JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Last Hope]

but the most important part of difference is RAAD is designed as ALCM ,but babur is specifically designed to be launched from all
platforms air land & SUb .
well RAAD is specifically designed like SCALP missile to evade radar detection unlike Babur which depends upon terrain hugging
for radar evading .
And babur is longer in length & smaller in diameter compare to RAAD.
slight heavier also

so it woulld be more important to see if JF 17 can carry Babur missile or not than RAAD alcm ???

Babur is not a Air Launched Cruise Missile unlike Ra'ad.
For the purpose, Ra'ad was developed.

 

[DrSomnath999]

now i see what made you confused. You are entirely wrong that Babur is designed for land sea and air. Babur is only a Land attack cruise missile. It has to be modified heavily to be launched from sea or air. And the heavily modified form of Air launced missile become a New missile but based on babur

So u want to say babur cannot be launched through air unless it is modified in it's air frame & dimensions Is int???

 

[Bratva]

So u want to say babur cannot be launched through air unless it is modified in it's air frame & dimensions Is int???

yes thats the case.

 

[Emmie]

but the most important part of difference is RAAD is designed as ALCM ,but babur is specifically designed to be launched from all
platforms air land & SUb .
well RAAD is specifically designed like SCALP missile to evade radar detection unlike Babur which depends upon terrain hugging
for radar evading .
And babur is longer in length & smaller in diameter compare to RAAD.
slight heavier also

so it woulld be more important to see if JF 17 can carry Babur missile or not than RAAD alcm ???

Wrong... Babur CM in its original specifications never designed to be launched from air or sea.. It is indeed a GLCM, like BGM-109. Ra'ad on other hand is a derivative of Babur specifically designed to be launched from Air, like SCALP and TAURUS. Sea launched version of Babur is being developed.

so it woulld be more important to see if JF 17 can carry Babur missile or not than RAAD alcm ???

Makes no sense.. Its like launching P-800/BrahMos in its present specifications from air.. You guys working on it na?

 

[Manticore]

credits - PLA-MKII at keypublishing


Grande Strategy
23/3/2012
Meinhaj Hussain, m.hussain@grandestrategy.com

Bismillah arrahman arraheem. From the outset, I want to note that this is a very limited comparison based on a few data elements, namely thrust, empty weight and wing area. The reason for restricting the analysis to these three elements is to keep the discussion as objective as possible given the limited hard data available open source and at the same time focus on some key metrics that give a general perspective of the flight performance of the aircraft in question.

Thrust / Empty Weight

Thrust / Empty Weight is chosen as a substitute to the Thrust-to-Weight Ratio (TWR). The JF-17 scores surprisingly well because of the 98 kN thrust we have used, for which there is clear evidence. However, it must be noted that given the lightweight nature of the JF-17 and the corresponding rapid decrease in TWR given any useful load, the JF-17 TWR would fare less well in reality. However, The data clearly indicates that JF-17 is no slouch and has a reasonably powerful engine to rely on.

Empty Weight / Wing Area

The JF-17 scores poorly in this Empty Weight / Wing Area, which is a metric that substitutes for Wing Loading. Only the Su-30MKI is worse off. Again, the small size of the JF-17 would mean that in reality the wing loading would tend to be higher but given the defensive stance of the JF-17 in comparison to IAF fighters, the JF-17 may not be as badly of. Clearly the Mirage 2000 and Rafale C score very highly in this metric, meaning they would tend to perform better at high altitude and high speed fights (hi-hi) projected to be the future of air dominance war fighting. From that perspective, the Eurofighter would trump the fighters listed on this metric.

What is clear however is that if in fact hi-hi is remotely the future of air warfare, then the PAF needs to augment its JF-17 with something more attuned to the aerodynamics of hi-hi combat. It is noted that the Rafale and the PAKFA, not to mention the Mirage 2000 would prove credible challenges from this perspective.


The J-10B would of course be a very credible fighter to fill that role, but at the same time it may not prove to be a longer term solution. What is worrying is that the models of a JSF type 5th Generation fighter program that are coming out of China, potentially in collaboration with Pakistan, do not show a fighter suited to this role, but rather to the multi-role mold of the JSF. Ideally Pakistan-China should be focusing on a large winged delta or delta-canard that has a few internal AAMs to carry.

The problem with this analysis is of course the presumption of hi-hi combat as the future. In the congested and close proximity airspace of India-Pakistan, hi-hi combat may not always be practically implementable, at least not in its pure form.

 

[DrSomnath999]

Wrong... Babur CM in its original specifications never designed to be launched from air or sea.. It is indeed a GLCM, like BGM-109. Ra'ad on other hand is a derivative of Babur specifically designed to be launched from Air, like SCALP and TAURUS. Sea launched version of Babur is being developed.

but what about air launched version of babur wont it to be developed

Makes no sense.. Its like launching P-800/BrahMos in its present specifications from air.. You guys working on it na?

yes we are working on it but it's range is limited to 290km ,so we need a long range about 1000km nirbhay cruise missile capable
of being fired from air

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

Grande Strategy
23/3/2012

What is thrust/empty weight??? Without considering fuel, how one can have thrust. Also, units should be the same for thrust and weight when calculating the ratio.

