JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Manticore]

Sorry, but this configuration is plain stupid and the batch 03 will NEVER have such a configuration.

I don't know where these ideas always pop up and why some think enlarging the airframe + wing to fit the WS-10 ... put this is pure fan-art or fan-boys wet-dreams.

Deino

The members are trying to make a jf17xl like the f16xl however it would cost time and money both during R&D as well as during initial operations to iron out the kinks --- j10 would be a better choice

 

[Deino]

The members are trying to make a jf17xl like the f16xl however it would cost time and money both during R&D as well as during initial operations to iron out the kinks --- j10 would be a better choice

I agree and as such I perfectly know what THEY want ... but I'm a bit annoyed that some still think it is that easy to develop an aircraft just as if it would be some kind of LEGO: Oh well, let's make the fuselage slightly longer, enlarge the wing a bit here and there ... widen the fuselage diameter by a wide margin to fit a completely different larger engine ... oh; ok. and add even more pylons - that always sounds good - ... why not add a second tail ??

And et voila we have a completely new aircraft ...

Deino

 

[barbarosa]

If JF 17, F16, and J10 are equal capability then we should look at another platform.

 

[ssethii]

@Deino
I can only confirm visual changes.

 

[MastanKhan]

Deino




Sorry, but this configuration is plain stupid and the batch 03 will NEVER have such a configuration.

I don't know where these ideas always pop up and why some think enlarging the airframe + wing to fit the WS-10 ... put this is pure fan-art or fan-boys wet-dreams.

Deino[/QUOTE]

If the difference between the Gripne and Gripen NG is not fan art---then why wishing it for the JF17 be something outrageous---.

The JF 17 from its inception was originally desinged to take the chinese engine---the WS10 or the WS13----. The JF 17 was NEVER built around an engine---but was given a modular design to accept engines in the similar category and range.

The members are trying to make a jf17xl like the f16xl however it would cost time and money both during R&D as well as during initial operations to iron out the kinks --- j10 would be a better choice

Hi,

Neither it would " cost time " nor " Money "---ie an outrageous amount.

Gripen has done it in less than one year----Catic has done it---the two seater under one year---and that also with a wing that is larger by a meter---.

For an aircraft like the JF17---a modification of increase in a proportional size of around 10-20 % is no miracle out of the skies but good aeronautical engineering---.

The smaller the aircraft---the easier to give it a 10-20 % increase in wing size---larger the aircraft---more difficult it is to increase its---dimensions---.

The fuselage is not changed by that much margin---a 2-3 % increase in size would be more than enough.

Technically---building a two seater from a single seater aircraft maybe more challenging.

But the important part is moving the wheels outwards and having taller wheels---. Same thing---if you put taller wheel struts---the outer wheels would have to move farther out proportionally to keep the aircraft's stability.

It is not rocket science---.

 

[Deino]

If the difference between the Gripne and Gripen NG is not fan art---then why wishing it for the JF17 be something outrageous---.

The JF 17 from its inception was originally desinged to take the chinese engine---the WS10 or the WS13----. The JF 17 was NEVER built around an engine---but was given a modular design to accept engines in the similar category and range.

...
For an aircraft like the JF17---a modification of increase in a proportional size of around 10-20 % is no miracle out of the skies but good aeronautical engineering---.

The smaller the aircraft---the easier to give it a 10-20 % increase in wing size---larger the aircraft---more difficult it is to increase its---dimensions---.

The fuselage is not changed by that much margin---a 2-3 % increase in size would be more than enough.

Technically---building a two seater from a single seater aircraft maybe more challenging.

But the important part is moving the wheels outwards and having taller wheels---. Same thing---if you put taller wheel struts---the outer wheels would have to move farther out proportionally to keep the aircraft's stability.

It is not rocket science---.

Honestly and now I might sound a bit arrogant, but that is plain stupid:

First of all the Gripen and Gripen NG both use the same engine - at least from the same family - which makes it possible to use the standard internal dimensions for the engine bay.
If the JF-17+ would use a similar modified or uprated engine, it would surely be possible, but what You are suggesting is to use a GE F110 or PW F100 as used in the F-16 for the Gripen and that would only be possible by a complete redesign of the fuselage to fit the wider engine.

Did You ever compare the RD-93 vs the WS-10's engine diameter. They both simply do not fit without a major redesign ... which in return would require a larger intake due to different airflow, airmass ...

