Shoud pakistan start j-2x programe low cost (5th generation) multirole aircraft to replace jf-17

[JamD]

I don't usually reply to posts like this but I felt compelled. Maybe if this is repeated enough times it will become common knowledge. I apologize in advance. I probably will get out of line. Nothing personal intended.

I think it is important to develop the next , iteration for JF17 thunder because that is how generally local Aviation sector improves. Develop a model and then develop its next cycle

Since it is our first plane , it makes sense to develop one more iteration for our local Manufacturing knowledge development.

Not really. Producing a new aircraft doesn't improve your aviation sector on its own. Producing aircraft that 1)satisfy a need of a customer 2)willing to pay the price, 3)in large numbers 4)consistently for many years, improves aviation sector. Also, involving private sector. Doing JF-17 Lego won't, sorry.

1- Two Engines , ensure greater capability to lift off with more Weapon load

Absolutely not. If we utilize your lego Jf-17 approach what we'll have is an aircraft which will be much heavier. The wing area will be much less than what is needed. It will actually take off in a longer distance (I assume this is what you mean when you say "greater capability to lift off"). Its payload will actually go down not up. That second engine probably added 1500 kg of weight. Sadly, thrust alone doesn't increase payload. You get diminishing returns if you just increase thrust.

I guarantee your aircraft will have a lower T/W than the JF-17.

2- Better survivability ratio in air if one engine become faulty during flight

Sure.

3- More power at disposal

Okay? How is that a gain when you have the turning performance of a rock? And you can only fly 200 km tops?

It won't waste money becasue , we will be developing the next Iteration / Version with only 15% cost of origional investment in Thunder program.

And have you thought about whether the PAF (or anyone else) wants the next generation of JF-17? From what I know PAF wants to focus on the JF-17 and go to next gen.

Also 15%? I wonder where you got that number from.

MAYBE if you would have been talking about replacing a big RD93 with two smaller engines I would've thought about a JF-17 iteration. But cramming two engines together is much harder than copy pasting it in a 2D picture.

Knowledge attained in enhancing structural design is priceless

No. It is actually very quantifiable. It isn't priceless. It is actually part of the development cost that you just talked about. Furthermore, because it is a finite cost, you can do a cost benefit analysis to see whether it is worth it (hint: it's not)

The modular design in Origional Thunder which will get inherited by JF-18 would be upgradable to newer radar , and Twin Engines will ensure it can fly with bigger radar if needed and more variety of weapon packages


I imagine the reworked Engine placement for JF-18 would look similar to Hornet

View attachment 382370

Presently in JF17 Thunder the sections 1 , 2 , 3 are are 1 single piece
where in Hornet you have clear visual of breakdown of how Pilot's section is seperated from two columns for Engines

I think you have mistaken the word modular to mean LEGO.

Do you know what an aircraft with two RD-33s, and a twin-tail is called?

It's called a MiG-29

I would suggest you look at the MiG-29 and think long and hard about why the designers of JF-17 don't make a MiG-29 out of it. Is it a step forward? sideways? or backwards?

And then ask yourself if PAC wanted to produce the MiG-29 couldn't they? Why don't they? Does PAF want it?
Yes they could. They don't want to. PAF doesn't want it. Also the international market doesn't want it. That spot is filled by the MiG-29.

Then, ask yourself whether taking a SMALL JF-17 and sticking two engines in it (God knows how) is better or not (in ANY way), than having a properly designed MEDIUM weight fighter like the MiG-29 (assuming that, that is what PAF wants).

I'll try my hand at analogies. You're trying to put a horse's heart in a human. Aircraft are usually designed around the engine (or engine class) and you will go too off optimum if you do something crazy like stick 2 RD-93s together.

I cannot stress enough how unreasonable this idea is from an aircraft design perspective. Please ask questions if you don't understand anything I've tried to explain.

Try skimming through some of the classical preliminary aircraft design books such as:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Aircraft_design.html?id=Q9QeAQAAIAAJ
https://books.google.com/books/about/Airplane_Design.html?id=usXVaf8Qu0cC
https://books.google.com/books/about/Aircraft_Performance_Design.html?id=Ck9l1DGj5-4C

to get a "feel" for how aircraft are designed and built.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Let me start with simple statement

"US has developed 2 Engine setup since F14" for its fleet !!!! , I want all users who read this statement to let that sink in for 2-3 Minutes

Can't remember a Russian plane with 1 engine

Acceleration Needs while Going Supersonic
Statement that compared Acceleration benefits of Twin Engine at Super Sonic Speeds

"Better thrust-to-drag ratio of single-engined fighters also allows better acceleration – oftentimes significantly so. F-16 has the best acceleration of all US teen fighters, and single-engined F-106 and J-35 have acceleration comparable to twin-engined F-4E, while similarly single-engined F-104A outperforms all three previous fighters by a significant margin. In fact, F-16Cs acceleration is better than that of the F-22A in transonic region (Mach 0,8-1,2 at 30k ft in 28 s vs 33 s for the F-22), though the F-22 has better supersonic acceleration. Both F-16 and the F-22 have significantly superior acceleration and endurance compared to the F-15 due to latter’s high tail-boat drag."


