JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Superboy]

The Tigershark has its basic origins in the 50's. Its first N-156 prototype, the predecessor of the F-5 was flown in 1959. the F-20 was developed from the basic F-5 design in the 80;s but retained a lot of the original aircrafts design concepts.

Every fighter jet traces its development from some earlier fighter jet. Sure, F-20 has its roots in F-5, but it is leaps and bounds above F-5. In terms of design, F-20 has relaxed stability design, first introduced with F-16 in the late 70s. In terms of avionics, F-20 has APG-67, glass cockpit, fly by wire, none of which F-5E has. In terms of weapons, F-20 has AIM-7, again something F-5E does not have. F-20 is not even considered an F-5 variant, despite initially designated F-5G. Likewise, JF-17 has its roots in the MiG-21, but by the time JF-17 went into serial production in 2007, it was different from MiG-21 in every nut and bolt. F/A-18E traces its development to YF-17 of the early 1970s, but is considerably more advanced from airframe design to avionics to weapons.

 

[BATMAN]

They were designed with materials, manufacturing techniques and aerodynamic understanding that was for their time. The Tejas is miles ahead in aerodynamic design than a mirage and much more so in manufacturing technique. The F-2 is also a very redesigned fighter(and is also a product of the late 80s and 90s). Once has to remember that even in the 90's the F-16 was the premier fighter bomber. The result of the F-2 program was that the Japanese had at one point the most advanced F-16 derivative but that ended up with their aircraft getting cracks much earlier in the life time.

Aircraft like the Rafale are much ahead than the JF-17 and the Tejas as well in the way what they embody.As I said before elsewhere The JF-17 is a late 70s and early 80's design philosophy updated with some 21st Century design and aerodynamic improvements being built with the latest in conventional metal construction. The Tejas is a mid to late 80's design and aerodynamic concept being built with 21st century materials and manufacturing ideals. The Rafale is a design born in the 80's with aerodynamics in the 90s.. built to 21st Century standards and materials. It also has a lot more in terms of material design and input into it. Quite literally, its built out of more expensive stuff and a lot more man hours go into producing the rafale than say a JF-17 or the Tejas. Not just because its a larger aircraft, but also because of all the expensive stuff that goes into it which takes time to "put in place".

If Advanced construction and manoeuvrability were the only criteria.. then the 80's X-29 embodied much more advanced aerodynamics and construction techniques than quite a few of the types flying today. Yet, it exceeded the requirements of then aircraft.. or simply was not wanted. A lot of older types flying today are doing so for ONE simple reason.. MONEY. If the operators had the money , they would fly something newer and advanced.
.

Are you trying to build public opinion?
You will be more successful, if you pull such brilliance on forums trusted by Saudis.

JF-17 has inspiration from best of a/c technologies, e.g. Gripen, F-35, F-16, F-18 etc. Its aerodynamics are second to non.
Metal construction means nothing, its a war plane not a luxury jet, that should be made out of fiber composites.
Mercedes have S class and G class, both have different design philosophy.

Tejas is shit design, its drag has even surprised its designer, it didn't had MFD until they saw JF-17's cockpit, there panel was a junk of wires, until they saw JF-17's plug and play design.
As we speak, Indians are considering copy JF-17's design and discarding Tejas.

 

[SQ8]

Are you trying to build public opinion?
You will be more successful, if you pull such brilliance on forums trusted by Saudis.

JF-17 has inspiration from best of a/c technologies, e.g. Gripen, F-35, F-16, F-18 etc. Its aerodynamics are second to non.
Metal construction means nothing, its a war plane not a luxury jet, that should be made out of fiber composites.
Mercedes have S class and G class, both have different design philosophy.

Tejas is shit design, its drag has even surprised its designer, it didn't had MFD until they saw JF-17's cockpit, there panel was a junk of wires, until they saw JF-17's plug and play design.
As we speak, Indians are considering copy JF-17's design and discarding Tejas.

That post is too stupid to even respond to.

 

[BATMAN]

That post is too stupid to even respond to.

enjoy the graphics!

 

[SQ8]

Every fighter jet traces its development from some earlier fighter jet. Sure, F-20 has its roots in F-5, but it is leaps and bounds above F-5. In terms of design, F-20 has relaxed stability design, first introduced with F-16 in the late 70s. In terms of avionics, F-20 has APG-67, glass cockpit, fly by wire, none of which F-5E has. In terms of weapons, F-20 has AIM-7, again something F-5E does not have. F-20 is not even considered an F-5 variant, despite initially designated F-5G. Likewise, JF-17 has its roots in the MiG-21, but by the time JF-17 went into serial production in 2007, it was different from MiG-21 in every nut and bolt. F/A-18E traces its development to YF-17 of the early 1970s, but is considerably more advanced from airframe design to avionics to weapons.

No and yes. The F-5 design was improved considerably with increased LERX..and pitch instability was added to allow for higher turn rates.. but the basic commonality with the F-5 airframe existed. In essence the F-20 was to the F-5 what the Superhornet is to the F/A-18A. Yet, the Design philosophy of the Superhornet differs completely to what the JF-17 brings. No one is saying that the JF-17 is the mig-21 improved as it has NOTHING in common with it.. It is a completely new fighter built from scratch. Yet, the design itself.. stemming from PT-01.. is very 70s. What PT-04(or current JF-17) is an update of those basic design ideas with aerodynamic improvements that are more current that what PT-01 brought with it.

Avionics are never the question here, airframe design and potential is. The JF-17 is built with traditional elements and methods to preserve costs and production time. Compared to that.. the F-16 uses better construction techniques(such as honeycomb wing structures) but also costs more.

enjoy the graphics!

Better than ignorant jingoistic daydreaming.

