JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[syedali73]

wasy be our military leadership ofter try to keep some quite stupid looking things as secret tuu yeh tu phr kafi serious issue ha so should be kept secret off course,

By the way, F-18s are using ALQ-500, probable US navy FAILED to keep it a secret.

Like you said, our military has some issues with revealing things that others don't mind showing. Well, US can reveal because R&D is continuously going on and when they reveal something, many other technologies are already in service and many more in the pipeline. For instance, the specially modified 'stealth' black hawks that took part in Bin Laden's operation have not been revealed until today. Similarly F-117 was kept secret until better one(s) did not become available. For us, there is almost zero R&D, no products in the pipeline, so we are left with no option but to hide them hoping to give the 'enemy' a surprise.

 

[Arsalan]

Like you said, our military has some issues with revealing things that others don't mind showing. Well, US can reveal because R&D is continuously going on and when they reveal something, many other technologies are already in service and many more in the pipeline. For instance, the specially modified 'stealth' black hawks that took part in Bin Laden's operation have not been revealed until today. Similarly F-117 was kept secret until better one(s) did not become available. For us, there is almost zero R&D, no products in the pipeline, so we are left with no option but to hide them hoping to give the 'enemy' a surprise.

Apart from the TECHNOLOGY somethings are kept secret just for nothing. Whether JFT carried two SD- on dual ejector rack or not is something that will surrender some technological advantage. IN fact it is something that the enemy will learn when they need to. The thing is, we should be MORE VOCAL about our capabilities (in many cases) so the enemy will think twice before starting a war, because, if it starts once, even if it is because you have kept all your military strengths secret and hoped to use that to your advantage in the war, when the war start, both of the involved parties will lose. Such are the weapons man have created for them self these days!

In short, i am a strong believer that yes while something are best kept secret as that give you some technological advantage, most of the capabilities are such that they should be boasted about to keep enemy at bay.

http://modp.gov.pk/gop/index.php?q=aHR0cDovLzE5Mi4xNjguNzAuMTM2L21vZHAvdXNlcmZpbGVzMS9maWxlL1llYXIlMjBCb29rJTIwMjAxMy0xNCUyMCgxKS5wZGY=

i was trying to avoid the need of going through the whole year book man

chloo,, koi naai,, THANKS
will look for the required info now.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Still PAF pilots flying Syrian Migs engaged IAF Mirages.

Syria 1974
During this war, Flt.Lt Sattar Alvi was decorated by the Syrian goverment when he shot down an Israeli Mirage over Golan Heights. On 26 April, 1974, in an encounter over Golan Heights between a Mig-21 of the Syrian Air Force, flown by Flight Lieutenant Sattar Alvi, PAF, and two Israeli Mirages.

Have you seen his interview ?

He didn't praise the mig 21 (earliest version - they flew).

 

[alimobin memon]

Anybody who could get his hands on better systems wont settle with sub par systems. When we could get our hands on F-16s, we did not drop it in favor of F-20s or other sub par systems that were on offer, though it was more than obvious that F-16s were embargo-prone. In Egyptian's case, JF is not even in the league.

Jf17 is as good as rafale in terms of conducting types of missions. Yes rafale has superior firepower but Jf17 deal would have mean't tot and atleast instead of 24 rafale 100 jf17 could have been incorporated in air forces which means at the same time the jf17 would have been at several different areas conducting missions where as 24 rafales means limited missions at the time. If jf17 in future equipped with better avionics suite would have been even better for them. Sorry Sir what Pakistan did was different the country was US in f20 or f16 program whether PAF chosed f20 or in reality f16 the decision was correct Why? because at the time there was no other muslim country that could provide a fighter jet neither China had superior technology they only had F7, J8 , Q5 and F6 on production line which pakistan already had a mirage series fighters which were comparable to them. What Pakistan needed was a superior machine which only was America to provide our relations with Soviets were not good to get jets.

While Egypt is concerned they could have. Mig29 is no better than jf17 in modern war, where manueverability is least concern as there are rare chances of dog fight the war will be fought with BVR's. WVR missiles which now have more than 10 km range. But jf17 is also a good dog fighter and let me mention CM 400AKG it is a missile that is indeed a game changer which mig 29 lacks and the air to ground weaponry of jf17 is better than mig 29. I believe those 24 rafales can be considered ok but mig 29 is not good option. Eitherway jf17 was better weapon over all


No PAF didnt knew f16 was more prone to embargo. whether f20 or f16 fate was same.

 

[Windjammer]

i always forget this tricky numbering system for JFT. now what the hell is this 13-150? rolled out in 2013, 1st block 50th plane?? Anyone???