Overall Survivability:
If your 1 Engine goes down , you can still turn around and escape with full plane and not crash land


Max Lift off weight:
With Twin Engines , you have more weight you can carry into Air , which includes weight of plane + weapons you carry. A Twin Engine allows you to carry more load up in air

Max Load Carrying capability :

Weight of Plane:
> Weight of Skeleton of plane and parts
> Pilot , Avionics systems
> Radars installed in front
> Weight of Engines
> You may carry more fuel with you for your mission with larger fuel tanks (Internal fuel capacity)

Weight of Wepons:
> More weapons can be carryed when you Max Load figures are high , this
figure is generally high for jets that have twin Engine during takeoffs.
This may mean 2-4 more Missiles carried by your plane

Hardpoints of your craft depend on your weight Max Weight , you can fit new missiles overload your plane but it will not take off from runaway


Pilot Cockpit Area:
The cockpit is more roomy and wider , you can also sqeeze in extra systems into plane needed for flight /Missions


Considering the enemy (On Eastern Border) flies 2 Engine variants , we need to have certain capabilities to counter such crafts at Sea or on land , producing a JF-18 , twin engine locally benefits us , becasue we can keep our costs low

I don't think carrying on making Single Engine crafts is best for long term needs


Should we buy twin engine crafts ? Or Keep things running with Single Engine?

• Buying is not a problem , we always have option
• However JF-18 , would be cheaper option considering we can reuse 80% of tech from JF-17 , I forsea it being a bigger plane by 5%
• We can scale up the front of plane to accomodate "Bigger radars" which folks previously argued may be too large for Thunder to accomodate

Going from JF-17 to JF-18 is easier route , a plane which we can add more systems into it once we can take off from runway with greater allowed weight capacity

> Transferrable knowledge Knowledge of making 75% parts for Thunder to JF-18
> May need some redesign effort (New knowledge gained)
> Goal should be 99.9% manufactruing of plane locally


For properly trained Engineering Design team such a minor modification would pose "No Challange"since 70% of Thunder's existing parts are being moved over as is



The image below is "Scaled" model of Thunder. Only 2 changes have been made

1- The Engine which was positioned centrally has been split in 2 equal entities distributted across evenly each side, the plane still have a symmetery and balance (weight)

2- I repositioned the pilot's cabin more centrally to balance the plane out (While I admit this cabin area can be increased in length / width now

This hollow structure , fixed structure which houses the engines is presently manufactured as a SOLID 1 piece unit , this fixed part is the only part that needs changing from structural stand point and of course the tail

If we manufacture plane 99% in Pakistan with the Engine , the cost would be ideal for Pakistan's Aviation

• A twin Engine Thunder , JF-18 , 99% made locally that should be the goal

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Width is certainly added on cockpit area however the , front portion and cockpit area can have more length so front is narrowed depending on needs

I think we can see JF-17 , as newly evolved JF-18 would have larged Cockpit area wider, and the wider body will ensure some extra room for fuel

Mostly structural changes metal parts and body


Gains in such direction (A theoretical JF-18)
1- More weight carrying capabilities at takeoff, more weapons
2- More reliability in engine failiure situation
3- More pilot / Cockpit room , we can fit next Gen Display Monitors
4- Bigger Radars can be integrated
5- We might be in postion to double existing fuel capacity (internal)

 

[Ajit6333]

Oh, how much concerned you are about our country.........Ummah

But alas! your leadership openly talks about Cold start, Division of Country, Surgical Strikes and much more.
Let them tell as well taht Pakistan is their friend if they wish too.

I didnt said India is your friend I said India is not enemy of pakistan..well we are forced to say such things which you mentioned yesterday your ex NSA admitted paks role in 26/11 mumbai attacks....anyways lets not deviate from the topic else Eagle bhai will again report...Pak should not go for FGFA and you hv the min detterence against India

Discussions bring enlightenment. It's never a bad thing to think a step or even a few steps ahead bro.