As such, Your statement is simply plain wrong, ... the JF-17 was never designed to use a WS-10. The WS-13 for sure, since it is an RD-33/-93-development, but surely not the WS-10. Maybe You are mixing both.

In consequence You seem to take it too easy ... it is surely possible to enlarge the diameter, to increase the size of this and that and to get in the end a more or less new aircraft. This however is more challenging than to omit a certain avionics box or tank and add a second cockpit under a new canopy. Just look on most twin-seaters: they are all more or less the same for the rest of the aircraft other than the cockpit-compartment.
The same for taller gear-struts and larger bays ...

Again, it is not impossible ... but surely not that easy and by the way.
If it would be so easy, why is this not done all the way ?? All aircrfat are usualyl designed in a certain way to fit a certain requirement and to a certain budget ... neither the F-16 nor the F-15, were simply enlarged by a few meters or percent. The only aircraft that probably fits this way is the development from the F/A-18 Hornet to the Super-Hornet even if even here they retained a similar engine. But You are proposing is the development of a completele new aircraft that even more is de facto a J-10 with a slightly different configuration. And by the way, who should pay for this all ??

I really sometimes get the feeling that some here think China is willing to pay for all. For each and every new item they cry out "PAF want a few ! "Will we get them?" (just look at the J-10-thread) ... but they simply forget to be realistic.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[PakShaheen79]

Increase in wingspan must not be a problem and if we carefully analyze, almost every major fighter jet which was produced in multiple versions went through such up-scaling. F-18 is another example. JF-17 can't serve in the long run with its current 7 weapon stations. It is obvious that these will have to be increased to 9 if not 11.

 

[MastanKhan]

Honestly and now I might sound a bit arrogant, but that is plain stupid:

First of all the Gripen and Gripen NG both use the same engine - at least from the same family - which makes it possible to use the standard internal dimensions for the engine bay.
If the JF-17+ would use a similar modified or uprated engine, it would surely be possible, but what You are suggesting is to use a GE F110 or PW F100 as used in the F-16 for the Gripen and that would only be possible by a complete redesign of the fuselage to fit the wider engine.

Did You ever compare the RD-93 vs the WS-10's engine diameter. They both simply do not fit without a major redesign ... which in return would require a larger intake due to different airflow, airmass ...

As such, Your statement is simply plain wrong, ... the JF-17 was never designed to use a WS-10. The WS-13 for sure, since it is an RD-33/-93-development, but surely not the WS-10. Maybe You are mixing both.

In consequence You seem to take it too easy ... it is surely possible to enlarge the diameter, to increase the size of this and that and to get in the end a more or less new aircraft. This however is more challenging than to omit a certain avionics box or tank and add a second cockpit under a new canopy. Just look on most twin-seaters: they are all more or less the same for the rest of the aircraft other than the cockpit-compartment.
The same for taller gear-struts and larger bays ...

Again, it is not impossible ... but surely not that easy and by the way.
If it would be so easy, why is this not done all the way ?? All aircrfat are usualyl designed in a certain way to fit a certain requirement and to a certain budget ... neither the F-16 nor the F-15, were simply enlarged by a few meters or percent. The only aircraft that probably fits this way is the development from the F/A-18 Hornet to the Super-Hornet even if even here they retained a similar engine. But You are proposing is the development of a completele new aircraft that even more is de facto a J-10 with a slightly different configuration. And by the way, who should pay for this all ??

I really sometimes get the feeling that some here think China is willing to pay for all. For each and every new item they cry out "PAF want a few ! "Will we get them?" (just look at the J-10-thread) ... but they simply forget to be realistic.

Just my 2 cents.

Hi,

So I made it clear in my post that it was EITHER / OR----. So the discussion ends at the one it was originally designed for---.

There was no reason to further HARP on it---.

The reason for the modification is that for some reason the paf does not want the J10's---. For a sane person---the J10 is an automatic step up---.

Now if they don't want the J10's then they might want to build up on their own aircraft the JF17---.

The thing with taller wheel assembly----it is the Hatf 8 cruise missile---currently barley above the ground---one flat and it would hit the tarmac.

You are going a little over board in your criticism----. The JF17 frame is not done and dusted----meaning that it is going to stay where it is---. It will have to get upgrades and modification---and the change in the size would happen---. It is a part of natural selection.

If it does not get 20%---it might get a 10% increase in wing span and a 2% increase in the fuselage---.

This a standard engineering procedure in mechanical engineering---smaller machines get larger over time---( even though it is aeronautical )

 

[barbarosa]

Hi,

So I made it clear in my post that it was EITHER / OR----. So the discussion ends at the one it was originally designed for---.

There was no reason to further HARP on it---.

The reason for the modification is that for some reason the paf does not want the J10's---. For a sane person---the J10 is an automatic step up---.

Now if they don't want the J10's then they might want to build up on their own aircraft the JF17---.

The thing with taller wheel assembly----it is the Hatf 8 cruise missile---currently barley above the ground---one flat and it would hit the tarmac.

You are going a little over board in your criticism----. The JF17 frame is not done and dusted----meaning that it is going to stay where it is---. It will have to get upgrades and modification---and the change in the size would happen---. It is a part of natural selection.

If it does not get 20%---it might get a 10% increase in wing span and a 2% increase in the fuselage---.

This a standard engineering procedure in mechanical engineering---smaller machines get larger over time---( even though it is aeronautical )

T he suzuki pickup can't carry container.You are right.

 

[princefaisal]

Hi,

So I made it clear in my post that it was EITHER / OR----. So the discussion ends at the one it was originally designed for---.

There was no reason to further HARP on it---.

The reason for the modification is that for some reason the paf does not want the J10's---. For a sane person---the J10 is an automatic step up---.

Now if they don't want the J10's then they might want to build up on their own aircraft the JF17---.

The thing with taller wheel assembly----it is the Hatf 8 cruise missile---currently barley above the ground---one flat and it would hit the tarmac.

You are going a little over board in your criticism----. The JF17 frame is not done and dusted----meaning that it is going to stay where it is---. It will have to get upgrades and modification---and the change in the size would happen---. It is a part of natural selection.

If it does not get 20%---it might get a 10% increase in wing span and a 2% increase in the fuselage---.

This a standard engineering procedure in mechanical engineering---smaller machines get larger over time---( even though it is aeronautical )

2% increase in front fuselage with re-designed J-20 style nose & air inputs, 10% increase in wing area, AESA radar, more composite ratio, RAM Coating, RD-33MKV engine & canards. Semi-stealth 5th gen JF-17X.

 

[Deino]

Hi,

So I made it clear in my post that it was EITHER / OR----. So the discussion ends at the one it was originally designed for---.

There was no reason to further HARP on it---.

The reason for the modification is that for some reason the paf does not want the J10's---. For a sane person---the J10 is an automatic step up---.

Now if they don't want the J10's then they might want to build up on their own aircraft the JF17---.

The thing with taller wheel assembly----it is the Hatf 8 cruise missile---currently barley above the ground---one flat and it would hit the tarmac.

You are going a little over board in your criticism----. The JF17 frame is not done and dusted----meaning that it is going to stay where it is---. It will have to get upgrades and modification---and the change in the size would happen---. It is a part of natural selection.

If it does not get 20%---it might get a 10% increase in wing span and a 2% increase in the fuselage---.

This a standard engineering procedure in mechanical engineering---smaller machines get larger over time---( even though it is aeronautical )

Again I do not wanted to be personnel but the point is: it will remain a dream.

1. Again since aircraft engineering is not that simple and going the step up to a WS-10 means an aircraft in weight and performance similar to the J-10. that's simply a fact.

2. If only a few percentage ... it would require again other modifications too and it is simply not that easy. An aircraft is a complete set of compromises in the end designed to fit nicely together .... just look at the issues HAL has since years with the Tejas; IMO a prime example for adding a bit here, enlarging a bit there, finding out, that the engine is then too weak, so new type of engine .. oh, let us make it longer to counterbalance and so on. In the end either much too late and costly or still not satisfying. So just look at the engine options: either a RD-93/WS-13 sized one or the next step for the WS-10 ...

Again, that does not mean the JF-17 will stand still but Your proposals are still not correct. Why has - besides strengthening measures - the F-16 always remained more or less the same ? From Block 15 to 52 ??

3. The argument concerning larger diameter or heavier stores is indeed valid ... but maybe the JF-17 is simply not the correct aircraft for long range heavy ordnance strikes. It simply is not in the class of the F-16/J-10 or even a Flanker.
So then better invest in the FC-31 for a true medium weight fighter large enough for such stores .. and even with the same engines.

4. Final argument: who will pay for all this ? The PAF, Pakistan alone ??? And how many could the Pakistan afford ?
Or China ? You really don't think that China will pay for a design the exactly fits the same class like its J-10.


