What systems would it take to make the JF-17 optimal for less than 25 million$

[Darth Vader]

Let me put simply for every one
1 No Paf can't turn thunder 17 into engine because it will become a different air craft
No matter horse power you have ifs the wheels can't use this power properly it won't help same Wings can't support that weight
2 Pakistan can't start a production of aircraft which they need in limited number because Pakistan will go between 150 to 200 thunders if you beef your production 40 to 50 and suddenly stop at in 4 years unless Paf have 1000 thunders order in queue
3 Pakistan will and should customise and build a better agile numbile with modern systems and it should offer different role configuration it will help in sale's and Pakistan won't need different platform for different roles
Which will keep its price low on average because it was meant to change 3rd gen bird so even now it's a capable air craft
With different models and tailor made so every one could buy according to there needs

 

[ali_raza]

increase the payload.or make a high performance version.them AESA

 

[The SC]

NOTE: What I suggest below does NOT meet the criterion of 25 million dollars in the thread title, but I hope nobody minds me discussing this here.

EDIT: Also, when I talk about 'big brother' version of JF-17, I am suggesting we significantly re-design it. If that means effectively a new fighter, so be it.

It just struck me that the main limitation facing JF-17 is the amount of weight it can pull. And the main limitation in removing this deficiency is availability of engines. Well, what if we design a two engine 'big brother' version of JF-17 using the existing RD-93? My main question is, would that be viable?

From the OP, it supports a max weight of 12474kg. Since the empty weight of the aircraft is 6411kg, and max weight is 12474kg, that makes the payload equal to 6063kg. If worse comes to worse and a twin engine design could increase the payload by only 50%, that would still be 9094.5kg. Now, in the world of twin engine fighter jets that would be laughable. The Su-35 supports a payload of 16100kg calculated based on specs found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35#Specifications_.28Su-35S.29

BUT, if it is fast, agile, and nimble, we now have a platform where we can fit the AESA, IRST, and other goodies without problems. Of course this is under the assumption that our twin engine design would be so bloated that the payload gain sits at a mere 50%.

Ideas, thoughts, comments?

My suggestion is to lower weight by increasing the composite materials to around 60/70%, the weight to lift ratio will automatically increase and let be realistic with the engine, it will be either Russian Klimov or Chinese equivalent..
Changing the whole design is no feasible at the moment (maybe after the 150 or 250 intended production is done with)
So we are really dealing with the actual design of the JF-17..
There is no doubt that AESA, IRST and at least HOBS / HMDS will be implemented soon in the block 3. It will important to see some very sophisticated tech being adopted on the fighter plane, because it needs a technological edge, something almost inline / in par with the sensors of Spectra that we find on the Rafale, that is why I suggested in my second post of the thread the active cancellation technology.. remember that the SU-35 can use the KHIBINI system that is equivalent to the active cancellation of the Rafale.. I think the Indian SU-30MKI or super MKI can use it too, so it is not just a suggestion it is a requirement for future air combat..
It is fortunate that the JF-17 is BVR capable and has a lot of weapons integrations put into it., ad to it AESA, IRST and some more requirements of the day, plus lowering its weight through much more composites at optimum and you get a very potent fighter aircraft with low RCS (because it is already small) enhanced 10 folds with an active cancellation system, lower weight/higher payload equation.and some very good AA/AG targeting pods..
The numbers of the fighters (Quantity) in these circumstances are as much important as their Quality....

 

[Arsalan]

My suggestion is to lower weight by increasing the composite materials to around 60/70%, the weight to lift ratio will automatically increase and let be realistic with the engine, it will be either Russian Klimov or Chinese equivalent..
Changing the whole design is no feasible at the moment (maybe after the 150 or 250 intended production id done with)
So we are really dealing with the actual design of the JF-17..
There is no doubt that AESA, IRST and at least HOBS will be implemented soon in the block 3. It will important to see some very sophisticated tech being adopted on the fighter plane, because it needs a technological edge, something almost inline / in par with the sensors of Spectra that we find on the Rafale, that is why I suggested in my second post of the thread the active cancellation technology.. remember that the SU-35 can use the KHIBINI system that is equivalent to the active cancellation of the Rafale.. I think the Indian SU-30MKI or super MKI can use it too,so it is not just a suggestion it is a requirement for future air combat..
It is fortunate that the JF-17 is BVR capable and has a lot of weapons integrations put into it., ad to it AESA, IRST and some more requirements of the day, plus lowering its weight through much more composites at optimum and you get a very potent fighter aircraft with low RCS (because it is already small) enhanced 10 folds with an active cancellation system, lower weight/higher payload equation.and some very good AA/AG targeting pods..
The numbers of the fighters (Quantity) in these circumstances are as much important as their Quality....

