JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[BATMAN]

One has to keep in mind that there is always a trade off in the aircraft design. A bigger engine means more thrust but also means more weight thus less agility. Same thing applies to avionics package and more hard points.

J17 is essentially a low cost/ lightweight agile fighter with limited range and endurance. I am not referring to ferry range but fully loaded low-low-low range. Regardless of the wishful thinking, ground realty is that JF-17 would be at a serious disadvantage in a hostile environment patrolled by SU30- Mk1 and Rafael. Therefore JF-17 is more suitable for use within a short distance from friendly territory where, in the event of being out gunned, help can arrive quickly.

In my humble opinion, 150 aircrafts or 9 squadrons of this type are sufficient for PAF needs. That is 3 squadrons each dedicated to air to air, air to ground and defending the 200 mile economic zone in the anti- naval version.

Interdiction/ ground attack deep inside the enemy territory and providing air over to the ground forces in the enemy airspace should be left to heavier longer range aircrafts such as F-16 & J-20 as these aircraft have better chance of survival. Therefore rather than buying JF-17 beyond Block III, funds would better spent on additional F-16 block 52 and/ or J-20.

So, where thunder exceeds SU-30 MKI lags, i.e. agility. which we have seen in resflag.
SU-30MKI turun around time is also double than F-16, and JFT beats both F-16 and MKI in both agility and turnaround time.

SU-30 MKI has slight advantage in Radar range, which is not only neutralized but goes in advantage of JFT due to larger RCS and poor AAM of SU-30.

Thus far, there are no news of IAF having Rafale. Hypothetically speaking; If they decide to buy Rafale in 2014, than by the time, Indian pilots would learn to fly it with reasonable skills. PAF would be producing JFT blk-3, (provided funds continue to flow)
Hence, I don't see any disadvantage there aswell.

JFT is slowly developing into true multirole platform, hence i do not agree to spend funds on F-16 blk 52. we have enough F-16 for deep strik missions, if we need one soon.
Personally, i don't consider it wise to trust American defence supplies / equioment in case of strategic strike missions. It may be different in the older F-16 but i consider blk-52 as a huge bug/trjan horse, which is being kept in operation using PAF funds.

PAF's full focus should be JF-17 blk-3 with improved quality of wepons, sensors and engine. It has already achieved the IFR capability and slightly less load carrying capability, should not drive PAF crazy.

Testing of JFT has brought wonderful results, its agility and thrust exceeds that of F-16, its avionics and wepon package is comprehensive and avionics is not fat behind F-16 blk 52.

IMO, it is more wise to replace all mirrages and F-7, with JFT, in this senario its count would reach to 200 and with JFT-blk3 in production, i would like to pass F-16 role to it, swelling the numbers close to 300.

 

[HRK]

Testing of JFT has brought wonderful results, its agility and thrust exceeds that of F-16,

plz, elaborate further ....

 

[BATMAN]

plz, elaborate further ....

Should i translate the meaning of agility or thrust to weight ratio?

JF-17 has been integrated in PAF after comprehensive flying testing, it has more agility than F-16. Its thrust ration is more than 1, i.e. specs.

You can further look into info. pool. and flight videos of Jf-17 on various airshows. I'm not going to dig interviews for it. take it or leave it or use the key words and search web pages. We have had enough discussions with hindus about these two parameters.

While current discussions is in context of SU-30, in which JF-17 exceeds in agility, turn around time and AAM, SD-10B is comparable to AIM-120.

In such case, the advantage of F-16 is limited to its slightly more payload, but the range advantage is neutralized by IFR.

If F-16 gives any other advantage than range and pay load.... i would like to hear it plus how we weigh those advantages in comparison with the advantages Jf-17 offers.

If we order F-16 blk52 today, it will arrive in Pakistan from 4-5 years time, if we are lucky... and there is always a risk that US take our money and forget.
While if we work on JFT devellopment for 4-5 years, we'd be having JF-17 blk-3, expectedly far exceeding the avionics of blk-52, with improved ferry range.

 

[Basel]

I m surprised that some fellow members are underestimating Su-30 MKI, it will be biggest mistake to underestimate enemy's front line fighter jet which has lots of resources and tech available to them from world which we cant get and its being upgraded to Super Sukhoi Standard, IAF is making it a standoff weapons truck with awesome electronics and weapons, JF-17s only hope against those will be fight in net centric environment where other systems are available to support them, but even then MKIs will have net centric tech available to them therefore JF-17s will be very good in point defense WVR combat if 5th gen WVR missiles with good IR and electronic systems.

 

[HRK]

Should i translate the meaning of agility or thrust to weight ratio?

JF-17 has been integrated in PAF after comprehensive flying testing, it has more agility than F-16. Its thrust ration is more than 1, i.e. specs.

You can further look into info. pool. and flight videos of Jf-17 on various airshows. I'm not going to dig interviews for it. take it or leave it or use the key words and search web pages. We have had enough discussions with hindus about these two parameters.

While current discussions is in context of SU-30, in which JF-17 exceeds in agility, turn around time and AAM, SD-10B is comparable to AIM-120.

In such case, the advantage of F-16 is limited to its slightly more payload, but the range advantage is neutralized by IFR.

If F-16 gives any other advantage than range and pay load.... i would like to hear it plus how we weigh those advantages in comparison with the advantages Jf-17 offers.

If we order F-16 blk52 today, it will arrive in Pakistan from 4-5 years time, if we are lucky... and there is always a risk that US take our money and forget.
While if we work on JFT devellopment for 4-5 years, we'd be having JF-17 blk-3, expectedly far exceeding the avionics of blk-52, with improved ferry range.

have I asked you to translate the meaning of agility or thrust to weight ratio ..... no

I asked from you because, I thought you being a senior member might be helpful ..... but as the matter of fact there is no official source is available stating the T/W ratio of JF-17 equivalent or above 1

 

[BATMAN]

have I asked you to translate the meaning of agility or thrust to weight ratio ..... no

I asked from you because, I thought you being a senior member might be helpful ..... but as the matter of fact there is no official source is available stating the T/W ratio of JF-17 equivalent or above 1

You should have asked for link in begining not asking ot eleborate by quoting thrust to weight ratio and agility.

 

[HRK]

You should have asked for link in begining not asking ot eleborate by quoting thrust to weight ratio and agility.

ok in that case provide the link ......

 

[BATMAN]

ok in that case provide the link ......

Check the videos of JF-17, the take off and verticle climbs.

 

[niaz]

JF-17 with full afterburner has T/W ratio of 0.95. With only a pair of AAM and otherwise clean configuration it would be more than 1; hence it can be seen to climb vertically.

For the record, on 7 May 1958 U.S. Air Force Major Howard C. Johnson, flying YF-104A 55-2957, broke the world altitude record by flying to 91,243 feet (27,811 m) at Edwards AFB. This was alleged done by going at full speed with after burners at 30,000 ft. and then climbing vertically at full thrust. T/W ratio for F-104 was only 0.54!

My point being that T/W ratio; although very important; is not the only criteria that define aircraft performance & agility. Thrust vectoring, air frame and wing design also seriously affect agility, maximum speed as well as the whole flight envelop.

JF 17 is no doubt a very capable fighter but its small size limits the amount of fuel and armaments and the avionics suite it can carry. Therefore no matter what upgrading is done to avionics or engine thrust, it will never match the larger 4.5 generation aircrafts such as Typhoon, Rafael , Super Hornet or F-16 block 60. Additionally, as Hon Basel correctly commented, we underestimate Su-30 Mk1 at our peril. China bought additional Su-30’s from Russia because of its exceptional versatility.

Without denigrating JF-17 in any way, it would be unwise to depend too much on Thunder alone. It was designed as a low cost light weight fighter and that is what it is, albeit a good one. That is why in my humble opinion, 9-10 Squadrons of Thunder should suffice and PAF should look for a more capable aircraft for deep penetration in the hostile environment full of large numbers of SU-30 Mk1s.

 

[alimobin memon]

it was a low cost fighter now its multi role and medium fighter easily with more than 4200 kg its no more a light fighter too. I am surprised some members claim to be think tank yet dont know what are the requirements of making a jet 4 or 4+ or even 4++. Right now Jf17 has all 4+ configured iinstallements like rwr, on board EW suite , external EW suite for advance warfare, BVR, FCS, Full MFD system, HMD, NG missile capability, Ground attack, seas surface attack, Anti tank , CAS role. Further more a 5th generation technology DSI intake No doubt it is one of the stuff found for stealth of the jet. Compact size means smaller in radar signature. So Whoever considers it a 4th gen is wrong and who considers it a 4++ is fanatic it is 4+ means b/w 4 and 4++ jet. Jf17 has RWR with 60 km range means it automatically got a RED zone air space special capability of disabling radar of its own and only run rwr and use it to target other jets which is remarkably and advance technique used by F22 EF2000 and Rafale from west SU 27 series including 35 , 30. This technique further decreases signature cause it doesn't emit radar signature of its own. uses its Threat warning to locate the position of threat and than using that position of threat it futher tracks the launching position of that threat(missiles launching position). And using it to attack the threat.

I feel pity for those who think its pakistani hence its not better than any western counter parts let me tell u That Qmobile for example its z4 series is as bit capable as S4 even in air gesture with half of its price. same is with every stuff. China has tech depending on the money we invest. Invest 10 billion and im pretty sure it will bring u the worlds best fighter by using current tech which it gets from other countries enhancing them and in no time bring it to reality.

Furthermore the jf17 main cannon can be equipped with 30 mm gun. if AP rounds are installed its a flying tank. The only thing that makes me think jf17 is inferior is its Lack of E scan radar and its armour jf17 is too light in wait means its armour must not be thicker than 8 - 15 mm which means even small fire arms can cost it a damage if jf17 comes down to altitude in CAS. Even if speed is mach 1.6 its fairly enough cause today most of missile are High SuperSonic no jet can out run the missiles but to use chaffs or EW.