The U.S. built war toys and assumed no country would be able to match their weapons for decades to come. So they shifted their military spending from research to maintaining their huge inventory and bases. And now some countries have caught up with the U.S. in some of the fields in which the U.S. had an overwhelming advantage.

No country has caught up with US ...pls give name of the country..

 

[MastanKhan]

Let me start with simple statement

"US has developed 2 Engine setup since F14" for its fleet !!!! , I want all users who read this statement to let that sink in for 2-3 Minutes

Can't remember a Russian plane with 1 engine

Acceleration Needs while Going Supersonic
Statement that compared Acceleration benefits of Twin Engine at Super Sonic Speeds

"Better thrust-to-drag ratio of single-engined fighters also allows better acceleration – oftentimes significantly so. F-16 has the best acceleration of all US teen fighters, and single-engined F-106 and J-35 have acceleration comparable to twin-engined F-4E, while similarly single-engined F-104A outperforms all three previous fighters by a significant margin. In fact, F-16Cs acceleration is better than that of the F-22A in transonic region (Mach 0,8-1,2 at 30k ft in 28 s vs 33 s for the F-22), though the F-22 has better supersonic acceleration. Both F-16 and the F-22 have significantly superior acceleration and endurance compared to the F-15 due to latter’s high tail-boat drag."


Overall Survivability:
If your 1 Engine goes down , you can still turn around and escape with full plane and not crash land


Max Lift off weight:
With Twin Engines , you have more weight you can carry into Air , which includes weight of plane + weapons you carry. A Twin Engine allows you to carry more load up in air

Max Load Carrying capability :

Weight of Plane:
> Weight of Skeleton of plane and parts
> Pilot , Avionics systems
> Radars installed in front
> Weight of Engines
> You may carry more fuel with you for your mission with larger fuel tanks (Internal fuel capacity)

Weight of Wepons:
> More weapons can be carryed when you Max Load figures are high , this
figure is generally high for jets that have twin Engine during takeoffs.
This may mean 2-4 more Missiles carried by your plane

Hardpoints of your craft depend on your weight Max Weight , you can fit new missiles overload your plane but it will not take off from runaway


Pilot Cockpit Area:
The cockpit is more roomy and wider , you can also sqeeze in extra systems into plane needed for flight /Missions


Considering the enemy (On Eastern Border) flies 2 Engine variants , we need to have certain capabilities to counter such crafts at Sea or on land , producing a JF-18 , twin engine locally benefits us , becasue we can keep our costs low

I don't think carrying on making Single Engine crafts is best for long term needs


Should we buy twin engine crafts ? Or Keep things running with Single Engine?

• Buying is not a problem , we always have option
• However JF-18 , would be cheaper option considering we can reuse 80% of tech from JF-17 , I forsea it being a bigger plane by 5%
• We can scale up the front of plane to accomodate "Bigger radars" which folks previously argued may be too large for Thunder to accomodate

Going from JF-17 to JF-18 is easier route , a plane which we can add more systems into it once we can take off from runway with greater allowed weight capacity

> Transferrable knowledge Knowledge of making 75% parts for Thunder to JF-18
> May need some redesign effort (New knowledge gained)
> Goal should be 99.9% manufactruing of plane locally


For properly trained Engineering Design team such a minor modification would pose "No Challange"since 70% of Thunder's existing parts are being moved over as is



The image below is "Scaled" model of Thunder. Only 2 changes have been made

1- The Engine which was positioned centrally has been split in 2 equal entities distributted across evenly each side, the plane still have a symmetery and balance (weight)

2- I repositioned the pilot's cabin more centrally to balance the plane out (While I admit this cabin area can be increased in length / width now

This hollow structure , fixed structure which houses the engines is presently manufactured as a SOLID 1 piece unit , this fixed part is the only part that needs changing from structural stand point and of course the tail

If we manufacture plane 99% in Pakistan with the Engine , the cost would be ideal for Pakistan's Aviation

• A twin Engine Thunder , JF-18 , 99% made locally that should be the goal

Hi,

This one already meets the criteria.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

Hi,

This one already meets the criteria.


View attachment 382581

Dear MK, old man, how is it going?

A few months back we did talk about JF18, if you recall... my sense is you are going to see JF18/J31 in PAF colours and in sufficient numbers. 30/40 won't cut any mustard.

Let us call this one NGF for now.

Having said that, our little wonder bird, JF17, is long way from maturity or evolution. In this class we shall see this genesis to keep going / evolving / transmuting till 2050.