A few points if i may?
Increasing the composites is not as simple as it sounds. It increases the costs and may compromise structural integrity as we have seen happening with another plane (lets not name it). However i agree that a well calculated increase in use of composite materials along with a better engine will make JF17 able to get to the next level. As for the other goodies to get there;
AESA is being actively pursued and PAC is looking at more than one options currently. The BLK-III is highly likely to come with an AESA.

IRST is also being studied and its importance in future combat environments is not hidden from anyone anymore. However keeping in mind the cost impact it is likely PAF/PAC will go for a pod version. This way they can buy a comparatively lesser number of POD equip planes with it based on mission profile. Also with netcentric approach all the planes will be sharing the information acquired by their sensors anyway. For that an additional special mission hard point can be integrated as well. One under the cockpit at forward fuselage. That can carry IRST or a targeting POD based on mission profile and again, with all planes sharing the data this would be a perfect solution.

HOBS that might come in form of a HOBS missile system. With HMS integrated the open structure architecture of the JF17 plane will ensure that the new modern weapons are integrated as the come available. So yes, HOBS is also likely to come at some point in time in the future.

 

[The SC]

A few points if i may?
Increasing the composites is not as simple as it sounds. It increases the costs and may compromise structural integrity as we have seen happening with another plane (lets not name it). However i agree that a well calculated increase in use of composite materials along with a better engine will make JF17 able to get to the next level. As for the other goodies to get there;
AESA is being actively pursued and PAC is looking at more than one options currently. The BLK-III is highly likely to come with an AESA.

IRST is also being studied and its importance in future combat environments is not hidden from anyone anymore. However keeping in mind the cost impact it is likely PAF/PAC will go for a pod version. This way they can buy a comparatively lesser number of POD equip planes with it based on mission profile. Also with netcentric approach all the planes will be sharing the information acquired by their sensors anyway. For that an additional special mission hard point can be integrated as well. One under the cockpit at forward fuselage. That can carry IRST or a targeting POD based on mission profile and again, with all planes sharing the data this would be a perfect solution.

HOBS that might come in form of a HOBS missile system. With HMS integrated the open structure architecture of the JF17 plane will ensure that the new modern weapons are integrated as the come available. So yes, HOBS is also likely to come at some point in time in the future.

It will also be important to have a squadron of dedicated " Growler-like " electronic warfare JF-17 _or some other warplanes in good condition That have some life to them before retirement_ that can be converted, These types are becoming increasingly important in modern warfare..

 

[Arsalan]

It will also be important to have a squadron of dedicated " Growler-like " electronic warfare JF-17 _or some other warplanes in good condition That have some life to them before retirement_ that can be converted, These types are becoming increasingly important in modern warfare..

Such capability is again likely to come in POD form and not integrated gadgets.

 

[The SC]

Such capability is again likely to come in POD form and not integrated gadgets.

That is OK for the JF-17s,
What about the other option of near retirement aircrafts as EW intruders and creating electronic havoc before any counter attack or any air combat, supported/ followed by the F-17s?

 

[Arsalan]

That is OK for the JF-17s,
What about the other option of near retirement aircrafts as EW intruders and creating electronic havoc before any counter attack or any air combat, supported/ followed by the F-17s?

Theoretically speaking, it is possible and with great potential results. However i am not so confident PAF will opt for that.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Cheap never sells---you have to make it expensive---.

 

[araz]

HMD also with AESA and much more...

BUT WILL IT BE ABLE TO SUPER CRUISE???? YOU CANT HAVE A 4.5generation FIGHTER WHICH DOES NOT SUPER CRUISE
A

 

[Hamza913]

Could that be achieved under 25 million bench mark ??
Certainly no....

Block 3 will definitely cost over 30 million dollars, probably 35.

Hi,

Cheap never sells---you have to make it expensive---.

Yeah, it's like this true story I read about this car made by Audi, it was a real good bang for your buck, but nobody would buy it as it was cheap, giving the impression it was a poor car. Once Audi raised the price, it starting selling like hot cakes.

What we need, is to ensure that the JF-17 is able to take on IAF Rafale and Super MKI even without ground and AWAECS support. That's what would make me comfortable.

Rafale will be tricky for block 3, maybe 4 or 5 could do it. As for the MKI, I think block 3 will be adequate.