JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Dizasta1]

Anyways, coming back on topic, a key factor in the PAF’s love of the JF17, and the slow progress of the J10C deal, is the fact that the JF17 was tailor made to PAF requirements in a way the J10C could never be.

Chinese fighters have tended to prioritise energy efficiency due to China’s long-standing weakness in turbofan engines. That means Chinese pilots prefer slash and dash combat tactics.

PAF pilots and combat tactics OTOH, which have bee focused primarily around the F16, tend to favour the turn and burn style in which the F16 is unmatched in its weight class.

As such, if it adopted the J10, not only would the PAF need to add the logistical and financial burden of maintaining a new fighter type, it would also need to effectively develop a new way of fighting, which I think is the key issue.

That is likely also a reason for the delay with the Blk3 - the JF17 was always meant to the the low end of a hi-lo mix. Before, the hi end was taken by the F16, with the J10C originally planned to take over in the medium term. However, now instead the PAF is wanting the JF17 to be able to effectively stand in parity to the F16, if not even above it to be competitive against MKIs and Rafales. That is a massive expansion of the design scope, and an extremely challenging requirement given the size disparity, as such as delays is hardly surprising.

That is a very good analysis regarding Block-llls. Indeed Pakistan Air Force if so wishes to surpass the F-16's performance, and also deal with Rafales. This would be a greater challenge than before. Which brings us to the question, how would this be made possible? Would it require changes to the airframe, like it has been done with the F/A-18E Super Hornets and JAS-39 Gripen-NGs? Because in all honesty, Thunder's current size cannot possibly accomodate all the required modifications to surpass F-16's performance. The other question will be, how would CAC & PAC manage the energy requisite, when the design of the aircraft has DSI? Would we see a shift in the design back to conventional air-intakes, like they were in the early prototype versions? Would there also be a new engine (if intakes are altered), giving Thunders greater acceleration ability?

I agree that Pakistan Air Force has put more focus on Thunders, rather than more F-16s or going for a totally new type, like a J-10CEs. In a way, modi's hasty decision to buy Rafales off the shelf, gives Pakistan Air Force clarity as to which direction the adversary is headed toward. Making it easier for Pakistan Air Force to channel its resources in the correct direction. There is a possibility that Block-llls would serve as a transitional Block, gradual changes are introduced. But whatever the case, one thing is for certain, any new platform of Pakistan Air Force, will have to conform and enhance PAF fighting style and operational doctrine.

 

[Franklin]

That is a very good analysis regarding Block-llls. Indeed Pakistan Air Force if so wishes to surpass the F-16's performance, and also deal with Rafales. This would be a greater challenge than before. Which brings us to the question, how would this be made possible? Would it require changes to the airframe, like it has been done with the F/A-18E Super Hornets and JAS-39 Gripen-NGs? Because in all honesty, Thunder's current size cannot possibly accomodate all the required modifications to surpass F-16's performance. The other question will be, how would CAC & PAC manage the energy requisite, when the design of the aircraft has DSI? Would we see a shift in the design back to conventional air-intakes, like they were in the early prototype versions? Would there also be a new engine (if intakes are altered), giving Thunders greater acceleration ability?

I agree that Pakistan Air Force has put more focus on Thunders, rather than more F-16s or going for a totally new type, like a J-10CEs. In a way, modi's hasty decision to buy Rafales off the shelf, gives Pakistan Air Force clarity as to which direction the adversary is headed toward. Making it easier for Pakistan Air Force to channel its resources in the correct direction. There is a possibility that Block-llls would serve as a transitional Block, gradual changes are introduced. But whatever the case, one thing is for certain, any new platform of Pakistan Air Force, will have to conform and enhance PAF fighting style and operational doctrine.

In my view the JF-17 needs to be redesigned. Improve the visibility at the 6 o'clock position and make the plane more aerodynamically agile. Then with new engines (RD-93MA at 91kN max thrust) and a alphabet soup of new electronics (AESA, IRST, ECM, IFF, HMS, datalink) it should become a formidable fighter. Will the redesigns happen? We will have to wait and see.

It makes both economic and strategic sense for Pakistan to invest in the JF-17 Thunder block III rather than the J-10C or even the F-16. Its better to have 4 or 3 JF-17's in the air than to have 2 J-10C or F-16's in the air. Quantity is a quality in itself. Pakistan also has a ready production line for JF-17 parts and thus becomes less dependent on foreign component suppliers.

And economically the JF-17 is 58% made in Pakistan and that makes a serious economic difference. Not only in terms of the purchasing cost but also and maybe more importantly in terms of the life cycle cost.

 

[asif iqbal]

J10 big no no

JF17 yes yes all the way

My only concern is 2019 we should have built another 12 units of Block II to keep the production line warm

Then next year 18, 18 and 12 Block III in 2020, 2021 and 2022

Finalise the J31 or FC31 for PAF

Leap frog from JF17 Block III to FC31

 

[asif iqbal]

Edit

 

[plawolf]

That is a very good analysis regarding Block-llls. Indeed Pakistan Air Force if so wishes to surpass the F-16's performance, and also deal with Rafales. This would be a greater challenge than before. Which brings us to the question, how would this be made possible? Would it require changes to the airframe, like it has been done with the F/A-18E Super Hornets and JAS-39 Gripen-NGs? Because in all honesty, Thunder's current size cannot possibly accomodate all the required modifications to surpass F-16's performance. The other question will be, how would CAC & PAC manage the energy requisite, when the design of the aircraft has DSI? Would we see a shift in the design back to conventional air-intakes, like they were in the early prototype versions? Would there also be a new engine (if intakes are altered), giving Thunders greater acceleration ability?.

