JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Beast]

JF-17 needs to be stealthy then it need a whole redesign that will included internal bomb bay.. Then it will not be JF-17 anymore...

Let's gt back to reality!

 

[ANG]

It's been quite a long time, I just visit this thread and see non-sense posts which have ruined this thread and don't bother to post anything. I request moderators to take some action to maintain the thread quality.

Thank you.

Hi, I just wanted to agree with Mr. Last Hope. The quality of this thread has literally gone down the tube. I barely post anymore. If you look at the past discussions in this thread, they have been childish and bordering on the retarded.

We are here to debate the JF-17, not the WS-10 engine, or FC-20, or bring up issues of potential RD-93 embargos that were discussed half a decade ago, etc. I kindly please request the moderators crack down and clean this thread up.

 

[Beast]

Hi, I just wanted to agree with Mr. Last Hope. The quality of this thread has literally gone down the tube. I barely post anymore. If you look at the past discussions in this thread, they have been childish and bordering on the retarded.

We are here to debate the JF-17, not the WS-10 engine, or FC-20, or bring up issues of potential RD-93 embargos that were discussed half a decade ago, etc. I kindly please request the moderators crack down and clean this thread up.

RD-93 engine is the one powering yr JF-17. Isn't it related? The state and stability supply of it definitely is related to this thread.

WS-10 engine posted is to remind members of the technology advancement of china. I am appalled some members don't even know china is making a F-100 class engine to power it's own fleet. Of cos the advancement of china is relevant. Cos , it will have an influence of yr JF-17. An more powerful WS-13 to power JF-17 is very near in future. But currently, the russian offer a powerful RD-93 engine with max thrust 98K. Which is the reason why PAF will continue using Rd-93 for the time being. The rumour is WS-13 can only hit max thrust 95K.

Posting article of Chinese weaponry of cos ie relevant again. Cos most likely those weapon and guided munition will end up on jF-17.

 

[Viper0011.]

JF-17 needs to be stealthy then it need a whole redesign that will included internal bomb bay.. Then it will not be JF-17 anymore...

Let's gt back to reality!

I am well aware of the reality. F 16 B 52, 60 and now 80 are really different planes, from materials to design to avionics, etc. The only two things they've kept standardized are the name and the falcon shape from a marketing standpoint as EVERYONE knows an F 16.

Similarly, JFT can have a BII or BIII with stealth features. Internal bomb bays are not the main cost effecting part. The major issue is the RAM, radar deflecting / angular design and superior electronics. If you take a wind tunnel IR airflow image, it'll tell you the major areas causing radar cross section. If you then fix those angles, you can minimize the cross section. The purpose wasn't to redevelop the whole thing. The idea was to minimize the cross section to a level that it can cause heartburn for radars trying to track it. This is highly possible for JFT as it is a much smaller plane. Also, not EVERY JFT needs to be Stealthy. We can be creative here. Only squadrons requiring intercept / ADA / CAS need to have it. These duties require usually two BVR's and 2 WVR missiles and those are easy to store in the small internal bays. Take a look at Israelis, they modify every single fighter that they get with their stuff. It is do-able actually. Will require money and design change but wouldn't require a whole new plane though.

 

[PakShaheen79]

I am well aware of the reality. F 16 B 52, 60 and now 80 are really different planes, from materials to design to avionics, etc. The only two things they've kept standardized are the name and the falcon shape from a marketing standpoint as EVERYONE knows an F 16.

Similarly, JFT can have a BII or BIII with stealth features. Internal bomb bays are not the main cost effecting part. The major issue is the RAM, radar deflecting / angular design and superior electronics. If you take a wind tunnel IR airflow image, it'll tell you the major areas causing radar cross section. If you then fix those angles, you can minimize the cross section. The purpose wasn't to redevelop the whole thing. The idea was to minimize the cross section to a level that it can cause heartburn for radars trying to track it. This is highly possible for JFT as it is a much smaller plane. Also, not EVERY JFT needs to be Stealthy. We can be creative here. Only squadrons requiring intercept / ADA / CAS need to have it. These duties require usually two BVR's and 2 WVR missiles and those are easy to store in the small internal bays. Take a look at Israelis, they modify every single fighter that they get with their stuff. It is do-able actually. Will require money and design change but wouldn't require a whole new plane though.

First of all i highly doubt that a Block-80 exist... even Block-70 is an idea. Rest they are different mainly due to avionics not strctural differences but when we incorporate the terms like internal weapon bays in our discussion the whole idea does not remain confined within a similar approach taken by LM to upgrade Fighting Falcons. It is building a new plane.

