JF-17B Updates, News & Discussion

[war&peace]

PAF has not really been keen to order dual seater, if we look at our fleet. Is it because of costs or another reason?

I think operational cost is more for a dual seater and may also require more maintenance and naturally for a given size, a dual seat version will have shorter range since the extra seat and pilot add weight and reduce fuel & payload capacities but certain missions really require two men like advanced jet training, reconnaissance, close in air support etc. Dual seater versions of heavy fighters like SU27, 30, 34, 35 do not have a significant weight penalty for the overall weight of the machine but for light A/Cs like JF-17 it is significant if same materials are used. That's why I think that some lighter materials have been used in the dual seat version and some elements have been added to make up for the reduced fuel capacity.

 

[razgriz19]

As I said check TW ratio of f16

F-16 is not even in the same class as JF-17.

F-16 : 19,700 pounds without fuel with +29000 lbs of thrust

Jf17 : 14,520 lb without fuel with +19000 lbs of thrust.



F-16's engines create ~50% more thrust while the aircraft is only ~25% heavier than JF17!!

You do the math.

 

[Trango Towers]

F-16 is not even in the same class as JF-17.

F-16 : 19,700 pounds without fuel with +29000 lbs of thrust

Jf17 : 14,520 lb without fuel with +19000 lbs of thrust.



F-16's engines create ~50% more thrust while the aircraft is only ~25% heavier than JF17!!

You do the math.

No f16 isn't in the same class as jf17 is better in 4 specific areas. Haven't got time to argue on this pointless subject. Here check for yourself what f16 A block 10 is http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/twr.html

 

[messiach]

There are some basic efficacy aerodynamic parameters missing here. Calculate total propulsion efficiency factor after calculating total aerodynamic efficiency factor. These are very arbitrary figures quoted here.

F-16 is not even in the same class as JF-17.

F-16 : 19,700 pounds without fuel with +29000 lbs of thrust

Jf17 : 14,520 lb without fuel with +19000 lbs of thrust.



F-16's engines create ~50% more thrust while the aircraft is only ~25% heavier than JF17!!

You do the math.

 

[MastanKhan]

There is no point in puting conformal fuel tanks. Engine does not produce enough power. Yeah you can free up potentially three stations for weapons, but with that much load it will become a pig in other words an easy target. And besides i don't think it would be able to use all of it's weapons stations anyway as it would exceed MTOW with full CFTs.
Plus more powerful engine means it needs more fuel to achieve the same range, so really CFT would just make it more heavy and less maneuverable.

Hi,

All aircraft in mission profile are PIGS---till they begin to get into combat and ump the fuel tanks---.

Secondly---all modern aircraft are easy target to modern missiles---unless they have a better counter measures---.

Now this kind of thinking " of a pig / like a pig " is a pakistani F16 pilot's thinking---. For pakistani F16 pilots---everything other than an F16 is a " pig "---.

Well sometimes you need a " pig " to do a pig's job---you cannot used sheep instead.

 

[MastanKhan]

I am declaring it as JF-18 , it look too much different then origional

Hi,

Are you begining to lose it---. F 16 single and dual seater are F16's---same with the F15---.

Just because it becomes a dual seater---does not change the nomenclature---.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Certainly look like two different planes

a) Different Tail
b) Different Seating Arrangement
c) Central spine area looks different

If the Wing is changed from Thunder 17 to Delta type wing , transformation would be complete

Just add the delta Wing ! Make the transformation complete !

JF18

 

[sparten]

Hi,

Are you begining to lose it---. F 16 single and dual seater are F16's---same with the F15---.

Just because it becomes a dual seater---does not change the nomenclature---.

F16 and F15 dual seat models have few differences from the basic aircraft. They lose some fuel capacity and add a seat. That’s about it. Typically with the Viper, dual seat versions have a centerline fuel droptank attached almost permanently. To make up for the reduced capacity.

Here the Thunder-Bravo has different flying characteristics from the basic JF17. Enough that a pilot qualified in one, will have to undergo some training before s/he can safely fly the other.

