JF-17B Updates, News & Discussion

[araz]

When is the official ceremony ???

Well the wish of most posters wanting jft B in EW role seems to be coming true. I suspect if the role and performance is satisfactory then you will have a couple of planes in each squadron.
A

 

[Signalian]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1316277876967256070

https://twitter.com/x/status/1316277876967256070

Should have DACT role too, similar to aggressors.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Well the wish of most posters wanting jft B in EW role seems to be coming true. I suspect if the role and performance is satisfactory then you will have a couple of planes in each squadron.
A

Three things:

1. Can the engine provide enough power to operate a specialist EW variant? The dry thrust needs to be increased for that to happen, IMV.

2. There needs to be some modification done to the air-frame, particularly on the wing-tips, where dedicated pods should be carried. Why? Pods would put out significant amount of radiation and therefore it is important to locate them as far from the pilot and WSO as possible.

3. If none of the above is done, then it would be a sub-optimal solution: good enough for many scenarios, but not all.

JF-17B does not have enough hard-points to be an adequate EW asset while also having requisite number of missiles or fuel for being fully effective as part of a strike package. I am not saying that there is no value in mounting pods instead of extra fuel, or substituting pod(s) in place of SD-10s. I am only saying that the full potential may not be realizable. There is a definite need for extra hard points near wing-tips to make it an effective EW asset. It would also need an engine with higher dry thrust.

 

[Armchair]

1. Can the engine provide enough power to operate a specialist EW variant? The dry thrust needs to be increased for that to happen, IMV.

Growler ew pods generate their own electricity and are self sufficient. They do so via an air inlet that turns a turbine.

JF-17B does not have enough hard-points to be an adequate EW asset while also having requisite number of missiles or fuel for being fully effective as part of a strike package. I am not saying that there is no value in mounting pods instead of extra fuel, or substituting pod(s) in place of SD-10s. I am only saying that the full potential may not be realizable. There is a definite need for extra hard points near wing-tips to make it an effective EW asset. It would also need an engine with higher dry thrust.

Perhaps solution would be:

1. Tail mounted giant integrated ew system.
2. Integrated pods on the wings.
3. Pods on two stations
4. Conformal fuel tanks and centerline fuel tank.
This configuration would allow 2x bvr or 4x with MER

I would also explore if a WSO is needed or function can be handled by pilot and AI. Or WSO can sit in a trailer at the base and remotely conduct his functions.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Growler ew pods generate their own electricity and are self sufficient. They do so via an air inlet that turns a turbine.

Pods may make their own power, but the generation of that power still taxes the engine in form of increased drag. Also, some EW duties could be handled by AESA radar and it has its own power requirements.

Perhaps solution would be:

1. Tail mounted giant integrated ew system.
2. Integrated pods on the wings.
3. Pods on two stations
4. Conformal fuel tanks and centerline fuel tank.
This configuration would allow 2x bvr or 4x with MER

I would also explore if a WSO is needed or function can be handled by pilot and AI. Or WSO can sit in a trailer at the base and remotely conduct his functions.

1: JF-17 tail is not big enough. Loading equipment would need adjusting CoG.

2: Best solution, if possible; particularly if the pods are mounted on wing tips. But where would short-range missiles (currently PL-5) go? A solution could be to use SD-10s, provided they are used within weapon engagement zone (target aircraft not too close).

3. Too close to humans.

4. Great, if it can happen on JF-17B. But there would still be the issue of human-pod proximity if the pods are not located far enough.

I am not sure if remote WSO could be practical, given likelihood of an EW-dense environment. The data-link may not support a remote WSO. Similarly, AI is also a question mark. But in future both these could be accommodated, particularly AI. With AI, support of wingman drone becomes a great possibility.

 

[The Raven]

For some reason the decision was made to base the B model on the block II configuration rather than Block III, which would have included the starboard intake hardpoint and provided a useful capacity for EW pods. Although this could be retrofitted, along with other elements from the Block III such as the AESA, it would have made more sense to use the Block III as the basis for the B model. In any case, the B model will have some EW capability, but not to the extent of a dedicated platform such as the Growler. The PAF clearly want a multirole platform rather than integrating too much of a dedicated role.

 

[GriffinsRule]

Pods also generate a lot of heat and have to be provided a mechanism to cool. I think one of the documentary on Gripen E mentioned Saab re-designing new wings to solve heat related issues of EW wingtip mounted pods that contain AESA antennas and drfm devices. They are part of a system called Arexis.

While it is highly unlikely to see it happen, its a modular system, and if we could even have say 40 such systems, it would mean 2 dedicated squadrons worth of highly effective EW capable JF-17, enough that every strike package could have 1 or 2 such aircraft for support and electronic attack/jamming. I think if they can sell us and AWACS, selling non-lethal EW gear should not be an issue either. Checkmate Rafale.

