What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

Status
Not open for further replies.
can you upgrade f16s whenever you want to whatever specs you like? can you use any western/pak weapon you like? do you have the source codes? do you have the refuelers needed to refuel the f16s in air? these things also count in 'capability' and the potential buyer will also consider these aspects

Yes, those are all important considerations, including airframe and engine support, plus many political considerations as well, for potential buyers.

There is no doubt that the JF-17 works well for PAF. Other airforces may or may not agree.
 
No matter how the JF-17 is optioned and marketed, its chances for any export successes are slim to none.

I Think you are abusing the word "chance" sir,
an aircraft in which many countries have shown interest and atleast two have confirmed some negotiation of co production , doesnt has slim chances..

ofcourse its possible that no aircrft is exported in the end but to state that chances are slim to non is very unfair statement.

suppose argentina deals happen and export does happen, wouldnt your statement seems a foolish one where u said there are no "chances" what so ever?!
 
Briefly consider the following three aircraft, JF-17, F-16 and MiG-29, in rough figures, respectively:

Empty weights are 14,000, 19,000 and 29,000 lbs.
Loaded weights are 20,000, 26,500 and 41,000 lbs.
Maximum weights are 28,000, 42,500 and 54,000 lbs.

Dry thrust is 11,500, 17,200 and 20,000 lbs.
Maximum thrust is 19,400, 28,600 and 40,900 lbs.

It is obvious that the JF-17 is a lightweight against the F-16 and the much bigger MiG-29.

The JF-17 is a great aircraft for what it was designed to be, but an F-16 or MiG-29 it clearly is NOT.
true, very true, but he mig29 and f-16 were designed for russia and USA during the coldwar with different doctorine....

the jf-17 was design to be very light, very chap to operate and to be most cost effective ..the "cost effective" term is most important thing is 21th century when non of the countries in stable zones want to spend on military especially airforces..even argentina spends less than 0.31% of gdp!


lot of people quote its under powered again and again when PAF have never said its underpower.
T/W ratio is indicator of power and JF-17 has better t/w in comparison to many modern fighters..(like mirage2000, gripen)
the rd-93/33 is the most econmical engine available even today, there is simply no "cost effective" alternative to it..only ws-13 if its developed and ready!
 
true, very true, but he mig29 and f-16 were designed for russia and USA during the coldwar with different doctorine....

the jf-17 was design to be very light, very chap to operate and to be most cost effective ..the "cost effective" term is most important thing is 21th century when non of the countries in stable zones want to spend on military especially airforces..even argentina spends less than 0.31% of gdp!


lot of people quote its under powered again and again when PAF have never said its underpower.
T/W ratio is indicator of power and JF-17 has better t/w in comparison to many modern fighters..(like mirage2000, gripen)
the rd-93/33 is the most econmical engine available even today, there is simply no "cost effective" alternative to it..only ws-13 if its developed and ready!

Much of what you offer is highly contentious, after all, are PAF F16 crazy because it is cost effective?? This whole business of "cost effective' is rather poorly understood by many of us, "cost effective aircraft" must deliver the same or better capabilities and performance as those judged less than cost effective
 
Much of what you offer is highly contentious, after all, are PAF F16 crazy because it is cost effective?? This whole business of "cost effective' is rather poorly understood by many of us, "cost effective aircraft" must deliver the same or better capabilities and performance as those judged less than cost effective

"cost effective", "bang for the buck".. etc.. All terms that may be euphemistically expanded to suit any narrative. However, the simple definition of the term is economic enough wrt to its benefits.. so a more appropriate description is its cost to capabilities ratio. In that sense, the JF-17 scores high for what it can do. Yet, so does an EDA F-16.... if properly upgraded.
However, when you think of cost-effective.. there is also sustainable advantage.. the JF-17 brings in the advantage that its ours...we make the parts and have(currently) unlimited access to any spares. Moreover, it brings with the experience of assisting in, building of a modern combat aircraft whose electronic sophistication and weapons capabilities are ENTIRELY up to the PAF to achieve. With those "capabilities" in mind, the JF-17 clearly edges out an EDA F-16 in terms of benefits for the PAF.
 
