JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Bratva]

JF-17 is capable of pulling +9g maneuvers - Air Marshal (R) Masood Akhtar.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=999856706735796

So does this means that the platform has been cleared for +9g maneuvers?

@HRK @Bratva @Oscar @JamD @Windjammer

Also, According to him, Block 3 is likely to have CFTs like the BLK 52s (F-16). And @Bratva, It'll have a fully active AESA.

If it will be a Chinese AESA, then journey will be long and hard for the AESA radar to get mature because it will be a compact version of J-10 Aesa . More like how KLJ evovled from Version 1 to Version 2 in 4-5 years.

 

[ghazi768]

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7061




Hi,

And why would you want to do that----?

Sir!

Due to the contents of the post I was replying to.

That post had suggested major achievements for JF-17 (AESA, 9G etc. etc.). I could not understand how all that was possible without a new power plant..........hence my post.[/QUOTE]

Usually AESA results in decreasing weight provided no other additions to avionics.

9G is operation limit on a structure and nothing to do with engine. We'll need a newer engine to maintain present performance if for any reason jet gets heavier.

Now about the video mentioned, I doubt it but a jet in uncontrollable spin tumbling down can wreck a whole aircraft. Now F-15s used be hydraulically controlled, in such aircraft you start feeling buffet and wing rock once you start getting near its top G, aircraft itself starts telling you its limits. In case of FBW, especially F-16, it is not the case you just keep pulling and at a point it refuses to go any further without any buffet and does not matter how if you keep applying more pressure on the stick because its actual turn rate is much higher than the operational limit set.

 

[Dil Pakistan]

Sir!

Due to the contents of the post I was replying to.

That post had suggested major achievements for JF-17 (AESA, 9G etc. etc.). I could not understand how all that was possible without a new power plant..........hence my post.

Usually AESA results in decreasing weight provided no other additions to avionics.

9G is operation limit on a structure and nothing to do with engine. We'll need a newer engine to maintain present performance if for any reason jet gets heavier.

Now about the video mentioned, I doubt it but a jet in uncontrollable spin tumbling down can wreck a whole aircraft. Now F-15s used be hydraulically controlled, in such aircraft you start feeling buffet and wing rock once you start getting near its top G, aircraft itself starts telling you its limits. In case of FBW, especially F-16, it is not the case you just keep pulling and at a point it refuses to go any further without any buffet and does not matter how if you keep applying more pressure on the stick because its actual turn rate is much higher than the operational limit set.[/QUOTE]

Thank you.

I was under the impression (may be incorrectly) that ASEA and other improvements will require a more powerful engine for faster responses and calculations.

 

[Viper0011.]

JF-17 is capable of pulling +9g maneuvers - Air Marshal (R) Masood Akhtar.

What this means is its capable and allowed to use 9G in combat scenarios (beyond during pilot training and tactics). But such use isn't recommended all the time. The air-frames are usually tested at 10G's or even 11G's. But the real limit comes from the human body which can start to take a serious toll at and after 9G's. Also, lower operational G's are recommended to increase air-frame's life too.

A Boeing 747 can try to go supersonic and do a roll. But is the cost of such maneuver acceptable? As it would compromise the structural integrity of the air-frame? That's the real kicker!!

 

[SQ8]

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7061




Hi,

And why would you want to do that----?

Sir!

Due to the contents of the post I was replying to.

That post had suggested major achievements for JF-17 (AESA, 9G etc. etc.). I could not understand how all that was possible without a new power plant..........hence my post.[/QUOTE]

Nothing to do with new powerplant. The G load has absolutely NOTHING to do with the powerplant...and the current situation with AESA has to do with cooling and space for it and NOT power.

 

[MastanKhan]

Usually AESA results in decreasing weight provided no other additions to avionics.

9G is operation limit on a structure and nothing to do with engine. We'll need a newer engine to maintain present performance if for any reason jet gets heavier.

Now about the video mentioned, I doubt it but a jet in uncontrollable spin tumbling down can wreck a whole aircraft. Now F-15s used be hydraulically controlled, in such aircraft you start feeling buffet and wing rock once you start getting near its top G, aircraft itself starts telling you its limits. In case of FBW, especially F-16, it is not the case you just keep pulling and at a point it refuses to go any further without any buffet and does not matter how if you keep applying more pressure on the stick because its actual turn rate is much higher than the operational limit set.

Thank you.

I was under the impression (may be incorrectly) that ASEA and other improvements will require a more powerful engine for faster responses and calculations.[/QUOTE]

Hi,

You had asked the right question. Aesa uses more energy to operate---so you were on the right track. Maybe the energy consumption issue is overcome---maybe with newer technology---the aesa is using less energy.

The purpose of the F16 dot net video was to show that aircraft can take a lot more G's than aniticipated----.

