Antibody, you have been very general in mentioning ECM. You know the ECM of JFT is the best what PAF had so far. JFT also have other classic counter measures, like flare dispensers etc.
You have to add the ergonomics of cockpit, help of simulators in induction and flying experience.
More you can mention short takeoff, accuracy of its targeting sensors, martibaker ejection seat.
Most important is to mention the brain behind the design was the number 1 airforce of the world.
You also have to be clear about its block-2 as block 1 is history now, as per schedule we shall see block 2 by mid of this year.
1] i had to round these off in this article however the longer version does have them
2] new point for me
3] explained in both version of the articles-however exact takeoff distance not mentioned in smaller version
4] i did touch a bit on this point , however the only extra point i know is by najam giving the wmd7's capabilty between lantrin/sniper --however ive no link to a site for this
5]had to remove from smaller version along with temperature etc controller and french oxygen system
6]you mean to say 'the first fighter made by an airforce for its specific needs - as there is no precedence of it as all other airforces buy fighters from private companies -- good point-- it was first pointed out by neo
7]at most i can use the general time frame depicted in the dubai presentation , however i kept the capabilities general as i dont have any proof that which blk would eventually get which goodies, at the moment
What about leather interior and upgraded sound system?
To stay on topic, to say that the JF-17 is "the first fighter made by an airforce for its specific needs - as there is no precedence of it as all other airforces buy fighters from private companies" is not exactly correct, as USAF for decades has published its specific needs, and invited proposals, which then undergo a formal process of selection.
Last edited by VCheng; 01-31-2012 at 04:45 AM.
ive been browsing around...some guys dont get why i chose this title for the article -- its a light catchy play of words which would unconsciously settle in your mind , just like the title of an anti- jft article by some particular author -- youve got to startle the people enough to get them to actually read the article -- the other option for the title was 'thunder riders' but it doesnt have enough specific tags to appear upon google search
Status on weapon testing??
You have to understand what engines give out in their test bed. The F-35 engine can churn out a Max thrust of over 55,000lbf. So theoretically F-35 should be rated 55,000lbf, however it is not. In the SPECIFICATION data sheet it is only given to be 43,000lbf. What you are posting is a general non-technical cutout which also explains JF-17's history and stuff, not a data sheet. Basically it is a poster for n00b visitors at the Zhuhai show.That alone may not be enough to convince you...
but here are other pieces of info that suggest the 98kN figure to be true....
* The fact that PAF chose the RD-93 over the existing WS-13.
Now the WS-13 is very similar to the RD-93, the only big difference is that the RD-93 is slightly larger and heavier, and performance wise the RD-93 was a little more responsive.
* That got me thinking... why would PAF choose the RD-93 over the WS-13, at first I had assumed that maybe the Chinese don't have WS-13 production line in order and maybe PAF wants it's JF-17s ASAP (This may be the case, I'm not ruling it out).
* But then we heard from Chinese Think Tanks and Boss' at CDF that the Chinese had asked for the Russians to improve the RD-93's performance, whcih shouldn't at all be surprising since thee RD-33 has some variants with upgraded thrust, and obviously JF-17 would be underpowered if fitted with the RD-93 which had only 84kN Thrust.
* Then, when I attended Farnborough airshow, I had the privilege of asking one of the PAF representatives, again I can't remember who... who told me that the TWR was around 1, he specifically said a minimum of 0.95.
* Now Sqn Ldr Hussain Shaheed said that the TWR was more than 1.01.
* Then we have the Dubai presentation of 249m/s climb which surpasses the Gripen E/F. Now I suppose you could say that you could get more from the wings then the engine thrust, but the other optimal climb rate is when you burn less fuel and rely more on the wings and less on the engine.
* And now recently we've had the figure of 4,600kg for external stores of the JF-17, from the original 3,800kg figure established many years ago. I suppose that could be explained by the various airframe modifications through the prototype stage.
As far as Klimov is concerned, their only new engine which featured a thrust increase is RD-33 "Sea Wasp". That too only gave a 700kgf more thrust compared to the older RD-33. If they really did accomplish that tremendous increase of USEFUL thrust(1000kgf!), I doubt such a huge news would go under reported. Russians would be putting out news everywhere painting the whole internet Red, and give special names to highlight their "new" product, just like they did when they unveiled and named the "Sea Wasp" Engine.
