ASELSAN has sold 16 E/O ASELPODs to Pakistan for $25 million

[TrMhMt]

Any chance ASELSAN could develop a whole avionics suit for JF-17 in paticular that conforms to teh NATO standards?.

Most probably yes.

 

[Max Pain]

Most probably yes.

Im sure they're capable of developing but I was wondering if there's one on offer or currently developed by ASELSAN that could be of application in JF17

 

[TrMhMt]

Im sure they're capable of developing but I was wondering if there's one on offer or currently developed by ASELSAN that could be of application in JF17

Aselsan has developed for ongoing project which named HURKUS and those avionics, electronics and electro-optics will be used for another ongoing project which named TFX project.

If those materials can be used for 'em why not be adapted for JF17. I don't think it would be hard.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

Aselsan has developed for ongoing project which named HURKUS and those avionics, electronics and electro-optics will be used for another ongoing project which named TFX project.

If those materials can be used for 'em why not be adapted for JF17. I don't think it would be hard.

The development philosophy of FJ and subsequent programmes is to be able to use what meets the requirements.
Close PAC and TAI is well known.

Only question of time before you will see Turkey becoming a major partner in sub systems with PAC. In fact this is already happening to in other major areas as well. Look at PNS and Turkish cooperation.

Utterly smart for both partners. They should join forces and market JF to with Turkish packages to ME countries.

Win-win for everyone.

 

[thrilainmanila]

so is it confirmed that these pods will be part of the JF-17? or are they for existing F-16s.

 

[Hexciter]

so is it confirmed that these pods will be part of the JF-17? or are they for existing F-16s.

The contract for integration for a plane, not only buying the pods. So, it is most propably for JF-17, as it has been already integrated to F-16.

 

[Arsalan]

There are reports suggesting that around 16 PODs are being bought. I think we will go for more once the POD is intensely tested and used on JF-17. It can be either this or may be PAF is looking to go for a different and will use two three different kinds of targeting POD on board different JF17 planes.

@Bilal Khan 777 @Quwa @araz I understand this is a trick question but how would YOU rate this aswlsan POD against lightening III (which it is reported to be based on), SNIPER POD (that we use on F16) and the Thales option (that we were not able to get). Just asking for your opinions sir. I read most of the previous posts on this thread and agree that it is almost like asking the same question again but i am not talking about what is BEST for PAF> Just technically speaking, where do this POD stands exactly according to your analysis. Not talking about options available to us, not talking about the export option for future but just pure and simple technical comparison. Any help sir?

WITH A MORE POWERFUL ENGINE, JFT can support 2 more wing pylons and a chinmounted hardpoint for the POD. However the better option might be to get the chin mounted hardpoint and have dual ejector racks for the wing hard points and instead look for CFT.

The design may need some tweaks for the extra hard points to come i think. Chin mounted would be the easiest one but the difficulty of process should not stop PAF and PAC from exploring the option of adding two more hard points under wings. Twin ejector would be something extra that can be used on the inner most hard point if the wings are strengthened to that extent. If we are to explore the true multi-role potential we need to gradually keep moving forward with JF17. I have seen us being stagnant with such projects and i hope this is not the case. JF17 have provided us with an excellent base of work, something people do not realize often, what we need now is to move froward with all this and on to bigger and better things. That would be the actual gain and benefit of this whole JF17 exercise (an aircraft that meets our needs in an excellent way is a by product in a bonus ). In short, PAC should try to get this to a level where we get a special hard point on fuselage for POD, two extra hard points on wings with the possibility of dual ejectors on at least on of them. Effectively giving JF17 9 hard points able to carry 11 weapon systems. IF PAC can add those CFT at some point, the idea becomes that much more mouth watering. One question that remains is "which one is that more powerful engine? "

Regards!

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

What does a more powerful engine has to do with supporting hard points---nothing at all. Take off with lesser fuel and refuel and top off in air.

Hard points is the ability of the structure to carry weight---.

 

[Pandora]

Hi,

What does a more powerful engine has to do with supporting hard points---nothing at all. Take off with lesser fuel and refuel and top off in air.

Hard points is the ability of the structure to carry weight---.

I think its the weight at the hard point that is in question. An engine with more thrust can support more weight at its hard points that is what i understand anyway.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Think of a motorcycle you are sitting on as an engine and your outstretched arms lifting 5kg as the wings, now a bigger motorcycle is not going to add any strength to your arms to make them lift 10kg

I think its the weight at the hard point that is in question. An engine with more thrust can support more weight at its hard points that is what i understand anyway.

 

[MastanKhan]

I think its the weight at the hard point that is in question. An engine with more thrust can support more weight at its hard points that is what i understand anyway.

Hi,

The issue is not about "understanding" but about engineering---. The engine has enough power----it is the frame that lifts the weight---the engine just propels the aircraft---which in its current form has enough juice---.

Big deal if it cannot take off in 600 yards--- with two extra hard pints---it will take off in 1000 yards----so what.

 

[Pandora]

Think of a motorcycle you are sitting on as an engine and your outstretched arms lifting 5kg as the wings, now a bigger motorcycle is not going to add any strength to your arms to make them lift 10kg

I was talking about capability of a plane to take off at more weight than it can handle so for a heavy payload even with stronger structure it will need a powerfull engine to take off from ground.

Hi,

The issue is not about "understanding" but about engineering---. The engine has enough power----it is the frame that lifts the weight---the engine just propels the aircraft---which in its current form has enough juice---.

Big deal if it cannot take off in 600 yards--- with two extra hard pints---it will take off in 1000 yards----so what.

True it is a combination of factors like Aerodynamics of plane, its construction material and its engine.

 

[razgriz19]

Easier said than done!
Adding a 100kg weight on the nose (not to mention internal changes wiring, pylon, etc) without doing much to compensate the shift in CoG is not really possible. They would either have to move around the equipment (not possible at this stage) or add some sort of ballast, which would only deplete the performance.

 

[khanasifm]

Can i ask which aircraft structural engineering experience do you have based on which gentlemen making statements

Very respectfully

 

[-------]

I remember I made this comparison image of the optics years ago, which has deluded people into thinking that Aselpod is based off the Litening III pod, which Turkish Airforce does not posses, so how could that be possible? dummies
Instead of buying Litening III pod, Turkey developed it's own pod that is comparable to Litening III pod in specs if not better.

Turkey's first Targeting pod, compared to targeting pods from countries that have decades of more experience. Every Turk and Friends should be proud of this feat and others continue to be envious