What's new

JF-17 Block-3 -- Updates, News & Discussion

Beast

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 5, 2011
24,298
-38
56,744
Country
China
Location
China
Throwing out tangential argument without attacking the merits of it does no service to any pro-china message you are trying to give.

His insight on JF-17 may not be as valid as a Chinese engineer involved with the program, but it as valid as any Chinese member on PDF.
Including talking crap about Chinese HMS? Some even get along and gives him a like as if it real gold...

If I don't clarify it, many will take his words for real.

You shall know who is the chief designer and designation company for JF-17 ,right?
 

Scorpiooo

FULL MEMBER
Apr 22, 2020
717
0
744
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
THANDERS are lightweight jet ... lightweight jet have limitations, which cannot be compromised by putting extra load .. that will directory effect performance and outcome of aircraft

Thunder air-frame is light and its engine has limited trust .... if we want it to be remain effective.. then we dont have to overload it.

For medium role PAF already considering J10C it can have more load and speed and will use similar weapons
 
Last edited:

MIRauf

FULL MEMBER
Mar 23, 2018
550
0
721
Country
United States
Location
United States
Can we have 2 more hard points on fuel tanks like we have on our mirages??
M-III / V didn't have enough HPs to carry the load but you have 2 middle HPs on the JF-17 wings to carry what M-III/V tried to by adding HP to fuel tanks and with much better load / efficiency.

Plus Smart munition makes the Fuel Tank HP redundant, now if you would like to add an HP to Fuel-Tank Pylon ( aka F-15 style for AAM, if could do wonders if needed be. ) The only issue with JF-17 having F-15 style Fuel Tank Pylon is that you could only load AAM on outer side as inner side be to close to the main fuselage.

JF-17 could literally carry 6 BVRs in that scenario :) and people here just want to be happy with 4 + 2, heck I say 6 + 2 or 4 + 4 combo.
 

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
8,166
69
13,319
M-III / V didn't have enough HPs to carry the load but you have 2 middle HPs on the JF-17 wings to carry what M-III/V tried to by adding HP to fuel tanks and with much better load / efficiency.

Plus Smart munition makes the Fuel Tank HP redundant, now if you would like to add an HP to Fuel-Tank Pylon ( aka F-15 style for AAM, if could do wonders if needed be. ) The only issue with JF-17 having F-15 style Fuel Tank Pylon is that you could only load AAM on outer side as inner side be to close to the main fuselage.

JF-17 could literally carry 6 BVRs in that scenario :) and people here just want to be happy with 4 + 2, heck I say 6 + 2 or 4 + 4 combo.
The 4+2 vs 6+2/4+4 has been debated here a few times. Generally as modern day ammo becomes more accurate and lethal the need for a bomb truck is receding into the past. Whether this actually is the case or not remains to be seen. In the Indo Pak scenario with AWAC cover and field wide visibility the chances of utilizing all 4 AMRAAMs remain low much less 6+2. Iam no expert but once AMRAAMs have been let loose from both sides you would not want to be in the viscinity of the battlefield and excess ammo will then become a liability. The likelihood is one of shoot-RTB-rejoin with fresh pilot and payload. As I have said before Iam merely anenthusiast so take my post as that of an enthusiast.
We have had change in strategy before as encounters of equally armed opponents give strategists better insight and it may yet bring about a change of thought .
A
 

khanasifm

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 16, 2008
6,318
6
4,813
M-III / V didn't have enough HPs to carry the load but you have 2 middle HPs on the JF-17 wings to carry what M-III/V tried to by adding HP to fuel tanks and with much better load / efficiency.

Plus Smart munition makes the Fuel Tank HP redundant, now if you would like to add an HP to Fuel-Tank Pylon ( aka F-15 style for AAM, if could do wonders if needed be. ) The only issue with JF-17 having F-15 style Fuel Tank Pylon is that you could only load AAM on outer side as inner side be to close to the main fuselage.

JF-17 could literally carry 6 BVRs in that scenario :) and people here just want to be happy with 4 + 2, heck I say 6 + 2 or 4 + 4 combo.
So putting too much will also restrict max g load to 3/4 anyway better to send extra aircraft vs few as bomb truck 🛻
 

MIRauf

FULL MEMBER
Mar 23, 2018
550
0
721
Country
United States
Location
United States
So putting too much will also restrict max g load to 3/4 anyway better to send extra aircraft vs few as bomb truck 🛻
Sorry, damn my dry sense of humor didn't get through my post. Apologizes, but am pleasantly surprised that I didn't get accused of writing a thesis on it, least yet so far as the day is still young.

