China) - Jane's Avionics ) alludes to the confussion as to which rather is on the JF-17 with certainity. ... My problem is after saying " improved KLJ-10", 3 paragraphs later he quotes KLJ-7 specifications from Janes which are inferior to the one on the KLJ-7 on his brochure (he has the brochure of his site) as KLJ-10! ... ???

 

[Arsalan]

JF-17 Thunder Rolls Out From PAC Kamra​

Pakistan on June 30 began the licenced-assembly of the JF-17 ‘Thunder’ new-generation light multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA), with the Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal (ACM) Rao Qamar Suleman, saying that this would help retain the ‘balance in airpower’ in South Asia. ACM Rao said this while formally inaugurating the final assembly facility of the JF-17 at the state-owned Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) in Kamra. “The aircraft would add to the PAF’s operational capability manifold and help retain the much-needed balance in airpower in the sub-continent,” he said. Pakistan and China had signed an agreement last March for the licenced-production of the first 42 JF-17s, and ACM Rao said that these new aircraft would begin replacing the PAF’s existing Nanchang A-5IICs and Chengdu F-7Ps and Dassault Mirage IIIPs. The roll-out of the first indigenously-assembled JF-17 is scheduled for this October. “The JF-17 programme has two main objectives—strengthening of our national security through indigenous production of new-generation combat aircraft, and building up Pakistan’s aviation industries. The programme has so far made very significant progress on both these counts,” ACM Rao said. “Most of the technical-industrial infrastructure for building the JF-17s is complete, and both Pakistan and China are looking at third-party export sales in big numbers,” he added.

The JF-17 has been jointly developed by a consortium of companies comprising PAC and China Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC), Chengdu Aircraft Group Corp (CAC) and its Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute, China Aero Technology Import and Export Corp (CATIC), and China Aerospace Science and Industry Corp (CASIC). The first two JF-17s were airlifted to Kamra from Chengdu in early March, 2005. The aircraft were subsequently assembled at PAC’s brand-new JF-17 assembly line at Kamra (which was commissioned on April 6, 2005) and were ready for flight tests by March 18. The same day, these two aircraft were publicly rolled out for the then Chief of the Air Staff of the PAF, Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed. The first eight JF-17s are fitted with CETC-built KLJ-7 airborne multi-mode X-band monopulse radars, but two of CETC’s state-owned research institutes in Nanjing and Wuxi (No14 Institute and No607 Institute) subsequently won the bid for supplying the improved KLJ-10 multi-mode X-band monopulse radars. The PAF in future is expected to select the Vixen 1000ES AESA radar made by Italy’s Galileo Avionica (the Italian unit of SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems and part of the Finmeccanica group) for installation on board at least 100 JF-17s as well as on board the 40 Chengdu FC-20 medium-MRCAs. The PAC had licence-assembled 15 JF-17s in 2008 and another 20 this year. Later this year, the PAF will have its first operational JF-17 squadron—26 Sqn—which will be deployed at Peshawar and this will be followed by 16 Sqn. By 2018 the PAF will receive about 240 JF-17s to equip eight squadrons.

