What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

Status
Not open for further replies.
looking forward to this.... ;)

1234500_719405898086322_351922559_n.jpg
 
Gambit,

Thank you for your post. You are being extremely considerate---. The U S could easily be ahead by 2 decades.

As for pakistan---I think that if they invest in a BVR missile that has a high kill ratio at the extreme end of its range---that would be a less expensive but extremely potent way to face the problem.

Build a smarter missile---it will be a force multiplier.


I believe Pakistan is already in talks or co-operation with Denel of South Africa for R-Darter. Also, Pakistan is providing constant feedback to the Chinese for SD10 developments.

It would be great to see 3 different BVRs in PAF.

I think it was you who posted that Chinese are developing the next level of SD10, which has some extremely potent technology. Nonetheless, a modern BVR is active radar guided. Active Radar guidance is all about electronics and electromagnetics. Chinese have made tremendous gains in this field.
 
I think reducing frontal RCS would be a good option and is being persued as per the interview of the chief designer. Whenever, RCS reduction is discussed people start discussing with respect to all aspect RCS reduction, whereas the people talking in favour of these modification are only talking about frontal aspect RCS reduction to give advantage in head on BVR engagements with an air to air load out ( 2 mraam and wingtip 2 sraam).
 
Lol not exactly trash talk but you need to consider some factors.

There are several roles which JF-17 will undertake whishlist carrying BVR's namely CAP, ADA.

In CAP (Combat Air Patrol), 2 short range and 2 BVR's suffice along with fuel tanks. Since CAPs are performed round the clock and putting on extra weight of BVR's will only burn more fuel.
Where as the jets on ADA (Air Defense Alert) can be equipped with more than 2 BVR's since they get airborne when patrolling jets engage enemy formations. Hence more than 2 BVR's will be required.

As for multiple ejector racks, the wing loading strength and MTOW of JF-17 should be considered first. The multiple AMRAAM ejector racks work fine with the Super Hornet due to its enormous wing strength.

As for stand off engagements, we have ICBMs for that. ;)

Wait, we have ICBMs? Since when? We have SRBMs and IRBMs, but ICBM is rumored to be in development.
 
Constant feed back? based on what? how many SD10's have Pakistan fire tested so far that it can provide any feed back? Stop being in insult to Chinese engineers who are doing all the hard work of designing, development, integration and testing.


I believe Pakistan is already in talks or co-operation with Denel of South Africa for R-Darter. Also, Pakistan is providing constant feedback to the Chinese for SD10 developments.

It would be great to see 3 different BVRs in PAF.

I think it was you who posted that Chinese are developing the next level of SD10, which has some extremely potent technology. Nonetheless, a modern BVR is active radar guided. Active Radar guidance is all about electronics and electromagnetics. Chinese have made tremendous gains in this field.

I guess he is looking forward to the color scheme, or may be a naval version if I understand right.

Look forward to what? It looks like a regular JF-17 with camo. Am I missing something?
 
I believe Pakistan is already in talks or co-operation with Denel of South Africa for R-Darter. Also, Pakistan is providing constant feedback to the Chinese for SD10 developments.

It would be great to see 3 different BVRs in PAF.

I think it was you who posted that Chinese are developing the next level of SD10, which has some extremely potent technology. Nonetheless, a modern BVR is active radar guided. Active Radar guidance is all about electronics and electromagnetics. Chinese have made tremendous gains in this field.

Three BVR ? so are you considering AMRAM for JF-17 ?
 
Constant feed back? based on what? how many SD10's have Pakistan fire tested so far that it can provide any feed back? Stop being in insult to Chinese engineers who are doing all the hard work of designing, development, integration and testing.
.

maybe you should stop insulting Pakistani enginners work any leadership in this project…
Chineese were nowhere near West in radar tech and weapons tech if you neglect pak role then maybe thinge wouldnot be like that especially for JF-17 in yerm of chineese avionics,HMDS and radar technology…
 
Azerbaijan flag.
they have shown interst and a very great chance they might get it

Azerbaijan flaag

Really? It looks so turkish.

Wait, didn't they opt for Migs instead? Or am I just crazy?
 
Working on the DSI alone is like enclosing missiles and bombs into a pod but left the external fuel tanks as they are. Enclosed ordnance may statistically disappeared from the radar scope, but the external fuel tanks will give the fighter away just as well.

The bottom line is that EVERYTHING on the aircraft must be subjected to the three steps dictated by RCS control philosophy. You predict and model, then you physically verify. Little by little. You break the aircraft down into discrete sections and components, virtually and perhaps even physically, and assign teams to engage their charges into those three steps. That is how Boeing did it with the F-15 into the SE version and Pakistan must have the technical expertise of the likes of Boeing, as how it produced the F-15SE, in order to produce a JF-17S, so to speak.

Sir by your post what I understand, its not financially & technically worthwhile to incorporate stealthy features in JF-17 fuselage, but any effort on subsystems (Fuel Tank & Missile armament) could be helpful ...... so we should work on the designs of external fuel tanks and air to air missiles which contribute a hefty share in aircraft's RCS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom