example of forward swept wing click the link below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1wXsygQTVA
Full Version: Jf-17 With Forward Swept Wings? Why Not?
jf-17 is going to be upgraded and modified, is there any future plans to use forward swept wings configuration with canards to add agility,as suppose to trust vectoring? any ideas?
example of forward swept wing click the link below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1wXsygQTVA
example of forward swept wing click the link below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1wXsygQTVA
There is no purpose any more, we live in the jet age.
It was the most unstable design, and the criterion was to increase speed.
That tecnology was replaced by after-burners and high performance jet engines, which gives the pilot more stability than forward swept wings.
It was the most unstable design, and the criterion was to increase speed.
That tecnology was replaced by after-burners and high performance jet engines, which gives the pilot more stability than forward swept wings.
AOA,
Any major change will require a large amount of test and evaluation as China had done in case of F-7 PG.
Pakistan needs to increase the number of JF-17 as quickly as possible to replace the aging old buddies.
We need to upgrade it by integrating new avionics, weapon systems and sensors.
Altering its design can be beneficial in future.
Any major change will require a large amount of test and evaluation as China had done in case of F-7 PG.
Pakistan needs to increase the number of JF-17 as quickly as possible to replace the aging old buddies.
We need to upgrade it by integrating new avionics, weapon systems and sensors.
Altering its design can be beneficial in future.
QUOTE(Shehz @ Jul 24 2008, 08:43 AM) 
There is no purpose any more, we live in the jet age.
It was the most unstable design, and the criterion was to increase speed.
That tecnology was replaced by after-burners and high performance jet engines, which gives the pilot more stability than forward swept wings.
It was the most unstable design, and the criterion was to increase speed.
That tecnology was replaced by after-burners and high performance jet engines, which gives the pilot more stability than forward swept wings.
jet age!
the design relates to increase stability[/size] at near mach speed and [size="3"]increase moveunrabilty at that speed! not max speed performance!!!! i think it would be wise to think of fuel consumpation in relation to efficiences in performance and no of hours of operation, if this was so useless a concept then can anyone explain SU-47 AND X-29! foward swept wing concept would benefit THE JF-17 context!
Forward swept wings are a draconian old old design, there is no advantage to step back in time.
The only advantage was to increase speed (and maneuverability?), but at the same time making the jet unstable.
Landings on Carriers became next to impossible, hence the better alternate was to go for high performance and more powerfull engines.
The only advantage was to increase speed (and maneuverability?), but at the same time making the jet unstable.
Landings on Carriers became next to impossible, hence the better alternate was to go for high performance and more powerfull engines.
QUOTE(Shehz @ Jul 24 2008, 09:43 AM)
Forward swept wings are a draconian old old design, there is no advantage to step back in time.
The only advantage was to increase speed (and maneuverability?), but at the same time making the jet unstable.
Landings on Carriers became next to impossible, hence the better alternate was to go for high performance and more powerfull engines.
The only advantage was to increase speed (and maneuverability?), but at the same time making the jet unstable.
Landings on Carriers became next to impossible, hence the better alternate was to go for high performance and more powerfull engines.
x-29 and su-47 are draconian old old design!
Both experimental, and your lol hammer tells all why they never went into production.
I know you're reading about it in some magazine, aerodynamics class, or watching a documentary.
That doesn't mean people don't know about it.
Even the F-16's and F-18's had prototypes of forward swept wings.
For the F-16 to be more stable, they had to install an F-18's engine on that prototype, and this is a news of the 1970's.
the project was abandoned, and reinitiated in 1981, the Grumman X-29 (your smiley face above), which used the F-5, partial F-16, and again, engine of the F-18.
2 prototypes, both of them retired in the museum in 1984.
The American experimented twice, in the 70's then the 80's, and called it a day.
The Russian's in 1977 experimented on the SU-37, which was again abandoned.
The only ones that actually went into real time production were the Flugzeugbau HFB-320 Business Jets built in 1964, and abondoned after 50 jets entered the market.
The original design is a 1936 German engineering, to make Gliders go faster, so yes, it's a very draconian design.
I know you're reading about it in some magazine, aerodynamics class, or watching a documentary.
That doesn't mean people don't know about it.
Even the F-16's and F-18's had prototypes of forward swept wings.
