JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[araz]

use the commonsense bro, if you want major improvement of aerodynamics you need to rebuild entire jet it will be mechanically and structurally different from JF-17

Can you please stop using emoticons of a rude nature. I have noticed this a few times. It is not nice when you are having a aerious discussion. Please refrain from banging your head and calling other people nutjobs.
A

 

[araz]

I would expect gradual improvements across the board on various subsytems, material and production technologies. Progress towards:

• spherical situational awareness
• Real time/high speed/high capacity datalink
• Composites - light structures with higher fatigue life
• Improvements on surface finish and joining processes (get rid of rivets, saw-tooth panel joints)
• RAM
• More powerful engine
• more fuel efficient powerplant.
• Improved MTBF and MTBO of all subsystems
• Sensor integration.
• General reduction of pilot's workload

I dont think some of these specialities and skill sets would be open to us. It may mean joining a fifth generation programme.
A

 

[WarFariX]

Actually there is a point of buying more (brand new) Gen 4 J-10's, free from sanctions and common with our greatest Ally, China, and for these reasons
1 - In time of war, China can easily loan a squadron or two of J10's to give us numerical advantage / parity
2 - Chinese pilots can fly J10 within Pakistani borders to defend against intruding indian jets, while our jets penetrate targets within india
3- We are not able to finance even a full squadron of Gen 4, who in his right mind thinks we will be able to buy more than 24 Gen 5's?
4- Gen 5 (in Pakistan's case due to limited numbers) will only provide a psychological advantage and act as a force multiplier, real war would still be fought by Gen 4 and Gen 3 fighters that we can afford in relatively large numbers.
5 - J-10 provides an alternative to F-16 both in terms of range and load with the additional benefit of AESA and IRST
6 - We can't use F-16 to launch any stand-off munitions like Raad or CM-400, with J10 we get deep strike capability.

Dont forget the scores of F-35 in the recent RED Flag....5th gen platforms will give a high force multiply. Enemy doesnt have radars to detect 5th Gen at right time . They can be used for Anti Ground mission , anti runway missions and give the ability of deep strike and act as bombers

150 JF original req
Possible 200 , 50 more could be block-3+

Original batch of block-1s could be rebuilt into Block-3+ and additional aircraft could be ordered as block-4

Its too sad everytime someone repeats this statement , my heart grieves in sorrow . I wish this happens as you stated although...

Modification of tail has made thunder dual seater and possibly block 3 a completely new maneuverable machine. The LERX are still a problem but overall aerodynamics will improve due to swept back tail design

There is a lot to be proven in Block 3 other than AESA and IRST. If there is a new FADEC based engine, and the aerodynamics have change, it is better to get it into the hands of pilots so they can start familiarizing themselves. Likewise with maintenance crews. Work on weapons and electronics can proceed in parallel. A very good move by PAF.



Just this year, PAF's budget has been increased by 1.5 billion dollars. That is a lot of money.

aerodynamics remains same bro

 

[SQ8]

I would expect gradual improvements across the board on various subsytems, material and production technologies. Progress towards:

• spherical situational awareness
• Real time/high speed/high capacity datalink
• Composites - light structures with higher fatigue life
• Improvements on surface finish and joining processes (get rid of rivets, saw-tooth panel joints)
• RAM
• More powerful engine
• more fuel efficient powerplant.
• Improved MTBF and MTBO of all subsystems
• Sensor integration.
• General reduction of pilot's workload

Spherical IR might be possible, but anything else would drive the cost up exponentially.

Datalink is real time, high bw could be achieved through AESA acting as datalink antenna.

Slowly being worked into the airframe

Possible that CATIC could apply processes from J-20 down the line.

Available but benefits are negligible with already low RCS vs external stores.

@messiach can elaborate on the improvements to baseline RD-93 for greater thrust

Electronic mtbf of chinese sourced items has come some way from earlier days.

Sensor integration exists to an extent with RWR and radar feeding into situational picture- how far they went into it is unknown to me

Block-1 workload fairly reduced and comparable to block-52

Further reductions could come from greater sensir fusion.

 

[MystryMan]

Actually there is a point of buying more (brand new) Gen 4 J-10's, free from sanctions and common with our greatest Ally, China, and for these reasons
1 - In time of war, China can easily loan a squadron or two of J10's to give us numerical advantage / parity
2 - Chinese pilots can fly J10 within Pakistani borders to defend against intruding indian jets, while our jets penetrate targets within india
3- We are not able to finance even a full squadron of Gen 4, who in his right mind thinks we will be able to buy more than 24 Gen 5's?
4- Gen 5 (in Pakistan's case due to limited numbers) will only provide a psychological advantage and act as a force multiplier, real war would still be fought by Gen 4 and Gen 3 fighters that we can afford in relatively large numbers.
5 - J-10 provides an alternative to F-16 both in terms of range and load with the additional benefit of AESA and IRST
6 - We can't use F-16 to launch any stand-off munitions like Raad or CM-400, with J10 we get deep strike capability.

I will add to your comments with following observations.
1. In few years time we would need to replace Rose Mirages.
2. J10 could fill that role as PAF can customize it with Chinese help (specially for standoff precision strikes).
3. With J10 we could have some in-house manufacturing/ spare parts production possible.
4. J31 spearhead the attack formations where the bulk of the goodies are unloaded by J10s on enemy targets.
5. Depends on F16 is reduced hence less chances of sanctions and more chances of getting the latest version/upgrade from USA. (Credit: @MastanKhan for 4 and 5)

 

[messiach]

LP assembly is now re-engineered in block-2, should improve engine performance at the low.

@messiach can elaborate on the improvements to baseline RD-93 for greater thrust

 

[My-Analogous]

The question in my mind is whether PAF will go for engine change with the RD93MA or WS13 Variant. Both should be on their way to achieving maturity. A little more power would go a long way in improving the performance of the bird.
A

It is definitely RD93MA because now we have overhaul facilities of RD engines

 

[My-Analogous]

aerodynamics remains same bro

No it depend on engine use in it. Gear box may shift and then they have to check aerodynamics too

 

[krash]

That would just add a few hundred miles of range, not increase the load carrying capacity, on the contrary adding more fuel will reduce weapons carrying capacity

Keeping everything else constant, yes. But I tend to believe that the natural course of evolution for the JF-17 with an increase in weight would be a parallel increase in composites, with a possible more powerful engine. But then again, I am no insider.

How will adding more fuel reduce weapons carrying capacity?

More fuel brings more weight which leaves less out of the maximum weight allowed to go towards armaments.

Slightly off topic but guys we have some extremly huge resources to finance our defense purchases ... just grab few high profile criminals and size there assets (you understand what i mean) ... Pakistan will not only settle their debt but will become a wealthy country ...

And who would 'grab' them? The other high profile criminals? The people obviously don't care for it.

It appears that Blk-III might not have an AESA from the beginning. Much like the IFR probe on Blk-II that was first installed somewhere around the 26 aircraft and all the previous planes are to be fitted with the same later on. Same may be the case with AESA. IRST is also unlikely (though i am quite mad about this but frankly, this do not matters to them). Weapons integration is a step by step process and eventually we will get next generation weapons for JF17

Would that not destroy the cost efficiency? First purchasing the KLJ-7 V2 only to then replace it a little while after? I couldn't find any source on the price of the radar but I'm guessing it's at least a few hundred thousand dollars each. With the IFR probes we didn't have this problem.

If they have plan to improve aerodynamics of JF-17 then it will be minor one like increase the length of radome for AESA and IRST, the performance remains same of jet (aerodynamics wise)

From what can be seen by the JF-17B model and reports, there are changes to the tail and the length of the aircraft. Which are not minor changes.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Weight factor (Maximum take off weight)

How will adding more fuel reduce weapons carrying capacity?

Thanks to coalition support fund

everything PAF got was in brief period when Mushi was in power, his thinking let PAF get the funding it deserves for AWECS, Air tankers, Thunders, F-16s, SPADAs and J 10s, since than PAF had limited funding, if any, for new allocations

with current resource allocation, i doubt PAF will field more than 150 thunders or get fifth gen any time soon. I even suspect that issue with used f-16 fighters is more financial than USA objections. Looking at recent trend I doubt PAF will get any thing apart from thunders upto 150.

Apparently chief of staff and strategic planners thinks PAF is good with 70-80 f-16s, 150 thunders and 50 PGs till 2025 while nuke role will be handled by 30-40 mirages till 2025.
The other list including improved tanks, new rifles, more SAMS for strike core, more gunships for eastern front takes priority

I doubt india will do preemptive strikes on nuclear facilitates now, in wake of Sub launched cruise missiles, that thought process is no longer valid and thus great outcry on Sub launched cruise missile, with upcoming induction of 8 such systems, it would be impossible to take them out all and too risk to relay purely on SAMs to take the CM out, a single sub can carry dozen of such missiles

The problem is Block III is that it will still remain a light-weight, limited-range, defensive fighter with some added bells and whistles. PAF needs a minimum of two squadrons of medium-weight, long-range, aggressive, right in your face type of strike fighters to act as a deterrence as well as a force multiplier if it ever comes to a real war.

let see what does block 3 brings to table along with known Pod and Aesa update
will we see an IRST or HMD and fifth gen AAM?

but we don't have an unlimited budget, if its being made in Pakistan it doesn't mean it's free. There is a limit to how many (currently 150) PAF can buy. If you don't incorporate whatever is needed in Block III, then there is no Block IV any time soon.

