JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[Shabi1]

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?

Lets leave it as a light weight fighter 7 hard points plus a pod point shall be enough for the JF-17 Thunder. They are working on multiple ejector racks for BVR missiles so no need for more hard points. Converting it into a medium aircraft by increasing wings will mean deviating from its intended purposes.
For the middle/heavy weight role PAF has F-16s and possible J-10/SU-35/J-31.

 

[Viper0011.]

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.

1) There is more than enough room for a BVR missile to be loaded. Worst case, a pod and SRAAM's, and then you'll have the Wingtips available to mount two additional BVR's like AMRAAMS on the -16. Not sure if you guys are reading my posts properly. But I am getting constant negative no, without you using common sense based on the pictures!!

2) On your point of "Missile pointing upwards"......ever fired a missile from a 4th gen jet? Or even 3rd gen for that matter? The missile is data linked, armed locked on and ejected, the ignition doesn't take place for a few seconds. At which time, the missile has dropped below the plane. If I believe in what you are suggesting, the missile's after-burn would start to compromise the air-frame if it ignites at the hard-point. It doesn't work that way!!

3) See below and my comments on those pictures, you'll need to Zoom in a little on the image. There is plenty of room for either option, SRAAM's, mid-sized bomb rack, a pod or a longer rail for BVR missiles going back to the rear fin. It will have the same features like the Mirage 2k9 picture I posted. See the selected AAM's in the first picture, the SRAAM's inside the red fit easily.

A longer rail (in the second picture), can allow the BVR's to be placed. A pod or a small bomb rack can easily be placed as well, per the mission requirements.

My guess? Two SRAAM's so two SD-10's can be mounted on the newly strengthened wingtips (per the PAF's current adaptation of the -16's and AMRAAMs) for a CAP role. For a ground support role, you can see MK series types of bombs on a different rack (not railing as these are removable). For Recon operations, some EM pods. The JFT has a modular design. The two circles behind the main hard-points you see, are to put in hooks and data link for different type of weapons as I described above.

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.

See my post above. You don't have to agree with me as you have a right to think the way you think. I am just highlighting what's possible. A hard point had a physical hard point, which can hold "X" amount of weight, in this case, this hard-point can easily hold 400-500 pounds (or more?). Second, the data link to avionics for a modular system like the JFT are used in a "plug and play" format. In other words, the hard point has two different data links / wiring harnesses coming in two smaller circles (outlined in my picture). One can accommodate a pod and the other one can integrate AAM's with the radar.

So based on the mission profile, you load a pod, or a smaller rail for SRAAM's, or a longer rail for BVR's, or smaller bombs like MK series (2* 250 pounds). This aircraft has a modular design and COTS based. You can use each hard point for multiple things per the mission requirements. Two JFT's flying, one can be carrying a pod and some MK series bombs on the second hard-point, while the second JFT on escort duties, may carry additional SRAAM's or BVRs giving this jet the standard 9 hard point configuration like its competitors. I rest my case after this.

 

[JamD]

I had a couple of questions/points:

1) @Viper0011. Do we know whether the SD10A is rail launched, rack/ejector launched or both?

2) If that is indeed is a hardpoint it wouldn't make much sense to put a pod there for visibility reasons. For example if it is an IRST pod It would see terribly little. Even if its ground targeting pod it would be on one side of the aircraft with its visibility practically nil on the other side. You could protrude it out a little though. What I am saying it would make more sense for it to be used for a weapon like bombs or a BVR (a short range IR missile's seeker would face the same problems as the pods).

3) Would be really nice to see two additional SD10As mounted under the fuselage. If this can be managed this, in my opinion, is better then multiple racks on the wing pylons. Should sacrifice less on the aircraft's performance.

4) Pods should be chin mounted. Opposite the gun perhaps.

5) Someone suggested moving the gun to the top. The gun is pretty big. And you don't put random things on wings or parts of wings for general flying reasons :p The gun is fine where it is.

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.