For the F-16 to be more stable, they had to install an F-18's engine on that prototype, and this is a news of the 1970's.
the project was abandoned, and reinitiated in 1981, the Grumman X-29 (your smiley face above), which used the F-5, partial F-16, and again, engine of the F-18.
2 prototypes, both of them retired in the museum in 1984.
The American experimented twice, in the 70's then the 80's, and called it a day.
The Russian's in 1977 experimented on the SU-37, which was again abandoned.
The only ones that actually went into real time production were the Flugzeugbau HFB-320 Business Jets built in 1964, and abondoned after 50 jets entered the market.
The original design is a 1936 German engineering, to make Gliders go faster, so yes, it's a very draconian design.
QUOTE(Shehz @ Jul 24 2008, 10:18 AM)
Both experimental, and your lol hammer tells all why they never went into production.
I know you're reading about it in some magazine, aerodynamics class, or watching a documentary.
That doesn't mean people don't know about it.
Even the F-16's and F-18's had prototypes of forward swept wings.
For the F-16 to be more stable, they had to install an F-18's engine on that prototype, and this is a news of the 1970's.
the project was abandoned, and reinitiated in 1981, the Grumman X-29 (your smiley face above), which used the F-5, partial F-16, and again, engine of the F-18.
2 prototypes, both of them retired in the museum in 1984.
The American experimented twice, in the 70's then the 80's, and called it a day.
The Russian's in 1977 experimented on the SU-37, which was again abandoned.
The only ones that actually went into real time production were the Flugzeugbau HFB-320 Business Jets built in 1964, and abondoned after 50 jets entered the market.
The original design is a 1936 German engineering, to make Gliders go faster, so yes, it's a very draconian design.
I know you're reading about it in some magazine, aerodynamics class, or watching a documentary.
That doesn't mean people don't know about it.
Even the F-16's and F-18's had prototypes of forward swept wings.
For the F-16 to be more stable, they had to install an F-18's engine on that prototype, and this is a news of the 1970's.
the project was abandoned, and reinitiated in 1981, the Grumman X-29 (your smiley face above), which used the F-5, partial F-16, and again, engine of the F-18.
2 prototypes, both of them retired in the museum in 1984.
The American experimented twice, in the 70's then the 80's, and called it a day.
The Russian's in 1977 experimented on the SU-37, which was again abandoned.
The only ones that actually went into real time production were the Flugzeugbau HFB-320 Business Jets built in 1964, and abondoned after 50 jets entered the market.
The original design is a 1936 German engineering, to make Gliders go faster, so yes, it's a very draconian design.
"I know you're reading about it in some magazine, aerodynamics class, or watching a documentary.
That doesn't mean people don't know about it."
i guess those fools that make these programs or write in articles donot know anything except you! ha! 
so please ladies and gentlemen behold a " so yes, it's a very draconian design"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1wXsygQTVA
I've already studied it, and gotton my certification.
You be happy now, try incorporating that in the LCA, wo jahaz wesey bhi nahi urta.
You be happy now, try incorporating that in the LCA, wo jahaz wesey bhi nahi urta.
in conventional backward swept wings, there is les air pressure and rotational forces on the wings since the backward swept design does not block air flow but simply diverts its path. in the case of forward swept wing, there is strong air pressure on the wings since the design of the wings does not allow the air to flow are smoothly as in the backward swept wings. hence there is always the risk of the wings breaking off during flights at high speeds.
QUOTE(Shehz @ Jul 24 2008, 10:53 AM)
I've already studied it, and gotton my certification.
You be happy now, try incorporating that in the LCA, wo jahaz wesey bhi nahi urta.
You be happy now, try incorporating that in the LCA, wo jahaz wesey bhi nahi urta.
it is better for educated ppl to stick to the merits & discussion of the topic and
oh lac belongs to you!
PAKISTAN ZINDABAD
QUOTE(madness70 @ Jul 24 2008, 12:19 PM)
it is better for educated ppl to stick to the merits & discussion of the topic
Re-read your own title, the question is why not?, and I did answer your topic's querry.
Why don't you show some merit by convincing deliberations, as to why should we.
It's a 1936 concept, so yeah, it's an old design.
Example would be, if Quaid's car is still driveable today, doesn't mean it's a new and improved design.
The only X-29 still under experimentation is now with NASA, not with USAF anylonger.
