985 replies to this topic

[CaliBaller]

@Calliballer,

This is the most concise explanation! Firstly tell me that do u agree with it or not?

please refer to my reply below to AWA.

[CaliBaller]

By the way I am having the feeling that we are moving in a circle on this issue.

I agree with you that "MORE IS BETTER". We all would love to see JF-17 to be best of the best. There is no doubt about it. But the difference of opinion between you and me (and few others) is that of "AFFORDABILITY". This is all about the "OPTIMIZATION". Performance Vs. the Price. We want the best performance but how much we are able to afford in term of price. You are convinced that AL-31 was better option to boost the performance and at the same time it was affordable as well. But me and few of the others are insisting that idea behind the JF-17 was to design the affordable Fighter and still having the decent capabilities.

I think the news of that French deal for upgrades to the JF-17s pretty much shoots down the "affordability" argument, no? :)

Lets do the math:  $15 Million per JF-17  +  $27 freaking millions in upgrades!!!!    HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM  thats a total of $43 Million PER PLANE!!!!!!!!!!  

not tell me exactly WHY are we buying these JF-17s???    Did you say costs???  hahaha

So much for that argument.  

lets face it kids... Cost is NOT really the biggest issue.  Its the capability that we get that matters the most.  PAF proved it with the purchase of just 18 F-16s for OVER $3 BILLION, then its proving it again with the upgrade of ONLY 50 JF-17s for OVER a BILLION $$$$.  

Now tell me again why we cant put in a much more powerful thrust in that plane IF we can do it for a cost of, say $2 Million MORE per plane after all said and done???  Wouldnt that give us a massive punch in each plane?  Wouldnt that allow the payload to increase, the range to increase, maybe even allow us to increase internal fuel by stretching the plane more + adding conformal fuel tanks, longer station time, better dogfighting, more potent overall plane...

I rest my case.  Seriously, like you siad, we are only going in circles...   You guys have made up your mind about JF-17 being perfect the way its, and that there MUST be some really good "Technical" reason why PAF didnt employ AL-31 instead of RD-93, and that they are always right and that this plane is perfect the way it is.  Well, when we have that kind of mentality, where's the room for improvement???

Lets start a different topic to talk about.  We've beat this horse to death.

[Londo Molari]

lets face it kids... Cost is NOT really the biggest issue.
...
Now tell me again why we cant put in a much more powerful thrust in that plane IF we can do it for a cost of, say $2 Million MORE per plane after all said and done???

It cannot be done for just $2 million more per plane. Its impossible.

[Skull-Buster]

Can AL-31 be fitted in a plane which weighs only around 6 tons? You need a bigger airframe to support an engine the size of AL-31. Not only the engine, but the fuel and avionics as well. So it defeats the purpose of JF-17 which was SPECIFICALLY designed to be a lightweight fighter.

But then hey, PAF with all its years of experience and its engineers and scientists and analysts is STUPID and Mr. CaliBaller knows better.

[CaliBaller]

It cannot be done for just $2 million more per plane. Its impossible.

Could it be done for less than $27 Million per plane?

[CaliBaller]

Can AL-31 be fitted in a plane which weighs only around 6 tons? You need a bigger airframe to support an engine the size of AL-31. Not only the engine, but the fuel and avionics as well. So it defeats the purpose of JF-17 which was SPECIFICALLY designed to be a lightweight fighter.

But then hey, PAF with all its years of experience and its engineers and scientists and analysts is STUPID and Mr. CaliBaller knows better.

SkullBuster, if you dont mind calling you a late-latif(with all due respect:) ), please go back and read all the exchanges taking place in the past 3-4 days before posting.  You're questions have been exhausted already.  There in this thread you will find out what a lightweight fighter is, the answer to your questions about fuel, airframe needs, and any other questions you might have.   You'll also learn that JF-17 is NOT a 6 ton aircraft but a 7 ton plane when empty. You will also learn that a lightweight fighter by definition is a SUB-10 Ton(20,000lbs) fighter.  So JF-17 will STAY a lightwieght fighter at probably no more than 16,000lbs (my guess) after adding about 1000lbs in engine weight, and another 1000lbs MAX of any structural changes, relax!  You are repeating questions that others have already asked and discussed, and that only proves who is stupid, wink wink :)  JUST KIDDING!!!!!!

