Pakistan to stick with RD-93 engine for JF-17, say PAF officials

[Basel]

It is not 'cannot' but more likely it is financial. If you fiddle with the airframe hard enough, you can plumb any fighter for CFTs.

The main advantage with CFTs is that they free up hard points for weapons. The main disadvantage is that -- for now -- CFTs cannot be jettisoned. Again, if there is enough money, that obstacle can be conquered.

There are aerodynamics advantages CFTs have over conventional underwing external fuel tanks (EFT) but those advantages are not great enough to justify using aerodynamics as sole or even main justification. Flight characteristics wise, with the F-16's flexible flight control laws, especially in the digital computers, a pilot may note some differences, but those differences are not negative and even if there are any negatives, they would not be great enough to disqualify the CFTs as standard fuel additions.

In sum, there are really no credible engineering and/or tactical disqualifying factors for a CFT program on the JF-17. Just my opinion.

How much range / endurance CFTs will add compared to 02 under wing EFTs of JFT specially in block-1??

how they can be employed to enhance performance of JFT in different mission profiles??

 

[gambit]

How much range / endurance CFTs will add compared to 02 under wing EFTs of JFT specially in block-1??

No way to know and anyone who says otherwise and starts quoting numbers -- liar.

Look at the current CFTs on the -15s and -16s. Why are they not the same shape or capacity ? Each CFT design must be airframe specific. The aerodynamics on the F-16 is different than the JF-17. Major airframe structural points, those that are strong enough to allow enhancements to withstand additional stresses, are also different. The final shape will be dictated by a combination of aerodynamics and structures, then shape will determine fuel capacity, which will give estimated additional range. So until there is at least an exploratory program that can at least hint at an acceptable cost/benefit ratio, there is no point in speculating how much range a pair of CFT give the JF-17.

how they can be employed to enhance performance of JFT in different mission profiles??

Plenty of tactical benefits.

No pilot like to RTB with ordnance. Unused cannon rounds ? No big deal. Unused missiles ? Also no big deal. But unused bombs ? Maybe intel was bad so my ground guys are not supported because I was sent to the wrong place in the sky. Maybe the ground battles are beyond my fuel reach so my guys cannot benefit from my bombs.

In SEAD, there is already a stress from limited anti-radar missiles, meaning I have to make sure the few missiles I carry will do the most damage. Maneuvering to avoid radar lock is fuel consuming enough, but after I managed to escape lock but do not have enough fuel to return to respond, what good am I then ?

In deep penetration strikes, the goal is to deny the enemy re-supply from his own. That re-supply can be additional troops, more artillery, more tanks, or even more food. The goal should be to destroy, or at least damage some, that re-supply from as far back as possible. Additional fuel means you can signals the enemy that his rear echelons are within your reach. This forces him to renegotiate his re-supply methods and routes.

A flight with CFTs frees up your air refuel assets to support those without CFTs, a force multiplier, so to speak, because those without CFTs can fly with no EFTs because they are confident that they will be refueled.

 

[MastanKhan]

CFTs will be there for JFT, let PAF fully familiarize and understand them, then they will work with AVIC to make those for JFT.

Ask PAF pilots who have flown with CFTs and EFTs they will tell you the difference.

Here @gambit can help to explain it.

Hi,

You have to ask this question----what was the reason to have no CFT for this aircraft that has just been manufactured---and also no plumbing hooked up so that in future it could be utilized.

PAF already knew that it will have short legs---so they had a plan for the AAR----and if plan for air refuelling was there---then why not CFT---what stopped them from going that route!

It is not a matter of it cannot be added---but when the capability is not considered in a brand spanking new aircraft---you have to start questioning the reason behind it---.

And you have to start with the statement that it cannot be done---and let the designer come out and explain the reasoning behind the issue---and if this thing was missed---then what other crucial items were missed---.

My major concern would what compromises will be made to have CFT---and what LIES will be told to hide the real issue.

 

[MilSpec]

Hi,

You have to ask this question----what was the reason to have no CFT for this aircraft that has just been manufactured---and also no plumbing hooked up so that in future it could be utilized.

PAF already knew that it will have short legs---so they had a plan for the AAR----and if plan for air refuelling was there---then why not CFT---what stopped them from going that route!

It is not a matter of it cannot be added---but when the capability is not considered in a brand spanking new aircraft---you have to start questioning the reason behind it---.

And you have to start with the statement that it cannot be done---and let the designer come out and explain the reasoning behind the issue---and if this thing was missed---then what other crucial items were missed---.

My major concern would what compromises will be made to have CFT---and what LIES will be told to hide the real issue.

Plumbing from CFT are not a complicated task, fuel lines for drop tanks can be internally routed to get connections required. The issue is structural, what kind of safety's were used for static and dynamic loads for the air-frame, main spars and wing root, The Aircrafts that have CFT's today were not specifically designed to receive a CFT but was an improvement project.

 

[Al-Taïr]

Hi,

You have to ask this question----what was the reason to have no CFT for this aircraft that has just been manufactured---and also no plumbing hooked up so that in future it could be utilized.

PAF already knew that it will have short legs---so they had a plan for the AAR----and if plan for air refuelling was there---then why not CFT---what stopped them from going that route!
.

Hi brother I know that I have been advocating for increased range and more power. . Possibly CFTs among other stuff.
But your question got me thinking. WHY DO WE NEED MORE RANGE?
My answer is we dont...
Jf17 can takeoff from karachi --land in mumbai-- and then come back to karachi.. (if fuel was the only issue& it doesnt get shot down) what else do u want from cheapest(almost 4th gen) fighter in the world. . . We cant burden 200jets with CFTs just because navy might need some..

We should focus more on finding ways for thunder to survive the little flight that it has. . .

