What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

. .
Tejas is designed unstable and gives extreme importance to its computers and redundancy. It's simply a more modern aircraft in virtually every way, in my opinion. No need to ask why. Blk3 will catch up in most ways, but by then, Mk1A will go even further.
It is so modern it cannot fly so has to travel on a thaila. Your Mk17 Z might eventually fly but it has been refused by IAF so no good ramming it down their throat. If you cannot show a fleet of ACs after 40yrs of development and your air force refuses to fly it then thheee is something wrong with it and it is about time you wake up to the reality that it is a failed project. You are comparing a non existent project with a fully matured and integrated platform and putting the latter down,------- shame on your impartiality and assessments.
A
 
.
It is so modern it cannot fly so has to travel on a thaila. Your Mk17 Z might eventually fly but it has been refused by IAF so no good ramming it down their throat. If you cannot show a fleet of ACs after 40yrs of development and your air force refuses to fly it then thheee is something wrong with it and it is about time you wake up to the reality that it is a failed project. You are comparing a non existent project with a fully matured and integrated platform and putting the latter down,------- shame on your impartiality and assessments.
A
IAF decided not to induct any new squadrons of non-AESA fighters. Hence, a few Mk1 had to be forced. No other reason. They were no more interested in simply replacing or augmenting MiGs. So Mk1 lost its chance at mass production.

It didn't take 40 years, but development timeline is irrelevant because who are you comparing it to! There's no other program from that time to compare, since China was already ahead and no other new country has then developed a fighter.

Last post on this topic since going off-topic.

Let me also add that more modern doesn't necessary mean more capable. Mk1 and Blk2 have similar capabilities. Mk1A and Blk3 will have similar capabilities.
 
Last edited:
. . .
Please confirm jf17B also have 3 fly by axis?
Block-1 and 2 FCS systems are different.

This is for Block-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder

The flight control system (FCS) comprises conventional controls with stability augmentation in the yaw and roll axis and a digital fly-by-wire (FBW) system in the pitch axis. The leading edge slats/flaps and trailing edge flaps are automatically adjusted during manoeuvring to increase turning performance.[20] The FCS of serial production aircraft reportedly have a digital quadruplex (quad-redundant) FBW system in the pitch axis and a duplex (dual-redundant) FBW system in the roll and yaw axis.[48]


And for Block-2B

https://quwa.org/2017/12/11/second-jf-17b-prototype-now-flying/
In addition to a tandem seat, the JF-17B incorporates several design changes to its single-seat counterpart. These include a modified vertical stabilizer, dorsal spine (potentially for fuel to compensate for the space lost from the additional seat), enlarged nose and three-axis fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system.

An alleged brochure from the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) claims that the JF-17B also has a longer wingspan (by 0.5 m), potentially indicating a lower wing-loading for reduced take-off distance and increased maneuverability. The JF-17B also has a different materials proportion to the single-seat JF-17, which might indicate greater composite usage.
 
.
IAF decided not to induct any new squadrons of non-AESA fighters. Hence, a few Mk1 had to be forced. No other reason. They were no more interested in simply replacing or augmenting MiGs. So Mk1 lost its chance at mass production.

It didn't take 40 years, but development timeline is irrelevant because who are you comparing it to! There's no other program from that time to compare, since China was already ahead and no other new country has then developed a fighter.

Last post on this topic since going off-topic.

Let me also add that more modern doesn't necessary mean more capable. Mk1 and Blk2 have similar capabilities. Mk1A and Blk3 will have similar capabilities.
You are seriously misinformed and out of context to this thread. This is a thread about JFT.Keep it to that.
A
 
.
IAF decided not to induct any new squadrons of non-AESA fighters. Hence, a few Mk1 had to be forced. No other reason. They were no more interested in simply replacing or augmenting MiGs. So Mk1 lost its chance at mass production.

It didn't take 40 years, but development timeline is irrelevant because who are you comparing it to! There's no other program from that time to compare, since China was already ahead and no other new country has then developed a fighter.

Last post on this topic since going off-topic.

Let me also add that more modern doesn't necessary mean more capable. Mk1 and Blk2 have similar capabilities. Mk1A and Blk3 will have similar capabilities.
MKI are non AESA and have been in production for 10 years and further orders are going to be placed

Issue with tejas is its cost(more expensive than MKI), its maintenance (complicated per reports) and low range due to fuel limitation
 
.
MKI are non AESA and have been in production for 10 years and further orders are going to be placed

Issue with tejas is its cost(more expensive than MKI), its maintenance (complicated per reports) and low range due to fuel limitation
Light Combat Aircraft in cost of Heavyweight Combat Aircraft
 
. .
LKF601E
img-3b3173c7b3437b24b16afe1159ae34a6.jpg
 
. . .
if JF-17 block-3 can match F-16 block 60, than the project can be called successful, otherwise its clearly wastage of money and time
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom