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

tphuang said:

F-16 - mach 2.0? Maybe when it's flying with no payload. F-16 really struggles reaching that kind of speed. As for JF-17, it will struggle too, because it uses a fixed inlet like F-16 and F-35. If you look at the fighters that can reach extremely high mach speed, they can all fly at really high altitude and use variable inlet. JF-17 does not display any of those traits. I remember reading how the variable inlet on J-10 allows J-10 to maintain thrust level at high supersonic speed. As I mentionned, unless JF-17 wants to get a complex intake like that of J-10, it's not going to touch mach2.0 anytime soon.

Click to expand...

The point is ability of the DSI to sustain the conditions involving Mach 2.0. DSI in no way hinders a plane reaching Mach 2.0.

I have maintained all along and i will repeat it again. There is not need for JF-17 or even F-16 to go over Mach 2.0 atleast in the theater where PAF operates. People who amuse themselves with such ideas are doing just that.Amusing themselves.

For most cases all you need is a faster rate of acceleration than a max ceiling in terms of speed.

But as for this converting JF-17 to J-10 stuff, I think this kind of thought does get mentionned quite a bit on PDF. And yes, I have definitely read stuff about converting JF-17 to use two engines.

Click to expand...

But to justify racially motivated insults based on the nonesense that is posted by teenagers on PDF is not acceptable atleast to me(and i am certainly not pointing or attributing it to you so dont get me wrong). What do you think is the level of thinking of the kids who come up with these kind of ideas? And i am sure you can find individuals on PDF who are more saner than that. For that matter and you pointed it yourself that alot of Chinese boards are filled with CGI's and fabricated stories of PAF pilots flying J-10 and praising it . This doesnt lead me to generalize and insult Nationalties. The right way is to correct them on technality and give sound reasons.
And i have to commend you for being patient towards alot of such kids on PDF, infact even i lose it with some of the kids who just argue for the sake of argument.

You have to think about the cost involved in this development and what extra development would do to the per unit cost of the plane.

Click to expand...

If you are talking about twin engines then you are trying to convert a beleiver! Please read my post what i think of such suggestion.I am in complete agreement with you here

JF-17's flight performance has pretty much been set after prototype 04-06. I don't see much more improvement in flight performance after the airframe is already finalized. If current generation plane is any indication, improved multirole capability, increased payload and improved avionics seem to be where upgrades are going to.

Click to expand...

In order to enable higher payload it would need better thrust to weight ratio. That would definitely increase the manuverability at lower loads. May as well bump up speed to 1.8 from current 1.6 (not that it matters much for PAF).For what it's worth i think it is already manuverable enough in yaw. A little increase in thrust will help it's pitch charcterstics as well.

mehdi said:

Thanks for the reply. Maglomanic there is another side of Pakistani Air Force that I would like you to comment on:

Since Pakistan is going to buy the JF-17 Thunder and also coproduce it in Pakistan what is the reason that they also bought the J-10 can you try to explain what was the reason for this purchase.

Secondly a brief comment on each plane role in PAF would also help.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

The impression that i got was, Musharref was blown away by what he saw. There is indication that PAF have always watched J-10 progress but alot of em were still keen on F-16. J-10 happen to be ready and mature at the right moment when Musharref visited. It is said that main driving force was what was shown to president and his military advisors. The mention of J-10 in official military procurement plan until 2017 actually shows that it was from the top that the decision was finalized. This directly affected the number of F-16s which was cut inorder to facilitate that.
There has always been a feeling of uneasiness towards after the sanctions in procurement planning. Even now huge numbers of spares and munitions are being bought inorder to take into account any future possibilities of sanctions.
Regaridng roles of PAF fighters i would direct you to this link since this is not the right thread for that.

Thanks for the info maglomaniac.

To skyhawk2005 can you stop complaining and get back to the discussion. Anyway you cannot like everyone and everyone cannot like you so chill out man !!!

What you think of the JF-17's role in Pakistan.

mehdi said:

Thanks for the info maglomaniac.

