29 replies to this topic

[Flying Gladiator]

Your expert opinion ... ?

[Iranian Warrior]

more powerful engine, its a little underpowered.

It would also be good to have more hard points...

[Top Gun 101]

I think reducing the weight should be the priority, increasing engine power generally means more fuel is consumed.  Also acquiring the EJ-200 or M-88 from the English & French is easier said than done so I'd stick with the RD-93, but try to modify it.  Also, TVN would be required.

I'd also ask FIAR to improve the specs of the Grifo S7 radar & for an enhanced version of the MAESTRO Nav/Attack system to equip FC-1s from 2010 onwards.  In the meantime, settling for established systems until those superior system are avilable for replacement.

I'd also look for ways of improving the carriage of weapons.  For example, nine hardpoints, an eventual 10,000 lb payload (which can be done if the extra weight is removed) & the carriage of the SD-10/PL-12 on the wing-tips (for example) plus making a request to develop CFT (Conformal Fuel Tanks) for the FC-1.

[vikasrehman]

U cant vote for 1 or the other improvement. In order to do one u have to do the other and an AF like PAF also has to take cost:performance ratio into consideration.

There r so many possibilities;
U can reduce the overall weight considerably by using composite material (and retain the same engine) but this would also increase the price of the machine. This would also reduce the overall RCS.
Or if u go for another, more power engine...dis would also increase the cost.
In order to increase the hard points, u have to strengthen the airframe, in particular wing area and the landing gear and use another engine or composites.

Here is wot i love to c happening to a FC-1.
1. Use of composites
2. A more powerful engine
3. Increase the hard point to 9
4. An improved radar.
5. Fully FBW
6. Possibly relaxed stability.

But do you know wot this would do to price?...it'd almost double it.
These evelopments would take around 5+ years and performance wise it'd become another J-10.
So is it logical to spend so much money on this thing, while most of us would agree that in 5-7 years time, china would almost certainly release their own J-10 for PAF.

Now here is a more realistic option for FC-1.
1. Fully FBW...work is continuing on this...Pitch is already FBW controlled, while adding it for rudders etc. should not increase price by too much.
2. Use of composites and/or a more powerful chinese origin engine...chinese origin engine is ought to b cheaper than russian, while composites obviously would increase the price. Thus it mayb better to use composites only around areas with high radar reflectivity.
3. An improved radar. Shouldnt effect price too much. To be honest, i'd not even mind seeing JL-10A (search range of 160Km for aircrafts, while capable of at least 2 simultaneous engagements)

[fc1000]

The main purpose of developing JF-17 was to acquire a cheap BVR platform with reasonable alround capability. Making any more modifications to it, like adding more hard points would require structural modifictions (wings may need to be made stronger) and adding a more powerful engine (especially French/British engine) would make it less affordable in the numbers that PAF wants.

Also more hard points and more powerful engine could make its capabilities appraoch those of J-10 - which defeats the whole object of the exercise (why not just buy J-10).

For the time being JF-17 should stay as it is (may be with minor modifications to get rid of any shortcoming found during tests). If after some years of service PAF finds that its performance is good than we can think of producing a more capable aircraft based on JF-17.

We could do what the French did - they produced a scaled up version of Mirage2000 known as Mirage4000. Mirage4000 had 2 engines and was a highly capable aircraft. The French AF had no requirement for such aircraft, but they wanted to sell it to the Saudis. The Saudis instead bought Tornados and F-15s. Had Mirage4000 gone into full production it would have been one of the truely great aircraft. It did not cost the French that much to develope becus it used a lot of the tooling from Mirage2000. It may be good project for Pakistan to do something similar to the basic JF-17 design.  But b4 this can be done the aircraft has to prove itself in squadron service.

[UD2]

cheap and effective is the goal of the FC-1. And the current specs of the FC-1 is sure to be the most cost effective while doing the job. Remember that PAF doesn't have the money to buy the state of art.

[Man of Courage]

A long wish list. :ermm ....I do rather like JF-17 to be equal to F-22, afterall, I have wishes too...

