The FC-1/JF-17 thread has way too much going on and I think having a separate thread for JF-17 developments would help us in referencing to other discussions. Word of note...I would appreciate if we can have a thorough discussion based on some available information and not artist impressions of stealth JF-17s, CFT JF-17s, etc, etc. For instance something said by ACM or found on Janes, PakDef would be good...whereas a LEGO CGI of a JF-17 with a death ray would be bad. Secondly, speculation based on good reasoning is allowed - again something like a bigger dorsal spine would be good, whereas equipping JF-17 with a warp-engine would be bad.
================================================================================
=====
================================================================================
=====

I'll start off...

The PAF Commander, Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mehmood Ahmad said that the hardpoints will be increased from 7 to 9, I wonder if they will have to increase the wing size. I guess they'll be looking to further increase the range, so we may see an enlarged airframe - especially since the development of the twin-seat JF-17 - and perhaps use of more composites to maintain weight? I wonder if we can expect more nose changes...would a more squarish nose like Gripen have an affect on JF-17's RCS by any chance?

Well it depends when they plan to increase the number of hardpoints. If they plan to do it along with a redesign of the plane (the speculation among so many people), then you might see a lot of differences, but they might be able to change the number of hardpoints without altering the fighter that much. The wing size would have to be increased, meaning they would have to keep the weight down somehow (through composites as you suggested maybe), and balance it of course (which shouldn't be too hard).

My question is:

Will there be an engine switch (or upgrade) to increase the thrust (ratio)?

Yeah there will be an engine switch, probably to WS-13 or WS-12...depending on when PAF decides to make the switch. I say WS-12 because pshamim earlier mentioned that PAF was checking out M88/EJ200 standard engines for JF-17, and I heard that WS-12 was in that class - if the interest was still on the cards.

I am thinking that the airframe changes will not be radical, but comparatively extensive - i.e. 2 years of work. pshamim said more composite material will be used, especially in the fuselage....and the height will be lowered. They might increase wing size and fully blend it into the airframe - as magalomaic earlier suggested. I

Honestly speaking, the biggest changes we could think of is heavier composite use and twin-tail configuration...

I know you didn't want pictures or whatever, but I thought I'd make an exception because it is related to what we are talking about.

I wonder how they made the 3rd CGI. Looks pretty real.

The circled one is possible (if one sees the actual aircraft from that angle)....but the rest not happening IMO.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9679/12dd0.jpg

You never know. Question, where did these images originate from? (I got them from another thread on the forum).

JF-17 looks more like an F-18 in this picture.

Although i agree with you in order to increase the number of hardpoints one you either need enlarge wings and give JF-17 a completely new and uprated engine, 2nd of all if not that increase the size of the wing but some how decrease the weight so that the plane could have the same performance obviously through the usage of composites.

IMO i believe in the long run PAF will do the both a bit of design change,along with a new engine and use of composites as well bringing the plane in the F-16 class or perhaps even better, i think the size of the nose cone can be increased Mark but i think the current size is good enough to host a decent PD or AESA radar although if there is a need to put a bigger and better radar and that requires a nose change why not i dont think of it to entirely be a bad idea.

I also believe PAF will increase the dash or super sonic speed of JF-17 and bring it to mach 2 + class on a clean configeration and a mach 2 to 1.8 when fully loaded i think this is very important factor which people deny or ignore but i believe this can be achieved by an engine change as well.

I would love to see JF-17 use towed decoys and anything along that line for self defence over the years and like mark said a bigger dorsal spine to hose better ECM/EW, i would also look forward to PAF creating two seat dedicated jamming versions of JF-17 along the lines of F-18G a much more american approach if americans can do it why cant we.

JF-17 will be the work-horse of the PAF, so expect a lot of roles for it to play...perhaps including dedicated ECM/EW, strike and maybe even buddy-refueling.

Regarding the nose...I didn't mean increasin the nose cone, but to see if they'll change it a bit more...some of the JF-17 models show a nose that looks somewhat similar to that of the Gripen, and I wonder if the next batches of JF-17 will have it...pshamim also talked about "nose changes".

