JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

[SBD-3]

The F-14 is very much like the SR-71 in that it is a specialist airframe -- interceptor. Its duty as fleet defense is only a natural extension of its interceptor role. My opinion is that there are too many factors coming together at the wrong time to allow US to forcibly evolve the F-14, from the basic airframe as it is, to budget, to changes in naval doctrines, to age...etc...etc...

But sir US developed F-15 from AS to Strike and now stealth role same could be done with TC

 

[PAFAce]

Ultimately, an indigenous program of anything, from toaster ovens to jet fighters, is the better option over dependency on external sources, which often comes with conditions, political or technical, that could make a leash out of the product to be around the neck of the importer.

There is a little to disagree with in your previous post. As always, very enlightening.

I agree. just a share of thought, Why didn't USN developed Tomcat? reading about it I came to now its variable wing geometry it could assume both conventional and delta wing like geometry even though not exact delta wind but some how if its design would be modified with say canards it could be a very competent fighter capable of both Super Sonic and Sub Sonic as well. I would like to have your views on this

Like gambit said, the F-14 may have been just too one-dimensional to become a real multi-role threat. In two decades of service, it never once had air-to-ground ordnance hung on it. It's primary role was fleet-air-defence, and it was quite capable of doing so. However, it is not true that Grumman never tried to turn it into a multi-dimensional aircraft.

The F-14 also never saw real upgrades throughout its lifetime. It were very few modifications made to it during its service career. It's major problem was its engines, which was supposed to be addressed by the F-14B but never was. The F-14D was later developed with better engines (navalized version of F-15 engine) and better avionics, but it too was quite unsuccessful. However, the biggest changes proposed were the "Super Tomcat" and the "Bombcat", which would have been multi-role platform. I am sure you came across these when reading about the Tomcat, but it may not have given it much attention.

F-14D Tomcat 21

 

[hj786]

Another fighter similar to JF-17, from:www.canit.se Alternative Gripens

Saab's 2102, one of the designs considered by Saab when they were designing the Gripen, "which was a F-16 look-alike but smaller and with side intakes":

 

[PAFAce]

Another fighter similar to JF-17, from:www.canit.se Alternative Gripens

If we're talking about similar aircraft to the JF-17, we must consider the F-20 Tigershark. It was rumored to be everything that the original YF-16 was and the production F-16 was not, an uncompromising Air Combat aircraft capable of shooting down far more advanced aircraft in close combat. It was also much cheaper than the F-16, had less powerful engines, and was a massive modification of a previous generation aircraft, the F-5 Tiger II (originally it was called the F-5G, which was a major no-no of the marketing world. You never name your "new" product as an upgrade of your "old" product when it's this different). All these traits it shares with the JF-17, which is cheaper than the F-16, less powerful than the F-16 and is a massive upgradation of the previous gen MiG-21. And if the rumours about the JF-17s maneuverability are true, it also shares that with the F-20 Tigershark. It also looks slightly similar.

The reason it was unsuccessful was because it was primarily built for the export market, but international customers weren't interested in buying anything the Americans didn't operate themselves. In any case, most experts (and by experts I mean real experts with books and PhDs, not fan boys like me) believe it would have been an incredible air-to-air fighter.

F-20 Tigershark

 

[hj786]

F-20 Tigershark

F-20 looks awesome, somebody needs to photoshop a dark grey/black JF-17 so we can compare.

PAFAce, didn't it die because the USAF was pushing the F-16? They wanted to bring the F-16 unit cost down by exporting it in numbers. F-20 was better in close combat but F-16 was superior at everything else, the Tigershark was just too small. I read that, because it was basically a re-engined F-5 with FBW, it retained many F-5 flaws such as the wing-mounted landing gear that limited hardpoint capacity, difficult to load the hardpoints due to low ground clearance, etc. I don't think we can say JF-17 is similar in history because of its MiG-21 heritage.
Unlike the F-5 and F-20, today's JF-17 shares nothing with the MiG-21. If anything it shares more with the MiG-29, Mikoyan joined the project in the early-mid 1990s, believed to have provided design help from the Izdeliye 33 (Project 33), kind of a single-engine Mig-29, which was supposed to compete with F-16/F-20 but was abandoned after the Soviet air force rejected it.

