JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[khanasifm]

You are right, but I will believe it when there is some official specs release. Because not even Su-35 has that long a combat radius on any of its loaded combat mission profiles.

Agree but it could be attack range with stand off weapons

 

[aliyusuf]

Agree but it could be attack range with stand off weapons

That is possible, albeit a non standard way of stating strike range.

 

[Tempest II]

You are right, but I will believe it when there is some official specs release. Because not even Su-35 has that long a combat radius on any of its loaded combat mission profiles.

2,500km is a huge improvement from the 2011 Dubai presentation of 1,400km. 78% improvement. Being Block III, I am assuming this might be with 1 or 2 refuellings.

Further of refuelling and the limitations: https://www.quora.com/How-many-times-do-fighter-aircraft-get-refueled-during-a-mission

Missions that are likely to involve lengthy time on CAP (combat air patrol) quite often will have air-to-air refuelling scheduled, but even then, it would be unusual for a fighter to be refuelled more than once or twice before returning to base, unless it was mission-critical, eg the mission is a long way from the nearest accessible base, or there simply aren't enough aircraft and/or crew to rotate so frequently. Flying fighters is mentally exhausting, because they're usually single-crewman, and there are an enormous number of data and communication inputs, so fighter pilots usually don't do missions longer than a couple of hours.

Let me stress that these are very broad guidelines and widely variable between aircraft types and the requirements of the specific mission.

http://www.ausairpower.net/raaf-707.html

To place the matter of force capability in to context, an F/A-18A with 4,000 lb of bombload (ie 4xMk.83 low drag) and three 315 gal tanks (ie 6,000 lb fuel) and full internal fuel (ie 11,000 lb) has a combat radius of about 550 NM. Refuelling inflight at 450 NM on the outbound leg and receiving about 8,000 lb of fuel, its strike radius is increased to over 800 NM.

o refuelling adds about 45% range in the Aussie scenario. So a couple of refuellings will nearly double the range with a few other factors coming into play

 

[messiach]

We are not baking potatoes here. AeSp is serious business. There's already a jet flying with AESA.

 

[HRK]

2,500km is a huge improvement from the 2011 Dubai presentation of 1,400km. 78% improvement. Being Block III, I am assuming this might be with 1 or 2 refuellings.

View attachment 369212

its not better to speculate anything about this 2500 Km figure now as it could be anything (assuming the stated figure is true) but it is very difficult to believe that its combat radius, as a sudden increase of 1100 KM in combat radius should be difficult without any design change, on the other hand if its Ferry Range then its a decrease of 500 KM ....

But if its Basic Range (only on internal fuel) seems possible as it will moderately increase the range about 700 KM, in current configuration JF-17 can carry upto ~2,500 litter internally both in (central fuselage & in wings) internal fuel carrying capacity may be improved in same way as Gripen NG (current capacity of 3,500 litter of NG from 2,000 litter C/D)

New arrangements of fuel tank & plumbing in central fuselage in JF-17

Old arrangements of fuel tank & plumbing in central fuselage (for some PT aircraft)

 

[MastanKhan]

2,500km is a huge improvement from the 2011 Dubai presentation of 1,400km. 78% improvement. Being Block III, I am assuming this might be with 1 or 2 refuellings.

View attachment 369212

Further of refuelling and the limitations: https://www.quora.com/How-many-times-do-fighter-aircraft-get-refueled-during-a-mission



http://www.ausairpower.net/raaf-707.html

o refuelling adds about 45% range in the Aussie scenario. So a couple of refuellings will nearly double the range with a few other factors coming into play

Hi,

It is still the 1400 km range in A to A mode---remember the oxygen supply was originally for 2 1/2 hours and now it is for 3 1/2 hours ( correct me plz ).

its not better to speculate anything about this 2500 Km figure now as it could be anything (assuming the stated figure is true) but it is very difficult to believe that its combat radius, as a sudden increase of 1100 KM in combat radius should be difficult without any design change, on the other hand if its Ferry Range then its a decrease of 500 KM ....

But if its Basic Range (only on internal fuel) seems possible as it will moderately increase the range about 700 KM, in current configuration JF-17 can carry upto ~2,500 litter internally both in (central fuselage & in wings) internal fuel carrying capacity may be improved in same way as Gripen NG (current capacity of 3,500 litter of NG from 2,000 litter C/D)

New arrangements of fuel tank & plumbing in central fuselage in JF-17
View attachment 369224

Old arrangements of fuel tank & plumbing in central fuselage (for some PT aircraft)
View attachment 369226

Hi,

The Gripen's capacity was increase by moving wheels farther out and folding them into the wing---thus using that space in the fuselage for fuel---.

And then to top it off---the gripen went from round fuel tanks to streamlines rectangular fuel tanks---which by the default of design---carry more fuel.

 

[DrWatson775]

Hi,

It is still the 1400 km range in A to A mode---remember the oxygen supply was originally for 2 1/2 hours and now it is for 3 1/2 hours ( correct me plz ).




Hi,

The Gripen's capacity was increase by moving wheels farther out and folding them into the wing---thus using that space in the fuselage for fuel---.

And then to top it off---the gripen went from round fuel tanks to streamlines rectangular fuel tanks---which by the default of design---carry more fuel.

The current L gear configuration on the JF17 prevents moving hard points 3 and 5 closer to the center for possible addition of another hard point under the wings(structure allowing) and this gear configuration also prevents additional had points under the fuselage.

