JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Dazzler]

the color of the J-10 is odd, seems like similar to PAF color??

on the topic of IRST?.is any pod version available for JF-17?

j-10 and JFT both look mockups to me.

podded version was not required, AWC made a podded version for Mirages back in 90s, the hurdle is to fit it in the nose of JFT which is a daunting task. akin J-10B, su-27 both of which have bigger/ roomier noses.

It ain't the Pakistani Superman either.

it was never meant to be.

 

[Last Hope]

 

[Argus Panoptes]

On the topic of loans, there are those that finance the JF-17 program as well. Along with the ZDK program. However, their actual cost at this point is a mystery and unless access is granted to a PAC of some sort.. I don't think we'll be able to get an accurate idea of the progam's accurate costs which I am very curious about.

You can never consider the JF-17 program a success based on the costs associated with it and the return. However, its value as a learning exercise to enhance abilities for the future is a different calculation altogether, but only if we learn the right lessons from it.

Rumor (and only a rumor) has it that the Chinese have refused any further investments into the JF-17 program, so any further development is entirely up to us. Which is to say that it is unlikely.

 

[Dazzler]

Rumor (and only a rumor) has it that the Chinese have refused any further investments into the JF-17 program, so any further development is entirely up to us. Which is to say that it is unlikely.

It is what you said it is, a rumour..

look for the pics on previous pages (thread 4), pt-06 and a PAF schemed one (pt-04) being tested for weapons and engine integration.

notice different nozzles...

 

[Argus Panoptes]

...........


notice different nozzles...

That is a good sign, but the real proof will be when a JF-17 takes off and pulls up into a straight vertical climb. That will show the real T:W ratio better than any nozzle photo. I can wait for that.

 

[razgriz19]

the color of the J-10 is odd, seems like similar to PAF color??

on the topic of IRST?.is any pod version available for JF-17?

 

[satishkumarcsc]

the color of the J-10 is odd, seems like similar to PAF color??

on the topic of IRST?.is any pod version available for JF-17?

China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation - Airborne EO Equipment

The WMD-7 pod is the day/night targeting pod for the JF 17. But because of the absence of a seperate designated hard point for the pod it is most likeley going to reduce the availablity of the number of hardpoints on the JF 17.

THe KG 300 is the dedicated jamming pod for the JF 17

With EO pod

KG 300 jamming pod

The ability for the KG 300 is under scrutiny because of the lower electrical output of the single engine RD 93.

 

[Manticore]

 

[rockstarIN]

That is a good sign, but the real proof will be when a JF-17 takes off and pulls up into a straight vertical climb. That will show the real T:W ratio better than any nozzle photo. I can wait for that.

Watch from 3.27, its a vertical climb, but not immediately after take off.

 

[shivansps]

KG 300 jamming pod

The ability for the KG 300 is under scrutiny because of the lower electrical output of the single engine RD 93.

I guess that rule out the dream of twin seaters going out with 3 KG300.

 

[TaimiKhan]

That is a good sign, but the real proof will be when a JF-17 takes off and pulls up into a straight vertical climb. That will show the real T:W ratio better than any nozzle photo. I can wait for that.

If an A-5 can do a vertical climb, i don't see why a JF-17 can't. Seen A-5s do vertical climb right after taking off. They may not be 90 degree the moment it takes off, but after going a few hundred meters in the air, they would go ballistic at 90.

I have seen and see JF-17s take off very frequently, the amount of runway they use for their take off is astonishing. And the speed and altitude they achieve right after take off is also extremely good. Looking at them take off, i have no doubt they can achieve a vertical flight, but for how long it can sustain it, is the real question.

And i do believe someone had explained the dynamics involved behind the aerial performance done by JF-17s at air shows and that the move the JF-17s does right after taking off is more complex then a simple vertical climb.

 

[TaimiKhan]

China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation - Airborne EO Equipment

The WMD-7 pod is the day/night targeting pod for the JF 17. But because of the absence of a seperate designated hard point for the pod it is most likeley going to reduce the availablity of the number of hardpoints on the JF 17.

THe KG 300 is the dedicated jamming pod for the JF 17

With EO pod

KG 300 jamming pod

The ability for the KG 300 is under scrutiny because of the lower electrical output of the single engine RD 93.

Where has it been said and where is the data.


Plz provide the figures for the same. Electrical output of the engine and the electrical requirements of the KG-300.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Watch from 3.27, its a vertical climb, but not immediately after take off.

If an A-5 can do a vertical climb, i don't see why a JF-17 can't. Seen A-5s do vertical climb right after taking off. They may not be 90 degree the moment it takes off, but after going a few hundred meters in the air, they would go ballistic at 90.

I have seen and see JF-17s take off very frequently, the amount of runway they use for their take off is astonishing. And the speed and altitude they achieve right after take off is also extremely good. Looking at them take off, i have no doubt they can achieve a vertical flight, but for how long it can sustain it, is the real question.

And i do believe someone had explained the dynamics involved behind the aerial performance done by JF-17s at air shows and that the move the JF-17s does right after taking off is more complex then a simple vertical climb.

Carrying momentum into a short vertical climb is easy. That is what the A-5 does.

Going vertical right after liftoff is possible only with a better than unity T:W ratio. Neither the A-5, nor the JF-17 has ever done that maneuver. This simple test is the proof of the claimed T:W ratio, not the complexity of any other maneuvers.

The A-5 has a T:W ratio of about 0.8. It simply cannot go vertical right after takeoff as is being claimed here.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Where has it been said and where is the data.


Plz provide the figures for the same. Electrical output of the engine and the electrical requirements of the KG-300.

I couldnt find the link for it now but it was stated in Zuhai 2012 and ALQ 200 was on offer as a replacement for the KG 300. But US intervened and stopped the supply.

 

[Jango]

The A-5 has a T:W ratio of about 0.8. It simply cannot go vertical right after takeoff as is being claimed here.

You are mixing up two different things here.

What you want to convey is that the A-5 cannot sustain it's speed in a vertical climb...rather than not go vertical after takeoff altogether.

A T:W of 0.8 in ideal conditions is good enough to go vertical after takeoff...but not good enough to sustain that rate of climb and speed.

A T:W of greater than one would accelerate the aircraft even when it is 90 degree up...

So the correct sentence would be, an aircraft with a T:W of less than one cannot maintain the vertical climb.

Saying that an aircraft cannot go vertical altogether with a T:W of 0.8 is a rather general statement.