 

[VCheng]

No and yes. The F-5 design was improved considerably with increased LERX..and pitch instability was added to allow for higher turn rates.. but the basic commonality with the F-5 airframe existed. In essence the F-20 was to the F-5 what the Superhornet is to the F/A-18A. Yet, the Design philosophy of the Superhornet differs completely to what the JF-17 brings. No one is saying that the JF-17 is the mig-21 improved as it has NOTHING in common with it.. It is a completely new fighter built from scratch. Yet, the design itself.. stemming from PT-01.. is very 70s. What PT-04(or current JF-17) is an update of those basic design ideas with aerodynamic improvements that are more current that what PT-01 brought with it.

Avionics are never the question here, airframe design and potential is. The JF-17 is built with traditional elements and methods to preserve costs and production time. Compared to that.. the F-16 uses better construction techniques(such as honeycomb wing structures) but also costs more.


Better than ignorant jingoistic daydreaming.

One must learn to walk before trying to run. There is nothing wrong with choosing such a basic design that can be manufactured with the technology available to Pakistan, and upgrading avionics and weaponry as much as is possible, in addition to the improvement described. In fact, this is perhaps the most viable strategy for PAF. Once the techniques are mastered as this design is refined for the next few Blocks, then the next step to a more advanced new design will be possible. Plus the engines of course. Don't forget the engines.

 

[SQ8]

One must learn to walk before trying to run. There is nothing wrong with choosing such a basic design that can be manufactured with the technology available to Pakistan, and upgrading avionics and weaponry as much as is possible, in addition to the improvement described. In fact, this is perhaps the most viable strategy for PAF. Once the techniques are mastered as this design is refined for the next few Blocks, then the next step to a more advanced new design will be possible. Plus the engines of course. Don't forget the engines.

That is a given, but trying to paint it as some spaceship is sheer blind idiocy.. you see the same from the opposite side of the fence as well on the Tejas. The JF-17 was designed around a requirement for its primary user. A requirement that was based upon capability and cost.. a requirement that it EXCEEDS. Yet somehow, certain thickheads are not unsurprisingly satisfied with that and will not stand for anything less than having it declared superior to everything else and almost equal to the F-22.

But alas, to get there one has to know air power doctrines, have some basic understanding of aircraft design and most importantly, have relevant work experience to know the difference to what Carlo Kopp preaches and how the end user tells you about what really happens.

 

[MilSpec]

Are you trying to build public opinion?
You will be more successful, if you pull such brilliance on forums trusted by Saudis.

JF-17 has inspiration from best of a/c technologies, e.g. Gripen, F-35, F-16, F-18 etc. Its aerodynamics are second to non.
Metal construction means nothing, its a war plane not a luxury jet, that should be made out of fiber composites.
Mercedes have S class and G class, both have different design philosophy.

Tejas is shit design, its drag has even surprised its designer, it didn't had MFD until they saw JF-17's cockpit, there panel was a junk of wires, until they saw JF-17's plug and play design.
As we speak, Indians are considering copy JF-17's design and discarding Tejas.

Post of the day!!!

 

[SQ8]

Post of the day!!!

It is gems such as these which make me repeatedly stress on disregarding "elite" and "senior" titles for any reflection of quality. They are based on number of posts and not the content of posts.

 

[VCheng]

That is a given, but trying to paint it as some spaceship is sheer blind idiocy.. you see the same from the opposite side of the fence as well on the Tejas. The JF-17 was designed around a requirement for its primary user. A requirement that was based upon capability and cost.. a requirement that it EXCEEDS. Yet somehow, certain thickheads are not unsurprisingly satisfied with that and will not stand for anything less than having it declared superior to everything else and almost equal to the F-22.

But alas, to get there one has to know air power doctrines, have some basic understanding of aircraft design and most importantly, have relevant work experience to know the difference to what Carlo Kopp preaches and how the end user tells you about what really happens.

I couldn't agree more, but better you say it rather than me. Duck and cover.

 

[SQ8]

I couldn't agree more, but better you say it rather than me. Duck and cover.

That is because you are the resident Carlo Kopp of the Pakistani industry. If you know what Carlo Kopp went through and what he writes on .

 

[VCheng]

That is because you are the resident Carlo Kopp of the Pakistani industry. If you know what Carlo Kopp went through and what he writes on .

Carlo Kopp? Heck no, to many here, I am the left hand of Satan himself, apparently.

----------------------------------------------------------

Back to the topic, are there any updates to the new Chinese engine for the JF-17?

 

[araz]

[quoteVCheng, post: 5206192, member: 32635"]One must learn to walk before trying to run. There is nothing wrong with choosing such a basic design that can be manufactured with the technology available to Pakistan, and upgrading avionics and weaponry as much as is possible, in addition to the improvement described. In fact, this is perhaps the most viable strategy for PAF. Once the techniques are mastered as this design is refined for the next few Blocks, then the next step to a more advanced new design will be possible. Plus the engines of course. Don't forget the engines.[/quote]
Avreed fully with the content. See a little heckling gets you to perform better.
araz

 

[TOPGUN]

Since we are talking about the F-20 Tiger shark , wasn't PAF offered it in the past along with A-10's ? I think I heard of this story .

 

[VCheng]

...............
Avreed fully with the content. See a little heckling gets you to perform better.
araz

Interesting thought there, but I have said what I have said all along pretty consistently. I do appreciate the help though unneeded.

Back to the topic, I can see the progress being made. With the IFR in place, low internal fuel is not as much of an issue. With long range missiles and avionics giving better BVR capabilities, the less than ideal T:W ratio or WVR agility is not as important.

I think the PAF is clearly on the right track with the project despite mounting financial constraints, but to claim that it is leading the pack with the JF-17 is simply incorrect.