Twin Engine JF-17 as per MODP Report

[Goritoes]

I am thinking if someone " by mistake " wrote 40 units of F-35's recently inducted, bechare Indians ko tu waise hi heart attack a jana hai

 

[Super Falcon]

Sir fuselage cannot handle two engines better make new jet

 

[HRK]

It quotes and infact I noted sometimes on the Forum as well; JF-17 brought us the ability of evolution. Revolution was done when we started and had the block-1 so comes the evolution which warrants dedication, skill set, hard work and consistency as well. I agree on evolution part but PAC will be first to introduce a twin engine new bird based on revolution of JF-17 and still call it same. That's what confused me. F-16 is a single engine same like J-10 so if either of these platforms have twin engines as an evolution, will we still call it by the same name? However, your reference makes sense as that remained a Mirage nonetheless 4000.

JF-17 name might be used as reference indicating the common subsystem in new platform with JF-17 like engine, Radar & other avionics etc etc but the I would not be surprised IF PAC only undertook the study for the design of twine engine fuselage based on the cropped delta design design. Both JF-17 and F-16 are also crop delta

But if two RD-93 are used (like in Mig-29/35) then the air frame could be so different that it can hardly be called a variant anymore, it becomes a different jet.

Agreed .... IF this report is True then yes it will not be another JF-17 but a new platform here JF-17 might be used only as initial reference same as during the early days of JF-17 project it was given the name of failed project Super-7 from 1995 just because of the reason no other name was decided for new Project initiated in 1998-1999

Indigenous development of VT4 Gun barrel.

It was reported/rumoured in past as well that VT-4 will use indigenous barrel for main gun.

@HRK No mention of the indigenous Arty gun or the P series missile etc?

No many systems and developments which already in public knowledge are left unreported in this report.

 

[HRK]

I remember in 2017 @Bilal Khan (Quwa) presented the idaea of using airframe of MiG-35 with JF-17 radar and avionics and other subsystems post is quoted below.

I prefer that the PAF look at the MiG-35 or MiG-29M/M2.

It's a medium-weight platform, but we could equip the RD-33MK to the JF-17 as well - the MiG-35 and JF-17 could share the same engine. In fact, one could go several steps further and have the MiG-35 and JF-17 share the same radar, avionics, EW/ECM and weapons too.

For all intents and purposes, the MiG-29/35 could be a bigger and longer-range JF-17, and a beater for strike roles. Egypt got its MiG-29M/M2s for USD $40m a fighter.

I disagreed with this idea and wrote the following post

With all due respect I disagree with this proposal as we not only have Airfoce needs to cater but now have a NASCENT aviation industry as well, so why should we always think as CONSUMER/COSTUMER why not we should adopt the psychology of a PRODUCER ... ??

if we have to go for any such aircraft which should bring many commonalities with JF-17 such as engine & avionics, but will only be different in its design then why not engage our own industry .... ?? task them to come up with some indigenous (or with as little as possible foreign help), in fact why the design should be all different try to bring as much commonalities possible in that venture take Mirage-2000 to Mirage-4000, or earlier F/A-18 to Super Hornet as examples

This will not only address the needs of Airforce but would the serve the local industry & would help in its growth as well ... IF we should necessarily be involved in any 4 or 4+ generation project then in my humble opinion we must try to adopt this path not just off-the shelf purchase unless number are ≤ 40...

Keep in mind this debate was an effort to understand the need of strike platform and a possible solution to this problem.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

It Claims

"Design Improvement for a Twin Engine Thunder" has been done

• Design is not not In production , developed model
• It is merely a conceptual proof of concept''

1- Design -> Approvals- >Porotype -> Flight Test -> First Production Unit (4-7 year cycle)

 

[FuturePAF]

If it's not another Typo then I think along with VT 4 we may be going for Oplot Tank also.

And hopefully with it domestic production of the Oplot’s complete power pack. That is essential to domestic production of an indigenous design in the future.

 

[HRK]

Or just a proposal

more probable logical suggestion

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I remember in 2017 @Bilal Khan (Quwa) presented the idaea of using airframe of MiG-35 with JF-17 radar and avionics and other subsystems post is quoted below.



I disagreed with this idea and wrote the following post


Keep in mind this debate was an effort to understand the need of strike platform and a possible solution to this problem.

That idea (MiG-35) and -- IMO -- this (apparent) twin-engine JF-17 concept are totally redundant now that the J-10CE is coming. The J-10CE will be our medium-weight fighter for the future. The only scenario where this 'twin-engine JF-17' business makes sense is if it's the groundwork for the NGFA, i.e. AZM. Basically, they shelved the twin-engine heavy idea and are moving towards a twin-engine medium-weight design similar to the FC-31 and KFX. This could make some sense. The idea that all this could lead to the J-35/J-21 is plausible.

