JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[TaimiKhan]

VCheng, this is not a Vs thread, other threads doing the Vs analysis are there, as your above two posts are gonna attract the Indian members, who will take the discussion God knows where.

So, plz refrain from having Vs discussion, especially where IAF is involved.

 

[VCheng]

VCheng, this is not a Vs thread, other threads doing the Vs analysis are there, as your above two posts are gonna attract the Indian members, who will take the discussion God knows where.

So, plz refrain from having Vs discussion, especially where IAF is involved.

I see. Point understood.

So what would be an appropriate place to discuss how the JF-17 would be used in a combat scenario?

Please guide me.

 

[atlantis_cn]

You said: " The basic design of the airframe is a further development from the remains of the joint Sabre 2 project between Chengdu Aircraft Industries of China and Grumman Aerospace Corporation "


Here is about the Sabre II project: " Under Project Sabre II, considered a replacement of the abandoned Super-7 project by the Chinese, the F-7 airframe was redesigned with angled air intakes on the sides of the fuselage replacing the nose intake. The nose intake was replaced by a solid nose radome to house the avionics from the F-20 Tigershark. The Chinese WP-7 turbojet engine was planned to be replaced with a modern turbofan engine, either the GE F404 or PW1120, to improve performance. The resulting aircraft, designated F-7M Sabre-II, would have looked much like the Guizhou JL-9 (or FTC-2000) jet trainer / fighter aircraft.

I have talked this before and I want to say it again. FC-1(JF-17) project is not started from scratch, you can call it a continuation of Sabre-II project. There are numerous Chinese sources/documents talked about it in detail. No point to argue that.

Here's one link in Chinese:
½ÒÃØ°Í¿Õ¾üÀ×µç¼Æ»®£ºÖжíºÏ×÷ÈÃÅ嵶2ÖØÉú_ÐÂÀ˾üÊÂ_ÐÂÀËÍø

It certainly goes to far to say JF-17 is an upgraded version of F-7. But one thing is obvious, if there was no Sabre-II, there will be no JF-17. No doubt of that.

So, "The basic design of the airframe is a further development from the remains of the joint Sabre 2 project." is almost right.

 

[Stealth_fighter]

lol wait until a war breaks out...

 

[VCheng]

lol wait until a war breaks out...

Please, no wars or arguments here. There is no need for that.

 

[TaimiKhan]

I have talked this before and I want to say it again. FC-1(JF-17) project is not started from scratch, you can call it a continuation of Sabre-II project. There are numerous Chinese sources/documents talked about it in detail. No point to argue that.

Here's one link in Chinese:
½ÒÃØ°Í¿Õ¾üÀ×µç¼Æ»®£ºÖжíºÏ×÷ÈÃÅ嵶2ÖØÉú_ÐÂÀ˾üÊÂ_ÐÂÀËÍø

It certainly goes to far to say JF-17 is an upgraded version of F-7. But one thing is obvious, if there was no Sabre-II, there will be no JF-17. No doubt of that.

So, "The basic design of the airframe is a further development from the remains of the joint Sabre 2 project." is almost right.

Nobody contests the origin of the program. Sabre II, let to Super-7 which became FC-1.

So this phases are not being contested.


" So, "The basic design of the airframe is a further development from the remains of the joint Sabre 2 project." is almost right. "

We don't need statements, support it with facts and evidence.

The initial plan was somewhat modified design of a J-7, but what came out of it, was totally a new design, which has no similarity structure wise or design wise with J-7 or Mig-21.

If the basic design of the airframe of JF-17 is a further development of the F-7, then plzzz give us facts supporting it.

I stated above, just point out one single thing in the design of the JF-17 airframe, which has anything remotely similar with the F-7 airframe. If it is, we will accept the JF-17 is a modified design of the F-7.

So how us the pictures of both airframes and the stuff in them which are similar.

If nothing comes out to be similar between the both designs, then this statement is absurd and has no credibility.

During the design phase, things may have changed and both parties may have agreed to go with something totally different then the earlier agreement of having something of a modified F-7. Thus we saw so many drastic changes and a completely new design, which has nothing in common with the F-7.

 

[naseebkhanniazi]

can any one tell me the numbers of thunder we have now ? wating for answer thanks

 

[VCheng]

can any one tell me the numbers of thunder we have now ? wating for answer thanks

I think the PAF fleet should be up to eight by now, but I am not sure. The target production rate is 15 per year increasing to 25 per year.

 

[atlantis_cn]

Nobody contests the origin of the program. Sabre II, let to Super-7 which became FC-1.

So this phases are not being contested.


" So, "The basic design of the airframe is a further development from the remains of the joint Sabre 2 project." is almost right. "

We don't need statements, support it with facts and evidence.

