JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[araz]

I am a fan of the landing gear redesign in the Gripen E that increased internal fuel capacity from 2270 kg to 3400 kg and allowed the aircraft of similar size to the JF-17 to have 3 hardpoints on its fuselage.

With 6 wing hardpoints similar to the JF-17, and 3 on the fuselage plus targeting pod and gun under the two engine intakes, the aircraft can carry loadouts like:
- 7 BVR+2 WVR
- 2 fuel tanks, 5 Meteors and 2 WVR.
- 2 fuel tanks, 2 WVR, 2 BVR, 8x SDB

Adding two more hardpoints to the wing will require further strengthening it and likely reducing space for fuel, but adding them to the fuselage like on the Gripen can actually increase both internal fuel and weapons capacity.

Images for representation:
View attachment 570177
View attachment 570176
View attachment 570175

I think time is of essence in that if I remember correctly redesigning the Gripen cost 10 years in time and brought its price to its current value where it is unable to compete in the market we have targetted. So from our point of view even induction of a DER at the current BVR HP location plus a chin mounted hardpoint will do the trick. To me it seems we need to look into CFTs a lot harder before we look into major redesigns. I think our design philosophy might have been different if we had started buuilding fighters in 70s or 80s. However having started in 2010s means we are nearing the era where 5th generation need to be introduced. So most effort will go in designing that rather than wasting 10 years on a fighter which will become irrelevant if not obsolete in the time it is brought on line, and in the meanwhile our need to replace 100 fighters in 5 years remains unfulfilled.
A

 

[AsifIjaz]

NGs gave life to the gripen just like super hornet to F18s. Since its inception Jf17 took leads from already established design characteristics and implemented them on the airframe e.g. LERX, DSI and IFR. nothing was done which was not tried earlier or was not present in the world. Block 3 have already taken about 3 years to conceive and implement. It will probably take a year more. 4 years was enough to redesign the landing gear or change its location and then to test it (wind tunnel + flight). I believe why it was not done is
a)cost b)power plant c)AVIC/china itself.

The Achilles heel but remains the power plant. RD93MA, if it can give anything close to 95-100 kn with fadec then its worth to change the landing gear which may require slight increase in dimensions just like dual seater vs block 1/2. With the current powerplant we can only achieve or go forward to an extent.

In the current geo-political scenario whether its JF block 4, Azam or any other plane that PAF/PIC wants, till they can get a more powerful and reliable engine from Russia or china there will always be a limitation on what jet we can make or get our hands on. The only option for now is if India ditches Russia big time and Pak + china or Pak + Turkey invite Russia to a new or existing fighter jet project. If reports are anything to go by then Pakistans best bet is to stop at block 3 and continue with china to improve existing thunders to jf17 block 2b, 2cs, 2ds and similarly to 3b, 3c and so on. Block 4 should only be approached if a,b and c points mentioned in 1st para are addressed. We need to but start collaborating with turkey asap.

 

[wulff]

I think time is of essence in that if I remember correctly redesigning the Gripen cost 10 years in time and brought its price to its current value where it is unable to compete in the market we have targetted. So from our point of view even induction of a DER at the current BVR HP location plus a chin mounted hardpoint will do the trick. To me it seems we need to look into CFTs a lot harder before we look into major redesigns. I think our design philosophy might have been different if we had started buuilding fighters in 70s or 80s. However having started in 2010s means we are nearing the era where 5th generation need to be introduced. So most effort will go in designing that rather than wasting 10 years on a fighter which will become irrelevant if not obsolete in the time it is brought on line, and in the meanwhile our need to replace 100 fighters in 5 years remains unfulfilled.
A

fair points. But the Block 3 is already, according to the rumors in here, seeing some degree of these changes, like:
- Redesigned tail
- enlarged inlets
- full fly by wire system and use of composites on the skin
- more optimized internal layout

These are quite likely to affect the flight qualities meaning updated flight controls and more flight testing. When you're doing all this, you're already half-way towards a change like the Gripen E, so why not go all the way. It's also worth keeping in mind that a major part of the development time and budget in the Gripen upgrade was due to the substantial EW and software upgrade.

Obviously all this would have made sense when the Block 3 work was started. An aircraft that is two or three years late, but with say 40% more fuel and with the ability to carry extra air to air ordnance: would it have been worth the wait? I'd say yes.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Compromised maneuverability above 30K feet with 2/3 fuel tanks is as expected - high wing loading.

We need to solve this issue either by CFT's or moving rear LG's into wings same like Gripen NG.