To skyhawk2005 can you stop complaining and get back to the discussion. Anyway you cannot like everyone and everyone cannot like you so chill out man !!!

What you think of the JF-17's role in Pakistan.

Click to expand...

My immediate interest in JF17 is to know what sort of avionics they will install after the first 50. Historically, Pakistani versions of Chinese aircrafts have had superior avionics to Chinese ones, but this may not be true anymore.

China's Military Industrial Complex has passed the point where they significantly lagged behind the West. Now, she seems to be set on a path where it's inertia and natural growth will lead it to be a true military superpower.

How Pakistan's relationship with China will develop over the years will also be interesting. Will Pakistan's growing dependence on China lead it into a relationship like the current USA/Israel relationship? Or will it stagnate, and China's interests lie elsewhere, perhaps into a stronger relationship with India to counter USA/Europe.

But certainly for Pakistan, the JF17 is her J10. It is the project that will be the foundation for its embryonic aviation industry. What too many Pakistani posters forget is that they have to crawl before they can walk. Pakistani is a long way from independence.

I am also interested to see the JXX finally unveiled in a few years. The rise of Chinese Aviation is amazing to behold, and quite a story.

maglomanic said:

The point is ability of the DSI to sustain the conditions involving Mach 2.0. DSI in no way hinders a plane reaching Mach 2.0.

I have maintained all along and i will repeat it again. There is not need for JF-17 or even F-16 to go over Mach 2.0 atleast in the theater where PAF operates. People who amuse themselves with such ideas are doing just that.Amusing themselves.

For most cases all you need is a faster rate of acceleration than a max ceiling in terms of speed.

Click to expand...

There is always the need to have the ability to go faster. The ability to go faster than the opposing fighter while carrying more missiles. As for DSI in no way hinders a plane reaching mach 2.0, while the point is that having an intake like DSI limits the speed of the plane. Now, depending on the other aerodynamic factor of the plane, the max speed of a plane with fixed intake will vary. If CAC determines that with the current layout, mach1.8 is the best it can do, then that's that.

But to justify racially motivated insults based on the nonesense that is posted by teenagers on PDF is not acceptable atleast to me(and i am certainly not pointing or attributing it to you so dont get me wrong). What do you think is the level of thinking of the kids who come up with these kind of ideas? And i am sure you can find individuals on PDF who are more saner than that. For that matter and you pointed it yourself that alot of Chinese boards are filled with CGI's and fabricated stories of PAF pilots flying J-10 and praising it . This doesnt lead me to generalize and insult Nationalties. The right way is to correct them on technality and give sound reasons.
And i have to commend you for being patient towards alot of such kids on PDF, infact even i lose it with some of the kids who just argue for the sake of argument.

Click to expand...

I don't think the issue is over the quality of the post in general, it's more over the rudeness, but I think we all know this problem. But for SDF, I do expect more professionalism out of posters, that's why I'm getting tired of and ignore posters like Bluejacket and Kevin JJW.

If you are talking about twin engines then you are trying to convert a beleiver! Please read my post what i think of such suggestion.I am in complete agreement with you here

Click to expand...

I was replying to Pshamim's comment about twin engine never been brought up.

In order to enable higher payload it would need better thrust to weight ratio. That would definitely increase the manuverability at lower loads. May as well bump up speed to 1.8 from current 1.6 (not that it matters much for PAF).For what it's worth i think it is already manuverable enough in yaw. A little increase in thrust will help it's pitch charcterstics as well.

Click to expand...

not really, F-16A is the most maneuverable of the F-16s despite having the least thrust. Despite having the best TWR when not loaded with excessive amount of ordinances, block 60 is by far the least maneuverable. It all depends on what the mission of the plane is. If you are trying to get a more multi-role plane with longer range, stronger airframe and higher payload, you have to pay the penalty in loosing some of your maneuverability. In the case of J-10, due to the unique role it plays in plaaf, I think CAC will probably sacrifice range and payload in order to make it more maneuverable. Not sure if that will happen with JF-17.

tphuang said:

There is always the need to have the ability to go faster. The ability to go faster than the opposing fighter while carrying more missiles. As for DSI in no way hinders a plane reaching mach 2.0, while the point is that having an intake like DSI limits the speed of the plane. Now, depending on the other aerodynamic factor of the plane, the max speed of a plane with fixed intake will vary. If CAC determines that with the current layout, mach1.8 is the best it can do, then that's that.