 

[Viper0011.]

Thank you.

I was under the impression (may be incorrectly) that ASEA and other improvements will require a more powerful engine for faster responses and calculations.

That's no true. You'll need higher voltage batteries / generator and a better cooling system. But not higher thrust engines. AESA is actually a pretty compact system. With respect to the JFT, the size of the nose-cone is an issue, along with proper room allocation for side antenna and processors and rear antenna and processors. The JFT doesn't have proper room where needed for block I's. I'd imagine they'd structure a few things different internally for the current block under manufacturing, so that they can put in AESA's (retro to block II when the time comes).

I don't know if you guys noticed in that video, the officer made a comment about AESA being a part of the block III AND having very high track, scan and multi-target lock and fire capability. That is the key and I think the Chinese were lacking in that, as majority of their platforms can lock 2 and fire 2. This number needs to increase, so if two JFT's in an interception sortie, come across 4 SU-30's 80 KM's away. They should each be able to fire 4 BVR's (one at each SU) and the second plane does that with the distance closing up. So now each SU has two BVR's chasing after them. Both were data fed from a different aircraft so they may still have a link with one of them if one JFT was taken out. 2 BVR's each, on a jet, unless its an F-22, I think your kill chances for higher end fire and forget missiles are well over 90%. So more track, scan, lock and firing capability is needed within the JFT' radar in the future.

 

[Windjammer]

Nope its not, and its perfectly normal but its contrary to fan fare and chest thumping done here about being perfect than perfect. Even the members with 10k+ posts speaks as if its just impossible for anything to get wrong. My post was directed to those people, I even mentioned "touchy people" here getting uneasy so easily.

Anyways, I asked you about JF-17 FOC clearance link on other thread as I cant find it myself when you were talking about Tejas FOC. Can you provide any authentic source? (asking again thinking you may have missed my post last time, hope you had one).

Who ever you were addressing becomes irrelevant when in the same breath you couldn't resist taking a dig at Chinese equipment, which in any case is proving much more reliable than your 60% Sukhois.
And since every second Indian seems to be suffering from same dilemma... let me ask you this, do you guys really think that an aircraft without FOC clearance would be allowed to fly all the way and perform in such reputable venues as Farnborough, Dubai and Paris Air Shows. !!!

 

[araz]

That's no true. You'll need higher voltage batteries / generator and a better cooling system. But not higher thrust engines. AESA is actually a pretty compact system. With respect to the JFT, the size of the nose-cone is an issue, along with proper room allocation for side antenna and processors and rear antenna and processors. The JFT doesn't have proper room where needed for block I's. I'd imagine they'd structure a few things different internally for the current block under manufacturing, so that they can put in AESA's (retro to block II when the time comes).

I don't know if you guys noticed in that video, the officer made a comment about AESA being a part of the block III AND having very high track, scan and multi-target lock and fire capability. That is the key and I think the Chinese were lacking in that, as majority of their platforms can lock 2 and fire 2. This number needs to increase, so if two JFT's in an interception sortie, come across 4 SU-30's 80 KM's away. They should each be able to fire 4 BVR's (one at each SU) and the second plane does that with the distance closing up. So now each SU has two BVR's chasing after them. Both were data fed from a different aircraft so they may still have a link with one of them if one JFT was taken out. 2 BVR's each, on a jet, unless its an F-22, I think your kill chances for higher end fire and forget missiles are well over 90%. So more track, scan, lock and firing capability is needed within the JFT' radar in the future.

I think the modern day combat is more of shoot and scoot. I dont think anyone would want to be too interested in attacking multiple targets and stay in the arena after you have let your armaments loose. Hanging too much jewelery in a cat fight can be cumbersome and wasteful.
For those taking pinches of salt this is an AVM of PAF speaking. To accuse him of not knowing about the capabilities and developments of his platform is silly to say the least.
As they say:جس کا کام اسی کو ساجهے
دوجا کرے تو.............
A

 

[Tipu7]

Anyways, I asked you about JF-17 FOC clearance link on other thread as I cant find it myself when you were talking about Tejas FOC. Can you provide any authentic source? (asking again thinking you may have missed my post last time, hope you had one)

So an aircraft which is actively conducting sorties (10000+), taking part in air shows through the World, participating in drills through out the Globe, playing it's role in bombing terrorists during Zarb e Azb, has customers ,is active part of Three squadrons including one for Maritime petrol + part of CCS .......

And here you are talking about show me paper of FOC?
Get a life loser........

 

[Abingdonboy]

let me ask you this, do you guys really think that an aircraft without FOC clearance would be allowed to fly all the way and perform in such reputable venues as Farnborough, Dubai and Paris Air Shows. !!!

Yup, happens all the time.

