What's new

Thunder Resonates as Modernization Inches Forward in Pakistan

who told you JF-17 has stable airframe??
mach 1.6 was of PT-01 while production line was based on PT-03 which is mach 1.8...
first try getting some knowledge on JFT design before comments and showing your concerns.

Modern military aircraft with relaxed static stability(RSS) must needed a electronic flight control system in all axis.... First batches of JF17 only had fly by wire in pitch axis only... You can check this in your early jft threads or your PAC website (now also showing may be because of no updation) ...This clearly state that JFT is more a stable aircraft ...
When we consider LCA ya F16 development Full FBW was a primary objective... The claim about later addition of LERX and DSI in jft increased instability is there.... but an Aircraft designed with RSS and this are very very diff...
Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Kamra - JF-17 Thunder Aircraft

Mach 1.6 is from jf_17 IDEAS 2012 specifications... Do you have any new specification... Just post it bro.. I was banned in JF17 thread... So no interest visiting there :-) ...
jf_17_IDEAS_2012_specifications_1.jpg
 
Modern military aircraft with relaxed static stability(RSS) must needed a electronic flight control system in all axis.... First batches of JF17 only had fly by wire in pitch axis only... You can check this in your early jft threads or your PAC website (now also showing may be because of no updation) ...This clearly state that JFT is more a stable aircraft ...
When we consider LCA ya F16 development Full FBW was a primary objective... The claim about later addition of LERX and DSI in jft increased instability is there.... but an Aircraft designed with RSS and this are very very diff...
Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Kamra - JF-17 Thunder Aircraft

Mach 1.6 is from jf_17 IDEAS 2012 specifications... Do you have any new specification... Just post it bro.. I was banned in JF17 thread... So no interest visiting there :-) ...
jf_17_IDEAS_2012_specifications_1.jpg

Jf-17 FBW was upgraded onwards PT04

Some sources state that the system has been upgraded to provide fly-by-wire flight control in the roll and yaw axis also, the serial production aircraft having a digital quadruplex (quad-redundant) FBW system in the pitch axis and duplex (dual-redundant) FBW system in the roll and yaw axis.

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For more,Search about this subject yourself and you will get the answer
 
It will always be low for the First batch of any combat aircraft.

In PAF's case, it's more so, as PAF needs to have infrastructure and pilots ready to take on these aircraft. 50 aircraft means you need 100+ pilots trained so they can actually fly the jets. Then you have to retire the old aircraft and modify the logistics at airbases to accommodate a new aircraft.

What's the point in producing 18 or 25 or 100 aircraft per year if you don't have the infrastructure ready to absorb the aircraft?
Yes.. Agree to all points.. but the article seems to imply that PAC is already producing 18 a/c every year

One reason mentioned by aeronaut. The other is funds..I am able to bake ten cakes.. but if I can only purchase the batter for three.. then I cant do much. Additionally, the line took its time to ramp up. Since I just started baking cakes.. I wont be baking ten the first time I try them.. ill stary with three a day.. then to five.. to seven and so on.
The orders however are only delays by 9-10 months so all is quite well.
But are they building 18 per year as stated in the article..? While I am not questioning the capacity (since I have no mechanism of verifying the same), the article seems to claim that PAC is actually rolling out 18 planes every year..
 
Modern military aircraft with relaxed static stability(RSS) must needed a electronic flight control system in all axis....

And you will be banned here if you post repeated arguments for derailing the thread.

Please read about stability first. Stable and unstable is not in all dimensions. Stability is based on axis of movement. Stable in pitch,roll and yaw.. unstable in pitch..stable in roll and yaw.. unstable in all three axis.
Yes a aircraft with RSS will need electronic systems.... otherwise it will break up.. but aircraft such as the Mig-29 that do not employ RSS and instead has a positive longitudinal stability is still one of the most manoeuvrable aircraft out there. FBW was added to the Mig-29 at a later stage to improve pilot load.

Coming to the 1.6 mach.. yes.. at 35000 feet.. with 700 knots at sea level.. that is what the Thunder will do. However, 90% of modern air combat fighter sorties and missions do not involve flight beyond that speed nor are they required to. Hence the F-35 joint strike fighter also is limited to similar speeds at that altitude.. take the JF-17 higher.. and the F-35.. they will go faster. except the JF-17 will run out of fuel doing so.