The point is the aircraft is going to get all this stuff. It is being worked upon. However i do not think we will delay the production just to get all systems in place. This is one of the advantages of having your OWN aircraft. You can fit it with anything you deem suitable whenever you want.

At max 12 gen 4's

Just this year, PAF's budget has been increased by 1.5 billion dollars. That is a lot of money.

Can you elaborate a bit. When you say improved engine performance at the low, what does that mean?
higher speed at dry thrust? or
Lower fuel consumption at dry thrust?
how much is the improvement in terms of %?
Are you still referring to RD-93 and not the improved version RD-93MA?

LP assembly is now re-engineered in block-2, should improve engine performance at the low.

 

[ghazi768]

More fuel brings more weight which leaves less out of the maximum weight allowed to go towards armaments.

Weight factor (Maximum take off weight)

Weapon station payload is related to air-frame/wing strength, you do not need to decrease it when fuel capacity increases. Maximum weight is a 'calculated value', it is not a value where your fighter will refuse to get airborne. Depending upon requirements you can limit configurations to maintain a specific take-off and landing weight, this is not design related. Original F-16 A had a weight comparable to JF-17 and was considered a light weight aircraft, it later increased when more and more equipments were added to it, other than modifications to control surfaces to keep turn rates still acceptable no major wing modifications were done or needed.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Don't forget F-16 also saw an (more powerful) engine change.

Maximum take off weight is the limit on the total weight of the package regardless of what is contributing factor be it air frame, fuel, equipment or armament.

Weapon station payload is related to air-frame/wing strength, you do not need to decrease it when fuel capacity increases. Maximum weight is a 'calculated value', it is not a value where your fighter will refuse to get airborne. Depending upon requirements you can limit configurations to maintain a specific take-off and landing weight, this is not design related. Original F-16 A had a weight comparable to JF-17 and was considered a light weight aircraft, it later increased when more and more equipments were added to it, other than modifications to control surfaces to keep turn rates still acceptable no major wing modifications were done or needed.

 

[Arsalan]

I would expect gradual improvements across the board on various subsytems, material and production technologies. Progress towards:

• spherical situational awareness
• Real time/high speed/high capacity datalink
• Composites - light structures with higher fatigue life
• Improvements on surface finish and joining processes (get rid of rivets, saw-tooth panel joints)
• RAM
• More powerful engine
• more fuel efficient powerplant.
• Improved MTBF and MTBO of all subsystems
• Sensor integration.
• General reduction of pilot's workload

I think you mean this for the existing planes. I was asking about the future of manufacturing. Will the project end with 150 JF17 plus the export orders? What will we pursue after that? For me, as i mentioned, i should be a fifth generation but the lessons learned must then take form of a JF17 Blk IV or a new plane that will give us enough 4+ gen planes to support the limited number of fifth generation planes that we may acquire. The actual point i want your feedback on and for others to respond and discuss is:

What are our post Blk-III ambitions? Just move to a fifth generation fighter or are there any 4+ gen plans for JF-17 in shape of Block-IV and V!
remember the original plan was of 250 aircraft, 150 + 100!!

As far as I am concerned, i will love to see some work on a 5th generation once Blk-III production run ends and we complete any export orders. However that work on a 5th generation plane and the lessons learned from being involved in that project MUST shape up a JF-17 4+ gen plane (or whatever they want to name it, JF-19 or JF-X) in form of a Block-IV and Block-V. We do need at least this many planes if you do rough math regarding the numbers required.

150 JF17, some F16s and a limited number of 5th generation do not add up to meet the required numbers. An evolution of JF17 (current and also new planes made AFTER Blk-III) into a 4+ gen plane will give us the required numbers as well as good potent machines. All the points you mentioned should form the base of that new block/plane and as much of this technology as possible should be absorbed in the first three blocks as well.

The only problem is that there are no indication of anything happening on these lines at all. It seems that after 150 JF17 and may be some export units, we will just move on the 5th generation. Considering that they are bound to come in limited numbers, this will leave a big numerical gap for sure.

Can you please stop using emoticons of a rude nature. I have noticed this a few times. It is not nice when you are having a aerious discussion. Please refrain from banging your head and calling other people nutjobs.
A

Lessons learned from being part of the future fifth generation plane will help, it is just that we should learn those lessons and then get something constructive made out of it.

