JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Chak Bamu]

Bamu Sahab,,, Na larra karay majzoobou kai sath.

There is a very Teflon-like method to his madness. Plus he can not quit even in face of massive fact parade. I just want to make him full Dheet based on what he posts. So far so good.

 

[VCheng]

There is a very Teflon-like method to his madness. Plus he can not quit even in face of massive fact parade. I just want to make him full Dheet based on what he posts. So far so good.

If there is any dhitaai here, it is not to believe even a reference like Jane's. Enough said.

The JF-17 is what it is: An 80s design based on 70s technology, that arrived in the 21st century with a fresh suite of electronics and fresh paint.

But, it is a pretty good plane for PAF, and will serve it well.

F-20 was a gen2 fighter?

The F-20 Tigershark was the ultimate development of the F-5 platform, which flew all the way back in 1959. What generation would that be?

So what generation does F-20 belong to? Is that supposed to be the smoking you've been hiding all along?

The F-20 is the ultimate F-5.

Are DSI and LERX technologies of 70's

Those design features were added to the basic older design to improve some flight characteristics in the light of later modelling at minimal cost, that is all.

(Kind of like adding a new grill to 80 Corolla to make it look like the 82 model. )

 

[Bratva]

If there is any dhitaai here, it is not to believe even a reference like Jane's. Enough said.

The JF-17 is what it is: An 80s design based on 70s technology, that arrived in the 21st century with a fresh suite of electronics and fresh paint.

But, it is a pretty good plane for PAF, and will serve it well.



The F-20 Tigershark was the ultimate development of the F-5 platform, which flew all the way back in 1959. What generation would that be?



The F-20 is the ultimate F-5.



Those design features were added to the basic older design to improve some flight characteristics in the light of later modelling at minimal cost, that is all.

(Kind of like adding a new grill to 80 Corolla to make it look like the 82 model. )

But their purpose is not to look good on JF-17. What performance enhancements were observed when they added DSI and LERX to a 70's technology ?

 

[araz]

There is nothing subliminal in what I have said. The numbers do not lie:

The empty weight of a JF-17 is about 14,500 lbs, and it can carry a payload of about 6500 lbs.

The empty weight of a JAS-39 is similar at about 14,500, but it can carry a payload of about 11,500 lbs.

Building an airframe that is light and yet strong requires not only good design, but contemporary construction techniques. The JF-17 is a blast from the past. But it does work very well for PAF, as I have said all along.

More to do with the 39 being a delta perhaps kind sir!!? I would certainly agree that PAF has intentionally chosen a less complicated risk averse approach towards starting a fighter aircraft industry in Pakistan. but this is more of pragmatic approach than a generation old

 

[Dazzler]

If there is any dhitaai here, it is not to believe even a reference like Jane's. Enough said.

The JF-17 is what it is: An 80s design based on 70s technology, that arrived in the 21st century with a fresh suite of electronics and fresh paint.

But, it is a pretty good plane for PAF, and will serve it well.



The F-20 Tigershark was the ultimate development of the F-5 platform, which flew all the way back in 1959. What generation would that be?



The F-20 is the ultimate F-5.



Those design features were added to the basic older design to improve some flight characteristics in the light of later modelling at minimal cost, that is all.

(Kind of like adding a new grill to 80 Corolla to make it look like the 82 model. )

and the oscar goes to...

 

[Chak Bamu]

If there is any dhitaai here, it is not to believe even a reference like Jane's. Enough said.

The JF-17 is what it is: An 80s design based on 70s technology, that arrived in the 21st century with a fresh suite of electronics and fresh paint.

So, what did Jane's say again? Could it be this - your words: "The JF-17 airframe was designed in the 70s using the technology of its day, " (post 4127). What does you teflon logic say about this? Did Jane's say this? Or is it that an F-20 told you so?

The F-20 Tigershark was the ultimate development of the F-5 platform, which flew all the way back in 1959. What generation would that be?

I do not know man, you may call it 7th generation for all I know. You claims have been all over the place about JF-17. I do not want to open a can of teflon worms about F-20.

You are saying that F-20 is ultimate F-5. Why don't you do yourself a favor and just come out of your teflon shell and just repeat the totally discredited and discarded claim that JF-17 is the 'ultimate Mig-21'? You've been hinting at it indirectly, why not just gather your guts and just say it. It might help with the case of constipation you seem to be having for the last so many pages?

and the oscar goes to...

..... the claim that JF-17 is the ultimate Mig-21.

This is what the poor constipated soul has been trying to say, but can not gather guts to do so.

 

[VCheng]

more to do with the 39 being a delta perhaps kind sir!!? I would certaknly agree that PAF has intentionally chosen a less comicated risk averse approach towards starting a fighter aircraft industry in Pakistan. but this is more of pragmatic approach than a generation old

Of course a step wise approach is best, and the one that PAF has chosen is absolutely correct for its resources. The JF-17 meets its needs very admirably and will do so well into the future. Of that I have no doubt. The addition of updated and upgraded weapons and avionics will continue to develop this platform too. Its fuel capacity is not a huge issue given the geography of Pakistan, and IFR will mitigate it even further. Even if the engine remains as is, the addition of BVR weapons will make this a formidable platform for its potential opponents. Not too shabby for a design that old!