Aaaaaaaa. Missiles aren't 'hung' from aircraft like they're Christmas decorations lol. There are almost always two or more lugs and sway braces. If what you say is correct every fighter would have to fly like the wright flyer till it expended all its munitions out of fear of hitting itself with its own weapons. Your other points may have validity, this one doesn't.

Look at these for a better idea:

 

[Thorough Pro]

in reponse to point 5, most fighters have their cannons in the main fuselage above the wings. when I said can it be moved up, I didn't say slap the same gun above wings and strap it with duct tape, look at how f-16's cannon is positioned, can a similar thing be done with Thunder?

and your last para
I am aware how missiles are attached to racks/ejectors, my response was in reply to Vipers comments that missile can be pushed back to not interfere with the landing gear doors. Now look at the green area (proclaimed to be a hard point by viper) in the pic, the only way to push back the missile would be to change the lug positions on the missile (which is not possible) as the lugs are positioned in a way to have balanced/even weight distribution, hence my comment.
-

I had a couple of questions/points:

1) @Viper0011. Do we know whether the SD10A is rail launched, rack/ejector launched or both?

2) If that is indeed is a hardpoint it wouldn't make much sense to put a pod there for visibility reasons. For example if it is an IRST pod It would see terribly little. Even if its ground targeting pod it would be on one side of the aircraft with its visibility practically nil on the other side. You could protrude it out a little though. What I am saying it would make more sense for it to be used for a weapon like bombs or a BVR (a short range IR missile's seeker would face the same problems as the pods).

3) Would be really nice to see two additional SD10As mounted under the fuselage. If this can be managed this, in my opinion, is better then multiple racks on the wing pylons. Should sacrifice less on the aircraft's performance.

4) Pods should be chin mounted. Opposite the gun perhaps.

5) Someone suggested moving the gun to the top. The gun is pretty big. And you don't put random things on wings or parts of wings for general flying reasons :p The gun is fine where it is.


Aaaaaaaa. Missiles aren't 'hung' from aircraft like they're Christmas decorations lol. There are almost always two or more lugs and sway braces. If what you say is correct every fighter would have to fly like the wright flyer till it expended all its munitions out of fear of hitting itself with its own weapons. Your other points may have validity, this one doesn't.

Look at these for a better idea:

You are not looking at the pic clearly. The room is behind the proclaimed hard point (we don't even know if it is really a hard point at this time) now look at the ejector racks and lug positions on both the missiles and the rack and see if a BVR can fit?

most western missiles rocket engines start after separation from mother ship, but in all Thunder firing videos, missile rocket fires while still attached to the rails/ejectors 9may be it's changed now but I don't recall seeing any such video)

1) There is more than enough room for a BVR missile to be loaded. Worst case, a pod and SRAAM's, and then you'll have the Wingtips available to mount two additional BVR's like AMRAAMS on the -16. Not sure if you guys are reading my posts properly. But I am getting constant negative no, without you using common sense based on the pictures!!

2) On your point of "Missile pointing upwards"......ever fired a missile from a 4th gen jet? Or even 3rd gen for that matter? The missile is data linked, armed locked on and ejected, the ignition doesn't take place for a few seconds. At which time, the missile has dropped below the plane. If I believe in what you are suggesting, the missile's after-burn would start to compromise the air-frame if it ignites at the hard-point. It doesn't work that way!!

3) See below and my comments on those pictures, you'll need to Zoom in a little on the image. There is plenty of room for either option, SRAAM's, mid-sized bomb rack, a pod or a longer rail for BVR missiles going back to the rear fin. It will have the same features like the Mirage 2k9 picture I posted. See the selected AAM's in the first picture, the SRAAM's inside the red fit easily.

A longer rail (in the second picture), can allow the BVR's to be placed. A pod or a small bomb rack can easily be placed as well, per the mission requirements.