 

[araz]

fair points. But the Block 3 is already, according to the rumors in here, seeing some degree of these changes, like:
- Redesigned tail
- enlarged inlets
- full fly by wire system and use of composites on the skin
- more optimized internal layout

These are quite likely to affect the flight qualities meaning updated flight controls and more flight testing. When you're doing all this, you're already half-way towards a change like the Gripen E, so why not go all the way. It's also worth keeping in mind that a major part of the development time and budget in the Gripen upgrade was due to the substantial EW and software upgrade.

Obviously all this would have made sense when the Block 3 work was started. An aircraft that is two or three years late, but with say 40% more fuel and with the ability to carry extra air to air ordnance: would it have been worth the wait? I'd say yes.

As I have mentioned in my post the changes you are suggesting would mean radical redesign spanning over 7 to 10 years. Just the installation of an AESA took 3 years worth of rejigging and redesigning and testing.
Also mentioned is the fact that we need an economical route to replacement of more than 100 legacy fighters and the redesign suggested and the time and cost involved becomes prohibitive from a lot of these perspectives. Also consider we will be dependent on the parent company to redesign the whole thing and this again would require money which we are struggling with even now.
. Please also remember that the fighter is relevant now but due to rapid advancements in the region in aviation may face obsoletion in 30s to 40s. So what are you trying to achieve at what cost and to what effect? I have also suggested means whereby the same ends can be achieved with a much more economical way and better time and assett management.
The PAF had all the redesign parameters of the Gripen NGF in its mind when it was designing the JFT. This is proven from the fact that PAF made enquiris about the Gripen nd tried it. Some even say that the Gripen was the fighter which the PAF had in its mind while designing the JFT. It would have considered all the permutations and decided on this design for a reason
Regards
A

NGs gave life to the gripen just like super hornet to F18s. Since its inception Jf17 took leads from already established design characteristics and implemented them on the airframe e.g. LERX, DSI and IFR. nothing was done which was not tried earlier or was not present in the world. Block 3 have already taken about 3 years to conceive and implement. It will probably take a year more. 4 years was enough to redesign the landing gear or change its location and then to test it (wind tunnel + flight). I believe why it was not done is
a)cost b)power plant c)AVIC/china itself.

The Achilles heel but remains the power plant. RD93MA, if it can give anything close to 95-100 kn with fadec then its worth to change the landing gear which may require slight increase in dimensions just like dual seater vs block 1/2. With the current powerplant we can only achieve or go forward to an extent.

In the current geo-political scenario whether its JF block 4, Azam or any other plane that PAF/PIC wants, till they can get a more powerful and reliable engine from Russia or china there will always be a limitation on what jet we can make or get our hands on. The only option for now is if India ditches Russia big time and Pak + china or Pak + Turkey invite Russia to a new or existing fighter jet project. If reports are anything to go by then Pakistans best bet is to stop at block 3 and continue with china to improve existing thunders to jf17 block 2b, 2cs, 2ds and similarly to 3b, 3c and so on. Block 4 should only be approached if a,b and c points mentioned in 1st para are addressed. We need to but start collaborating with turkey asap.

A very thorough and well thought out post. I would contend that.
A. Current Russ-Pak Relations are independent of Russ-India relations regarding the RD 93. The changes in the engine give it the thrust of the MA already as per @messiach. So unless WS series comes on line and is adopted, having fully achieved its stated ends with reliability, PAF choice will remain the RD series which it is happy with. The Russ-Pak relation specifically with regards to the RD series will continue . Whether this translates into a newer engine with better thrust in the current decade remains to be seen.
B. The cost element will mean as e xpedient use of funds to achieve the results as our needs and our pockets do not coincide. C. PAF also wanted to kickstart its avaiation industry with a risk free design with minimal complicatio s achieving a BVR capable fighter to replace its legacy fighter. While China has helped, understandably they will not be so forthcoming with changes which could potentially put their ow products at risk by creating a competitive product. So in prfer to move forward PAF will find other sources of collaboration to achieve independence from the Chinese to some extent. This may later give them some independen e in designing nd manufacturing of their own fighters where they may follaborate with multiple providers but not be dependent on any one
The project Azm is where PAF will come into its own.

A

 

[BATMAN]

Since its inception Jf17 took leads from already established design characteristics and implemented them on the airframe e.g. LERX, DSI and IFR. nothing was done which was not tried earlier or was not present in the world.

Just like to add further, PAF also took lead from grippen during the trials trials. Mainly communications, data processing.