Their criterion is not warfare, but to design a space vehicle, on rentry without power, it glides faster.
Again, they have billions of Dollars of yearly budget, to see all the pros & con's, and then work on offsetting the cons.
Their project funding is based on gaining knowledge, and that is exactly what they are doing, and printing all that as text book material.
Forward swept wings will be in case studies in almost all Aerodynamics course materials, it's been there even before my dad was born, how can it be something wow?
I've given you the synopsis in post 7, it's your call to study it, or keep watching u-tube videos, not my loss.
This illustration shows the reverse airflow on forward swept wings vs. the airflow on the swept-back wings. On the forward swept wing, the air tended to flow inward toward the root of the wing rather than outward toward the wing tip as on the swept-back wing.
The lower illustration shows how the canards on forward swept-wing X-29 will share the lifting load and reduce drag as compared to a conventional aircraft in the upper diagram.
QUOTE(Shehz @ Jul 24 2008, 11:40 AM)
Re-read your own title, the question is why not?, and I did answer your topic's querry.
Why don't you show some merit by convincing deliberations, as to why should we.
It's a 1936 concept, so yeah, it's an old design.
Example would be, if Quaid's car is still driveable today, doesn't mean it's a new and improved design.
The only X-29 still under experimentation is now with NASA, not with USAF anylonger.
Their criterion is not warfare, but to design a space vehicle, on rentry without power, it glides faster.
Again, they have billions of Dollars of yearly budget, to see all the pros & con's, and then work on offsetting the cons.
Their project funding is based on gaining knowledge, and that is exactly what they are doing, and printing all that as text book material.
Forward swept wings will be in case studies in almost all Aerodynamics course materials, it's been there even before my dad was born, how can it be something wow?
I've given you the synopsis in post 7, it's your call to study it, or keep watching u-tube videos, not my loss.
This illustration shows the reverse airflow on forward swept wings vs. the airflow on the swept-back wings. On the forward swept wing, the air tended to flow inward toward the root of the wing rather than outward toward the wing tip as on the swept-back wing.
The lower illustration shows how the canards on forward swept-wing X-29 will share the lifting load and reduce drag as compared to a conventional aircraft in the upper diagram.
Why don't you show some merit by convincing deliberations, as to why should we.
It's a 1936 concept, so yeah, it's an old design.
Example would be, if Quaid's car is still driveable today, doesn't mean it's a new and improved design.
The only X-29 still under experimentation is now with NASA, not with USAF anylonger.
Their criterion is not warfare, but to design a space vehicle, on rentry without power, it glides faster.
Again, they have billions of Dollars of yearly budget, to see all the pros & con's, and then work on offsetting the cons.
Their project funding is based on gaining knowledge, and that is exactly what they are doing, and printing all that as text book material.
Forward swept wings will be in case studies in almost all Aerodynamics course materials, it's been there even before my dad was born, how can it be something wow?
I've given you the synopsis in post 7, it's your call to study it, or keep watching u-tube videos, not my loss.
This illustration shows the reverse airflow on forward swept wings vs. the airflow on the swept-back wings. On the forward swept wing, the air tended to flow inward toward the root of the wing rather than outward toward the wing tip as on the swept-back wing.
The lower illustration shows how the canards on forward swept-wing X-29 will share the lifting load and reduce drag as compared to a conventional aircraft in the upper diagram.
bacha!
The merit of the swept wing lies in it's benefits ,for fighter plane without trust vectoring, the option of forward swept wing may be worth looking in to!
the public can read all about it from the same source your get your info!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-swept_wing
QUOTE(madness70 @ Jul 24 2008, 07:27 AM)
jf-17 is going to be upgraded and modified, is there any future plans to use forward swept wings configuration with canards to add agility,as suppose to trust vectoring? any ideas?
example of forward wept wing click the link below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1wXsygQTVA
example of forward wept wing click the link below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1wXsygQTVA
JF-17s are slated to be the workhorse of PAF and not a frontline fighter aircraft. Pakistan's approach is upgrading the aircraft in phases and is very objective and realistic approach. As of right now, there are no plans to either use forward swept wings or canards. Infact, it will be a total loss of precious resources/time at hand that can be better diverted towards procuring frontline aircrafts. In my opinion, priority would be to introduce the composites to make the aircraft lighter and therefore, making it more maneuverable with a higher TWR.