 

[wild peace]

 

[gambit]

But sir US developed F-15 from AS to Strike and now stealth role same could be done with TC

Even die hard F-14 enthusiasts, and they include the pilots themselves, admitted that it was time for the F-14 to be retired. From an engineering perspective, it would be a difficult job but not an impossible one to force the aircraft to evolve into more than its original role. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the only power that could reach out far enough to sea to threaten the fleet, there was little need to have such a specialized aircraft.

When you look at what a carrier battle group represent, it is not difficult to see why the US Navy had to take a hard assessment of the F-14. A nuclear aircraft carrier represent mobile and powerful force projection that inevitably intimidate anyone within its striking distance. But that power also places heavy logistical demands on the country that deploy that ship. The Soviets had the only military power that could strike a US aircraft carrier battle group before said carrier group could threaten Soviet interests. During the Cold War the F-14 was a need that justified itself. Once the Soviets collapsed, a US aircraft carrier could move into litoral waters and threaten anyone deeper into their territories and still be far enough offshore to make it extremely difficult for the enemy to counter-threat the carrier. The F-14, the interceptor role not the aircraft itself, became obsolete with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

An aircraft carrier has to be as self-sufficient as possible. Resupply cannot be delivered by any means except by the same method -- a ship -- and thru the same environment -- the sea. The more spare parts the carrier has to stockpile to support the multitudes of specialized aircrafts, the more expensive and time consuming it will be for the US Navy to support the same level of power projection. The F-18E/F Super Hornet was the answer.

 

[BATMAN]

As you admitted that the JF-17 is at best %90 as capable as Western fighters, now ask yourself which version of the Pakistani Air Force is the more capable one after that two years time span to train pilots and ground crews, the version using Western fighters or the version flying the aircraft that is %90 as capable?

Hon. Gambit,
90% analogy is perhaps applicable while comparing present day JF-17 and F-16 but remaining listed aircrafts does not fall in the same league as present day F-16 i.e. blk52.
Next question is what specs do we require to intercept an aircraft as able as F-16 blk52 or F-16 it self!
JF-17 together with support of AWACS and ground based radars and defence system have more chance to tackel invading a/c. of even superior specs.
Vietnam is really not comparable to PAF armed with JF-17.
PAF have always emerged as winner in air battles with airforces far superior in tech and numbers. Strategy and utilization of available resources also counts, recently indian su-30 were locked by F-16A which is inferior to JF-17.

We expect JF-17 blk.II to be more stealthy, having better radar and engine.

Hence listed a/c can never beat PAF armed with 250 JF-17.

 

[mughaljee]

We expect JF-17 blk.II to be more stealthy, having better radar and engine.

Hence listed a/c can never beat PAF armed with 250 JF-17.

Totally Agreed

 

[gambit]

90% analogy is perhaps applicable while comparing present day JF-17 and F-16 but remaining listed aircrafts does not fall in the same league as present day F-16 i.e. blk52.

When hardware performance, such as rate of turn, sustainable g or thrust to weight ratio, between competing aircrafts begin to fall within %10 of each other, human factors such as training, experience, skill level and raw talent will have more influence on the outcome when the aircrafts are matched against each other. Note that US adversary air training uses technologically inferior aircrafts, such as the A-4 or the F-5, and routinely the adversary air pilots either outright defeat their opponents or made it very difficult for their opponents to use any hardware advantages in a fight. US Navy Top Gun instructors usually have far more flight hours and were among the top pilots at sea before their duties as adversary air trainers. I worked on a few US Navy F-16N and those F-16s were old A and C models and these pilots still gave their opponents good beatings.

