Re: Test Flaws Postpone JF-17
Probably on my end, my chrome tries double post me all the time. Lucky I have the 40 second timer.
Probably on my end, my chrome tries double post me all the time. Lucky I have the 40 second timer.
JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
- Thread starter johnqh
- Start date
Re: Test Flaws Postpone JF-17
Are we sure there is going to be any significant change in the airframe for blockk II?
Yes for sure ! That's the first prototype with the smaller LERX, the old intake, no ECM/ESM pod on the tail ....
Honestly, we all know that so far no Block 02 airframe has been built.
Deino
Are we sure there is going to be any significant change in the airframe for blockk II?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: Test Flaws Postpone JF-17
No, I think this airframe is pretty much fixed as what the JF17 will be based on now. The future Blks will mainly be refinements and incremental improvements. The BlkII will likely mean adding new features like IFR, IRST, maybe some new avionics on top of that. The next big change will come further down the road with a new AESA radar added when that becomes available/affordable. A further Blk might add conformal fuel tanks, but that is a very long way down the line at the moment.
No, I think this airframe is pretty much fixed as what the JF17 will be based on now. The future Blks will mainly be refinements and incremental improvements. The BlkII will likely mean adding new features like IFR, IRST, maybe some new avionics on top of that. The next big change will come further down the road with a new AESA radar added when that becomes available/affordable. A further Blk might add conformal fuel tanks, but that is a very long way down the line at the moment.
Dizasta1
Senior Member
Re: Test Flaws Postpone JF-17
Regarding the WS-13 engines ...... what is the update on this? What time frame are we looking at, where WS-13s will become the standard power-plant for the JF-17 Thunder? Also, there was a recent news, which stated that the prototype-06 was tested in full load configuration. If you could shed some light on that, whether the 06 testing could have included the increase in maximum wing-load or that could the tests be translated as the JF-17 would get additional hard-points, or perhaps dual-ejector racks?
Finally, regarding the AESA radar, wouldn't it mean that the nose-cone of the aircraft would be reshaped, to fit the radar on the aircraft. And how long, 2015-17, would it be, when the Thunder would get an AESA radar?
Regarding the WS-13 engines ...... what is the update on this? What time frame are we looking at, where WS-13s will become the standard power-plant for the JF-17 Thunder? Also, there was a recent news, which stated that the prototype-06 was tested in full load configuration. If you could shed some light on that, whether the 06 testing could have included the increase in maximum wing-load or that could the tests be translated as the JF-17 would get additional hard-points, or perhaps dual-ejector racks?
Finally, regarding the AESA radar, wouldn't it mean that the nose-cone of the aircraft would be reshaped, to fit the radar on the aircraft. And how long, 2015-17, would it be, when the Thunder would get an AESA radar?
Re: Test Flaws Postpone JF-17
Actually, I use chrome too. But I always hit "go advanced" before i submit a reply.
Re: Test Flaws Postpone JF-17
What is the significance of these tests? Do these tests clear the thunder for more agressive manouvers or allow it to carry more weapons load?
If the tests do cleat the AC for carrying more weapon load, would it be done through addition of one more hard point on each wing or use of twin ejector rails?
In my opinion use of twin ejector rail adds additional weight of the rail itself, will increase drag because of bigger size/lower hanging weapons and also increase radar signature, thus addition of one morehard point would be more suitable, but then is there enough space on the wings to add one more hard point? if yes where? between the two outer most?
What is the significance of these tests? Do these tests clear the thunder for more agressive manouvers or allow it to carry more weapons load?
If the tests do cleat the AC for carrying more weapon load, would it be done through addition of one more hard point on each wing or use of twin ejector rails?
In my opinion use of twin ejector rail adds additional weight of the rail itself, will increase drag because of bigger size/lower hanging weapons and also increase radar signature, thus addition of one morehard point would be more suitable, but then is there enough space on the wings to add one more hard point? if yes where? between the two outer most?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: Test Flaws Postpone JF-17
The rumor is the WS13 is externally identical to the RD93, so it is impossible to independently verify those claims. I think that is very 'convenient' for the people spreading these rumors, so that naturally causes me to be cautious with the rumors.
However, the fact remains that PT06 is still doing regular flights at CAC, last seen on the 26th with wingtip AAMs only, so there has to be some purpose to these continued flight testing as I think it is safe to say they have already covered all the basics already, and such a densely populated area seems like a poor choice to be testing out more advanced things like supersonic flights or post-stall maneuvers as the risks to people on the ground would be far too great.
If you go on the J20 thread, you can see the video of the test flights on the day. It is said that there were VIPs present for the test flights, and you can see a lot of people gathered around PT06, which was parked right next to the J20, yet everyone was looking athe PT06, so that would suggesting something is up.
In that context, PT06 being fitted with WS13 would make a lot of sense.
I think we will just need to wait for more info to be disclosed before we can form a good opinion on the validity of the claims.
How recent was the news? As I have already mentioned, PT06 was last seen flying on the 26th with wingtip AAMs only. I must admit that I have not been keeping a close watch on the JF17 program lately, but I would have expected to have heard about such a test. How reliable is this news you heard?
