Round One JF17 - Poor Display By Tejas Took 10 more sec Than JF17 To Go Up

[AnnoyingOrange]

This may be the reason why JF17 did not show up.

 

[sathya]

CHINA-PAKISTAN JF-17 FIGHTER PROBLEMS

China’s program of jointly building jet fighters with Pakistan is running into design and other technical problems, according to Asian military sources. Islamabad turned to China for jets after the United States blocked the sale of additional F-16 jet fighters to Pakistan in 1989. They are now co-producing a third-generation fighter called the JF-17.

Pakistan has been flying JF-17s since 2007 and now has a fleet of around 60 jets, the first of an expected 250 fighters that will replace obsolete Mirage and F-7 Russian-design jets. According to the sources, the JF-17 is troubled with a number of design, operational and maintenance problems and limitations.

They include a weak wing design that resulted in the sudden in-flight breakup in November 2011 of the wing of a JF-17. An investigation concluded that the wing design was bad since it could support the weight of wing-mounted missiles and launchers. The wing problem was fixed, but current loads are limited to 1,000 pounds.

Also, based on the wing design problem, the jet’s maneuverability was downgraded, limiting flight characteristics.

Other problems include faulty computer software that freezes pilot command systems. The software has resulted in pilots being unable to launch missiles and bombs.

The jet also suffers from multiple engine problems because of its Russian RD-93 engine. The engine’s frequent breakdowns have resulted in lengthy delays for repairs.

Also, JF-17s are unable to conduct air-to-air refueling, severely limiting range. A retrofit of aerial refueling gear is being installed with the first two jets capable of in-flight refueling to be ready by the end of the year.

JF-17s also lack targeting pods, crucial for precision-strike capabilities for air-to-ground bombs and missiles. China and Turkey are currently studying adding the pods.

Also, JF-17s are unable to fly at night and can operate only in daylight or dusk operations, another severe limitation. The JF-17 also lacks airborne self-defense jammers, making the aircraft vulnerable to electronic warfare aircraft, and its radar lacks range in its look-down, shoot-down mode.

Cockpit displays also are outdated. They lack the helmet “heads up” display, and the friend-or-foe identification system has not met promised specifications.

According to one military source, “the current status of the JF-17 aircraft being jointly marketed by China and Pakistan does not in any way qualify to be a state-of-the-art aircraft and, more so, Chinahas not inducted a single JF-17 in its inventory.”

Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, agreed that the jet has problems.

“Nobody will contest that the Chengdu JF-17/FC-1 is a work in progress and that it will evolve significantly over its service life,” said Mr. Fisher, a Chinamilitary expert.

Among potential customers for the JF-17 are Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Venezuela, Argentina, Azerbaijan and Zambia.

Mr. Fisher said the Asian military assessment is interesting, but in the current global fighter market, the jet “offers the best performing fighter aircraft for the price” — around $25 million to $35 million per jet, or up to 33 percent less expensive than a new U.S. F-16.

“But its Chinese air-to-air and ground-attack weapons make it almost as capable as much more expensive Western and Russian aircraft,” he said.
Inside the Ring: China may join Russia in war against Islamic State - Washington Times

Wow it looks similar to Tejas bashing critics article.

Only difference is Tejas faults and weakness are well known, jf17 it's all hush- hush.

 

[MastanKhan]

Tejas have 2 of the 4 drag plates along the wheels
It is to lower the speed.

Why would jf17 not retract.
Tejas did it like in 2 seconds.


So far we are analyzing what was only shown.
So we ll have wait for more air shows to fully see the capabilities.

Hi,

Supposedly---Tejas did it to gain more speed to gather momentum to go nose up.

The JF 17 did not need to do it---because it already had enough power and built up momentum that it had to leave wheels down so as not to shoot off the air ceiling limit of 4000 ft---so basically it had air brakes on to take off to 4000 ft.

 

[sathya]

For the people going about how JFT took 20 seconds just to get airborne ... Here is a video from Zhuhai airshow 2010, where a JFT gets airborne in 14 seconds

I think the whole comparison by @MastanKhan -- is based around the time needed to build sufficient energy to go vertical ... from what we've seen when we compare both the videos of JFT @ Paris and LCA @ Bahrain ...

