JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

[Luftwaffe]

no official word if we see the dawn of new block and we will, we might witness additions like CFTs and bubble canopy all i can say i would hope to see them.

 

[PAFAce]

no official word if we see the dawn of new block and we will, we might witness additions like CFTs and bubble canopy all i can say i would hope to see them.

Both are unlikely in the next Block. I haven't heard any hints that the PAF is considering CFTs for the JF-17, and seeing it's primary roles, I don't see why CFTs would be needed immediately (IFR capability will be added in the next Block). Secondly, I can't see how one could incorporate a bubble canopy on the JF-17. It might require re-designing the forward fuselage, or maybe just the spine, or, at the very least, the cockpit will have to be raised.

Also these are structural changes which would most likely be researched and developed in Chengdu and will take some time, whereas the PAF wants to focus on capabilities that can be achieved immediately.

It's interesting, though. Since JF-17 pilots are all ex-F-16 pilots, I wonder how they feel about going from a bubble-canopy to a framed canopy? I would expect, the lack of visibility in the rear and the additional blindspots due to the frame would have a negative affect on overall situational awareness.

 

[TaimiKhan]

If a bubble canopy had been required, it would have been added from day one, but it hasn't been a priority requirement or of dire needs, so not included in it. And won't be likely included in the next 150 or 250 JF-17s.

As PAFAce said, it would require a lot of redesigning making lot of money involved and changing in the infrastructure built for its production.

JF-17 is for the time being more kind of a point defence fighter, meaning its primary role would be defending the Pakistani airspace and not long deep strike missions, plus its said it has sufficient internal fuel capacity and the extra fuel tanks under the wings & fuselage also provide sufficient fuel capacity.

And as its primary role is a A2A fighter, CFTs may hinder its performance in A2A engagement as CFTs can't be jettisoned like the under wing & fuselage drop tanks can, thus CFTs will come with a cost in its A2A engagement capacity.

 

[Luftwaffe]

of course not in next block..next block will be upgrades perhaps block "III"

 

[MZUBAIR]

Both are unlikely in the next Block. I haven't heard any hints that the PAF is considering CFTs for the JF-17, and seeing it's primary roles, I don't see why CFTs would be needed immediately (IFR capability will be added in the next Block). Secondly, I can't see how one could incorporate a bubble canopy on the JF-17. It might require re-designing the forward fuselage, or maybe just the spine, or, at the very least, the cockpit will have to be raised.

Also these are structural changes which would most likely be researched and developed in Chengdu and will take some time, whereas the PAF wants to focus on capabilities that can be achieved immediately.

It's interesting, though. Since JF-17 pilots are all ex-F-16 pilots, I wonder how they feel about going from a bubble-canopy to a framed canopy? I would expect, the lack of visibility in the rear and the additional blindspots due to the frame would have a negative affect on overall situational awareness.

May be F-16 pilots handed JF-17 to find out the gaps and improvments required for JF-17 BLock II.
The benchmark for JF-17 Block II would be F-16 Block 52

 

[ice_man]

wonder why the first 50 won't have IFR capability! the first batch of 50 means at a production rate of 25 another two years BEFORE we can even think about IFRs! & given our economic state under MR.10% i doubt we will be meeting our timeliness! poor PAF again will be sidelined! and a delay is still optimistic!

 

[TaimiKhan]

May be F-16 pilots handed JF-17 to find out the gaps and improvments required for JF-17 BLock II.
The benchmark for JF-17 Block II would be F-16 Block 52

No, the major reason for F-16 pilots in JF-17 is the skills required, as in PAF only F-16 pilots are familiar with aircraft having FBW system & HOTAS control system, which pilots in other aircraft lack, thus it would be easy for the pilots of F-16s to fly this aircraft, as pilots from Mirage, A-5s or F-7s series don't have the experience of flying a FBW & HOTAS equipped aircraft, that is why a twin seat version of JF-17 is required to speedily train pilots for conversion to JF-17s or they can train them on the F-16s and transfer to JF-17, and the recent news of interest shown in L-15 trainers is a reason as we need something to speedily and efficiently train pilots for JF-17s as it lacks a twin seat version.

In future all out aircraft would be FBW, HOTAS & digital cockpit equipped platforms and we have hundreds of pilots to train to transform them to these newer platforms.