 

[messiach]

To add: WS13 is not a copy or improved ver of RD33/93. Nothing has been 'borrowed' from RD engines. There are no 'reliability issues', in layman terms. We want to stay with RD93 is a different story of foreign policy related ghastly diplomatic blunders.
Edit: gripen NG/PG/BG/EG is a vastly over-rated plane, as mediocre as the size of the country. Dont fall for fancy names.

A. Current Russ-Pak Relations are independent of Russ-India relations regarding the RD 93. The changes in the engine give it the thrust of the MA already as per @messiach. So unless WS series comes on line and is adopted, having fully achieved its stated ends with reliability, PAF choice will remain the RD series which it is happy with.

A

 

[Dazzler]

To add: WS13 is not a copy or improved ver of RD33/93. Nothing has been 'borrowed' from RD engines. There are no 'reliability issues', in layman terms. We want to stay with RD93 is a different story of foreign policy related ghastly diplomatic blunders.
Edit: gripen NG/PG/BG/EG is a vastly over-rated plane, as mediocre as the size of the country. Dont fall for fancy names.

WS-13 has an MTBO of just 300 hours.

 

[MastanKhan]

To add: WS13 is not a copy or improved ver of RD33/93. Nothing has been 'borrowed' from RD engines. There are no 'reliability issues', in layman terms. We want to stay with RD93 is a different story of foreign policy related ghastly diplomatic blunders.
Edit: gripen NG/PG/BG/EG is a vastly over-rated plane, as mediocre as the size of the country. Dont fall for fancy names.

Hi,

Thank you for a to the point and clear post---.

Grippen NG upgrade is exceptional in value---.

But it is not a 10 year upgade---. For a JF17---it would be like a 1 1/2 to 2 years at the most---because all the parameters of the upgrade are known.

About 6-7 years ago I wrote the upgrade would cost us around 50 million dollars---. Today we maybe close to a 100 million dollars---.

A simpler upgrade would be removal of the gun and ammo and now you may have a space to place a fuel tank for a reasonable amount of fuel---.

So--@messiach to get the RD93---what did we do---sign over our first born---?

 

[Dreamer.]

So--@messiach to get the RD93---what did we do---sign over our first born---?

Maybe we committed to using rd-93 only so long as russia didn't stop supply.

just guessing.

 

[aziqbal]

So in 2019

PAC is assembling components for 2 x JF17 Block III

Plus 8 x JF17B

We need some photos of PAC to verify this

 

[Deino]

To add: WS13 is not a copy or improved ver of RD33/93. ....

But what is it then? And please don't tell us it is a completely indigenous design that just by surprise looks more or less like an exact copy!

 

[Quwa]

Hi,

Thank you for a to the point and clear post---.

Grippen NG upgrade is exceptional in value---.

But it is not a 10 year upgade---. For a JF17---it would be like a 1 1/2 to 2 years at the most---because all the parameters of the upgrade are known.

About 6-7 years ago I wrote the upgrade would cost us around 50 million dollars---. Today we maybe close to a 100 million dollars---.

A simpler upgrade would be removal of the gun and ammo and now you may have a space to place a fuel tank for a reasonable amount of fuel---.

So--@messiach to get the RD93---what did we do---sign over our first born---?

With the WS13 available and another WS-engine the pipeline, I think sticking to the RD-93 has less to do with the RD-93 in of itself and more, to @messiach's earlier points, with wanting gas turbine technology for the future.

 

[Chak Bamu]

With the WS13 available and another WS-engine the pipeline, I think sticking to the RD-93 has less to do with the RD-93 in of itself and more, to @messiach's earlier points, with wanting gas turbine technology for the future.

She calls it a "foreign policy related ghastly blunder" and that would hardly translate to a wish for ToT. Perhaps @messiach does not consider Russian tech as worthwhile (kind of like Pakistan Steel Mills?).

As far as I am concerned, I believe that we should switch to WS-13 if it offers even marginal improvement over RD-93.

 

[araz]

She calls it a "foreign policy related ghastly blunder" and that would hardly translate to a wish for ToT. Perhaps @messiach does not consider Russian tech as worthwhile (kind of like Pakistan Steel Mills?).

As far as I am concerned, I believe that we should switch to WS-13 if it offers even marginal improvement over RD-93.

I 5hink we have committed ourselves and have been caught in our own commitment. Fledgeling relations that we have establushed will no doubt be harmed by the snub of a changed engine. The other thing which I dont know is what was offered by the red bear in exchange for choosing the RD series. If I remember the original sale was facilitated by china.
A