A Suzuki Mehran is a good car, cheap to buy and operate, but a Corolla it will never be, and there is no point in pretending that either.

The JF-17 is our Mehran of the skies. It does what we need it to do at a price we can afford. Hence, it is a great aircraft - for us. We do not need much more, and if we do, we have our F-16s for that need should it arise. Hence, the combination serves the needs of the PAF exceedingly well.

I Think you are abusing the word "chance" sir,
an aircraft in which many countries have shown interest and atleast two have confirmed some negotiation of co production , doesnt has slim chances..

ofcourse its possible that no aircrft is exported in the end but to state that chances are slim to non is very unfair statement.

suppose argentina deals happen and export does happen, wouldnt your statement seems a foolish one where u said there are no "chances" what so ever?!

I conceded SLIM chances. A SLIM chance for export sales might still be there.

true, very true, but he mig29 and f-16 were designed for russia and USA during the coldwar with different doctorine....

the jf-17 was design to be very light, very chap to operate and to be most cost effective ..the "cost effective" term is most important thing is 21th century when non of the countries in stable zones want to spend on military especially airforces..even argentina spends less than 0.31% of gdp!


lot of people quote its under powered again and again when PAF have never said its underpower.
T/W ratio is indicator of power and JF-17 has better t/w in comparison to many modern fighters..(like mirage2000, gripen)
the rd-93/33 is the most econmical engine available even today, there is simply no "cost effective" alternative to it..only ws-13 if its developed and ready!

The T:W ratio of a JF-17 is about 0.85 to 1.
 
"cost effective", "bang for the buck".. etc.. All terms that may be euphemistically expanded to suit any narrative. However, the simple definition of the term is economic enough wrt to its benefits.. so a more appropriate description is its cost to capabilities ratio. In that sense, the JF-17 scores high for what it can do. Yet, so does an EDA F-16.... if properly upgraded.
However, when you think of cost-effective.. there is also sustainable advantage.. the JF-17 brings in the advantage that its ours...we make the parts and have(currently) unlimited access to any spares. Moreover, it brings with the experience of assisting in, building of a modern combat aircraft whose electronic sophistication and weapons capabilities are ENTIRELY up to the PAF to achieve. With those "capabilities" in mind, the JF-17 clearly edges out an EDA F-16 in terms of benefits for the PAF.

And yet PAF seek more f16's - curious
 
And yet PAF seek more f16's - curious

PAF knows that the JF-17 cannot replace the F-16, only supplement it usefully.

The JF-17 is not even in the payload class of the F-16. In addition, the PAF has operated the F-16 for over 30 years to this date(1983-2013). It knows the jet inside out, how to best employ it, maintain it and train for it. Hence it does not add any additional costs of learning about a new jet, its flight, its tactics.. etc. Which is why when SAAB offered the Gripen, the PAF refused.. First, that the PAF did not need an interceptor , it needed a deep strike fighter.. second.. because that meant learning a new airframe all over again , training your airman into maintaining it.. and so on.
 
The JF-17 is not even in the payload class of the F-16. In addition, the PAF has operated the F-16 for over 30 years to this date(1983-2013). It knows the jet inside out, how to best employ it, maintain it and train for it. Hence it does not add any additional costs of learning about a new jet, its flight, its tactics.. etc. Which is why when SAAB offered the Gripen, the PAF refused.. First, that the PAF did not need an interceptor , it needed a deep strike fighter.. second.. because that meant learning a new airframe all over again , training your airman into maintaining it.. and so on.

By this logic then it should not have needed the expenditure the JF17 represents
 
The JF-17 is not even in the payload class of the F-16. In addition, the PAF has operated the F-16 for over 30 years to this date(1983-2013). It knows the jet inside out, how to best employ it, maintain it and train for it. Hence it does not add any additional costs of learning about a new jet, its flight, its tactics.. etc. Which is why when SAAB offered the Gripen, the PAF refused.. First, that the PAF did not need an interceptor , it needed a deep strike fighter.. second.. because that meant learning a new airframe all over again , training your airman into maintaining it.. and so on.

Why then was there talk of (and perhaps some movement even on) acquiring the J-10Bs ?
 