So how about you stop wasting our time with the constant LCA references in FBW.. and instead post relevant to modernization studies or agree to disagree and walk away.

But are they building 18 per year as stated in the article..? While I am not questioning the capacity (since I have no mechanism of verifying the same), the article seems to claim that PAC is actually rolling out 18 planes every year..

The last year maybe.. not before that... o_O
The number of aircraft produced (42) does not seem to fit that number.
 
The last year maybe.. not before that... o_O
The number of aircraft produced (42) does not seem to fit that number.
Thats exactly what I was questioning.. I think its 8 per year over last 4 years (35 planes in 4 years post feb 2010 when 1st squad was launched) which probably got represented as 18 per year by mistake..
 
Thats exactly what I was questioning.. I think its 8 per year over last 4 years (35 planes in 4 years post feb 2010 when 1st squad was launched) which probably got represented as 18 per year by mistake..
It would be probably be more variable than that. Serial numbers are a good indication of how many were brought in.
 
And you will be banned here if you post repeated arguments for derailing the thread.

Please read about stability first. Stable and unstable is not in all dimensions. Stability is based on axis of movement. Stable in pitch,roll and yaw.. unstable in pitch..stable in roll and yaw.. unstable in all three axis.
Yes a aircraft with RSS will need electronic systems.... otherwise it will break up.. but aircraft such as the Mig-29 that do not employ RSS and instead has a positive longitudinal stability is still one of the most manoeuvrable aircraft out there. FBW was added to the Mig-29 at a later stage to improve pilot load.

Coming to the 1.6 mach.. yes.. at 35000 feet.. with 700 knots at sea level.. that is what the Thunder will do. However, 90% of modern air combat fighter sorties and missions do not involve flight beyond that speed nor are they required to. Hence the F-35 joint strike fighter also is limited to similar speeds at that altitude.. take the JF-17 higher.. and the F-35.. they will go faster. except the JF-17 will run out of fuel doing so.


So how about you stop wasting our time with the constant LCA references in FBW.. and instead post relevant to modernization studies or agree to disagree and walk away.


.
The LCA wing is EXACTLY the same concept as the 1970's viggen.
Saab_VIGGEN_AJ-37.png

Nothing new about this sort of compund delta or revolutionary for that matter. It is a good design philospohy to rectify performance issues with the delta wing and coupled with FBW makes for a potent fighter.. but not some starfighing spaceship. The F-16XL was a FAR more advanced wing design concept to the LCA.. employing both a compound delta and cranked arrow shape,
general_f-16xl.gif


That being said, dont start whining or going on pointless defensive insecurity on the Tejas.. it is still a very potent design and possibly the best that could come out of that configuration.

ALSO, this thread is on the JF-17.. any further derailment will not be tolerated.


.

Sir... Check who unwantedly took LCA in this discussion ( page 2,3 ,4 full of LCA) ... If thretened like this how can I prove my points??? I have replies for above posts... But as you said I'not derailing the thread... I"m just disagreeing and walking away...
 
Sir... Check who unwantedly took LCA in this discussion ( page 2,3 ,4 full of LCA) ... If thretened like this how can I prove my points??? I have replies for above posts... But as you said I'not derailing the thread... I"m just disagreeing and walking away...
Im banning those people from the thread. You can take those points and reply in PM.
 
Hi,

In a battle---you have to have something that can match one on one to the enemy's strike capability---. Then you also need to have something that concerns the enemy. War is a mind game as well alongwith the weapons---.

F16 in itself is an extremely superior platform---in an equivalent package---it is superior to the GRIPEN.

Fighter Planes are just one part of the whole War Game plan. Without the remaining assets you will not be able to perform any mission successfully, no mater what Plane you have. e.g. considering the assets USAF employ in a war theater, it will not matter if you give them JF17 and give PAF all the F22's. USAF will still be able to perform all its tasks without any resistance. Similarly if you give PAF all the assets that USAF has (and if PAF knows how to use them effectively); PAF will be able to achieve its mission objectives even with JF17 (against F22) quiet successfully.

All planes are built with specific requirements in mind. USAF needs F22 because they want to maintain WORLD Dominance. F22 in combination with all the remaining Assets will satisfy such missions 1000's of KM away from US territory. PAF does not have this requirement. Our only requirement is that we deny India (OUR NEIGHBOUR) air dominance inside Pakistani Territory. For that role JF17 meets all the criteria.