On the sidenote, It is called " thrust vectoring" and not what you typed.
The diagrams and material I posted, are from the NASA website.
None of my info comes from wikipedia.
Why don't you show some merit by convincing deliberations, as to why should we.
None of my info comes from wikipedia.
Why don't you show some merit by convincing deliberations, as to why should we.
Ah man, where do these people come from??? No one is interested in so called Forward Swept wings for JF-17.
QUOTE(Caesar @ Jul 25 2008, 04:58 AM)
Ah man, where do these people come from??? No one is interested in so called Forward Swept wings for JF-17.
"didnt caesar die in rome"
as i mentioned before educated people will address the topic and not the individuals? any way for those that can read the advantages
by increasing the maneuverabilty of jf-17 without thrust vectoring, it might be that jf-17 can take off or land on very short runways, thus can be hidden in isolated northern areas, be able to perform extreme maneuvers beneficial in close encounters with the enemy! no doubt the re-designing will be involved but this might not be for all jf-17s but only some! of course it will be very objective like re-designing of the intake !all that my topic question is asking is there a strong enough reason for such a concept!
QUOTE(madness70 @ Jul 25 2008, 09:58 PM)
"didnt caesar die in rome"
as i mentioned before educated people will address the topic and not the individuals? any way for those that can read the :
as i mentioned before educated people will address the topic and not the individuals? any way for those that can read the :
Yeah he did...but he wasn't a MAD Looser...like madness70.....he was an emperor!!
oh boy what a looser!! Ahhhhhh aother expert...oh God!!
QUOTE(Caesar @ Jul 25 2008, 08:13 AM)
Yeah he did...but he wasn't a MAD Looser...like madness70.....he was an emperor!! oh boy what a looser!! Ahhhhhh aother expert...oh God!!
oh boy what a looser!! Ahhhhhh aother expert...oh God!! BACHA!
caesar was a kafir & a zalim! an absolute losser in histroy, and was murdered by his own ppl! "read your histroy first, as i mentioned educated ppl will address the topic!
QUOTE(madness70 @ Jul 25 2008, 11:33 PM)
BACHA!
caesar was a kafir & a zalim! an absolute losser in histroy, and was murdered by his own ppl! "read your histroy first, as i mentioned educated ppl will address the topic!
caesar was a kafir & a zalim! an absolute losser in histroy, and was murdered by his own ppl! "read your histroy first, as i mentioned educated ppl will address the topic!
Oh ok.....LOL....thanks for the free history lesson Mr looser!!
Oh boy...what a joker!! Probably a looser indian.....ahhhhh what "Madness"!!
Educated people have already addressed the issue.
Uneducated people will keep on insisting otherwise without any convincing deliberations.
Uneducated people will keep on insisting otherwise without any convincing deliberations.
QUOTE(Caesar @ Jul 25 2008, 09:00 AM)
Oh ok.....LOL....thanks for the free history lesson Mr looser!! Oh boy...what a joker!! Probably a looser indian.....ahhhhh what "Madness"!!
Oh boy...what a joker!! Probably a looser indian.....ahhhhh what "Madness"!!welcome! dead caesar from monkey land!now u can go back running to your home!
QUOTE(Shehz @ Jul 25 2008, 09:45 AM)
Educated people have already addressed the issue.
Uneducated people will keep on insisting otherwise without any convincing deliberations.
Uneducated people will keep on insisting otherwise without any convincing deliberations.
yes eduacted ppl will always use afterburner with high performance engines, bcus we are in "jet age"
real educated ppl always keep a open mind, always weigh advantages and disadvantage! educated ppl adress the topic and not shy away from giving a convincing reason for not using such configuration!
i guess people with real insight can be better then someone just acting out! im not convinced either way on use for such configuration, but these sure are deliberations!
there is not even a single aircraft currently in service which employs forward swept wings. this option has been available to aeronautical engineers around the world for over 70 years, yet all the aircrafts which have been produced or are being produced do not use forward swept wings, except for one russian plane which may never be inducted.
When this guy picked his nick, it was the only correct thing he did, madness.... LOL
The design has existed since 1936, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-swept_wing It's from your own beloved wikipedia link.
Tell me this, why has nobody produced a forward swept wing version of a fighter?