Ottomh, I remember chatter about the PAF asking for an increase in the max warload, but that was more about clearing the centerline hardpoint for a C802 so the JF17 could carry 3 missiles each. I do not recall anything on beefing up the wings or additional hard points (there just doesn't seem to be room tbh).
I haven't seen any pictures to show JF17s with twin missile racks, although they have had twin bomb racks for some time now, and if the PAF is interested, it should be a relatively straight forward and quick task to clear the JF17 for twin missile racks like those recently seen on J10s.
I assume you are talking about a canted nose? If so, then possibly they may redesign the radome, but not necessarily as it is perfectly feasible to add AESA radar without a canted nose as the F18E, Japanese F2 and F15 have shown. Adding a canted nose would be advantageous as that would increase the array size, but it's not a deal breaker if the nose isn't redesigned. But it is a relatively minor and straight forward mod that it shouldn't really even be an issue.
WRT the timeframe, well I think that is rather dependent on the PAF based on their requirements and budgets. If they had the funds, they could have commissioned one of China's top radar firms to custom design them a set and that will be available in the shortest amount of time possible and build exactly to their specs. But I think the PAF prefers to have radar makers pitch designed to them, and that will take longer as the firms will have to front the cost themselves to build prototypes, and will also be mainly focused on PLAAF contracts, so any AESA they pitch to the PAF will likely be a scaled down version they have pitched to the PLAAF for the J10B, which might not be ideal for the PAF.
However, the J31 programme might be a big boost to the JF17's AESA aspirations, since the AESA for the J31 should be a similar size as one that would fit the JF17, so the PAF might get a pick of AESAs designed from the ground up for a fighter like the JF17 instead of being a scaled down version of a larger design.
If the PAF is happy with a scaled down radar, 2015-17 is entirely reasonable, and may prove to be conservative, but if they want a radar developed for the J31, they may have to wait longer.
The rumor is the WS13 is externally identical to the RD93, so it is impossible to independently verify those claims. I think that is very 'convenient' for the people spreading these rumors, so that naturally causes me to be cautious with the rumors.
However, the fact remains that PT06 is still doing regular flights at CAC, last seen on the 26th with wingtip AAMs only, so there has to be some purpose to these continued flight testing as I think it is safe to say they have already covered all the basics already, and such a densely populated area seems like a poor choice to be testing out more advanced things like supersonic flights or post-stall maneuvers as the risks to people on the ground would be far too great.
If you go on the J20 thread, you can see the video of the test flights on the day. It is said that there were VIPs present for the test flights, and you can see a lot of people gathered around PT06, which was parked right next to the J20, yet everyone was looking athe PT06, so that would suggesting something is up.
In that context, PT06 being fitted with WS13 would make a lot of sense.
I think we will just need to wait for more info to be disclosed before we can form a good opinion on the validity of the claims.
How recent was the news? As I have already mentioned, PT06 was last seen flying on the 26th with wingtip AAMs only. I must admit that I have not been keeping a close watch on the JF17 program lately, but I would have expected to have heard about such a test. How reliable is this news you heard?
Ottomh, I remember chatter about the PAF asking for an increase in the max warload, but that was more about clearing the centerline hardpoint for a C802 so the JF17 could carry 3 missiles each. I do not recall anything on beefing up the wings or additional hard points (there just doesn't seem to be room tbh).
I haven't seen any pictures to show JF17s with twin missile racks, although they have had twin bomb racks for some time now, and if the PAF is interested, it should be a relatively straight forward and quick task to clear the JF17 for twin missile racks like those recently seen on J10s.
I assume you are talking about a canted nose? If so, then possibly they may redesign the radome, but not necessarily as it is perfectly feasible to add AESA radar without a canted nose as the F18E, Japanese F2 and F15 have shown. Adding a canted nose would be advantageous as that would increase the array size, but it's not a deal breaker if the nose isn't redesigned. But it is a relatively minor and straight forward mod that it shouldn't really even be an issue.
WRT the timeframe, well I think that is rather dependent on the PAF based on their requirements and budgets. If they had the funds, they could have commissioned one of China's top radar firms to custom design them a set and that will be available in the shortest amount of time possible and build exactly to their specs. But I think the PAF prefers to have radar makers pitch designed to them, and that will take longer as the firms will have to front the cost themselves to build prototypes, and will also be mainly focused on PLAAF contracts, so any AESA they pitch to the PAF will likely be a scaled down version they have pitched to the PLAAF for the J10B, which might not be ideal for the PAF.
However, the J31 programme might be a big boost to the JF17's AESA aspirations, since the AESA for the J31 should be a similar size as one that would fit the JF17, so the PAF might get a pick of AESAs designed from the ground up for a fighter like the JF17 instead of being a scaled down version of a larger design.
If the PAF is happy with a scaled down radar, 2015-17 is entirely reasonable, and may prove to be conservative, but if they want a radar developed for the J31, they may have to wait longer.