JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[Munir]

I am agreeing with you. I got the higher TWR from a PAF pilot in 2010. I had asked about the engine thrust but he quoted me the TWR.

We have F16 as the target to be reached

Dear sir,
Mig 19's Farmer designation is nato designation, and has no whatsoever bearing on the logic you presented.... all fighters from western bloc had F designation(fishbed, flanker, frogfoot), all bombers had start with B (Bear, beagle, bat etc) , Helos with H (Hind, hip, ), Commercial a/c with C, A2A missiles with A(Atoll. alamo, adder), S2A missiles with G (gadfly, gecko,grizly), Air to Surface with K (Krypton, kayak, kingbolt) etc


It's russian nick name was Utkanos which means Duck nose.

I know. F fighter. Etc. But the Russian planes were meant to be maintained by farmers. Educated masses were enemy of the communism. Yet one needed huge numbers of fighterjets to defend the nation. That means one needs planes that are rugged. Land on bad airfields and use the worst quality of fuel. And indeed. If you could repair a tractor... You could do the same to a Mig... I hope that explains my answer a bit more. One needs to search on the net to find the same but I hope this settles. It is still the design philosophy of Russian planes. The Frogfoot can handle Vodka... Diesel and a lot more. Look at the landing gears of Russian planes... Compare that with F16 or F15. The Mig29 shuts of its intakes on the ground. No need to clean the area. The F16 needs a vacuum cleaner before the engine can start...

or the multiple launch rail that can carry 2 SD-10 on one hard point.
However if they can add another hard point under belly somewhere behind cockpit that will be idea as then that can carry targeting POD or any supporting equipment and leave the original 7 hard points for missiles and fuel tanks/bombs!

At the moment the JF17 can guide two SD10 at the same time. This will be increased in the next block. So one can have more SD10 going after enemy without bugging out.

Nope. you are still as amusing as you were earlier. Thanks for obliging......................with such an imaginatively amusing explanation...........as the earlier one for the "Farmer" moniker for the MiG.
Now; pray do tell us where the "Faggot" name for another SU war-plane came from?

Not by Russians. Here the explanation...

NATA designated new Soviet fighters with "F" code names. Fencer, foxhout, foxbat etc etc etc.

I think you have confused fagot: NOUN:

A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.
A bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded or hammered into bars.

Middle English, from Old French, from Old Provençal, possibly from Vulgar Latin *facus, from Greek phakelos, bundle

With faggot which a variant of the same word and can be used as derogatory term. in addition to being used as above.

 

[MilSpec]

We have F16 as the target to be reached


I know. F fighter. Etc. But the Russian planes were meant to be maintained by farmers. Educated masses were enemy of the communism. Yet one needed huge numbers of fighterjets to defend the nation. That means one needs planes that are rugged. Land on bad airfields and use the worst quality of fuel. And indeed. If you could repair a tractor... You could do the same to a Mig... I hope that explains my answer a bit more. One needs to search on the net to find the same but I hope this settles. It is still the design philosophy of Russian planes. The Frogfoot can handle Vodka... Diesel and a lot more. Look at the landing gears of Russian planes... Compare that with F16 or F15. The Mig29 shuts of its intakes on the ground. No need to clean the area. The F16 needs a vacuum cleaner before the engine can start...



At the moment the JF17 can guide two SD10 at the same time. This will be increased in the next block. So one can have more SD10 going after enemy without bugging out.

sir ,
Farmer is not a Russian name, again Russian nick named the aircraft duck nose...
thus you premise for the for the name is incorrect, but I do not dis agree with the maintainability of a/c....

I am not so sure about the tractor and the aircraft analogy, having worked on soviet jets (albeit not Mig19's) I can assure you they much more complex than a tractor...

 

[Munir]

@sandy_3126 Maybe you should do research into Russian history...

Here some design hints I got by using Google. I think that is just a small part but still gives you clues...

Biggles20

From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted Tue Sep 28 2004 22:06:51 your local time (10 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 13814 times:

Hello,

lakobos is right. As I understand Russian aircraft are generally designed to be very rugged and robust, as they have to perform to different criterion than Western-designed aircraft. Most Russian aircraft I believe were designed for good short-field performance, often flying from isolated and unprepared/unsupported airfields, often in terrible weather conditions. They were designed to operate with as little upkeep & maintenance as possible - to get the job done simply with less regard for comfort and service, etc.

Biggles

 

[Bilal.]

@Munir. Internal jammed is something I have concluded JF-17 does not have for now. In all description provided in interviews(including the recent one) and the presentation given in Dubai airshow. The ECM has been described as detection mechanism and automatic chaff/flare dispenser with optional jamming pod carried externally. There is no mention on integrated internal jammers. Maybe future blocks will have it?

 

[Bilal.]

It's not KB3000 there is no such thing. It's KG300...

 

[Bilal.]

The bottom line is JFT is deployed, being integrated and tactics being evolved. It's not bogged down by endless revision cycles. While the so called shortcomings will be gone with future blocks and upgrades. By the time the first LCA squadron is inducted there will probably be a hundred fully operational JFTs with all with these upgrades.

 

[Dazzler]

Why don't you prove my claims wrong instead?

because i dont want a neighbor to get embarrassed in an open forum

 

[Bratva]

Can do without it? Every fighter is better off with added instability. If you believe that JF17 is somehow more maneuverable so it doesn't need tri-axis FBW, keep that BS to yourself.

Can you prove your claim about 26 degree AoA?
Can you prove your claim about internal ECM

No, you can only troll.

Hence proved, you are as ignorant about JF-17 program as a slum kid is ignorant about LCA program.

