JF-17 Thunder Structure Change For Longer Range & BVR Load:--- | Page 2 | World Defense

JF-17 Thunder Structure Change For Longer Range & BVR Load:---

Mastankhan

MEMBER
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
221
Reactions
851 14
Country
Pakistan
Location
USA
Dear Mr. Khan
is there any news that we are going the NG route may be in next block?

Also any improvement in the engine that could be seen on block iii and with which if so, would it maintain same ratio or will add a lb or more?
thanks
Hi,

I normally don't get into these issues---my direction is more towards tactics & strategy and needs----. Is that right @Khafee @Mangus Ortus Novem

Increment of thrust to weight ratio would be by default as lighter material is used for the skin first of all.

It is a definitive that the BLK3 engine would have more thrust---.

I am not a big fan of " more thrust " per say---to me what is important is a shorter spool up time as compared to the enemy aircraft and quicker acceleration power when needed---and a reasonably long period of time between overhauls---.
 

Ghessan

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
14
Reactions
20
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Hi,

I normally don't get into these issues---my direction is more towards tactics & strategy and needs----. Is that right @Khafee @Mangus Ortus Novem

Increment of thrust to weight ratio would be by default as lighter material is used for the skin first of all.

It is a definitive that the BLK3 engine would have more thrust---.

I am not a big fan of " more thrust " per say---to me what is important is a shorter spool up time as compared to the enemy aircraft and quicker acceleration power when needed---and a reasonably long period of time between overhauls---.
Khan sahib
thanks for the feedback, i also am more concerned about spool time and acceleration plus the overhauls for which i am in a doubt with rd and that's what forced me to ask for the improvement in engine for the block iii.

so my question is what improvement is coming with the new engine if we consider as discussed above?
thanks
 

Mangus Ortus Novem

THINK TANK: SENIOR
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
115
Reactions
889 14
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Hi,

I normally don't get into these issues---my direction is more towards tactics & strategy and needs----. Is that right @Khafee @Mangus Ortus Novem

Increment of thrust to weight ratio would be by default as lighter material is used for the skin first of all.

It is a definitive that the BLK3 engine would have more thrust---.

I am not a big fan of " more thrust " per say---to me what is important is a shorter spool up time as compared to the enemy aircraft and quicker acceleration power when needed---and a reasonably long period of time between overhauls---.

My very dear Pak MK,


I rather that you put all your thinking process into Strategic Framework...that we both and @Khafee have been trying to instil into the thinking process of YoungPaks.

But on tactical level I do welcome your angeling regarding fighter aircrafts... and you know... I do look at them as policy instruements... given my back ground is Finan/policy... so ....

Regarding, JF Thunder... of course, Blk4 is going to be the thing which you and I were calling JF18 i.e Thunder NG! Enlarged and all that jazz.

We need to put our thinking hats on and think more about PNS though... @Rashid Mahmood is here so he can provide the Creative Ternsion necessary to keep developing new models of thought.

We need PNS to now stop buying and stop this drama about ToT...and start producing locally... we need to build destroyers... even in they are not as capable as the next guy...but first blocks needs to emerge soon...

Sorry to bring PNS in it...but lessons from JF development.... good and bad... can be transplated in other services... We do need a Joint Defence Doctorine... pronto!

Mangus
 

Signalian

Professional
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Messages
224
Reactions
755 46
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
If structural changes for JF-17 do take place in future, then requirements should be :

1. CFT's as a must so as to free up wet pylons if possible.

2. IRST on the nose or under the chin or inbuilt targeting pod

3. A hard point for towed decoy as standard.

4. A hard point under fuselage (just like F-16's No. 5 R and 5 L) dedicated to EW pod + Jammer

5. Provision for an antenna array coupled with sensors or a smaller Radar in the tail for rear view

6. A bigger engine with super cruise ability.

7. Instead of inducting more pylons on wings for weapons, a hybrid weapon carriage system could be introduced with internal payload of up to two missiles or bombs, one on each sides of fuselage internally.
 

Rashid Mahmood

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Sep 11, 2019
Messages
8
Reactions
39
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
My very dear Pak MK,


I rather that you put all your thinking process into Strategic Framework...that we both and @Khafee have been trying to instil into the thinking process of YoungPaks.

But on tactical level I do welcome your angeling regarding fighter aircrafts... and you know... I do look at them as policy instruements... given my back ground is Finan/policy... so ....

Regarding, JF Thunder... of course, Blk4 is going to be the thing which you and I were calling JF18 i.e Thunder NG! Enlarged and all that jazz.

We need to put our thinking hats on and think more about PNS though... @Rashid Mahmood is here so he can provide the Creative Ternsion necessary to keep developing new models of thought.

We need PNS to now stop buying and stop this drama about ToT...and start producing locally... we need to build destroyers... even in they are not as capable as the next guy...but first blocks needs to emerge soon...

Sorry to bring PNS in it...but lessons from JF development.... good and bad... can be transplated in other services... We do need a Joint Defence Doctorine... pronto!

Mangus
We can discuss PN in another suitable thread perhaps.
Let this thread be about the JF-17.
 

BATMAN

MEMBER
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
518
Reactions
519 5
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
What about the two point pylon at the fuselage belly carrying 2 BVR. That would give 4 BVR / thunder + 2 wing tip short range IR homing missiles.
Conformals got to remain where they are.
Having permanent IRST would be an expensive gadget, for not much utility, making thunder expensive for less utility.
I'm saying this because, now since we have seen, ECM & BVR would be the key in future air battles.
Indians lost the first round because of inferior BVR, which is a lesson learned for both sides. So that's where PAC needs to focus more.... a smart and resilient next generation BVR, which can penetrate through heavily clutter of ECM, from distance of 150+.
 

Top