Who knows better, The airforces of some of the biggest and best weapons producers in the world (Russia, USA, Britain, China, France) or your TV documentary?
The design has existed since 1936, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-swept_wing It's from your own beloved wikipedia link.
Tell me this, why has nobody produced a forward swept wing version of a fighter?
Who knows better, The airforces of some of the biggest and best weapons producers in the world (Russia, USA, Britain, China, France) or your TV documentary?
Gentlemen,
If you look at both designs (Russian and US) you will notice that at the swept forward wing does not extend all the way to the root near the fuselage - the reason is aeroelasticity - the wing divergence speed (roots of the equation of motion) for a swept back wing is imaginary while it is real for the swept forward wing - to put it simply, swept forward wing undergoes torsional failure. X-29 is a relic of time when composite materials were making inroad to manufacturing and it was thought that the wing divergence can be avoided by "aeroelastic tailoring" of the fiber matrix...
Note that both aircraft are technology demonstrator aircraft and actually very heavily loaded with sensors to prevent failure.
The only advantage of the forward sweep was its maneuverability (lack of aerodynamic damping).
Regards.
If you look at both designs (Russian and US) you will notice that at the swept forward wing does not extend all the way to the root near the fuselage - the reason is aeroelasticity - the wing divergence speed (roots of the equation of motion) for a swept back wing is imaginary while it is real for the swept forward wing - to put it simply, swept forward wing undergoes torsional failure. X-29 is a relic of time when composite materials were making inroad to manufacturing and it was thought that the wing divergence can be avoided by "aeroelastic tailoring" of the fiber matrix...
Note that both aircraft are technology demonstrator aircraft and actually very heavily loaded with sensors to prevent failure.
The only advantage of the forward sweep was its maneuverability (lack of aerodynamic damping).
Regards.
Ask a simple question or make a similar suggestion and all hell breaks loose;
Lets get the JF-17 in operational service first and the experiments can be conducted later or as they say you crawl before you walk and you learn to walk before you think of running!
Lets get the JF-17 in operational service first and the experiments can be conducted later or as they say you crawl before you walk and you learn to walk before you think of running!
This is what I call side effects of hard hitting reality that LCA the trainer will not be availble with new engine and AESA radar before 2025 which is 17 years from now.
And anything before 2025 will be LCA trainers that will not be meeting the ASR and therefore incapable of fighting.
Welcome to reality.
QUOTE(platinum786 @ Jul 25 2008, 11:13 AM)
When this guy picked his nick, it was the only correct thing he did, madness.... LOL
The design has existed since 1936, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-swept_wing It's from your own beloved wikipedia link.
Tell me this, why has nobody produced a forward swept wing version of a fighter?
Who knows better, The airforces of some of the biggest and best weapons producers in the world (Russia, USA, Britain, China, France) or your TV documentary?
The design has existed since 1936, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-swept_wing It's from your own beloved wikipedia link.
Tell me this, why has nobody produced a forward swept wing version of a fighter?
Who knows better, The airforces of some of the biggest and best weapons producers in the world (Russia, USA, Britain, China, France) or your TV documentary?
let me remind you "su-47" is that not a fighter design ? ,since you can see into the future (and not require wiki or other source of info like a mortal)can you assure us mad ppl "that we will not see this design in a fighter plane in the future" by the way look into your nick name again! platinum786 doesn't signify what you think! ignorant extermist!
regards
Madness70,
give respect and have respect.
give respect and have respect.
Lol.
Mujhay yaqeen nahi hoaraha hay kay Shehz, Cesar aur Platinum is bhangee ko bardasht kaisay kar rahay hain.
Waisay najanay kiyoon, yeh muhay pirate ki yaad dila raha hay. Kia shughal tha wo bhi.
QUOTE(camber @ Jul 25 2008, 11:33 AM)
Gentlemen,
If you look at both designs (Russian and US) you will notice that at the swept forward wing does not extend all the way to the root near the fuselage - the reason is aeroelasticity - the wing divergence speed (roots of the equation of motion) for a swept back wing is imaginary while it is real for the swept forward wing - to put it simply, swept forward wing undergoes torsional failure. X-29 is a relic of time when composite materials were making inroad to manufacturing and it was thought that the wing divergence can be avoided by "aeroelastic tailoring" of the fiber matrix...