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/4835/dscf06966wb.jpg

The increase in wing area may and may not result due to increase in hardpoints. Wing's primary contribution is to the lift which is one of the four major forces(LIFT,WEIGHT,DRAG,THRUST) that act on a flying aircraft. Wing also contributes to another force which is an aircraft designer's big concern, drag. There are many questions that need to be answered:

Is it going to be a change for both single seaters and twin seaters or just twin seaters ? According to PAC's website twin seater will have extended fuselage and given it's very pronounced A2G capability it makes perfect sense to increase it's hard points and weight hauling capability(munitions as well as EW pods). In which case you are definitely looking at two proper hard points very likely on wings with significant weight clearance and probably plumbing for feul tanks (which will make them "wet" points). This increase in weight,lift and drag calls for increase in thrust and you have a much more capable aircraft in over all performance all round.

In case of a single seater aircraft whose primary role is air defense and only secondary A2G or A2S you may not be interested in an all round capability increase. Again the operating clause is "may" so you can pretty much argue both ways. For example you may just need extra hard points for additional A2A missiles. In this case you can add conformal hard points to the main fueslage without altering it's CG too much and minimum change to FBW. You can blend the lower wing section more uniformly and further decrease drag forces and add more fuel. You can decrease the over all weight using composites and all this might not require a significantly more powerful engine than you already had. As far as range is concerned i am not too much worried about JF-17's range in A2A role even now. According to PAF officers (JF-17 Giant Leap)

"It will allow long Combat Air Patrol (CAP) time at low level, thus affording large radius of action and thereby exceeding the PAF Air Staff require­ments in surface attack mode.
"

Notice they are talking about low level or taking into consideration the worst case scenario as due to thick atmosphere the drag increases susbtantially and causes aircraft range to decrease in low level.

The current wing design in my humble opinion is very adequate for that size. So if we are not going to increase length lets not disturb the drag figures by unnecessarily trying to widen the wing. If more volume is needed then Gripen like fueslage
blending can give you more internal volume and incidently this improves the drag if we are to go by famous area rule. From the very article written by two PAF officers that i have quoted above

" In order to fully exploit the potential of the aircraft fly-by-wire system and improve the aircraft per­formance, JF-17 design has a wing fore body strike which is about 9% of the Wing area. This has resulted in better matching of the aerodynamic focus with the Center of Gravity (CG) and better harmonization of the air-to-air and air-to-ground CG vari­ations by taking advantage of the pitch digital fly-by-wire Flight Control Systems (FCS). This has improved not only the controllability but has also enhanced the performance through reduction of the supersonic drag. "

Here they are talking about LERXs. By adding LERXs they were able to increase total LIFT surface by 9% without having to
a) Adversly affecting CG that would result in rethinking the entire body and it's aerodynamics again.
b) Adversly affecting speeds (note that they did not have to increase the wing width which would have adversly affected speed by decreasing the ratio between total fuselage length to width at maximum )

All these changes for single seater can substantially increase it's over all performance for what it does without radical and costly time consuming modifications. We know RD-93 or WS-13 it's Chinese version can be uprated upto 98 KN from current 81 KN wet thrust (after burner). The trick is to increase the dry thrust from 58 KN to lets say 78-80 KN to increase performance in an efficient manner.


Whenever i think of PAF and it's capbilities i do try to give some thought to a very non fancy thing which is not very popular with our many friends and aviation fans, i.e. costs,mantainence, logistics foot print. Capability for the sake of capbility gives birth to hanger queens. Every single airforce no matter how rich the country is, has to give thought to this aspect. The best solutions are not just in capbility acquisation but in acquiring capbility in efficient and cost effective manner.

I see JF-17 in it's two tiers with huge comonality in various areas.

