JF-17B Updates, News & Discussion

[Thorough Pro]

No! it was not a deception, it has been marketed as two or three at the price of one western and it is being sold at that price. It is a low-cost capable fighter, not a cheap fighter, the value is in the fighting capability not in the finish

Hi,

I did not want to say it---but here it is.

The concept LOW COST was a DECEPTION right from the gitgo---. People having started to relate it to CHEAP and such is not the case.

The aircraft was designed to take on the enemy aircraft in service and future aircraft that the enemy would be getting---so how could it be cheap---.

All the gadgets that this aircraft has---are the best available to Paf---the gadgets are not cheap---neither the seat, the display or the weapons and weapon systems.

The only thing " cheap " over here is the labor. There are no compromises on structure or material used or quality of workmanship---so where does cheap come from.

It was just an illusion created to keep the aircraft UNDERRATED to deceive the enemy---and that is where the Paf has been successful.


Hi,

Absolutely---you are correct---.

So---there must be a reason somewhere in the design stage---why it was chosen---.

 

[MastanKhan]

No! it was not a deception, it has been marketed as two or three at the price of one western and it is being sold at that price. It is a low-cost capable fighter, not a cheap fighter, the value is in the fighting capability not in the finish

God almighty,

You need to grow up and stop living in innocence---.

Design function and utility are different than marketing---.

 

[GriffinsRule]

I am an aerospace engineer. Graduated from Cranfield institute of tech with a masters in aircraft design and I can say with years of experience in design that you can say all you like it's doesn't matter. As a structural engineer I have done work on the design of the leading edge and trailing structures of the inner wing of the a310, a320 and some work on the a330. I have also worked on the helmet mounted system for the aeuropean fighter aircraft that minimises injuries during ejection and reduced blackouts. That's aside from the fact I f around on PDF

If you examine say the mig 21 you will see it's a supersonic fighter without the expensive sleek lines of Western fighters yet its one of the most successful designs. It may not look pretty and I agree with you but PAF isn't about being pretty.
Regarding personal...go back and look at what you wrote in reply to my initial post. If you can't take it don't dish it.

First off I did go back to my original post, and there was nothing personal in it. Just a commentary of how most Pakistanis are okay with below par designs as something better might take extra effort or cost. So no there was no dishing out, but I now can set the bar of expectation from you despite your informative posts before.

Not being okay with design choices like those hinges is exactly what it will take if we expect the NGF to be more than just good enough. I don't even think PAC designed these hinges or had any input whatsoever in the design of the two-seater. We basically took whatever the Chinese created to meet the bare minimum requirements by PAF. However, I feel they should have asked for better.

Here again, your qualifications are great, but that does not mean that it was not a poor design choice by PAF/CATIC. And in reading some of the commentary, it seems to me that if the attitude is prevalent in Pakistan. We also see if not just in the JF-17 but other programs in Pakistan too.

But before I digress, here is another example of cutting corners with the Thunder program, that has always bothered me. I don't even think the fix would have been that much to ask for, ie a simple plastic covering for all the cables and the sharp corners which most certainly would not just look better, but will definitely reduce the radar signature. (before people jump up and say it doesn't matter, every little thing matters as they have an additive effect).

What the pictures below shows is not a commentary on JF-17 but more so on us Pakistanis. We seem to be okay with something which every nation that is producing aircraft deemed not good enough. And this attitude will only make it impossible for whatever our NGA is to be up to mark. So lets not jump on posters that point out the glaring design choice on the twin-seater which should not have been acceptable in any circumstance.

Now compare this to other 4th generation aircraft designed in the 70s and compare to what we came up with in the 2000s.

F-18C

F-16

F-15

Mirage 2000

Mig-29

Gripen

and last but not least, Tejas

 

[khanasifm]

Some folks need to get a life [emoji81]

 

[Trango Towers]

First off I did go back to my original post, and there was nothing personal in it. Just a commentary of how most Pakistanis are okay with below par designs as something better might take extra effort or cost. So no there was no dishing out, but I now can set the bar of expectation from you despite your informative posts before.

Not being okay with design choices like those hinges is exactly what it will take if we expect the NGF to be more than just good enough. I don't even think PAC designed these hinges or had any input whatsoever in the design of the two-seater. We basically took whatever the Chinese created to meet the bare minimum requirements by PAF. However, I feel they should have asked for better.

Here again, your qualifications are great, but that does not mean that it was not a poor design choice by PAF/CATIC. And in reading some of the commentary, it seems to me that if the attitude is prevalent in Pakistan. We also see if not just in the JF-17 but other programs in Pakistan too.

