JF17:---More Hard Points Bigger Engine---Why!!!!!

[Awan68]

@MastanKhan
Adding the fact that modern radars are capable of tracking and engaging more and more targets.

So it’s important to have the capability to have more hardpoints.

And the height from the ground should be risen a little bit in order to be able to carry bigger missiles easily like ra’ad.

If it to costly, then this kind of problem/requirements should be studied for AZM project.

I don’t know if it is true or not, but I read years ago that F-14 platform was made for a specific weapon : the phoenix’s missiles.

All of you are experts which I’m definitely not. So I could be wrong.

Yes, feb 27 was just a minor limited engagement, in an event of war, the air battle between PAF and IAF will be the largest the world has seen since WW2. Aircraft resources will deplete pretty quickly, IAF does have a numerical superiority and to counter that our aircraft need to have more go's at the enemy aka hard points. Imagine a scenario where one of our boys takes down 2 jets and gets a lock on a third......there u go, he doesnt have a missle left hence he gets taken out himself.

 

[FuturePAF]

We have to wait for the maturation of the WS-19 Engine being developed for the J-31.
Max Thrust in full afterburner would be 24,000 lb
It's suppose to match the development of the GE 414.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ws19.htm

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/images/ws19-image02-s.jpg
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/images/ws19-image01-s.jpg

 

[CodeforFood]

Hi,

Some posters are still wanting a bigger engine ( not understanding that a more powerful engine would also put more stress on the frame as well thus reducing the life of the frame).

Some are wanting more hard points---actually most are wanting more hard points---and I do not know what they would do with them---.

The combat on the 27th proved a few points and shattered many a myth---. What it proved was---what I have been saying for a longtime---and what analysts have stated over the decade---most aircraft getting into a conflict will die without launching their missiles.

It proved to be 100% correct---the only aircraft that fell on pour side---had all its missiles intact---. Supposedly---the SU30 that we shot down---also did not launch any missiles---.

So---the myth for having a large number of missiles and spraying them in the air against other aircraft like a water coming from a hose has been busted so far---we are talking about CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT and not the 5th gen aircraft for the matter of discussion---.

What has also come true is that the one who fires the first shot---has a better chance of survival amongst equal type of aircraft---.

Now why I would ask for a 25% larger aircraft---it was for the reason that it could carry two large 1000 Kg weight category AShM---the reasoning behind the japanese F2.

The second reason was---as the technology would advance---there would be better availability of modular techno gizmos that could be mounted all around on the aircraft in designated spots---giving it a better 360* situational awareness---basing it on the fact that the one who can see better---either thru the electronic eye or thru his own eyes would have better situational control of the skies---.

For air forces with similar capabilities---lock---launch and dash would be the key to a successful operation---.

So again---whomsoever has better situational awareness will control the roost---.

More money needs to be spent on these items rather than those for show---. The proof is in the pudding now---. Now let us focus on conveying the right message and change our thinking---even though it is very difficult to get thru the skulls of my pakistani brethren and children---.

Wouldn't a powerful engine help in a WVR scenario. If there are a large number of planes in the engagement there is a good chance that there will be a WVR scenario in play.
Also is the powers like usa,russia,france,uk mad to have more powerful meneuverable fighters with more hardpoints?

 

[Selous]

Hi,

Some posters are still wanting a bigger engine ( not understanding that a more powerful engine would also put more stress on the frame as well thus reducing the life of the frame).

Some are wanting more hard points---actually most are wanting more hard points---and I do not know what they would do with them---.

The combat on the 27th proved a few points and shattered many a myth---. What it proved was---what I have been saying for a longtime---and what analysts have stated over the decade---most aircraft getting into a conflict will die without launching their missiles.

It proved to be 100% correct---the only aircraft that fell on pour side---had all its missiles intact---. Supposedly---the SU30 that we shot down---also did not launch any missiles---.

So---the myth for having a large number of missiles and spraying them in the air against other aircraft like a water coming from a hose has been busted so far---we are talking about CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT and not the 5th gen aircraft for the matter of discussion---.

What has also come true is that the one who fires the first shot---has a better chance of survival amongst equal type of aircraft---.

Now why I would ask for a 25% larger aircraft---it was for the reason that it could carry two large 1000 Kg weight category AShM---the reasoning behind the japanese F2.