The PAF has to date committed to acquiring 150 JF-17s in its present configuration (which has a single-axis fly-by-wire flight control system for yaw, and not for pitch or roll), whilst China is expected to buy 250 for the PLA Air Force depending on the outcome of on-going flight trials. Pakistan will initially produce 50% of the aircraft locally, progressively increasing to 100% of the airframe. The unit price of a JF-17 will be kept under US$20 million. Potential export customers for the JF-17 Thunder include the air forces of Bangladesh, Egypt, Ghana, Iran, Libya, Mynamar, Nigeria, North Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Originally known as Super-7, the JF-17 Thunder/FC-1 Xiaolong (Fierce Dragon) has been developed at a cost of $150 million (with Pakistan contributing 50% of this amount) by the Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC) under a China-Pakistan joint venture. The JF-17 is a lightweight MRCA powered by a single Klimov RD-93 turbofan (imported off-the-shelf from Russia), rated at 49.4kN (11,103lb st) dry or 84.4kN (18,969lb st) with afterburner. It was in June 1999 that China and Pakistan inked the joint development and production agreement to co-develop the JF-17. The first JF-17 was rolled out on May 31, 2003 and it made its maiden flight on August 24, 2003. This was followed by a second airframe (PT-2) being built for static tests, and two more flying prototypes. The third prototype, called PT-3, joined PT-1 in the flight-test programme on April 9, 2004. First flight of the redesigned and definitive prototype (PT-4) took place on May 10, 2006 at Wenjiang Airport in Chengdu, capital of southwest China’s Sichuan Province. The JF-17’s sixth prototype first flew on September 10, 2006. The first two pre-production JF-17s (Nos101 and 102) were delivered to Pakistan on March 2, 2005. PT-4 was used for avionics integration tests and weapons qualification trials. Conducting the flight tests on behalf of CAC were experimental test pilots Liang Wan Jun and Wang Wen Jiang.
The 13-tonne JF-17 is not a true unstable design, just relaxed stability, which simply means an aircraft that was designed without consideration for positive stability. The airframe features ‘diverterless’ engine inlets, has larger wing leading-edge root extensions, longer ventral strakes either side of the aft fuselage, and a taller, less swept fin. In place of the conventional ramp of the original two-dimensional intake, the new design features a ‘hump’ to aerodynamically divert turbulent boundary-layer airflow away from the engine inlet. Diverter plates are used to separate the boundary layer of air that comes off the body of the aircraft in front of the inlet. The angled sides just in front of the inlets in PT-1 were meant to create a consistent gap between the body of the aircraft and the diverter plates, therefore ensuring a separation of the boundary layer. The JF-17’s fourth prototype—which is the definitive design—uses a diverterless bump to deflect the slowed air coming off the body of the aircraft in the boundary layer. The design no longer depends on a gap but on the angle of the bump and the angle along the body of the aircraft in front of the inlets that air rush in. The mouths of the inlets are also now scooped (angled forward, instead of being perpendicular) as part of the DSI principle of dealing with the boundary layer. The JF-17’s fuselage is built of lightweight aluminium alloys. Airframe life according PAC is 6,000 hours, or 25 years). Internal fuel capacity is 2,200kg. For flight controls, the JF-17 currently uses a Type 634 longitudinal fly-by-wire (FBW) system, while the lateral flight control system is still mechanical. For enhancing the JF-17’s combat radius, a fixed in-flight refuelling probe mounted on the starboard side of the aircraft’s cockpit area has been developed. The RD-93 turbofan’s service life is 2,100 hours (with a time-between-overhaul of 800 hours. Specific fuel consumption is 2.1kg/kgf/hr in afterburner mode. It has been optimised to provide a maximum speed of Mach 1.8 at an altitude of 55,000 feet. Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp is currently fulfilling orders under a $267 million contract signed in mid-2005 for the supply of 100 RD-93s, with an option to order another 400 engines. A total of 15 turbofans were supplied by late 2004. Future plans call for Klimov to increase the RD-93’s thrust from 8.3 tonnes to 9 tonnes.

The JF-17’s avionics package, integrated via a MIL-STD-1553B digital databus driven by twin 32-bit mission computers, includes a HUD with a 24-degree field of view, three AMLCD-based multifunction cockpit displays measuring 20.3cm x 30.6cm (8-inch x 12-inch), a hybrid ring laser gyro/GPS-based inertial navigation system, hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls, and a health and usage monitoring systems (HUMS). The KLJ-10 radar can currently detect 40 airborne targets, track 10 targets and engage two targets simultaneously at beyond visual range. The radar’s detection range for a 3 square metre target is 75km in the look-up mode, and 45km in the look-down mode. Seaborne targets can be located out to a distance of 135km. The CETC-built radar warning receiver has a library capable of recognising more than 100 threatening emitters. This will later be increased to 300. The on-board HF/VHF/UHF communications suite will be supplemented by a another radio to serve as a receive-only data link for data relayed by airborne early warning and control aircraft like the Saab 2000 AEW & C, four of which are on order by the PAF. For weapons management purposes the JF-17 makes use of a MIL-STD-1760 databus.

The JF-17’s weapons package comprises one internal GSh-23-2 twin-barrel 23mm cannon, and up to 3,629kg (8,000lb) of ordnance carried on up to seven external stations (two wingtip stations, four underwing and one on the centre fuselage). Precision-guided munitions (PGM) to be carried will include the 500kg (1,102lb) Lei Ting LT-2 laser-guided bomb developed by China’s Luoyang Optical-Electro Technology Development Centre, and GPS-guided PGMs like the 500kg FT-1 bomb, 250kg FT-3 bomb, and the LS-6 500kg.