Note that both aircraft are technology demonstrator aircraft and actually very heavily loaded with sensors to prevent failure.
The only advantage of the forward sweep was its maneuverability (lack of aerodynamic damping).
Regards.
If you look at both designs (Russian and US) you will notice that at the swept forward wing does not extend all the way to the root near the fuselage - the reason is aeroelasticity - the wing divergence speed (roots of the equation of motion) for a swept back wing is imaginary while it is real for the swept forward wing - to put it simply, swept forward wing undergoes torsional failure. X-29 is a relic of time when composite materials were making inroad to manufacturing and it was thought that the wing divergence can be avoided by "aeroelastic tailoring" of the fiber matrix...
Note that both aircraft are technology demonstrator aircraft and actually very heavily loaded with sensors to prevent failure.
The only advantage of the forward sweep was its maneuverability (lack of aerodynamic damping).
Regards.
thanks for a straight and neutral answer without cheap shoots!
QUOTE(airomerix @ Jul 25 2008, 11:58 AM)
Madness70,
give respect and have respect.
give respect and have respect.
taali duo haatuo sa baj ti hay sahab jee!
im not one of those that will show disrespect to any here! i have just asked a simple question? and the replys are more cheap shoots at personalities and less substance! quite disappointed at the level of the mind by some,
show manner get respect! no manner no respect!
regards
QUOTE(2 aliph 5 @ Jul 25 2008, 11:50 AM)
This is what I call side effects of hard hitting reality that LCA the trainer will not be availble with new engine and AESA radar before 2025 which is 17 years from now.
And anything before 2025 will be LCA trainers that will not be meeting the ASR and therefore incapable of fighting.
Welcome to reality.
And anything before 2025 will be LCA trainers that will not be meeting the ASR and therefore incapable of fighting.
Welcome to reality.
sir
it may be a concern to you, not for us pakistanis ,we are discussing jf-17!i think we pakistanis should concentrate on improving ourselves, who cares what the indians have LCA toy! or not!
by the way, what your are trying to imply is a cheap shoot!
this is what is wrong with some of us, today, if you donot agree with a certain point of view your painted a traitor, indian or kafir!!!!!? quite disappointing! there is no cure for such a mindset!
regards
QUOTE(SUNNY92 @ Jul 25 2008, 11:46 AM)
Ask a simple question or make a similar suggestion and all hell breaks loose;
Lets get the JF-17 in operational service first and the experiments can be conducted later or as they say you crawl before you walk and you learn to walk before you think of running!
Lets get the JF-17 in operational service first and the experiments can be conducted later or as they say you crawl before you walk and you learn to walk before you think of running!
i totally agree sir!!!,
my question is just to generate a discussion on the merit of such a wing configuration! for jf-17!
regards
QUOTE(madness70 @ Jul 25 2008, 11:30 AM)
sir
I already enlightened you in post number 14. Yet, you kept up with your madness.
Which part of post number 14 you didnt or couldnt understand ?
QUOTE(2 aliph 5 @ Jul 25 2008, 01:11 PM)
I already enlightened you in post number 14. Yet, you kept up with your madness.
Which part of post number 14 you didnt or couldnt understand ?
Which part of post number 14 you didnt or couldnt understand ?
JF-17s are slated to be the workhorse of PAF and not a frontline fighter aircraft
sir
what a defeatist attitude! do u under estimate the improvements that have been made to the project from its inception! ! or you think the doors to improvements have been closed forever for jf-17 to make it a frontline fighter! or better tell us what is devoid in this aircraft to be a frontline fighter!
and by the way, im sure you can make your point without the cheap shoot!
regards to all
QUOTE(madness70 @ Jul 25 2008, 01:20 PM)
JF-17s are slated to be the workhorse of PAF and not a frontline fighter aircraft
sir
what a defeatist attitude! do u under estimate the improvements that have been made to the project from its inception! ! or you think the doors to improvements have been closed forever for jf-17 to make it a frontline fighter! or better tell us what is devoid in this aircraft to be a frontline fighter!
and by the way, im sure you can make your point without the cheap shoot!
regards to all
sir
what a defeatist attitude! do u under estimate the improvements that have been made to the project from its inception! ! or you think the doors to improvements have been closed forever for jf-17 to make it a frontline fighter! or better tell us what is devoid in this aircraft to be a frontline fighter!
and by the way, im sure you can make your point without the cheap shoot!
regards to all
It is a realistic attitude. Pakistan lack the resources to experiment with the plane. In due time if it looks feasible, then by all means it will be adopted but right now it is neither a priority nor a neccessity.
