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

THINK TANK
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
464
Reactions
1 1,967 65
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

MEMBER
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
119
Reactions
239 7
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
 

BATMAN

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
1,166
Reactions
5 1,183 34
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
current HP configuration. Blk1-2

9920
 

Mangus Ortus Novem

THINK TANK: SENIOR
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
131
Reactions
983 16
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

MEMBER
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Messages
341
Reactions
1,191 65
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
9
Reactions
44
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

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
1,166
Reactions
5 1,183 34
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+.
 

TomCat

THINK TANK
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Messages
1,611
Reactions
2 4,304 137
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
@Khafee Sir, was reading your reply to a person on the other forum, about turboprop trainers carrying SOW, while theoretically they can carry, but sir wouldn't that cause a great disbalance during flight given the difference in ways turbofans (have inlets designed to provide stability) and props work. ? BTW do turboprop trainers like S Mushak have digital flight control systems to support yaw, roll, pitch or they headache to fly and control?
 

Mastankhan

THINK TANK
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
464
Reactions
1 1,967 65
Country
Pakistan
Location
USA
@Khafee Sir, was reading your reply to a person on the other forum, about turboprop trainers carrying SOW, while theoretically they can carry, but sir wouldn't that cause a great disbalance during flight given the difference in ways turbofans (have inlets designed to provide stability) and props work. ? BTW do turboprop trainers like S Mushak have digital flight control systems to support yaw, roll, pitch or they headache to fly and control?
Hi,

When you get to a stage to use sow from a turbo prop---you are done by that time---specially when you have an enemy the size of india---. ( depends on the size of turbo prop )

But then @Khafee can tell you more---because I believe that UAE bought some prop driven ground attack aircraft---.
 

TomCat

THINK TANK
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Messages
1,611
Reactions
2 4,304 137
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
@Scorpion I was wondering, the thing is, We Pakistanis always see the JF-17 Block 3 as a game changer for us and the region, especially in quantity. Given the hype and the actual upgrades provided, it truly is a good machine of its category and can fight almost any aircraft.

However, you being a Non-Pakistani, being a Saudi with having an air force flying F-15s and others, What are your neutral thoughts on the Block 2 JF-17 and compared to Block 3 as well as ok the overall fighter program ?
Given the price tag, would you wish to see it flying in the KSA flag ?

Features to consider of Block 2 :
Most features are just basic 4th Gen fighter features and nothing special, having a link, a strong PESA radar (upgradable to AESA), SD-10 and PL-15 BVR missile, Good ECM suite, Wide variety of Chinese origin missiles and munitions as well as Denel origin possibility.

Block 3 :

An AESA Radar having at least 800+ T/R modules, cooled by air and could be using GaN tech (unconfirmed), PL-15 BVR AAM (widely feared for its high range of 200+km (400km variant being developed), Better sensor suite possibly from J-20/J-10C, HUD of J-20, Better engine in near future, Widened intakes, ground clearance increased, Wings strengthened and physical features optimized for better aerodynamics and turns. Possibly dual racks for SD-10 BVR, HMDS with HOBS WVR AAM (PL-10E or A-Darter), Irst mounted on chin hp and i think an additional hardpoint to accomodate an ecm pod.

Any negative and positive thought would be considered as a critic review and appreciated, Regards
 

Scorpion

THINK TANK: SENIOR
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
3,798
Reactions
4 3,140 52
Country
Saudi Arabia
Location
Saudi Arabia
@Scorpion I was wondering, the thing is, We Pakistanis always see the JF-17 Block 3 as a game changer for us and the region, especially in quantity. Given the hype and the actual upgrades provided, it truly is a good machine of its category and can fight almost any aircraft.

However, you being a Non-Pakistani, being a Saudi with having an air force flying F-15s and others, What are your neutral thoughts on the Block 2 JF-17 and compared to Block 3 as well as ok the overall fighter program ?
Given the price tag, would you wish to see it flying in the KSA flag ?

Features to consider of Block 2 :
Most features are just basic 4th Gen fighter features and nothing special, having a link, a strong PESA radar (upgradable to AESA), SD-10 and PL-15 BVR missile, Good ECM suite, Wide variety of Chinese origin missiles and munitions as well as Denel origin possibility.

Block 3 :

An AESA Radar having at least 800+ T/R modules, cooled by air and could be using GaN tech (unconfirmed), PL-15 BVR AAM (widely feared for its high range of 200+km (400km variant being developed), Better sensor suite possibly from J-20/J-10C, HUD of J-20, Better engine in near future, Widened intakes, ground clearance increased, Wings strengthened and physical features optimized for better aerodynamics and turns. Possibly dual racks for SD-10 BVR, HMDS with HOBS WVR AAM (PL-10E or A-Darter), Irst mounted on chin hp and i think an additional hardpoint to accomodate an ecm pod.

Any negative and positive thought would be considered as a critic review and appreciated, Regards
As a lightweight multirole jet YES. I would like seeing it serving in the RSAF for A/A and BVR role only. It has high maneuverability and advanced III avionics. However, I would not be assigning air to surface missions due to its limitation in terms of payload in comparison to what we have in our inventory.
 

TomCat

THINK TANK
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Messages
1,611
Reactions
2 4,304 137
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
As a lightweight multirole jet YES. I would like seeing it serving in the RSAF for A/A and BVR role only. It has high maneuverability and advanced III avionics. However, I would not be assigning air to surface missions due to its limitation in terms of payload in comparison to what we have in our inventory.
Indeed, even most of us recommend only A2A roles for this, except for some A2G roles for ops to target installations or targets where no heavy Anti Ground munitions are required.
A medium/heavy fighter suits that role quite well, costs less since less units are deployed
 

Mastankhan

THINK TANK
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
464
Reactions
1 1,967 65
Country
Pakistan
Location
USA
As a lightweight multirole jet YES. I would like seeing it serving in the RSAF for A/A and BVR role only. It has high maneuverability and advanced III avionics. However, I would not be assigning air to surface missions due to its limitation in terms of payload in comparison to what we have in our inventory.
Hi,

Remember the F117---the small stealth aircraft---.

JF17 is small but no less potent---. With smart standoff weapons---you don't need a large load persay for every mission---. Two precision strike weapons do the needed damage---.
 
Top