JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[slapshot]

What sorts of improvements there will be as compared to blk I?

Why don't you do some RND and use forum search? What is the point of discussing same things again and again. You will find tons of informative posts already discussed in this regard.

 

[trident2010]

Why don't you do some RND and use forum search? What is the point of discussing same things again and again. You will find tons of informative posts already discussed in this regard.

Yes, I have but it is not upto date. Senior member can shed light to the upto date information.

 

[Donatello]

Relevant snippets from JF-17 article in Air international december issue

Air commodore seems to be clueless of the fact that if you put fuel tanks and pods on the hard-points, you are hardly left with any to support A2A missiles.

JF-17 seriously needs to have 9 hard-points at least, to be of any good use.

 

[Tacticool]

What are the issues involved if we try to increase JF-17s wing length? Doesn't a fighter with longer wings manuevers good in WVR COMBAT SITUATIONS LIKE F-86 SABRES?

 

[Bilal.]

Air commodore seems to be clueless of the fact that if you put fuel tanks and pods on the hard-points, you are hardly left with any to support A2A missiles.

JF-17 seriously needs to have 9 hard-points at least, to be of any good use.

Plus I am sick and tired of the argument that it's a small aircraft, the damn thing is almost as big as an F-16...

We can't put an internal jammer because it's a small aircraft... Ridiculous...

 

[Tempest II]

@Dazzler - I've been asking this question for a while but I dunno if I ever got a satisfying answer so here goes : Would it be possible for Pakistan to acquire 1-2 Squadrons of highly upgraded Jf-17s for a dedicated maritime role ?

What I mean to say is that instead of having the KLJ-7 Radar they are equipped with longer ranged AESA radars & armed with longer ranged Anti-Ship Missiles !

Perhaps even have RCS Reduction Features to them !

Perhaps a better Avionic Suite as well !

And maybe are trained & drilled by Pilots who concentrate squarely on a Maritime Role !

What I'm getting at is that it may not be financially possible for Pakistan to go for an AESA equipped fleet of Jf-17s across the board or go for ones which incorporate the above features !

But could it be possible to have an Elite category of 2-3 Squadrons in addition to having the regular Jf-17s ?

Thank You - Much Obliged !

I believe the RAF operated different version of the Tornado for various roles? ... ... Even the USAF, if I am not mistaken, the F-16s are slight configured differently for a bit of specialisation.

 

[Gryphon]

Air International
December 2013; Vol. 85 No. 6
Pages: 40—47

 

[Thunder_Rider]

Plus I am sick and tired of the argument that it's a small aircraft, the damn thing is almost as big as an F-16...

We can't put an internal jammer because it's a small aircraft... Ridiculous...

JF-17 Thunder don't just need more HP stations....... it needs a lot of modifications, from Radar and Avionics to EW Suit and a couple of Design modifications too. But tell me one thing...... to accommodate all these modifications, do we have a suitable engine ? Obviously for that 2 more HP's you need a better and powerful Engine otherwise 2 more operational HP's would not only effect the T/W Ratio of the Aircraft but it will also effect it's G-Limits horribly. The Aircraft would be difficult to operate. No ?
Chinese Engines are not ready, not even the WS-13. US Engines ? Not a chance..... too many risks. Russian Engines..... RD-93MA ? I'm not even sure if any Engine of that name even exists and even if it does....... is it ready and are Russians ready to provide us those Engines ?

And above all....... Do you think our Air Force has enough $$$'s to afford these changes for JFT ??

 

[Dazzler]

@Dazzler - I've been asking this question for a while but I dunno if I ever got a satisfying answer so here goes : Would it be possible for Pakistan to acquire 1-2 Squadrons of highly upgraded Jf-17s for a dedicated maritime role ?

What I mean to say is that instead of having the KLJ-7 Radar they are equipped with longer ranged AESA radars & armed with longer ranged Anti-Ship Missiles !

Perhaps even have RCS Reduction Features to them !

Perhaps a better Avionic Suite as well !

And maybe are trained & drilled by Pilots who concentrate squarely on a Maritime Role !

What I'm getting at is that it may not be financially possible for Pakistan to go for an AESA equipped fleet of Jf-17s across the board or go for ones which incorporate the above features !

But could it be possible to have an Elite category of 2-3 Squadrons in addition to having the regular Jf-17s ?

Thank You - Much Obliged !

surely, if they want it, they will make it without a doubt, it all comes down to what PAF or even PN air arm wants, their needs shall be fulfilled. Two AESAs are offered for future batches, the top of the line NRIET (lab 14) and one from lab 38 (CETC/ ZDK-03 radar manufacturer).

