JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Deino]

I keep on instigating them to do some research to bring out some useful debate, but looks like they are all school kids. I am here for a shortwhile.

Pardon, but so far any request to show us these changes you noticed or explain a bit more in detail were ignored! All you did, was posting a request that someone with CAD capabilities might do a better job … and by the way regardless what certain grumpy old man tells you - and I‘m sure it is not too difficult to find out who I am - I‘m not a spy, but only a critical enthusiast with an eager interest to learn, but I‘m not willing to accept everything only since someone says so. For example claims - supported by this genius with huge "engineering background & is not clueless of metal and material" - like an Italian engine being ready for Block 3 or fuel tanks in the cockpit walls are IMO unlikely or plain impossible.

If I‘m wrong, then it‘s fine and I have no problem to admit and apologise, but not without a proper prove.

Again, I‘m eager to learn and I try my best to do so like several others too … as such, to only ridicule us as stupid „school boys“ since we are not able to see those mentioned major changes based on a short cryptically sentence is IMO unfair and unworthy for a professional and senior member.

Hi,
He has an extremely poor engineering background & is clueless of metal and material.

Indeed, but at least I never claimed to know everything but anyway I have two working eyes and neither do I see a wider span with different aspect ratio, nor a larger, wider rear fuselage , a larger radome with LO features or even a taller landing gear.

As such I‘m still waiting for explanations or even better proof by images, otherwise I‘m not convinced. If this in return is for your proof again, that I‘m only a stupid schoolboy, then it is fine and I must accept this, but it only raises my concerns not to believe in such claims.

 

[Aesterix]

I suspect we will see a dozen delivered to PAF in March not before.
A

Total delivery was to be 50 by 2024. As per AIN article published last year.
So 12 per year sounds about right.

 

[[--Leo--]]

Any one can tell me if new engine is integrated how much time it will take for maturity ... like they have to develop full fly by wire etc

 

[Chak Bamu]

Pardon, but so far any request to show us these changes you noticed or explain a bit more in detail were ignored! All you did, was posting a request that someone with CAD capabilities might do a better job … and by the way regardless what certain grumpy old man tells you - and I‘m sure it is not too difficult to find out who I am - I‘m not a spy, but only a critical enthusiast with an eager interest to learn, but I‘m not willing to accept everything only since someone says so. For example claims - supported by this genius with huge "engineering background & is not clueless of metal and material" - like an Italian engine being ready for Block 3 or fuel tanks in the cockpit walls are IMO unlikely or plain impossible.

If I‘m wrong, then it‘s fine and I have no problem to admit and apologise, but not without a proper prove.

Again, I‘m eager to learn and I try my best to do so like several others too … as such, to only ridicule us as stupid „school boys“ since we are not able to see those mentioned major changes based on a short cryptically sentence is IMO unfair and unworthy for a professional and senior member.



Indeed, but at least I never claimed to know everything but anyway I have two working eyes and neither do I see a wider span with different aspect ratio, nor a larger, wider rear fuselage , a larger radome with LO features or even a taller landing gear.

As such I‘m still waiting for explanations or even better proof by images, otherwise I‘m not convinced. If this in return is for your proof again, that I‘m only a stupid schoolboy, then it is fine and I must accept this, but it only raises my concerns not to believe in such claims.

Deino, ignore MK. He has an axe to grind & everyone knows it. I would advise you to not respond to him at all.

@messiach is right about the dihedral angle of the main wing. You can see it on the overlapped images of Block II & Block III. I don't want to start another debate until more information / clearer pictures come out, but I do notice at least minor changes. However, I do not think PAC / PAF would list the changes & their impact on performance for understandable reasons. Such information would be discovered slowly.

If we see Ra'ad II ALCM integrated on JF-17, we would know for sure that certain changes have taken place. So let us wait & see.

 

[Aesterix]

Deino, ignore MK. He has an axe to grind & everyone knows it. I would advise you to not respond to him at all.

