JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Maxpane]

Maam is it block 3?

 

[air marshal]

http://falcons.pk/photo/JF-17-Thunder-Block-2/1493

 

[khanasifm]

Looks like block3 is fast shaping up very well. I am in PK thesedays.

Statement Based on ?? Did I miss a previous post ?

 

[MastanKhan]

Looks like block3 is fast shaping up very well. I am in PK thesedays.

Sahiba,

Aap kay aik line kay jumlay yahaan pay khalbali macha daytay
hein---

 

[AsifIjaz]

Just a noobish question... how probable is it to form a naval / a strike version of JF17C--- with 2 engines, rd93 or rd93MA,

--- 2 engines requiring wider / redesigned fuselage
--- thus requiring more wing area meaning more hard points
--- may be 1/2 new mid frame or chin mounted hard points for pods / ECM / ELINT
--- redesigned fuselage, wing area and tail thus translating to more space for internal fuel
--- other than the above the aircraft can have similar components like that of block 3 or JF17B i.e. same engine, aesa (KLJ7A with side mounted arrays), same ejection seats, same environment management / OBOG, same arsenal but obviously more mtow.

The above would cost at the very least the same as the cost spent on jf17 in early 2000s but that would be a one time expense. Commonality with block 3 / JF17B will but mean comparatively easier maintenance and lower cost over the life of the aircraft. Pessimistically speaking even a 50% commonality will be a good achievement. We already have ground facilities and maintenance available for thunders hence induction and assimilation would be easier. Compared to the induction of J10, JH7b or any flanker or its chinese clone this factor may turn out to be better suited for Pakistan from an economic point of view. Project Azm via chinese / turkish collaboration can then supplement later thus PAF would essentially be a 3 aircraft airforce (Viper, Thunder and Azm).

The development work can be started in 2020 and can be finished in next 3/4 years PAC is busy with block 3 and jf17B production. The aircraft would be better suited for asean countries and for countries already operating thunders by then. Naval thunders (with naval arsenal) can be based in karachi, gawadar, bholari etc and a couple of units per other squadron can be used as jf17 with limited but (better than block 3) ECM / ELINT capability.

I am sure its doable but is the above possible with the current air frame or design of block 3 or JF17B acting as a base model.

 

[MastanKhan]

Just a noobish question... how probable is it to form a naval / a strike version of JF17C--- with 2 engines, rd93 or rd93MA,

--- 2 engines requiring wider / redesigned fuselage
--- thus requiring more wing area meaning more hard points
--- may be 1/2 new mid frame or chin mounted hard points for pods / ECM / ELINT
--- redesigned fuselage, wing area and tail thus translating to more space for internal fuel
--- other than the above the aircraft can have similar components like that of block 3 or JF17B i.e. same engine, aesa (KLJ7A with side mounted arrays), same ejection seats, same environment management / OBOG, same arsenal but obviously more mtow.

The above would cost at the very least the same as the cost spent on jf17 in early 2000s but that would be a one time expense. Commonality with block 3 / JF17B will but mean comparatively easier maintenance and lower cost over the life of the aircraft. Pessimistically speaking even a 50% commonality will be a good achievement. We already have ground facilities and maintenance available for thunders hence induction and assimilation would be easier. Compared to the induction of J10, JH7b or any flanker or its chinese clone this factor may turn out to be better suited for Pakistan from an economic point of view. Project Azm via chinese / turkish collaboration can then supplement later thus PAF would essentially be a 3 aircraft airforce (Viper, Thunder and Azm).

The development work can be started in 2020 and can be finished in next 3/4 years PAC is busy with block 3 and jf17B production. The aircraft would be better suited for asean countries and for countries already operating thunders by then. Naval thunders (with naval arsenal) can be based in karachi, gawadar, bholari etc and a couple of units per other squadron can be used as jf17 with limited but (better than block 3) ECM / ELINT capability.

I am sure its doable but is the above possible with the current air frame or design of block 3 or JF17B acting as a base model.

Hi,

Supposedly you are a pharmacist---when your 6 months old baby daughter is sick---you go to the drug store to buy the existing medicine---.

You don't go out and start creating a new medicine for her---because her survival is immediate---. It may take years to create a medicine and then get approval from the FDA---.

If you want to design a new aircraft---it is a 15-20 years from start to integration process before you start to build up numbers---.

So---it is better to get something that exists in the market---and then you can plan to build your own if you think that is what you want to do.

 

[AsifIjaz]

Hi,

Supposedly you are a pharmacist---when your 6 months old baby daughter is sick---you go to the drug store to buy the existing medicine---.