Produced in 2013......50TH and last of the Block-1 version.

 

[Arsalan]

Produced in 2013......50TH and last of the Block-1 version.

wahh it means i got that right... that is exactly i said in my post

 

[Windjammer]

wahh it means i got that right... that is exactly i said in my post

The only difference is it's not the first but last of Block-1.

 

[araz]

@ Umair Nawaz.
Type up ALR 400 RWR on Google and you will get a PDF FILE which you can download.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

1- Firstly, yes they are 70% more efficient.How does that translate into numbers for our issue? For the sake of numerical ease let's assume they are 100% more efficient (i.e twice as efficient at converting fuel into thrust). Now if we calculate using today's standards a number of 5% of fuel for warmup takeoff and landing, correcting it for 1960 should make that 10% right? You would use twice the fraction of the fuel in 1960 as the aircraft is only half as efficient at producing thrust from fuel.
10% is STILL NOWHERE NEAR 30%. Maybe for the Me-262 that 30% figure was valid but right now (and for 1960) I repeat it is ridiculous.

2- Secondly, the thread is about the JF-17, we are NOT talking about the 707 (or the Me-262). That was brought up by MastanKhan, I was merely responding to him. I can assure you that the JF-17 DOES NOT use 30% of its total fuel load for warmup, takeoff and landing (which is why I was correcting MastanKhan as he was suggesting it was the case).

You are correct that the 30% concept can not be held correct for todays aircraft and engines.

I remember my father used to tell me that Boeing 707 fuel burn was maximum from take off till climb and to save fuel PIA had devised a procedure to reduce the thrust by some 20-30% once they were sure that the aircraft was in clean configuration and climbing. This reduced the rate of climb. There was an additional 17% fuel burn if the aircraft was equipped with Hush Kits to reduce the engine noise.

Yesterday I was reading the Operational Manual of ATR-42 in which it was stated that ATR is the most efficient aircraft because it uses the same amount of fuel for Take off, Climb and Cruse.

As far as JF-17 is concerned it uses an engine that is manufactured by Russia. It is a known fact that Western Engines are much more efficient than the Russian ones. Now the figure of 30% Fuel burn could be valid for the Russian Engines. More over the Engines used on Military Aircraft are supposed to produce more power hence they are not fuel efficient. The aircraft that was designed to be fuel efficient and also as deadly as any other in its time was the Tornado.

Have you seen his interview ?

He didn't praise the mig 21 (earliest version - they flew).

Yes,
The aircraft was on vapors and I also spoke about this with one of the other pilot with him at that time. All the time the Israeli's tried to engage them was when they know they had the upper hand. The Place this interception occurred was the time they were returning home but it was more a fortune that this aircraft was their.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

You are correct that the 30% concept can not be held correct for todays aircraft and engines.

I remember my father used to tell me that Boeing 707 fuel burn was maximum from take off till climb and to save fuel PIA had devised a procedure to reduce the thrust by some 20-30% once they were sure that the aircraft was in clean configuration and climbing. This reduced the rate of climb. There was an additional 17% fuel burn if the aircraft was equipped with Hush Kits to reduce the engine noise.

Yesterday I was reading the Operational Manual of ATR-42 in which it was stated that ATR is the most efficient aircraft because it uses the same amount of fuel for Take off, Climb and Cruse.

As far as JF-17 is concerned it uses an engine that is manufactured by Russia. It is a known fact that Western Engines are much more efficient than the Russian ones. Now the figure of 30% Fuel burn could be valid for the Russian Engines. More over the Engines used on Military Aircraft are supposed to produce more power hence they are not fuel efficient. The aircraft that was designed to be fuel efficient and also as deadly as any other in its time was the Tornado.


Yes,
The aircraft was on vapors and I also spoke about this with one of the other pilot with him at that time. All the time the Israeli's tried to engage them was when they know they had the upper hand. The Place this interception occurred was the time they were returning home but it was more a fortune that this aircraft was their.

And his 5 second wait after pushing the fire button lol.. Which in result pushed him to remain of the israeli mirage till it was hit... Which let him "not" to engage Another israeli jet (that dude was lucky).

Some possess a high degree of naivete and madness in order to compare something like JF-17 fighter MiG 29/35 Where your minds It is clear that the Pakistanis are created illusion and professionalism they live Aircraft such as the MiG-29 and the nearest EUROFIGHTER of what you call the Rafale fighter,

but is not suitable for fighter jets targeted second and third generation such as the JF-17 Pakistanis are created and they last a munitions superior MiG-29 merge any ammunition available by the Chinese and Russian-Western Egyptian and even a huge diversity while JF-17 does not hold,

but the Chinese ammunition doubtful effectiveness originally it comparable to a Chinese ammunition Russian munitions from the foundation and China itself the biggest buy Russian weapons What is that-drug you are taking because they are highly effective type

MiG-29 engines have the ability to pay 20,000 pounds and 21,000 pounds while also available for aircraft Pakistani copies weaker Do not compare how effective performance

MiG-29 family of scalable hugely from the best engines integrated Avionics Even the specifications requested by Egypt in weapons systems their own higher than the Russian from the foundation Egypt, for example, 16 years ago, asked for amendment K8 to make the ratios of composite materials 60% instead of 25% in the Chinese version next to 33 an amendment structurally it is natural to become requested by Egypt Specifications of Russian MiG higher than the specifications of the foundation This happens in many Eastern and Western weapons systems are developed locally Egypt

The right to be proud of, including Pakistanis they have produced even if the worst fourth-generation fighter in the world but have no right to impose naive views have no place in the real world is to show images of the MiG-for-you call us on the JF-17

Here comes the pseudo intellectual half arsed inferiority ridden indian troll...

Come back when you could actually understand about what's being discussed and try not show your stupidity.

 

[JamD]

You are correct that the 30% concept can not be held correct for todays aircraft and engines.

I remember my father used to tell me that Boeing 707 fuel burn was maximum from take off till climb and to save fuel PIA had devised a procedure to reduce the thrust by some 20-30% once they were sure that the aircraft was in clean configuration and climbing. This reduced the rate of climb. There was an additional 17% fuel burn if the aircraft was equipped with Hush Kits to reduce the engine noise.

Yesterday I was reading the Operational Manual of ATR-42 in which it was stated that ATR is the most efficient aircraft because it uses the same amount of fuel for Take off, Climb and Cruse.

As far as JF-17 is concerned it uses an engine that is manufactured by Russia. It is a known fact that Western Engines are much more efficient than the Russian ones. Now the figure of 30% Fuel burn could be valid for the Russian Engines. More over the Engines used on Military Aircraft are supposed to produce more power hence they are not fuel efficient. The aircraft that was designed to be fuel efficient and also as deadly as any other in its time was the Tornado.


Yes,
The aircraft was on vapors and I also spoke about this with one of the other pilot with him at that time. All the time the Israeli's tried to engage them was when they know they had the upper hand. The Place this interception occurred was the time they were returning home but it was more a fortune that this aircraft was their.

I have not questioned the fact that aircraft will burn fuel at a faster rate at takeoff and climb than let's say cruise.

What I am debating is the ridiculous 33% number being thrown around carelessly. All fuel inefficiencies considered 33% is still ridiculous. 10% ....15% MAYBE.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

And his 5 second wait after pushing the fire button lol.. Which in result pushed him to remain of the israeli mirage till it was hit... Which let him "not" to engage Another israeli jet (that dude was lucky).

That is also true...
The only thing that saved him was the fact that the Number one who had now become number two had lost one pilot in his watch. From an advantage to a disadvantage was also a big factor. He also realized that if this aircraft is going to engage him and he is shot down then the valuable lesson learnt by this engagement would completely be lost. More over I assume that the IDF had also told him to disengage and return home (Though this would not be confirmed). The situation could have been a lot different if there was some more fuel and more aircraft.

I have not questioned the fact that aircraft will burn fuel at a faster rate at takeoff and climb than let's say cruise.

What I am debating is the ridiculous 33% number being thrown around carelessly. All fuel inefficiencies considered 33% is still ridiculous. 10% ....15% MAYBE.

Bro,
The thing is Millitary aircraft require After burners for Take off. If you do the maths with this then you would see the number to be higher then the 10-15% you are computing. Secondly it you go through my post again you would know that the Russian Engine Technology is no where compared to USA, British and French engines.

For further information google Tu-204 with Russian engines and with Western engines. You would clearly see the difference in performance and range.

 

[MastanKhan]

If we are to believe something you heard someone 40 years ago then we are to disregard Mr.Raymer. I can assure you Raymer knows more about aircraft design than your dad's friend.

Please read up on Mr.Daniel P Raymer:
Daniel Raymer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes jet fuel is a refined kerosene. JP-4 JP-8 etc.

And I am an aerospace engineer so I can say these things with more confidence than someone who heard it from his dad's friend 40 years ago.

The 707 120B has a 65,600 fuel capacity.

22,000 L of fuel on takeoff and warmup?