Outside of this %10 margin and numerical superiority will be needed to anticipate and counter advantages created by the superior hardware. For example -- Fighters are g-limited by fuel load and weapons stores, the latter are external and centrifugal forces can do severe structural damages if the limiters are disabled or ignored. The F-16 is g-limited only by external stores and can sustain 9g turns with a full fuel load. It does not mean the aircraft will exceed that human safety figure of 9g with less fuel load. But what it does mean is that the air force that fly the F-16 can afford to base closer to the front line to take maximum advantage of this performance level to have increased time over the battlefield, ground or air, to penetrate deeper into enemy territory, again it is either ground or air, and if there is an aerial combat along the way, the F-16 will have enough fuel to use afterburners as often as he needed without worrying too much about fuel. The fighter that is outside of this %10 margin that goes up against the F-16 will need companions to try to anticipate the F-16's superior maneuverability to bring the F-16 down.

Next question is what specs do we require to intercept an aircraft as able as F-16 blk52 or F-16 it self!

Specs? The above F-16's fuel load example is only one of many criterias and I am going to expand on fuel a little to give you a sample of this complex issue.

Weapons and fuel are 'consumables', the radar computer is not a 'consumable' item, it is vital to aircraft operations. Weapons and fuel contribute to the aircraft's overall mass and can vary from day to day, making the aircraft's overall mass also a variable, so the goal is 'mass centralization' as mass distribution have a direct relationship to maneuverability. Fuel is unique in that as a liquid, its mass can move inside a container, aka 'sloshing', and the effect is well known from auto racing to boats to space...

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090022238_2009022184.pdf

Predicting the effect of fuel slosh on the attitude control system of a spacecraft or launch vehicle is a very important and challenging task. Whether the spacecraft is spinning or moving laterally, the dynamic effect of the fuel slosh helps determine whether the spacecraft will remain on its intended trajectory. Three categories of slosh can be caused by launch vehicle or spacecraft maneuvers when the fuel is in the presence of an acceleration field. These are bulk-fluid motion, subsurface wave motion (currents), and free-surface slosh.

Basic physics tells us there is no such thing as 'decceleration', only 'acceleration' in the opposite direction and every time an aircraft make a maneuver like the famous split-S, there are 'acceleration fields' everywhere.

So to minimize the effect of fuel and its variable mass, an efficient fuel management scheme must be installed. Engine feed from the main fuselage tanks, but at the same time fuel from the wings are transfered inward into the fuselage tanks, keeping them full. If there are any external wing tanks hanging off pylons, their fuel is transferred up into the internal wing tanks, which then continue to be transferred into the fuselage tanks. Remember, we want to minimize centrifugal effects on mass that is furthest from the main body. Airliners have a different fuel management scheme where wing fuel remain there to maintain rigidity and stability for passenger comfort but that is another issue. For the F-16, how its fuel tanks are designed along with its efficient fuel management scheme contribute to its ability to sustain 9g turns while its fuselage tanks are full. In the real world, nothing is perfect so every fuel storage and management system will always be less than 1. A poorly designed fuel storage system will degrade or even negate any efficiency provided by the fuel transfer system, dragging the entire fuel system further away from 1. Management of 'consumables' will make or break a fighter.

In a typical combat scenario, an F-16 can take-off with a centerline external fuel tank, a 'consumable' item. On its wings will be bombs and missiles, more 'consumables' items. Over the target area, the centerline fuel tank will be empty but the tank itself will be retained. Then bombs are delivered. As the fighter attempts to return home, he is set upon by the opposing air force. He discard the centerline fuel tank to reduce mass. Now he is 'clean' with only missiles whose mass contribute minimal centrifugal effects in a turn. He is also most likely with full or near full internal fuel available for the coming aerial combat. If the opposing fighter have fuel related g-limiter while the F-16 does not, then fuel will be considered a negative factor against the opposing fighter. The F-16 will be able to out maneuver and out accelerate his opponent. The opposing fighter can make up for this deficiency with other factors such as two engines, or a more powerful radar, or along with the more powerful radar are longer distance missiles...etc...etc...But all these other factors cannot fall outside that %10 margin of performance comparability. The more any or all of these other factors fall outside of this %10 margin, the less pilot training, experience, skill and raw talent are able to compensate. I have tools in my garage but even a master mechanic is limited with my tools versus what he can accomplish with his professionally equipped shop.