Click to expand...

But how much faster and at what rate is somewhat very deterimental than just having a generic requirement of higher speed when we are talking about small distances. For example almost all the airbases in Indo/pak scenario are pitted right against each other and the distances barely exceed 200-300 miles at most. In this kind of theater of operation by the time you have acheived your Max speed around 1.6-1.8 you'll pretty much be over your area of operation after shoot and scoot. A plane with Mach 2.2 and Mach 1.8 will both need a higher rate of acceleration inorder to egress in such a small theater of operation. If it was involving huge tracts of land (USSR,USA even mainland China) then the total time to reach max speed is only a fraction of the total time to cover that huge distance. Thats where the sustained Max speed comes into play.

I don't think the issue is over the quality of the post in general, it's more over the rudeness, but I think we all know this problem. But for SDF, I do expect more professionalism out of posters, that's why I'm getting tired of and ignore posters like Bluejacket and Kevin JJW.

Click to expand...

Indeed that has no exceuse whatso ever. Some people do digress and make threads non-productive. To be honest with you these days the only reason i come to sino-defense forums is because of Crobato,you and sometimes Golly's good posts.

I was replying to Pshamim's comment about twin engine never been brought up.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if you have ever been to . The level of discussions is much more mature than PDF where most of the posters have a very non-serious attitude (mainly because of age factor). However some of the posters indeed know what they are talking about and do try to make a technical case for their assertions (blain2,Sobank,Mark,TopGun etc.)

not really, F-16A is the most maneuverable of the F-16s despite having the least thrust. Despite having the best TWR when not loaded with excessive amount of ordinances, block 60 is by far the least maneuverable. It all depends on what the mission of the plane is. If you are trying to get a more multi-role plane with longer range, stronger airframe and higher payload, you have to pay the penalty in loosing some of your maneuverability. In the case of J-10, due to the unique role it plays in plaaf, I think CAC will probably sacrifice range and payload in order to make it more maneuverable. Not sure if that will happen with JF-17.

Click to expand...

Manuverability in the yaw AoA depends alot on the aerodynamics of the design itself. The lift surfaces play a major role in that. Incase of pitch engine's thurst plays a major role. I had a conversation with a Major at Luke AFB in one of the airshows. He cited many reasons for block-60 F-16s being less manuverable. He was admant that analogue FBW of early f-16s lets him turn more smoothly in a wide range of AoA. The main benefit of digital FBW is in it's mantainence. All they have to do to take out boxes of digital parts and replace them if something goes wrong.

Also i guess you misunderstood my point a little bit. Block 60s have IMO a different exterior than Block 15s. they are more boxy and to me look more draggy due to the need for CFTs bigger fatter spine etc.
Now consider the same F-16 A with two engines. Prat and whitney (less thrust) and GE(more thrust). You should have seen the excitement on that pilot's face when he talks about G.E's motor. So i still stand by my point that increase in thrust of JF-17 engine will increase it's performance in many field parameters.

Wow this thread needs to really chill out. The arguments and post from Diving Falcon, Maglomanic, Skyhawk 2005 is well indeed sometimes rude and uneccesary. But I think that their is a misunderstanding in thinking and interperating each others posts. Every person has their own ideas and knowledge, but it is really which one has more logic behind it. Anyway about the JF-17 for Pakistan the requirements for an aircraft for Pakistan is different and varies from other countries, along with the thinking. Personally it seems the Pakistan is moving away from the reliance of US and towards China as it sees China is just as capable or near capable. Seen in the reduction of acquiring F-16's from US. Pakistan airforce is acquiring the JF-17 and negotiations of the J-10. About the upgrading issue the JF-17/FC-1 left room for future improvements and upgrades to the aircraft. Not structural wise but avionics, cockpit, engince, etc. The only thing that would be a big upgrade for the JF-17/FC-1 would be a TVC RD-93/WS-13. Though this would add additional weight on the aircraft and strain the structure and balance of the aircraft just a bit. The need for Mach 2.0 for the JF-17 is unecessary and cannot be achieved without some major redesign to the air inlet and structure of the aircraft. But in the end their is no need in achieving Mach 2.0 anyway for the JF-17. But if Pakistan really wanted a Mach 2.0 aircraft then the J-10 will do just fine if negotiations go through well. Interpret first before posting. About this EU/US alliance thing the EU is beginning to despise the US and some nations even want to form an allliance with China. But the only thing holding them back is the US. I think France wants to form an alliance with China.

