JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Argus Panoptes]

why is jf-17 considered under powered when its engine thrust is exactly similar to gripen C and earliest version of mirage2000.? while its T/W better than both..i mean under in avionics may be but why raw engine thrust?


MIRAGE2000
M53-5 - powered initial Mirage 2000C models [1]
Dry thrust: 54.0 kN (5,500 kgp / 12,230 lbf)
Afterburning thrust: 86.3 kN (8,800 kgp / 19,400 lbf)

M53-P2 - powered later Mirage 2000C models and used to upgrade earlier models [2]
Dry thrust: 64.7 kN (6,600 kgp / 14,500 lbf)
Afterburning thrust: 95.1 kN (9,700 kgp / 21,400 lbf)

gripen C
Powerplant: 1 × Volvo Aero RM12 afterburning turbofan/ General Electric F404
Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,100 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf)

JF-17
Powerplant: 1 × Klimov RD-93
Dry thrust: 49.4 kN[19] / 51.2 kN (11,106 lbf / 11,510 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 84.5 kN (19,000 lbf)
NOTE I HAVE USED THE LOWEST FIGURES FOR RD-93

T/W is higher simply because empty weight and loaded weight of JF-17 much lower..
every body keeps mentioning how under powered JF-17 is but never heard an answer to this argument..if JF-17 is under powered than why isnt the gripen C considered under powered?

The empty and loaded weights of the JF-17 are more than the Gripen C:

JF-17: 14,500 lbs empty, 20,000 lbs loaded.
Gripen C: 12,600 lbs empty, 18,700 lbs loaded.

The Gripen is considered underpowered too, but not by as much as the JF-17. Anything under unity is relatively underpowered for a front line combat role.

 

[SQ8]

Whatever advantages the JF-17 has over the Tigershark are mainly related to better avionics and weaponry, not the airframe or powerplant. To be underpowered these days is an insurmountable deficit, curable only by a new, more powerful engine.

There is a slight difference in terms of how the airframe is built and shaped. After all, CAD has had some usefulness.
The biggest issue here is not the engine, not the airframe, not the electronics and all the thingamabobs.. its funds.

Additionally, I came across this on the F-20.. and many of the initial specifications by northdrop is the logic behind the JF-17.

Northdrop's has expressed frequently and with conviction, the importance of relation between aircraft reliability and maintainability, and sortie rate. A reliable aircraft that is easier to maintain will fly more sorties. More sorties translate directly into a more effective air defense.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2009/P7495.pdf
So perhaps.. all that the JF-17 is not the modern day Mig-21.. but rather the modern day F-20.. or perhaps the best parallel to the JF-17 is the AIDC Ching Kuo as both aircraft seem to have similar reasons for existence along with very similar performance figures.
Both weigh into VERY similar empty and loaded weights.. both have similar thrust figures from the powerplant(s) and have similar performance figures. And it seems, both will have similar fates(along with similar names.. FC-1.. *****-1..although Im pretty sure the FC-1 is less prone to being mistaken for a curse)

For a second you could be mistaken you were watching the JF-17 at Zhuhai

 

[Argus Panoptes]

There is a slight difference in terms of how the airframe is built and shaped. After all, CAD has had some usefulness.
The biggest issue here is not the engine, not the airframe, not the electronics and all the thingamabobs.. its funds.

Additionally, I came across this on the F-20.. and many of the initial specifications by northdrop is the logic behind the JF-17.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2009/P7495.pdf
So perhaps.. all that the JF-17 is not the modern day Mig-21.. but rather the modern day F-20.. or perhaps the best parallel to the JF-17 is the AIDC Ching Kuo as both aircraft seem to have similar reasons for existence along with very similar performance figures.
Both weigh into VERY similar empty and loaded weights.. both have similar thrust figures from the powerplant(s) and have similar performance figures. And it seems, both will have similar fates(along with similar names.. FC-1.. *****-1..although Im pretty sure the FC-1 is less prone to being mistaken for a curse)...........

The JF-17 is the modern day F-20. That comment summarizes it very nicely, Sir.

 

[Manticore]

credits- Gums

I have flown the F-20 sim at Northrop for 50+ hours and came within a few hours of flying the thing at Edwards.

I can tell you that the F-20 would have ruled the Third World if just one country had bought a few.

It had the best pilot-vehicle-interface I have ever seen, and learning to work all the gadgets was a breeze.
First, the F-20 prolly had a better instantaneous turn rate than the Viper. One crash was g-loc (troop headed to the Paris Airshow in 1985). It wasn't pure FBW like the Viper - more like the F-18.

Second, it could prolly equal the Viper in the vertical, but wouldn't maintain turns as well in the horizontal. Good nose-pointing, but not so good sustaining the rate.

Short range, limited pig iron capability, but super interceptor. Was made to order for th Third World countries. However, all the rich Emirs and drug lords wanted an F-15 for their birthday fly-by.

Best thing I saw was the ease of using the avionics. Damned near intuitive. Was way ahead of the F-16 at the time (1985). A neat feature for the radio was to hit the 'radio' button, then enter some numbers on the up-front entry panel. Two digits and the sucker would go to the preset number. Three or more digits and it would put the decimal point in for ya.

