JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[ziaulislam]

When manufacturers of Grippen can pull out new aircraft from Grippen why don't you think PAF can replicate the same on JF-17?

Really depends cost whether j10 will be expensive or not
One thing is becoming clearer no f16s...so its either jf17NG or j10..seems jf17 NG should be a cheaper option

 

[messiach]

Lots.
PAF has never shown hesitation to use of canards.

Which Canard version? Is there an official paper on this? @messiach

Interferometry is a weak form of radar evasion.

One more term is "creeping wave" concept, the wave wraps around the surface, but unlike the wrapping wave(which keeps continuing in same direction after hitting the aircraft surface), the creeping wave actually, makes a u-turn after it has wrapped around and traveled along the surface, to go back to the radar.
But if its out-of-phase to incoming radar wave, it will cause interference to the incoming radar wave, since the radar will keep transmitting, this is due to a delay in time caused during the process of 1.wrapping around 2. making u-turn and 3. going back to radar.

lol, im thinking of opening a topic on radars very soon.

No.

But still the engine doesnt have FADEC.

 

[MastanKhan]

Lots.
PAF has never shown hesitation to use of canards.

Hi,

May I ask---which aircraft---??>

 

[Maxpane]

Very informative discussion is going on

 

[CriticalThought]

It's not an issue of can't, but why would they when the development time - and potentially cost - is relatively high?

It has now taken Saab 10 years to get the Gripen E/F to the stage it is at today and it's still undergoing tests.

If we take the exact same template (let's delete 3 years for design) we're looking at a JF-17 NG in 2027 along with the cost of re-tooling for an essentially different fighter. It's just not worth it when you for an additional 35% in the funding and time you could move further to a clean sheet, next-gen fighter.

In fact, I prefer if we stick to the JF-17 as-is and max out its electronics and adaptability without re-opening the design. Consider as Project Azm comes into play, re-building the existing JF-17 Block-I and Block-II into a potent ground attack fighter for supporting the Pakistan Army's armour operations.

Sir, JFT should serve as a research platform for FGF. The design team should gain experience in applying concepts such as LO, higher endurance, better maneuverability on the already working JFT and then take that experience to FGF. This will give us better versions of Thunder in the interim, and make sure that FGF is grounded in actual real world experience.

 

[Signalian]

A few observations on RAM coatings; foam painted with a paint (having absorption characteristics) used for testing RCS of an object. The foam wasn't smooth(like a mattress) in design, in fact it had continuous triangular coned design with protruding tips(like tobelrone choc); the signals from transmitter either dis-integrates at edge of cone or goes between cones and then dies after constantly reflecting between adjacent two foam cones. Signals have strange characteristics. These signals are frequency dependent to some extent but Millimeter wave is more fun to test.

Further to RCS, although its tried that an aircraft surface is made as smooth as possible, with little or no variations, because any surface variation (say joining point of two parts of aircraft) can give reflection. Since variations do exist at certain points, so radars tend to give different RCS for some basic forms of shapes; cylinder, square, triangle, circle etc, its being tested that radars should amplify signal the next signal it sends after it gets a return from an un-smooth surface (with variation). This variation in surface is considered a weak point in stealth design of aircraft and needs to be fully exploited by radar design engineers.

Also another observation regarding RCS was air intakes/engine inlet of an aircraft, giving away a huge part of its RCS. Take air inlet of a Boeing-737 and compare that with a B-2 Bomber on graphs and diagrams, mega difference. The inlets of B-2 can be opened and closed. I think open during take-off and closed during flight.

 

[messiach]

PAF has tested all available options. It does not provide us an 'unequivocal un-surmountable advantage'.

Hi,

May I ask---which aircraft---??>

 

[MastanKhan]

PAF has tested all available options. It does not provide us an 'unequivocal un-surmountable advantage'.

Hi,

Indeed---my esteemed sister is correct---.

Getting "no aircraft"---also does not provide us with any advantage either---

 

[messiach]

In 2018 quantity does not matter, technology does. 'No aircraft' is not a disadvantage.

Hi,
Getting "no aircraft"---also does not provide us with any advantage either---

 

[MastanKhan]

In 2018 quantity does not matter, technology does. 'No aircraft' is not a disadvantage.

Hi,

Indeed it does---. But so far---nothing is visible---.

Like in 1965---the sabre was superior when positioned at its position of strength---.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

In 2018 quantity does not matter, technology does. 'No aircraft' is not a disadvantage.

Electronics have bridged the relative capabilities between aircraft when it comes scenarios between aircraft. Be it JF-17 Block-III or the F-16 Block-70, the issue at the opposing end is that there's an AESA radar-equipped fighter with BVRAAM (along with integrated DRFM-based EW/ECM, HMD/S with HOBS AAM, tactical data-link, etc).

The physical parameters (e.g. range, payload, etc) now matter more for specific roles and applications and less so about one-upping another fighter.

 

[Bilal.]

The physical parameters (e.g. range, payload, etc) now matter more for specific roles and applications and less so about one-upping another fighter.

I wouldn't disregard the range and number of weapons carried so easily, specially, when you are faced with numerical superiority. You don't want the your aircraft being forced to land due to lack of fuel or AAMs in a pitched battle only to get blown on the ground.

Plus, turn around time is also extremely important for PAF, again to offset the numerical advantage of the opponent to a certain degree.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I wouldn't disregard the range and number of weapons carried so easily, specially, when you are faced with numerical superiority. You don't want the your aircraft being forced to land due to lack of fuel or AAMs in a pitched battle only to get blown on the ground.

Plus, turn around time is also extremely important for PAF, again to offset the numerical advantage of the opponent to a certain degree.

I agree, but after a certain point it's an issue of diminishing returns.

 

[GriffinsRule]

How about this ... whats the point of having a radar that can track and target 4 or more enemy aircraft simultaneously if you are only equipped with 2 BVR missiles =P
Need those dual AAM launchers!

 

[Signalian]

Anybody heard of RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR MICROWAVE AND MILLIMETER-WAVE STUDIES (RIMMS) of NUST ?

http://www.nust.edu.pk/INSTITUTIONS/Centers/RIMMS/Pages/default.aspx

some interesting projects:

http://www.nust.edu.pk/INSTITUTIONS/Centers/RIMMS/Research/Pages/Projects.aspx

1. Design and Development of S-Band TRR Module for Phased-Array Radars for HEC