JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

at least after 800 hours
View attachment 496228

It'll be interesting to see how they deal with the Block-Is once they reach 3,000 hours.

3,000 hours is 15 years at 200 hours per year (let's say it's two pilots per plane, each clocking 100 hours per year on the plane and the rest on simulators). How feasible will it be to tear down the old planes and rebuild them into full Block-3s? @Oscar @messiach

 

[SQ8]

It'll be interesting to see how they deal with the Block-Is once they reach 3,000 hours.

3,000 hours is 15 years at 200 hours per year (let's say it's two pilots per plane, each clocking 100 hours per year on the plane and the rest on simulators). How feasible will it be to tear down the old planes and rebuild them into full Block-3s? @Oscar @messiach

The manufacturing line exists here so I imagine not too difficult. Similar to current SLEP initiated by LM for F-16s.

 

[messiach]

for Wire-EDM servicing.

another facility in China which was previously used to overhaul second generation Chinese plane is now used to overhaul 3rd generation Chinese plane

 

[Ali_Baba]

The figure of 3000 just highlights the manufacturing differences between the west and the east, with most modern western fighters having on average between 6,000 and 8,000 hours and the new F15X offering 20,000 flying hours.

Therefore you have to look at the cost per hour over both the airframe, maintenance and operating costs to see which is the best fighter to buy.

 

[messiach]

Its much easier & cost-effective to build a brand new one.

It'll be interesting to see how they deal with the Block-Is once they reach 3,000 hours.
3,000 hours is 15 years at 200 hours per year (let's say it's two pilots per plane, each clocking 100 hours per year on the plane and the rest on simulators). How feasible will it be to tear down the old planes and rebuild them into full Block-3s? @Oscar @messiach

 

[MastanKhan]

The figure of 3000 just highlights the manufacturing differences between the west and the east, with most modern western fighters having on average between 6,000 and 8,000 hours and the new F15X offering 20,000 flying hours.

Therefore you have to look at the cost per hour over both the airframe, maintenance and operating costs to see which is the best fighter to buy.

Hi,

That difference in hours shows you the difference in the structural engineering capabilities of fighter aircraft of the two sides.

That difference is obvious as daylight---and cannot be denied.

The real issue is the potency of the the total package---ie---the aircraft---its EW package---its weapons---.

 

[HRK]

for Wire-EDM servicing.

Why an existing JF-17 would need wire EDM .....?? if I am not wrong this technique is mostly used to cut or make tools and complex structure which require ultra precision

plz elaborate in detail (if possible)

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The figure of 3000 just highlights the manufacturing differences between the west and the east, with most modern western fighters having on average between 6,000 and 8,000 hours and the new F15X offering 20,000 flying hours.

Therefore you have to look at the cost per hour over both the airframe, maintenance and operating costs to see which is the best fighter to buy.

That's true, but in the case of the JF-17, the development overhead is substantially smaller and scale (by virtue of lower cost of materials, labour, etc) is much easier to achieve. It's basically the 'eastern method' stemming all the way back to the MiG-21 (around which time the West branched off to develop high-quality airframes, some of which are still flying today, e.g. Mirage III/5). I think if China was to amp up the R&D spending for a high-quality airframe with 8,000+ flight hours, it would get there, but at the commensurate cost.

 

[MastanKhan]

It'll be interesting to see how they deal with the Block-Is once they reach 3,000 hours.

3,000 hours is 15 years at 200 hours per year (let's say it's two pilots per plane, each clocking 100 hours per year on the plane and the rest on simulators). How feasible will it be to tear down the old planes and rebuild them into full Block-3s? @Oscar @messiach

Hi,

Is it possible to make the F16 A/B into an F16 BLK52---?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Hi,

Is it possible to make the F16 A/B into an F16 BLK52---?

The JF-17 Block-III is not an analogue to the Block-30/32 to the Block-5/10/15.

Rather, the JF-17 Block-III shares the same core design of the Block-I and Block-II, but has some different internals (enabling for fully digital FBW, etc).