@messiach is right about the dihedral angle of the main wing. You can see it on the overlapped images of Block II & Block III. I don't want to start another debate until more information / clearer pictures come out, but I do notice at least minor changes. However, I do not think PAC / PAF would list the changes & their impact on performance for understandable reasons. Such information would be discovered slowly.

If we see Ra'ad II ALCM integrated on JF-17, we would know for sure that certain changes have taken place. So let us wait & see.

But.....I am the one with an actual axe , which is actually used.
Look at my profile picture

 

[TNT]

Some people think of RAM coating as magic paint that can make the plane disappear. In reality it can only give 4 to 8℅ rcs reduction. The main rcs reduction can only be achieved through design.

 

[GriffinsRule]

Some people think of RAM coating as magic paint that can make the plane disappear. In reality it can only give 4 to 8℅ rcs reduction. The main rcs reduction can only be achieved through design.

RCS paints are improving as well. There was an article/thread posted not long ago about the latest Have Glass V paint schemes for F-16 now offer reduction in detection ranges by over 30%. And this is with only 60% of the surface area covered with the new paint due to cost and time for paint to cure.

The following article states "Have Glass V F-16 will, on average, have a 1.2m² radar cross section, compared with about 5m² for an ‘untreated’ F-16, straight off the line."

Have Glass: Making the F-16 less observable

You can’t turn an F-16 into a stealth fighter, it will always show up on enemy radar, but by reducing its radar signature, you can make it a lot less visible. We explain how the USAF has set about

www.key.aero

 

[MastanKhan]

Some people think of RAM coating as magic paint that can make the plane disappear. In reality it can only give 4 to 8℅ rcs reduction. The main rcs reduction can only be achieved through design.

Hi,

Really---. And dyou don't know what the thick coat of paint does for the F-22---.

Any idead how thick the paint is on the F-22---you need to take it off with a chiesel.

I posted a picture on this forum a few years ago. Find it and you will learn something different.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

@Quwa @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @JamD
The US is pressuring arg to drop the jf-17 buy and instead buy used block 50s lol.

they’re sending a team to evaluate the jf17 soon, but I’d probably lower your expectations lol, who would have guessed.

that move by USA wont please UK.
UK actively blocks even small military sales to Argentine through its diplomatic relations and pressure. if USA really cares about anyone else other than it self then its Israel, UK and KSA.

 

[khanasifm]

https://www.uecrus.com/eng/products/military_aviation/rd93/

 

[Shabi1]

@Quwa @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @JamD
The US is pressuring arg to drop the jf-17 buy and instead buy used block 50s lol.

they’re sending a team to evaluate the jf17 soon, but I’d probably lower your expectations lol, who would have guessed.

Really hoping this deal doesn't go ahead and either China proposes JL-10/L-15 or JL-9 or it goes to Russia instead. UK has it's own version of CATSA, so any country/company selling arms to Argentina will have to face repercussions and suppliers of UK origin will be prohibited to sell to them. US, Israel, Spain and S.Korea have all backed out already.

Even though any Argentinian deal will be via China, this could create complications for JF-17 project and PAC Kamra in the long run as we like to keep doors open for UK suppliers. The risks out way the potential gains.

 

[Deino]

Deino, ignore MK. He has an axe to grind & everyone knows it. I would advise you to not respond to him at all.

@messiach is right about the dihedral angle of the main wing. You can see it on the overlapped images of Block II & Block III. I don't want to start another debate until more information / clearer pictures come out, but I do notice at least minor changes. However, I do not think PAC / PAF would list the changes & their impact on performance for understandable reasons. Such information would be discovered slowly.

If we see Ra'ad II ALCM integrated on JF-17, we would know for sure that certain changes have taken place. So let us wait & see.

Thanks my friend for your advice, I try to ignore him, but sometimes

Anyway ... concerning @messiach's note of the "the dihedral angle of the main wing", this indeed may be, but I still see no hints towards a different aspect ratio or anyway larger wing?!

 

[ghazi52]

It's all about CURVES

 

[ghazi52]

 

[Windjammer]