MIR
 
Last edited:

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
643
3
1,357
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Whats this

No fuel. I have seen an interview PAC engr stating that its fuel location

Im only interested in fuel & rd93ma
Again, Not 100% true, as discussed above you can’t store fuel in LERX, below cockpit or on the small edges of the rear fins, yet they are in green, those are composites. I believe the confusion comes from the fact that the engineer just used them as a reference to point out that there was fuel under those green areas which also happen to be composites, or it could just identify both things.
 

MIRauf

FULL MEMBER
Mar 23, 2018
550
0
721
Country
United States
Location
United States
The 4+2 vs 6+2/4+4 has been debated here a few times. Generally as modern day ammo becomes more accurate and lethal the need for a bomb truck is receding into the past. Whether this actually is the case or not remains to be seen. In the Indo Pak scenario with AWAC cover and field wide visibility the chances of utilizing all 4 AMRAAMs remain low much less 6+2. Iam no expert but once AMRAAMs have been let loose from both sides you would not want to be in the viscinity of the battlefield and excess ammo will then become a liability. The likelihood is one of shoot-RTB-rejoin with fresh pilot and payload. As I have said before Iam merely anenthusiast so take my post as that of an enthusiast.
We have had change in strategy before as encounters of equally armed opponents give strategists better insight and it may yet bring about a change of thought .
A
Kind Sir, with all due respect I write this and I mean no disrespect to you or any other member. I have no insight track into the PAF, nor I have ever been part of PAF or it's community. I was merely answering a post by one of forum member as to adding HPs on the fuel tank similar to M-III/V and I offered a different alternate if people would really like to see more HPs as it comes up quite often.

I don't consider 6+2, 4+4 or 4 + 2 for JF-17 as becoming of a Bomb Truck, J-16 with 30 odd bombs is a bomb truck just as if is was loaded with 4 ALCMs, an awesome load out for an awesome plane. Similarly I don't consider F-15 loaded with three fuel tanks while hauling 4 + 4 or 8 + 4 or newest one hauling 12 + 4 AAM as a bomb truck, heck that thing is menacing beast for it's opponents in A-2-A mode in any of those configs. Now if it is PAF doctrine to fly in 2 + 2 then its well and great as it ( PAF ) knows best as to what it needs, wants or with given assets what works for it. People like we / us can just offer / write what we think based on given data / info and or as to what we wish for or desire in it to be capable off ( JF-17. )

That reminds to write my foot notes. since I wrote a long winded post.

PS: Sorry, I didn't mean to write thesis on this, I just couldn't pen it all down in 'Cliff Notes.'
 

m52k85

FULL MEMBER
May 24, 2013
490
0
459
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Again, Not 100% true, as discussed above you can’t store fuel in LERX, below cockpit or on the small edges of the rear fins, yet they are in green, those are composites. I believe the confusion comes from the fact that the engineer just used them as a reference to point out that there was fuel under those green areas which also happen to be composites, or it could just identify both things.
The context in which the engineer spoke was when a wing was lying infront of him, and interviewer asked about the green. So that doesnt mean slats and leading edge of elevators (or elevons) have fuel since they are far too tiny.

However I believe there is a possibility to have fuel tanks on either side of the cockpit, the safety argument doesnt hold since you can choose to exhaust those tanks in the initial part of the sortie.

The green on LERX is the most difficult to judge, since unlike the green on slats and elevators, its in the middle and not on the leading edge, therefore it can not be there to dampen radar returns. At the time those areas are also too small to justify the overheads (pipes, pumps etc) that come with a fuel tank.
 
Last edited:

Dazzler

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Oct 19, 2008
8,749
30
21,401
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
So south african has more insight knowledge than Chinese on JF-17? Tell me something new..

Worst of all he is commenting on Chinese Helmet mounted display which he has no knowledge on.
Tell me who designed, integrated and qualified DSI intakes in thunder?
 

Sifar zero

BANNED
Jul 27, 2020
332
0
461
Country
Pakistan
Location
South Africa
Tell me who designed, integrated and qualified DSI intakes in thunder?
Who??
South Africans were involved in aspects of JF-17 program electronics and refueling.
The South Africans also provided the IFR probes for Mirage ROSE program.
South African Tecna Corp helped design three display cockpit with PAC way back in 2004. The original IFR robe on it was the same as the ones fitted on Mirages. Later we went for the Chinese probe.

Pac had also worked on HMDS with South Africans for thunder. Indra provides RWR, EW suite and real time simulators for thunder.

File a lawsuit against them all for breaching Chinese IPR.
I searched soo much but could not find the HMD you are talking about.Can you please link the article??
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 3, Members: 1, Guests: 2)


Top Bottom