JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Dazzler]

Yar, the SIPRI figure was a constant rate multiplicative estimate. They were asked about the source and they said that they just took the previous production rate and carried it on till the day of the estimate calculation i.e. the number we should have had assuming no production halts or slowdowns. So, I wouldn't put too much belief in those figures, they were just estimates. Haroon ( @ANTIBODY ) was the one who got this out of SIPRI.

Just wondering, if it is based on the above mentioned formula, why it mentions 298 AK in 2012 when in reality the plan called for 315 mbts by 2007?

 

[Argus Panoptes]

You are mixing up two different things here.

What you want to convey is that the A-5 cannot sustain it's speed in a vertical climb...rather than not go vertical after takeoff altogether.

A T:W of 0.8 in ideal conditions is good enough to go vertical after takeoff...but not good enough to sustain that rate of climb and speed.

A T:W of greater than one would accelerate the aircraft even when it is 90 degree up...

So the correct sentence would be, an aircraft with a T:W of less than one cannot maintain the vertical climb.

Saying that an aircraft cannot go vertical altogether with a T:W of 0.8 is a rather general statement.

Yes Sir, I realize that fact. Which is why I clearly stated that "Carrying momentum into a short vertical climb is easy. That is what the A-5 does."

(That is also why the vertical climb has to be done right after liftoff for it to be an effective demonstration of any claimed better-than-unity T:W ratio.)

 

[Dazzler]

Yes Sir, I realize that fact. Which is why I clearly stated that "Carrying momentum into a short vertical climb is easy. That is what the A-5 does."

(That is also why the vertical climb has to be done right after liftoff for it to be an effective demonstration of any claimed better-than-unity T:W ratio.)

In real combat, fighters are with missiles and fuel tanks among others which increases drag so sustained vertical climb is not possible for most aircrafts. Also, VC is one of multiple dimensions of flight regime, though important, but not crucial.

 

[SQ8]

Carrying momentum into a short vertical climb is easy. That is what the A-5 does.

The A-5 has a T:W ratio of about 0.8. It simply cannot go vertical right after takeoff as is being claimed here.

Actually, the F-6 had a T/W close to that.. the A-5 has a T/W of .68.. something documented in the recent PAF semi-official history penned by Alan Warnes..
It is also a reason why many A-5's were lost early on.

 

[SQ8]

Yes Sir, I realize that fact. Which is why I clearly stated that "Carrying momentum into a short vertical climb is easy. That is what the A-5 does."

(That is also why the vertical climb has to be done right after liftoff for it to be an effective demonstration of any claimed better-than-unity T:W ratio.)

Well, for that you will either have to assume one of two things; First, that the PAF never considers that important.. or that the T/W of the clean thunder is less than unity.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

In real combat, fighters are with missiles and fuel tanks among others which increases drag so sustained vertical climb is not possible for most aircrafts. Also, VC is one of multiple dimensions of flight regime, though important, but not crucial.

Yes Sir, I am aware of the effect of ordnance and fuel loads on performance and that T:W ratio is not the only parameter.

My point is that the effective demonstration of a >1 T:W ratio is the vertical climb right after liftoff in a clean configuration. Why? Because that is where the JF-17 should be headed with engine upgrades. Otherwise, it will remain a second-tier aircraft in the world of today with claims that are unproven.

Actually, the F-6 had a T/W close to that.. the A-5 has a T/W of .68.. something documented in the recent PAF semi-official history penned by Alan Warnes..
It is also a reason why many A-5's were lost early on.

Yes Sir. That is why I called out on the claim that A-5 has been witnessed doing a vertical climb after takeoff. It is simply not possible. Carrying speed into a short vertical climb is no big deal, having been amply demonstrated since the Second World War.

Well, for that you will either have to assume one of two things; First, that the PAF never considers that important.. or that the T/W of the clean thunder is less than unity.

The T:W ratio of the present JF-17 fleet is about 0.85. PAF hopes to get it higher eventually, and until then will indicate it does not think it is important. But it is, against competitors both in the skies and for export. Everyone knows it, but won't say it.

 

[Khaqan Humayun]

Make It more advance and try to get Europen Engine for this Aircraft.

