JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Munir]

For maximum benefit of this, JF-17 Block III should incorporated features of frontal stealth. I do not know if that would happen, just hope that it does.

Chak yaar, It is remarkable small (smaller the f16 which is or was light weight fighter) and has even DSI, MAWS, DRFM wit huge library of ECM... Making this one stealth does not make much sense anymore. If you add weapons externally any plane loses whatever they call Low Observable... You can add paint later on or do some minor changes here and there (saw tooth's, body antenna's) but the cost are huge and you do not get that much improvement over what you already have. Just go compare F22 (a picture with F7 and JF17 is same as F7) or MKI.... I think you get the point.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Chak yaar, It is remarkable small (smaller the f16 which is or was light weight fighter) and has even DSI, MAWS, DRFM wit huge library of ECM... Making this one stealth does not make much sense anymore. If you add weapons externally any plane loses whatever they call Low Observable... You can add paint later on or do some minor changes here and there (saw tooth's, body antenna's) but the cost are huge and you do not get that much improvement over what you already have. Just go compare F22 (a picture with F7 and JF17 is same as F7) or MKI.... I think you get the point.

I understand that much. The thing is that even with external weapons, an aircraft with least RCS would have a definite advantage. I do not know (and can not know obviously) how much RCS is added by only 2 SD-10Bs. Suppose it is less than 2 sq M. The plane itself has (say) less than 1 sq M. At what range would enemy radars detect it? Suppose JF-17 frontal RCS is only a small fraction. How does the scenario change?

If JF-17 flies low using ground clutter to mask itself, gains speed, pops up and fires, giving only very short reaction time, I see value in that. This is the context of my wish for JF-17 to have frontal stealth, to surprise an attacker.

 

[Munir]

I understand that much. The thing is that even with external weapons, an aircraft with least RCS would have a definite advantage. I do not know (and can not know obviously) how much RCS is added by only 2 SD-10Bs. Suppose it is less than 2 sq M. The plane itself has (say) less than 1 sq M. At what range would enemy radars detect it? Suppose JF-17 frontal RCS is only a small fraction. How does the scenario change?

If JF-17 flies low using ground clutter to mask itself, gains speed, pops up and fires, giving only very short reaction time, I see value in that. This is the context of my wish for JF-17 to have frontal stealth, to surprise an attacker.

I do not think you should think only about a enemy plane detecting JF17. Here you are in very hostile environment with atleast 50-100 friends in the air, backed up by few awacs and lot of ground stations... I do not think you get the reality of two planes flying around with only their radar as detector.

I am not sure what SD10 would add. But anything sticking outside is adding that much that it hardly helps to undo all the other things.

 

[Zarvan]

I understand that much. The thing is that even with external weapons, an aircraft with least RCS would have a definite advantage. I do not know (and can not know obviously) how much RCS is added by only 2 SD-10Bs. Suppose it is less than 2 sq M. The plane itself has (say) less than 1 sq M. At what range would enemy radars detect it? Suppose JF-17 frontal RCS is only a small fraction. How does the scenario change?

If JF-17 flies low using ground clutter to mask itself, gains speed, pops up and fires, giving only very short reaction time, I see value in that. This is the context of my wish for JF-17 to have frontal stealth, to surprise an attacker.

Hey everyone August has arrived but no sign off Block II any news guys @fatman17 @Munir @

 

[syedali73]

Chak yaar, It is remarkable small (smaller the f16 which is or was light weight fighter) and has even DSI, MAWS, DRFM wit huge library of ECM... Making this one stealth does not make much sense anymore. If you add weapons externally any plane loses whatever they call Low Observable... You can add paint later on or do some minor changes here and there (saw tooth's, body antenna's) but the cost are huge and you do not get that much improvement over what you already have. Just go compare F22 (a picture with F7 and JF17 is same as F7) or MKI.... I think you get the point.

May not be a true stealth, but something in line of the Silent Eagle with conformal weapon bays or enclosed weapon pod for semi-stealth F-18.

 

[Chak Bamu]

I do not think you should think only about a enemy plane detecting JF17. Here you are in very hostile environment with atleast 50-100 friends in the air, backed up by few awacs and lot of ground stations... I do not think you get the reality of two planes flying around with only their radar as detector.

I am not sure what SD10 would add. But anything sticking outside is adding that much that it hardly helps to undo all the other things.

My scenario is hypothetical of course, like a lot else that is discussed.

The valuable thing is getting a psychological advantage. Its possible that IAF and PAF never go to war again and we may never know the outcomes of our hypothesis. But nevertheless JF-17's advantage of having a small physical size ought to be leveraged as much as possible. Reducing RCS further should be done, even without the possibility of internal weapons' bays.

In a later design iteration (lets say 10 years later?) we could begin with basic airframe of JF-17 as a starting point. If we already have working grasp of RCS reduction, we can leverage it later.

May not be a true stealth, but something in line of the Silent Eagle with conformal weapon bays or enclosed weapon pod for semi-stealth F-18.

Even that would be a bit too much. JF-17 is a light fighter. I wonder if it can manage something like that without significant modifications.

My point is that the airframe itself should be made low RCS, so that a weaponized plane has only the RCS of whatever that is hanging on to it. It would be not be LO, but still might give it an advantage - even if only psychological. The effort would certainly not go to waste.

 

[Mani2020]

May not be a true stealth, but something in line of the Silent Eagle with conformal weapon bays or enclosed weapon pod for semi-stealth F-18.

its like loading a honda civic on suzuki mehran !!!!

 

[Munir]

laser-guided bombs quickly proved their value in precision strikes of difficult point targets. These weapons use on-board electronics to track targets that are designated by laser, typically in the infrared spectrum, and adjust their glide path to precisely strike the target. Since the weapon is tracking a light signature, not the object itself, the target must be illuminated from a separate source, either by ground forces, by a pod on the attacking aircraft, or by a separate support aircraft.

You have just cross the height of stupidity and ignorant sob ,some Indian fcuk U so hard that you still feel pain in your backside.

I was so civilized but U dog don't understand that language .

Chutiye ground forces can use laser to guide the LGB.

No need for pod in jf17.

How sure are you that Pakistan uses ground based laser designators? And why so personal/ Are you insecure? You really think in this environment the ground troops will be there first? This is not Kashmir.. This is the Tribal belt. No Indian will have the guts to enter that. BTW. How is it possible that an indian fucks me in the back? They have the smallest penis in the world.

 

[Viper0011.]

Chak yaar, It is remarkable small (smaller the f16 which is or was light weight fighter) and has even DSI, MAWS, DRFM wit huge library of ECM... Making this one stealth does not make much sense anymore.

Your point is actually pretty valid. However, making JFT "Stealth" as you stated won't have a lot of benefit as the cost may be too much for doing so. However, my point is that this is your own and probably the most capable jet (that you build), so even the limited amount of "toying" with stealth tech needs to use this platform and with further stealth designs in mind. This would server as a great working prototype to setup know how for stealth tech. Who knows there may be a JFT BIIII with entirely new airframe and 5th gen stealth as a JV between China and Pakistan. Someone has to start R&D and that should be on this jet as you'll mature up the tech as well as this platform overtime.

 

[syedali73]

its like loading a honda civic on suzuki mehran !!!!

Having an enclosed weapon bay (EWB) is like loading a Honda Civic on Suzuki Mehran? A single EWB will not be larger or bulkier than two C-802, which JF-17 is cleared to carry one under each wing.

 

[Mani2020]

Having an enclosed weapon bay (EWB) is like loading a Honda Civic on Suzuki Mehran? A single EWB will not be larger or bulkier than two C-802, which JF-17 is cleared to carry one under each wing.

There is a structural limitation ....its a smaller aircraft when compared to f-15 or f-22


besides doing so will make the original idea disappear which is to have a low cost fighter to fill in numbers ......remember the budget issue and significant numbers to be replaced......from start its purpose is medium tech fighter which can slowly be evolved n matured...for high tech fighters paf officials have on multiple times mentioned about other options considering funds is not an issue ...which includes new f-16s or fc-20s ,,,or may be another JV with china in future

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Having an enclosed weapon bay (EWB) is like loading a Honda Civic on Suzuki Mehran? A single EWB will not be larger or bulkier than two C-802, which JF-17 is cleared to carry one under each wing.

Let thunder have multi rail racks first.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Having an enclosed weapon bay (EWB) is like loading a Honda Civic on Suzuki Mehran? A single EWB will not be larger or bulkier than two C-802, which JF-17 is cleared to carry one under each wing.

How do you assume it would loading honda on mehran it could be developed according to the size i think such Weapons POD can be developed to carry 2-3 BVR or WVR but the airframe needs to be strengthen. Next I think only Block IV could have such possibilities so it is clearly remotely not an option for now because than perhaps the airframe needs to lengthened, powerful engine among other things would be like Gripen NG/E, F-18 super hornet from C/D TO E/F.

I want to point out here that JF-17 will not remain a cost effective aircraft down the road when Block III and later Blocks are introduced the costs will rise in any case you can't introduce new blocks with new technologies and keep the cost 20m-25m forever that is not possible, if PAF want to make something out of JF-17 they'll have to go the road of Swedish Gripen evolution and Boeing's F-18E/F to learn.

 

[fatman17]

Hey everyone August has arrived but no sign off Block II any news guys @fatman17 @Munir @

under construction......

 

[Shabi1]

Thunder doesnt need a internal weapons bay it wont be PAFs premier air fighter, its supposed to be a easy to maintain workhorse. When the time comes to induct a stealth the J-31 will do the deep strike and air superiority stuff.