crazyinsane105 said:

Skyhawk2005, I suggest you cool it and watch what comes out of your mouth. If I hear of one more outburst from you, I'll have you suspended for a month and after that if there is a second strike, you'll get banned.

Click to expand...

Then go ahead and suspend me. It's dumb of you to restart this when another moderator has already warned me.

This isn't school, you idiot. And there is a thing called freedom of speech. You can ban me, but who the hell do you think you are?

Chengdu J-10 said:

Wow this thread needs to really chill out. The arguments and post from Diving Falcon, Maglomanic, Skyhawk 2005 is well indeed sometimes rude and uneccesary. But I think that their is a misunderstanding in thinking and interperating each others posts. Every person has their own ideas and knowledge, but it is really which one has more logic behind it. Anyway about the JF-17 for Pakistan the requirements for an aircraft for Pakistan is different and varies from other countries, along with the thinking. Personally it seems the Pakistan is moving away from the reliance of US and towards China as it sees China is just as capable or near capable. Seen in the reduction of acquiring F-16's from US. Pakistan airforce is acquiring the JF-17 and negotiations of the J-10. About the upgrading issue the JF-17/FC-1 left room for future improvements and upgrades to the aircraft. Not structural wise but avionics, cockpit, engince, etc. The only thing that would be a big upgrade for the JF-17/FC-1 would be a TVC RD-93/WS-13. Though this would add additional weight on the aircraft and strain the structure and balance of the aircraft just a bit. The need for Mach 2.0 for the JF-17 is unecessary and cannot be achieved without some major redesign to the air inlet and structure of the aircraft. But in the end their is no need in achieving Mach 2.0 anyway for the JF-17. But if Pakistan really wanted a Mach 2.0 aircraft then the J-10 will do just fine if negotiations go through well. Interpret first before posting. About this EU/US alliance thing the EU is beginning to despise the US and some nations even want to form an allliance with China. But the only thing holding them back is the US. I think France wants to form an alliance with China.

Click to expand...

Just two things here.

1) Can you please elaborate why no more structural changes are possible in JF-17 if the customer desires so?
I still don't see why it's not doable and should not be done given the experience with composites is already well established and has been used in J-10. The primary reason you see JF-17 as making use of more alloys is Pakistan's insistance for it. Even incase of K-8 Chinese versions used composites whereas PAF bought ones with alloys. It's easy for PAF to service and repair such aircrafts due to lack of infrastructure and related technology. But how is that a line in stone that PAF won't go to the next logical step of introducing composites and related technology and reap benefits of decrease in weight,radar wave absorbtion and strengthening of airframe?

2)Even though you have mentioned TVC RD-93 as possibility for PAF JF-17 i would beg to differ on this. If PAF ever goes for TVC it would be on it's J-10s. From my impression of PAF Air Chief's interview, PAF considers TVC as counter SAM measure to increase survivability in heavy enemy Air defense activity areas. JF-17 would not be used in this kind of missions. Even if PAF opts for TVC on JF-17, it would be in nominal numbers out of the 250+ aircrafts that are being planned for.

P.S: My appologies if i played any part in derailing this thread or causing it to deteriorate. However it's hard to avoid responding to insults and racial/national stereotyping. I am all for merit based discussion and would welcome any sound reasoning even if counter to my own knowledge.