But before I digress, here is another example of cutting corners with the Thunder program, that has always bothered me. I don't even think the fix would have been that much to ask for, ie a simple plastic covering for all the cables and the sharp corners which most certainly would not just look better, but will definitely reduce the radar signature. (before people jump up and say it doesn't matter, every little thing matters as they have an additive effect).

What the pictures below shows is not a commentary on JF-17 but more so on us Pakistanis. We seem to be okay with something which every nation that is producing aircraft deemed not good enough. And this attitude will only make it impossible for whatever our NGA is to be up to mark. So lets not jump on posters that point out the glaring design choice on the twin-seater which should not have been acceptable in any circumstance.

View attachment 751222

View attachment 751223

Now compare this to other 4th generation aircraft designed in the 70s and compare to what we came up with in the 2000s.

F-18C
View attachment 751224

F-16
View attachment 751225

F-15
View attachment 751227

Mirage 2000
View attachment 751229

Mig-29
View attachment 751230

Gripen
View attachment 751231

and last but not least, Tejas
View attachment 751232

When you make general assements about people and bracket them in quotes that you deem relevant then they will take your comments personally. Its like me saying you are from a nation of pathetic inept people who steal at every opportunity.... I am just saying right? Not you is it. You won't be offended will u?

Now regarding your pictures..did I not say I agree with you that its not ideal in terms of aesthetics but in terms of practical solution there is no issue. I think this whole topic is a waste of bandwidth. This matters to you because you are stuck on the hinge showing. As an engineer it's pointless arguing about an effective solution that's works. You are a follower by nature that's why you posted so many pictures to prove a point that we should follow other....Good luck with that

 

[ummarz]

First off I did go back to my original post, and there was nothing personal in it. Just a commentary of how most Pakistanis are okay with below par designs as something better might take extra effort or cost. So no there was no dishing out, but I now can set the bar of expectation from you despite your informative posts before.

Not being okay with design choices like those hinges is exactly what it will take if we expect the NGF to be more than just good enough. I don't even think PAC designed these hinges or had any input whatsoever in the design of the two-seater. We basically took whatever the Chinese created to meet the bare minimum requirements by PAF. However, I feel they should have asked for better.

Here again, your qualifications are great, but that does not mean that it was not a poor design choice by PAF/CATIC. And in reading some of the commentary, it seems to me that if the attitude is prevalent in Pakistan. We also see if not just in the JF-17 but other programs in Pakistan too.

But before I digress, here is another example of cutting corners with the Thunder program, that has always bothered me. I don't even think the fix would have been that much to ask for, ie a simple plastic covering for all the cables and the sharp corners which most certainly would not just look better, but will definitely reduce the radar signature. (before people jump up and say it doesn't matter, every little thing matters as they have an additive effect).

What the pictures below shows is not a commentary on JF-17 but more so on us Pakistanis. We seem to be okay with something which every nation that is producing aircraft deemed not good enough. And this attitude will only make it impossible for whatever our NGA is to be up to mark. So lets not jump on posters that point out the glaring design choice on the twin-seater which should not have been acceptable in any circumstance.

View attachment 751222

View attachment 751223

Now compare this to other 4th generation aircraft designed in the 70s and compare to what we came up with in the 2000s.

F-18C
View attachment 751224

F-16
View attachment 751225

F-15
View attachment 751227

Mirage 2000
View attachment 751229

Mig-29
View attachment 751230

Gripen
View attachment 751231

and last but not least, Tejas
View attachment 751232

With due respect.
Most of the aircraft mentioned here, were produced by companies, hoping that someone (including their host Nation) would buy them. So they had to make them look good. They had competition with other local (or foreign) aircraft manufacturers, ie F-16 vs F-18. Most of the jets (minus Tejas) also happen to be one of the top tier jets (from the respective manufacturer) meant for export to many countries.

JF-17 was designed by the customer, PAF. They had no competition. They needed the jet to perform and have certain capabilities. Making the front "dash" look sexy wasn't one of them.

So in summary. Other jets were made by the company first, hoping someone would buy them. JF-17 was custom made to customers wishes, and for better or for worse, PAF didn't care so much about the looks.

I agree with you, all the other aircraft have better looking front dash. Maybe we can do that for Blk III, now that we have customers.

 

[GriffinsRule]

With due respect.
Most of the aircraft mentioned here, were produced by companies, hoping that someone (including their host Nation) would buy them. So they had to make them look good. They had competition with other local (or foreign) aircraft manufacturers, ie F-16 vs F-18. Most of the jets (minus Tejas) also happen to be one of the top tier jets (from the respective manufacturer) meant for export to many countries.