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

That is not how designations are appropriated for military aircraft.

Certainly look like two different planes

a) Different Tail
b) Different Seating Arrangement
c) Central spine area looks different

If the Wing is changed from Thunder 17 to Delta type wing , transformation would be complete

Just add the delta Wing ! Make the transformation complete !

JF18

F16 and F15 dual seat models have few differences from the basic aircraft. They lose some fuel capacity and add a seat. That’s about it. Typically with the Viper, dual seat versions have a centerline fuel droptank attached almost permanently. To make up for the reduced capacity.

Here the Thunder-Bravo has different flying characteristics from the basic JF17. Enough that a pilot qualified in one, will have to undergo some training before s/he can safely fly the other.

 

[sparten]

That is not how designations are appropriated for military aircraft.

No. There is a lot of politics as to how equipment, units and formations are naned. The F/A-18 Super Hornet is in essence a new plane. It retains the designation since Congress was unwilling to fund a new plane. The T-90 is basically an improved T-72, the name change is since the T-72’s reputation was damaged after 1991 Gulf War.

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

Have it your way.
It is ultimately upto the air force.

No. There is a lot of politics as to how equipment, units and formations are naned. The F/A-18 Super Hornet is in essence a new plane. It retains the designation since Congress was unwilling to fund a new plane. The T-90 is basically an improved T-72, the name change is since the T-72’s reputation was damaged after 1991 Gulf War.

 

[KapitaanAli]

It seems JF17B have three axis FBW, so it's indeed more advanced than JF17.
So it's primarily a trainer for future blocks. As confirmed by the low numbers.
All physical differences can be ignored. Look up other twin seaters.

Especially in this case, the changes have been made out of necessity.

 

[ghazi768]

There is no point in puting conformal fuel tanks. Engine does not produce enough power. Yeah you can free up potentially three stations for weapons, but with that much load it will become a pig in other words an easy target. And besides i don't think it would be able to use all of it's weapons stations anyway as it would exceed MTOW with full CFTs.
Plus more powerful engine means it needs more fuel to achieve the same range, so really CFT would just make it more heavy and less maneuverable.

When it comes to CFTs PAF has experience of using them with F-6 and F-16 atleast if my memory serves me right..

The main things needed for CFTs are:
1. They do not add any penalties negative for a dog fight, such as speed/G restrictions as they cannot be jettisoned.
2. Do not add much drag, as in a dog fight you jettison drop tanks and other payload except short wvrams, mostly two on wingtips, to achieve almost clean state and least skin/volume drag for that fighter. F-16's CFT add about 2-3 % such drag which is insignificant. I think same was the case with F-6 we used.
3. Over the fuselage CFTs also look to need to be less heavier, below the fuselage CFTs I think require to be heavier like drop tanks, this means less lift required and therefore less drag because of lift.

I disagree with your opinion, normal drop tanks add many restrictions, occupy stations and complicate mission planning as you have to account for jettisoning them in unusual scenarios. Also they add lot of drag and their fuel efficiency is about 40 % below internal fuel. Using CFTs can enhance range handsomely while effecting fighter characteristics the least.

F-16 is not even in the same class as JF-17.

F-16 : 19,700 pounds without fuel with +29000 lbs of thrust

Jf17 : 14,520 lb without fuel with +19000 lbs of thrust.



F-16's engines create ~50% more thrust while the aircraft is only ~25% heavier than JF17!!

You do the math.

In a dog fight, both will be certainly above 1 T/W ratio, that is what is important.. Even at full fuel, both will be at or above 1 ratio.

The F-16 engine and its thrust you mentioned came much later, with original engine and its thrust (equivalent to what JF-17 now has) C/Ds with about 2000-2500 kgs of more weight than A/Bs would be duds.

Size, weight, volume is not good for drag because of both skin/volume and lift drag. Both fighter designs are excellent in this regard.

 

[[--Leo--]]

which radar they are using in this version

 

[F-7]