Target designation for the LT-2 will be carried out by a pod-mounted system developed by Xi’an Sicong Group. For air combat, the JF-17 will be armed with the CPMIEC-built PL-12 beyond visual range air-to-air missile and the PL-9C within visual range air combat missile. The SD-10’s range is 70km when launched at an altitude of 60km and it takes only 20 seconds for it to attain a speed of Mach 4 to travel 30km. The missile can attain a maximum g load of 38, and its active radar seeker’s target detection range is 20km.
The PL-9C, weighing 115kg, has a range of 22km, and can sustain a g load of 40. Meanwhile, in what is seen as a counter to India’s effort to jointly develop the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) with Russia’s Sukhoi Aircraft Corp, the PAC and CAC in October 2006 inked a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to jointly develop an advanced, stealthy, single-seat and single-engined derivative of the JF-17 Thunder MRCA.

Last Updated ( Monday, 17 August 2009 )

well friend i do admire most of your post as they are pretty unbiased and informative but sorry to say that this report is no good!
the article have already been posted and discussed and lack of knowledge of author about the topic have been certified..
this article contains a bunch of completely missconceptions. the fly-by-wire control of JF17 reported to exist only in yaw direction and not in pitch and roll is a complete BS!!
it have been cleared times and time again that the first prototype were on this configration, once the project moved ahead of third prototype and now entered production a change have been made and now it is fly-by-wire in both pitch/roll nad yaw direction.
moreover the claim thatPAF will accquire 150 planes in same configration is also wrong. the plane is just in intial production stages and discussion for possible and desired upgrades from blk II is underway.
however the blk II may not see a lot of new systems but once the plane enter BlkIII there will be massive upgrades from radars, avionics to perhaps increase in hard points!
evn some minor upgrades from blkII may well be comming. all this also have been discussed a number of time,

all in all, i dont want to challenge your knowledge as you do come up wiht some great posts but the credibility of the author of this article is lost for sure!
i hope you will understand!

regards!

 

[Adios Amigo]

nice artical, but some points are a bit misleading, like,

Originally known as Super-7, the JF-17 Thunder/FC-1 Xiaolong (Fierce Dragon) has been developed at a cost of $150 million (with Pakistan contributing 50% of this amount) by the Chengdu

i thought, the initial developmenatal cost was $500 million,of which pakistan shared 250 million.

 

[ironman]

@arsalanaslam123

There is no intention to reduce the capabilities of PAC and CAC. The only authoritative information provider PAC states about the changes in PT04

"JF-17 has composite flight control system comprising conventional controls with stability augmentation in roll and yaw axis and fly by wire in pitch axis."
and no further information available about the remaining proto types.

and here an another information, interview with the JF-17 project manager.

Q. Currently, the JF-17 prototypes are equipped with a mix of hydraulic and FBW system. Will the production models retain this unique system or will they be equipped with a complete FBW system?

A. The flight controls of JF-17 aircraft are commanded through six computers and operated by two hydraulic systems. The six ‘flight control computers’ have a lot of redundancy within themselves, therefore, the aircraft would keep flying normally, even if couple of computers fail. This redundancy is a common feature of almost all the fly-by-wire control systems in the world. However, a unique feature of JF-17 aircraft is that it can fly like a conventional aircraft even when all its flight control computers fail. This arrangement is an added safety feature, which provides an additional advantage to the aircraft without any adverse effects. Therefore, it would be retained in the serial production aircraft as well.

 

[Tempest II]

ironman,

However the link you have posted abouve is not clear ... or maybe I should say I cannot make much sense of it. The designer is saying they have 6 computer duplicate systems and two hydraulic systems? That is a lot! Please not that in his answer the designer did not discuss which axis has FBW and which does not. What I read from his statement are 8 control systems, 6 computer (FBW?) and 2 hydraulic. ... ??? ... ... How do you understand his answer?

One clear publication on full FBW appeared in Combat Aircraft vol. 8 No. 4 and here is a quote from the journalist who wrote the articles' blog http://usmanansari.com/id16.html :

Improvements in other areas have already been made. Aerodynamic changes have increased the manoeuvrability and versatility of the aircraft, and the SBP aircraft probably represent the final airframe configuration. The most notable of these has been the convex DSI (Divertless Supersonic Inlets) intakes. These have helped reduce the overall weight of the airframe, and after an internal redesign, freed up space for more stores, most notably fuel for slightly increased range. These weight saving changes have also allowed the maximum speed to be increased to Mach 1.8. Though this is still limited compared to current fighter aircraft, further changes, (most notably the powerplant), are likely to improve matters somewhat. Other internal changes include a full fly-by-wire set of controls, and more high tech avionics.