The second reason was---as the technology would advance---there would be better availability of modular techno gizmos that could be mounted all around on the aircraft in designated spots---giving it a better 360* situational awareness---basing it on the fact that the one who can see better---either thru the electronic eye or thru his own eyes would have better situational control of the skies---.

For air forces with similar capabilities---lock---launch and dash would be the key to a successful operation---.

So again---whomsoever has better situational awareness will control the roost---.

More money needs to be spent on these items rather than those for show---. The proof is in the pudding now---. Now let us focus on conveying the right message and change our thinking---even though it is very difficult to get thru the skulls of my pakistani brethren and children---.

Because the JF 17 is a multi-role aircraft. It is not only used for aerial combat. In ground attack and CAS role, more hardpoints means more munition carried and thus the greater the firepower available for the mission. As for the bigger engine with greater speed, quicker time to target and quicker egress after completing a strike. You must remember that PAF will not always be operating in an area where they have achieved air superiority, thus speed will play a role in mitigating danger to the assets. Finally, greater speed at missile launch (yes even BVR) plays a vital role in assuring a kill.

 

[MastanKhan]

Because the JF 17 is a multi-role aircraft. It is not only used for aerial combat. In ground attack and CAS role, more hardpoints means more munition carried and thus the greater the firepower available for the mission. As for the bigger engine with greater speed, quicker time to target and quicker egress after completing a strike. You must remember that PAF will not always be operating in an area where they have achieved air superiority, thus speed will play a role in mitigating danger to the assets. Finally, greater speed at missile launch (yes even BVR) plays a vital role in assuring a kill.

Hi,

What is greater speed in numbers and in relation to what---how much is quicker time to target and how much quicker time to egress---?

We have smart weapons---you don't have to load up the hold to do damage---precision targeting does more damage---.

For heavier loads---you need heavier aircraft---.

 

[CrazyZ]

I think the JF-17 meets the operational needs of the PAF for a backbone fighter perfect for border skirmishes.... better in many ways then the SU30MKII does for the IAF (its too big to fit in their hardened aircraft hangers at forward airbases). An improved RD93 or similar Chinese engine should always be considered, but a major redesign is not needed.

I agree that a larger aircraft would meet the navel strike role much better......but a land based manned or unmanned stealth platform with enough internal space to carry anti-ship missiles would be even better. This is something that should be considered in project AZM.

 

[MastanKhan]

Wouldn't a powerful engine help in a WVR scenario. If there are a large number of planes in the engagement there is a good chance that there will be a WVR scenario in play.
Also is the powers like usa,russia,france,uk mad to have more powerful meneuverable fighters with more hardpoints?

Hi,

Paf will prove that you don't need more powerful fighter aircraft engines---you need them with optimal power---. What you need more is technology and knwoing how to use it---.

The US or UK or Russia or Sweden or France---all these people have proved nothing---.

The Paf in one sortie has DEBUNKED all their claims of air combat---all those aircraft able to dance on their behinds mean nothing---it is technology---tactics---training train & training that makes the difference---.

I told you guys in the other thread---. Paf has shaken up the world of air combat as it was known---.

That Little Chicken Hawk has trashed the Master Blaster to kingdom come---.

What do you think @Khafee @Irfan Baloch @Mentee

 

[Trango Towers]

Hi,

Some posters are still wanting a bigger engine ( not understanding that a more powerful engine would also put more stress on the frame as well thus reducing the life of the frame).

Some are wanting more hard points---actually most are wanting more hard points---and I do not know what they would do with them---.

The combat on the 27th proved a few points and shattered many a myth---. What it proved was---what I have been saying for a longtime---and what analysts have stated over the decade---most aircraft getting into a conflict will die without launching their missiles.

It proved to be 100% correct---the only aircraft that fell on pour side---had all its missiles intact---. Supposedly---the SU30 that we shot down---also did not launch any missiles---.

So---the myth for having a large number of missiles and spraying them in the air against other aircraft like a water coming from a hose has been busted so far---we are talking about CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT and not the 5th gen aircraft for the matter of discussion---.

What has also come true is that the one who fires the first shot---has a better chance of survival amongst equal type of aircraft---.

