JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Franklin]

Here is a image of the twin seat JF-17 Thunder model in this years Paris Air Show.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This image of another twin seat JF-17 Thunder model dates back from 2010.

 

[asif iqbal]

Actually I have a copy of AFM 2011 July issue page 69 which shows the following images, they are off course just illustrations but the best we have seen so far, twin seat and aerial refuelling of the JF-17

 

[Deino]

Here is a image of the twin seat JF-17 Thunder model in this years Paris Air Show.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This image of another twin seat JF-17 Thunder model dates back from 2010.

Hmmm ... maybe I can't see it, but where are the differences to a standard single-seater ???

Here's the new twin-seater.

Deino

 

[hardware]

extra seat,mean less fuel.surprise it do not include conformal fuel tank to make up for the extra seat.

 

[Lion]

extra seat,mean less fuel.surprise it do not include conformal fuel tank to make up for the extra seat.

You need a powerful engine before you can talk about CFT for JF-17.

 

[hardware]

more picture of two seat FC-1

 

[asif iqbal]

Yes I think the twin seater is just a concept and not a actual design under development, I do not think we will see a twin seater until after 2015

 

[plawolf]

I don't really think a twin seat JF17 is really such a great idea. The JF17 itself is too small to make a worthwhile dedicated striker, so that rules out one of the main reasons for needing the twin seater.

For training needs, JL9s or L15s would be just as, if not more useful, for the PAF and any other prospective air forces because of the lower procurement and operating costs.

If we are taking about some time in 2015 or later, it would probably make more sense for the PAF to get twin seat J10Bs for a more dedicated striker along with the single seat J10Bs they are planning/hoping to get around then.

In terms of the JF17 development path, I think changing the engine to a more powerful Chinese engine, adding IFR, IRST, upgrading the FBW to full digital all axis, increasing composites to reduce weight and/or make the airframe 9G+, adding AESA radar, adding the option for conformal fuel tanks, and maybe integrating F16/J10 style mini-hardpoints under the intakes for navigation and targeting pods.

All of that could easily take 3-10 years to implement, depending on how much funding can be allocated, and they will round off the JF17 very nicely and keep it relevant for decades to come.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

When the US moved to the Raptor one of the issues that was mete quite resolved was transition training from say a Eagle to a Raptor. No two fighters are identical in flight and simulaters only go so far.

 

[SteelBird]

In terms of the JF17 development path, I think changing the engine to a more powerful Chinese engine, adding IFR, IRST, upgrading the FBW to full digital all axis, increasing composites to reduce weight and/or make the airframe 9G+, adding AESA radar, adding the option for conformal fuel tanks, and maybe integrating F16/J10 style mini-hardpoints under the intakes for navigation and targeting pods.

I see a 40+ million aircraft here. How do you expect PAF to afford it? My modest suggestion is to upgrade the engine and getting a more powerful radar. That would sound more reasonable.