The base F-16A model is still the standard for small and multi-role fighters in terms of performance. Any evolution, aka lettered (C/D) designations or 'blocks' of models, are essentially add-ons that increased the lethality of this base model. For example -- Changing to a higher output wattage radar or changing the flight control computer from analog to digital also does not affect the g-load capability of the airframe. These changes are described as 'C' or 'H' or whatever letter we want to use. So the answer to your question is mixed for this complex issue. If the JF-17 has an all digital avionics system but is g-limited due to varying fuel load, meaning sustainable turn rate is inverse to internal fuel load, then in a turning fight, the odds of losing to an all analog F-16A is good. Notice I said 'odds' as nothing but death and taxes are guaranteed. But if the JF-17 has a more powerful radar and longer distance missile to match, then how superior is the F-16A in a turn is largely irrelevant. Against later F-16 blocks, we have to examine the individual performance criterias, do some analysis and make an educated guess as how capable a JF-17 pilot could be, not will be, against his opponent.

Clear as mud?

JF-17 together with support of AWACS and ground based radars and defence system have more chance to tackel invading a/c. of even superior specs.
Vietnam is really not comparable to PAF armed with JF-17.
PAF have always emerged as winner in air battles with airforces far superior in tech and numbers. Strategy and utilization of available resources also counts, recently indian su-30 were locked by F-16A which is inferior to JF-17.

We expect JF-17 blk.II to be more stealthy, having better radar and engine.

Hence listed a/c can never beat PAF armed with 250 JF-17.

I hope you will abandon this tendency to make blanket statement after the sample explanation above.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The F 16 lock onto the su 30 doesnot mean anything---the plane was within pak territory---the IAF let paf lock on---play the game---how far was paf ready to take it---I bet not too far---how about IAF---I believe---all the way----it was used as a bait---paf didnot fall into the trap.

Today's warfare is a totally different game---until and unless paf doesnot have BVR's that can kill beyond the range that iaf has----it is bad news---JF 17 is a toy that paf wanted badly---it doesnot bring much to the table till it matures.

 

[Zarbe Momin]

JF-17 fututre would be compareable to F-16 Block 50/60 inshallah !!!

 

[Arsalan]

Originally Posted by FATMAN
one needs to discuss the role the JF-17 is going to play with the PAF plans. its not going to be a deep-strike a/c. that capability will eventually provided by the FC-20 in the next 3-5 years.
i see the JF-17 has a platform with improving capabilities from the current block-1 a/c (50 a/c). the induction of a western power-plant, avionics and weapons will enhance its basic role of point defence and CAS/ interdiction. ofcourse this will increase the price-tag from the current est. of 15m to more like 25-30m for later models.

agreed,
i will like to add a thing sir and that is that JF is a PAF product. the biggest advantage it presents is that it have potential to be upgraded according to will and requirment so as the year pass by, JF 17 may well be moving to next level!
the liberity of such upgrades do not come with anything other then indegenious platform and that is what the main advantage of JF is!
even the ToT programmes of westren jets can not sort out this problem,.
JF17 is made by our people, they know its strengths and weakness and this allows them to improve on its strengths!!

regards!

 

[Patriot]

Please keep off topic crap out of this thread- Thanks.
--
Hj486,
The F20 looks great agility wise from videos.The design of F17 looks similar to F20..I hope it is even more agile now that FBW is more advanced added and better thrust.

 

[Arsalan]

Could you please explain more about JF-17 and its differance with JF-10?

well there is nothing like JF10,,
if you are refering to J10 or FC20 then there is a hell of a difference between the JF17 and J10,
to say the least, they are from different generation of planes, with J10 being a 4.5 generation plane and JF17 a 4 or somewhat 4.25 generation plane!!
J10/FC20 will join PAF as high end fighter whereas JF17 is a cheap yet capable option to replace the ageing fleet of F7, mirage and A5s!

hope this helped you,

regards!