1) A lighter single seater that looks something like this:
a) Internal fuel increased to 3000 KG from current 2500 KG. This should help increase it's fuel fraction to 30+ percent from it's current less than 27 percent (depending on the load out). 30 percent fuel fraction is considered optimum for jet fighters.
b) Decrease in airframe weight by introducing composites in order to allow for more payload and internal fuel. This may not be too radical as you already have a very light airframe but any weight saving will minimize the need for more thrust and lift.
c) Increased AB thrust (wet) and dry thrust (definitely more dry thrust at all cost!).
d) Increase in total max take off weight and external store (increase from current 3800 KG to say 4800-5000 KG).
e) Two additional conformal hard points for carrying A2A missiles or smaller pods.

2) A twin seater that looks something like this:
a) Internal fuel 3500-3800 KG.
b) Definitely a much much more powerful engine exceeding what you have on single seater. Perhaps a WS-12 will surpass RD-93/WS-13 combo in this regard.
c) Additional two hard points with much bigger weight clearance and proper plumbing for fuel tanks.
d) Proper avionaics upgrades for it to act like a dedicated Electronic warfare, SEAD, DEAD and formation command/control role.

A great post maglomanic and thanks for that article that you give link to the one on PDF really helped me to understand few things i didnt know.

My pleasure bro!

maglomanic
=======

Pretty spot on with dry thrust. I am with you 1000% on this. If one look at supercruise ability. It is simply an increase in dry thrust to an extend where jet can gain speed > mach1. So no need to turn your burner on; this alone serve two major thing

1- less fuel consumption
2-More stealth; Less venerability to heat seeking sensors and radars

As for as increase in weapon load on single seat thunder is concerned... I am pretty much OK with current 3.8 Tons in A2A role, with current defense doctrine which is primarily defensive.

Pods,For ECM/ECCM, i am really up for integration and more integration of sensor suite into main fuselage of fighter rather then pods hanging on weapon stations on wings. Targeting pods are some thing which will vanish away once things like JDAM become more frequently. (Sat navigation and targeting). Point is a hard point must reserved for weapons only or fuel tank if required. I think usage of composites will not make that much of difference in overall weight, we will have to go for Gripen like approach in order to get better TWR value OR Simply get a more powerful engine into it.

Two seat version as a trainer is understandable but as a dedicated attack platform... In presence of FC-20,F-16s Block 52+ in future i really don't feel any need for it. If we cannot made something better then F-16B/D we must stick to them and must . More F-16D with HARM (AGM-84/88) can do the job for SEAD/DEAD like operations. If quantity is issue then there will be FC-20. So I am still not able to cope with what PAF is upto when they say about dedicated attack version of Thunders, whereas single seat is a multi role fighter not a air superiority jet. CAP+CAS+Reconnaissance can be accomplished by Thunders and for deep penetrations, as i said earlier, F-16s and J-10 will be there. Deeper then that, don't worry we will have a huge arsenal of BMs+CMs.

I know i am going a bit off topic... but just a hint for thinking in a different way... Imagine terrain like kargil or Afghanistan border..and you have to choose between one multi role/dedicated strike fighter or an UACV to achieve a surgical strike mission, what you will choose and why?

Back to topic; I have found this video on youtube. You may have already see it. It is an 6 min interview with chief project director on PTV News with Saleem Safi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Rcf2PKkxc
Main points (For overseas mates)
1-PAC will take a start with the parts for which technologies can be absorbed easily.
2-PAC will manufacture Thunder's wing,tail fin,fuselage etc.
3-Two factories will undertake manufacturing once structure other Avionics
4-85% of human resource has already been procured which will complete the manufacturing
5-JET is a milestone for Sino-Pak defence relation and will provide a solid beginnings for our own aviation industry.
6-PAF will go for joint ventures rather then solo for fighter development as going solo is not viable.

I think the two seat version is in development - will probably be in next block will most likely have Chinese engine - so range will be improved. A trainer/dedicated attack version is necessary because air refuelling will make JF17 fly DEAD & SEAD missions.

