Wing Reinforcement Makes Thunder More Lethal !

[MastanKhan]

Hi

The first crash was for a different reason.

This wing root upgrade is normal at this time as is a more powerful engine would be a normal progression of utility at this time.

Just remember, jf17 was tested with two cm400akg's---over a 1000 kg each on each wing many many years ago. There was no problem with load carrying capability but only of stability after one missile was launched.

If wing root strength was an issue in the past, the jf17's would have been grounded.

 

[Deino]

Hi

The first crash was for a different reason.

This wing root upgrade is normal at this time as is a more powerful engine would be a normal progression of utility at this time.

Just remember, jf17 was tested with two cm400akg's---over a 1000 kg each on each wing many many years ago. There was no problem with load carrying capability but only of stability after one missile was launched.

If wing root strength was an issue in the past, the jf17's would have been grounded.

You are wrong again! Since when does a CM400AKG AShM has a weight of "over a 1000 kg each". All reliable source put it in the level of about 400 kg or at best close to the YJ-83K, but surely not over 1000kg each; just take a look at @Quwa:

The JF-17’s air-launched rocket (CM-400AKG)

Marketed as a ‘supersonic anti-ship missile’, the CM-400AKG is among the proposed stand-off range weapon options for the JF-17 Thunder, a multi-role fighter co-produced by Pakistan and China.

quwa.org

 

[Nomad40]

mk 84 will be carried on stations 2 and 6 (which are not wet plumb stations)

stations 3, 4 and 5 are plumb stations which have the structural ability to withstand loads of upto +1000 kg to a max g factor of limit +3 (not sure)


everyone chill for lord sakes.

Hi

The first crash was for a different reason.

This wing root upgrade is normal at this time as is a more powerful engine would be a normal progression of utility at this time.

Just remember, jf17 was tested with two cm400akg's---over a 1000 kg each on each wing many many years ago. There was no problem with load carrying capability but only of stability after one missile was launched.

If wing root strength was an issue in the past, the jf17's would have been grounded.

You are wrong again! Since when does a CM400AKG AShM has a weight of "over a 1000 kg each". All reliable source put it in the level of about 400 kg or at best close to the YJ-83K, but surely not over 1000kg each; just take a look at @Quwa:

The JF-17’s air-launched rocket (CM-400AKG)

Marketed as a ‘supersonic anti-ship missile’, the CM-400AKG is among the proposed stand-off range weapon options for the JF-17 Thunder, a multi-role fighter co-produced by Pakistan and China.

quwa.org

The thing weighs around 2000 pounds and was carried on stations 3 and 5

 

[MastanKhan]

The thing weighs around 2000 pounds and was carried on stations 3 and 5

Hi,

Don't be bothered by Deino---. He would rather cut his nose to spite his face.

He could have just googled the information and found the results---.

This is a heavy missile---that is why the AVM in his interview stated that only one can be carried---. Because the launch of one missile induces instability in the flight of the aircraft---on the other side which has the second missile---which means that the aircraft could roll over to the side of the second missile on the wing.

Hello teacher---baby boy---I guess you did not know that part either---.

 

[Nomad40]

Hi,

Don't be bothered by Deino---. He would rather cut his nose to spite his face.

He could have just googled the information and found the results---.

This is a heavy missile---that is why the AVM in his interview stated that only one can be carried---. Because the launch of one missile induces instability in the flight of the aircraft--.

Hello teacher---baby boy---I guess you did not know that part either---.

It is heavy indeed but I am not sure about the one launch, possibly a salvo where both munitions are suspended/fired at the same moment.

 

[MastanKhan]

It is heavy indeed but I am not sure about the one launch, possibly a salvo where both munitions are suspended/fired at the same moment.

Hi,

A salvo---? In extreme circumstances---but then can both the missiles get a target lock at the same time---that is what I doubt---.

The dumb bombs can be targeted---. But missiles are different---.

And if such was the case---ther AVM would not have made that 'closed end' statement.

 

[Nomad40]

Hi,

A salvo---? In extreme circumstances---but then can both the missiles get a target lock at the same time---that is what I doubt---.

The dumb bombs can be targeted---. But missiles are different---.

And if such was the case---ther AVM would not have made that 'closed end' statement.

yup the radar can do that when a target is selected all the information is linked to the weapon it takes some time to be able to fire the weapon but once everything is locked and loaded you can go ahead and fire both at the same time.

I am not saying that you are wrong about AVM but rather what I have gathered is that mainly for such missions it is preferred to fire twice, The chance of these missiles making it to the ship are slim because the ships have a strong defense system.

CM400akg is a high speed weapon but we know very less about the way it engages its target but I am confident it comes down from high altitude and if that is the case I would be in the favor of firing 2.

It would make sense to fire one missile but than that must be on the center hard point if that is not the case than IDK how drastic the trim would be and if it is even possible to it.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Hi,

Don't be bothered by Deino---. He would rather cut his nose to spite his face.

He could have just googled the information and found the results---.

This is a heavy missile---that is why the AVM in his interview stated that only one can be carried---. Because the launch of one missile induces instability in the flight of the aircraft---on the other side which has the second missile---which means that the aircraft could roll over to the side of the second missile on the wing.

Hello teacher---baby boy---I guess you did not know that part either---.

And modern Jets have no stabilization systems to carry one heavy weapon on one wing and no or minimal weapons on other wings during the flight, i can show you lots of pic of these

 

[PDF]

PWC.

PWC or AWC (Air Weapons Complex)?

 

[MastanKhan]

And modern Jets have no stabilization systems to carry one heavy weapon on one wing and no or minimal weapons on other wings during the flight, i can show you lots of pic of these

Hi,

Seems like you did not study any physics in your college class---. And if you are an engineer by profession---I feel sorry for your lack of knowledge---.