Now why I would ask for a 25% larger aircraft---it was for the reason that it could carry two large 1000 Kg weight category AShM---the reasoning behind the japanese F2.

The second reason was---as the technology would advance---there would be better availability of modular techno gizmos that could be mounted all around on the aircraft in designated spots---giving it a better 360* situational awareness---basing it on the fact that the one who can see better---either thru the electronic eye or thru his own eyes would have better situational control of the skies---.

For air forces with similar capabilities---lock---launch and dash would be the key to a successful operation---.

So again---whomsoever has better situational awareness will control the roost---.

More money needs to be spent on these items rather than those for show---. The proof is in the pudding now---. Now let us focus on conveying the right message and change our thinking---even though it is very difficult to get thru the skulls of my pakistani brethren and children---.

Nice article on the whole.
As u know i generally have fun on this forum and not take things seriously. As a stress engineer who has worked for companies like British aerospace and so on i can say one little comment.
I am not for changing the engine as some members want. I think the jf17 engine is just fine. I am not sure if you realise how the aircraft structures are over designed beyond the stress envelope encountered. Although you state correctly that life cycle may be reduced if stress is increased.

 

[ziaulislam]

Jf17 is slightly shortlegged /less range
With respect to hard points it just really need a pod hard point only

Engine is issue for two reasons
Low dry thrust
Non FADEC engine
Low effiency

A new engine will thus increase range significantly and might help in payload even with no change in airframe

We are only talking about 10-15% increase DRY thrust..Jets only have few minutes of after burn fuel..dry thrust is what is important

 

[batmannow]

Hi,

Some posters are still wanting a bigger engine ( not understanding that a more powerful engine would also put more stress on the frame as well thus reducing the life of the frame).

Some are wanting more hard points---actually most are wanting more hard points---and I do not know what they would do with them---.

The combat on the 27th proved a few points and shattered many a myth---. What it proved was---what I have been saying for a longtime---and what analysts have stated over the decade---most aircraft getting into a conflict will die without launching their missiles.

It proved to be 100% correct---the only aircraft that fell on pour side---had all its missiles intact---. Supposedly---the SU30 that we shot down---also did not launch any missiles---.

So---the myth for having a large number of missiles and spraying them in the air against other aircraft like a water coming from a hose has been busted so far---we are talking about CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT and not the 5th gen aircraft for the matter of discussion---.

What has also come true is that the one who fires the first shot---has a better chance of survival amongst equal type of aircraft---.

Now why I would ask for a 25% larger aircraft---it was for the reason that it could carry two large 1000 Kg weight category AShM---the reasoning behind the japanese F2.

The second reason was---as the technology would advance---there would be better availability of modular techno gizmos that could be mounted all around on the aircraft in designated spots---giving it a better 360* situational awareness---basing it on the fact that the one who can see better---either thru the electronic eye or thru his own eyes would have better situational control of the skies---.

For air forces with similar capabilities---lock---launch and dash would be the key to a successful operation---.

So again---whomsoever has better situational awareness will control the roost---.

More money needs to be spent on these items rather than those for show---. The proof is in the pudding now---. Now let us focus on conveying the right message and change our thinking---even though it is very difficult to get thru the skulls of my pakistani brethren and children---.

What you think about those ?

 

[ziaulislam]

So what JF17 really really needs is increase in range achieved via better more efficient new engine within rd93/ws13 family and decrease in empty weight more fuel space and probably a separate hard point under air intake for pods

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

Hi,

Some posters are still wanting a bigger engine ( not understanding that a more powerful engine would also put more stress on the frame as well thus reducing the life of the frame).

Some are wanting more hard points---actually most are wanting more hard points---and I do not know what they would do with them---.

The combat on the 27th proved a few points and shattered many a myth---. What it proved was---what I have been saying for a longtime---and what analysts have stated over the decade---most aircraft getting into a conflict will die without launching their missiles.

It proved to be 100% correct---the only aircraft that fell on pour side---had all its missiles intact---. Supposedly---the SU30 that we shot down---also did not launch any missiles---.

So---the myth for having a large number of missiles and spraying them in the air against other aircraft like a water coming from a hose has been busted so far---we are talking about CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT and not the 5th gen aircraft for the matter of discussion---.