However, it isn't a fundamentally different fighter like the Block-30/32 line (which spawned the Block-40/42, 50/52, etc) is to the A/B Blocks. There's no new engine, there aren't massive changes to the payload, etc.

I had said this before, but the Block-III isn't the JF-17 equivalent to the F-16C/D or the Gripen E/F -- the latter two are different designs to their respective predecessors.

The Block-III continues with what's there, but brings the essential capabilities (e.g. AESA radar, HMD/S, etc) to the platform.

Actually, the JF-17 Block-III is the analogous equivalent to what the F-16 Block-70/72 is to the Block-50/52, i.e. same core design, but with some different internals that can be added to the older frame via a significant upgrade and/or rebuild.

Alternatively, think of what the Cheetah is to the Mirage III, i.e. substantially improved tech and physical capabilities, but ultimately, built on the same core design (Mirage III), and the proof is the fact that the Cheetah was built from SAAF Mirage IIIs.

The JF-17's strategic imperative was always to be the workhorse fighter that would fly in concert with larger aircraft such as the F-16 and FC-20. Yes, the latter got canned, but be it Block-I, II or III, the underlying design intent is a constant.

That constant will change with Project Azm, which has a different strategic imperative than the JF-17, i.e. genuine autonomy. In other words, there's no expectation of Azm having to work in concert with or rely on another platform, it'll do the essentials and, in turn, will have the necessary range, payload and technology.

 

[khanasifm]

Other place and report jf-17 list 4000 hours and Time between overhaul of 1200 hours f-7 had 800 mirage 1800 for fist overhaul
But this is something that is developed /matured over time

A5 had total life of 1500 with 500 between overhaul and chinese and paf enhanced it and took it further same thing went for ft-5 , f-6s and f-7s

F-16 started with 4000 and went to 8000 and now usaf is taking it to 12000 while Lm has tested and developed various packages to take it up to 20k plus

 

[Thorough Pro]

Why spend more for a jet with 20,000 hour life when the technology is changing so fast and especially for Pakistan who has just started in this field. Its a lot better to make affordable jets for 12/15 years of service and then replace them with better home grown designs so your aviation industry is constantly at work and learning new techniques with every new design.

The figure of 3000 just highlights the manufacturing differences between the west and the east, with most modern western fighters having on average between 6,000 and 8,000 hours and the new F15X offering 20,000 flying hours.

Therefore you have to look at the cost per hour over both the airframe, maintenance and operating costs to see which is the best fighter to buy.

How old is that article? and are those figures for block I or II or III?
I am sure the more Blocks PAC produces, the better it gets both in terms of design, materials and techniques.

Other place and report jf-17 list 4000 hours and Time between overhaul of 1200 hours f-7 had 800 mirage 1800 for fist overhaul
But this is something that is developed /matured over time

A5 had total life of 1500 with 500 between overhaul and chinese and paf enhanced it and took it further same thing went for ft-5 , f-6s and f-7s

F-16 started with 4000 and went to 8000 and now usaf is taking it to 12000 while Lm has tested and developed various packages to take it up to 20k plus

 

[Dazzler]

Mirages have the longest airframe lives it seems. They just go on and on and the French are always watching with intrigue and pride. They never designed that plane to last for 60 years anyway. MRF is doing wonders with them despite lack of spares as they make some inhouse now.

On a serious note, the jf-17 was originally designed to last 4000 hours but AMF/ CAC can enhance that to as many hours as they can. Parts and components will never go scarce for thunder so no hurdles in doubling, or even tripling the frame life. Dont be surprised to see some highly modified version flying around until 2050 or beyond.

 

[HRK]

Other place and report jf-17 list 4000 hours and Time between overhaul of 1200 hours f-7 had 800 mirage 1800 for fist overhaul

If I am not wrong service life of JF-17 was extended in Blk-II

How old is that article? and are those figures for block I or II or III?

Dec-2013 issue of Air International magazine

 

[LKJ86]

then why did our JF-17 went to china for overhauling

Two in China first, and then two in Pakistan.