JF-17B Updates, News & Discussion

[Big_bud]

Has some resemblance with KAI FA-50 from South Korea.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

View attachment 751503

Has some resemblance with KAI FA-50 from South Korea.

I wish we had the budget to make the JF-17 as aesthetically striking as the FA-50 and Gripen.

 

[Big_bud]

I wish we had the budget to make the JF-17 as aesthetically striking as the FA-50 and Gripen.

FA-50 is pretty shitty looking man? Grippen looks good but is a different design altogether.

One problem with JF 17 is lack of quality photos taken. All photos are from armatures and are taken from weird angles. The photos of JF17 posted on PAF webiste are pretty good as they are professionally taken but they are only a few.

 

[Thorough Pro]

If by growing up people become like you, then I am fine. A 25 million dollar plane can not be compared with a 100 million dollar plane. PAF is using the Soviet strategy of building cheap and quick and build in numbers.

God almighty,

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

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

and what would the aesthetics achieve in terms of war fighting capability?

I wish we had the budget to make the JF-17 as aesthetically striking as the FA-50 and Gripen.

 

[araz]

View attachment 751503

Has some resemblance with KAI FA-50 from South Korea.

A noob question. Why did JFT designers not opt for blended wings like the F16s or emanating from the side of the intakes. Might have given more space to mount hardware. What would have been the Con for such a move. Any ideas.
A

I wish we had the budget to make the JF-17 as aesthetically striking as the FA-50 and Gripen.

I do not think it is a bad looking aircraft. I think given the resources, maturity of aviation industry at hand we have done a very good job.
A

 

[iLION12345_1]

A noob question. Why did JFT designers not opt for blended wings like the F16s or emanating from the side of the intakes. Might have given more space to mount hardware. What would have been the Con for such a move. Any ideas.
A

I do not think it is a bad looking aircraft. I think given the resources, maturity of aviation industry at hand we have done a very good job.
A

Early prototypes of the JF were very similar looking to F16. The LERX extensions were added in the 4th prototype, I believe to improve its maneuverability, though I’m not well versed in aircraft design so I could be wrong.

 

[Ali_Baba]

I wish we had the budget to make the JF-17 as aesthetically striking as the FA-50 and Gripen.

They could start with the cockpit hinges, and do them right the second time round !!!

 

[prothought]

A noob question. Why did JFT designers not opt for blended wings like the F16s or emanating from the side of the intakes. Might have given more space to mount hardware. What would have been the Con for such a move. Any ideas.
A

I do not think it is a bad looking aircraft. I think given the resources, maturity of aviation industry at hand we have done a very good job.
A

Agreed, Bro. Thunder is certainly not a bad looking aircraft. However, the only thing that matters for a military plane, or any machine for that matter, is its performance. Thunders are not meant for participating in a beauty contest. It is designed to kill enemy. As long as it is able to do that, I am in love with it.

 

[nomi007]

View attachment 751503

Has some resemblance with KAI FA-50 from South Korea.

Endians still followed the Russian Style Wso.

 

[siegecrossbow]

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

J-10’s chief designer (Song Wencong) is not the same as JF-17’s (Yang Wei). I agree with your point, but just pointing out a minor error here.

 

[SQ8]

I wish we had the budget to make the JF-17 as aesthetically striking as the FA-50 and Gripen.

While covers and finished product go beyond aesthetics - those pointing it as a national disease of cutting corners are correct - Pakistanis have lost close to a 1000 lives cutting corners in the past 5 years alone.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

and what would the aesthetics achieve in terms of war fighting capability?

The aesthetics come as a result of specific design choices, e.g., relaxed stability and going full digital fly-by-wire from day one, using composite materials, doing more to reduce the radar cross-section, optimizing the design to get more room for hardpoints, etc. When you avoid cutting corners, you end up with a design that performs better in war and, in turn, looks like its advanced and very capable.

It's like a fit-looking person. Yes, they look good, but they got to look like that because they work out every day, limit their calorie intake, eat the right macros -- and avoid the sugar and refined carbs -- and keep at it. Them looking good doesn't do as much as the fact that they live healthy and nutritious lives, and it shows.

If the PAF could've spent $1-2 b upfront on the JF-17's development, it would've had a far superior (and much better looking) aircraft. It's too bad that our nation never bothers to question why that investment was never made; instead, it keeps letting corrupt idiots batter the economy. We spend more time asking, "wHy PaF nO bUy sU-35?!" than critically examining economic policies, for example.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Let's agree to disagree. If the JF17 was developed purely for commercial reasons, then aesthetics would have mattered, but I would rather spend money on enhancing the fighting capability with better avionics, electronics, countermeasures, and counter-countermeasures. The hinges don't affect the aerodynamic performance and hence are a non-issue at this point in time. The main objective is to replace the ageing assets which are more than 50% of total PAF inventory and would not survive a week in a full-blown conflict. Aesthetics don't win wars, lethality does. But I hope and expect that the next version should be better in all aspects.

The aesthetics come as a result of specific design choices, e.g., relaxed stability and going full digital fly-by-wire from day one, using composite materials, doing more to reduce the radar cross-section, optimizing the design to get more room for hardpoints, etc. When you avoid cutting corners, you end up with a design that performs better in war and, in turn, looks like its advanced and very capable.

It's like a fit-looking person. Yes, they look good, but they got to look like that because they work out every day, limit their calorie intake, eat the right macros -- and avoid the sugar and refined carbs -- and keep at it. Them looking good doesn't do as much as the fact that they live healthy and nutritious lives, and it shows.

If the PAF could've spent $1-2 b upfront on the JF-17's development, it would've had a far superior (and much better looking) aircraft. It's too bad that our nation never bothers to question why that investment was never made; instead, it keeps letting corrupt idiots batter the economy. We spend more time asking, "wHy PaF nO bUy sU-35?!" than critically examining economic policies, for example.

 

[Saifullah]

A noob question. Why did JFT designers not opt for blended wings like the F16s or emanating from the side of the intakes. Might have given more space to mount hardware. What would have been the Con for such a move. Any ideas.
A

Might be because they needed to work more to refine the design a bit more and PAF was not interested in improving it. It's just my guess.

Blended Wings certainly improve the Fuel capacity, Lift generation, reduce RCS and make the Aircraft surface more efficient.
I guess the Con is that it requires more time in designing and a bit more effort in construction.
There are few views about the DSI of JF17 out there as well that it's not refined up to the mark and by refining the design a bit more it would have given out a more efficient DSI with better overall results.

This is my speculations and a bit of reading.

Someone with more knowledge will be able to give a better explanation.
@JamD

 

[ssethii]

Maybe the B model was not intended to be a frontline fighter built for supporting roles and fighter pilot training and conversion purposes.