JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Pakistani Fighter]

View attachment 554285

F 16 would had been better

 

[MastanKhan]

If you so sir..may be you have inside information than we dont or may be you have worked out the airodynamics

Below is 90+200+700+600(800liters)+700+200+90 load out = 2.5 tones still less than maximum advertised load out of 4.0-4.5 tones

Problem is endurance ..it need to have enough endurance (not necessarily range)with these missles..it needs more fuel space at least and preferably some upgrade with engine effiency /dry trust

Hi,

After you have posted this picture---now I understand that why you don't understand the PHYSICS of the load---.

 

[ziaulislam]

Hi,

After you have posted this picture---now I understand that why you don't understand the PHYSICS of the load---.

Definitively right there, as I said before sir, i am a physician, not a man of physics

 

[Mrc]

Definitively right there, as I said before sir, i am a physician, not a man of physics

Fly by wire balances the load....dont argue with this old demented person


Jf 17 is deployed for years with AShM both cm 400 akg and c 802c

 

[ziaulislam]

Fly by wire balances the load....dont argue with this old demented person


Jf 17 is deployed for years with AShM both cm 400 akg and c 802c

Lol pretty sure he doesnt fit criteria of dementia

I guess " a picture is thousand words" no longer works

 

[Aryeih Leib]

Like MCA ?

Should PAF modify JF-17 design to create a new medium weight fighter? Maybe block 4?

 

[Aryeih Leib]

Sir can you explain what is APU
Thanks in advance

there are no oil leaks but a APU smoke, there are lot of pics on net of various fighter jets with APU smoke
View attachment 555802
@Vortex

 

[untitled]

... explain what is APU

Auxillary Power Unit:
It is a small "engine" which can start from the aircraft's battery and can be used to start the aircraft's engine(s) and also drive the generators to provide electrical power

 

[Aryeih Leib]

Thanks

Auxillary Power Unit:
It is a small "engine" which can start from the aircraft's battery and can be used to start the aircraft's engine(s) and also drive the generators to provide electrical power

 

[araz]

Not needed Modified JF-17 and also remember bro former COAS sohail aman said that there is no Stealth or semi stealth version of JF-17, If we modified JF-17 (AIR-FRAME DESIGN CHANGE) then it will become totally new project because it structurally/Mechanically different from JF-17 @jupiter2007

One needs to look at the demands on the platform andhow it achieves them in an economical manner.
We have had a years worth of debate about altering this or that on the JFT without realizing what is involved time and money wise both of which we are in short demand of. So let us formulate a list of demands and see what is realistic.
1. A larger(25%) plane. In my view not possible due to the time required to incorporate changes and engine change. Essentially we are talking about a redesign which would be cost prohibitive.
2. More stealth features including nose redesign. Again a useless endeavour as long as we are hanging armaments on the hardpoints. The stealth features go down the drain when we do that. However whether a change like the silent eagle can be incorporated with armaments inside a concealed compartment needs to be seen. I would like to think it might be doable. Again cost benefit analysis plus availability of relevant tech remain problems. I think with PD radars JFT IS low visibilty already in frontal aspect so does the nose really need redesigning?
3. A more powerful engine. As long as available should be incorporated especially if it comes with longer MTBO and fu3l efficiency. Currently there are none available within the price range that we want.
4. Additional Hardpoints. PAF initially flew the JFT WITHC9 HPs and then abandoned it in favour of 7. Radar functionality, engine power and actual need were probably factors in that decision. A chin mounted HP for pod is probably on the cards. With the availability of DERs for SD10As do we really need more hardpoints? So it might be economically more feasable to have a DER instead of additional HP.
5. MORE LOITERING TIME. I think the problem has been solved to some extent by IFR capability. CFTs have been looked at and if possible should be considered on the puppy. It might allow availability of 2 more HPs . Can we incorporate OB0G to increase loitering time although pilot fatigue will have to be considered
6. Increase underbelly clearance for incorporating weapons on belly HP. HONESTLY NO CLUE whether this can be done or not and how it would effect the plane.Help appreciated.
JFT is a light weight fighter. Trying to convert it into medium weight is a falacy and if required a new platform should be procured.
A

 

[untitled]

I think the problem has been solved to some extent by IFR

How about converting the JF17 or even a Mirage as a buddy tanker? That will increase the number of aerial tankers we have and we will not be solely dependant on the IL78s

 

[ziaulislam]