 

[ziaulislam]

That idea (MiG-35) and -- IMO -- this (apparent) twin-engine JF-17 concept are totally redundant now that the J-10CE is coming. The J-10CE will be our medium-weight fighter for the future. The only scenario where this 'twin-engine JF-17' business makes sense is if it's the groundwork for the NGFA, i.e. AZM. Basically, they shelved the twin-engine heavy idea and are moving towards a twin-engine medium-weight design similar to the FC-31 and KFX. This could make some sense. The idea that all this could lead to the J-35/J-21 is plausible.

But how do we know j10 is coming
Its not confirmed? Or did i miss the news?
Certainly this idea is years away from production as we would have known when protype fly which when/if happens means another 2 years till induction

 

[MH.Yang]

From single engine to dual engine, the thrust of the aircraft is bound to change greatly. Shouldn't pneumatic be redesigned? This is another kind of plane.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

But how do we know j10 is coming
Its not confirmed? Or did i miss the news?
Certainly this idea is years away from production as we would have known when protype fly which when/if happens means another 2 years till induction

I'm going by what several people on this forum have said (that I trust - @kursed @Ark_Angel) plus the fact that the PAF's itself been saying it wants another fighter (before the NGFA) for years (e.g. ACM Sohail Aman to Bol Narratives in 2017; ACM Mujahid Anwar Khan to Alan Warnes in 2019).

 

[HRK]

That idea (MiG-35) and -- IMO -- this (apparent) twin-engine JF-17 concept are totally redundant now that the J-10CE is coming. The J-10CE will be our medium-weight fighter for the future. The only scenario where this 'twin-engine JF-17' business makes sense is if it's the groundwork for the NGFA, i.e. AZM. Basically, they shelved the twin-engine heavy idea and are moving towards a twin-engine medium-weight design similar to the FC-31 and KFX. This could make some sense. The idea that all this could lead to the J-35/J-21 is plausible.

from this perspective yes .... but if we look a it from another perspective then

- This medium weight twine engine design could act as intermediary link between Project Azm and current 4+ generation (JF-17 blk-III) project of PAC

- PAF has not operated a true twine engine strike platform but Azam is supposed to be a VLO deep strike platform, so from the POV of manufacturer and the user a direct jump from a single engine 4+ generation (JF-17 blk-III) project to 5th gen project is risky, therefore

- This project could be a risk mitigation measure and could also act as a test platform for nextgen avionics and other subsystems.

- It is representing the more 'rational approach' which PAC and PAF are taking before the more ambitious 5th gen program presented before in ex-ACM Sohail Aman tenure

- FC-31/J-35 could not act as strike platform in their LO state, therefore a more conventional approach is under consideration for this supposed twin engine jet.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Twin Engine Thunder will look closer to F-18 Hornet
The Fuselage will need some reworking to allow fitting of 2 Engines and intakes will have to get upgraded for air flow

Conversion 2 Twin Engine will certainly mean major work on the central column for plane

Scaled Up Thunder 1.5x to 2.0x
Reworked Fuselage
Obviously Tail will get adjusted
The wings will certainly possibly change

 

[Falcon26]

@Rafi ??

Nuff said

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

from this perspective yes .... but we look a it from other perspective then

- This medium weight twine engine design could act as intermediary link between Project Azm and current 4+ generation (JF-17 blk-III) project of PAC

- PAF has not operated a true twine engine strike platform but Azam is supposed to be a VLO deep strike platform, so from the POV of manufacturer and the user a direct jump from a single engine gen 4+ generation (JF-17 blk-III) to 5th gen is risky

- This project could be a risk mitigation measure and could also act as a test platform for nextgen avionics and other subsystems.

- It is representing the more 'rational approach' which PAC and PAF are taking before the more ambitious 5th gen program presented before in ex-ACM Sohail Aman tenure

- FC-31/J-35 could not act as strike platform in their LO state, therefore a more conventional approach is under consideration for this supposed twin engine jet.

IMO a twin-engine JF-17 could be an interesting project if the PAF rolls the goals of AZM into the TFX.

Let's say you defer the twin-engine VLO to Turkey, you could work on a less complex medium-weight similar to India's ORCA/TEDBF to serve as a complementary fighter. I don't think we'd be able to sustain two big fighter projects, so we'll have to take one of these off our plate. For example, if the VLO program isn't our concern anymore (we bank on Turkey), then we can do this 4+/5-Lite program.

That said, China's going to tell us to get bent. No way we're going to get their help on this fighter when it conflicts with at least 2 projects they'd rather sell us off-the-shelf (J-10 or FC-31) because, well, it's easier for everyone. This 'twin-engine JF-17' is only related to the JF-17 by name (and maybe RD-93), but otherwise, it would be an original fighter program from scratch. Removing VLO from the equation makes things simpler, but the rest -- i.e., flight control system, materials, etc -- will still be a complex and costly undertaking.