Enclosed weapons pod for the JF-17?

[The SC]

Nanchang Q-5
The first prototype was completed in 1960.A small team kept the program alive until it was re-opened in 1963, when production was shifted to Nanchang. The first flight finally occurred on 4 June 1965. Series production began in 1969, with squadron delivery starting in 1970.

About 1,000 aircraft were produced, 600 of them being the updated Q-5A. A small number, perhaps a few dozen, Q-5As were modified to carry nuclear weapons; these are believed to retain their internal weapons bay. A long-range Q-5I, introduced in 1983, added a fuel tank instead of the internal weapons bay, compensating for that with the provision of two additional under wing pylons.

Asian Defence News: Qi lai!! Qi lai!! Qi lai!! Is China’s Air Force shrinking ? 850 aircraft of Nanchang Q-5 and Hong-5 type no longer in service ??

Due to the size alone, there is a possibility of a "dedicated" version of the JF-17 with an internal weapon bay.
This is the second realistic possibility towards a stealthier JF-17, the first one being the DSI, a third very likely possibility is stealth paint, be it applied only to the surface or part of the fuselage manufacturing process, i.e; injected into the material itself.

 

[Basel]

A stealthy design with 5th gen plane avionics, conformal fuel tanks and external weapons pods like Hornet is much better way to make JF-17 a 4.8 gen fighter.

 

[Basel]

No need of internal weapons bay.

 

[Mutakalim]

i dont think jf-17 has any space for internal bay. its mere imagination nothing more.

 

[Viper0011.]

i dont think jf-17 has any space for internal bay. its mere imagination nothing more.

You could use an external missile bay for the JFT that's stealthy. The poster above you is saying what I've been saying. Turn this puppy into a Stealthy design for Block III onwards. The future for the PAF mist have larger jets like the J-11, AESA, TVC, BVR's, a few Stealthy squadrons of J-31 (or watered down JSF) and a cheaper, local version of Stealthy JFT, and long range SAMS in numbers and in multiple layers. That's the only way forward.

 

[The SC]

No need of internal weapons bay.

I agree with you on that for general purpose as a multirole fighter.The internal weapon bay in my opinion is another option for a dedicated version for deep strike surprise attacks and even some air to air combat against a sophisticated warplane or a heavy maneuverable one, although not as deep as bigger platform, the strikes can take out command and control posts on the front-line or a bit further away or for disrupting and destroying the main logistic routes, among other valuable and vital targets of the enemy on the battlefield and control the battle area environment.
They will also be stealthier for BVR combat, thus deadlier by closing the gap of radar range undetected and firing their missiles first.

 

[The SC]

i dont think jf-17 has any space for internal bay. its mere imagination nothing more.

The Q-5 had it, and was no bigger than the JF-17. That is the whole purpose of this thread;
To explore that possibility.
I was advancing the Idea of external weapon pods in other threads concerning the JF-17, but I Stumbled on this possibility while doing some search, and thought it to be pertinent enough to explore, since the Q-5 had it.

 

[Basel]

If JF-17 is redesigned similar to this posted design with capability of carrying upto 03 weapons pods (1 on each wing & 1 on center line) and conformal fuel tanks then it may fulfill 80% of future ADA requirements in extreme hostile situations.

 

[Kompromat]

I think discussing an enclosed weapons pod will be more feasible.

 

[Basel]

The Q-5 had it, and was no bigger than the JF-17. That is the whole purpose of this thread;
To explore that possibility.
I was advancing the Idea of external weapon pods in other threads concerning the JF-17, but I Stumbled on this possibility while doing some search, and thought it to be pertinent enough to explore, since the Q-5 had it.

Trying to create internal bay will create huge problems for designer as it will need lots of modifications to fit other systems to create space, even they may have to increase size of the jet too. It will be better to go for external pod path like Hornets have received. @gambit can explain better about it.

 

[Basel]

@Horus just imagine a stealthy design JF-17 with capability to carry upto 03 of these type of pods and conformal fuel tank, better engine with new nozzle for being stealthy, AESA radar and advance avionics from Chinese 5th gen plane will be a night mare for IAF's front line fighter fleet.

 

[The SC]

I think discussing an enclosed weapons pod will be more feasible.

View attachment 148217

That is OK with me.
Other possibilities should be discussed if they are relevant too.

 

[Kompromat]

@Horus just imagine a stealthy design JF-17 with capability to carry upto 03 of these type of pods and conformal fuel tank, better engine with new nozzle for being stealthy, AESA radar and advance avionics from Chinese 5th gen plane will be a night mare for IAF's front line fighter fleet.

Even without a stealthy design and even with 1 pod it can do a lot of damage. The frontal RCS of JF-17 is quite small. It can sneap up close to a big fat russian machine and fry it.

 

[Kompromat]

That is OK with me.
Other possibilities should be discussed if they are relevant too.

We cant pay for a complete redesign.

 

[Basel]

@Horus if this is done it will allow PAF breathing space even if they can't induct true 5th gen plane till 2030, and if PAF got 5th gen plane till 2027 still they will need some thing like Stealthy JF-17 to support them.