JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[tphuang]

Two things are crucial to the JF-17 Thunder. The first being the WS-13 Taishan engines, which have a higher performance than to the RD-93s or RD-33Us and have longer endurance between engine servicing. Also, we have got to get rid of the God Damn Smoke trails on the Thunder power-plant. With all the effort put into making JF-17 Thunders the main part of Pakistan Air Force's fighter fleet. It is essential that we manage to get everything right. Engine smoke trails ought to be resolved comprehensively.

The second thing crucial to the JF-17 Thunders is giving it larger wing area which would allow it more hard-points. With (x3) hard-points already occupied by Gasoline-Tanks, the Thunder can only carry (x4) Air-to-Air Missiles, which includes the Wing-Tip Rails. It's either Larger-Wing area, or Dual-Racks which can carry up to (x2) Air-to-Air Missiles on one rack. This would allow the Thunder to carry at least (x4) SD-10 BVR missiles and (x2) PL-9 WVR missiles.

I think people are overly obsessed about number of hard points.

carrying that many missiles will likely effect the flight performance and endurance of JF-17. JF-17 really aren't likely ever going to need more than 2 SD-10As and 2 SRAAMs in any air combat scenarios. If you look at J-10, it rarely carries more than 2 PL-12s and 2 PL-8Bs. Even if you really need more, they have dual racks now, so that's pretty easy to put on JF-17

 

[Zahid]

I think people are overly obsessed about number of hard points.

carrying that many missiles will likely effect the flight performance and endurance of JF-17. JF-17 really aren't likely ever going to need more than 2 SD-10As and 2 SRAAMs in any air combat scenarios. If you look at J-10, it rarely carries more than 2 PL-12s and 2 PL-8Bs. Even if you really need more, they have dual racks now, so that's pretty easy to put on JF-17

I agree. JF-17's philosophy would be compromised. It is better to make best use of the air-frame as it is. I am not sure if any major redesign would be worth the effort.

In case JF-17 is used for defending Pakistan's airspace then would it be essential to carry three fuel tanks? How would the range be affected in case only the centerline tank is used? Any guess?

 

[delft]

The second thing crucial to the JF-17 Thunders is giving it larger wing area which would allow it more hard-points. With (x3) hard-points already occupied by Gasoline-Tanks, the Thunder can only carry (x4) Air-to-Air Missiles, which includes the Wing-Tip Rails. It's either Larger-Wing area, or Dual-Racks which can carry up to (x2) Air-to-Air Missiles on one rack. This would allow the Thunder to carry at least (x4) SD-10 BVR missiles and (x2) PL-9 WVR missiles.

Correction: kerosine is the fuel for gas turbines, gasoline is used in many car engines and similar piston engines.

 

[asif iqbal]

Do RD93s still smoke? I don't remember seeing pictures of JF17s

.

A good point. The PAC assembled JF17 have been modified to smoke less, From 09-111 onwards all JF17 have been built in Pakistan

All these have flown in international airshows and most of them have reduced smoke than ones built in China I.e ones prior to 09-111

If you compare 2007 March fly past in Pakistan and then look at 11-130 and 11-134 in Dubai, And 10-114 and 10-113 from Farnborough and 10-116, 10-113 and 09-112 Zuhai you can see smoke reduction

Especially when you look at 10-116 it was using full afterburner hardly any smoke

 

[Lion]

A good point. The PAC assembled JF17 have been modified to smoke less, From 09-111 onwards all JF17 have been built in Pakistan

All these have flown in international airshows and most of them have reduced smoke than ones built in China I.e ones prior to 09-111

If you compare 2007 March fly past in Pakistan and then look at 11-130 and 11-134 in Dubai, And 10-114 and 10-113 from Farnborough and 10-116, 10-113 and 09-112 Zuhai you can see smoke reduction

Especially when you look at 10-116 it was using full afterburner hardly any smoke

Let me rephase your words...

The PAC assembled JF-17 have been modify by the Chengdu engineer to be virtual smoke free...

From your way you phase yr sounds, as if China is very bad in quality control. Remember all the JF-17 toolings, manufacturing procedure are all pass down from Chengdu AVIC instruction.