Again it is not impossible ... but it is neither economical or operational wise and even less affordable.

Deino

 

[Quwa]

The most I can see in terms of upgrading the JF-17's airframe is to follow the example set by the Gripen in its transition from the C/D to the E/F. But it won't be nearly as significant.

Some weight reduction via composites, some possible work in reducing the empty weight (e.g. swapping out the hybrid FBW with a fully digital one?), possibly find ways to make room for more internal fuel, etc. Whether all or any of this is possible is another story, but I expect these are the design modifications that have the highest chance of being on the feasibility study board.

 

[RAMPAGE]

@MastanKhan @Quwa @Deino

If you guys have been following this thread then you probably know that this JF-17 XL idea was originally proposed by myself on PDF. We assumed that all R&D in this regard would have to be done at PAC. @araz

Now I was told before (this discussion) by a reliable source that all R&D is done at CATIC in China with Pakistani participation. No R&D is being done at PAC. I ignored that information because the source was not, Strictly speaking, Associated with PAC. But it was recently confirmed.

Our Chinese friend will not support this development for obvious reasons and we can conclude from the above that PAC is not yet ready to undertake such a project on its own, Even if our Chinese friends provide us with a NOC.

 

[Viper0011.]

@MastanKhan @Quwa @Deino

If you guys have been following this thread then you probably know that this JF-17 XL idea was originally proposed by myself on PDF. We assumed that all R&D in this regard would have to be done at PAC. @araz

Now I was told before (this discussion) by a reliable source that all R&D is done at CATIC in China with Pakistani participation. No R&D is being done at PAC. I ignored that information because the source was not, Strictly speaking, Associated with PAC. But it was recently confirmed.

Our Chinese friend will not support this development for obvious reasons and we can conclude from the above that PAC is not yet ready to undertake such a project on its own, Even if our Chinese friends provide us with a NOC.

You are forgetting something.....you guys setup one manufacturing unit and a second one just went in. Your engineering labor is too busy producing the numbers needed that there is barely time and availability of people to do R&D. Not to mention, R&D happens AFTER an internal industry has been setup, and people exist with many years of experience.

This is the FIRST time that Pakistan is developing a jet with serious complexity. Plus, this is also the first time an internal system is being designed to support such a massive, global ambition. This isn't K-8 or Mushak aircraft, this aircraft has the potential to become the mainstay of many tier III nation's air-forces due to its availability and affordability. So it has to be capable, meaning having complex systems working together. Which then means something new for the Pakistanis as this 3rd-4th gen jet manufacturing industry didn't exist before.

Now add dozens of millions required to do R&D. If fighter jet manufacturing was that easy that any country could do it, trust me, many other nations like Bangladesh and Ghana would be trying to create a 4th gen jet.

So for now, the extreme need is to put together numbers for the PAF (assembly) and slowly produce close to 90% parts inside Pakistan (the engine will always be Russian or Chinese). Then, later, the block III comes out with more capability. That's when you'll have the time, trained labor and hopefully $$$$ to start your own R&D.

Good thing is, the Pakistanis are working with the Chinese in China, on new features, tech and all. So you guys are participating. When these people come back to Pakistan, they'll help form a jet / advance weapon design and manufacturing R&D group within PAC. I hope this makes sense.

 

[MastanKhan]

@MastanKhan @Quwa @Deino

If you guys have been following this thread then you probably know that this JF-17 XL idea was originally proposed by myself on PDF. We assumed that all R&D in this regard would have to be done at PAC. @araz

Now I was told before (this discussion) by a reliable source that all R&D is done at CATIC in China with Pakistani participation. No R&D is being done at PAC. I ignored that information because the source was not, Strictly speaking, Associated with PAC. But it was recently confirmed.

Our Chinese friend will not support this development for obvious reasons and we can conclude from the above that PAC is not yet ready to undertake such a project on its own, Even if our Chinese friends provide us with a NOC.

Hi,

Pac kamra does not have the ability to perform the research---it does not have the funds---.

This was a Catic project---and Catic cannot be taken out and that is by default----. They are the pioneers of manufacturing this aircraft and all the rights of upgrades and modifications rest with them.

We had a carte blanche that we could work as a team in a first rate fighter manufacturing industry shoulder to shoulder with Catic.

I think that it was a win win situation for kamra.

What I did not understand was--are the chinese refusing to develop this modification or what.