JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[Bratva]

There could be 2 JF-17 standards - one the present gap-filler and the other, Gripen NG'ed. PAF need to replace oldies now. NG version can come with natural evolution of technology in time. NG version can satisfy the need for a proper 4.5+ but Blk. 2 class is also useful.

We don't have a luxury of buying High-tech aircraft along with JF-17 like what your IAF is been doing. Upgrading to 4.5 Gen standard and Buying new aircraft along with LCA

The need of hour is to evolve JF-17 as per evolving threat matrix not the natural evolution.

Sir, PAF knows that now with the modernization program the replacement of 250+ F-7 and Mirage aircraft can be done by half the number of JF-17's (175-180).

On the other hand PAF is also looking to purchase more F-16's which would also fill the gap quite rapidly. So one can think that It would be a mix of 50-70 more F-16's bringing the number Of PAF F-16 's about 120-150.

If the latest news regarding joining the TFX program became a reality then PAF may not even go for more F-16's.

The first 100 JF-17 out 170-180 can't be upgraded to Block-III or further standards. Your guess is as good as mine what would be their chance of survival against upgraded 4.5 GEN (MIG-29, Mirage 2000,SU-30 ) that IAF would field in 2020.

 

[Zhukov]

mig 29 extremely potent air superiority fighter

Yeah extremely potent air superiority Mig29 is. 30+ years of deployment. Seen so many active conflicts. And all kills it have in its record are a couple of Soviet relics like mig21 and su22.

 

[CHI RULES]

Pak should bring some changes in Jf17 block -III to make it more potent.
1. Aesa Radar & IRST
2. Low RCS i.e internal bays , more use of composites etc.
3. better EW capabilities
4. Long range bvr missiles along with modernized wvr AAms.
It should be exclusively used as interceptor along with dual seat navelised version.

 

[The Great One]

The need of hour is to evolve JF-17

So you say but isn't the need also to phase out the old crap (pardon my french) Mirages who are nothing but shooting practice. Should induction and production be halted until it meets some fantastic/futuristic standard? Basically speaking, you want to do an El-Cee-A.

Operational and production experience will go a long way in designing a futuristic fighter jet as well as reducing time in training and integration into existing doctrines, not to forget the necessary spares and support infra-structure. Of course a lot of re-tooling may be needed for a new variant. LCA Mk-II is said to have 70% different components compared to Mk-I. Point is a natural evolution is a lottt more feasible/realistic strategy compared to waiting out for some NG variant.

 

[hsinchong]

China might start to develop a new multi-role designed strike aircraft for the Bangladesh. It is expected that it might be developed in mid 2020's to help Bangladesh protect their country from threats and improve capability.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

We don't have a luxury of buying High-tech aircraft along with JF-17 like what your IAF is been doing. Upgrading to 4.5 Gen standard and Buying new aircraft along with LCA

The need of hour is to evolve JF-17 as per evolving threat matrix not the natural evolution.



The first 100 JF-17 out 170-180 can't be upgraded to Block-III or further standards. Your guess is as good as mine what would be their chance of survival against upgraded 4.5 GEN (MIG-29, Mirage 2000,SU-30 ) that IAF would field in 2020.

Sir,
We all have been saying over and over again that JF-17 would be updated and upgraded to the next block once 50 aircraft have been made. At present we have 50 JF-17blk 1's which have or are going through upgrades. Lets see what is going to happen when 50 JF-17blk 2's are complete.

Talking about what Block 3 is going to be, will it have a new design etc etc...is still too early to say.

As far as the chance of survival against upgraded 4.5 Gen (Mig-29, M2K and Su-30) is concerned, it would depend on how they are going to be used. What kind of tactics / counter tactics will be deployed. A very important thing that one has to know is Pakistan has been hiding the true capabilities of their pried where as the other aircraft's manufactures have already told openly what these aircraft have. PAF has done various exercises with these aircraft and know their capabilities.
Mig-29 in Red Flag.
Su-30 in China / Pakistan
M2K in UAE

Do you think that the M2K's of IAF will be having a higher standard then the UAE's have?

 

[MastanKhan]

sir that what i am saying use jf 17 to fill the number in braket of 150 to 180 remaining 100 or 70 should be filled with another type which should be any air superiority type fighter don't just keep inducting jf 17 and making it a standard issue fighter for paf. pls have some diversity

Hi,

Thank you for your post---. That is what a few of us have bee saying for awhile now.

My contention is that paf needs to keep a 550 unit air force----which puts it at 300 - 350 JF 17's of which after the first 2 blks are blk 3 and 4---.

It needs 150 F16's----bk 52 capability minimum----.

With 2 low operating cost aircraft in operation---paf needs heavies----for air superiority---for ground strike and for naval strike missions---.

 

[Hell hound]

Hi,

Thank you for your post---. That is what a few of us have bee saying for awhile now.

My contention is that paf needs to keep a 550 unit air force----which puts it at 300 - 350 JF 17's of which after the first 2 blks are blk 3 and 4---.

It needs 150 F16's----bk 52 capability minimum----.

With 2 low operating cost aircraft in operation---paf needs heavies----for air superiority---for ground strike and for naval strike missions---.

don't thinks that's gonna happen paf hates twin engine fighter and have huge crush on f 16 block 52 but is unfortunately friend zoned by it after having relationship of just 18 min.so paf is settling for its phopoo's daughter jf 17 while ignoring that there is still someone who love to be with him j 10.
and during all this process paf is fa**ing at night to the supermodel j31
pls dont mind guys my aim was LightHearted criticism.