-For LCA we see a traditional vertical takeoff where the pilot gets airborne, builds up sufficient energy and then goes vertical .... for LCA it took 30 seconds ...
-The JFT goes vertical in 20 seconds straight from the ground with a huge drag in shape of its wheels which the pilot doesn't even bother tucking in well in to the maneuver ...

Whatever the case maybe, the highlight for LCA was this vertical takeoff ...



Then you absolutely need to see this ...

At 0 :00 sec vehicle is in movement.

 

[Saitama]

Hi,

Supposedly---Tejas did it to gain more speed to gather momentum to go nose up.

The JF 17 did not need to do it---because it already had enough power and built up momentum that it had to leave wheels down so as not to shoot off the air ceiling limit of 4000 ft---so basically it had air brakes on to take off to 4000 ft.

So according to you it proves that
1) jf17 cant controll its power.
2) do not have proper pitch axis controll or would have been able to pitch down before it goes out of 4000ft envelope
3)to avoid fatigue of horizontal fins because of low quality material and hence avoiding high g maneuver.
And so because of all the above factors you are using drag created by non retracted landing gear.
Genius you are!.

 

[sathya]

Hi,

Supposedly---Tejas did it to gain more speed to gather momentum to go nose up.

The JF 17 did not need to do it---because it already had enough power and built up momentum that it had to leave wheels down so as not to shoot off the air ceiling limit of 4000 ft---so basically it had air brakes on to take off to 4000 ft.

I am not a pilot or aeronautics related person.
But I know for two things to be compared all variables should be known .

Without knowing all, From these air show demos, I agree to my amateur eye, jf 17 had shown more power.

I waiting for the knowledgable persons opinion.

Hi,

yeah---indeed---that is what kept the Teja from flying for 30 years now-=--the known faults and then correcting those faults----.

Why don't you guys admit---you guys have been raped by your engineers---and technocrats and BABUS----

Those fckrs came up with one problems----say---no problem we fix it sir---it will work---they fix that problem and another pops up---we will fix that sir---no problem---and that kept on for 30 years-----.

And those jack off made money---had secure jobs for themselves and got their kids educated and got jobs for them as well.

Those fcking BABUS already knew that paf had sanctions---and no new aircraft is needed by the IAF for long time---because paf is not getting anything new for a long time---those fckrs were good in their assesment.

India wanted an aircraft of their own---and the BABUS got excited---praising the Lakshmi Goddess for their fortunes----. Them and your engineers got together and both praised in unison to the goddes of wealth---.

As the nation wanted more from their aircraft---the engineers offered more---and the Babus put in more money---as the demand for " do more --- make it better " increased---the babus got excited and the engineers towed the rope.

And to save their arse from being lit on fire by the public for not delivering----they cliamed---" oh it was our first venture---we learnt a lot "----yeah---those fckts learnt a lot how top steal money from the people for those large defence ventures---.

And the public as stupid as it is---says---" yeah they were learning---" learning my arse---. You are learning nothing from re-manufacturing a miniature mirage 2k when your future demand is twin engine---and after that 5th gen---.

That s how a new product is developed .

Please leave the monetary business to us ,. You don't have to worry about it.

I am willing to pay taxes to develop even more. I trust in them .

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

Wow it looks similar to Tejas bashing critics article.

Only difference is Tejas faults and weakness are well known, jf17 it's all hush- hush.

The only bashing LCA gets is the delay...delay...delay...there is no structural...design and wing broke in flight issues reported like JF 17....

 

[sathya]

The only bashing LCA gets is the delay...delay...delay...there is no structural...design and wing broke in flight issues reported like JF 17....

As far as I know

Over weight
Less weapon load
Under carriage
Maintenance unfriendly
Breaking overheat
More Drag

Before that,
Ejection seat height
Fuel line leak
Radome less radar range.
Radar back end processor.
Heavy landing gear in Naval version.

Jf 17 broke otherwise none.

 

[AyanRay]

Jaan ki aman paon to aik sawal kron??

Does any one thinks that an aircraft in 4th gen category, requiring pilot to mannually close its cannopy should be taken seriously?? And considered ready for service??

Any other 4th gen fighter requires pilot to close cannopy mannually??