Edit: cant find the video but here is a similar link.

Liebherr Prototype Cooling System Tested in Saab EAJP

A prototype air cooling system for Saab’s Electronic Attack Jammer Pod (EAJP) was successfully tested and evaluated on a GRIPEN combat aircraft last year, Liebherr Aerospace announced in late April.Liebherr was contracted by Saab in November 2017 to develop the prototype system for the EAJP – a ...

www.monch.com

Looks like Leibherr provides all sorts of aerospace products and applications.

 

[araz]

Pods also generate a lot of heat and have to be provided a mechanism to cool. I think one of the documentary on Gripen E mentioned Saab re-designing new wings to solve heat related issues of EW wingtip mounted pods that contain AESA antennas and drfm devices. They are part of a system called Arexis.

While it is highly unlikely to see it happen, its a modular system, and if we could even have say 40 such systems, it would mean 2 dedicated squadrons worth of highly effective EW capable JF-17, enough that every strike package could have 1 or 2 such aircraft for support and electronic attack/jamming. I think if they can sell us and AWACS, selling non-lethal EW gear should not be an issue either. Checkmate Rafale.

Edit: cant find the video but here is a similar link.

Liebherr Prototype Cooling System Tested in Saab EAJP

A prototype air cooling system for Saab’s Electronic Attack Jammer Pod (EAJP) was successfully tested and evaluated on a GRIPEN combat aircraft last year, Liebherr Aerospace announced in late April.Liebherr was contracted by Saab in November 2017 to develop the prototype system for the EAJP – a ...

www.monch.com

Looks like Leibherr provides all sorts of aerospace products and applications.

View attachment 680217

I have always thought about the second chin point where another POD can be mounted. I am told this is not possible as the gun is mounted on that side. My question has always been why has this arrangement been adopted. We have several planes where the gun is mounted in the middle or on top of the wing ala F16s. One wondersthe reason behind such an-arrangement.
Any thoughts.

 

[GriffinsRule]

I have always thought about the second chin point where another POD can be mounted. I am told this is not possible as the gun is mounted on that side. My question has always been why has this arrangement been adopted. We have several planes where the gun is mounted in the middle or on top of the wing ala F16s. One wondersthe reason behind such an-arrangement.
Any thoughts.

Only the designers can answer that.

 

[The Raven]

I have always thought about the second chin point where another POD can be mounted. I am told this is not possible as the gun is mounted on that side. My question has always been why has this arrangement been adopted. We have several planes where the gun is mounted in the middle or on top of the wing ala F16s. One wondersthe reason behind such an-arrangement.
Any thoughts.

The gun pod is on the portside of the aircraft, the Block III model will have a dedicated POD hardpoint on the starboard side.

 

[ziaulislam]

I have always thought about the second chin point where another POD can be mounted. I am told this is not possible as the gun is mounted on that side. My question has always been why has this arrangement been adopted. We have several planes where the gun is mounted in the middle or on top of the wing ala F16s. One wondersthe reason behind such an-arrangement.
Any thoughts.

gun in dorsal spine or wing root will eat away fuel space as compared to external mounted under the chin, alos seems to be less complicated

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The reason the Gun is on a pod is that the Paf has realized that one day---the gun will have to be taken off and another potent utility mounted in its place.

Aircraft that have designated design on a gun mounted into the body of the aircraft do not have the option to remove it.

Thus the claim of the JF17 being a modular design fits right till the end---.

The current gun on all the JF17's may also be for the reason that we don not have enough fighter / strike platform.

Once we reach a number of 250 JF17's---we can pick and chose which aircraft need the gun---.

 

[PakFactor]

Hi,

The reason the Gun is on a pod is that the Paf has realized that one day---the gun will have to be taken off and another potent utility mounted in its place.

Aircraft that have designated design on a gun mounted into the body of the aircraft do not have the option to remove it.

Thus the claim of the JF17 being a modular design fits right till the end---.

The current gun on all the JF17's may also be for the reason that we don not have enough fighter / strike platform.

Once we reach a number of 250 JF17's---we can pick and chose which aircraft need the gun---.

Question are you saying the JF-17 gun can be removed to create space for something else? Does it have a pylon bolt ?

 

[MastanKhan]

Question are you saying the JF-17 gun can be removed to create space for something else? Does it have a pylon bolt ?

Hi,

As it is using an outside mount---there is no reason to believe that it cannot be removed.

Thank you @air marshal

 

[The Raven]

gun in dorsal spine or wing root will eat away fuel space as compared to external mounted under the chin, alos seems to be less complicated

A gun in the dorsal spine?! I don't think I've ever seen a fighter aircraft with a gun located in such a position. Or do you mean the centreline hardpoint?