Israeli also changed avionics and the systems which comes as replaceable in an open architecture design. I am yet to see an Israeli F-16 with internal weapon bay. Doable? May be. But how much it will drag the time period.

Lastly, let's not forget J-20 was no where in public domain at the time of inception of JFT.

 

[Beast]

Internal bomb bay is critical for stealth cos you don't want yr ordinance dangling on yr stealthy plane to increase the RCS. Unless you are flying into battle one in clean mode. Plus internal bomb bay will reduce drag, increase rising speed and performance.

 

[Arsalan]

JF-17 needs to be stealthy then it need a whole redesign that will included internal bomb bay.. Then it will not be JF-17 anymore...

Let's gt back to reality!

this is where we need to realize difference between JFT becoming Stealth and JFT becoming Stealth aircraft.

no one is talking about making the JFT a complete Stealth Fighter jet, to do so MAJOR design remaking will be required and this will effect the main purpose and idea of JFT, an affordable and readily available fighter Jet with Good battle performance!

however, making the JFT stealthier is something that need to be, and will surely be worked on. it will/shall include using radar absorbent materials in some parts, more use of composites etc.
using conformal fuel tanks instead of hangiong drop tanks will reduce radar cross section these are the things that will make it Stealthier, but surely, not a pure Stealth Fighter like F-200 of J-20 or T-50!

i hope i have made my point clear!

thanks and best regards!

 

[Manticore]

certain fighters have made burrows within the fuslage to hide half of the diameter of the missiles .. i posted some pics a year back.. forgotten the technical term now , santro might still remember the discussion

 

[Tempest II]

This below quote if from a document called “Aircraft Design Integration and Affordability” put together by, “ADVISORY GROUP FOR AEROSPACE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT” on behalf of NATO in 1998.

Before low signature features are designed into an aircraft the priorities shown need to be examined:
• Mission planning - avoid threat, select conditions;
• Mission profile - speed, altitude, terrain following/terrain avoidance;
• On-board/off-board equipment - ECM, flares, chaff;
• Defeat endgame - manoeuvre;
• Low signature.

It should not be assumed a priori that low signature is the answer because any low-observability (LO) feature (like
any non-safety of flight feature) is a life time penalty. The designer should not try to defeat the threat with signature
alone, but rather should blend signature with mission planning and countermeasures to obtain a robust survivability
strategy.

There is also “the law of diminishing returns” = after a while, you will put a lot of effort for little gain. You are better off expending efforts on other things than chasing stealth. You have electro-optical sensors becoming a standard feature on many fighters. You have bi-static radars.
With all the stealth technology in the F-117 and B-2s, the USAF still had to send them with specialised electronic jamming escorts.

 

[Dazzler]

By saying stealthy it is important to understand that stealth means reducing the aircraft radar signature to an extent that enemy radar detects it relatively late, at times, too late. RCS reduction is on the priority list since the very beginning of the project. PAF needed a jet capable to handle high Gs, excellent agility particularly at low altitude, increase in payload, sophisticated avionic and EW suit, a BVR capable radar (pulse doppler or AESA, both planned) a true fly by wire flight control and easy to maintain and fly with high availability during wartime. These are the plans for JFT during its 5 major upgrades for years to come.

 

[Tempest II]

Also I believe while it is good generally to have a lower RCS, tactically you just don’t to it blindly. You would assess the sensors of your threat and determine at what range they can see/engage you and compare that with the range at which you can launch a missile at them. If your LACM or MRAAM can be launched at 100km and your enemy cannot see/engage your 3 sqm RCS at 100km, i.e. you can hit him without him see you, then you don’t have an immediate need to work on your RCS. You spend your efforts elsewhere.
If your threat improves the detection/engagement range, you could improve your jamming instead and pushback/diminish the enemy’s capabilities … … or you could increased your missile range and avoid getting within his detection and/or weapons range.
There are a few options available and depending on technical and financial resources, one air force might put more emphasis on solution A while the other might focus on a different solution.

 

[sancho]

Hi,

A game changer is something that brings the playing field closer to being even---. If russia releases Al31 for the FC20----for pakistan----the presence of FC20 in pak colors on fastrack is a game changer---and not what engine india would get----.