[AWA]

CaliBaller!!
What do you think would have been the unit cost of JF-17 fitted with AL-31. I want to know your personal opinion.

I apologize if i am repeating the same thing which you have already mentioned. I hope you would not mind. kindly help me in understanding and Lets narrow down this discussion.

[CaliBaller]

CaliBaller!!
What do you think would have been the unit cost of JF-17 fitted with AL-31. I want to know your personal opinion.

I apologize if i am repeating the same thing which you have already mentioned. I hope you would not mind. kindly help me in understanding and Lets narrow down this discussion.

No problem, I dont mind.  As long as we try to have a productive discussion.
So here's my guess on the high side:

Assuming 250 planes are produced:

Cost per copy of the plane after all said and done(with RD-93):  $15 Million per plane.

The cost to design/develop the project:  $500 million.  Or $2 Million per plane
We know that the engines(RD-93) cost: $2.5 Million each
Lets assume that integration of the engine costs are: $1 Million per plane.
Lets assume avionics, radar, weapons systems cost: $5 million per plane.
Fuselage/wing/landing gear/cockpit etc costs = $15M - ($2M+$2.5M+$1M+$5M) = $4.5M

So the structural costs of the plane's fuselage/body/landing gear/cockpit etc etc is about $4.5M.  

Now lets assume that the redesign for engine plus testing etc would cost about 20% of the original design/develop cost: $100 Million or $400,000 per plane.
New engine price difference is: $500,000.  (RD-93 is $2.5M and AL-31 is $3M).  
Lets assume that new manufacturing costs of the fuselage are 10% higher than before:  $4.5M X (1.10)= $4.95M ~ $5M, or $500,000 MORE than before.

So the EXTRA(above the previous costs of $15M per plane) are:
Design/Develop: $400,000
Engine: $500,000
Fuselage: $500,000.

Thats a total of $1.4 Million per plane EXTRA.  Now lets multiply that by 2 times to just be cautious, and because we are just purely guessing on everything...

Thats an EXTRA cost of less than $3M each plane.

So I would say about $3M more per plane, or a cost of $18M per redesigned JF-17 with AL-31.  

Compare this to just the Avionics and weapons system upgrade of 50 JF-17s for $1.36 BILLION or $27 BILLION EXTRA per plane!!!  Or 9 Times more per plane than incorporating an AL-31.
what do you think?  I just ran some rough numbers and you have my line of thinking in front of you.  Thats purely off the top of my head and if you would like to add anything, do let me know and we can see if we agree on a number.

[Bilal]

Cal,

To put a AL-31 into JF-17 you'd have to redesign the whole aircraft, so add up the program cost. You would basically have to enlarge the the whole airframe, increase fuel capacity and go through the entire testing and validation process. Its not like opening up the airframe and replacing an RD-93 with an AL-31.

[AWA]

So I would say about $3M more per plane, or a cost of $18M per redesigned JF-17 with AL-31.

First of all i would like to thank you for all the calculations you did to reply my question. I would try to keep things as simple as possible. We will continue the discussion but Let me have few guesses from others, whoever is willing to contribute.

Q. What would have been the unit cost of JF-17 fitted with AL-31? Any Guess?

[airomerix]

First of all i would like to thank you for all the calculations you did to reply my question. I would try to keep things as simple as possible. We will continue the discussion but Let me have few guesses from others, whoever is willing to contribute.

Q. What would have been the unit cost of JF-17 fitted with AL-31? Any Guess?

More then $25 Million!
More composites, more fuel, more sophisitcated electronics and gears for supporting bigger thrust and engine!
Plus i think with 32000lb of thrust, i think JF-17 can even supercruise with it? Any comments?