 

[Dazzler]

Of course a step wise approach is best, and the one that PAF has chosen is absolutely correct for its resources. The JF-17 meets its needs very admirably and will do so well into the future. Of that I have no doubt. The addition of updated and upgraded weapons and avionics will continue to develop this platform too. Its fuel capacity is not a huge issue given the geography of Pakistan, and IFR will mitigate it even further. Even if the engine remains as is, the addition of BVR weapons will make this a formidable platform for its potential opponents. Not too shabby for a design that old!

what is your criteria of aircraft classification i.e. 80s, 70s etc?

 

[VCheng]

So, what did Jane's say again? Could it be this - your words: "The JF-17 airframe was designed in the 70s using the technology of its day, " (post 4127). What does you teflon logic say about this? Did Jane's say this? Or is it that an F-20 told you so?

This is post #4127. Where are the words that you attribute to me?

The proof is in the performance figures, which can be seen to be clearly inferior to other aircraft of its size, particularly the Gripen. The JF-17 is a modern day F-20, arriving a quarter century too late. The RD-93 is the same basic engine as the RD-33 with some re-positioning of components. Sprinkling holy water on it does not reduce its fuel consumption. The JF-17 airframe was designed in the 70s using the technology of its day, and remains the same basic design, with modern avionics.

Before you get all bent out of shape, would you like to compare the three planes: F-20, JF-17 and Gripen, to see what the figures actually show? Telling things like they actually are takes only a bit of moral courage, that is all.

Or, since you are a Mod and I am only a (the most?) hated member, may be I should just concede?

Yeah, that is better: I accept that the JF-17 is a 4/4.5/5th generation jet fighter that is so over-engineered that it will be developed to carry far more payload.

There, I said it. Ramadan is coming up and I do NOT wish to fight with you or anyone.

Peace!

 

[Chak Bamu]

Not too shabby for a design that old!

How old?

Jane's 80s old?
Your oft repeated 70s old?
Or really 50s Mig-21 old?

 

[VCheng]

You are saying that F-20 is ultimate F-5. Why don't you do yourself a favor and just come out of your teflon shell and just repeat the totally discredited and discarded claim that JF-17 is the 'ultimate Mig-21'? You've been hinting at it indirectly, why not just gather your guts and just say it. It might help with the case of constipation you seem to be having for the last so many pages?

I will trust what Jane's says about the JF-17: It is a development of the Mikoyan Project 33 after it was canceled and then sold to China.

How old?

Jane's 80s old?
Your oft repeated 70s old?
Or really 50s Mig-21 old?

As old as Mikoyan Project 33. Just like Jane's describes.

How old?

Jane's 80s old?
Your oft repeated 70s old?
Or really 50s Mig-21 old?

Please show me the words that you attributed to me in Post #4127. Thanks.

 

[Chak Bamu]

This is post #4127. Where are the words that you attribute to me?

Read Line 3. Yep that is right, it is what you posted. I am not making it up. You said it... and you can not cover it with Teflon.

 

[araz]

Of course a step wise approach is best, and the one that PAF has chosen is absolutely correct for its resources. The JF-17 meets its needs very admirably and will do so well into the future. Of that I have no doubt. The addition of updated and upgraded weapons and avionics will continue to develop this platform too. Its fuel capacity is not a huge issue given the geography of Pakistan, and IFR will mitigate it even further. Even if the engine remains as is, the addition of BVR weapons will make this a formidable platform for its potential opponents. Not too shabby for a design that old!

And he continues on the same old trodden path!!! you have picked up a trick or two from the one who said the JFT has too few hardpoints thereby implying that it could not be regarded as qny better than a point defence fighter. But then what do I know about peoplè!!!
Araz

 

[VCheng]

And he continues on the same old trodden path!!! you have picked up a trick or two from the one who said the JFT has too few hardpoints thereby implying that it could not be regarded as qny better than a point defence fighter. But then what do I know about peoplè!!!
Araz

I think that the number of hard points is perfectly suited to its design.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Please show me the words that you attributed to me in Post #4127. Thanks.

Post 4127: JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5] | Page 276

"The proof is in the performance figures, which can be seen to be clearly inferior to other aircraft of its size, particularly the Gripen. The JF-17 is a modern day F-20, arriving a quarter century too late. The RD-93 is the same basic engine as the RD-33 with some re-positioning of components. Sprinkling holy water on it does not reduce its fuel consumption. The JF-17 airframe was designed in the 70s using the technology of its day, and remains the same basic design, with modern avionics."

Any more objections from you will lead me to draw the only inescapable conclusion that you are either mad or blind or both. An alternative hypothesis could be that I have lost my mind and am arguing with the most ultimate troll on PDF.