You are contradicting yourself here, if PAF gets J10B with older AL31 engines, while IAF gets Super 30s with improved engines, possibly with SC and 3D TVC features, it's not even at all. I do think that J10B can be a good fighter, but in PAF it can't be a game changer, because it will not come in the high numbers to pose a real threat to IAF, nor does it offer any technological advantage that IAF wouldn't have. That's why I always say, the real game changers for PAF are not the new fighters, but the new tactical advantages that currently will be added in form of AWACS, mid air refuelling, BVR A2A and A2G missiles. These addition will make PAF more equal to IAF than any fighter addition!

Russia don't see india as a long term partner anymore and neither does india---even though it does state that-----. That time is about 10 years past it expiration date. It is a marriage of convenience now---russia needs hard cash as always---and india cannot walk away from russia just like that because of most of its weapons systems.

That's completelly wrong, if Russian only needs cash, they could sell Pak Fa to China as well, just like they sold Su 30 MKKs when we got MKIs, but that's not the case anymore. Similarly, they could offer China partnerships too, just to get their money, but they don't and that shows the difference how they see India and China.
Not to forget that India today has a complete access to any weapon or tech that is available on the market, except of Chinese. Even Pakistans long term ally US is offering us anything they have, so we actually have more than enough alternative choices and still remain to buy Russian stuff, because we know exactly the advantages of having Russia as a partner!

Sorry, but you are clearly missing the points here!

 

[sancho]

By saying stealthy it is important to understand that stealth means reducing the aircraft radar signature to an extent that enemy radar detects it relatively late, at times, too late. RCS reduction is on the priority list since the very beginning of the project. PAF needed a jet capable to handle high Gs, excellent agility particularly at low altitude, increase in payload, sophisticated avionic and EW suit, a BVR capable radar (pulse doppler or AESA, both planned) a true fly by wire flight control and easy to maintain and fly with high availability during wartime. These are the plans for JFT during its 5 major upgrades for years to come.

There is a difference between stealth and reduction of RCS and you can see it at fighter concepts like the F15 Silent Eagle or the F18 Silent Hornet. Both will reduce their RCS by far, but won't be stealth fighters, because they don't have the typical external shapings. Converting JFT into a stealth fighter is not realistic, because it don't have the size to integrate weapon bays, not the engine power to add the weight of twin tails + weapon bays and further shapings + increased fuel capacity...
Light class fighters are not useful bases for stealth fighters, that's why all developments or concepts are based at least on medium class fighters and mainly with twin engines.
The maximum you can to with JFT is, reduce the RCS with some airframe shapings (nose section like some fan arts shows), although more useful might be the addition of weapon pods, to carry weapons internally. The latter however requires increased internal fuel capacity or CFTs, otherwise it won't work.

 

[Viper0011.]

this is where we need to realize difference between JFT becoming Stealth and JFT becoming Stealth aircraft.

no one is talking about making the JFT a complete Stealth Fighter jet, to do so MAJOR design remaking will be required and this will effect the main purpose and idea of JFT, an affordable and readily available fighter Jet with Good battle performance!

however, making the JFT stealthier is something that need to be, and will surely be worked on. it will/shall include using radar absorbent materials in some parts, more use of composites etc.
using conformal fuel tanks instead of hangiong drop tanks will reduce radar cross section these are the things that will make it Stealthier, but surely, not a pure Stealth Fighter like F-200 of J-20 or T-50!

i hope i have made my point clear!

thanks and best regards!

Thank you for getting my point, while others would have heartburn without reading what I said!!
Stealthy does NOT equal to Stealth!! I meant JFT being Stealthy and not Stealth. This is do-able and should be done. Not only it will help in confusing enemy's radars, it'll also serve as a future PAC stealth projects of any sort...from jets to boats to etc, etc

 

[SQ8]

By saying stealthy it is important to understand that stealth means reducing the aircraft radar signature to an extent that enemy radar detects it relatively late, at times, too late. RCS reduction is on the priority list since the very beginning of the project. PAF needed a jet capable to handle high Gs, excellent agility particularly at low altitude, increase in payload, sophisticated avionic and EW suit, a BVR capable radar (pulse doppler or AESA, both planned) a true fly by wire flight control and easy to maintain and fly with high availability during wartime. These are the plans for JFT during its 5 major upgrades for years to come.

It still is frustrating that many people here still dont get the idea of cost-effectiveness being the core driving force behind the JF.
The JF could have been more stealthy.. used more composites.. etc etc.
but then it would stop being cost effective and we could nor procure it in such numbers.
The whole idea behind it was to maximize the ratio of capabilities to cost.
cost being dependant on what you can afford and how many you want.