In my eyes JF17 is truly transormative element from which all else will spring. Chinese/Turkish or Martian route not withstanding.

How is car sales glut in the US?

Regards,

SPF

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well certainly if the Stealth avenue opens why not , I personally like to build or keep local industry busy as well

 

[Storm Force]

Well certainly if the Stealth evenue opens why not , I personally like to build or keep local industry busy as well

Pakistani is far better and wiser sticking to working with their chinease.
They have given you the FC1/Thunder on a plate and will continue to evolve it from therir experience in developing technologies they are inputting into J10B/C and the J2/J31

Any twin engine coming out of China will be J31 based for now

AS FOR PAKIDSTAN going alone ........for get it the cost and time trying to set up the infrastructure is far far too long

ASK the ISRAELIS with LAVI or the even the Indians who nearly walked away from Tejas after $1 billion spent

 

[Cool_Soldier]

J-31 suits what we can afford but presently issue is J-31 will take some time to start its serial production.
So, PAF needs to wait for that.
Meanwhile try make JF-17 block-3 equal to 4.5 generation fighter plane as PAF is not seriously considering buying any such plane from international market.

 

[Ajit6333]

J-31 suits what we can afford but presently issue is J-31 will take some time to start its serial production.
So, PAF needs to wait for that.
Meanwhile try make JF-17 block-3 equal to 4.5 generation fighter plane as PAF is not seriously considering buying any such plane from international market.

You do not need to consider from international market becs paf wont be able to afford them

 

[BATMAN]

I was watching a progam on dunya news the anchor and analyst Rauf klasra

Pakistani tv / movies are banned in India.. where and why were you watching Pakistani talk shows?

You do not need to consider from international market becs paf wont be able to afford them

Have you considered the profit, which PAF will make selling JF-17?

Pakistani is far better and wiser sticking to working with their chinease.
They have given you the FC1/Thunder on a plate and will continue to evolve it from therir experience in developing technologies they are inputting into J10B/C and the J2/J31

Any twin engine coming out of China will be J31 based for now

AS FOR PAKIDSTAN going alone ........for get it the cost and time trying to set up the infrastructure is far far too long

ASK the ISRAELIS with LAVI or the even the Indians who nearly walked away from Tejas after $1 billion spent

J10 was developed after JF-17 and so is J31.
To any open minded, its quite obvious that J-10 and J-31 have borrowed technologies from JF-17 or perhaps you would like to point out something which is not visible on surface!

 

[ejaz007]

Pakistan cannot afford fgfa for next 10 years due to budget constraint and poor economiv growth ...

Economy is not a concern. Our 2016 economic growth was 4.7% and 2017 it is projected to grow at 5.2%. PAF shall get money for new fighter once JF-17 project has fully evolved most likely in 2018.

https://www.adb.org/countries/pakistan/economy

 

[graphican]

Instad of producing twin engine JF-17s, it would be much better if you induct stealth and twin engine jet in one go. Pakistan has great relationship with China and they can make every possible change you ask for. So go for J-31 which is already flying and customise it, get TOT for the components you need and focus on your next big thing.

Pakistani scientists should only work on things which cannot be obtained off the shelf. Submarine launched cruise missile and MIRV enabled Abbabel were similar marvellous and ambitious endeavours and congratulations to the team for coming out victorious.

 

[My-Analogous]

Assalam. O. Alaikum......,
My name is Ahmed, and I'm a learner and big fan of jf-7, I'm starting a discussion about fighter that we're hearing in 2011,
Please don't make fun of me (we have not get our all jf17 ,and u r talking about a new fighter program,)
Sorry about my English

We already working on that ground few years back

 

[Storm Force]

J10 was developed after JF-17 and so is J31.
To any open minded, its quite obvious that J-10 and J-31 have borrowed technologies from JF-17 or perhaps you would like to point out something which is not visible on surface!

INCORRECT

j10 ENTERED PLAAF service in 2005 .............Today J10 numbers 300 planes
JF17 was a budget programme specific to PAF requirements entered service in 2008. Tooday there are 80 fighters in service virtually one quarter the number.

DESPITE ENTERING SERVICE much later the JF17 lacks the following technology found in all J10 fighters

No Composite airframe
No HMD/HOBS missles capability
No Irst
No full triplex FBW capability.

HALF the Cost of the J10 the Thunder has omitted these technologies in order to reduce cost per unit.

THIS ALSO EXPLAINS PLAAF induction of only J10 .........the cheaper JF17 does not fit into PLAAF needs