[CaliBaller]

More then $25 Million!
More composites, more fuel, more sophisitcated electronics and gears for supporting bigger thrust and engine!
Plus i think with 32000lb of thrust, i think JF-17 can even supercruise with it? Any comments?

Hey Airomerix,
Can you please give us a little bit more details about your guess on costs?  The point of this exercise(as I understand) is not to just toss numbers out, but to show some sort of thought process.  So in order to have some sort of better understanding of your thinking behind your number, please elaborate on your methodology of getting to that number.

I think if nothing else, we will all learn new things from each other if we ran through everyone's thought process of what the costs involved would be.

More specifically, I would like to know:
1.  How did you get to the $25Million number.  Was it just a number you wanted to toss out there?
2.  What "more sophisticated" electronics would it need?  What are your basis for that claim? What would be those costs?
3.  What would be the extra fuel costs that you talk about in your estimate?  Larger fuel tanks?  Conformal tanks? how much???
4.  What do you mean by composites?  As it stands today, JF-17 is PRIMARILY an alluminum alloy plane strenghtened with high strenght steel and Titanimu in very few places.  Very little use of composites is made.  So what would be the composites costs, in your opinion ABOVE whats being used, and where?
5.  What "gears" would need to be incorporated for the bigger engine?  

I just want you to walk us through your process.  Throwing out just a random number is not helpful for others.  We'd like this discussion to be a little bit more sophisticated(if possible without having the insider info on JF-17 program) if possible!

[CaliBaller]

Cal,

To put a AL-31 into JF-17 you'd have to redesign the whole aircraft, so add up the program cost. You would basically have to enlarge the the whole airframe, increase fuel capacity and go through the entire testing and validation process. Its not like opening up the airframe and replacing an RD-93 with an AL-31.

Bilal, please go back and read through the WHOLE thread of exchanges regarding the AL-31 vs. RD-93 to get an idea of where we are right now and where we have already been.  What you are saying has ALREADY been discussed.  No point in going in circles.  

Secondly, if you look at my stab at calculating the numbers, you would notice that I DO take program costs into account.  I have put in a generous 20% of the total program costs equivalent($100 million) for the redesign, testing and validation.  Most of the CAD/CAM models, part drawings, linkages, mechanisms, and other systems that we have will NOT change.  Only the affected areas will have to be redesigned and then first idividually tested(can be done on computer via simulations) and then the whole system will be tested with the constrution of a prototype.  IF we designed a whole plane from scratch with NOTHING for $500 Million, then dont you think we can do a rather small adjustment for much cheaper? I think $100 million is probably right.  We will not be designing a NEW Plane from scratch.  It will still be a redesign requiring us to primarily enlarge and strengthen the aft fuselage engine housing(about 2 feet longer and maybe 6 inches larger in radius).  This will most likely happen at the very back of the plane.  We might need to account for larger air-intakes, but that should not be too much of a problem.  

Please give us your THOUGHT OUT guess on what you think it would cost.  Break it down for us so that we can follow what you are saying and that we may be able to question specific portions of your cost components.  Throwing out a random number does no justice to your credibility nor the development of this discussion.

Thanks :)

[Londo Molari]

Could it be done for less than $27 Million per plane?

Sure, it could probably have done for another $10-15 million per plane (back when the aircraft was being designed). Unfortunately PAF cannot afford that, considering we need 250 aircraft.

[THE FIGHTING FALCON]

I need to ask something about the J-11..

If it is accepted that the J-11 is a Chinese derivative of the SU-27 is there any chance that the PAF can buy it, incorporate better Western (French or Italian) avionics and probably Ukrainian engines(they fly the SU-27's i believe) if they are better and use the aircraft as a platform for Air to Air, Air to Ground and Air to Ship operations?

..a very imaginative question..but i was just drooling over it! Wouldn't it be a better alternative for the A-5 and some Mirage Squadrons that are going to be retired?..I know the JF-17 is to replace all of them, but i was thinking maybe 2 squadrons or so of a high-tech fighter?