 

[Dazzler]

Yes Sir, I am aware of the effect of ordnance and fuel loads on performance and that T:W ratio is not the only parameter.

My point is that the effective demonstration of a >1 T:W ratio is the vertical climb right after liftoff in a clean configuration. Why? Because that is where the JF-17 should be headed with engine upgrades. Otherwise, it will remain a second-tier aircraft in the world of today with claims that are unproven.

Regarding engine change, the two prototypes in above posted pics have two different engines

PT-04 has an RD-93 variant

PT-06 has an WS-13

does this ring a bell?

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Regarding engine change, the two prototypes in above posted pics have two different engines

PT-04 has an RD-93 variant

PT-06 has an WS-13

does this ring a bell?

Like I said Sir, I can wait to see just how much of a performance improvement the WS-13 offers over the RD-93. Actual performance as demonstrated, not claimed, that is.

 

[sancho]

Nope, There is nothing coming to the block-2 apart from the refuelling probe and avionics improvements. As much as all the fanboys want it.
As for the RCS, from the horse's mouth in 2011.. There were concepts tested including a solution that was flown and tested against a hostile power back in 1998. .. NO. The cost/benefit for that is simply not worth it and the current RCS of the JF-17 has been deemed acceptable.

What's your personal opionion on that? Do you think it's acceptable? Logically it should be somewhere around the one of the F16 Block 15 and higher than the one of the B52s right?

 

[ziaulislam]

T/W greater than 1 or less than 1 doesnt define the aircraft cpability
only the f-16 and mig29 had greater than 1 T/W
gripen mirage have not only T/W ratio less than 1 but it is less than jf-17 even though they are delta designs.
meaning that jf-17 has a better aerodynamic advantage over them yet gripen/mirage2000 are still considered very advance and excellent aircrafts

 

[Bratva]

T/W greater than 1 or less than 1 doesnt define the aircraft cpability
only the f-16 and mig29 had greater than 1 T/W
gripen mirage have not only T/W ratio less than 1 but it is less than jf-17 even though they are delta designs.
meaning that jf-17 has a better aerodynamic advantage over them yet gripen/mirage2000 are still considered very advance and excellent aircrafts

Due to better avionics,weapons and ECM suites available to them

 

[ziaulislam]

Due to better avionics,weapons and ECM suites available to them

yup, bottom line aerodynamics T/W isnt the most important thing in 4.5 gen aircrafts .
and jf-17 has better T/W than either gripen or mirage due to it being much lighter than both.
what makes gripen or mirage an excellent AC is its avionics and weapons
so its better we stop marking rd-93/33 as a under power engine as the PAF never said that and selected it from the very begining. at that time if PAF wanted they could have allowed an option for european engines but they were very happy with rd-33/93. its widely used, reliable and pretty efficent. being the cheapest option nearly 4 times cheaper than any western engine. rd-93 may also find some improvements if PAF demands it but it seems that PAF is waiting for the chinese copy ws-13 if the rumour of it being near 95-100kn is true then it would be better than engine that powers mirage2000..jf-17 being much lighter than the mirage2000 will make it overpowered and enough ro0m for further improvements in ammunition and fuel

gripen has lower thrust and is atleast 200kg heavier
mirage2000 has better thrust but is much heavier

JF-17 can become a gripen if significant investment is made in its avionics and weapons

T/W ratio wasnt given any importance in F-35 programme too

 

[Argus Panoptes]

.............
gripen has lower thrust and is atleast 200kg heavier
mirage2000 has better thrust but is much heavier

JF-17 can become a gripen if significant investment is made in its avionics and weapons

T/W ratio wasnt given any importance in F-35 programme too

With development of the platform from A to D, and now the NG version, the Gripen is now much better performing than what it was initially.

If we can do this with the JF-17, it will be a great success. Right now it has much farther to go to catch up.

 

[Dazzler]

Due to better avionics,weapons and ECM suites available to them

Similar MMI in both, radars (specs on paper) are pretty similar too.

KG-300G comes with DRFM capability, how many types of weapons JFT can carry? Pakistani/ Chinese/ Western/ Brazilian to name a few.