All of you are forgetting the obvious way to increase hard points

each hardpoint holds a multi-rack, hence creating more hard points for weapons

the design does not have to be changed, th enegine may have to be uprated to accomidate the extra weight, and possibly the wing reinforced, but other than that its already being done on the jf-17


see from 0:26-0:32 of the following video and you will see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aIyaJmgqGY

maglomanic

IMO the JF-17's development may go along the same route as the F/A-18 & MiG-29, but at a much quicker pace. Essentially the Super Hornet & MiG-35 are marketed as 4.5 generation fighters, and I guess 4.5 gen. fighters will form the mainstay of all major AF. The ACM has already compared the internal systems of JF-17 to those of EF and Rafale, I guess it affirms that the systems used are of the same general - though of lower performance & quality. Nonetheless with time that will be rectified.

The scale of airframe changes suggested by pshamim and others give us an impression of a major shift from 2011-2012 within JF-17. I reckon that variant of JF-17 will consist of as much composite material as the Gripen DK/NG; use subsystems based off the ones in FC-20; and use contemporary standard weapon-systems. Let's hope they do reduce more RCS through the nose & intakes, switch to twin-tail and use an engine like WS-12 on the 2011+ fighters...the airframes would be inducted by 2015, and then by 2019 they would be internally upgraded to 4.5+ standards.

Mark, never heard of WS-12, can you give some more details on this?

Thanks to tphuang for info....

WS-12 is the Chinese equivalent to the EJ200 and M88 used on EF & Rafale, respectively.

It's supposedly another engine in the WS-13 weight class. It's not based on RD-93 and has better T/W ratio. We will see when it comes out though, WS-13 might get design certification soon.

So WS-12 is better than the WS-12 in T/W ratio? How is the smoke visibility from it (how much smoke comes out of the engine, because I know the RD-93 has some, but minimal smoke that comes out)?

I think its best to say WS-12 would compare in performance to EJ200/M88, so see how much smoke those engines emit.

well, not sure about smoke, because it's not ready yet. But one thing is for sure, RD-93 no longer have the problem of old RD-33s. And the problem with any Russian/Chinese engines is that generally speaking, they have shorter life span than Western ones. So, even if WS-12/13 reach many of the performance parameter of EJ-200, it would still be less reliable.

Understandable, but in contrast to older Russian & Chinese engines WS-12 would be an improvement.

Agree with you tphuang. Its because of the advanced matellergy of the western engines specially the americans. Russia and China has to go a little long way to achieve this milestone.

I came across a news/article that China has discoverd/invented some Nickel based alloy with very high melting point and that alloy will be used to made the blades of the jet turbine blades. So that they can sustain the heat of the engines and may not melt down thus increasing the life cycle of the jet engines.

If that happens then bye bye to the high priced western engines. This is to be further noted that the Russian/Chineses engines are more or less equal to the western engines in terms of thrust but lack only in the performance and life span.

Regards
Haroon

Well can any one translate this??

^^ above shows much less capable JF-17, although with stealth, shorter wingspan (meaning shorter range), only 2 internally carried AAM, no wingtip AAM and much smaller size.

JF-17 in its current state much more capable then this design.

Yeah, it's just made up by some kid. It won't actually be implemented.... too much redesign.

Says the man who is NOT employed by NASA as an aerospace engineer ...


and that being some fantasy art work ... well ... offcourse

What's confusing to me is that the photoshopped photo appears to have been from some sort of magazine.

Article on stealthy JF-17.

http://www.tempur.com.my/dcp.news.view.asp...p;categoryID=12

wow, I'd like to know where this guy is getting his information

JF-17 will not survive unless twin engined of that calibre.

We always knew that there were to be two blocks. One being a swooped up version.

but a two engined plane ? Chances of JF-17s ever going into a twin engined are remote.

"The turbofan will deliver 50kN (11,250lb) of dry thrust and 75kN (17,000lb) with afterburning"


Isn't that less than what the JF-17 already has?


If this project does exist (I hope) then probably later on it might be renamed as JF-18. Maybe they will rename it JF-19 if India goes for the US F-18s, the JF-17 is named to give the impression that it is better and comes after than the F-16.


