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

[Zain Malik]

Do not focus that much on economy and savings...make a very potent airplane but still under a reasonable limit like 40 million and you will have more buyers than now

You mean JFT is not potent...???
Ohh i guess it is Beyond ur Imagination...

 

[jupiter2007]

Export version of JF-17 block 2 and Block 3 price will depend on aircraft configuration, i.e. radar, avionics, etc.

 

[CHI RULES]

You mean JFT is not potent...???
Ohh i guess it is Beyond ur Imagination...

Certainly block 3 will have more 4.5th gen capabilities of course along with modern advanced BVRs and HOBs WVR.

 

[Zain Malik]

Certainly block 3 will have more 4.5th gen capabilities of course along with modern advanced BVRs and HOBs WVR.

HMD also with AESA and much more...

 

[CHI RULES]

HMD also with AESA and much more...

Dear in network centric warfare even ordinary jet will become capable after armed with modern BVR with relatively larger no escape zone and HOBs Wvrs. Unfortunately IAF is already equipped with all gadgets except AESA.

 

[Zain Malik]

Dear in network centric warfare even ordinary jet will become capable after armed with modern BVR with relatively larger no escape zone and HOBs Wvrs. Unfortunately IAF is already equipped with all gadgets except AESA.

Yes they are but we also dont sitting back we are trying and thats a good thing.

 

[The SC]

First thing first Thunder was never ment to be a heavy fighter so the people who want it to able to take as many weapons as MKI, that would never happen. Thunder was seen as an option that could be indigenously developed inorder to replace the F-7 and Mirages and that too with some increased capabilities.

Secondly the 25M rice tag was a target set for Blk1 inorder to attract African and South American nations Blk 2 and later were always ment to have 30-35+M price tag.

Now coming to the current scenario when PAF/PAC has planned to give thunder even more legs since now they'll directly skip to a 5th gen fighter. Here things like AESA radar, IRST and HMDS have become very important because the adversary has improved alot and has the numerical superiority aswell. But unfortunately PAF/PAC have a tendency to miss targets and if the targets set for Blk 3 are missed we might compromise our airspace.

Block 3 is scheduled to start by the end of 2016, every site I've visited confirms the date.. production has increased to 20 aircrafts a year..

 

[A2Z]

Block 3 is scheduled to start by the end of 2016, every site I've visited confirms the date.. production has increased to 20 aircrafts a year..

Point is not whether PAC produces 20 or 25 aircraft a year, both the numbers are fine until the meet the targets set. As far as I have read almost everywhere whether it be ACM's interview, PDF or any other source they have been saying PAC/PAF is looking and evaluating AESA, IRST, new Engine or HMS, options no one is confirming.

At the moment when Rafale deal has been confirmed and so is the Super Sukhoi upgrade PAF needs a Blk3 with some lethal toys not an upgraded Blk2.

Now coming back to the point to the point number of aircrafts produced in a year, my personal opinion is that Pakistan must double the number i.e. take it to around 40. We need to replace the aging Mirages and F-7 or soon they'll get the name "Flying Coffins" or "Widow Maker" just like IAF's Mig-21s.

 

[CriticalThought]

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?

 

[Zain Malik]

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.

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?

Changing the whole airframe of a aircraft is not that easy as you are thinking brother
Also our 5th gen will must be a twin engine.... Twin engine fighter is needed for a deep strike and long range...But we are not going to have any 4++ (Su35-EUF , rumors) The twin engine will just be 5th gen.

Do you have any example of a single engine converted to twin engine..??? obviously not..

 

[Wet Shirt Contest]

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.

Thats not going to happen given the structural and power limitation of jf17 or unless it mounts a significantly more powerful engine. even the AESA for block III are not going to be a top end ones.

goodday

 

[CriticalThought]

Changing the whole airframe of a aircraft is not that easy as you are thinking brother
Also our 5th gen will must be a twin engine.... Twin engine fighter is needed for a deep strike and long range...But we are not going to have any 4++ (Su35-EUF , rumors) The twin engine will just be 5th gen.

Do you have any example of a single engine converted to twin engine..??? obviously not..

When I say 'twin engine version', I mean an aircraft that has its airframe modified suitably. And as the NOTE in the beginning of my post says, I understand it isn't easy. But my question is, would such a modified aircraft be viable in terms of delivering on the performance goals. Let me ask it another way, could it pose a significant threat to Rafael IF armed with the right technologies?

 

[Lil Mathew]

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.

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?

JF17 is a light fighter.. Useful load of jf17 is only 3.7t not 6t.. How can you change it to a double engine fighter.. It is better to develop a new single engine medium fighter or a double engine fighter..

 

[Ultima Thule]

Thats not going to happen given the structural and power limitation of jf17 or unless it mounts a significantly more powerful engine. even the AESA for block III are not going to be a top end ones.

goodday

China is Developing WS-13 thrust =19,000 lbs and WS-13E thrust = 22,000 lbs for JF-17

JF17 is a light fighter.. Useful load of jf17 is only 3.7t not 6t.. How can you change it to a double engine fighter.. It is better to develop a new single engine medium fighter or a double engine fighter..

not 3.7 ton but in block2 useful load is 4+ ton

 

[Zain Malik]

When I say 'twin engine version', I mean an aircraft that has its airframe modified suitably. And as the NOTE in the beginning of my post says, I understand it isn't easy. But my question is, would such a modified aircraft be viable in terms of delivering on the performance goals. Let me ask it another way, could it pose a significant threat to Rafael IF armed with the right technologies?

Our JFt thunder block 3 will be a signifant threat to rafale because it will be a true 4++ gen with AESA HMDS and much more

Thats not going to happen given the structural and power limitation of jf17 or unless it mounts a significantly more powerful engine. even the AESA for block III are not going to be a top end ones.

goodday

WS-13 is 10% more efficient..!! It will be the next engine for JFT.

f jf17 is only 3.7t

JF-17B is developing and will be inducted by end of 2016...Has a payload of 4.5 tonnes.