The initial plan was somewhat modified design of a J-7, but what came out of it, was totally a new design, which has no similarity structure wise or design wise with J-7 or Mig-21.

If the basic design of the airframe of JF-17 is a further development of the F-7, then plzzz give us facts supporting it.

I stated above, just point out one single thing in the design of the JF-17 airframe, which has anything remotely similar with the F-7 airframe. If it is, we will accept the JF-17 is a modified design of the F-7.

So how us the pictures of both airframes and the stuff in them which are similar.

If nothing comes out to be similar between the both designs, then this statement is absurd and has no credibility.

During the design phase, things may have changed and both parties may have agreed to go with something totally different then the earlier agreement of having something of a modified F-7. Thus we saw so many drastic changes and a completely new design, which has nothing in common with the F-7.

I think my point is very clear. I have no intention to relate J-7 to JF-17, they are very different planes, of course.

But you cannot deny that there are plenty of similarities between Super 7 and J-7, and between Super-7 and JF-17. Which only prove one thing, Super 7 is designed based on Sabre II (which again is based on J-7), and JF-17 is designed based on Super 7. Actually there are 3 designing phases of the plane as you have said: Sabre II (including China, USA, Pakistan) -> Super 7 (including China and Russia) -> JF-17 (including China and Pakistan), which makes it totally different compared to the original J-7. So why need similarities between J-7 and JF-17?

"The basic design of the airframe is a further development from the remains of the joint Sabre 2 project." does not mean JF-17 is a modified design of J-7.

Now some pictures of the original Sabre II and Super 7 model:

Sabre II

Super 7

Super 7

Wing modification of Sabre II proposed by Grumman

Engineers from Grumman checking on J-7M

J-7 -> Sabre II -> Super-7

Designing roadmap of Super-7 (1983~1993)

 

[VCheng]

May I please suggest we all that we move on from the history of the airframe as it serves no useful purpose now.

Whatever the roots, it is present deployment and future development that will be the key to a long and useful role that is intended for this important aircraft.

Amongst the critical near-term improvements are: integrating the SD-10A to provide a modicum of BVR capability, getting the WS-13 powerplant with >2,000 hr MTBO and smokeless performance, and good high-angle of attack performance without stalling or flameouts.

 

[Donatello]

My question is, how many are we getting this year? Last time it was 6. Isn't that too small of an amount?

 

[AUz]

Just wondering that Can JF-17 deliver a "Strategic Nuclear strike"?? I know it's not a Bomber...What are PAF's nuclear Platforms??
F-16 can't be one..because export versions don't have this capability..!!

 

[TaimiKhan]

Just wondering that Can JF-17 deliver a "Strategic Nuclear strike"?? I know it's not a Bomber...What are PAF's nuclear Platforms??
F-16 can't be one..because export versions don't have this capability..!!

US sources have quoted that PAF F-16s were modified by PAF to have the capability to drop nuke bombs, so did some westn german intelligence agency way back in 90s.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/3374-paf-f-16s-nuke-delivery-system.html

Context of '1983-7: US Sells Forty F-16 Fighters to Pakistan, Possibly Reconfigured to Carry Nuclear Weapons'

Pakistan Special Weapons - A Chronology

If we can make A-5s, Mirages capable enough to drop nuke bombs, then what would be stopping us from making JF-17s capable enough to carry and deliver nuke bomb.

So its very doable and most probably would have already been made one of the functions of JF-17.

 

[MZUBAIR]

I think my point is very clear. I have no intention to relate J-7 to JF-17, they are very different planes, of course.

But you cannot deny that there are plenty of similarities between Super 7 and J-7, and between Super-7 and JF-17. Which only prove one thing, Super 7 is designed based on Sabre II (which again is based on J-7), and JF-17 is designed based on Super 7. Actually there are 3 designing phases of the plane as you have said: Sabre II (including China, USA, Pakistan) -> Super 7 (including China and Russia) -> JF-17 (including China and Pakistan), which makes it totally different compared to the original J-7. So why need similarities between J-7 and JF-17?

"The basic design of the airframe is a further development from the remains of the joint Sabre 2 project." does not mean JF-17 is a modified design of J-7.

Now some pictures of the original Sabre II and Super 7 model:

Sabre II

Super 7

Super 7

Wing modification of Sabre II proposed by Grumman

Engineers from Grumman checking on J-7M

J-7 -> Sabre II -> Super-7

Designing roadmap of Super-7 (1983~1993)

But now u see the ultimate design is totally chnaged...

 

[MZUBAIR]

My question is, how many are we getting this year? Last time it was 6. Isn't that too small of an amount?

I m not sure but I had news in April that PAF had 18 units including protoypes.
Out of those 18.....8 were given to PAF to raise 1st SQD......that was the last news in April

Now after 5 months we can expect 10 more units....

It may be around ~30 by this or next month.(Based on my judgement)