What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/71435-jf-17-thunder-information-pool-7.html
2mi3xty.jpg

http://dc254.*******.com/img/185C1CLg/s7/12igogon.jpg
578636_302213123188046_152117008197659_672023_1910817923_n.jpg

Is this the IRST? Why is it externally mounted on to a hard point?
 
You may call me crazy for dragging the Thunder in to PLA Navy carrier. Briefly,one of the simmering issue at present is how far J-10 can be improved and upgraded. J-10 is reaching a point where further upgrades may not be possible even though it is a great aircraft. JF-17 is not only inexpensive but has a lot of room to grow.

That depends on how you look at it, because the one that is behind obviously has more room to improve to be as capable as the one that is ahead!
Things like IRST, mid air refuelling, dedicated pod stations or some avionics will come only with the next upgrade of JF17, while J10A already has it and the B upgrade might put it even more ahead again, with AESA radar, more modern design or materials...

A lot of talks and rumors are circulating, not necessarily that they are all true but they point to ideas that may or could be incorporated. I may state a few of them:

True, but as I said in an earlier post here, we have to distinguish between myth and reality to understand how capable it really is. Most of the things you pointed out are not special features that only JF 17 can get and could be applied to J10 as well, not to forget that they aren't carrier specific too. The low speed handling for carrier landings should already be better for J10, thanks to the canard design and wouldn't be newly designed or developed for the naval version as in the case of JF 17.
That's why I have some general doubts on these rumors, as far as I see it, the only point that speaks for a carrier verison of JF 17 might be the wing design, because apart from already having the smaller wingspan, a folding system can easier be applied to JF17s wings, than to the delta wings of J10. With the limited space on a carrier, folding wings would offer more parking space for fighters in the hangar or the deck.


gripen info used is not wrong .... however swedes may want to add a ''+'' on some of these values just to prove a point

The payload of both fighters aren't correct:

MTOW (12.7t / 14t)

- emptyweight (6.4t / 6.8t)
- internal fuel (2.3t / 2.2t)
= payload (4t for JF 17 / 5t for Gripen)

Saab fakes the payload specs often by calculating with less internal fuel, that's why they say > than 2t fuel on their official specs, without giving the real figure that you showed. Same reason why the 7t payload of Gripen NG is a fake too, only to impress with a similar load than other medium class fighters, but when it takes off with full internal fuel that is not realistic anymore.

The TWRs are not correct either, with AB thrust the Gripen is hardly comes over 0.91 (low AB thrust / high emptyweight), while JF 17 is close to 1, but with dry thrust, Gripen has some advantages and that's the thrust normally used. Add the lower wingloading, canards and you have some infos on maneuverability or flight performance.

Depending on what you want to prove, this comparison might be helpful, but since the Gripen is superior in most specs according to this (speed, maneuverability, payload) and also wrt the not mentioned features (RCS, mid air refuelling, pod station, weaponary), why would the Swedes want to argue about it? Similar cockpit displays alone doesn't make it equal, they might be useful for similar roles, but the performance is still different.


the LCA naval version is suppose to have a lower T/W ratio than thunder yet they are developing it.

That has nothing to do with good performance, but with national pride of having an indigenous fighter on an indigenous carrier, otherwise a completely useless development. Especially for STOBAR carriers like IN and PLAN will have, light class fighter offer too much limitations in terms of MTOW, range or payload, which could be countered only by catapult take offs. Btw (just as a side note), the MK2 will be the real operational NLCA base, the current version is nothing than a naval tech demonstrator for flight and ground based tests, that's why the lower TWR currently don't matter.
 
Those 50 planes are not coming.

End of discussion.


If anyone asked this question again, be prepared for anything.

Yes...More than Half of the thread is same or similar questions asked by members who don't bother to flip through the pages...
 
I was wondering why F-22 , F-15 , T-50, Su-35 designs deleted canards .....have been studying this aspect in my free time ... have posted [ or rather just started to jot down some pointers ... the more i read , the more jft design is turning out to be a very effective design.. might i say quite impressive]
http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-wa...s-canard-non-canard-fighters.html#post2993695

keep in mind jft is a blend of f16 and f18

please read the thread .. will post more when i get some time
 
I was wondering why F-22 , F-15 , T-50, Su-35 designs deleted canards .....have been studying this aspect in my free time ... have posted [ or rather just started to jot down some pointers ... the more i read , the more jft design is turning out to be a very effective design.. might i say quite impressive]
http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-wa...s-canard-non-canard-fighters.html#post2993695

keep in mind jft is a blend of f16 and f18

please read the thread .. will post more when i get some time
AB
Fantastic work really worthy of recognition. You shoul be proud of your achievemnents on this forum. I am proud to have been affiliated with you. Keep up the good work.
Kindest regqards
Araz
 
Thankyou very much sir , for your kind words! It means a lot to me!
 
Thankyou very much sir , It means a lot coming from an aviation professional like yourself . Its my lucky day , getting the nod of approval from 2 TTs in a single day!

A lot of pakistani members are crazy about fighters ... however they lack the basic understanding of general terms used in aviation and only after knowing these basics , they can ask 'intelligent' questions ... and then this would start the trend of quality posting

Initially I made a thread regarding different design projects/secret projects/fighter proposals etc , particularly post cold war projects ... Then started to make threads like rcs , thrust to wt , engines, radar ranges, combat tectics/formations,stealth ,Operating cost of fighters etc------- basically this was my learning curve , which i shared with fellow members .... and now ive started a descriptive version of my designs thread . I've been intrigued by design evolution since school days .. i used to read janes all the worlds aircrafts book in my school lunch break!


The interest in design was rekindled when people were downplaying jft ... at that time i started reading about design again and started the jf-17 information pool.... and am quite confident to say that its probably the most informative single concise jft thread on the web! mashallah --- and now senior members have joined in and made it a resource which is linked as ''source'' even on translated chinese fora

Air Warfare



webby was kind enough to seperate a subforum for quality aviation material ... just by posting in that section is interesting for me ... and i do get to know some design basics here and there aswell :angel:
 
Antibody ! I went through the links you posted and I went :cheesy: but I'm sure thats some deeply informative stuff ! So good job !
 
Confirmed news Jf17 block 1 is using KLJ-10 radar klj-7 is just name given as jf17 version they are same purely and klj-7 does not engage two targets it's actually explained in this way that "jf17 can engage two aircraft's with semi active radar missile whilst 4 with active radar because active radar simultaneously has its own radar to guide itself rather than guiding through aircraft VIA reflections"
furthermore rotating plate that Pshamim describe will be in block 2 if so than that is swash plate which give greater radar coverage so that even if aircraft has to launch a missile and go to different direction it can still guide the semi active missile as generally you have to put forward position (radar) towards target until missile hits.
 
What is known is:
It is customized version of klj-10 adopted for JFT.
Basically yes it is klj-10 but not 1to1.

What is in blk-2 is an improved version.
 
it may have less modules but still engaging capabilities are same as other fighter i-e to engage 4 BVR with active radar homing simultaneously
 
Source?

Isn't KLJ-10 too big to fit in Thunder nose cone?
 
Source!! Source !!! Source !!!! is all guys want . See brother decreasing the size of radar disk is only think that seems reasonable that it could decrease range and IR modules but engaging capability to shoot 4 BVR's simultaneously is another thing.
klj-10 is not the max size j10 cone has even bigger radar can be added to j10 , klj-7 is small version in different aspects but engaging 4 missiles is in both
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom