JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Viper0011.]

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 dependent on what you can afford and how many you want.

Tell you the truth, 'Stealthy' options don't double the cost. Again, the point Nabil was trying to make was Stealthy does not equal Stealth jet. There are just some features you can improve to make it less detectable from radars. This is not a redesign into a new plane and nor it doubles the cost. The cost would go up by a couple of millions.
My suggestion wasn't to do this to every single JFT if this was expensive. It just needs to be done to the front line squadrons assigned to ADA/CAS/Intercept duties as those planes being stealthy and less detectable will be a force multiplier in may ways and obviously, a headache for enemy radars.

 

[MastanKhan]

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!

Hi,

You know what the hitch is for pakistan not getting the FC20---it is the engine---. That is what is creating the delays----if Al31 was available to us---we can have this aircraft on a fastrack in our inventory and that is what the game changer is----.

 

[Beast]

Hi,

You know what the hitch is for pakistan not getting the FC20---it is the engine---. That is what is creating the delays----if Al31 was available to us---we can have this aircraft on a fastrack in our inventory and that is what the game changer is----.

No.. I dont think engine is an issue. Most likely is price factor. Despite China promise of loan to PAF for FC-20 but they still need to agree on the price and repayment. It's not free. Pakistan still need to pay for the plane.

 

[Armstrong]

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!

Hi,

You know what the hitch is for pakistan not getting the FC20---it is the engine---. That is what is creating the delays----if Al31 was available to us---we can have this aircraft on a fastrack in our inventory and that is what the game changer is----.

Khan Sahib...such optimism from our resident pessimist ! Or are you a realist ?

But don't you think that Sancho has a point that technological force multipliers like the AWACs and better missiles are what would construe some game changing ability to the PAF much more so than any air craft that we can induct ! Which is not to belittle the J-10 Bs...I love them but our real tactical advantage lies in our AWACs, mid air refuelling and a much more potent missile inventory !

 

[SQ8]

Tell you the truth, 'Stealthy' options don't double the cost. .

When you introduce 'stealthy' options.. you have to go through the whole process of calculations, tests and what not to come up with a working product. Lets suppose you hide the inlet further and further hide the RCS enhancing engine blades..
You incur x aerodynamic change..how much does it effect the flight characteristic? does it create a change in the airstream that results in unwanted effects on the rest of the aircraft? etc etc.
And as long as there are external weapons on the JF-17.. there is only a certain level of "stealth" you will achieve.. since you will still have lots of flat plates and angles for Em waves to bounce off from.
If it can equal the RCS of a clean "have glass" F-16.. that is good enough.

The production line for the JF-17 is dedicated to producing a certain configuration, with each section of the line dedicated to completing a certain section of the Acft. When you change a configuration, or introduce a new one.. you will have to change sections of the production line and incur expense.
For the role it is destined for, with the capability that is expected of it from the funds that are available..the JF-17 meets that criteria.

 

[Storm Force]

ARMSTRONG

tactical advantage lies in our AWACs, mid air refuelling and a much more potent missile inventory !

You make it sound like PAF is the only air force with AWACS or mid air refuelling..

You do realise I HOPE that IAF has

AWACS both Phalcon from israel & indengious based on Brazillian jet platform.

That they operate 6 IL76 for refulling

And probably have 4 x as many BVRs missles

If your referring to AMRAAM C5 being better WELL some argue the russian r77 have bigger range and better speed.

And dont forget mica BVRs are coming now courtesey of mirage2000 upgrade

" i ask again WHAT ADVANTAGE" ARE you referring to please

 

[Viper0011.]

When you introduce 'stealthy' options.. you have to go through the whole process of calculations, tests and what not to come up with a working product. Lets suppose you hide the inlet further and further hide the RCS enhancing engine blades..
You incur x aerodynamic change..how much does it effect the flight characteristic? does it create a change in the airstream that results in unwanted effects on the rest of the aircraft? etc etc.
And as long as there are external weapons on the JF-17.. there is only a certain level of "stealth" you will achieve.. since you will still have lots of flat plates and angles for Em waves to bounce off from.
If it can equal the RCS of a clean "have glass" F-16.. that is good enough.

The production line for the JF-17 is dedicated to producing a certain configuration, with each section of the line dedicated to completing a certain section of the Acft. When you change a configuration, or introduce a new one.. you will have to change sections of the production line and incur expense.
For the role it is destined for, with the capability that is expected of it from the funds that are available..the JF-17 meets that criteria.

Everything you are saying makes sense. My point also stands true based on facts....i.e. the cost does NOT double up if you introduce stealthy features. The testing and validation and fixes have to occur but common...you are paying Chinese and Pakistani labor so its much cheaper AND that's the best thing about making changes....they are cheaper.

Back to someone's point earlier about how LM didn't create a 'Stealth' F 16....they'd be stupid to. You need to understand how large companies work....they commodotize and capitalize on their 'brands' F 16 is a brand ......MRCA level. If they keep updating it, their business won't expand, no large new investments for trillions of dollars and not a lot of new R&D and shares don't go up and public won't invest into LM. Now, take a look at F 22......45 Mil F 16 vs. 200 Mil F 22 or 160 mil F 35....different brands for different things & newer technology and HUGE profits!!! SO they'll keep updating F 16 enough to attract some new customers but it's not their bread and butter anymore.

 

[SQ8]

Everything you are saying makes sense. My point also stands true based on facts....i.e. the cost does NOT double up if you introduce stealthy features. The testing and validation and fixes have to occur but common...you are paying Chinese and Pakistani labor so its much cheaper AND that's the best thing about making changes....they are cheaper.

