I have no idea why so many guys want modifications in JF-17 structure unless there are serious issues with this jet. If there are any please elaborate it.
Wing design is a compromise and a balancing act, too low wing loading will result in better turn rates but much higher drag. This is why a certain amount of wing loading is actually desirable. Modifying the wing will completely disrupt the requirements this jet is designed for and will actually be a big negative. Also keep in mind very large LERXs which are about 1/5 of each wing although there purpose is not only lift but also AOA.
An AESA radar is very desirable, also IRST in poded version will be much better for certain reasons. Weapon stations is not an issue as there is enough room for two stations for pods on fuselage and most probably be in future block. But expanding the nose will be worst thing to do as this will certainly affect lateral stability and will result in decreasing AOA.
I think that for some reason unknown to me there is an impression here that fuel is low. The internal fuel fraction is adequate and with its configuration of drop tanks JF-17 gives loiter time which is comparable with other jets which provide excellent loiter times such as F-18.
I think present engine and its slightly higher SFC may the issue for guys here talking up about low fuel. Most probably a newer version will get inducted but I doubt that it will be based on a chinese engine, there are still issues with them. It will still be a RD- 93 with FDAC.
The reason this engine has a bit higher SFC at some settings is because it has been modified to have a higher mil thrust. Check other jet fighters specs and you will see that their mil thrust is usually between 50-65% of full thrust. JF-17s engine's been modified to produce a higher mil thrust for a reason. I'll give you a pointer, search for F-16N of US Navy, check its specs, same as any other F-16 block 30, but if you can find, find what was its top speed in certain configuration at altitude at mil thrust.
I have no idea why so many guys want modifications in JF-17 structure unless there are serious issues with this jet. If there are any please elaborate it.
Wing design is a compromise and a balancing act, too low wing loading will result in better turn rates but much higher drag. This is why a certain amount of wing loading is actually desirable. Modifying the wing will completely disrupt the requirements this jet is designed for and will actually be a big negative. Also keep in mind very large LERXs which are about 1/5 of each wing although there purpose is not only lift but also AOA.
An AESA radar is very desirable, also IRST in poded version will be much better for certain reasons. Weapon stations is not an issue as there is enough room for two stations for pods on fuselage and most probably be in future block. But expanding the nose will be worst thing to do as this will certainly affect lateral stability and will result in decreasing AOA.
I think that for some reason unknown to me there is an impression here that fuel is low. The internal fuel fraction is adequate and with its configuration of drop tanks JF-17 gives loiter time which is comparable with other jets which provide excellent loiter times such as F-18.
I think present engine and its slightly higher SFC may the issue for guys here talking up about low fuel. Most probably a newer version will get inducted but I doubt that it will be based on a chinese engine, there are still issues with them. It will still be a RD- 93 with FDAC.
The reason this engine has a bit higher SFC at some settings is because it has been modified to have a higher mil thrust. Check other jet fighters specs and you will see that their mil thrust is usually between 50-65% of full thrust. JF-17s engine's been modified to produce a higher mil thrust for a reason. I'll give you a pointer, search for F-16N of US Navy, check its specs, same as any other F-16 block 30, but if you can find, find what was its top speed in certain configuration at altitude at mil thrust.
Hi,
What is being written needs to be understood in the context of what is being said and not what you are reading.
What you are hearing is---larger size---more fuel---bigger aircraft----what they / me want to say---we need a " shining sword " from somewhere someplace---we asked for a banana---you gave us a potato---.
Potatoes are very nutritious---you can't live without them---but then the bananas have a utility of their own---they prevent you from having muscle cramps---and keep the mobility going.
I am a close to 30 years car salesman---when I say car sales man---at a car dealership in the U S----everyone os a salesman---assist manager, finance manager, sales manager, general sale manager, General manager---they are all salesmen---.
So when a customer says to me I am just looking---I already know that os not what he or she means---what they mean is that they have not found a vehicle yet, they have not come across a sales person they want to deal with, they have credit issues that they are embarrassed to talk about, they owe too much on the trade in vehicle and don't know if they can get out of it, they don;t have a down payment, they don't know if they can get financed--and many other thing.
So---for me to make a sale---I am peeling the information like a layer of onion---one at a time to get to the gist of the matter.
It is the same issue here sir---I understand that you have been butting heads against a wall and trying to make us understand---what we are saying is---that we do not see a RUSTAM PEHALWAN in our air force---.
And we are not that stupid that we do not know that our air force strike package is an incomplete package.
So--thatis where the talk of a larger JF17 come in---.
The wonderful news is that you air force types have fckd up the relationship with the U S so bad---by your stupid threats to the U S congress---that sanctions are another step closer---.