 

[araz]

I think you mean this for the existing planes. I was asking about the future of manufacturing. Will the project end with 150 JF17 plus the export orders? What will we pursue after that? For me, as i mentioned, i should be a fifth generation but the lessons learned must then take form of a JF17 Blk IV or a new plane that will give us enough 4+ gen planes to support the limited number of fifth generation planes that we may acquire. The actual point i want your feedback on and for others to respond and discuss is:

What are our post Blk-III ambitions? Just move to a fifth generation fighter or are there any 4+ gen plans for JF-17 in shape of Block-IV and V!
remember the original plan was of 250 aircraft, 150 + 100!!

As far as I am concerned, i will love to see some work on a 5th generation once Blk-III production run ends and we complete any export orders. However that work on a 5th generation plane and the lessons learned from being involved in that project MUST shape up a JF-17 4+ gen plane (or whatever they want to name it, JF-19 or JF-X) in form of a Block-IV and Block-V. We do need at least this many planes if you do rough math regarding the numbers required.

150 JF17, some F16s and a limited number of 5th generation do not add up to meet the required numbers. An evolution of JF17 (current and also new planes made AFTER Blk-III) into a 4+ gen plane will give us the required numbers as well as good potent machines. All the points you mentioned should form the base of that new block/plane and as much of this technology as possible should be absorbed in the first three blocks as well.

The only problem is that there are no indication of anything happening on these lines at all. It seems that after 150 JF17 and may be some export units, we will just move on the 5th generation. Considering that they are bound to come in limited numbers, this will leave a big numerical gap for sure.


Lessons learned from being part of the future fifth generation plane will help, it is just that we should learn those lessons and then get something constructive made out of it.

Thank you for a very comprehensive post. I fully agree that prior to the 5th generation venture we will possubly try out the technologies we want to incorporate into our 5th generation venture. This has been the general trend in all air forces. With advancing technologies it may be that prior to building the 5th generation plane in house if the demand is there we will produce a 4++ generation figther incorporating some of the emerging technologies. This can subsequently evolve into a true 5th/6th generation fighter whenever the PAF can get the finances and its act together. However I would say this is a very bold step and may well end up in a collaboration with other providers such as China/Turkey on a project for 5th generation fighter to gain access to the relevant technologies.
The real point to follow is how the Bl.3 fulfills the need of PAF. I cant see PAF stopping the JFT programme at 150 planes so there will be a block 4./ possibly 5. Now whether this is entirely for export or for home use as well will depend entirely on how well the NG fighter programme progresses in PAC and indeed in China. I think we need to watch and wait as at the moment there are more questions than answers in my mind. The picture will clear up around 2018-20 and one can then draw more conclusions of how things are likely to transpire.
Other factors which may come into reckoning is if US offers more 16s and the economic woes of Pakistan and PAF. However in all cases somehow I feel the Thunder project will be kept alive and kicking. The situation will become interesting if we secure a couple of big orders which will open up more doors for future development due to increasing revenues.
A

 

[Arsalan]

Thank you for a very comprehensive post. I fully agree that prior to the 5th generation venture we will possubly try out the te hnologies we want to incorporate into our 5th generation venture. With advancing technologies it may be that prior to building the 5th generation plane in house if the demand is there we will prosuce a 4++ generation figther incorporating some of the emerging technologies. This can subsequently evolve into a true 5th/6th generation fighter. In prder to do so PAF will have to collaborate with possibly China/Turkey on a project for 5th generation fighter to gain access to the relevant technologies.
The real point to follow is how the Bl.3 fulfills the need of PAF. Icant see PAF stopping the JFT programme at 150 planes so there will be a block 4./ possibly 5. Now whetjer thos is entirely for export or for home ise as well will depend entirely on how well the NG fighter programme progresses in PAC and indeed in China. I think we need to watch and wait as there does not at the moment

Exactly sir. And not only "prior to the 5th generation project". Even after we acquire 5th gen. planes, we all know that these will be in limited numbers. Four squadrons may be? Now adding up the number, 150 JF17, 70 off F16, 70 off fifth generation makes it a total of 280-300 planes. We will need more. So even after getting those fifth gen. planes we can use some of the technologies acquired from that project, the lessons learned to make more JF17 Blk IV and Blk-V or may be name it as a new plane altogether. However we do need to build on that excellent base we have made for our self in shape of JF17. Rather than looking here and there we should keep our heads down and keep working, we are going in the right direction, just need to keep going. The sad part is that as on now, there are absolutely no indications for any such future plan.

About the numbers again, just to mention a point, the paper work and math shows we are getting three blocks of 50 planes each. However note that there is the two seat variant in picture as well. So with the production of Blk-II approaching end (in second half at least) will where will these two seat variants go? Will the Blk-III have all two seat planes? Will the two seat planes be in addition to the planned 50 Blk-III planes. This may make some sense, the Block-III with more than 50 planes that is. Some single seat and some addition two seat units.