[AWA]

I need to ask something about the J-11..

If it is accepted that the J-11 is a Chinese derivative of the SU-27 is there any chance that the PAF can buy it, incorporate better Western (French or Italian) avionics and probably Ukrainian engines(they fly the SU-27's i believe) if they are better and use the aircraft as a platform for Air to Air, Air to Ground and Air to Ship operations?

..a very imaginative question..but i was just drooling over it! Wouldn't it be a better alternative for the A-5 and some Mirage Squadrons that are going to be retired?..I know the JF-17 is to replace all of them, but i was thinking maybe 2 squadrons or so of a high-tech fighter?

As Pakistan is getting FC-20 then there is simply no need of J-11, Even if we forget about the availability.
For Hi-Tech, Don't you think that FC-20 is more suitable option for all of the operations you have mentioned?

[THE FIGHTING FALCON]

i am not that sure!..there are issues with the J-10..engines and avionics related that are yet to be completely resolved! plus the date for their delivery is still quite some years ahead and that too is a tentative one!..the J-11 is a totally different platform..plus it gives some diversity and might have the space for Western goodies! But then again..i am not sure..which is why i asked in the first place..

[Londo Molari]

i am not that sure!..there are issues with the J-10..engines and avionics related that are yet to be completely resolved! plus the date for their delivery is still quite some years ahead and that too is a tentative one!..the J-11 is a totally different platform..plus it gives some diversity and might have the space for Western goodies! But then again..i am not sure..which is why i asked in the first place..

If PAF ordered J-11's today, we would get it same time as FC-20.

The J-11's real advantage over FC-20 are its top speed, longer range and bigger payload.

In terms of technology, FC-20 is more advanced. Even J-10 is more advanced. And J-10 can be updated with Western goodies just like J-11. FC-20 is so advanced, it doesn't NEED western goodies.

So thats why PAF is not buying J-11. At its core, the flanker is a 30 year old design. Buying a brand new flanker now is kind of silly, unless you're getting something like Su-35 or Su-37. But those cost $50 million each, so PAF cannot afford them in sufficient quantity anyway.

[THE FIGHTING FALCON]

thanks! i want to know more about the concept of 'data-linking'. A lot is being said about the AWACS data linking with PAF fighters to enhance their capabilities...and i watched Defense and Diplomacy today on PTV where AVM Masood and AVM Aurangzeb (both retired) were saying that we have achieved data linking capability on our own after getting the AWACS!..my question is..if the F-7's range of radar is ..say 60 kms..and the AWACS provides it with a target at 150 kms..how can it engage it before its in range of its own radar?..i get confused on this issue..a little insight thanks!

[blackvenom]

I think the news of that French deal for upgrades to the JF-17s pretty much shoots down the "affordability" argument, no? :)

Lets do the math:  $15 Million per JF-17  +  $27 freaking millions in upgrades!!!!    HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM  thats a total of $43 Million PER PLANE!!!!!!!!!!  

not tell me exactly WHY are we buying these JF-17s???    Did you say costs???  hahaha

So much for that argument.  

lets face it kids... Cost is NOT really the biggest issue.  Its the capability that we get that matters the most.  PAF proved it with the purchase of just 18 F-16s for OVER $3 BILLION, then its proving it again with the upgrade of ONLY 50 JF-17s for OVER a BILLION $$$$.  

Now tell me again why we cant put in a much more powerful thrust in that plane IF we can do it for a cost of, say $2 Million MORE per plane after all said and done???  Wouldnt that give us a massive punch in each plane?  Wouldnt that allow the payload to increase, the range to increase, maybe even allow us to increase internal fuel by stretching the plane more + adding conformal fuel tanks, longer station time, better dogfighting, more potent overall plane...