If you start from the beginning with those in mind..
but the step by step evolution of the JF-17 did not follow that path..
In other words.. it was not an entire leap of faith on untried designs.. but a step by step gradual improvement.
So the "stealthy" features you speak of may yet be introduced in the next batch.. but not across the whole fleet.

 

[Dazzler]

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.

Before jumping the gun. look at the thread title and then look what i wrote under the context of this thread. Is it natural for you guys to throw arguments on everything without understanding the context? I know the difference between Stealth and RCS reduction but without the latter, can you achieve the former? It is a matter of how significantly the RCS is reduced, as per requirement. F-22, 35, J-20 all have been around the concept of sheer stealth but small affordable aircraft like JFT, the RCS reduction can only be done within the limits of cost, performance and other aspects of the original project. Nevertheless, the RCS reduction is a prime need by PAF and DSI, composites are a part of it.

ARMSTRONG



You make it sound like PAF is the only air force with AWACS or mid air refuelling..

You do realise I HOPE that IAF has

AWACS both Phalcon from israel & indengious based on Brazillian jet platform.

That they operate 6 IL76 for refulling

And probably have 4 x as many BVRs missles

If your referring to AMRAAM C5 being better WELL some argue the russian r77 have bigger range and better speed.

And dont forget mica BVRs are coming now courtesey of mirage2000 upgrade

" i ask again WHAT ADVANTAGE" ARE you referring to please

For once, stop derailing a perfectly fine thread man! I thought you got some sense for good but you are back on your "IAF obsession" self.

 

[gambit]

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

The McDonnell F-4 Phantom II

The primary armament would be four Sparrow III radar-guided missiles mounted in semi-submerged slots beneath the fuselage...

RCS reduction techniques on an EXISTING airframe is like moving RCS reduction techniques to a different part of the manufacturing flow of the product. It create its own issues/problems and the further along the flow the more money, time, and efforts it will require to compensate.

For example...

Once the missile is dispensed, that part of the fuselage now have a concave structure (top), which is detrimental to RCS reduction. The concave structure is used in radar enhancers -- the 'luneberg lens' design.

This is what a 'luneberg lens' radar enhancer look like hanging below the F-22...

RCS Radar Cross Section, Lüneberg Reflector lensref - Luneburg radar

The Luneberg reflector significantly increases the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of any system which has little or none at all.

Its Radar Cross Section is several hundred times the RCS of a metallic sphere of same diameter.

This 'trench' where the missile used to be will not raise the aircraft's RCS to several hundred times. But because it is an elongated concave structure, whatever length there is may -- most likely -- create a companion resonant (ringing) set of complex signals usually found in tunnels, half-tunnels, and waveguides...

Waveguides : TRANSMISSION LINES

A cavity's resonant frequency may be altered by changing its physical dimensions.

The worst of all cavity generated resonance is the cockpit.

ALL modern radar detection data analysis techniques incorporated resonance detection.

 

[H.A.W.K]

ARMSTRONG



You make it sound like PAF is the only air force with AWACS or mid air refuelling..

You do realise I HOPE that IAF has

AWACS both Phalcon from israel & indengious based on Brazillian jet platform.

That they operate 6 IL76 for refulling

And probably have 4 x as many BVRs missles

If your referring to AMRAAM C5 being better WELL some argue the russian r77 have bigger range and better speed.

And dont forget mica BVRs are coming now courtesey of mirage2000 upgrade
" i ask again WHAT ADVANTAGE" ARE you referring to please

This is JF-17 thread take your iaf somewhere else.

 

[Donatello]

No.. I dont think engine is an issue. Most likely is price factor. Despite China promise of loan to PAF for FC-20 but they still need to agree on the price and repayment. It's not free. Pakistan still need to pay for the plane.

FC-20 will definitely be a life saver for PAF. However, PAF wants a plane with a fully working engine. We cannot really risk our assets and pilots in a plane that is still running an under-development engine. I do hope WS-10 becomes available. J-10B will definitely add some much needed punch for Air space denial and air superiority roles.

 

[Viper0011.]

If you start from the beginning with those in mind..
but the step by step evolution of the JF-17 did not follow that path..
In other words.. it was not an entire leap of faith on untried designs.. but a step by step gradual improvement.
So the "stealthy" features you speak of may yet be introduced in the next batch.. but not across the whole fleet.

We are both saying the same thing pretty much. If you read my posts above, I also said the stealthy changes are required rather quickly onto JFT squadrons that will be assigned to ADA/CAS/Intercept roles. The rest can remain as standard ones. By doing this, JFT becomes a force multiplier, i.e. your enemy will not know how may interceptors are out there as it is hard to track due to stealthiness...plus this may become a test system for future stealth projects too

 

[Thorough Pro]

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.

To have internal weapon bays, you need enough internal space for the weapon and the mechanism to move it out for firing. To acomplish all that you would proabably need to double the size of the jet which would be just like designing a new jet with new "engine".............get the picture?

 

[Viper0011.]

To have internal weapon bays, you need enough internal space for the weapon and the mechanism to move it out for firing. To acomplish all that you would proabably need to double the size of the jet which would be just like designing a new jet with new "engine".............get the picture?

Actually not exactly correct. Traditionally, internal weapons bay is part of the structure of the plane but you can house 2-4 missiles in a box shape weapons bay and hook it up underneath the wings. The box will be designed with specific geometry and RAM to deflect radar signals....this would work for a small plane like JFT.

Imagine if Ra'ad was a big stealthy box housing two bvr / wvr missiles with bays to open and shut...it's stealthy so it won't return a cross section when hooked to the jet...