Aircraft losing drop tanks and in some cases even a bomb is not unheard of, however while PAF has the confidence to perform in single engines right above the Capital, others got their air punched out after witnessing some French made fire works.

 

[ziaulislam]

That's no true. You'll need higher voltage batteries / generator and a better cooling system. But not higher thrust engines. AESA is actually a pretty compact system. With respect to the JFT, the size of the nose-cone is an issue, along with proper room allocation for side antenna and processors and rear antenna and processors. The JFT doesn't have proper room where needed for block I's. I'd imagine they'd structure a few things different internally for the current block under manufacturing, so that they can put in AESA's (retro to block II when the time comes).

I don't know if you guys noticed in that video, the officer made a comment about AESA being a part of the block III AND having very high track, scan and multi-target lock and fire capability. That is the key and I think the Chinese were lacking in that, as majority of their platforms can lock 2 and fire 2. This number needs to increase, so if two JFT's in an interception sortie, come across 4 SU-30's 80 KM's away. They should each be able to fire 4 BVR's (one at each SU) and the second plane does that with the distance closing up. So now each SU has two BVR's chasing after them. Both were data fed from a different aircraft so they may still have a link with one of them if one JFT was taken out. 2 BVR's each, on a jet, unless its an F-22, I think your kill chances for higher end fire and forget missiles are well over 90%. So more track, scan, lock and firing capability is needed within the JFT' radar in the future.

i think the only issue really is lack of technology access/finances

 

[Viper0011.]

I think the modern day combat is more of shoot and scoot. I dont think anyone would want to be too interested in attacking multiple targets and stay in the arena after you have let your armaments loose. Hanging too much jewelery in a cat fight can be cumbersome and wasteful.
For those taking pinches of salt this is an AVM of PAF speaking. To accuse him of not knowing about the capabilities and developments of his platform is silly to say the least.
As they say:جس کا کام اسی کو ساجهے
دوجا کرے تو.............
A

I am sorry, but your post didn't make sense to me. Two inbound SU-30's can lock onto 12 PAF jets and fire 1 BVR each. OR, they can lock onto 6 PAF jets and lock and fire 2 BVR's each on 6 of PAF jets. These two SU's can be the fighter escort for 4 other SU-30's fully loaded with weapons to be dropped on a location. So you let TWO SU's take down SIX - TWELVE defensive PAF jets. And remmeber, the PAF is ALREADY much lower in numbers!!!

How many of these attacks are needed before PAF's entire BVR force is taken down? Remember India has 200 SU's.....and many Mirages, etc, etc, all BVR capable.

So, you need to increase your multi-target locking and firing capability as it is an essential force multiplier that is needed really bad. Your Mirages (older ones and F-7P's) are still really point defense and strike aircraft (I can't imagine how big of a strike component F-7 can present due to its weapons limitations). So at the end of the day, at best, the Mirages and the F-7's are at best going to defend against 1 inbound target, even that within 18 KM's due to sidewinder's range of 20-22 KM's. Now imagine if the BVR tier was taken out, what's left? And how do you deal with it?

Again, the MORE multi-target capability is added to every PAF fighter, the better it is. Its MUCH cheaper to hang 4 or 6 BVR weapons to a jet than building 4-6 new jets from scratch. A very advanced missile cost $ 500 K I think. A new jet takes months to build and costs $ 20-35 millions (JFT block II and III price quotes). So why would you not hang "more jewelry" which is cheaper and provides quick and real impact immediately if the Radar can support multiple target lock and fire capability?

 

[Tipu7]

I asked for FOC cuz one of your friend asked for FOC of Tejas. Why are you being cry baby? If FOC is cleared show the link if not then accept you dont have it, why this whining?

You came here to mock the incident,
but got jaw breaking answer instead,
if you don't have any thing to say regarding the topic, then better keep your sorry mouse shut.................

 

[Windjammer]

Let me worst hater of the world of Chinese and Pakistan and all over the world Lets not divert with classic techniques, So you dont have the FOC link? yes or no? you can accept it.

An old proverb comes to mind, when some one hates you, it's either they fear you, they hate them self or they want to be like you.

And that profile pic with pilot made me think you are from Air Force. This is first time I came to know FOC is needed to Air Shows lol, didnt India's Tejas took part in BIAS without FOC? FOC standards are set by AirForce for battle readiness, it has nothing to do with participating in air show.

There are guys here with Avatars of Tanks, Cars and even Missiles.....should we assume they are either drivers, scientists or maybe just Robots......you see, albeit the JF-17 has participated in some half a dozen shows but i specifically mentioned only three....let's see if you can get around that. !!! Oh as for FOC, it's a well repeated fact that all the initial work took place in China before the manufacturing line moved to Pakistan, there's a dedicated thread on that in this forum including videos and all, if you still have difficulty than @Manticore can clear your dilemma.