As with all designs, it’s a question of compromise.

You are simply not going to get a JF17 sized jet that performs as well as the F16 in WVR and BVR and still costs significantly less.

Personally, I think a F18A-F18E magnitude design change would not be worthwhile in terms of costs and timeframe. You are better off starting with a clean slate design.

With that in kind, the key question to ask is if you want to focus on BVR or WVR.

Personally I feel BVR is the better bet.

The JF17 is already somewhat handicapped by its low TWR, and even with the best engines in its weight class in the world, it’s still going to struggle against MKIs and Rafales in WVR, especially when the latter pair’s superior fuel fraction is considered.

Whatmore, any loss in agility can be significantly offset by the introduction of HMD and PL10 missiles. Why make crippling design choices to eek out tiny fractions more agility when you can have a missile do most of the hard work instead?

To focus on BVR, the biggest structural changes I would make are:
- adopting a Chinese style oversized radome, and offset with stealth shaping on the new radome to fit the biggest ASEA radar practical
- conformal fuel tanks to free up hardpoints and reduce RCS
- more use of composites and RAM to further reduce RCS
- J20 style IRST
- Wingtip mounted heavy duty EW pods (removable if possible)
- LO weapons pods

The idea is to use a combination of small RCS, EW, large ASEA and long range Chinese AAMs (in LO missile pods, or even loaded on future Chinese LO UCAVs acting as missile trucks) to get first look and first shoot in BVR, then finish up in WVR with HMS and PL10s.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The problem with the Paf is not what it likes or dislikes---it is not about the JF17 or the F16---the real tactical issue is the numbers---,

Paf does not have enough numbers at hand to confront a full fledged enemy attack on day one---. So it does not mater a tad bit if they they love the F16---are proud of the JF17 and hate the J10's---.

The enemy cares less---.

Some of you might recall a statement by Paf---all pakistan's assets were in the air when the strike in occupied kashmir happened on the 27th---that is not a good position to be in.

Paf needs a minimum of 100 aircraft of the same calibre of the JF17 / F16---so be they J10's or eurofighter or whatever---.

100 machine guns are always better than 50 machine guns---even though they don't bring any new technology---just ask the soldiers who are in the target sights of machine guns numbering from 51 to 100---.

 

[gelgoog]

I think the best program is likely to put the AESA, and new weapon systems in the Block 3 and later, once higher powered engines become available, do a more extensive modification of the aircraft.

While I would have earlier considered a new aircraft with an AL-31 class engine as the best bet, right now the Chinese supposedly have developed a modern engine in the same class as the RD-33. This means that engine can likely be used to refurbish the JF-17s in the future.

 

[Brumby]

Does anyone know whether the JF-17 has towed decoys? I could not find any information on it. AFAIK, all modern western 4th gen have them as it is considered to be the most effective counter measure available. The F-16 - even the earlier blocks have the ALE-50.

 

[Franklin]

Hi,

The problem with the Paf is not what it likes or dislikes---it is not about the JF17 or the F16---the real tactical issue is the numbers---,

Paf does not have enough numbers at hand to confront a full fledged enemy attack on day one---. So it does not mater a tad bit if they they love the F16---are proud of the JF17 and hate the J10's---.

The enemy cares less---.

Some of you might recall a statement by Paf---all pakistan's assets were in the air when the strike in occupied kashmir happened on the 27th---that is not a good position to be in.

Paf needs a minimum of 100 aircraft of the same calibre of the JF17 / F16---so be they J10's or eurofighter or whatever---.

100 machine guns are always better than 50 machine guns---even though they don't bring any new technology---just ask the soldiers who are in the target sights of machine guns numbering from 51 to 100---.

That's why Pakistan need to stick with the JF-17. Its the most affordable option for Pakistan. For the price of a pair of J-10C or F-16 you can buy 3 or 4 JF-17 block III. And when you also count the life cycle costs the savings for Pakistan will be even higher.

And not all of India's assets will be used against Pakistan in a war they have to hold back significant resources to counter China.

Does anyone know how many JF-17 Thunder's Pakistan produce each year ? And how many are now in service.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Does anyone know whether the JF-17 has towed decoys? I could not find any information on it. AFAIK, all modern western 4th gen have them as it is considered to be the most effective counter measure available. The F-16 - even the earlier blocks have the ALE-50.

I was never aware that fighters could tow decoys... Aren't they afraid that during hard turns, the cable could mangle the jet's posterior portions? If you tried to do a cobra, wouldn't the decoy overshoot and pull the tail of the jet forward or just slam into the jet? If you did a kulbit, wouldn't the cable wrap around the jet? I just can't imagine doing anything other than gentle almost straight flight while towing something. I also don't think landing would be easy without getting rear-ended by it or having it caught on something...