[Assmaster]

is Russia willing to sell us RD-93 in mass quantities?

[Squadron Leader]

A more powerful, and reliable engine is exactly what the PAF needs.

[nsdap_id]

Assalamualaikum wr. wb,

Sino-Pakistan side must reverse-engineer main wings and fins of F-16 Fighting Falcon as well as strenghten the main fuselage. It means that latest version of FC-1 will be fitted with F-16's wing and fin to reduce maintenance costs.

1. Add two more pylons

2. Composite

3. Similar to Vikas Rehman's request, and

4. Twin engines

Sino-Pakistan should study possibility of making twin-finned, twin-seater and of course twin-engine of FC-1 as a long-range deep-penetration in F-15E Strike Eagle class, but with lower cost at possible...

Wassalam

P.S. For tailoring foreign requirement, FC-1 must be equipped with fixed IFR-probe on the starboard side, or alternatively IFR-probe fitted on the drop-tanks that requires small modification.

[wajman]

i just want the radar to b more powerfull otherwise the bird is as goodas it gets! somethign along te lines of 200 km search 4 target engage cpabilty gound and air  

more powerful engine would mean it would require structural and wing changes = delays = disaster it is a light combat aircraft lets leave it to that

may b one more hardpoint  dedicated for pods

ew suite what ever we can get our hands on.

wajman

[Hammad]

Hi Friends,

In opinion lets first start inducting Thunder in 6-8 sqn. as it is or perhaps with following modifications:

1. Full digital FBW FCS
2. Existing RD-93 with FADEC
3. More computer power.

These are acheivable before service entry and wouldn't increase costs by a great margin.

In a year or two time, we can start work on JF-17C/D versions with following improvements:

1. Priority should be to increase Wing Span by a few feets and thus Wing Area to give lower Wing Loading Ratios and thus more maneavrability but this is only possible when we can increase the length also from mid-ship. This will also increase internal fuel capacity and thus range.
2. Reshape nose in a diamond shape with the top intake line continuing till the wings to give larger Strakes/Wing Root Extensions and thus increasing Lift.  Note, the intakes will not be disturbed much and the strakes will discontinue at the intakes (like F22) and after them would follow a more tapered LERXs to give some hard shoulder to the wings.
3. Use more composites to keep the weight down.
4. Russians are testing an RD33 developing some 22,000lb thrust with TV. Use them or similar engines from elsewhere but it should be smoke-free.
5. Install an AESA radar with integrated FLIR, LR & Spot Tracker.
6. Strengthen Airframe & Landing Gears

All these improvements will give following benefits:
1. Increased Range/Endurance
2. Increased Payload and hard points (which I guess everyone wants)
3. Increased Stealth
4. Increased maneavrability

All these are acheivable goals at say an increased cost of $5-10m apiece which I hope Pakistan would be able to afford by that time.

Once the C/D versions enters service, we can use the A/B versions to create a Reserve Air Force.

Will continue later

[wajman]

hey u guys y r u forgetting Kiss= Keep it simple stupid!

its our first plane it does not neccarily have to compete with the f-22 (thats an indian virtue) we r Pakistani we make achievable goals and ususaly go step by step on the ladder this way we never fall.

i think in its class its one hell of a plane. just put it into a serial production and churn out 150 asap later we can improve it when neccary.

wajman

[Mr.Ayoub]

most important modification we can make is radar....we want a bvr platform, not an aerobatics plane

[Oqaab]

Fc-1 need a more powerful engine. This will increase its speed and the aircraft will give better performance......  :SNIPER:

[Mr.Ayoub]

dude we don't need high performance aircraft, unlike hindus who need something like that to run away quickly from us. if we can have awesome ecm stuff, best radars firecontrol system etc.etc...Pakistan could probably make a jet engine that could barely reach mach and we'd still have a better plane. think about it...when americans sell airplanes to other countries they always take out the electronics and cool #### like that. once they've done that all they are selling you is an aerobatics airplane.

my suggestion is still improve electronics and radar!

although i'm also wondering if we can put conformal tanks on the airplane?

[Oqaab]

Mr.Ayoub, on Aug 30 2003, 08:55 AM, said:

dude we don't need high performance aircraft, unlike hindus who need something like that to run away quickly from us. if we can have awesome ecm stuff, best radars firecontrol system etc.etc...Pakistan could probably make a jet engine that could barely reach mach and we'd still have a better plane. think about it...when americans sell airplanes to other countries they always take out the electronics and cool #### like that. once they've done that all they are selling you is an aerobatics airplane.

my suggestion is still improve electronics and radar!

although i'm also wondering if we can put conformal tanks on the airplane?

If an aircraft is speedy, dosnt mean that it will ran away leaving the battlefield. The thing is, we will be replacing our mirages (speed = mach 2.2) with Fc-1s (speed = mach 1.6-1.7). There are many other advantages of powerful engine besides being speedy. If an engine which gives more then 20,000 lbs of thrust is installed in Fc-1, Fc-1 will be having vertical going capability and also, it will be able to drop a nuke bomb.

[PakShaheen]

I have voted for the radar.In detail i think whole avionics packages should improved.radar must hold multi target capabilities+good jammer...

But according to the PTV world news serial production will start in 2006 and by that time PAF will surly pull its engnieers / technicians to limits of there skills and that some more improvement in China meanwhile in regard o JF-17.

So RELAX and let it complete its evaluation period.

[Mr.Ayoub]

i was being facetious w/the running away joke...besides, i think our missles are a credible nuclear deterrent in themselves. why do we need aircraft delievered nukes? we will not be in a prolonged nuclear engagement w/india. also, the j-10 has a quadruplex fbw system. is it possible we can use it on the jf-17?

[PakShaheen]

Why not.... :x
But more investment needed for this to work. Evaluation will tell PAF pilots that whether they need it or not. ::devill

[oz281]

Engine should be worked on to make it more efficient .... Not more powerful .... Increasing range and decreasing fuel consumption.... For example if  a fighter can stay on station for 70 minutes instead of 50 that may mean difference between a successful interception and failed one (if early return).

[oz281]

Super cruise capability would be desirable

[oz281]

1. Engine should be made more efficient ( not necessarily more powerful ) Research on RD 93 and WS 10 could make this happen

2.  Composites could be used. However this will mean major restructuring and planning of the plane due to weight balancing issues. For example the wings will need to be rebalanced and compensated for earlier weight and mass projections.

3. Wings could be strengthened. This may allow more hardpoints. However this will mean major restructuring and planning of the plane due to weight balancing issues. For example the wings will need to be rebalanced and compensated for earlier weight and mass projections.

4. A 2 seat version could be developed and should be developed asap. Although this is planned but hasnt happened yet.

[shabi1]

A chin hardpoint opposite the cannon.
Bringing up specs to Grippen NG level in Block-3.

Beyond that we need a new platform.

[Chief of army staff]

Offcourse RD-93s A.K.A smokeys

[Chief of army staff]

shabi1, on 11 September 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

A chin hardpoint opposite the cannon.
Bringing up specs to Grippen NG level in Block-3.

Beyond that we need a new platform.

Pa jee! pahlay block-I to bana lo phir 3 key baat karna

[faizan khaliq]

we need to aim at VTOL or at least short take off and landing ,capability

[sobank]

With mirages being done, we need to increase speed to 2.2 and preferabbly 2.3.

And bigger pay load and range.

So at this point the range and speed of jf needs to increase to match and preferably top the speed and range of mirage III and mirage 2000.

[butterfly]

sobank, on 28 November 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

With mirages being done, we need to increase speed to 2.2 and preferabbly 2.3.

And bigger pay load and range.

So at this point the range and speed of jf needs to increase to match and preferably top the speed and range of mirage III and mirage 2000.

In today's battle field is speed really of the essence where AWACS provide vectors and BVR combat is the rule of the game. Pakistani pilot will be looking to get close and personal and that way I guess manoeuvrability is more important than speed.