And as for Blk 52, the next blocks of JF-17s are & should be superior then Blk 52, and we haven't yet received a Blk 52 aircraft to compare JF-17 with, but our pilots have experience in flying a Blk 52 in gulf countries.

 

[TaimiKhan]

wonder why the first 50 won't have IFR capability! the first batch of 50 means at a production rate of 25 another two years BEFORE we can even think about IFRs! & given our economic state under MR.10% i doubt we will be meeting our timeliness! poor PAF again will be sidelined! and a delay is still optimistic!

Buddy, problem is that IFR is not that much of a trouble to be incorporated.

The real question is that does PAF identified the IFR to be a priority in the development of JF-17 ?? Does IFR required for the role assigned to JF-17s ??

IFRs are given to aircraft as per their intended role.

 

[ice_man]

Buddy, problem is that IFR is not that much of a trouble to be incorporated.

The real question is that does PAF identified the IFR to be a priority in the development of JF-17 ?? Does IFR required for the role assigned to JF-17s ??

IFRs are given to aircraft as per their intended role.

you give JF an IFR capability this helps you save up a hard point for a Air to Ground or A2A weapon! because you won't need drop tanks! second benefit is you increase loitering time! which in trun heps you use your main fighter sparingly (i.e F-16) which in peace situation doesn't need to keep a circuit patrol!

so i don't really understand why NOT put in an IFR capability from day one! after all it is your main workhorse of the PAF! even if it is meant to be a point defence fighter

 

[TaimiKhan]

you give JF an IFR capability this helps you save up a hard point for a Air to Ground or A2A weapon! because you won't need drop tanks! second benefit is you increase loitering time! which in trun heps you use your main fighter sparingly (i.e F-16) which in peace situation doesn't need to keep a circuit patrol!

so i don't really understand why NOT put in an IFR capability from day one! after all it is your main workhorse of the PAF! even if it is meant to be a point defence fighter

I know what the benefits are, but as said, the initial batch is kind of an experiment of JF-17s, even if we had put an IFR probe, we for the time being lack the training for IFR, as for now just Mirage would be first tested for IFR, training would be conducted and much more, so there is kafi time in it. And i believe somewhere it was mentioned by PAF officials that from second batch meaning after the first 50 are inducted, the IFR probes would be made a feature of JF-17s, and the old JF-17s would also start getting them later on.

 

[mean_bird]

It's interesting, though. Since JF-17 pilots are all ex-F-16 pilots, I wonder how they feel about going from a bubble-canopy to a framed canopy? I would expect, the lack of visibility in the rear and the additional blindspots due to the frame would have a negative affect on overall situational awareness.

A lot of that would be compensated by the information available to the pilot from his systems on his flight instruments and situational awareness provided by AWACS and ground based C&C.

Gunfighting is almost obsolete so anything and the closest you would be getting is for firing ASRMs.

If a bubble canopy had been required, it would have been added from day one, but it hasn't been a priority requirement or of dire needs, so not included in it.

JF-17 is for the time being more kind of a point defence fighter, meaning its primary role would be defending the Pakistani airspace and not long deep strike missions, plus its said it has sufficient internal fuel capacity and the extra fuel tanks under the wings & fuselage also provide sufficient fuel capacity.

Agreed!

As you (and PAFAce) said, it is pretty unlikely JF-17 will undergo any physical (outer) changes to its airframe but rather up-gradation of avionics.

At the most, we will see an addition of extra hard-points and improvement in thrust (most probably same engine or even WS-13). Any airframe changes may come (if at all) after 150 planes given our requirement and our resources.

wonder why the first 50 won't have IFR capability!

They will.

Most probably you will see them from second squadron onwards and even the first squadron might be retrofitted with IFR at a later date.

As I said in another post before, the Tankers just arrived late last year so we had no time to test the IFRs. Once they have been tested and finalized, you will see them on our JF-17s.

Also as Taimi said, CFT is unlikely on JF-17 at present. Our first priority would be IFR so the plane can loiter for a longer period of time and reduce the number of sorties PAF will have to carry out.

 

[mean_bird]

By Our Correspondent

LAHORE

THE Institution of Engineers Pakistan (IEP) arranged a technical lecture on JF-17 Airframe Co-production Project here at Engineering Centre on Monday. The event was chaired by IEP President Engineer Sarfraz Ahmad. IEP Secretary General Engineer Brigadier (Retd) Khurshid Ghias was also present. The lecture was delivered by a three-member team, Group Capts Nadeem Tariq, Abdul Hayee and Dr Abid Ali Khan, of the aircraft manufacturing factory, Kamra.

They discussed the design and development of aircraft mainly JF-17 Thunder. They said that JF-17 was assembled in Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Karma, with the help of China. They said this was a joint venture of Pakistan and China so half of its parts were manufactured in China and the rest in Pakistan. Group Capt Nadeem Tariq said Pakistan had acquired sufficient advancement in aircraft technology and it would be enhanced in the coming years.

 

[qsaark]

you give JF an IFR capability this helps you save up a hard point for a Air to Ground or A2A weapon! because you won't need drop tanks! second benefit is you increase loitering time! which in trun heps you use your main fighter sparingly (i.e F-16) which in peace situation doesn't need to keep a circuit patrol!

so i don't really understand why NOT put in an IFR capability from day one! after all it is your main workhorse of the PAF! even if it is meant to be a point defence fighter

I fully agree with you on the various points you have made. The JF-17 underwent a significant if not major structural 'revision' when they added the DSI and increased the wing area etc; if PAF had IFR capability on its wish list, it could have been added (with relative ease) at that time. However, it appears to me (I may very well be wrong) given the history of the PAF that they were not giving a serious thought to IFR capability for the JF-17. It could be for several reason;

Probably the true potential of the JF was not fully realized or envisioned at that time.

Probably the bar was not set that high as there was still some hope of acquiring more F-16s or other western fighters.

Probably the IAF was not considered as big a threat as it is considered now due to the induction of Su-30 MKI.

Probably the PAF was still undecided (due to several reasons) about acquiring Air-to-Air refuelers.

At any rate, i don't buy (pardon me Taimi) that the IFR feature was not inducted from the beginning because JF is still an experimental aircraft. This assumption maybe true for 01, 02, or 03, but certainly not the ones which have formed the first JF squadron. Same is also true for the CFT; if the F-5s can be equipped with CFT so can be (and should be) the JF. JF has just started its operation life, and sooner these features are made a standard on the JF, better it will evolve with time. At any rate, it would not be fair to blame the PAF as such decisions are made based on the threat perception as well as resources at hand, both parameters change with time.

 

[Kompromat]

I am more worried about Pakistan not perusing Salex Galileo Vixen 1000E AESA Radar.

Remember this Radar would be on board EF-2000 Typhoon Tranche II & JAS-39 Grippen NG.

Pakistan has a great deal of understanding with Salex Galileo and i am convinced that if Pakistan pushes them hard they would be ready to sell this Technology To Pakistan .

Bear in Mind Vixen 1000E is a Smaller Radar which has an Automatic Movement capability to 100+ Angles with Faster Data Processing which Makes it a Best Choice for the Platforms ie: Thunder and Grippen.

I think if you take Grippen and Thunder in terms of Air frame size , Wingspan , Height they both end up to be the same but Thunder has wider wings.

2ndly i must say that Current Engine lacks power and speed current 49.4 ktn is just not enough.

I want to see Thunder generating at least 54Ktn and an Increased speed from Mach 1.8 to Mach 2 which can be achieved by Incorporating more powerful power plant.

3rdly : I would suggest changes in Landing gear , look at the pictures i am posting below & notice how similar both air crafts look and also notice that the Landing gear or the tyers are recovered on the parallel sides of the lower fuselage right next to wings which has made enough space for two extra hard points which are carrying Smart Bombs in the picture.

* Can someone explain the Multi Hardpoints in the 2nd picture below and if we are going to do the same with thunders .



What are these Multi hard points ??????



Lastly the cockpits:

Thunder Cockpit :

Grippen cockpit :




I think there are alot of lessons to be learnt from Grippen.

Regards: B.B

 

[Kompromat]

Can someone explain these Multiple Ejector racks ??????

View attachment 5795429dae9f336aa6c27e2d7a58c877.jpg

Can we get them on Thunders ?


Thanks