What is design layout of JF-17 and LCA, let's begin with it first then we will talk about which design require instability more

Yes. I don't BS when I claim something. JF-17 project director interview which is in JF-17 Info pool thread both AoA claim and Spanish ECM claim in it.

Shutup, instead of accusing others, be nice ask nice, learn more if you want debate on JF-17

 

[ejaz007]

Where did you find that delivery equals FOC? Do you even understand how certification process of LCA works?
Google ASTE and find out what it does, and why it has taken the delivery of SP1 and not IAF's regular squadrons.
SP1 and 2 have been delivered. It has got nothing to do with FOC. Those are separate things. FOC is just a certification process now. Just like your JF17 was delivered way before it tested any proper weapons.

No it hasn't impressed the IAF. But it is still better than JF17 in specs, as I showed in my previous post. Tejas Mk2 will satisfy IAF as well.

So you are the authority on certifying which fighter is better and which worse. That is why India is inducting LCA Tejas.

JF-17's testing continued for years not months and was inducted after FOC. First JF-17 was rolled out in 2003 and JF-17 was formally inducted in 2010.

 

[Bratva]

Thanks for showing the level of your own knowledge about your own projects. PDF is blessed to have TTs like you.

That's what you can do eh? Okay Let's start with delta configuration because it has a inherent instability added to it and the issue of drag that comes with and to compensate it It's requires a more advanced FBW. Despite your so called tri-axis digital FBW it has so far achieved 24 degrees of AoA. JF-17 is a stable design, hence the digital FBW in axis has achieved the required 26 degree AoA.

Delta design by design is unstable, hence you don't add stability to it, what you do is you add more instability, and control it through Digital FBW. Read Eurofighter program. While which moron adds instability to a stable design like JF-17 or F-16 ??


Ignorance busted. That's why you are not TT and by the look of it, you looks like and talks like Sarak Chaap. Good day to you sir.

 

[Tempest II]

To begin production of light jet fighters from 2007 | Asian Tribune

Twenty-two avionics systems would be co-produced at PAC including radar, self-protection jammer, high-tech flight control and mission computers.

 

[Bratva]

OMG who made you TT kid? JF17's digital FBW is in the longitudinal axis, which has got nothing to do with AoA in the first place. I should have read this sentence first. Ok now I know how much you know about aerodynamics. Now please keep talking however you want to. One less guy to reply to.

if you want a more meaningful discussion, reply sensibly, logically, with facts. Thank you !

 

[Bratva]

Seems like you know its affects personally, which is why you are reduced to jibes instead of posting anything meaningful.


Exactly to keep costs it doesn't have tri-axis FBW, doesn't mean that JF17 does not need it.


Same to u

At least I know that which axis has digital FBW in your fighter, unlike you, who doesn't even know about your own program.

Need arises when you want to achieve more AoA. But do you know in which way JF-17 program is heading since you know more than us right ?

This pic confirms what I said, digital FBW in longitudinal axis only. You may get fully digital FBW in future, but not now, so whats your point?

It gets the 26 degree without needing tri-axis which is a must for Delta design, not so for Stable design.

 

[Dazzler]

Thanks for agreeing with me in your first sentence.

Now for evidence: LCA has the following features that JF17 doesn't have
HMS
internal ECM
tri-axis digital FBW(JF17 has digital FBW only in one axis)
Quad redundant FBW vs triple redundant FBW in JF17
FADEC
separate pylon for pod

please return to your fantasies.

* jf-17 is compatible with TK-14 helmet mounted sight, also in operation with f-7PG, helmet mounted display is being acquired from unspecified, south african Archer is among likely candidates, though Chinese are also working on one.

flight control is comprised of quad redundant fly by wire in pitch axis, dual redundant in yaw and role axis. both are custom designs of j-10's IronBird flight control systems.

internal ECM (housed on the vertical tail) was originally KJ-8605, later replaced with unknown system with indigenous and an unspecified country. The option for external ecm is supplemented by KG-300G ECM pod. It has SE-2 missile approach warning system with 360 degree coverage, ALR-400 RWR with LPI detection capability it replaced the original ARW-9101 RWR which is also functional on j-10 fighter. IRST was initially to be a part of block 2 aircraft, now no news on so far.

Separate pylon means? You mean a chin pylon right? recently it is certified with 200% wing stress testing, we may see a chin pylon (s) soon.

RD-93 has DEEC or digital electronic engine control with limited pilot authority options.

Anything else?

 

[Dazzler]

So not integrated yet, as I said.

Exactly quad in one, dual in two, I averaged it out to three.

Since when do RWR and MAWs form part of countermeasures? And do you have a source for internal ECM, or am I supposed to take it on face value?

So not integrated yet, as I said.

So no FADEC yet, as I said.

It is an added safety feature, go and surf on the internet how many aircraft have crashed for fly by wire malfunction.

TK-14 integrated and tested in China and pakistan, it just that PAF wants a HMDS not HMS alone

Go and read about electronic warfare first then ask questions, your first comment is so immature it is sad really. RWR, MAWS, CFD and internal/ external/ combined jammers are all components of EW system.

Nobody ever claimed RD-93 had a FADEC, even a DEEc is sufficient as it has modes that are rarely used by pilots and maintenance staff. What on earth you need a FADEC for on LCA, are you sure it is likely to crash? FADEC also adds price, a hefty share of engine price !

Yes the chin pylon is not in bloc 1, so what, you didnt know? where were you all these years?



Even F-7 have an internal jammer, man you need to read some serious stuff before trolling. I can understand your frustration though