What advantage does a automatic canopy has over manual canopy. Intact a manual canopy takes less time to close. Further LCA is a very small jet, infact the smallest jet in the world, a manually closed canopy was delebaretely placed in order to reduce weight and save space.

Do you know what the hallmarks of a true modern 4th gen fighter? Extensive use of composites, AESA/PESA radar, full FBW system, EW system, good engines (not a outdated Russian one whose after burner mode is almost useless) and Tejas has all of those.

For LCA we see a traditional vertical takeoff where the pilot gets airborne, builds up sufficient energy and then goes vertical .... for LCA it took 30 seconds ...
-The JFT goes vertical in 20 seconds straight from the ground with a huge drag in shape of its wheels which the pilot doesn't even bother tucking in well in to the maneuver ...

Please go through the below post.
And btw, have you heard something about 'low fly past-vertical take off'??

Guess what, according to OP, and those who have positively rated his post, JF-17 is better than the below aircrafts.

And both are twin engined jets.

 

[Saitama]

I am not a pilot or aeronautics related person.
But I know for two things to be compared all variables should be known .

Without knowing all, From these air show demos, I agree to my amateur eye, jf 17 had shown more power.

I waiting for the knowledgable persons opinion.

Okay i have done a fairly detailed technical analysisbon verticle takeoff of jf 17 and lca and other such aircrafts.
But first can u tell me how to post images lol.

 

[sathya]

Okay i have done a fairly detailed technical analysisbon verticle takeoff of jf 17 and lca and other such aircrafts.
But first can u tell me how to post images lol.

Hi,

copy and paste the image URL at the button next to emoticon

 

[MimophantSlayer]

For the people going about how JFT took 20 seconds just to get airborne ... Here is a video from Zhuhai airshow 2010, where a JFT gets airborne in 14 seconds

JF-17 is clearly moving even before the start of the video.

For LCA we see a traditional vertical takeoff where the pilot gets airborne, builds up sufficient energy and then goes vertical .... for LCA it took 30 seconds ...
-The JFT goes vertical in 20 seconds straight from the ground with a huge drag in shape of its wheels which the pilot doesn't even bother tucking in well in to the maneuver ...

Non sense, watch the video again.
Why bother doing something so cumbersome as JFT does, when it hardly maintained a low speed vertical climb for less than 5 seconds.
Look at Tejas, it maintains a high speed vertical climb for over 11 second.

 

[mansour313]

it takes time for turbine to spool, either you can taxi on ground for 20 secs and do a vertical climb or take off in 13 seconds and build up energy for another 6 secs and then do a vertical pull. It really means nothing about anything.

 

[cerberus]

JF-17 is clearly moving even before the start of the video.



Non sense, watch the video again.
Why bother doing something so cumbersome as JFT does, when it hardly maintained a low speed vertical climb for less than 5 seconds.
Look at Tejas, it maintains a high speed vertical climb for over 11 second.

Guys pulling out BS. Here you are wasting

Guys here are stating their Own Laws of Aerodynamics from just looking 20-30 seconds videos
Look how they trying to be expert in field where the possess Zero Factual
Knowledge.



Lost my will even to comprehend now Leave debate aside

 

[Saitama]

to performing vertical takeoff you need enough speed and have some lift and then use your pitch to move up.

pitch axis is controlled by elevators which are control surfaces on horizontal stabilizers of an aircraft.
whenever elevators are lifted up a downward force is created that will push down empennage of aircraft lifting up the nose of aircraft.

for a sustained vertical take off you need higher thrust such that the force produced should be greater than combination of drag force of an aircraft and weight of an aircraft.

according to available information nether jf17 nor LCA has required thrust to overcome both weight and drag force for vertical flight(remember there is no lift produce by wings during vertical flight)
but by building up momentum such maneuver can be performed.
momentum=force*velocity
the higher thrust and velocity results more sustained vertical flight.
and hence in videos we can see that both LCA and jf17 have there afterburner on for speed.

huge force is required to pitch and aircraft which can be achieved by elevators with larger surface are but it is not feasible as it increases skin friction drag,so some times they make use of drag force created by landing gear of aircraft.

and hence jf17 took longer time for liftoff to build up speed(generate momentum) and did not retract its landing gear.
another such example is
boeing vertical takeoff search on google.