JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[ziaulislam]

This has got to be wrong. This is in blatant disagreement with reported media and PAC/CAC contract. The work share is still 58:42 respectively and will remain so for the forseeable future.
A

I think simply misunderstanding..clearly cac is still providing the mid+rar fuselage and PAC rest + assembly

 

[khanasifm]

Diamond [emoji815]️ nose [emoji103] wingtip launcher missing

 

[Riz]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...lock-iii-to-have-first-flight-by-year-459214/
The Block III version of the Chengdu/Pakistan Aeronautical Complex JF-17 fighter will have its first flight before the end of 2019.

An official familiar with the programme says that a number of key decisions are set to be made about the programme.

One major element of the Block III upgrade is the addition of an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. The official says a decision on which radar is “around the corner.”

The official says that “another engine is in mind” but declined to discuss specifics. A pilot FlightGlobal spoke with, however, says the RD-93 is working well in Pakistan Air Force service.

While the majority of the Block III upgrades can be retrofitted to existing Block II aircraft, the updated intake will only be available on the new build Block IIIs.

A good number of Pakistan’s JF-17 fleet has air-to-air refueling probes. While this equipment can be retrofitted, the air force does not see a requirement to do so for the entire fleet.

FlightGlobal understands that two radars are in contention: the China Electronics Technology Group KLJ-7A, and an AESA from AVIC that it claims is the first air-cooled example.

The Block III will also have a new integrated electronic warfare suite, with Chinese and European options on the table for this requirement.

Perhaps most notably, the Block III will see the JF-17’s intakes widened to improve air flow. This could also set the stage for a new engine at some point – the JF-17 is powered by the Klimov RD-93 engine.

Flight International's 2019 World Air Force's directory indicates that the Pakistan Air Force has 98 in-service JF-17s.

 

[JohnWick]

Diamond [emoji815]️ nose [emoji103] wingtip launcher missing

What is diamond nose ?

I think wing tip launcher is very useful in providing high angle of attack for the sidewinders .....

 

[sneakerspark]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...lock-iii-to-have-first-flight-by-year-459214/
The Block III version of the Chengdu/Pakistan Aeronautical Complex JF-17 fighter will have its first flight before the end of 2019.

An official familiar with the programme says that a number of key decisions are set to be made about the programme.

One major element of the Block III upgrade is the addition of an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. The official says a decision on which radar is “around the corner.”

The official says that “another engine is in mind” but declined to discuss specifics. A pilot FlightGlobal spoke with, however, says the RD-93 is working well in Pakistan Air Force service.

While the majority of the Block III upgrades can be retrofitted to existing Block II aircraft, the updated intake will only be available on the new build Block IIIs.

A good number of Pakistan’s JF-17 fleet has air-to-air refueling probes. While this equipment can be retrofitted, the air force does not see a requirement to do so for the entire fleet.

FlightGlobal understands that two radars are in contention: the China Electronics Technology Group KLJ-7A, and an AESA from AVIC that it claims is the first air-cooled example.

The Block III will also have a new integrated electronic warfare suite, with Chinese and European options on the table for this requirement.

Perhaps most notably, the Block III will see the JF-17’s intakes widened to improve air flow. This could also set the stage for a new engine at some point – the JF-17 is powered by the Klimov RD-93 engine.

Flight International's 2019 World Air Force's directory indicates that the Pakistan Air Force has 98 in-service JF-17s.

Another engine is in mind and is being evaluated right now just like the Aesa Radars. I have learnt that WS-13 has been designed in such a way that it fits FC-1 without any major modification in the air frame.

 

[Dazzler]

Another engine is in mind and is being evaluated right now just like the Aesa Radars. I have learnt that WS-13 has been designed in such a way that it fits FC-1 without any major modification in the air frame.

It's near identical copy of rd93 with improved thrust, fadec. But it offers very little MTBO.

 

[Tamiyah]

It's near identical copy of rd93 with improved thrust, fadec. But it offers very little MTBO.

Im sorry sir can you explain MTBO in a way a noob can understand it.

 

[Dazzler]

Im sorry sir can you explain MTBO in a way a noob can understand it.

Mean time between overhaul.

 

[AsifIjaz]

With the current engine and more airflow via redesigned (wider) inlets.. Can we expect a slightly better performance from the same rd93 engine???

 

[Sine Nomine]

Another engine is in mind and is being evaluated right now just like the Aesa Radars. I have learnt that WS-13 has been designed in such a way that it fits FC-1 without any major modification in the air frame.

And crew would also learn servicing it next day.

 

[Dazzler]

With the current engine and more airflow via redesigned (wider) inlets.. Can we expect a slightly better performance from the same rd93 engine???

Considering what the pilot of DSI testbed falcon said about the PW engine that felt more like the GE one due to better airflow, it's possible.

 

[Arsalan]

It's near identical copy of rd93 with improved thrust, fadec. But it offers very little MTBO.

Whats your personal opinion on this WS-13 then. Should we go for it for slightly increased thrust or control while compromising on MTBO? Is that additional thrust required or we have some changes in mind or some use of that extra power? I think if current engine can support AESA that we select we might not go for an option with lower MTBO. If anything, PAF holds a lead in sortie time and operate-ability over its adversary. Why lose that!

 

[Dazzler]

Whats your personal opinion on this WS-13 then. Should we go for it for slightly increased thrust or control while compromising on MTBO? Is that additional thrust required or we have some changes in mind or some use of that extra power? I think if current engine can support AESA that we select we might not go for an option with lower MTBO. If anything, PAF holds a lead in sortie time and operate-ability over its adversary. Why lose that!

Will PAF Go with a turbofan offering 300 hours of mtbo? Don't think so. It needs more refinement. The radar offers around 250 hours though, better than tables rc400.

 

[Arsalan]

Will PAF Go with a turbofan offering 300 hours of mtbo? Don't think so. It needs more refinement. The radar offers around 250 hours though, better than tables rc400.

Ofcourse not. What i am asking is do you think that the little extra trust is required and we have some use of it in mind to compromise on MTBO? Will we keep going with RD93 as it is serving us well enough. What will you do if you had the power to make this decision/

 

[Dazzler]

Ofcourse not. What i am asking is do you think that the little extra trust is required and we have some use of it in mind to compromise on MTBO? Will we keep going with RD93 as it is serving us well enough. What will you do if you had the power to make this decision/

Rd93MA would be my choice. Up to 9500kg thrust with AB. It's developed for the thunder to begin with. 93 series was meant for thunder