When you talk about jets---you do not talk about all of them in one go---you talk about each one separately---. Because each one of them have their own aerodynamic issues to overcome during flight---.

An airplane is not a pakistani truck carry hay---or a tractor trolley carrying sugar cane---.

yup the radar can do that when a target is selected all the information is linked to the weapon it takes some time to be able to fire the weapon but once everything is locked and loaded you can go ahead and fire both at the same time.

I am not saying that you are wrong about AVM but rather what I have gathered is that mainly for such missions it is preferred to fire twice, The chance of these missiles making it to the ship are slim because the ships have a strong defense system.

CM400akg is a high speed weapon but we know very less about the way it engages its target but I am confident it comes down from high altitude and if that is the case I would be in the favor of firing 2.

It would make sense to fire one missile but than that must be on the center hard point if that is not the case than IDK how drastic the trim would be and if it is even possible to it.

Hi,

You are assuming now---.

The mission is not in question---but the abiity of the aircraft to carry two missiles---and prior to that the strength of the wings---/

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Hi,

Seems like you did not study any physics in your college class---. And if you are an engineer by profession---I feel sorry for your lack of knowledge---.

When you talk about jets---you do not talk about all of them in one go---you talk about each one separately---. Because each one of them have their own aerodynamic issues to overcome during flight---.

An airplane is not a pakistani truck carry hay---or a tractor trolley carrying sugar cane---.

And you're the PROFESTIONAL AERODYNAMICST, THANK YOU VERY MUCH SIR

 

[Deino]

mk 84 will be carried on stations 2 and 6 (which are not wet plumb stations)

stations 3, 4 and 5 are plumb stations which have the structural ability to withstand loads of upto +1000 kg to a max g factor of limit +3 (not sure)


everyone chill for lord sakes.


The thing weighs around 2000 pounds and was carried on stations 3 and 5

Any source of this? (I know MK will puke again for this request and still not argue) but at least I gave a source - namely @Quwa - who questions this. IMO +2000 pound is way too heavy.

Hi,

Don't be bothered by Deino---. He would rather cut his nose to spite his face.

He could have just googled the information and found the results---.

This is a heavy missile---that is why the AVM in his interview stated that only one can be carried---. Because the launch of one missile induces instability in the flight of the aircraft---on the other side which has the second missile---which means that the aircraft could roll over to the side of the second missile on the wing.

Hello teacher---baby boy---I guess you did not know that part either---.

Oh well my old friend; you are indeed a hopeless case ... so you want to teach me that "only one can be carried because the launch of one missile induces instability in the flight of the aircraft---on the other side which has the second missile---which means that the aircraft could roll over to the side of the second missile on the wing"... but taking off with a single one of these heavy missiles, carrying it all along the way to its targets is possible without induced instability or rolling the other side is easily possible??

You are indeed so much funny...

 

[Basel]

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) has reportedly reinforced the wing roots on JF-17s which enables these aircraft to carry a Mk-84 Bomb under each wing . Until now this capability was only available on F-16s. While most aircraft can carry MK-84 Bombs on centreline station under the belly, very few can boast of carrying same under wings.

View attachment 689742

Will it allow carrying more BVR missiles specially on wing tips like F-16?

 

[MastanKhan]

Any source of this? (I know MW will puke again for this request and still not argue) but at least I gave a source - namely @Quwa - who questions this. IMO +2000 pound is way too heavy.



Oh well my old friend; you are indeed a hopeless case ... so you want to teach me that "only one can be carried because the launch of one missile induces instability in the flight of the aircraft---on the other side which has the second missile---which means that the aircraft could roll over to the side of the second missile on the wing"... but taking off with a single one of these heavy missiles, carrying it all along the way to its targets is possible without induced instability or rolling the other side is easily possible??

You are indeed so much funny...

Hi,

Now you are showing stupidity---. You are one very less intelligent person.

If the single missile under the belly is released why would it effect the flight umbrella---the weight was on centerline---the weight got released from centerline---why would there be any rollover effect.

There is no imbalance of weight on the side mounts.

The only thing happening to the plane would be that it would rear upwards due to weight loss.

You and green MS shamelessly argue aerodynamics---effects of weight shift---weight release from one wing and the effects of the physical weight on the other wing on the aircraft and the tendency of the aircraft to rollover.

the JF17 is a very small aircraft---.

The missille instability issue was stated by pakistan air force's air vice marshall on an interview and that is available on this website and public forums---.

Green / white---go to the grain market today---where they have very large scales---. mount 200 lbs on each side of the scale---. Now pull the weight off one side very fast and see what happens tot he scale.

Son---you should have done study at college univeristy rather that watching **** and jerking off all the time---and same to you Deino.

 

[Deino]

Hi,

Now you are showing stupidity---. You are one very less intelligent person.

If the single missile under the belly is released why would it effect the flight umbrella---the weight was on centerline---the weight got released from centerline---why would there be any rollover effect.

There is no imbalance of weight on the side mounts.

The only thing happening to the plane would be that it would rear upwards due to weight loss.

You and green MS shamelessly argue aerodynamics---effects of weight shift---weight release from one wing and the effects of the physical weight on the other wing on the aircraft and the tendency of the aircraft to rollover.
...

Oh my god ... this bullshit must have been from the same secret source known only to you who reported that Block 3 uses an Italian engine and can fire AMRAAM!

In Germany one would say that was a classic own goal. With arrogance on the field and then something like this ...

Since when has the CM-400 been certified for the centreline station/hardpoint of the JF-17? IMO it simply does not fit.

@Quwa @Akh1112 ... maybe you can explain him or correct me.

So much on showing stupidity but sorry, You are the great analyst and aerodynamic mastermind.