What has also come true is that the one who fires the first shot---has a better chance of survival amongst equal type of aircraft---.

Now why I would ask for a 25% larger aircraft---it was for the reason that it could carry two large 1000 Kg weight category AShM---the reasoning behind the japanese F2.

The second reason was---as the technology would advance---there would be better availability of modular techno gizmos that could be mounted all around on the aircraft in designated spots---giving it a better 360* situational awareness---basing it on the fact that the one who can see better---either thru the electronic eye or thru his own eyes would have better situational control of the skies---.

For air forces with similar capabilities---lock---launch and dash would be the key to a successful operation---.

So again---whomsoever has better situational awareness will control the roost---.

More money needs to be spent on these items rather than those for show---. The proof is in the pudding now---. Now let us focus on conveying the right message and change our thinking---even though it is very difficult to get thru the skulls of my pakistani brethren and children---.

For ground troops support u really need more hard points.
Aircraft's are not only for air to air combat.
Secondly RCS is more important along with radar and missiles range. U detect first u shoot first.

 

[ziaulislam]

For ground troops support u really need more hard points.
Aircraft's are not only for air to air combat.
Secondly RCS is more important along with radar and missiles range. U detect first u shoot first.

Less of an issue with smart bombs and mulitple racks and cluster ammunition
The outee hard point on jf17 can be equipped witg multi
Rack system rather than adding anther hard point

Issue is that more payload is useless if jf17 cant use it due to fuel and engine restrictions

 

[CodeforFood]

Hi,

Paf will prove that you don't need more powerful fighter aircraft engines---you need them with optimal power---. What you need more is technology and knwoing how to use it---.

The US or UK or Russia or Sweden or France---all these people have proved nothing---.

The Paf in one sortie has DEBUNKED all their claims of air combat---all those aircraft able to dance on their behinds mean nothing---it is technology---tactics---training train & training that makes the difference---.

I told you guys in the other thread---. Paf has shaken up the world of air combat as it was known---.

That Little Chicken Hawk has trashed the Master Blaster to kingdom come---.

What do you think @Khafee @Irfan Baloch @Mentee

Having more power does not mean that you have to use it all the time. Having it on ones disposal is good

 

[Signalian]

For ground troops support u really need more hard points.

Wouldn't a powerful engine help in a WVR scenario. If there are a large number of planes in the engagement there is a good chance that there will be a WVR scenario in play.
Also is the powers like usa,russia,france,uk mad to have more powerful meneuverable fighters with more hardpoints?

Because the JF 17 is a multi-role aircraft. It is not only used for aerial combat. In ground attack and CAS role, more hardpoints means more munition carried and thus the greater the firepower available for the mission. As for the bigger engine with greater speed, quicker time to target and quicker egress after completing a strike. You must remember that PAF will not always be operating in an area where they have achieved air superiority, thus speed will play a role in mitigating danger to the assets. Finally, greater speed at missile launch (yes even BVR) plays a vital role in assuring a kill.

There is a maximum load capacity with respect to weight. The current engine can handle extra munitions already, as seen in pic. Is a newer engine worth the investment still ? How much more munitions will JF-17 be able to carry with new engine (considering weight of munitions and take off weight) ?

The only benefit I see with more hard points is to carry more pods without sacrificing EFT's or 4 AAM loadout. A bigger engine can power up more powerful radar and jammers.

For air superiority role and engaging large attack parties, as we say in recent skirmishes, more bvrs would definitely help in engaging more targets thus distracting them from their basic objective.

JF-17 is already (Block II) doing much more than it was envisioned for, where as Block III will be another major upgrade, hopefully with a powerful radar. For carrying more powerful jammers, a variant of Electronic Warfare JF-17 can be formed, with same engine, but different electronic payload.

Jf17 is slightly shortlegged /less range
With respect to hard points it just really need a pod hard point only

Engine is issue for two reasons
Low dry thrust
Non FADEC engine
Low effiency

A new engine will thus increase range significantly and might help in payload even with no change in airframe

We are only talking about 10-15% increase DRY thrust..Jets only have few minutes of after burn fuel..dry thrust is what is important

Would a bigger engine also effect RCS of JF-17 ?

Would climb rate get better, if a newer engine is used, but also if more hard points are added which means more ordnance and wing loading?