 

[My-Analogous]

You dont have to believe that I'm an aerospace engineer or that Raymer is anaerospace eengineer. you are free to believe whatever you want "son".

You know nothing Jon Snow lol. I'm just about done trying to correct an error on the thread. Nahin manna jissay mat maanay

JamD, Mastan bhai is very old member of this forum and he is very senior in age also. Please respect him and have a healthy discussion with him and you will soon fall in love with his writing. Trust me

 

[MastanKhan]

JamD, Mastan bhai is very old member of this forum and he is very senior in age also. Please respect him and have a healthy discussion with him and you will soon fall in love with writing. Trust me

Hi,

I appreciate your comments---. I will be ecstatic if the AB take off on full load is under 10%---I would gladly make a fool out of myself----.

It really solves the issue----you really don't need air to air refueling if you have consumed only 10 %----.


Very senior-------dammmmmn

 

[JamD]

JamD, Mastan bhai is very old member of this forum and he is very senior in age also. Please respect him and have a healthy discussion with him and you will soon fall in love with his writing. Trust me

I do not have anything personal against MastanKhan and I am truly sorry for any disrespect

 

[Arsalan]

Pak should bring some changes in Jf17 block -III to make it more potent.
1. Aesa Radar & IRST
2. Low RCS i.e internal bays , more use of composites etc.
3. better EW capabilities
4. Long range bvr missiles along with modernized wvr AAms.
It should be exclusively used as interceptor along with dual seat navelised version.

Point by point,
1 - Yes we need to get an AESA and IRST for the next blocks and see if these can be incorporated in the current ones at some later stage.
2- Reducing RCS with more composite usage is a better idea and as per reports PAC is already working on that. Introducing internal bays wont be possible as it will mean massive structural changes, essential a new aircraft. Also will kill the main idea of JF-17 being a low cost multi role fighter. For the internal bay thingy, PAF will go for a proper 5th generation.
3 - Very much required. JF-17 currently also have a decent EW suite but up gradations can take it to next level. I hope this will be considered in future blocks or future up gradation of current planes, when funds allow.
4 - SD-10 will be the standard issue is is a pretty decent BVRAAM. Many compare this to AIM-120C. A small number of other longer range AAM may come in handy, some anti radiation missiles, longer range missiles for special mission but SD-10 as a standard issue address our needs for now and for some time in future. Same is with WVR however in this case one integrated with HMS and High Off Bore Engagement is a required upgrade.

It is being reported that work on twin seater is underway. Confirmed on multiple forums by multiple sources.

 

[JamD]

Hi,

I appreciate your comments---. I will be ecstatic if the AB take off on full load is under 10%---I would gladly make a fool out of myself----.

It really solves the issue----you really don't need air to air refueling if you have consumed only 10 %----.


Very senior-------dammmmmn

The book I was quoting earlier was this:
Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach (Aiaa Education Series): Daniel P. Raymer: 9781600869112: Amazon.com: Books

It is taught in almost all aero vehicle design courses. I will do some more research and numbers and get back to you.

2- Reducing RCS with more composite usage is a better idea and as per reports PAC is already working on that. Introducing internal bays wont be possible as it will mean massive structural changes, essential a new aircraft.
.

A slightly unrelated question about composites and RCS reduction. How exactly does using composites reduce the RCS? From the little I know composites are simply transparent to radar. So when we say RCS reduction using composites are we saying that we replace the entire internal structure of a part (lets say the tail) with a composite part? Because a composite skin or some parts of composites will just mean reflections will happen from the internal metal structure.

OR are there radar absorbing composites as well? That would be neat, just replace the skin, keeping the internal structure the same.

 

[Arsalan]

A slightly unrelated question about composites and RCS reduction. How exactly does using composites reduce the RCS? From the little I know composites are simply transparent to radar. So when we say RCS reduction using composites are we saying that we replace the entire internal structure of a part (lets say the tail) with a composite part? Because a composite skin or some parts of composites will just mean reflections will happen from the internal metal structure.

OR are there radar absorbing composites as well? That would be neat, just replace the skin, keeping the internal structure the same.

Dielectric composites will reflect lesser electronic magnetic energy and thus will be less visible to radars compared to metal frame. Think of it is a plane made of Steel compared to one made of plastic, which one will reflect more electromagnetic waves (radio waves)?
Also the use of composites helps on two fronts, it will help reduce radar reflections and will also reduce the weight of the plane resulting is better range, more fuel, better payload etc as per mission requirement.

 

[JamD]

Dielectric composites will reflect lesser electronic magnetic energy and thus will be less visible to radars compared to metal frame. Think of it is a plane made of Steel compared to one made of plastic, which one will reflect more electromagnetic waves (radio waves)?
Also the use of composites helps on two fronts, it will help reduce radar reflections and will also reduce the weight of the plane resulting is better range, more fuel, better payload etc as per mission requirement.

What I am thinking is this:

Consider there's a conventional wing with spars and ribs and skin all made of metal. Now reflections occur at the metal skin as it is opaque to radar. If now we replace the SKIN ONLY with composite (for example) what the radar now sees is the internal structure of the wing (the spars, ribs, stringers) and they will form many many corner reflectors and I'm reasonably sure the return will be much higher (or am I mistaken?).

So won't a partial composite buildup cause more damage to the rcs than reduction if the internal structure is left unchanged? I can think of one solution right away, using lightweight directed reflectors (foils) internal to the composite skin to the 'hide' the internal metal structure. Is that what they do?