The point is, PAF has plenty of options to play with for avionics, radar weapons and even engine (PT-04 still in China with WS-13 onboard).

50-60% manufacturing going on at PAC KAMRA, these options can be exercised when needed.

 

[Bilal.]

JF-17 Thunder don't just need more HP stations....... it needs a lot of modifications, from Radar and Avionics to EW Suit and a couple of Design modifications too. But tell me one thing...... to accommodate all these modifications, do we have a suitable engine ? Obviously for that 2 more HP's you need a better and powerful Engine otherwise 2 more operational HP's would not only effect the T/W Ratio of the Aircraft but it will also effect it's G-Limits horribly. The Aircraft would be difficult to operate. No ?
Chinese Engines are not ready, not even the WS-13. US Engines ? Not a chance..... too many risks. Russian Engines..... RD-93MA ? I'm not even sure if any Engine of that name even exists and even if it does....... is it ready and are Russians ready to provide us those Engines ?

And above all....... Do you think our Air Force has enough $$$'s to afford these changes for JFT ??

In an air to air loading a couple of 200 kg mraams would hardly add an overwhelming weight penalty infact we are talking about a 1000 kg of total warload (4* SD-10a and 2* pl-5eI), additionally, as mentioned a full fbw solution is available which is 10%more expensive than the hybrid one, using that would reduce weight by a similar amount as the added weight of 2 more mraams. There will be altered aerodynamic considerations but not something impossible. Plus, saying that the jammed can't be integrated within the airframe because it's a "small aircraft" doesn't make sense since it's dimensions are almost the same as the F-16s.

 

[Ping]

Nice read.


So JF-17 can carry SD-10s only on the 2 middle wing-hardpoint, while some members were claiming otherwise posting 6-7 year old airshow-posters while JF-17 was still in development as proofs, and a certain moderator was claiming he has "inside sources" that it can carry on the innermost wing hardpoint.
There seems to be a pattern here which screams out--"Never trust forum fanboys"... atleast in this place.

 

[Tempest II]

JF-17 Thunder don't just need more HP stations....... it needs a lot of modifications, from Radar and Avionics to EW Suit and a couple of Design modifications too. But tell me one thing...... to accommodate all these modifications, do we have a suitable engine ? Obviously for that 2 more HP's you need a better and powerful Engine otherwise 2 more operational HP's would not only effect the T/W Ratio of the Aircraft but it will also effect it's G-Limits horribly. The Aircraft would be difficult to operate. No ?
Chinese Engines are not ready, not even the WS-13. US Engines ? Not a chance..... too many risks. Russian Engines..... RD-93MA ? I'm not even sure if any Engine of that name even exists and even if it does....... is it ready and are Russians ready to provide us those Engines ?

And above all....... Do you think our Air Force has enough $$$'s to afford these changes for JFT ??

United Engine Coperation said last year said that top priority project was the 9,300kgf RD-93MA. see http://en.take-off.ru/news/107-june2012/729-rd33outputontherise So far RD-93 has been associated with FC-1/JF-17. So, the improved engine is very likely for the JF-17 upgrades (Occam’s Razor). … … With Klimov saying it is a TOP PRIORITY, that say there is a REAL PUSH/NEED/DEMAND for this engine. … … The Klimov poster that was displayed two years ago also shows a higher thrust RD-93. … … These are two separate sources talking of an uprated engine.
Concerning what 9,300kgf (20,503lbf) can do on a fighter that size, please compare with the Gripen NG with the F414G with 22,000lbf.

 

[Chak Bamu]

It is quite pointless to discuss JFT future capabilities until BlockIII comes along. That would be the real deal. If we are to see another engine, if we are to see a modified wing with additional hard points, if we are to see full FBW, if we are to see a more advanced RADAR, etc... we should wait for specs of JF-17 Blk III to emerge. For full capabilities as well as final costs, wait for the third block.

 

[nomi007]

look similarities

 

[Bilal.]

It is quite pointless to discuss JFT future capabilities until BlockIII comes along. That would be the real deal. If we are to see another engine, if we are to see a modified wing with additional hard points, if we are to see full FBW, if we are to see a more advanced RADAR, etc... we should wait for specs of JF-17 Blk III to emerge. For full capabilities as well as final costs, wait for the third block.

True but I am mostly disappointed at the jammer which needs to be carried externally while we were under the impression that there is already an internal jammer like a mirage-2000. I mean if fuel and pods take all the hardpoints then the remaining weapons load out is quite pathetic.