JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[Viper0011.]

It seems they have strengthened the portions of undercarriage (Green skin). I dont know if it was there all along and I missed it or is it a recent phenomena


View attachment 291910

These strengthened posts are for future smaller Central and Rear hard points, like the ones you find on Mirage and Rafale's to carry BVR's and may be a fixed pod.

The block II air-frame was strengthened around the wing area to allow it to hold heavier munition loads on current hard points. The center line drop tank already carries a huge load of fuel (1000 - 1500 liters), I think, so it didn't need further strengthened support.

 

[Tank131]

I dont think the guy was stating that the A-darter IS integrated, rather that A-darter on JF-17 is an intriguing prospect for developing countries (as many here also speculated).

 

[Thorough Pro]

I don't think there is enough free space to attach anything without interfering with landing gear

View attachment 291912

These strengthened posts are for future smaller Central and Rear hard points, like the ones you find on Mirage and Rafale's to carry BVR's and may be a fixed pod.

The block II air-frame was strengthened around the wing area to allow it to hold heavier munition loads on current hard points. The center line drop tank already carries a huge load of fuel (1000 - 1500 liters), I think, so it didn't need further strengthened support.

 

[Bratva]

I don't think there is enough free space to attach anything without interfering with landing gear

View attachment 291912

What about now. Do you see green skin has some additions which looks like it will become a new HP ?

 

[krash]

Which missiles are these; 1) at the beginning and 2) at 00:12? The first one seems to have a round nose (like a PL-5's) while the second one has a pointier nose. Both have their rear fins resembling the PL-5 but neither has any fins at the front (unlike a PL-5). Could be that both are the same and only seem different due to the quality of the video, however at 00:12 we can clearly see that there are no fins at the front. Then at 00:17 we can clearly see the front fins on the PL-5 being fired. Is it some old variant that I haven't been able to find on google?

 

[Viper0011.]

I don't think there is enough free space to attach anything without interfering with landing gear

View attachment 291912

There is plenty of room. This is in preparation for the upgraded SD-10B and PL-15. And they are very much like the Meteor and AMRAAM C7. A little compact, less weight and require less space. A hard point sticking out of the strengthened post can hold a missile or a smaller pod going further back towards the fin. It doesn't need to go too forward to hit the landing gear. I think SD-10 is only like 300-400 pounds per unit. So each of these posts, can have a hard point connected, which would easily hold 300-400 pounds.

See below highlighted in Red:

 

[khanasifm]

1. First Sale info
2. Weapon package info
3. RD 93 overhaul capability at PAC acquired

Paris info

Max takeoff weight now 13500 kg so increased from 12700kg (12.7 ton) to 13.5 ton

New version of RD-93 on its way

 

[Imran Khan]

I don't think there is enough free space to attach anything without interfering with landing gear

View attachment 291912

we already have good example of exposed gun which is sure increasing RCS but we have no space to hide in fuselage

 

[592257001]

Which missiles are these; 1) at the beginning and 2) at 00:12? The first one seems to have a round nose (like a PL-5's) while the second one has a pointier nose. Both have their rear fins resembling the PL-5 but neither has any fins at the front (unlike a PL-5). Could be that both are the same and only seem different due to the quality of the video, however at 00:12 we can clearly see that there are no fins at the front. Then at 00:17 we can clearly see the front fins on the PL-5 being fired. Is it some old variant that I haven't been able to find on google?

The IR guided missiles you mentioned seems to include features that indicate sub-types of the PL-5. This official CATIC poster showcasing all the AA missile in service/development was made public in China 10 years ago, yet the sub-types of PL-5 (C/D) at the time were still shown to have the front fins.

That being said, the poster does state "PL-5D, development initiated in 2002, development in progress". It is most probable that the missile shown in the video was a later-iteration of the PL-5D that was tested but was not adopted (since PAF has clearly choose PL-5E as the default short-range missile)

 

[Thorough Pro]

but we are talking about thunder and that's why I attached a pic of thunder

There is plenty of room. This is in preparation for the upgraded SD-10B and PL-15. And they are very much like the Meteor and AMRAAM C7. A little compact, less weight and require less space. A hard point sticking out of the strengthened post can hold a missile or a smaller POD, going further back towards the fin. It doesn't need to go too forward to hit the landing gear. I think SD-10 is only like 300-400 pounds per unit. So each of these posts, can have a hard point connected, which would easily hold 300-400 pounds.