First time I ever saw pull-down menus on the scope, too. The Mac was just coming out, and I hadn't seen one yet. 'course, the Hornet already had a similar feature for their radar, but..........

Radar was best for Air-to-air, and had a full-up track while scan mode, as well as several others. Groundmap about like the F-16 and F-18.

Vis was not nearly as good as the Viper.

Conventional stick between your legs and lottsa movement. FLCS was computer-assisted conventional, not full FBW like F-16. Other fatality was a departure (Korea). So the limiters weren't as effective as in the Viper.

A really good HUD, with minimal bazonga clutter.

Steam gauges were easy to use when not using the HUD.

Roomy cockpit compared to the Viper. So taking a box lunch or six-pac was no big deal.

Laser-gyro inertial allowed for a very quick scramble launch. Nav display was easy to figure out and to use. No projected map like the Hornet or SLUF, though.

Wish the lawyers would have let us fly the thing, as we had gone thru the blindfold cockpit check in the real deal the day before, and had 50+ hours in the sim already.

out,

Gums
Viper pilot '79

What Might Have Been: F-20 Tigershark | Defense Media Network
F-20 Tigershark The Greatest Fighter Never Made : Atomic Toasters

 

[ziaulislam]

The empty and loaded weights of the JF-17 are more than the Gripen C:

JF-17: 14,500 lbs empty, 20,000 lbs loaded.
Gripen C: 12,600 lbs empty, 18,700 lbs loaded.

The Gripen is considered underpowered too, but not by as much as the JF-17. Anything under unity is relatively underpowered for a front line combat role.

gripen C offical bronch states its empty weight as 6.8 tones (14990 lbs) slightly greater than that of jf-17? so as any values i came across


http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Doc...en/Gripen product sheet/Gripen_Dimensions.pdf

 

[Argus Panoptes]

gripen C offical bronch states its empty weight as 6.8 tones (14990 lbs) slightly greater than that of jf-17? so as any values i came across


http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Doc...en/Gripen product sheet/Gripen_Dimensions.pdf

The empty weight of the current Gripen C/D is 5,700 kg or 12,600 lbs, Sir.

(The coming NG version has a greater payload too.)

 

[sancho]

With the current economic climate future plans and prospects, I don't expect JF-17 to surpass our F16 Block 52+ anytime soon.

As I explained in this post:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-...tirole-fighter-thread-5-a-55.html#post4470556

The JF 17 already is superior to the F16 in PAF, because it offers operational advantages the restricted F16 can't offer. People too often take the general F16 techs and capabilities as the benchmark, without looking at what techs or weapons the operator really has or doesn't have.
The Block 2 with some more upgrades doesn't leave many areas where the F16 B52 would have a clear advantage and the block 3 with AESA, a new or upgraded engine, possibly IRST... finally will bring it up to 4.5th generation.

One thing that often is not discussed here though, is the lack of RAM coatings on the block 1! There are those that falsely claim a low RCS because of DSI, the addition of "some" composite materials in Block 2, not to mention those that dream about stealthy airframe shapings in Block 3 (which btw is still not "stealth" but just a another way to reduce the general RCS of the clean fighter only), but the basic RCS reduction feature for any 4th to 4.5th gen fighter is still the addition of RAM coatings!

So what I am more interested in is, what is the latest news on that, will it be part of the Block 2 upgrade, or is it an issue because of increased cost and weight?

We know J10B is supposed to get RCS reductions with "certain" coatings and materials, but that's a more comprehensive upgrade compared to the JF 17 Block 1 to Block 2 and would be more comparable to the Block 3 upgrade. So what does it mean for JF 17?

 

[sancho]

why is jf-17 considered under powered when its engine thrust is exactly similar to gripen C and earliest version of mirage2000.? while its T/W better than both..i mean under in avionics may be but why raw engine thrust?

Possibly because most people only see the afterburner TWR and don't keep in mind that the fighters will fly most of the time with wet thrust, which is low for RD93, another point might be, that the TWR also includes the internal fuel (often 50 or 100%). I once made comparision on my own and calculated some TWRs for fighters on equal basis:

TWRs, clean, full internal fuel, with AB thrust

JF 17 B1 - 0,99
Mirage 2000 C - 0,93
Gripen C - 0,91
J10 A - 0,87

TWRs, clean, full internal fuel, with dry thrust

Gripen C - 0,62
Mirage 2000 C - 0,61
JF 17 B1 - 0,58
J10 A – 0,57


As I said own calculations and althought I took the most reliable specs that I could get, it's free to everybody to take them as reliable or not. The point however is, that the AB TWR in clean config. actually shows only an ideal situation, while the performance of a loaded fighter in with dry thrust will be very different.