JF-17 was designed by the customer, PAF. They had no competition. They needed the jet to perform and have certain capabilities. Making the front "dash" look sexy wasn't one of them.

So in summary. Other jets were made by the company first, hoping someone would buy them. JF-17 was custom made to customers wishes, and for better or for worse, PAF didn't care so much about the looks.

I agree with you, all the other aircraft have better looking front dash. Maybe we can do that for Blk III, now that we have customers.

I am not sure if the premise is correct. Do you think LM or Boeing need their aircraft to look good for sales? Also, JF-17 was designed by AVIC/CATIC for PAF. We didn't design the jet and the front dash has nothing to do with looking sexy but in fact increasing the RCS of the jet.

I agree with what you are saying about PAF not caring. I am saying PAF should care

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

First off I did go back to my original post, and there was nothing personal in it. Just a commentary of how most Pakistanis are okay with below par designs as something better might take extra effort or cost. So no there was no dishing out, but I now can set the bar of expectation from you despite your informative posts before.

Not being okay with design choices like those hinges is exactly what it will take if we expect the NGF to be more than just good enough. I don't even think PAC designed these hinges or had any input whatsoever in the design of the two-seater. We basically took whatever the Chinese created to meet the bare minimum requirements by PAF. However, I feel they should have asked for better.

Here again, your qualifications are great, but that does not mean that it was not a poor design choice by PAF/CATIC. And in reading some of the commentary, it seems to me that if the attitude is prevalent in Pakistan. We also see if not just in the JF-17 but other programs in Pakistan too.

But before I digress, here is another example of cutting corners with the Thunder program, that has always bothered me. I don't even think the fix would have been that much to ask for, ie a simple plastic covering for all the cables and the sharp corners which most certainly would not just look better, but will definitely reduce the radar signature. (before people jump up and say it doesn't matter, every little thing matters as they have an additive effect).

What the pictures below shows is not a commentary on JF-17 but more so on us Pakistanis. We seem to be okay with something which every nation that is producing aircraft deemed not good enough. And this attitude will only make it impossible for whatever our NGA is to be up to mark. So lets not jump on posters that point out the glaring design choice on the twin-seater which should not have been acceptable in any circumstance.

View attachment 751222

View attachment 751223

Now compare this to other 4th generation aircraft designed in the 70s and compare to what we came up with in the 2000s.

F-18C
View attachment 751224

F-16
View attachment 751225

F-15
View attachment 751227

Mirage 2000
View attachment 751229

Mig-29
View attachment 751230

Gripen
View attachment 751231

and last but not least, Tejas
View attachment 751232

The irony here is that the decision-makers who thought it was fine cutting corners on hinges and cable covers may end up ordering another plane that doesn't cut those corners. In truth, they could've put that money towards further improving the product they already have, e.g., invest in developing indigenous AAMs, new-gen SOWs, an EA-ECM pod, etc.

 

[ummarz]

I am not sure if the premise is correct. Do you think LM or Boeing need their aircraft to look good for sales? Also, JF-17 was designed by AVIC/CATIC for PAF. We didn't design the jet and the front dash has nothing to do with looking sexy but in fact increasing the RCS of the jet.

I agree with what you are saying about PAF not caring. I am saying PAF should care

I am sorry, but I feel you are not making a good argument here.

LM and Boeing have to compete for sales with each other. As do most other manufacturers of the aircraft in your pictures above.

This couldn't be a serious question from you, but the answer is yes, looks do matter. If you like you can read up on the competition between F-22 and YF-23. And you can see what role "brand perception" and looks played.

JF-17 was indeed made by these companies, BUT to the exact specifications of the customer. There was no competition.

If the RCS hit was significant enough, I am sure it wouldn't be very difficult to put a cover on it. If you can make a 4th gen. jet, I am sure you can do that. PAF must not have considered it a significant issue for the role that the jet was designed for in PAF doctrine.

JF-17 is the first product of its type. It has done very well. A few sales already too, considering it was made to specifications of PAF. Perhaps they will do even better in Blk III, and the next fighter.

 

[GriffinsRule]

I am sorry, but I feel you are not making a good argument here.

LM and Boeing have to compete for sales with each other. As do most other manufacturers of the aircraft in your pictures above.

This couldn't be a serious question from you, but the answer is yes, looks do matter. If you like you can read up on the competition between F-22 and YF-23. And you can see what role "brand perception" and looks played.

JF-17 was indeed made by these companies, BUT to the exact specifications of the customer. There was no competition.

If the RCS hit was significant enough, I am sure it wouldn't be very difficult to put a cover on it. If you can make a 4th gen. jet, I am sure you can do that. PAF must not have considered it a significant issue for the role that the jet was designed for in PAF doctrine.

JF-17 is the first product of its type. It has done very well. A few sales already too, considering it was made to specifications of PAF. Perhaps they will do even better in Blk III, and the next fighter.

Perhaps the looks do matter somewhat for a buyer. Okay I will give you that. However, as I mentioned, my post if not to reflect on the aircraft but us Pakistanis who are okay w design compromises, even if they are small (which I don't think they are). To me, its an indication of how endemic this notion is that barely good enough is fine.

To put this into context, think about Swiss watchmakers for a second. They earned a reputation of being the highest in quality in both operations and in the quality of their parts. That attitude went into how they serviced their Mirages (I am paraphrasing here, but one of the books I read where the PAF pilot asked one of them on how they deal with Mirages that are down due to maintenance and he replied back with the Swiss AF not having any such issues.)

We should strive for the best we can do. You can make a spreadsheet work with linking with an reference such as =B3 for example. However there are better ways to do the same thing using index matches or lookups and locking rows or columns etc. Hope you understand what I am driving at.

Anyways, I am done talking about this for now.

The irony here is that the decision-makers who thought it was fine cutting corners on hinges and cable covers may end up ordering another plane that doesn't cut those corners. In truth, they could've put that money towards further improving the product they already have, e.g., invest in developing indigenous AAMs, new-gen SOWs, an EA-ECM pod, etc.

Yes and that attitude is what is problematic. Why do it when someone else can do it for us.

 

[ummarz]

Perhaps the looks do matter somewhat for a buyer. Okay I will give you that. However, as I mentioned, my post if not to reflect on the aircraft but us Pakistanis who are okay w design compromises, even if they are small (which I don't think they are). To me, its an indication of how endemic this notion is that barely good enough is fine.

To put this into context, think about Swiss watchmakers for a second. They earned a reputation of being the highest in quality in both operations and in the quality of their parts. That attitude went into how they serviced their Mirages (I am paraphrasing here, but one of the books I read where the PAF pilot asked one of them on how they deal with Mirages that are down due to maintenance and he replied back with the Swiss AF not having any such issues.)

We should strive for the best we can do. You can make a spreadsheet work with linking with an reference such as =B3 for example. However there are better ways to do the same thing using index matches or lookups and locking rows or columns etc. Hope you understand what I am driving at.

Anyways, I am done talking about this for now.

Yes and that attitude is what is problematic. Why do it when someone else can do it for us.

I hear you. I am not sure how much of this problem, played a role in the designing of JF-17 (some perhaps), but as we discussed there is clearly a lot more to those hinges and dash than that mindset alone.

As a general topic of discussion, I am with you on this 100%. It really saddens me to see the lost potential in all of us. Our cultural values and family system is as much a blessing as it is a hinderance. The pros of our culture and family values is that we will produce a larger middle class. The cons to that are the lack of breakthroughs. When independent thinking and thinking outside the box is shunned, middle class thrives. but creative inventions and our potential is lost.

 

[us1956]

Just need a single phone call to AVIC/CATIC , let them know to have a better look on the hinges. likely, it can be done in the same day

 

[MIRauf]

Just need a single phone call to AVIC/CATIC , let them know to have a better look on the hinges. likely, it can be done in the same day

You mean the designer of J-10 who also designed JF-17 ?

Not to add fuel to the fire, just compare J-10S vs FJ-17B, it's not that AVIC/CATIC doesn't know how to put hinges on the inside. Before someone throws ( J-10 is bigger then JF-17 ), the Cockpit size is about same.

It does truly makes one wonder as to why ?

PS: Initial JF-17B had Five ( 5 ) hinges just like the JL-9, go figure. Now compare the rudder of JL-9 with JF-17B

 

[CriticalThought]

In the end, the products we make reflect our national character. The world perceives us as third quality, backward, illiterate. Our only chance to truly change that perception is to export products that can go neck to neck with the best in the world. That is when the world will take us seriously.

There was a time when China was associated with low quality. But the Chinese kept quietly working away until no one in the Western world associates China with poor quality any more.

With that in mind, we need to design our highest value hi-tech export with aesthetics in mind. Doesn't matter if its end users are Nigeria and Myanmar. Although they are end users, but the rest of the world is an observer and we are projecting our image through these exports.

 

[TNT]

There should be a separate thread for the hinges so these fanboys can go n discuss it there and not distract this thread. All these years of fanboyism and they learn absolutely nothing and get stuck on dumb non issues like hinges.