By this logic then it should not have needed the expenditure the JF17 represents

The JF-17 is intended to cover to as much extent as possible the inevitable deterioration of the rest of the front line fleet: the aging Mirages and MiGs.
 
By this logic then it should not have needed the expenditure the JF17 represents

No, by this logic the JF-17 was not supposed to fill the F-16's role in the PAF. Its role was to replace the existing Mirage and F-7 fleet and essentially provide the lower end punch of the PAF that is fulfilled by 3(now two) types of aircraft(with multiple subtypes). Moreover, it does that within the cost parameters prescribed to it. The F-16 has a different role for the PAF. There is lesser chance of seeing the F-16 engage in costly CAS missions(where even a lucky 7.62mm strike can bring down a multi-million dollar jet)..and instead will focus on attacking the enemy's keystones on the supply lines and C&C concentrations.
 
PAF is happy with the avioncs ,weapons, dog fighting ability/angle of attack due to lerx in prototype04
pyjNv.jpg

I've read that generally wing loading higher/lower matters for specialized ground/air attack fighters ---- in a multirole fighter,wing loading has to be carefully selected based on the role employed by the consumer/designer i.e paf

PAF has not officially disclosed the wing loading but did disclose the landing and take off distances in dubai airshow, this might help the experts to reach conclusions on wing loading

lc23o.png


@gambit
I am no expert


regarding delta fighters like m2k I've read that they have higher drag so need a more powerful engine
Look at the carrier launches. You have a combination of engine thrust and external assist in the form of the catapult. Also look at jet/rocket assisted take-off for prop jobbers like the C-130. For catapult and rocket assisted launches, the takeoff distances dramatically decreases with the increase in combined thrust. The point here is that if you have powerful enough of engine(s), you can make a brick wall fly face on at Mach. But since propulsion is limited, we have to contend with matters such as wing loading IN RELATIONS TO THRUST and how to combine thrust with wing area and with leading edge extensions to give us lift with smaller wing area to make it easier to attain Mach.

When we are talking about a design intended for unpredictable rapid attitude changes, aka maneuvers, called a 'fighter', then these combinations are even more critical if we are to meet customer demands. Wing area is relatively minor in acceleration, so we have something like the F-104 with its tubular fuselage and barely enough wing area for takeoffs and landings. If the customer demands maneuverability, then wing area in relations to weight, aka 'wing loading', becomes more relevant, so we must have a larger wing area. But then if the customer want Mach and as high as possible, then we have to look at alternate LOCATIONS on the design where we exploit for lift so we can minimize the increase in wing area.

Loaded weight divided by wing area equals the 'wing loading' figure.

wing_loading_zps64c2cf9e.jpg


For the example above, if wing loading is calculated differently FOR THE SAME DESIGN, we will have a misleading figure.

Between two aircrafts, the one with the higher figure is good for speed but not so good for maneuverability. Conversely, the one with the lower figure is good for maneuverability but not so good for speed. But this assume that we confine lift, or rather the source of our lift, comes solely from the wing. Blended body-wing design is an additional source of lift. That is 'additional', not in lieu of. The leading edge root extension and canard are additional sources. Today, the blended body-wing design with leading edge root extension is pretty much a necessity, F-15 and F-16 for examples, as the highly tubular and high wing loading F-104 design is discarded.

What this mean is that for the small 'fighter' class, we can no longer look at wing area and opine that A is more maneuverable than B. If A and B are of the modern blended body-wing design, comparison gets muddled because of the fuselages' contributorship to lift.

TO/L distances can hint but as the extreme catapult and rocket assisted examples showed, propulsion can blur the revised opinion that took into account the blended body-wing design. Actually, landing distance is the better hint because landing distance is directly affected by approach speed, which is usually just the minimum to maintain airborne condition. If both are of blended body-wing designs but one have a higher approach speed than the other, we can reasonably assume that one blended body-wing design have a higher overall loading than the other. But this should not be construed as the one with the higher overall loading is inferior in maneuverability because landing speed is at minimum throttle. In full flight and in BFM, if the design with the higher overall loading have the superior engine, it will have equal or even superior maneuvering capability as its competitor because the full capability of the engine(s) will be used.

Confused yet...??? Now take into account thrust vectoring where attitude changes can be done with no or minimal aerodynamic exploitation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom