JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[A.Muqeet khan]

hey nabil if we lets say compare jf2 with jf1 how much percentage of improvment do u think has been done

 

[Dazzler]

Hi,
Is the undercarriage going to be the same for blk 2 or is it going to be different ? I heard somewhere here that it will change more into like the F-16. If they do so then in my opinion this plane will look even more great.

i believe the undercarriage is pretty tough and does a good job so a change here seems unlikely. F-16 has a pretty damn expensive and complex undercarriage!

 

[Edevelop]

i believe the undercarriage is pretty tough and does a good job so a change here seems unlikely. F-16 has a pretty damn expensive and complex undercarriage!

That is probably one of the reasons why the F-16 looks hot

 

[Dazzler]

hey nabil if we lets say compare jf2 with jf1 how much percentage of improvment do u think has been done

apart of the addition of stealthy front fuselage, intakes, IRST, AESA and more composites. It is known to have a more powerful WMMC (mission computer) for smoother navigation ,sensor fusion and more weapons compatibility. These changes are specifically on PAF's request to fulfill specialized roles otherwise the current JFT is doing a pretty good job as the next gen mainstay fighter in all dimensions.

 

[Edevelop]

apart of the addition of stealthy front fuselage, intakes, IRST, AESA and more composites. It is known to have a more powerful WMMC (mission computer) for smoother navigation ,sensor fusion and more weapons compatibility. These changes are specifically on PAF's request to fulfill specialized roles otherwise the current JFT is doing a pretty good job as the next gen mainstay fighter in all dimensions.

Does the incorporation of Ws-13 engine make Jf-17 increase its Mach? like does it make it go to 2.0 & above

 

[Dazzler]

not necessarily. MACH speed is at high altitude and has nothing to do with overall speed. Different altitudes allow different speeds. F-16 versions have various engines from PW220 to GE 110 etc yet its MACH speed remains the same.

 

[Dazzler]

That is probably one of the reasons why the F-16 looks hot

Without a doubt, in terms of looks, the Falcon is my all time favorite.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Mirage is also a beautiful looking jet.. me likey.

F-16 in israeli desert camo looks awesome though!

 

[ANG]

They should try to increase the height.--- probably as high as the J-10.

Hi Mr. Cb4, you simply cannot change the dimensions of a plane that have been optimized previously for given set of specifications and tolerances. Increasing the height, or wing area, or nose size, etc, can have the potential of increasing drag, throwing of the lift ratio, etc. As such, while making these changes might be asthetically pleasing, they might not be optimal for performance.

 

[HavocHeaven]

 

[Edevelop]

Yes technically some add ons can increase drag. But i'm sure the Americans, Russians and the Europeans are not that dumb. They create big dimensioned aircrafts.

In our case if the size of the nose size increases then our JF-17 would have a stronger radar. Personally, i would like to see a bigger wing area as well so we could gain more hard points.

I was concerned about the height and as a matter of fact you are right--- it increases the drag and there is no advantage to it.

However, to put it in business terms, if we like to sell this plane to countries then we must try in some ways to make it look good aesthetically. I see that a lot of people complain that JF-17 looks more like Mig 21 or a third gen aircraft. So for this reason i was curious and i was trying to put an idea down to make our Chinese-Pakistani invention look unique.

 

[Manticore]

In our case if the size of the nose size increases then our JF-17 would have a stronger radar. Personally, i would like to see a bigger wing area as well so we could gain more hard points.

664-670 mm as per my info housed within a composite dome of approximately 740 mm, klj-7 V2 will have the size of around 700 mm as there is ample space available for a bigger antenna for future upgrade.

diameter of the radar dome -rough estimate

F-20/T-50 => ~500mm (APG-67 family)
Gripen => ~500mm (PS/05 family)
M2000 => ~500mm (RDM, RDI, RDY families)
Rafale => ~600mm(RBE family)
MIG-29 => ~624 mm (N019, N010 families)
F-16 => ~660mm (APG-66, APG-68, APG-80 families)

JFT =>~ 670-740 mm

Typhoon => ~700mm (ECR-90/CAPTOR family)
F-18 => ~700mm (APG-65, APG-73, APG-79 families)
F-35 => ~700mm (APG-81)
F-22 => ~900mm (APG-77)
F-15 => ~950mm (APG-63, APG-70 families)
SU-27/30 => ~1000 mm (N001, N010 [924mm antenna ver], N011 faimilies)
MIG-31 => ~1400mm (N007 family)

http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/95288-jf-17-radar-dome-size.html

 

[TaimiKhan]

Yes technically some add ons can increase drag. But i'm sure the Americans, Russians and the Europeans are not that dumb. They create big dimensioned aircrafts.

In our case if the size of the nose size increases then our JF-17 would have a stronger radar. Personally, i would like to see a bigger wing area as well so we could gain more hard points.

I was concerned about the height and as a matter of fact you are right--- it increases the drag and there is no advantage to it.

However, to put it in business terms, if we like to sell this plane to countries then we must try in some ways to make it look good aesthetically. I see that a lot of people complain that JF-17 looks more like Mig 21 or a third gen aircraft. So for this reason i was curious and i was trying to put an idea down to make our Chinese-Pakistani invention look unique.

Had the intakes been on the lower side, just like F-16 or J-10, then height would have been increased, but since the air intakes are on the sides, thus the height is less compared to the ones having intakes on the under side, but still JF-17 has good ground clearance.

Except for Indians, i don't see anyone else complaining that JF-17 looks like a Mig-21. From which angle does it looks like a Mig-21 ?? Do the wing design match ?? Does the nose matches ?? Does the air intakes match ?? Rudder ?? Elevators ?? heck the landing gear mechanism is different too.

JF-17 is unique in its own way. DSI is its uniqueness.

And the changes you are suggesting, will render the idea of JF-17 useless. With what you are suggesting, why then go for JF-17, why not then get J-10 as it has what you are asking, bigger dimensions, bigger everything. Why have 2 aircraft having the same characteristics.

JF-17 is to be a light weight multi role aircraft, which would be supplemented with a medium role MR aircraft in the shape of J-10s & F-16s.

So, keep JF-17 a light weight multi role aircraft, which has lot of room for further improvement and it will be improved.

It may become the 21st Century Mig-21, but its not a Mig-21 from any angle or characteristic.

 

[regular]

That Naval sqadron will be great if it consists of JF17's......I hope so....

 

[regular]

Without a doubt, in terms of looks, the Falcon is my all time favorite.

but I like the designs of raptor better than F-16....