Even until now. PAC has no way to fully manufacture a full JF-17 without Chengdu's help. Some of the critical parts are in module(meaning already build in China) and then ship into PAC to be assemble into a full JF-17. Even the Russia RD-93 needs to be imported into China first before re-export to Pakistan.

 

[asif iqbal]

Yes that is correct Lion I'm not sure why you thought that of my post, the first aircraft were SBP so you could hardly expect any changes to engine once serial production started the smoke issue was addressed

There is around 40 Chinese engineers who are based in Kamra who overlook production with visitors from high up in PLAAF visiting frequently, one such visit was just a few weeks ago , this is very much a joint project and as you say but now PAC can build Thunder almost 90% on its own, they were able to integrate RD-93 into airframe around 2 years ago so they have come a long way, they are also assembling radar too from scratch

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

All these talks about the engine being under powered or smoke coming out of the tail---are basically silly arguments. I had lived close to Hill AFB close to ogden utah----the F16's smoked as bad as the JF17----. The phantom was notoriuously underpowered and so was the F14 and F18 as well when they came out----.

I mean to say that there must be a limit to posters stupidity about the smoke issue---when you have awacs that can track you from 250 miles away---when long range ground to air BVR's can lock and shoot at you from 75 miles + away---when air to air BVR's can lock on and shoot you from 30-40 miles away---when these air to air missiles can fly at 3 to 4 times the speed of sound----when these missiles can make 20+G turns----what difference does it make if your exhaust is full of smoke or it is smokeless-----when the missile tracking you can travel at 3 to 4 times the speed of sound and out pace and out maneouver---then what is the big deal about the 90 % thrust to weight ratio or 110% thrust to weight ratio.

Weapons systems with smarter electronics and jammers and missiles with better tracking and locking on systems will overcome the smoke issue or 90% thrust to weight ratio.

We all know where the technology was headed ( if you had followed it ) in the last 20 years and where it is at today---but excuse me---I am getting ahead of myself---.

 

[hardware]

the early production model of J-79 emit a lot smoke,during the vietnam air war, US pilot discover NV pilot will trailed the smoke tail to search and attack .late model version eliminate it.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Do RD93s still smoke? I don't remember seeing pictures of JF17s with smoke trails for some time now.

You are right,I guess and did read on a Paistani defence forum that RD93 smoke problem was resolved if not copletely, then to acceptable levels alteast.

Waiting eagerly for Zuhahi AIrshow to kickstart and watch all the Chines birds perform.

 

[Lion]

Hi,

All these talks about the engine being under powered or smoke coming out of the tail---are basically silly arguments. I had lived close to Hill AFB close to ogden utah----the F16's smoked as bad as the JF17----. The phantom was notoriuously underpowered and so was the F14 and F18 as well when they came out----.

I mean to say that there must be a limit to posters stupidity about the smoke issue---when you have awacs that can track you from 250 miles away---when long range ground to air BVR's can lock and shoot at you from 75 miles + away---when air to air BVR's can lock on and shoot you from 30-40 miles away---when these air to air missiles can fly at 3 to 4 times the speed of sound----when these missiles can make 20+G turns----what difference does it make if your exhaust is full of smoke or it is smokeless-----when the missile tracking you can travel at 3 to 4 times the speed of sound and out pace and out maneouver---then what is the big deal about the 90 % thrust to weight ratio or 110% thrust to weight ratio.

Weapons systems with smarter electronics and jammers and missiles with better tracking and locking on systems will overcome the smoke issue or 90% thrust to weight ratio.

We all know where the technology was headed ( if you had followed it ) in the last 20 years and where it is at today---but excuse me---I am getting ahead of myself---.

I think you underestimate the important of WVR dogfight. During a massive exercise conducted by PLAAF simulating both airforce of equal strength with EW suit, AWACS and dedicated jammer plane. The number of sucessful BVR is null. Half of the fight need to reduce to WVR dogfight again.

BVRAAM and AWACS is not some magic solution if your foes play their capable chaff and jammer well.