JF-17 is a small plane and there is only enough that you can improve and be rest assured that it will be improved to a point where it can no longer be improved but all that will happen in time.
JF-17s will be complementing the higher end planes such as J-10 or F-16s and or Rafales. One J-10 can do the job of two JF-17s.
JF-17 is a great plane and will end up even a greater plane in its class.
Before you ask about the class, Please enlighten yourself with 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5 and 5 generation class of fighter planes.
QUOTE(saleemraja @ Jul 26 2008, 12:46 AM)
buy??? U mean we should dispose the thunder project???
QUOTE(madness70 @ Jul 26 2008, 12:56 AM)
welcome! dead caesar from monkey land!now u can go back running to your home!
Oh Gosh......here is a small geography lesson from you "MADNESS" (oh Boy.....
) .....I am from the Kangroo land...called Australia....Indians like u come from india which is called Monkey land!! So I assume you are in Manama in a cage being fed with bananas.....and then you suddenly came up with a monkey idea...forward swept wings!! Ahhhhh....
QUOTE(Caesar @ Jul 25 2008, 11:05 PM)
Oh Gosh......here is a small geography lesson from you "MADNESS" (oh Boy..... ) .....I am from the Kangroo land...called Australia....Indians like u come from india which is called Monkey land!! So I assume you are in Manama in a cage being fed with bananas.....and then you suddenly came up with a monkey idea...forward swept wings!! Ahhhhh....
) .....I am from the Kangroo land...called Australia....Indians like u come from india which is called Monkey land!! So I assume you are in Manama in a cage being fed with bananas.....and then you suddenly came up with a monkey idea...forward swept wings!! Ahhhhh.... your indian movie imagination is clear for all to see!monkey caesar!
oh! did i hurt your monkey feelings! bindi! in kangaroo land!
unfortunately there are many monkey bindis down under ,
the aussies should but these monkey bindis in a cage for stinking up their place! or feed them to sharks!
To Madness-70 and Caesar,
Guys I think you are both Pakistani and patriotic, but if you squabble like this then................who will have the last laugh ???
Guys I think you are both Pakistani and patriotic, but if you squabble like this then................who will have the last laugh ???
FYI...both the F-16 and F-5 have forward-swept wing variants flown to test the FSW, but their development did help considerably in fly-by-wire, composite and aerospace design. If PAF intends to develop its own 5th generation fighter, it could use a FSW-variant of JF-17 to help with the process.
QUOTE(SUNNY92 @ Jul 26 2008, 11:53 AM)
To Madness-70 and Caesar,
Guys I think you are both Pakistani and patriotic, but if you squabble like this then................who will have the last laugh ???
Guys I think you are both Pakistani and patriotic, but if you squabble like this then................who will have the last laugh ???
QUOTE(Mark Sien @ Jul 26 2008, 12:14 PM)
FYI...both the F-16 and F-5 have forward-swept wing variants flown to test the FSW, but their development did help considerably in fly-by-wire, composite and aerospace design. If PAF intends to develop its own 5th generation fighter, it could use a FSW-variant of JF-17 to help with the process.
no , no, we mustn't stop any manufacturing project. I meant in addition we should buy the J11B
QUOTE(airomerix @ Jul 25 2008, 08:08 PM)
buy??? U mean we should dispose the thunder project???
QUOTE(saleemraja @ Jul 27 2008, 02:23 PM)
no , no, we mustn't stop any manufacturing project. I meant in addition we should buy the J11B
J-10 is better in agility and performance i suppose. Since it is a single engined fighter thus reducing the costs. We should upgrade the J-10 to the FC-20 standards.
found this on the another forum, there are some plan around for FSW by the chinese OR russian for j-11 or su-30
any thoughts as to why the chinese are looking into FSW configuration!
any thoughts as to why the chinese are looking into FSW configuration!
Don't bother yourselves with this guy. He has flamed at least 3-4 people in this topic alone.
He's now as good as banned. Also I'm closing the topic.
He's now as good as banned. Also I'm closing the topic.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.