 

[jawadqamar]

JF-17 Thunder Rolls Out From PAC Kamra​

.

Target designation for the LT-2 will be carried out by a pod-mounted system developed by Xi’an Sicong Group. For air combat, the JF-17 will be armed with the CPMIEC-built PL-12 beyond visual range air-to-air missile and the PL-9C within visual range air combat missile. The SD-10’s range is 70km when launched at an altitude of 60km and it takes only 20 seconds for it to attain a speed of Mach 4 to travel 30km. The missile can attain a maximum g load of 38, and its active radar seeker’s target detection range is 20km.

The PL-9C, weighing 115kg, has a range of 22km, and can sustain a g load of 40. Meanwhile, in what is seen as a counter to India’s effort to jointly develop the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) with Russia’s Sukhoi Aircraft Corp, the PAC and CAC in October 2006 inked a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to jointly develop an advanced, stealthy, single-seat and single-engined derivative of the JF-17 Thunder MRCA.

Last Updated ( Monday, 17 August 2009 )

70 km range when launched from altitude of 60km

What’s next JF-17 using PL-12/SD-10A to shoot down satellites, ballistic missiles and may some advance version to carry astronauts in space

 

[hj786]

About the FBW issue:

China Air and Naval Power: Complete translation of that JF-17 article

"Currently, the FBW is only in one axis, will eventually have a full FBW (also very soon)."

The PAC website says FBW in pitch axis. That interview with JF-17 project manager says FBW in pitch axis. These are obviously out-dated sources. Whether FBW is still in pitch only or all axis, Ironman your source is wrong. I'd also like to know where he gets his numbers from: "at least 100 JF-17 will be equipped with an AESA." Either it is guesswork or he has inside sources, because no other source has mentioned this so far.

(from Sengupta's article)
The 13-tonne JF-17 is not a true unstable design, just relaxed stability, which simply means an aircraft that was designed without consideration for positive stability.

I don't understand. Relaxed stability means the same thing as unstable, they are exactly the same. Relaxed stability (or negative stability) = unstable. I read somewhere that an aircraft's stability can be in between negative (unstable) and positive (stable), this is neutral stability. Perhaps he means the JF is a neutral design. I guess it doesn't matter that much, the MiG-29 was a stable design and at lower speeds it turned better than the F-16.

The targeting pod from "Xian Sicong Group" is interesting. Their website (http://www.sicong.com/English/Product/ProductIndex.asp) doesn't mention anything about targeting pods, just various lasers, lenses and devices that use them. But the Chinese radar manufacturer websites don't talk about their fighter radars either.

(R.E. the stealthy version of the JF)
This is interesting.
Can this be confirmed?

PShamim sahib (an ex-PAF F-16 pilot) was giving hints about it some time ago, so basically: Yup. He said expect to hear more about it around 2012.

 

[Arsalan]

lot of old information is available on net that dates back to initial stage of the programme and is right to quote FBW in one direction and the flight control to be a mix of mechanical and electrical systems. noe the major upgrades that the plane went through before production stage included:
complete FBW,
ECM housing,
A slight improvement in radar specs,
lot is available on net regarding this issue, anyone intrested canjust google it or even search this very thread as it have been discussed a lot of times,
in the mean while i will also try to sort out time to find an article or two on this for your viewing!

originally posted by ironman
There is no intention to reduce the capabilities of PAC and CAC. The only authoritative information provider PAC states about the changes in PT04

i never said or evn thought so my friend!
keep up the nice work,,

regards!

 

[gambit]

ironman,

However the link you have posted abouve is not clear ... or maybe I should say I cannot make much sense of it. The designer is saying they have 6 computer duplicate systems and two hydraulic systems? That is a lot! Please not that in his answer the designer did not discuss which axis has FBW and which does not. What I read from his statement are 8 control systems, 6 computer (FBW?) and 2 hydraulic. ... ??? ... ... How do you understand his answer?

One clear publication on full FBW appeared in Combat Aircraft vol. 8 No. 4 and here is a quote from the journalist who wrote the articles' blog The JF-17 Thunder: A hefty punch at an affordable price. :

I will attempt to clear that up a bit.