You don't go out and start creating a new medicine for her---because her survival is immediate---. It may take years to create a medicine and then get approval from the FDA---.

If you want to design a new aircraft---it is a 15-20 years from start to integration process before you start to build up numbers---.

So---it is better to get something that exists in the market---and then you can plan to build your own if you think that is what you want to do.

Thanks for the reply but jf17b based upon the same design has taken less than 3 years from start to finish. Its flying out there and hopefully in next 2 years it would start getting inducted in numbers. Since a twin engine would be considerably different hence we can safely say 5 / 7 years in all and thus an induction around 2025/26.

Secondly u cant compare apple with oranges.. A pharmacy / NDA example can not used in aeronautics. But since you were kind enough to post an answer hence plz remember
klarithromycin to klarithromycin XL,
cetrizine to Levocetrizine and.,
loratidine to desloratidine..
All these variations of parent compound with better, longer or enhanced efficacy took less than 4 years from start to fda approval. Hence just based on pharmacy example it is doable.

 

[MastanKhan]

Thanks for the reply but jf17b based upon the same design has taken less than 3 years from start to finish. Its flying out there and hopefully in next 2 years it would start getting inducted in numbers. Since a twin engine would be considerably different hence we can safely say 5 / 7 years in all and thus an induction around 2025/26.

Secondly u cant compare apple with oranges.. A pharmacy / NDA example can not used in aeronautics. But since you were kind enough to post an answer hence plz remember
klarithromycin to klarithromycin XL,
cetrizine to Levocetrizine and.,
loratidine to desloratidine..
All these variations of parent compound with better, longer or enhanced efficacy took less than 4 years from start to fda approval. Hence just based on pharmacy example it is doable.

Hi,

Smart guy---.

Thank you for your post---. Those medications were of a similar nature---.

You have answered your question---BLK3 is a progression of BLK2 design.

 

[AsifIjaz]

Hi,

Smart guy---.

Thank you for your post---. Those medications were of a similar nature---.

You have answered your question---BLK3 is a progression of BLK2 design.

Well it was and still is a point of discussion. Secondly i agree that block3 / jf17B is an extension or progression of block 2 but tht is precisely the reason for my assumption that time for first flight will move from 3 years to 6 years.
And this brings me back to my initial question... Can the basic airframe of jf17B be used as a base model for a twin engine configuration so as to bring maximum similarity with B version or block 3. The aim is to bottleneck or milk the same base airframe albeit with many structural or aerodynamic changes. I would never ask this question for mirage or f7pg as we do not manufacture them.

 

[MastanKhan]

Well it was and still is a point of discussion. Secondly i agree that block3 / jf17B is an extension or progression of block 2 but tht is precisely the reason for my assumption that time for first flight will move from 3 years to 6 years.
And this brings me back to my initial question... Can the basic airframe of jf17B be used as a base model for a twin engine configuration so as to bring maximum similarity with B version or block 3. The aim is to bottleneck or milk the same base airframe albeit with many structural or aerodynamic changes. I would never ask this question for mirage or f7pg as we do not manufacture them.

Hi,

There is no reason for a twin engine JF17---. It already exists---it is called J31----.

Now---if you want a stealth single engine---that I can understand---.

But that twin engine does not serve the same purpose as a JH7A. The JH7 can carry a very heavy load---plus it has a long flight radius---. If it can be modified to be refuelled in air---that woud be a massive force multiplier---.

A twin engine JF17 cannot carry that load---.

The most important aspect of the JH7A engine and its design is its low low flying capability plus its heavy load carrying capacity---thru its flight plan---which is a must for strike over the ocean targets---or targets on the surface of the ocean...

One of our BANNED bangladeshi colleague had done some research on why I am in favor of the JH7A came up with a wonderful / knowledgeable article on the subject matter---which I presume went over the heads of majority of the readers---.

Low flight comsumes a lots of fuel---the JH7's engines were designed for that very purpose---where they were most efficient---. The wing design of the JH7's is styled for low low flight---the JF17 is not a low flying aircraft---and neither is the F16 or the SU series---.

The F111 was the most feared aircraft by the russians---because they could not find it---. It was the ultimate low flight capable aircraft---the JH7 is a true copy of that aircraft minus the swing wings---.

Many thoughtless posters post over here that it was tested and rejected 30 years ago---. These fools don't realize that new modern standoff strike weapons have given new life to aircraft like the JH7's---.