On the sane side the CGI image of the JF-17 with CFTs and additional hardpoints, modified to look like the F-16blk52 seams more like the upgrade the JF-17 will get (bigger radar, better engines, more payload).

Me too! Has there been ANY official news on this? or on the MoU?

I was just surfing net about JF-17 and got this article.

It seem to be BS cause it says 100 JF-17 till 2014.

I would not surprise... I think that must be our target with current model to induct 100+ thunders till 2014.

What you going on about? Where did you get the idea that the wingspan will be much shorter etc.? The improved version of JF-17 will be much better in all aspects compared to the first version. What would otherwise be the point of building such an aircraft? Stop making up crap.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but if this is a stealth design and the idea is to address Thunder's radar signature. Then wouldn't it be logical to have internal weapons payload? Post #5 shows pictures of a stealth Thunder, however the aircraft has an external weapons load on underwing pylons. Although i'm aware of the fact that Raptor wings are stress wired to carry underwing weapons and fuel tanks, that feature wouldn't be adpoted during an actual air to air engagement.

Yes your exactly right although if i may point out neither Russia or China have that ability to make a plane in the same class interms of stealth as the B-2spirit or the F/A-22 raptor one must realize it has taken us years of R&D and billions of dollars to get to this level, although the concept of reducing the RCS perhaps would be close to that of the EF-2000 yes F/A-22 and USAF and USN/USM versions of F-35(JSF) might be the most stealthy multirole fighter jets out there but in terms of stealth and RCS, EF-2000 has the lowest RCS after these two planes one must realize with the usage of composites and stealth materials,not to mention ofcource special coatings and usage of RAM same can be applied to JF-17 and perhaps used in a much more effective way.

The concept is perhaps to make the fighter stealthier enough not to be detected until or unless its its quite near its target for example if an F-16 can be tracked and seem at the range of lets say 120+ km range the aim here would be to make JF-17blockII stealthy enough so that its not detected at such a range i.e the plane wouldnt know its there unless its in 40 to 50km of the plane i.e if the JF-17 hosts a powerful AESA radar it would naturally give it a 1st short ability, not to mention would be very useful in SEAD and DEAD missions in case of Raptor its said to be virtually invisiable against radars similar to the B-2 spirt bombers or perhaps even more given its size.

radar finalised?

JF-17 Cockpit

^ cool. where you get jf-17 pictures? the displays show chinese or urdu or english? i expected pakistani jf-17 cockpit would have urdu marking like french, chinese, russian indigenous fighters.

PAF pilots are professional and trained in some of world's finest aviation schools. They are using English since the beginning so no problems there.

It's already late Febuary. Is there any news about the next batch of JF-17? when will they arrive in
Pakistan?

how much of JF 17 is made of composite materials ?? anyone has any idea?

None, as of now JF-17 does not incorporate absolutely any composite materials. There are plans however i think to incorporate them progressively over the 2nd batch onwards. Whether it is true or not, i cannot say.

Translation is required...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dFNW1CUD-o

could anyone tell me the update on the number of jf-17 and place?

Ironically they (CAC/PAC) both are very quite at moment. Last thing we heard was in March 08 when there were 6 Thunders came to Pakistan.

An uprated RD-93B is on the cards. The engine is fantastic (despite propaganda against it) the only real issue is that the aircraft is somewhat heavy, & being of conventional layout (without cutting edge FBW systems) it is no where near the JAS-39 'Gripen' in terms of development potential. Where it has the advantage is in its low costs & the fact that it remains agile & sophisticated, & its potential is multiplied by the provision of smaller numbers of more advanced fighters.

What the FC-1 needs now is some updates to engine power & some weight loss. A boost in fuel wouldn't hurt, nor would strengthened wings to enable greater stores. Strengthened landing gear & so on should be a feature of the next 100 FC-1s following the first 150, but many updates should come within the first batch. In many ways it's an F-20A-performance fighter & comes quite close to the F-16A/B in field performance (that are respectable by any measure).