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi brother I know that I have been advocating for increased range and more power. . Possibly CFTs among other stuff.
But your question got me thinking. WHY DO WE NEED MORE RANGE?
My answer is we dont...
Jf17 can takeoff from karachi --land in mumbai-- and then come back to karachi.. (if fuel was the only issue& it doesnt get shot down) what else do u want from cheapest(almost 4th gen) fighter in the world. . . We cant burden 200jets with CFTs just because navy might need some..

We should focus more on finding ways for thunder to survive the little flight that it has. . .

Hi,

JF17 only has a range of 700-800 KM in combat role.

Plumbing from CFT are not a complicated task, fuel lines for drop tanks can be internally routed to get connections required. The issue is structural, what kind of safety's were used for static and dynamic loads for the air-frame, main spars and wing root, The Aircrafts that have CFT's today were not specifically designed to receive a CFT but was an improvement project.

Hi,

It seems like---that with every individual---I have to re-start the conversation from the begining.

So--CFT was not a part of the design in the past----and it is understandable that the older aircraft were modified later on due to the need and utility---.

But when you already have a precedence in front of you and it is becoming more of a standard----then all it comes down to is BAD ENGINEERING or other LIMITATIONS.

So---instead of me covering up----my basic question is---it cannot be done ( I already know that it can be done )---and let the designer answer the question--- I want him to explain to me what happened---why it was not done---and what stopped him----and if this is one mistake---what other mistakes have been committed.

As an " inquisitor "---now that I have found an opening---I want to dig in further and find out what other sh-it is fckd up.

I absolutely understand you kids dilemma----. You kids cover the ar-se of your military consortiums all the time---on both sides---be it pakistan or be it india---.

Now I understand how the DRDO was able to continue with its fck ups----because there were others covering their ar-se.

 

[Al-Taïr]

Hi,

JF17 only has a range of 700-800 KM in combat role.


.

Thoo I doubt that range will be reduced to nearly half due to aditional load of 4 missiles or bombs. But I dont have a reference/source so, i wont argue..
But u missunderstood my point.. My point is that thunder wasn't designed to go deep inside enemy's territory, dump its load and come back... . Its is supposed to stop mkis at the boader.. & a little bit more. .
Why should we compromise on agility of all thunders by adding CFTs...
We shouldnt

 

[gambit]

So--CFT was not a part of the design in the past----and it is understandable that the older aircraft were modified later on due to the need and utility---.

But when you already have a precedence in front of you and it is becoming more of a standard----then all it comes down to is BAD ENGINEERING or other LIMITATIONS.

Correct.

Why should we compromise on agility of all thunders by adding CFTs...
We shouldnt

Any performance degradation will be discovered or at least suspected in an exploratory program. But until then, it is useless to speculate.

 

[General General]

I have read that "range extending kits" will be applied to JF-17 future blocks.
As for the 3rd block, not much will be obviously different from the current blocks. The body of aircrafts are composed of panels, to change if one of them gets damaged. These panels might be changed from the current aluminium material to composites.This will reduce its radar signature, as was promised.
The airframe was designed to be able to accommodate various engines of similar designs. It has been extensively covered in several threads here. That could mean having a fleet with a mix of Russian RD-93, RD-93MA and Chinese engines as well, depending upon the squadron's role.
The reduction in weight due to replacing metal panels around the airplane will definitely reduce the weight by a considerable level. This would automatically increase the thrust ratio as well as loiter time and range.

 

[MilSpec]

Hi,

JF17 only has a range of 700-800 KM in combat role.




Hi,

It seems like---that with every individual---I have to re-start the conversation from the begining.

So--CFT was not a part of the design in the past----and it is understandable that the older aircraft were modified later on due to the need and utility---.

But when you already have a precedence in front of you and it is becoming more of a standard----then all it comes down to is BAD ENGINEERING or other LIMITATIONS.

So---instead of me covering up----my basic question is---it cannot be done ( I already know that it can be done )---and let the designer answer the question--- I want him to explain to me what happened---why it was not done---and what stopped him----and if this is one mistake---what other mistakes have been committed.

As an " inquisitor "---now that I have found an opening---I want to dig in further and find out what other sh-it is fckd up.

I absolutely understand you kids dilemma----. You kids cover the ar-se of your military consortiums all the time---on both sides---be it pakistan or be it india---.

Now I understand how the DRDO was able to continue with its fck ups----because there were others covering their ar-se.

During feasibility analysis, the rough scope of a system is defined. Given that FC1 owes certain amount of it's package from the Project 33 as Chendu bought the design and test data from Mikoyan to fast track the project, it's scope was defined due to the developmental cycle it choose.

The scope of the project was approved by the Pakistani Airforce, and that is what they stuck to. Scope creep comes at a price, there are a million things on system design that are good to do things, but all of them come with a price and time penalty to do so. If there is a need for any such subsystems > PAF can make those accommodations in subsequent upgrades.

From the mechanical aspect, plumbing a CFT,fuel line or making structural changes won't be as difficult of a challenge. The bottom line remains price and time for modifications, compared to the advantages it will bring to the table.

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

 

[Battle Axe]

some people really don't have any brains on PDF.
Pakistan already has about 70 aircraft in operational service or in testing phase right now, that's about 70 RD-93 in service plus however many spares. Who in their right mind would decide to change the engine now?
Those engines represent about $300 million investment, and by the end of Bock 2 production, PAF would have invested more than HALF A BILLION $!

So why in the world would they change the engine?

Nailed.

 

[raazh]

That view of take off; from the crowd, is insanely awesome ..

 

[Khafee]

Thank You Sir!!

 

[wiseone2]

Why WS-13 not good enough?

if the WS-13 was good enough PLAAF would be operating 500 JF-17 instead of the 500 J-7 they have