JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[Mughal-Prince]

Taimi.
F16 is a much bigger plane and the thrust to weight ratio is better than JFT. But with a reported TWR of 1.09 we cannot really call the JFT underpowered. Yes we can always do with a better and more powerful engine but it would be to power an AESA radar and other goodies which will be on Bl.3. So I do have an issue with calling the JFT underpowered.
A

Araz
Its not meant underpowered in straight means I believe as I think we must look towards performance as well like spool up time which helps a lot in acceleration where as FADEC integrated engines can be handled care freely so can be throttled brutally and FADEC may handle it. And their are other variables which we may keep in consideration like engine weight its balance its behaviour and other things in addition on a emergency thrust RD-93 is the world most fuel hungry engine which may empty the fuel tanks with in a few couple of minutes.

 

[Viper0011.]

Secondly how do we know that the Gripen is more maneuverable than the JFT.

Gripen isn't more maneuverable than the JFT. It was designed to counter the Mig's such as 23, 27, 29. Not SU-30 or -16 or -15. Its core strength is its Western avionics.

True. But there was a reason for this.For PAF it was a case of baby steps in the aeronautical field. We needed to have a plane the technology and the materials for which we could handle and absorb the technology.

I know the reason why Aluminum was used. I wasn't belittling the JFT. Just exlaining. Hopefully, block III gets out with more composites and one day, we might see a stealthy version of the JFT.

F16 is a much bigger plane and the thrust to weight ratio is better than JFT. But with a reported TWR of 1.09 we cannot really call the JFT underpowered. Yes we can always do with a better and more powerful engine but it would be to power an AESA radar and other goodies which will be on Bl.3. So I do have an issue with calling the JFT under-powered.
A

I don't think the JFT, for its air-frame and weapons load is necessarily "under powered". But I also don't think it's an optimally powered plane right now. It does need a bigger engine so it can store more weapons (BVR's specifically), more loiter time and an AESA!!

 

[araz]

Araz
Its not meant underpowered in straight means I believe as I think we must look towards performance as well like spool up time which helps a lot in acceleration where as FADEC integrated engines can be handled care freely so can be throttled brutally and FADEC may handle it. And their are other variables which we may keep in consideration like engine weight its balance its behaviour and other things in addition on a emergency thrust RD-93 is the world most fuel hungry engine which may empty the fuel tanks with in a few couple of minutes.

Bhai.
what we have to understand is the limitations placed on this project. It is not just a question of get this or that.
The considerations for the engine were in my humble opinion
A. Relatively cheap as the cost factor had to be kept in mind
B. Sturdy and reliable
C. Sanction proof. The US sanctions of the 90s have almost made the PAF paranoid and they are reluctant to use anything that would give another nation power over their air assets.
D. Not too technically demanding.
The Chinese did not have and still do not have a suitable engine. The US and EU engines are excluded on the basis of C and possibly D.
As such we are hampered with the Russians and their engines which may not be that advanced but are technically rugged and reliable. The Chinese have assured us of uninterrupted supply of engines and as such are guarantors of the project which seems good enough for the PAF.
Now as to what happens next , either the EU opens up with an advanced engine which is guaranteed against sanctions,Or the Chinese come up with a reliable and suitably advanced engine, or we wait for the Russian engine providers to provide us with a more powerful advanced and up to date engine. The vibes coming out of PAF are that the first two are unlikely to happen and as such we need to wait for the next iteration of the RD93 engine. This is likely to be in 2018 and hence we now hear that JFT is due for an engine change in Block 3.
However to say that the JFT is underpowered with a thrust to power ratio of 1.09 which has been reported on open fora and news is a bit unfair.
As to spool up time and accelaration, I gather that it is one of the advantages of the RD93 series. It does lack FADEC but this is due to be rectified in RD93MA.

Gripen isn't more maneuverable than the JFT. It was designed to counter the Mig's such as 23, 27, 29. Not SU-30 or -16 or -15. Its core strength is its Western avionics.

Fully agreed with the whole of your post.
A

 

[RAMPAGE]

Bhai.
what we have to understand is the limitations placed on this project. It is not just a question of get this or that.
The considerations for the engine were in my humble opinion
A. Relatively cheap as the cost factor had to be kept in mind
B. Sturdy and reliable
C. Sanction proof. The US sanctions of the 90s have almost made the PAF paranoid and they are reluctant to use anything that would give another nation power over their air assets.
D. Not too technically demanding.
The Chinese did not have and still do not have a suitable engine. The US and EU engines are excluded on the basis of C and possibly D.
As such we are hampered with the Russians and their engines which may not be that advanced but are technically rugged and reliable. The Chinese have assured us of uninterrupted supply of engines and as such are guarantors of the project which seems good enough for the PAF.
Now as to what happens next , either the EU opens up with an advanced engine which is guaranteed against sanctions,Or the Chinese come up with a reliable and suitably advanced engine, or we wait for the Russian engine providers to provide us with a more powerful advanced and up to date engine. The vibes coming out of PAF are that the first two are unlikely to happen and as such we need to wait for the next iteration of the RD93 engine. This is likely to be in 2018 and hence we now hear that JFT is due for an engine change in Block 3.
However to say that the JFT is underpowered with a thrust to power ratio of 1.09 which has been reported on open fora and news is a bit unfair.
As to spool up time and accelaration, I gather that it is one of the advantages of the RD93 series. It does lack FADEC but this is due to be rectified in RD93MA.