If we are to believe you then the aircraft (edit: a fighter jet with external tanks) can just jettison it's tanks right after takeoff because it has already expended most of the 1/3rd fuel in them by the time it takes off (or right before starting it's roll, that'd be more practical).

Here are some numbers to back my claim:
JF-17 Internal fuel load 2330 kg
JF-17 External fuel load (2 1100L tanks) 1785 kg

1785/(1785+2330)=0.43 or 43%

So the two huge tanks are carrying 43% percent of the fuel load. Now if 33% of is burnt at takeoff the aircraft has no need for the tanks lol.

Hi,

On a take off---a 747-400 would burn about 8000 gals to 16000 gals of fuel---and it can carry around 50000 to 57000 GALS of fuel---which is anywhere from 7% to 25% +++ of the total fuel. The lower figure is of ideal conditions at minimal weight---the higher figure is with a full load.

On the other hand---the fighter aircraft fully loaded would be taking off on AFTERBURNERS---that will suck the fuel out of the fuel tanks within minutes.

For that reason---us air force uses air refueling for its aircraft. An aircraft taking off a carrier---the first thing it does is to refuel and top off----.

If 5% was the fuel consumed at take off---there was no reason to have air to air refueling.

The commercial airliner DON'T USE ALL THEIR FUEL DURING THE FLIGHT---THE RESERVE would be like 15000 gals of fuel.

So if the taxi + take off fuel consumption is 8000 to 12000 gals and total fuel consumed is around 40000 - 45000 gals---we are in the 20% +++-- range.

I don't believe that you are AEROSPACE ENGINEER----

Son-----5% fuel consumption at take off----then you have solved all of NASA's problems-----. Show them how---and you are in for a major reward.


How does flight duration affect the hourly fuel consumption in heavy aircraft? - Aviation Stack Exchange

Copy from the web link

General Answer
The heavier the airplane, the more fuel it will burn in a given amount of time. Therefore, if you takeoff with enough fuel to fly further, you will be burning more fuel in each corresponding hour than if you took off at a lighter weight to fly a shorter distance.
Example
I don't have performance information for the 747, but I can give you an example for a G-IV corporate jet. Instead of comparing a short trip to a longer trip, I planned the same trip with different amounts of fuel in order to make the airplane heavier. I planned the flight for the following conditions:

Flight Conditions

• Fly from Los Angeles to Detroit, using the same route and average Boeing winds for July
• Climb to and maintain the optimum altitude, with step climbs where appropriate
  • Trip 1: Climb initially to FL450 and stay there for the entire flight (the optimum altitude for this weight)
  • Trip 2: Climb initially to FL410 and then climb to FL450 2:32 into the flight (the optimum altitude the weight initially followed by a climb once the optimum altitude has changed)
• Fuel:
  • Trip 1: Takeoff with enough to land with a 1:30 reserve - 59,000 lb. takeoff weight
  • Trip 2: Takeoff with max fuel, landing with a 5:39 reserve - 73,000 lb. takeoff weight
  • Taxi fuel is not included in the first hour burns, but climb fuel is.

Results
Trip 1 Trip 2
Hour Fuel Burn Fuel Burn Diff
1. 4,212 4,844 +13.7 %
2. 2,536 3,088 +21.8 %
3. 2,411 3,123 +29.5 %
4. 2,163 2,103 -2.8 %

Total 11,722 13,558 +15.7 %

So here the pilot states about the hourly fuel consumption.

The first hour is the take off and the climb to the altitude and not considering startup and taxi time.

So---in the first hour he uses around 27% fuel

 

[ziaulislam]

As far as JF-17 is concerned it uses an engine that is manufactured by Russia. It is a known fact that Western Engines are much more efficient than the Russian ones. Now the figure of 30% Fuel burn could be valid for the Russian Engines. More over the Engines used on Military Aircraft are supposed to produce more power hence they are not fuel efficient. The aircraft that was designed to be fuel efficient and also as deadly as any other in its time was the Tornado.

rd-93/33 is considered to be more fuel efficient or atleast equivalent to its western contemporary engines like GE f404 or M53P2:.
the real problem is its shorter life cycle and according to some its reliability though its considered the most reliable russain engine

 

[Paksanity]

I Google a bit on F-16.net and Aerospaceweb.org and it fuel spent on take off for F-16C in strike configuration (two 370 gallon tanks) comes out to be 7% of total fuel. This is from dead stop to 2000 feet height and 350 knots of speed. I don't know how accurate it is but that is what I found.

You can search up these sites (for some reason I am unable to copy links on my browser).

I don't think Russian RD -93 will cost JF -17 anymore than 10% of its fuel on take off.