 

[Armstrong]

As I explained in this post:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-...tirole-fighter-thread-5-a-55.html#post4470556

The JF 17 already is superior to the F16 in PAF, because it offers operational advantages the restricted F16 can't offer. People too often take the general F16 techs and capabilities as the benchmark, without looking at what techs or weapons the operator really has or doesn't have.
The Block 2 with some more upgrades doesn't leave many areas where the F16 B52 would have a clear advantage and the block 3 with AESA, a new or upgraded engine, possibly IRST... finally will bring it up to 4.5th generation.

One thing that often is not discussed here though, is the lack of RAM coatings on the block 1! There are those that falsely claim a low RCS because of DSI, the addition of "some" composite materials in Block 2, not to mention those that dream about stealthy airframe shapings in Block 3 (which btw is still not "stealth" but just a another way to reduce the general RCS of the clean fighter only), but the basic RCS reduction feature for any 4th to 4.5th gen fighter is still the addition of RAM coatings!

So what I am more interested in is, what is the latest news on that, will it be part of the Block 2 upgrade, or is it an issue because of increased cost and weight?

We know J10B is supposed to get RCS reductions with "certain" coatings and materials, but that's a more comprehensive upgrade compared to the JF 17 Block 1 to Block 2 and would be more comparable to the Block 3 upgrade. So what does it mean for JF 17?

Dude about the RAM coating ! A layman like myself have often read on threads such as these that RCS Reduction measures on an aircraft with an RCS like the Jf-17 is somewhat a counterproductive venture because the many armaments hanging from its pylons is going to inevitably off-set the advantage gained through RAM coating on the body & bring it back to an RCS reading that would make the application of RAM Coating a financially ill-advised measure !

Is that so @Oscar @Najam Khan ?

 

[ababeel22]

jf17 definitely fits in to paf doctrine... they can induct it in good numbers and its a decent fighter but the problem i see is that there is no high end fighter in paf inventory... f16s are old but still a good fighter but its just not at par with any modern fighter that all the countries with good capable airforces have... f15, su30, rafael, ef typhoon, j11, f18, su35, gripen, mig29k etc.... i know some of u would argue that a few are comparable but still pakistan doesnt have em in enough numbers... even turkey has more f16s than us...
whats more frustrating is that therz no indication that therz is gonna be a new more capable bird in paf anytime soon.... and yes for the sake of lord i dont buy that defensive airforce story... if u train ur airforce to be defensive and give them inferior machines they are gonna get cooked out there in the battlefield... hockey cricket pia and now paf its the same story everywhere no money= no confidence n poor performance...

 

[Dazzler]

61 already operational

 

[Bratva]

61 already operational

Jogi baba ki ek aur prediction Officially Block 2 production isn't started nor do we have produced 11 block 2, so such insider news are as good as early day glad tidings of IRST, AESA and what not equipped block 2

 

[sancho]

Dude about the RAM coating ! A layman like myself have often read on threads such as these that RCS Reduction measures on an aircraft with an RCS like the Jf-17 is somewhat a counterproductive venture because the many armaments hanging from its pylons is going to inevitably off-set the advantage gained through RAM coating on the body & bring it back to an RCS reading that would make the application of RAM Coating a financially ill-advised measure !

Is that so @Oscar @Najam Khan ?

Of course external payloads will increase the RCS, but still, the RCS of a fighter that generally is low, still remains much lower compared to one with a generally high RCS, even when both have external payloads. That's even the core of any modern fighter design/development, be it 4th or 5th gen, having a very low basic RCS, be it with shapings, less reflecting materials or absorbing coatings. Even for the upgraded older designs, we often hear, that adding some composites and a credible RAM coating can reduce the RCS up to 4 times. So that should be an important point for the JF 17 too in times of BVR combats, with modern PESA and AESA radars, be it of fighters or AWACS.

 

[Kompromat]

Dear Sir, I'm in a blog's editor on Brazil and we are very interested about the possible productions JF-17 by the Argentines. Is this true? The Brazilian air force urgently needs another aircraft to replace yours Mirage 2000 will be retired this year and their F5 to be retired in the next 5-10 years, the JF-17 would already be ready to be acquired by other nations? The pakistan would interest the aircraft were produced in another country? I appreciate your response.

Yes, we can provide any information you may require.

Welcome aboard btw.

 

[That Guy]

Dear Sir, I'm in a blog's editor on Brazil and we are very interested about the possible productions JF-17 by the Argentines. Is this true? The Brazilian air force urgently needs another aircraft to replace yours Mirage 2000 will be retired this year and their F5 to be retired in the next 5-10 years, the JF-17 would already be ready to be acquired by other nations? The pakistan would interest the aircraft were produced in another country? I appreciate your response.

Welcome to PDF, hope you find what you're looking for.

While no one is 100% certain that the deal will go ahead, it is looking increasingly likely that the co-production deal will be signed. The JF-17 needs export orders to increase its legitimacy as a viable option to replace older aircrafts, if this deal goes ahead, it will help foreign nations that were previously interested (but wary of "made in China" brand) to place more confidence on the JF-17 system.

Pakistan's only two concerns are that it can make a profit from any sort of deal with a foreign nation (in this case, Argentina), and the planes don't somehow end up in the hands of India. If these two requirements are fulfilled, Pakistan won't object to any sort of deal.