If they did not---the world number one air force---the USAF would not have upgraded their 50 years old B52 bombers for these new tasks---to launch these weapons. And these weapons would be launched from this aircraft either thru their own mechanism or thru the assistance of stealth or surveillance aircraft---.


You have to ask a question---in weapons systems---why do americans succeed where others fail.

Their re-furbishment of the B52's to launch these modern weapons is a marvel of a modern war fighting machine---. The ability to use the B1 bombers as BVR trucks by the 5th gen aircraft is an out of the box thinking---.

That is what Pakistan needs---. It has an enemy 5 times its size and multiple times of resource---.

 

[AsifIjaz]

Jf17 is non stealth and so would be its twin engine.. I am sure a non stealth twin engine thunder would still be cheaper than a j31.
Secondly if made twin engine the aiframe has to be enlarged meaning strengthening the wing roots and overall airframe and thus more hard points..
Jh7a might b more capable, designed from scratch but that is precisely why it might not be required or is an overkill for defensive doctrine of paf.
A twin engine with lets say mere 3500 kg or more mtow weight on extra hard points, more internal fuel and with more ecm might sit somewhere between a current jf17 and a jh7a. This if achieved with commonality with thunders might work for paf from an economic point of view. If we had even 30bn in the bank then i would never raise this question.
U see the very reason i asked this is that the earliest our economy would improve and more funds start becoming available would be around 2022 or 23. We can not induct anything new till then or immediately afterwards as infrastructure set up only will be too exhaustive. If we start work around 2023 then surely we are looking at a foreign aircraft which will do anything but improve the local engineering base. Improve or improvise thunders and u end up with an acceptable product.... Not best but ticks most boxes esp the ones related to the local industrial base and low cost of maintenance. A crude example can be gripen NG which remained single engine, vipers becomibg F1 or hornet becoming super hornets. All above were different aircrafts with nothing similar but the name... If we can replicate half of what was achieved above but with maximum similarity then why not. I guess the benefits outweigh the shortcomings compared to a newer, more capable aircraft (say jh7a) requiring an entirely different infrastructure and maintenance base.

 

[MastanKhan]

Jf17 is non stealth and so would be its twin engine.. I am sure a non stealth twin engine thunder would still be cheaper than a j31.
Secondly if made twin engine the aiframe has to be enlarged meaning strengthening the wing roots and overall airframe and thus more hard points..
Jh7a might b more capable, designed from scratch but that is precisely why it might not be required or is an overkill for defensive doctrine of paf.
A twin engine with lets say mere 3500 kg or more mtow weight on extra hard points, more internal fuel and with more ecm might sit somewhere between a current jf17 and a jh7a. This if achieved with commonality with thunders might work for paf from an economic point of view. If we had even 30bn in the bank then i would never raise this question.
U see the very reason i asked this is that the earliest our economy would improve and more funds start becoming available would be around 2022 or 23. We can not induct anything new till then or immediately afterwards as infrastructure set up only will be too exhaustive. If we start work around 2023 then surely we are looking at a foreign aircraft which will do anything but improve the local engineering base. Improve or improvise thunders and u end up with an acceptable product.... Not best but ticks most boxes esp the ones related to the local industrial base and low cost of maintenance. A crude example can be gripen NG which remained single engine, vipers becomibg F1 or hornet becoming super hornets. All above were different aircrafts with nothing similar but the name... If we can replicate half of what was achieved above but with maximum similarity then why not. I guess the benefits outweigh the shortcomings compared to a newer, more capable aircraft (say jh7a) requiring an entirely different infrastructure and maintenance base.

+

Hi,

This fetish of building " our own aircraft " must end---.

Grippen NG is not a crude example---. It is a fine example---.

 

[AsifIjaz]

+

Hi,

This fetish of building " our own aircraft " must end---.

Grippen NG is not a crude example---. It is a fine example---.

I wont call it fetish. One has to start somewhere, look and develop from within. Its kind of rejuvination or reincarnation of your true self. A prime example can be turkey in 2020s and china in late 80s to current time.
If small steps prevent you from leaps now but will have u running in a few years then the shortcomings faced now are worth it.

 

[Mrc]

This fetish of building " our own aircraft " must end---.

So we shud just go and buy off shelf like arabs do??

 

[MastanKhan]

I wont call it fetish. One has to start somewhere, look and develop from within. Its kind of rejuvination or reincarnation of your true self. A prime example can be turkey in 2020s and china in late 80s to current time.
If small steps prevent you from leaps now but will have u running in a few years then the shortcomings faced now are worth it.

Hi,

The need of this type of aircraft is now---.