JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 News, Discussion & Media

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Gollevainen said:

Yeas it has gone...particularry becouse I had bad day and perhaps I brusted my fustration bit too hars on poor JF-17. And generally arguing over decisions made by some armed force allready is bit pointless, couse Im not saying that PAF are bunch of loonatics, only that they propaply havent got what they wanted wiht JF-17...

Click to expand...

Hope you've cheered up now that Finland won ! We can only 'guesstimate'
the planes details until the radar and weapons are finalised.

Everybody accepts it's a late 3rd gen plane and the best that could be done with the materials to hand

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Free promotion video JF17!

Re: JF-17: New Pics

The video is nice to watch and very informative. The music that plays in the background also complements it well. Upon watching it, it is evident that the JF-17 is as manoueverable as any 4th generation fighter.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Indianfighter said:

Upon watching it, it is evident that the JF-17 is as manoueverable as any 4th generation fighter.

Click to expand...

I think that's highly unlikely. Whilst it is going to be quite agile, it's lack of full FBW (FBW is limited to the jaw plane) puts it at a distinct disadvantage in the agility department relative to say the the Su-27, F-16 etc.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

^ If you was told the JF-17 was fully FBW...would you be able to tell it isn't by seeing it perform them manouvers in the video? :coffee:

Re: JF-17: New Pics

planeman said:

I think that's highly unlikely. Whilst it is going to be quite agile, it's lack of full FBW (FBW is limited to the jaw plane) puts it at a distinct disadvantage in the agility department relative to say the the Su-27, F-16 etc.

Click to expand...

In my openion todays in aircombat only BVR matters for any fighter to succeed. even within visual range todays IR missiles woth very high G-limits are so efficent that they can out any maneuvering AC. For example with a Python 5 you can even take out a MKI.ff

Back to the topic, even with limited FBW JF17 it achives its goal to complement F 16s in its fleet.

Sid

Re: JF-17: New Pics

the more electronics or mechanical components you add the higher the price and often the higher the weight. Adding FBW does not increase agility. It changes the concept of pilot-plane steering. With FBW the computer controls the aircraft and pilot gives orders. With stable aircraft you need pilot to control the aircraft while plane would go the usual the way it is heading...

The old mig29 or Su27 did the same agility without FBW. And cheap aerobatic planes without FBW can do much more then let say 15 G...

Whether JF17 BVR is not enough... BVR range is clear to us. With ground radar coverage, AWACS (Erieye) and interlinks between everything (so also F16 block50/52)... What do we miss? JF17 will be the lo tech part of PAF and after looking at movies and pics I doubt that it will be easy to defeat. Within five years a formidable part will be JF17. Probably a newer version will be introduced. I bet that IAF will still fly those 40 year old Bisons, Jaguars, Mig23/25 or Mirage 2000H. It took decades to decide about Hawk. It will take decades to get MKI fully operational and we already have seen reports about huge costs (what a suprise). It will take lots of time to decide about 125 MRCA and let us forget about the transition period for that. The JF17 will do just fine.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

And cheap aerobatic planes without FBW can do much more then let say 15 G...

Click to expand...

What? i thought the limit for almost any aircraft was 9Gs, and at best 10. Even if the aircraft could handel 15g's, the pilot would not.

puts it at a distinct disadvantage in the agility department relative to say the the Su-27, F-16 etc.

Click to expand...

The russians did not have access to advanced FBW. so instead, they built the design and tweaked it for maximum manuverability. The west prefers making unstable planes and using FBW to control them.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Hi, my first post here. Now that the avionics and other issues are coming to light, do members not think that in Thunder the PAF have really gotten the equivalent of a gripen? I am not for a minute implying that Thunder matches Gripen pound for pound, but looking at the gross statistics, the future Thunder will be a match for the Gripen. I have asked this question many atimes but not recieved a satisfactory reply. Other than the Datalink, and interoperability with multiple EU/American MRAAM what does the Gripen have which is advantageous over the thunder?

Specifications (JAS 39 Gripen)
General characteristics
· Crew: 1-2
· Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in)
· Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
· Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
· Wing area: 25.54 m (274.9 ft)
· Empty weight: 6,620 kg (14,600 lb)
· Loaded weight: 8,720 kg (19,200 lb)
· Maximum Take-Off Weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb)
· Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 (GE404) afterburning turbofan, 54 kN dry, 80 kN with afterburner (12,000 lbf / 18,000 lbf)
· Wheel track: 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in)
Performance
· Maximum speed: Mach 2
· Range: 800 km (500 mi)
· Service ceiling: 15,000 m (50,000 ft)
· Rate of climb: m/s (ft/min)
· Wing loading: kg/m² (lb/ft²)
· Thrust/weight: 0.63
Armament
· 1x 27 mm Mauser BK-27 cannon
· 6x AIM-9 Sidewinder
· 4x AIM-120 AMRAAM or MICA
SPECIFICATIONS JF 17
DIMENSIONS
Length OverallHeight OverallWingspan 14 m5.1 m9 m
WEIGHTS AND FUEL
Empty WeightNormal Take-Off WeightMax Take-Off WeightMax External Store WeightInternal Fuel Weight 6,320 kg9,100 kg12,700 kg3,720 kg2,300 kg
PERFORMANCE
Max SpeedService CeilingOperational Radius Ferry RangeTake-Off RunLanding RunT/W RatioG Limit M 1.6-1.816,700 m1,350 km3,000 km~500 m~700 m0.95+8.5/-3

Araz

Re: JF-17: New Pics

>>>MIGleader]What? i thought the limit for almost any aircraft was 9Gs, and at best 10. Even if the aircraft could handel 15g's, the pilot would not.



Stressed to +23/-23 g and with certified limits of +12/-10 g the Sukhoi has the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any production aerobatic aircraft.

I am pretty sure that this plane has no FBW.... Manned... So any aircraft????

Let me add that Mig29 had no FBW and could do the same as F16 with FBW... And still is better in WVR...


>>>The russians did not have access to advanced FBW. so instead, they built the design and tweaked it for maximum manuverability. The west prefers making unstable planes and using FBW to control them.

Whatever. I heard in the past that Russians could not build advanced planes. Now they tweaked it... Based on nonsens.

I don't mind discussions but without logic and intellegence there is not much discussion.