See below highlighted in Red:

View attachment 292114

@Bratva

Look at the length of the wingtip rail, if the hard point is somewhere in the green area, I don't think a BVR will fit in without covering landing gear doors, specially the small diagonal door for the hydraulic system

What about now. Do you see green skin has some additions which looks like it will become a new HP ?


View attachment 292063

 

[Viper0011.]

but we are talking about thunder and that's why I attached a pic of thunder

I am confused....I know we are talking about the JFT. And I posted a picture of the Mirage 2k9, giving you a visual image of how these strengthened metal post would work. The hard point can mount 2 missiles, and they can be pushed back, towards the tail fins, vs. the landing gear. Or, these two may carry two SRAAM's, and the wingtips may have already been strengthened to carry the SD-10 bvr missiles, like the -16's carry AMRAAMS on their wingtips ( this may be more like it as the PAF would always use the experience gained from the -16's).

So back to my point, these two future hard points can and should be able to carry missiles, pods, or even MERS to carry additional bombs.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Yes! we are both talking about additional hard points for Thunder. What I am trying to say is that the green area can not be a hard point because a BVR missile there would cover the landing gear doors (please see the circled area in the second pic in my earlier post).

I don't think the missile can be pushed back as normally they are mounted in the center of the rail for even distribution of weight and keeping the missile's line of fire parallel or slightly downwards to the plane. If a missile is pushed back in the rail so that the it is hanging by the front part, it will cause the missile to point upwards (at the carrier plane it self) because of the weight in the rear.

I am confused....I know we are talking about the JFT. And I posted a picture of the Mirage 2k9, giving you a visual image of how these strengthened metal post would work. The hard point can mount 2 missiles, and they can be pushed back, towards the tail fins, vs. the landing gear. Or, these two may carry two SRAAM's, and the wingtips may have already been strengthened to carry the SD-10 bvr missiles, like the -16's carry AMRAAMS on their wingtips ( this may be more like it as the PAF would always use the experience gained from the -16's).

So back to my point, these two future hard points can and should be able to carry missiles, pods, or even MERS to carry additional bombs.

 

[Bratva]

but we are talking about thunder and that's why I attached a pic of thunder

@Bratva

Look at the length of the wingtip rail, if the hard point is somewhere in the green area, I don't think a BVR will fit in without covering landing gear doors, specially the small diagonal door for the hydraulic system

I dont agree with Viper that it can be used for BVR or MER. If any additional HP comes and especially at that place, its only purpose would be to hold a POD. Be it EW or EO/IR.

Now coming back to your space problem, it can be solved if HP is installed in outward manner like this which will make POD hang lower than the landing gear

LCA tejas and Dassault rafael hangs their pod in a similar fashion as well

 

[Thorough Pro]

best place for a small/mid size pod would be opposite to cannon, for any hard points for BVR how difficult is it to extend the wingspan by 15/18 inches on each side? and what adverse effect it will have on the flight characteristics? wouldn't the longer wing span provide more lift? after all the wingspan of the proposed 2-seat version is slightly bigger than the single-seat version.

can the gun be mounted above LERX and free that hard point with another one opposite it for missiles?

I dont agree with Viper that it can be used for BVR or MER. If any additional HP comes and especially at that place, its only purpose would be to hold a POD. Be it EW or EO/IR.

Now coming back to your space problem, it can be solved if HP is installed in outward manner like this which will make POD hang lower than the landing gear

View attachment 292280


LCA tejas and Dassault rafael hangs their pod in a similar fashion as well

 

[HRK]

The center line drop tank already carries a huge load of fuel (1000 - 1500 liters), I think, so it didn't need further strengthened support.

the centreline drop tank was (is) of a capacity of 800 liters ....