If we are to assume, safely, that the Chinese copied the avionics structural layout of the current Western aircrafts, there could be three distinct flight control computers: Pitch, Roll and Yaw. These axis could be in separate components or contained in a single box, like the F-16's FLCC, but even if all three axis are rolled into one box, they usually are considered distinct computers. So we have three so far.

Next could be the Central Air Data Computer (CADC). This component is usually standalone even though it is integral to the avionics system. The CADC takes in vital air data, such as pitot for raw air speed, and static, for raw altitude, refines those signals and feed them to the FLCS and navigation system. Now we have four.

For a fly-by-wire FLCS power integrity is crucial. So most likely the last two components are batteries, which EACH have their own power distribution management criterias. Should one battery fail, the other would take over. If we further assume that this system is heavily copied from the F-16, and there is no reason not to make that assumption since FBW quadruple redundancy was established by the F-16 and is pretty much the unofficial standard, then the power distribution network will be something like:

FLCS power pitch branch A => FLCC branch C
FLCS power roll branch B => FLCC branch D
FLCS power yaw branch C => FLCC branch A

Etc...Etc...

In other words, flight control power designations does not necessarily have to be matching to the apparent branches. The scheme does work very well for the F-16 and there have been several instances where main power was lost and the FLCS batteries immediately took over and allowed the pilot controls to take other actions. Troubleshooting FLCS power problems is not easy but this scheme further increases survivability in the event of battle damages.

Hydraulics are necessary and usually there are two hydraulics systems on board. Do not know how the Chinese designate theirs but for US, the words 'Primary' and 'Utility' are descriptive enough for initial impression of what each does even though each can handle the most important task of maintaining flight controls and still can supply reserve hydraulics power for other sub-systems like air speed brakes or wheel speed brakes, etc...

Clear as mud?

 

[hj786]

Clear as mud?

Makes sense, thanks for posting that info. By 6 flight control system computers, he is referring to 3 flight control computers (one for each axis), 2 computers for a pair of emergency power supplies and 1 air data computer for telling the flight control computers what the jet is doing.

One question:
According to this source: Chinese Military Aviation, the JF-17 "flight control includes a Type 634 quadruplex digital FBW in pitch axis and a duplex analog FBW in roll axis."
Assuming this is true, then the roll and yaw axis computers are analogue and the pitch computer is digital. Why not just make all three digital? Surely costs wouldn't have been reduced by much, if at all?

 

[gambit]

Makes sense, thanks for posting that info. By 6 flight control system computers, he is referring to 3 flight control computers (one for each axis), 2 computers for a pair of emergency power supplies and 1 air data computer for telling the flight control computers what the jet is doing.

One question:
According to this source: Chinese Military Aviation, the JF-17 "flight control includes a Type 634 quadruplex digital FBW in pitch axis and a duplex analog FBW in roll axis."
Assuming this is true, then the roll and yaw axis computers are analogue and the pitch computer is digital. Why not just make all three digital? Surely costs wouldn't have been reduced by much, if at all?

Note that whenever a design is moved towards relaxed stability, it is the pitch axis that gives the aircraft the greatest potential for both maneuverability and of course, disaster when things do go wrong. It has been reported that on some designs, pitch axis is FBW while the roll and yaw are electro-mechanical. That tells us much more about expertise about integration and sophistication than about cost. But the significant item is that if the intent is to make the design highly maneuverable, efforts must be concentrated on the pitch axis.

 

[Muradk]

Temp don't trust everything you read on the net.

 

[Arsalan]

Note that whenever a design is moved towards relaxed stability, it is the pitch axis that gives the aircraft the greatest potential for both maneuverability and of course, disaster when things do go wrong. It has been reported that on some designs, pitch axis is FBW while the roll and yaw are electro-mechanical. That tells us much more about expertise about integration and sophistication than about cost. But the significant item is that if the intent is to make the design highly maneuverable, efforts must be concentrated on the pitch axis.

thank ou sir for this nice pack of information.
well agreeing to the point that pitch is the main area of concern to increase maeuverability but i think yaw and roll axis must also have something to contribute to it and the overall stability of the plane (however stability and maneuverability are two specs a world apart)

anyhow i think you must have gone through the post declining the claims of partial FBW for JF17 ans which clearly explain that the plane which entered in production is a complete FBW. so that is good enough for the issue,

thanks again for your valuable posts,
regards!