Overall JF17 is a great achievement but in the end it comes down to what firepower you have.

I have mentioned this hard points issue before and this could have been deliberate to a degree, to get Pakistan invest in and/or just procure a plane with more room for weapons (hint F10/ J10)

 

[khanasifm]

jf 3000 liters internal and 3000 external in 2x1100 and 1x800 liter tanks total 6000 liters for a single engine a/c , it will be nice to have con-formal tanks 2 x 1100 over the fuselage will re leave two pylons for additional load or more fuel

 

[MastanKhan]

The current L gear configuration on the JF17 prevents moving hard points 3 and 5 closer to the center for possible addition of another hard point under the wings(structure allowing) and this gear configuration also prevents additional had points under the fuselage.

Overall JF17 is a great achievement but in the end it comes down to what firepower you have.

I have mentioned this hard points issue before and this could have been deliberate to a degree, to get Pakistan invest in and/or just procure a plane with more room for weapons (hint F10/ J10)

Hi,

The swedes had the same dilemma with the Gripen. So---they modified the fuselage---strengthened the wing---moved the wheels outwards---and solved the issue.

So---the NG design will last for the next 20--25 years.

Now---for the JF17---the Paf will decide what direction it needs to take the JF17---. Would the BLK 3 be coming out with similar changes---???

The make or break would be the electronics / weapons package.

 

[khanasifm]

The current L gear configuration on the JF17 prevents moving hard points 3 and 5 closer to the center for possible addition of another hard point under the wings(structure allowing) and this gear configuration also prevents additional had points under the fuselage.

Overall JF17 is a great achievement but in the end it comes down to what firepower you have.

I have mentioned this hard points issue before and this could have been deliberate to a degree, to get Pakistan invest in and/or just procure a plane with more room for weapons (hint F10/ J10)

There is no issue with adding HP under intakes for ldp or other store like j10, it was mentioned in early phase by acm that it was being looked at and I be live blk3 will have additional HP under intakes as you need now more HP to carry pods as well as air to ground weapons this will require further strengthening of structures and load testing etc

Under wing too it's possible if wing is strengthen and there is room for spacing like f16 the only problem is sd 10 is 200lg class weapon vs say aim120 with only 157kg which will require wing strength substantially improved and hopefully sd10 can be carried on wing tip and lighter short range on new unde wing pylon like f16

 

[Deino]

..

New arrangements of fuel tank & plumbing in central fuselage in JF-17
View attachment 369224

Old arrangements of fuel tank & plumbing in central fuselage (for some PT aircraft)
View attachment 369226

But aren't both images showing different parts ??
The image on top shows a part directly behind the canopy whereas the bottom one an arrangement - at lesat the red circle - close to the tail !

Deino

 

[DrWatson775]

There is no issue with adding HP under intakes for ldp or other store like j10, it was mentioned in early phase by acm that it was being looked at and I be live blk3 will have additional HP under intakes as you need now more HP to carry pods as well as air to ground weapons this will require further strengthening of structures and load testing etc

Under wing too it's possible if wing is strengthen and there is room for spacing like f16 the only problem is sd 10 is 200lg class weapon vs say aim120 with only 157kg which will require wing strength substantially improved and hopefully sd10 can be carried on wing tip and lighter short range on new unde wing pylon like f16

Hi
We are talking about additional hard points for weapons and possibly plumbed( if under wings)as well. The chin hard point will be for a targeting pod and/or maybe ECM pod.

If you invest millions (or more) on a plane and trust it to be the backbone of your fleet , logically it should be able to target and fire at more that 2 targets at BVR range at a minimum - more than 4 would be the least required in this day and age considering the technological and numerical superiority of the most likely significant opposing force.

 

[HRK]

But aren't both images showing different parts ??
The image on top shows a part directly behind the canopy whereas the bottom one an arrangement - at lesat the red circle - close to the tail !

Deino

I have posted my "understanding" which .... may go wrong ....

but would state that after seeing it again n again after enhancing the original pic (original pic is of small size) I came to this conclusion that its the fuel tank which get its position changed due to the installation of IFR probe capability (first pic was posted at PAC official website during the same time when JF-17 16-229 with IFR probe report surfaced), one more thing which need to be remembered that the second pic is of a PT model who's number is not known but must be among the first 3 PTs .... was the same fuel setup & plumbing carried by PT-4 & serial production is not confirmed as I have not seen any other pic of production model with installed fuel tank & open spine other then the one I posted posted above ..... on the basis of this I think the same setup was in use for serial production JF-17s as well because there was no report regarding the change till IFR consideration ....

EDIT: in second pic it may appear near the Vertical Tail but in reality its in line with Wings try to concentrate on Horizontal alignments, back flaps are not attached with the wings (or fully folded) & it appear its just above the landing gear (may be few inches back)

 

[ali_raza]

We are not baking potatoes here. AeSp is serious business. There's already a jet flying with AESA.

which AESA sir

 

[araz]

which AESA sir

She is not a Sir!!!. Secondly the probability is that even if she knew which AESA radar she would not convey this to you on an open forum. Suffice it to say that the AESA Radar is being trialled and no final decision has been made. Given the complexities involved the final contender is likely to be Chinese but nothing is written in stone and PAF wont accept a Chinese offering without ensuring it is at par with the other contenders if not better.
Regards
A