In JF17 PAF has a plane which is sanction proof, Cheap, upgradeable and customizable according to our requirements, easy to Maintain, can give you high Sortie Rate (better than the planes its replacing). able to carry all sorts of weapons (that you can find, mate and load onto it) hence a true multirole. Now how effectively it can meet its objectives will depend on the training of the Pilots and the deployment and integration of the rest of the assets by PAF.

F16, F15, Mig29, Su30 or even LCA are all planes made to perform certain tasks in combination with the rest of the Air force assets. Training, training, training and effective employment of these assets is the Real bottom line in any conflict.
 
With Indian MMRCA and FGFA tenders seeing delays and cuts, there's no need for J-10B.
As a moderator you should no better. What cuts? The FGFA has been delayed by 2 years at most, the Rafale will still be delivered in 2017. But if you think there is no need for the J-10B that is your call, just don't make things up, okay sir?
 
As a moderator you should no better. What cuts? The FGFA has been delayed by 2 years at most, the Rafale will still be delivered in 2017. But if you think there is no need for the J-10B that is your call, just don't make things up, okay sir?


We all give our Opinions/PoV's on this forum,Decisions are not made here on this forum for the armed forces...So i don't know why are you bothered by this...
 
We all give our Opinions/PoV's on this forum,Decisions are not made here on this forum for the armed forces...So i don't know why are you bothered by this...
Well to state something as fact, IMHO, is not correct and only perpetuates myths and lies. Somebody in Aeronaut's position should be acutely aware of this. He is welcome to believe and say what he wants but then people like me are free to correct him, aren't we?
 
Fighter Planes are just one part of the whole War Game plan.

In JF17 PAF has a plane which is sanction proof, Cheap, upgradeable and customizable according to our requirements, easy to Maintain, can give you high Sortie Rate (better than the planes its replacing). able to carry all sorts of weapons (that you can find, mate and load onto it) hence a true multirole. Now how effectively it can meet its objectives will depend on the training of the Pilots and the deployment and integration of the rest of the assets by PAF.

F16, F15, Mig29, Su30 or even LCA are all planes made to perform certain tasks in combination with the rest of the Air force assets. Training, training, training and effective employment of these assets is the Real bottom line in any conflict.

Hi,

Sir---you are incorrect in all your assumptions----. You get weapons systems or build them to counter and over power what the enemy has.

The enemy does not care if your plane is sanction proof and without sanctions. Its only concern is---when the two come face to face---what would yours do aganist its.

If your sanction proof weapons system is inferior to the enemy's frontline air dominance aircraft---it doesn't make much difference now---won't it.

It is by default that if you have an F22---all the supporting and complimentary systems would be designed to compliment that system.

In real world it does not work this way that you have JF17's aircraft---but your complimentary systems are on the scale to support the F22's----it never has and never will be.

All planes are designed to perform certain tasks---but these tasks are not performed in ether---just because they are designed to perform a certain task----does not mean that the enemy would allow it to perform that certain task.

The superior enemy weapons system would negate any tasks that you may want to carry out with your inferior system.

Bottomline is----one has to be honest with one' self and the nation---switch roles----think that pakistan owns all the assets of indian airforce----and then think that indian air force owns all the assets of pakistan air force----now tell me pakistanis----when the indians come and tell you that their JF17's would smash the bejesus out of your SU30's---what are you going to tell them.


Now---someone might want to give example of WW2 over here---that inferior american weapons took out the superior german weapons----indeed they did---. The american assembly line could churn out more tanks and aircrafts that the germans could----but on top of that the americans could also supply the war with more tank operators and fighter and bomber pilots than the germans could.

In reality---if PAF can put up 300 to 400 JF 17's against the 240 SU30's---that would be a monstrous acheivement----and if you then claim that you can take the enemy any place any time---absoluetly---because you have enough in numbers to make a sustained campaign.

And if you are able to shoot down 1/3 of enemy's primadonnas and losing 1/2 your assets----you might also take the fight out of the enemy as well.

You have to remember what the enemy perceives of its SU30---it is like a GOD---untouchable---without reproach---. So, in order for you to smash the enemy's pride---you have to have a certain amount of aircraft to take them mano a mano and come out ahead.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom