JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Trango Towers]

Next iteration of JF-17 with a more powerful engine may not be called Mark-IV, but it should be treated as such because that would be the pinnacle of JF-17 evolution.

I agree that J-10C acquisition has put a damper on the JF-17 project, but the planned milestones will not change.

Maybe conformal fuel tanks. Larger wing area. Redesign of the nose section and testing angled surfaces for steath

 

[araz]

And bring block 1 and 3 up to 3 standard


Oh man the smoke...as acombustion engineer this is really annoying. They can fix this. Not that difficult

I know you and I have disagreed over this issue. It remains my humble opinion that this might not be wholly possible.
A. Is it technically possible to convert a 2 axis FBW into all axis FBW? A technical question to which I do not have ananswer. I cannot recall any aircraft that has done so.
B. Fitment of the SAME AESA into block 2 with its tubings for cooling. It maybe possible to put in air cooled AESA though.
C. Addition of chin hardpoint may/maynot be possible. In the bigger scheme of things I do not think this matters much as the underbelly HP can be used for it.
A

 

[Trango Towers]

I know you and I have disagreed over this issue. It remains my humble opinion that this might not be wholly possible.
A. Is it technically possible to convert a 2 axis FBW into all axis FBW? A technical question to which I do not have ananswer. I cannot recall any aircraft that has done so.
B. Fitment of the SAME AESA into block 2 with its tubings for cooling. It maybe possible to put in air cooled AESA though.
C. Addition of chin hardpoint may/maynot be possible. In the bigger scheme of things I do not think this matters much as the underbelly HP can be used for it.
A

My brother I worked several years in combustion chamber design at a very prestigious scientific and engineering institution. Let me tell you in simple terms how this works.
1. All to do with fluid dynamics. Computational fluid dynamics to help determine how to maximise vortex within the chamber. This increases the burn time in the combustion chamber and increase in time means the fuel efficency is increased and the burn is lean generating maximum thrust.
2. The downside is better materials are required as temperatures within the combustion Chambers can reach 1400 degrees plus.

But this is very very possible and nothing Pakistani scientist cannot do.... all to do where where you put the holes for air.
The lack fo smoke also helps with visual identification. Smoke can be seen from miles

 

[Corax]

I know you and I have disagreed over this issue. It remains my humble opinion that this might not be wholly possible.
A. Is it technically possible to convert a 2 axis FBW into all axis FBW? A technical question to which I do not have ananswer. I cannot recall any aircraft that has done so.
B. Fitment of the SAME AESA into block 2 with its tubings for cooling. It maybe possible to put in air cooled AESA though.
C. Addition of chin hardpoint may/maynot be possible. In the bigger scheme of things I do not think this matters much as the underbelly HP can be used for it.
A

Well, that's exactly what Block 3 is, it's essentially a Block 2 with an upgraded FBW, so there's no technical reason why previous Block 1 and 2s can't be upgraded to Block 3 standard in terms of avionics and weapons. The chin hardpoint shouldn't be an issue either, nor should an AESA upgrade. What might not be possible is changing deeper internal structures to increase fuel capacity. The PAF has repeatedly stated that future changes would be added to previous blocks, and given the iterative changes and upgrades, I can't see why this isn't feasible, especially given the PAF's experience with rebuilding and upgrading other airframes, such as the Mirages.

 

[araz]

Well, that's exactly what Block 3 is, it's essentially a Block 2 with an upgraded FBW, so there's no technical reason why previous Block 1 and 2s can't be upgraded to Block 3 standard in terms of avionics and weapons. The chin hardpoint shouldn't be an issue either, nor should an AESA upgrade. What might not be possible is changing deeper internal structures to increase fuel capacity. The PAF has repeatedly stated that future changes would be added to previous blocks, and given the iterative changes and upgrades, I can't see why this isn't feasible, especially given the PAF's experience with rebuilding and upgrading other airframes, such as the Mirages.

A good example is the one between eadlier and later blocks of the16s. Outwardly the same but internally worlds apart. I dont think things are as simple as that.
Things like introduction of AESA required a lot of changes to incorporate tubing for the cooling system. You may be able to put in a air cooled AESA but the regular AESA may not be possible.
Similarly the chin mounted hardpoint may/maynot be possible. I dont know whether the FBW system canbe changed to a full axis FBW.
What I want to ascertIn is what changes will be required and to what extent the airframe will need changing?. Lastly will this be financially viable?
A

 

[Bin Laden]

Maybe conformal fuel tanks. Larger wing area. Redesign of the nose section and testing angled surfaces for steath

And call it jf17 Super Thunder,
Basically taking the same route as F18 Super Hornets,

 

[Corax]

A good example is the one between eadlier and later blocks of the16s. Outwardly the same but internally worlds apart. I dont think things are as simple as that.
Things like introduction of AESA required a lot of changes to incorporate tubing for the cooling system. You may be able to put in a air cooled AESA but the regular AESA may not be possible.
Similarly the chin mounted hardpoint may/maynot be possible. I dont know whether the FBW system canbe changed to a full axis FBW.
What I want to ascertIn is what changes will be required and to what extent the airframe will need changing?. Lastly will this be financially viable?
A

I'm not sure whether the F-16 would be an entirely accurate comparison. The Viper was originally designed for the USAF's LWF programme and was solely intended for A2A purposes, so it wasn't really designed for the upgrades that it eventually received. However, from the very outset the PAF has always stated that the JF-17 was a "plug and play" design, with future upgrades to be readily retrofitted to previous blocks. I guess time will tell what will happen to the Block I/II airframes, but knowing that the PAF likes to squeeze the most out of the lifecycle of its airframes, it's unlikely the Block I/IIs will remain as they are, and will undergo some form of MLU during their lifetime.

 

[ghazi52]

A group photo of JF-17 pilots in front of JF-17 101.

Picture Courtesy: M Usman

 

[araz]

I'm not sure whether the F-16 would be an entirely accurate comparison. The Viper was originally designed for the USAF's LWF programme and was solely intended for A2A purposes, so it wasn't really designed for the upgrades that it eventually received. However, from the very outset the PAF has always stated that the JF-17 was a "plug and play" design, with future upgrades to be readily retrofitted to previous blocks. I guess time will tell what will happen to the Block I/II airframes, but knowing that the PAF likes to squeeze the most out of the lifecycle of its airframes, it's unlikely the Block I/IIs will remain as they are, and will undergo some form of MLU during their lifetime.

Thank you for your response. I agree that we should wait and see. I have intimated what, in my very humble opinion is or is not possible. Right or wrong can be argued.
A

 

[GriffinsRule]

A good example is the one between eadlier and later blocks of the16s. Outwardly the same but internally worlds apart. I dont think things are as simple as that.
Things like introduction of AESA required a lot of changes to incorporate tubing for the cooling system. You may be able to put in a air cooled AESA but the regular AESA may not be possible.
Similarly the chin mounted hardpoint may/maynot be possible. I dont know whether the FBW system canbe changed to a full axis FBW.
What I want to ascertIn is what changes will be required and to what extent the airframe will need changing?. Lastly will this be financially viable?
A

Regarding FBW it is entirely possible. You are replacing mechanical linkages with actuators controlled by computers. F-15 is a good example of this. All it's prior variants did not include fbw at all but the latest one does.

 

[ghazi52]

Fourth JF-17 prototype takes off for its first trial flight - 28 April 2006.

© DPR PAF

 

[arslank03]

Wondering how badly the JF-17 will now be affected by the Russia sanctions, Klimov will be sanctioned, meaning engines will be very difficult to procure, with no movement on the ws-13, operational readiness and deliveries could be significantly impacted now.

 

[ziaulislam]

Wondering how badly the JF-17 will now be affected by the Russia sanctions, Klimov will be sanctioned, meaning engines will be very difficult to procure, with no movement on the ws-13, operational readiness and deliveries could be significantly impacted now.

Not for china
We procure engines from china
And china wont follow sanctions

 

[arslank03]

Not for china
We procure engines from china
And china wont follow sanctions

we had started procuring directly, but yeah, the Chinese can re export to us

 

[Trango Towers]

Wondering how badly the JF-17 will now be affected by the Russia sanctions, Klimov will be sanctioned, meaning engines will be very difficult to procure, with no movement on the ws-13, operational readiness and deliveries could be significantly impacted now.

No they won't. We get them through China. And payments will be made through alternatives to swift