Yes Im pretty sure just like f16 jf17 in next 3-5 years will have 6000kg of payload as later blocks will use strong composites.

Its pure multirole fighter has wide range of weapons than f16 as can be seen it is already ready for ashm role.

I feel pity for arabs and other countries who are buying gripens and f16's now. They are probably fooled by costs as we know if we become billionaire's we will not consider corolla rather avlon or BMW, Mercedes keep ignoring the fact that There is no need of buying such expensive cars in such an urban population cause there is no mileage due to traffic neither Speed will suffice.

 

[syedali73]

I am surprised some members claim to be think tank yet dont know what are the requirements of making a jet 4 or 4+ or even 4++.

My friend, you are entitled to your opinion and others are to their. Do present your analysis but without taking cheap shots at other posters. Trust me, it does not add any weight to your argument. If you disagree with a post, counter it with better arguments, if you were right, you will be appreciated.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

@
syedali73

is it avery in your avatar

 

[syedali73]

@
syedali73

is it avery in your avatar

Yes, this is Dr. Oswald Theodore Avery.

 

[niaz]

I consider posts which imply personal insults such as “Pity” beneath contempt. Normally I would simply ignore such puerile comments. However I see many posts here indicating strong misconceptions about Thunder.

Before the start I would like to clarify that in my view JF-17 is an excellent fighter plane.

First misconception being that JF-17 is a Pakistani plane. It is not. Pakistani engineers had major inputs in the design of the airframe only. Power plant is from Russia and avionics is of Chinese origin. Therefore Jf-17 is a joint effort with Chengdu Aircraft Corporation with Pakistan’s contribution 40% at the very best. Hence the statement:

Quote

I feel pity for those who think that its Pakistani hence its not better than any Western counter part ….

Unquote

Is based on ignorance if nothing else.


Anyone who has some background in aerodynamics; I am sure there must be quite a few among the esteemed members; will know that designing a fighter plane ab initio one has to make some decisions affecting the performance of the fighter.

These being; whether to have a canard or a conventional horizontal tail. Where the engine should be mounted (this determines the centre of gravity & stability) and where should be the air intakes. What should be the wing loading (aircraft weight divided by wing area), and the velocity range.

Then there is the question of the mission profile such as Dash Radius versus Mission Radius, Loiter Time versus Mission Radius, and Payload versus Mission Radius.

To this we need to consider Operating Weight Empty (OWE), Take-off Gross Weight (TOGW), and Wing Area (SW), Thrust Required (T) &Thrust Loading (T/W) etc.

In the process, many other important parameters including the take-off and landing distances, horizontal stabilizer area, and mission fuel requirement are also determined.

Finally one must consider survivability of the aircraft in a hostile environment. For this sustained turn rate, instantaneous turn rate, and specific power (Ps) levels. Especially the performance during the subsonic, transonic speeds and the high speed dash are very important considerations.

An aircraft design is thus always a compromise of the above factors optimised for a specific mission.

PAF desired a ‘Work Horse’ which could replace aging PAF fleet consisting of A-5, Mirages & Mig- 21’s. It had to be affordable so that PAF could have it large numbers. JF-17 was designed optimised for PAF needs and for that it is proved to be very capable. Main designers of JF-17 that is the Chinese, realize its limitations. Thus far PLAAF has only 3 JF-17 prototypes. It is planned that eventually Q-5’s & Mig 21’s will be replaced with Thunder. For the front line duties however, China is producing J-10 & J20’s.

Nearly every aircraft is updated at least once during its operational life but there is always a limit to improving its performance which is constrained by the original design as noted above. With successive upgrades mainly in avionics and possibly with more powerful engine; Thunder can be made even more effective. One can arguably say that Thunder could possibly stand on its own against the Mig -29. However to assume that JF-17 is equal to or better than large multirole twin engine super cruising aircrafts such as Typhoon, Rafael or even Su30 MK1 is in my view wishful thinking.


The above is my personal opinion and everyone is welcome to disagree.

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

@niaz

Pretty much agreed with your analysis.

If we want to have a clear picture of JF17 standing we should compare it with the aircrafts which it is going to replace.
Previously our mainstay aircrafts were Mirages, A5, F7s? Out of these no one was able to fire BVR? Air-refueling? Data-linking with AWACS? Mission specific pods? May be..

How much percentage wise JF17 has increase the capability of PAF is the right question. I can safely say that if PAF replaces all its Mirages and A5s with JF17 it increases the overall capability of PAF with atleast 80%.

On question of pitching JF17 against MKIs. Its somewhat tricky. BVR combat is not simple as its seem. On home sky, with backing of AWACS and Ground radars+decent package of BVR+Radar, JF17 can give headache to MKIs.
Its debatable as we dont know where does JF17 fits in the larger operational planning of PAF.
And if in couple of years time PAF could snatch an AESA deal for JF17, we may never know....