Pakistan will launch a two-seater version of JF-17 - Induction of JF-17B in 2017

[padamchen]

Experts,

Is two seater version of a fighter only made for trainer purpose

Or does it have a war fighting use as well?

 

[Tempest II]

I was under the impression that the JF17 already had FBW in all axis, it was just a combination of digital and analogue. In the B version, they are probably implementing an all digital control.

FBW in one axis and "augmented ¥£_€=#@×%" in the other two.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Experts,

Is two seater version of a fighter only made for trainer purpose

Or does it have a war fighting use as well?

I think its also used in a CAS and strike role as well
@Oscar, @Horus am i right sir?

 

[Tempest II]

Experts,

Is two seater version of a fighter only made for trainer purpose

Or does it have a war fighting use as well?

AVIC says:

 

[khanasifm]

Target was first flight by the end of year 2016- and Induction in paf by April but so fRom no news

 

[CriticalThought]

I imagine the main gains of expanded FBW might be in weight reduction and/or freeing internal volume, which in turn can be used for fuel and/or other electronics.

I doubt weight reduction would be the reason because they had to increase the tail size just to accommodate the FBW system. The change in tail size will change the aerodynamic characteristics of the plane and the cost vs benefit of making this change for the sole purpose of obtaining weight reduction/internal volume doesn't make sense. Also, historically FBW was introduced when instable designs were first created because the aircraft could not be handled without it. Finally, given that market requirements are one reason for JF-17B, it wouldn't surprise me if instability and FBW are introduced for the sake of technological advancement and ticking off a buyer checklist. Anyway, I could be wrong, so let's wait and see. Hopefully not too long before we see the video of first flight. And they may take the staggered approach of gaining operational experience with FBW and then introducing instability for Block 3

 

[messiach]

Not PAC. Version B has low wing loading compared to standard ver - reducing takeoff & landing distances enhancing flight envelope and maneuverability @ lower speeds. It should have a better climb rate, cruise performance with higher-end static instability technically speaking.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17-thunder-multirole-fighter-thread-7.427560/page-117#post-9362655

@messiach "Block-B completed static test & eval. last week."

I am assuming that this is at PAC Kamra, but that is just a guess.

 

[JamD]

Not PAC. Version B has low wing loading compared to standard ver - reducing takeoff & landing distances enhancing flight envelope and maneuverability @ lower speeds. It should have a better climb rate, cruise performance with higher-end static instability technically speaking.

We knew they were increasing the wingspan but I always assumed that was to maintain the "A" model wing-loading (by compensating for the increased weight). But this is certainly welcome news. Can you say whether the LERX has been enlarged as well or not? Or just the wingspan increase?

 

[HRK]

I am assuming that this is at PAC Kamra, but that is just a guess.

B version was under development in in China .... we had pictures at this very forum for the inauguration ceremony of the first manufacturing of dual seat JF-17B

 

[Chak Bamu]

B version was under development in in China .... we had pictures at this very forum for the inauguration ceremony of the first manufacturing of dual seat JF-17B

Thanks for correction. I had seen it at SDF also but could not recall exactly, hence the proviso.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Not PAC. Version B has low wing loading compared to standard ver - reducing takeoff & landing distances enhancing flight envelope and maneuverability @ lower speeds. It should have a better climb rate, cruise performance with higher-end static instability technically speaking.

Very good news to hear. Would it be reasonable to expect these changes to carry over to the Block-III?

 

[JamD]

Very good news to hear. Would it be reasonable to expect these changes to carry over to the Block-III?

I have zero information on this but this would make a lot of sense. Why waste the R&D we are doing for jf17B. Better to have a JF17B and a single seater JF17B, as opposed to a JF17A and a twinseater JF17A

 

[messiach]

Leading edge root extensions are fixed devices.

We knew they were increasing the wingspan but I always assumed that was to maintain the "A" model wing-loading (by compensating for the increased weight). But this is certainly welcome news. Can you say whether the LERX has been enlarged as well or not? Or just the wingspan increase?

Too early to say anything for now.

Very good news to hear. Would it be reasonable to expect these changes to carry over to the Block-III?

 

[Blue Marlin]

Not PAC. Version B has low wing loading compared to standard ver - reducing takeoff & landing distances enhancing flight envelope and maneuverability @ lower speeds. It should have a better climb rate, cruise performance with higher-end static instability technically speaking.

what does "low wing loading compared to standard ver" mean?

 

[JamD]

Leading edge root extensions are fixed devices.

Yes I understand they are fixed devices, I was just curious whether they too were enlarged for the JF-17B. I guess I am just getting impatient and we should just wait and see the actual aircraft soon.

what does "low wing loading compared to standard ver" mean?

More wing/lifting-surface per weight. From what I understand, even though the weight would go up on the B model, they've increased the wing/lifting-surface area to compensate, and then some, to get a net lowering of wing-loading.