Also, engines are not about just thrust increase. There are far more important factors than just a thrust increase. Some of them are SFC, spool time, by-pass ratios, inlet and outlet temp, faster rpm responses, MTBO, high AoA performance, back flow immunity.. etc etc etc. So just because Chinese(in all their closed-to-scrutiny culture & media censorship) claim they fielded an engine of higher thrust, doesn't mean it is a reliable one in other parameters.
The RD-93/RD-33 Series 3 has a 19200lbf emergency afterburner thrust and 18,300lbf(8300kgf) afterburner thrust, is what is given in technical datasheet. And the technical data sheet of "Sea Wasp" has 19840lbf(9000kgf).
As far as TWR is concerned, JF-17 could very well have a TWR more than that of a BAI equipped Raptor if it wanted to. How much fuel and the amount of ordinance it carries determines its TWR. Also TWR is not calculated by a special TWR equipment, even a Lockheed Martin engineer will use the same device to calculate it as you and me, A Digital Calculator! All that he needs is the empty weight, fuel weight, ordinance weight, and engine max thrust under grounded conditions to calculate it. So it's not something a pilot would see in his cockpit in his dials, or in his MFDs. That quantity cannot be measured, it has to be calculated manually.
Saying TWR = 1 is the same as saying a Radar's Range without it's RCS figure. TWR without specifying fuel weight and ordinance weight, is the same as saying a Radar has a Range of 75 Km, without it's accompanying 3sqm RCS. It is an incomplete sentence. I'm surprised a Pilot said a TWR without saying under what loaded conditions.
4,600? Where is it written that it is 4600kgs?
Last edited by Ping; 02-03-2012 at 06:46 PM.
This is official specs of Jf-17 From Pakistan aeronautical complex website.
^ Pakistan Aeronautical Complex
yes Max take off weight is that. Where does it say 4,600kgs of load carrying capacity? It clearly says load capacity is 8000lb or 3600kgs. Where did the additional 1000 kgs jump in? The rest of load is fuel weight in Max take off weight.
I think maybe I just found the source of the problem. Basically the press division of the Klimov which made that stupid n00b card board placard was most probably asked to make a fashionable cut-out from data from their website - http://klimov.ru/f/i/press/2100054181/100000266/
They diligently copied the max Class rating of turbojet engine rated 10,000kgf and clubbed it with the minimum Class rating of RD-33 8000kgf. Maybe because he thought separating the 2 and explaining everything would ruin the cutout. This is afterall only a general non-technical placard aimed at the general public of the air show. BTW, don't get confused with "turbojet". Russians call both Turbojet and Turbofan as Turbojet engines.
Who ever copied it even copied the same heading "We've been working for you for 50 years". What's funny here is that the document from their website is from 2006, 5 years before Zhuhai 2011 Airshow!! So the correct title should have been 55 years! lol
This is where the above pic/placard seen in Zhuhai 2011 was inspired from. This document is from 2006, 5 years before Zhuhai! - http://klimov.ru/f/i/press/2100054181/100000266/
Going by the above link, JF-17 should have had 9000kgf in 2006 itself. But everyone knows that is not the case.
Defence companies should hire some professional media relations people!
The same thing happened with the Chief Engineer's power point presentation in Dubai. Who ever made the power point presentation really embarrassed the professionalism of the chief engineer and the JF-17 project. In the presentation, JF-17's information is all outdated info copied from CAC website. PAC too had the same old info, but recently updated its info.
Old PAC info seen on their website till 2010- Pakistan Aeronautical Complex.... http://web.archive.org/web/201010242...fications.html
Old CAC info, same as old PAC info, used in presentation, still on CAC website now- CAC Website
New PAC updated info seen in their website currently- Pakistan Aeronautical Complex
*all credits to Mig guy
There are even idiots in this country who posted JF-17 in an Indian Navy Ad. Morons!
Last edited by Ping; 02-03-2012 at 08:29 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)