One needs to look at the demands on the platform andhow it achieves them in an economical manner.
We have had a years worth of debate about altering this or that on the JFT without realizing what is involved time and money wise both of which we are in short demand of. So let us formulate a list of demands and see what is realistic.
1. A larger(25%) plane. In my view not possible due to the time required to incorporate changes and engine change. Essentially we are talking about a redesign which would be cost prohibitive.
2. More stealth features including nose redesign. Again a useless endeavour as long as we are hanging armaments on the hardpoints. The stealth features go down the drain when we do that. However whether a change like the silent eagle can be incorporated with armaments inside a concealed compartment needs to be seen. I would like to think it might be doable. Again cost benefit analysis plus availability of relevant tech remain problems. I think with PD radars JFT IS low visibilty already in frontal aspect so does the nose really need redesigning?
3. A more powerful engine. As long as available should be incorporated especially if it comes with longer MTBO and fu3l efficiency. Currently there are none available within the price range that we want.
4. Additional Hardpoints. PAF initially flew the JFT WITHC9 HPs and then abandoned it in favour of 7. Radar functionality, engine power and actual need were probably factors in that decision. A chin mounted HP for pod is probably on the cards. With the availability of DERs for SD10As do we really need more hardpoints? So it might be economically more feasable to have a DER instead of additional HP.
5. MORE LOITERING TIME. I think the problem has been solved to some extent by IFR capability. CFTs have been looked at and if possible should be considered on the puppy. It might allow availability of 2 more HPs . Can we incorporate OB0G to increase loitering time although pilot fatigue will have to be considered
6. Increase underbelly clearance for incorporating weapons on belly HP. HONESTLY NO CLUE whether this can be done or not and how it would effect the plane.Help appreciated.
JFT is a light weight fighter. Trying to convert it into medium weight is a falacy and if required a new platform should be procured.
A

I hope no.3 materialize through rd 93ma or ws13
I hope no.5 happens too if CFTs can be done but even if only no.3 happens it will significantly help no. 5

So in short i hope PAF finds a slightly better rd93/33mk version will help the program enormously

Rest are actually neither needed nor feasible

 

[MastanKhan]

d
6. Increase underbelly clearance for incorporating weapons on belly HP. HONESTLY NO CLUE whether this can be done or not and how it would effect the plane.Help appreciated.
JFT is a light weight fighter. Trying to convert it into medium weight is a falacy and if required a new platform should be procured.
A

Hi,

If you don't know if it can be done or not---then why write such a long post that it cannot be done and then in the end be doubtful about your post---.

Bt the way---a company called Saab just did it to their aircraft called Grippen---.

Can we increase the size of the fighter aircraft---this question has been asked times and again---and even though we have answers staring back at us right in front of our faces---we draw blank stares and act confused---.

The first and foremost example in front of us are civilian aircraft----passenger aircrafts---.

Take one---Boeing 737---has been extended and enlarged so many times---. They were all good modifications---till Boeing got carried away---started believing in its own sh-it and came up with the 737 Max---.

In fighter---the japanese decided that their primary aircraft must be able to carry 2 AShM weighing 1000 Kg each---. They came up with a modified copy of the F16 in the form of an F2.

Then recently Saab decided to come up with a slightly larger and more functional version of the Grippen and they did the NG or Grippen E.

A design of a functional aircraft is not restricted to the change in its size---. A larger version of the interceptor aircraft may not be as efficient in that form---but would perfectly well for a strike role---.

The aerodynamics of the aircraft are already determined---its flight pattern shows what it can do---.

To increase it shape and size is not rocket science per say---. It is the function of manufacturing engineering that would allow you to increase the structure within a certain percentage size increase with out effecting the overall performance of the flight pattern of the machine in question---.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Hi,

If you don't know if it can be done or not---then why write such a long post that it cannot be done and then in the end be doubtful about your post---.

Bt the way---a company called Saab just did it to their aircraft called Grippen---.

Can we increase the size of the fighter aircraft---this question has been asked times and again---and even though we have answers staring back at us right in front of our faces---we draw blank stares and act confused---.

The first and foremost example in front of us are civilian aircraft----passenger aircrafts---.

Take one---Boeing 737---has been extended and enlarged so many times---. They were all good modifications---till Boeing got carried away---started believing in its own sh-it and came up with the 737 Max---.

In fighter---the japanese decided that their primary aircraft must be able to carry 2 AShM weighing 1000 Kg each---. They came up with a modified copy of the F16 in the form of an F2.

Then recently Saab decided to come up with a slightly larger and more functional version of the Grippen and they did the NG or Grippen E.

A design of a functional aircraft is not restricted to t he change in its size---. A larger version of the interceptor aircraft may not be as efficient in that form---but would perfectly well for a strike role---.

The aerodynamics of the aircraft are already determined---its flight pattern shows what it can do---.

To increase it shape and size is not rocket science per say---. It is the function of manufacturing engineering that would allow you to increase the structure within a certain percentage size increase with out effecting the overall performance of the flight pattern of the machine in question---.

First of all we haven't vast and reliable military industrial complexes and last they have lots of aircraft building experience and pakistan has near 0 experience to R & D and develop its own jets @MastanKhan

 

[MastanKhan]

First of all we haven't vast and reliable military industrial complexes and last they have lots of aircraft building experience and pakistan has near 0 experience to R & D and develop its own jets @MastanKhan

Hi,

Whatever needs to be done would be with the previous partners---.