Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

[mshan44]

 

[mshan44]

 

[WiderMan]

Bravo Mike

 

[FuturePAF]

Honest question. What would it take to make the JF-17 as good a dog fighter, aerodynamically, as the F-16?

Is it just a matter of the low thrust to weight ratio of the JF-17 or is it something with the design? The JF-17 is expected to form the backbone of the PAF and if the plane goes to the merge with Indian deltas like the Mirage or Rafale it should be able to hold its own.

hopefully with the more advanced versions of the RD-93 and the new WS-13E engine we will be able to get the thrust the design needs.

 

[Haris Ali2140]

Honest question. What would it take to make the JF-17 as good a dog fighter, aerodynamically, as the F-16?

Is it just a matter of the low thrust to weight ratio of the JF-17 or is it something with the design? The JF-17 is expected to form the backbone of the PAF and if the plane goes to the merge with Indian deltas like the Mirage or Rafale it should be able to hold its own.

It has to be good in technology not in dogfighting. Good AESA radar + EW package + Long range BVR will keep Rafale/SU-30 at edge.

 

[xbat]

one of the most important spec is RANGE ! jf 17 can not be a F16 , never .

 

[Blacklight]

It has to be good in technology not in dogfighting. Good AESA radar + EW package + Long range BVR will keep Rafale/SU-30 at edge.

Excellent points!

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Honest question. What would it take to make the JF-17 as good a dog fighter, aerodynamically, as the F-16?

Is it just a matter of the low thrust to weight ratio of the JF-17 or is it something with the design? The JF-17 is expected to form the backbone of the PAF and if the plane goes to the merge with Indian deltas like the Mirage or Rafale it should be able to hold its own.

hopefully with the more advanced versions of the RD-93 and the new WS-13E engine we will be able to get the thrust the design needs.

I think it has to do with the design of the JF-17 itself. When CAC designed it, it wasn't told to work on a complex, relaxed stability design like the F-16. Rather, it went with a simpler design with just enough space for a modern multi-mode radar and baseline defensive aid suite (RWR, MAWS, etc). This is what the PAF wanted from the Sabre-II program in the late 1980s -- i.e., a pretty good replacement to the F-6s that would complement the F-16s.

In other words, the PAF wanted to revive the F-20 Tigershark, but through the MiG-21/F-7 airframe instead of the F-5. It's no coincidence that Grumman was brought into the project, and no surprise that it proposed the GE F404, APG-66 and APG-67, etc for the Sabre II.

If the PAF had written-off the F-16s in the late 1980s, it would have likely told CAC to work on a more complex relaxed stability design. Heck, it would have likely joined the J-10 as a partner. However, the PAF never actually wrote-off the F-16 (or a Western import) in the 1980s, 1990s or 2000s.

This is why Project AZM is such a huge departure. The current ASR is for a high-performance fighter (twin-engine, supercruising, etc), so the PAF likely wrote-off F-16s and any high-end import.

The PAF is also playing coy about continued JF-17 development, so that could be a sign of it wanting to move fully to AZM and a single, high-jet end through the 2030s and 2040s. The JF-17s will obviously keep flying through then, but it's possible they'll all be gone in favour of one high-end fighter type (and likely, lots of drones).

 

[StormBreaker]

It has to be good in technology not in dogfighting. Good AESA radar + EW package + Long range BVR will keep Rafale/SU-30 at edge.

They must atleast keep in mind that the Chinese VLRAAM should be compatible with thunders. @LKJ86 Do you think China will sell the 2 VLRAAM they are developing ? Does MTCR come into play here ? If the range is 400+ ?

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

PAF likely wrote-off F-16s

They must atleast keep in mind that the Chinese VLRAAM should be compatible with thunders. @LKJ86 Do you think China will sell the 2 VLRAAM they are developing ? Does MTCR come into play here ? If the range is 400+ ?

Not coming into Pakistan for atleast 4 years

 

[StormBreaker]

Not coming into Pakistan for atleast 4 years

Whenever

 

[The Raven]

In other words, the PAF wanted to revive the F-20 Tigershark, but through the MiG-21/F-7 airframe instead of the F-5. It's no coincidence that Grumman was brought into the project, and no surprise that it proposed the GE F404, APG-66 and APG-67, etc for the Sabre II.

The JF-17 isn't based on the Mig-21/F-7 lineage. It's based on the Mig-33 concept. Mig helped with redesigning the lateral intakes, rather than the Viper like ventral intake of the original Mig-33 concept. The original concept also relied heavily on LERX for pitch manoeuvrability, which were later incorporated from the fourth ptototype.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The JF-17 isn't based on the Mig-21/F-7 lineage. It's based on the Mig-33 concept. Mig helped with redesigning the lateral intakes, rather than the Viper like ventral intake of the original Mig-33 concept. The original concept also relied heavily on LERX for pitch manoeuvrability, which were later incorporated from the fourth ptototype.

I didn't say it was based on the MiG-21 or F-7. I said the PAF started its whole fighter project by first looking at a major F-7/MiG-21 upgrade (Sabre II). This fell through, but CAC kept working on its own clean-sheet design, but this new design (FC-1/Super-7) was still within the confines of what the PAF wanted at that time.

The Block-III is really stretching what the frozen design (PT-4) is capable of, so anything more would mean re-opening the design. However, jury's out on whether the PAF is interested in it -- at least internally, it's focusing on AZM (for now). I do think it should put some money aside and have CAC re-open the JF-17 design though.

 

[araz]

View attachment 621986

Is this a CGI?
A

It has to be good in technology not in dogfighting. Good AESA radar + EW package + Long range BVR will keep Rafale/SU-30 at edge.

Bhai.
Look at our limitations. A nascent aviation industry producijg its first ever joint venture with no prior experience. People learning on the job and making compromises as the right technology is either not available or too expensive or not liked by the other partner for various reasons. Then you start comparing it with a platform which is a produce of 100 years of cumulative experience, a turnkey product which defined a whole new generation of fighter jets and which is like a very graceful lady who is ageless and timeless. There is no comparison.
Having said that flip the other side of the coin and see where you have reached since 2007-8. Where has the platform gone from the 1st protoype to block 3. Looking at our constraints and the restrictions of various kind put on us we have produced nothing short of a miracle with the help of our Iron brothers. Long live Pak China friendship.
A

 

[mshan44]