 

[DrSomnath999]

anti body bro i have a doubt in pakistan's defence website it claims it maximum thrust as 85 KN

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex
meanwhile in this image it states 98 KN

so which one is correct

 

[Manticore]

yes pakistan's website has old data , i think of prototype1

i used the word 'max' thrust in my article posted in the jft section- average thrust for any fighter is less.. but the ''least'' thrust as qouted by some members regularly , is also not right

i had read a year back that the thrust of u.s fighters is compared on set parameters for all their fighters ..e.g load and ceiling etc but dont know if such standardization occurs in europe, russia, china etc

--
some stats by meanbird are posted in the info pool , hataf changed the units for standardization -- you can take a look at those values aswell
these are close to the latest pak specs -- the comparison i made i think was based on values from 4 sites and i got the 'average value' for these fighters which i used in comparison


mach 1.6 is of prototype1 if anyone is wondering

----------------------------Gripen ---JF17[blk1]----F16[blk30]

LENGTH [M]----------------14.1---14.0----14.8
WINGSPAN[M]----------------8.4----9.5-----9.8
HIEGHT[M]---------------------4.5----4.8-----4.9
WING AREA [M2]------------30.0---24.5----27.0
THRUST [KN]---------------80.5---84.4---127.0
MAX SPEED -----------------2.0----1.8-----2.0
COMBAT RADIUS[KM]----------800---1352----1500
FERRY RANGE [KM]-----------3200---3000----4000
SERVICE CIELING[M]-------15000--16700---17000
WING LOADING[KG/M2]--------333----370----431
THRUST TO WT--------------0.97---0.99----1.09

the empty wt and total loaded wt is where we have to work on , rest of the parameters are quite similar

JAS 39 GripenC/D-- empty 6,622 kg- max. take-off 12,473 kg
JF-17- empty weight 6,320 kg- max take-off weight 12,700 kg
F-16A/B/C/D - empty 8,273 kg -max. take-off 19,187 lb

Physical
-Lenth 14.33 meter
-height 4.72 meter
-wing span 9.45 meter
-empty weight 6586.26 Kg

Performance
-Max take off weight 12383.28 Kg
-max speed 1.6 at high altitude
-speed at low altitude that is 700 knots = 1.02 mach
-service ceiling 16916.4 meter roughly 17 Km
-maximum engin thrust 8700 Kg .i.e 85 Kn
-ferry range 3481.76 Km

Armamant
-Total Load capacity 3628.8 Kg

hope helped

Apologies if this has been posted before since I have been away for some time. If that is the case, simply delete this thread.

The Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) Kamra has updated its website.​

Check it out at

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex

Notice the updated information about JF-17 Thunder, particularly the thrust-to-weight ratio which is stated to be around 1.01.

Physical
Length 47 ft
Height 15.5 ft
Wingspan 31 ft
Empty Weight 14,520 lb

Performance
Maximum Take Off Weight 27,300 lb

Max Mach No 1.6

Maximum Speed 700 Knots IAS

Service Ceiling 55,500 ft

Thrust to Weight Ratio 1.01 approx

Maximum Engine Thrust 19,180 lb

G Limit +8,-3

Ferry Range 1,880 NM

Armament

No of Stations 07

Total Load Capacity 8000 lb

NBunless this is a mistake) note it states that PAC will have exclusive rights to manufacture 58% of the airframe.

NOW PLUG THE VALUES HERE
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/compare-aircraft.asp





NOTE:
these values are BEFORE the jft presentation slides .. also posted in info pool -- the upgraded specs based on the presentaions are these ...

GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS:
Takeoff distance 450m
Landing distance 750km
Max G >8
Max climb rate 250 m/s
Basic range 1800km
Extended range with drop tanks 3000km
Endurance 3.5 hours
Max load >4000kg
Thrust to weight ratio >1
Number of stations 07
Service ceiling 55,500ft
MAC 1.8
Max takeoff wt 27,300lb
Total load capacity 8000lb

 

[Pak47]

Sir, according to your link provided it still shows T/W 0.95 and max speed 1.6.

 

[Bratva]

0.95 T/W ratio of JF-17 is based on max thrust and we know aircraft does not operate on max thrust and rd-93 can not sustain afterburner for long.. So operating T/W of JF-17 in normal conditions would be 0.80-0.85

 

[Emmie]

but what about air launched version of babur wont it to be developed

Ohk, you are coming that way... Well, frankly speaking air-launched version of Babur is yet to be surfaced. My previous post had relevance with propulsion and guidance systems and of course NESCOM too.. Anyway, this thread does not cover missiles so let us not derail the thread, we can continue on missiles related threads.

 

[Last Hope]

Let's make one thing clear.
Babur is intended for surface launch - with a Naval variant in development too.
Ra'ad is intended for Air Launch.

You just cannot say that Babur would latter be ALCM. Can Shaheen or Ghauri be air launched or even modified? No. It's the same way.

Our ALCM Ra'ad will develop gradually and be mature enough as Babur...

 

[ANG]

Let's make one thing clear.
Babur is intended for surface launch - with a Naval variant in development too.
Ra'ad is intended for Air Launch.

You just cannot say that Babur would latter be ALCM. Can Shaheen or Ghauri be air launched or even modified? No. It's the same way.

Our ALCM Ra'ad will develop gradually and be mature enough as Babur...

Hi, just to add to the point above. Some readers might be confused by the fact the US launches the Tomahawk LACM via the air. However, kindly please recall that the Tomahawk cruise missile is launched in the air by the B-52. The B-52 has a huge weapons bay and can accomodate these missiles. Have you ever seen an F-16 or F-15 launch a Tomahawk? No...

The Raad was developed solely to have a cruise missile attack capability, but to be able to be launched by jet fighters.

 

[Emmie]

You just cannot say that Babur would latter be ALCM. Can Shaheen or Ghauri be air launched or even modified? No. It's the same way.
Our ALCM Ra'ad will develop gradually and be mature enough as Babur...

I have a say on that bold part... It all depends, if PAF is more than happy with Ra'ad then it makes sense that they might not develop aerial launched version of Babur.. Its not a rule that you just can't develop ALCM from GLCM.