I rest my case.  Seriously, like you siad, we are only going in circles...   You guys have made up your mind about JF-17 being perfect the way its, and that there MUST be some really good "Technical" reason why PAF didnt employ AL-31 instead of RD-93, and that they are always right and that this plane is perfect the way it is.  Well, when we have that kind of mentality, where's the room for improvement???

Lets start a different topic to talk about.  We've beat this horse to death.

read carefully , the 1.36 billion is the potential size of the contract which constitutes upgrades and weaponry for 100 aircraft.

get the math right.

$13 million for engines, avionics, EW etc plus unspecified number of ammunition./ per plane.

[blackvenom]

thanks! i want to know more about the concept of 'data-linking'. A lot is being said about the AWACS data linking with PAF fighters to enhance their capabilities...and i watched Defense and Diplomacy today on PTV where AVM Masood and AVM Aurangzeb (both retired) were saying that we have achieved data linking capability on our own after getting the AWACS!..my question is..if the F-7's range of radar is ..say 60 kms..and the AWACS provides it with a target at 150 kms..how can it engage it before its in range of its own radar?..i get confused on this issue..a little insight thanks!

think simply in terms of the radar range of 60km having a total span/sweep of 120 degrees,
thats quiet limited, so the fighter needs help from the ground control station to direct on the right vector for a given mission , and also to have any idea where he's going and what he's about to face.

DATA linking provides the advantage of being in a network so to speak , where the f-7 pilot will be able to use information being aquired from all assets to give him a 3d picture of the battlefield, even when that scenario might not be viewable for him using his own avionics alone.

He cant engage obviously if he's not within the the range of the target , but theoretically it is possible for him to engage a target(provided its within the weapon's range) using the targetting information from a different aircraft/asset. This is easier for ground targets but difficult for air targets due to updating and time step/lag concerns.

this is a very simplified explantion, rest you can do some research to find out more. :)

[THE FIGHTING FALCON]

lol ok thanks:)

[THE FIGHTING FALCON]

Are the PAF F-7's fly by wire?..I know this is highly unlikely but i know that most versions of the Mig-29 were not fly by wire but instead a midway between the Fly by Wire and Manual controlling system!...any idea? Is it completely manual?..Must be hard on the pilots!

[Londo Molari]

Are the PAF F-7's fly by wire?..I know this is highly unlikely but i know that most versions of the Mig-29 were not fly by wire but instead a midway between the Fly by Wire and Manual controlling system!...any idea? Is it completely manual?..Must be hard on the pilots!

Mig-29 is not fly by wire. F-7 is not flybywire. It is not hard on the pilots, due to the aerodynamically stable design of the aircraft.

[THE FIGHTING FALCON]

i know the Mig-29 is not FBW..but it isnt completely hydraulic either..!

[THE FIGHTING FALCON]

PAF's Aamir Masood has been flying Su-30's for the Chinese Navy???!!!

http://f-16.net/pilots-profile2105.html

...does this happen as a normal routine?..i knew we flew Migs and Mirages of other countries but Sukhois!!!?

[tallyho]

I have this thread, if you guys have any question, which you want to ask. Post that here instead of opening insane new topics and one liners.

be respectfull and thank full to the person who provide you the info.

remember we are all here to learn.

    I have a question about the Block 52 conformal Fuel tanks. Where, in the a/c is it located and is it removable or part of the a/c.

[tallyho]

I have this thread, if you guys have any question, which you want to ask. Post that here instead of opening insane new topics and one liners.

be respectfull and thank full to the person who provide you the info.

remember we are all here to learn.

     Did our Block 52 fly non-stop to Shahbaz? If so was the tanker accompanying it all the way?

[AWA]

I have a question about the Block 52 conformal Fuel tanks. Where, in the a/c is it located and is it removable or part of the a/c.

See the following image of F-16 with CFT marked with "A".
http://greekmilitary.net/Airforce/1gf-16I_s.jpg


"Conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) are additional fuel tanks fitted closely to the profile of an aircraft which extend either the range or "time on station" of the aircraft, with little aerodynamic penalty compared to the same fuel capacity carried in external drop tanks. Conformal fuel tanks have the disadvantage that, unlike drop tanks, they cannot be discarded when empty. This is because conformal tanks are plumbed into the aircraft, and can only be removed on the ground. Thus, when the CFTs are empty, the aircraft continues to suffer the same aerodynamic penalty, with no benefit...

...CFTs also have the advantages of not significantly increasing an aircraft's radar cross-section, and allowing a higher maximum speed than drop tanks."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_fuel_tank

[airomerix]

Did our Block 52 fly non-stop to Shahbaz? If so was the tanker accompanying it all the way?

They made stops at Lajes, Portugal and Turkey

[AWA]

They made stops at Lajes, Portugal and Turkey

Welcome back airomerix, where hv u been?

[airomerix]

Welcome back airomerix, where hv u been?

Thanks for remembering AWA. Iam back now and ill try to stay active as much as i can.

[AWA]

Thanks for remembering AWA. Iam back now and ill try to stay active as much as i can.

And where is Mark?? He was one of my Favorite members.

[airomerix]

And where is Mark?? He was one of my Favorite members.

I dont know either. He was one of the most informative sorces we had on PDF. Alot of members are not around like HaroonRasool, Mark, Pikes, Jazba-e-kashmir, waz etc.

[Umair T]

^I think Mark Sien has changed his name to "Saqr" and he is regular on PDF.Maybe I am wrong but I am sured about that.

[milkyway]

Assalam O Alaikum everybody,

I am sure all of you would know that a certain class of weapons exist which render sophisticated electronics in-operational - EMP weapons.
The electromagnetic pulse is also resultant of a nuclear detonation.

in light of this here are my questions :-

1. have the existing fly-by-wire technologies tested and hardened against such weapons?
2. is there a possibility to convert at least a batch of air-planes to non-electronic versions such as hydraulic transmissions / controls?
3. Can such an up-(down?)-grade possible on JF-17 class airplanes, since we have a hand in manufacturing those?

regards.

[Miroslav]

Saqr = formerly 'Mark Sien' & 'Diving Falcon' ...

http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/index.php?showuser=3670

Miro

[AWA]

Umair T & Miroslav, Thank you very much for this info. :)

[blackvenom]

Assalam O Alaikum everybody,

I am sure all of you would know that a certain class of weapons exist which render sophisticated electronics in-operational - EMP weapons.
The electromagnetic pulse is also resultant of a nuclear detonation.

in light of this here are my questions :-

1. have the existing fly-by-wire technologies tested and hardened against such weapons?
2. is there a possibility to convert at least a batch of air-planes to non-electronic versions such as hydraulic transmissions / controls?
3. Can such an up-(down?)-grade possible on JF-17 class airplanes, since we have a hand in manufacturing those?

regards.

EM shielding is not difficult to achieve and is provided on critical systems at the very least considering the war theatre possibilities in present day warfare.  EM shielding is provided specially on aircraft designed to deliver nuclear weapons. Avionics and controls systems in particular are shielded from EMF however if the aircraft comes into contact with the shockwave of the blast, thats altogather a different issue.

However Fly by wire systems have multiple electronic redundancy systems, and if all fails the controls shift to direct mechanical/hydraulic actuation which is a standard contingency feature. However remember that relaxed static stability/ FBY aircraft are computer controlled and the controlled surfaces are constantly manipulated for controlled flight. If the system were to fail, even if hydraulic controls are available , controlling the aircraft would be very difficult to say the least. But stil, with regards to your question, all FBY aircraft have direct hydraulic/mechanical actuation systems in case of FCS failure.

[Miroslav]

i know the Mig-29 is not FBW..but it isnt completely hydraulic either..!

The MiG-29 has hydraulic controls and a SAU-451 three-axis autopilot but, unlike the Su-27, no fly-by-wire control system.

Unless we are talking about the versions like MiG-29OVT,MiG-29K,MiG-29M,MiG-29SMT which has Fly By Wire.

Miro