Fully agreed with the whole of your post.
A

JFT lacks a full FBW.

Cannot pull +9g which is the standard for 4th gen fighters.

 

[aliyusuf]

However to say that the JFT is underpowered with a thrust to power ratio of 1.09 which has been reported on open fora and news is a bit unfair.

That figure of TWR 1.09 for the JFT, raises more questions in my mind than answering. Is it for a practical mission loadout or just at 50% internal fuel and with 2 X AAMs? Because at other places the max thrust is stated to be approx. 8600kgf and normal mission loadout at 9100Kg i.e. a TWR of 0.94? Curious.

 

[aftab_s81]

That figure of TWR 1.09

I don't think TWR is 1.09, what i have studied its .95. And that's the reason JFT pulls slower vertically compared to F-16. I think RD-93MA or WS-13A is due here. But what is the progress of these engines and what are current results, nobody knows exact information.

 

[abdulbarijan]

I don't think TWR is 1.09, what i have studied its .95. And that's the reason JFT pulls slower vertically compared to F-16. I think RD-93MA or WS-13A is due here. But what is the progress of these engines and what are current results, nobody knows exact information.

The figures have been quoted by a PAF pilot during the Paris airshow, so what we "think" or "feel" is up for debate ... but when a pilot flying the plane says something about the very airplane he flies, people who have common sense do tend to attribute credibility to what he/she says ...

T/W will change based upon the load of fuel & weapons onboard the aircraft ... the criticism of being "under powered" stems from comparison against the likes of F-16 or SU-27 in the vertical axis .. one has a 120+ KN class engine on it ... the other is a twin engined aircraft ...

 

[Thunder_Rider]

Who said JF-17 is less in maneuverability compared to Gripen or F-16 ?

In simulated aerial dog fights, JF-17s has held its own against F-16s. Due to under powered engine compared to F-16s, in vertical flight JF-17 has disadvantage, in horizontal axis its as good as the F-16.

Maneuverability wise JF-17 is superb. It was designed by keeping in mind the aerodynamics of F-16, that is why it looks so much like it.

Here is what I'm talking about.
A Solo Aerobatic display by PAF's F-16 Block15-MLU:

Here's a solo display of the JFT at Paris:

An aviation enthusiast can spot the difference easily, the F-16 just seems much better in maneuverability and just executes better at rolls, tight turns, vertical climb etc etc.... However the JF-17 in the other video, seem to be doing everything slower than the F-16.

The PAF pilots who have piloted both the Bl15s and JFT would beg to differ with you on the maneuverability issue. Secondly how do we know that the Gripen is more maneuverable than the JFT. SO far I personally have not read anything to that effect so if you have please produce it and we can talk about it. I am not disagreeing with you but merely questioning your source for the statement.
A

I agree sir, I'm not an expert, that's why I questioned. I could be wrong.
& no sir, I haven't read it anywhere.... I would say that my source would be my observance as an enthusiast. I have many a times compared our bird with other birds, there always seemed to me that something is missing in our JFT's performance. So I felt this forum should be the best place to have a debate on it. To clear doubts, having some expertise from knowledgeable people like yourself.

 

[HRK]

we badly need an aerial refuelling option in JF17s just 1.5 hours loiter time is not good enough for CAP operations.

Gripen NG Combat Radius-1

Euro Fighter Typhoon on Station

 

[ice_man]

Gripen NG Combat Radius-1
View attachment 261125

Euro Fighter Typhoon on Station

View attachment 261126

thanks for an exceptional input HRK.

However, both the fighters you mentioned the Euro fighter & Gripen have Air to Air Refueling capability. Something the JF-17s badly require currently.

 

[araz]

thanks for an exceptional input HRK.

However, both the fighters you mentioned the Euro fighter & Gripen have Air to Air Refueling capability. Something the JF-17s badly require currently.

And the JFT will have it in not too distant a future.
A

 

[monitor]

thanks for an exceptional input HRK.

However, both the fighters you mentioned the Euro fighter & Gripen have Air to Air Refueling capability. Something the JF-17s badly require currently.

Already having those capabilities in block2 don't worry. TV

 

[Exocet]

That figure of TWR 1.09 for the JFT, raises more questions in my mind than answering. Is it for a practical mission loadout or just at 50% internal fuel and with 2 X AAMs? Because at other places the max thrust is stated to be approx. 8600kgf and normal mission loadout at 9100Kg i.e. a TWR of 0.94? Curious.

I think that 1.09 T/W ratio should be in combat weight.

Combat Weight is the weight that when aircraft took off and in station of air-air combat. In reality it is the real T/W ratio of a combat aircraft. Fighters don't engage in aerial battles at their take off weight.

 

[Windjammer]

 

[Saifullah]

I wanted to ask something from quiet a time.... Can F16 pull 9G while on A-to-A Combat mode i.e 4 BVR and 2 WVR and/or IRST ?

Here is what I'm talking about.
An aviation enthusiast can spot the difference easily, the F-16 just seems much better in maneuverability and just executes better at rolls, tight turns, vertical climb etc etc.... However the JF-17 in the other video, seem to be doing everything slower than the F-16.

F16 Pilot have thousands of Flights hours while flying only F16 and JF Pilot is not even near that. JF-17 is not pitched to its limits on public for now. Go watch Dubai shows than Turkey show and than Paris show you will find the gradual increase on pushing the AC.