My guess? Two SRAAM's so two SD-10's can be mounted on the newly strengthened wingtips (per the PAF's current adaptation of the -16's and AMRAAMs) for a CAP role. For a ground support role, you can see MK series types of bombs on a different rack (not railing as these are removable). For Recon operations, some EM pods. The JFT has a modular design. The two circles behind the main hard-points you see, are to put in hooks and data link for different type of weapons as I described above.

View attachment 292324



See my post above. You don't have to agree with me as you have a right to think the way you think. I am just highlighting what's possible. A hard point had a physical hard point, which can hold "X" amount of weight, in this case, this hard-point can easily hold 400-500 pounds (or more?). Second, the data link to avionics for a modular system like the JFT are used in a "plug and play" format. In other words, the hard point has two different data links / wiring harnesses coming in two smaller circles (outlined in my picture). One can accommodate a pod and the other one can integrate AAM's with the radar.

So based on the mission profile, you load a pod, or a smaller rail for SRAAM's, or a longer rail for BVR's, or smaller bombs like MK series (2* 250 pounds). This aircraft has a modular design and COTS based. You can use each hard point for multiple things per the mission requirements. Two JFT's flying, one can be carrying a pod and some MK series bombs on the second hard-point, while the second JFT on escort duties, may carry additional SRAAM's or BVRs giving this jet the standard 9 hard point configuration like its competitors. I rest my case after this.

I have been reading about this fanboy multiple "missile" racks for the last many years but have not yet seen any official news on this, the only thing we have seen is for dumb bombs, so I'll disregard it for the time being.

F-16 is a light weight fighter and enhancing capabilities is not considered "deviating" from intended purpose.

Lets leave it as a light weight fighter 7 hard points plus a pod point shall be enough for the JF-17 Thunder. They are working on multiple ejector racks for BVR missiles so no need for more hard points. Converting it into a medium aircraft by increasing wings will mean deviating from its intended purposes.
For the middle/heavy weight role PAF has F-16s and possible J-10/SU-35/J-31.

 

[JamD]

in reponse to point 5, most fighters have their cannons in the main fuselage above the wings. when I said can it be moved up, I didn't say slap the same gun above wings and strap it with duct tape, look at how f-16's cannon is positioned, can a similar thing be done with Thunder?

Well, the F-16's lerx blend into the fuselage giving lots of space to put stuff. With the JF-17 the lerx go into the intakes on either side. You can't recess anything into the intake.

and your last para
I am aware how missiles are attached to racks/ejectors, my response was in reply to Vipers comments that missile can be pushed back to not interfere with the landing gear doors. Now look at the green area (proclaimed to be a hard point by viper) in the pic, the only way to push back the missile would be to change the lug positions on the missile (which is not possible) as the lugs are positioned in a way to have balanced/even weight distribution, hence my comment.
-



You are not looking at the pic clearly. The room is behind the proclaimed hard point (we don't even know if it is really a hard point at this time) now look at the ejector racks and lug positions on both the missiles and the rack and see if a BVR can fit?

most western missiles rocket engines start after separation from mother ship, but in all Thunder firing videos, missile rocket fires while still attached to the rails/ejectors 9may be it's changed now but I don't recall seeing any such video)

Let me clarify. I think it is highly unlikely that this is a hardpoint, let alone a hardpoint for a large weapon. I was just saying the missile doesn't have issues of pointing the wrong way because it is almost always on two or more lugs. I was hinting at the possibility there might be a second attachement point hidden behind the ventral fin. However I too think this is unlikely.

That would be a rather tight/impossible fit. Although if there is a future version of the SD10A with very small fins and a bit shorter in length it might be a possibility.

most western missiles rocket engines start after separation from mother ship, but in all Thunder firing videos, missile rocket fires while still attached to the rails/ejectors 9may be it's changed now but I don't recall seeing any such video)
.

I actually researched this a bit after asking my previous question and I came across AIM120 being fired both by ejection and rail. I think at least the AAMRAM can be fired either way. Not sure about the SD10A, I couldn't find any videos of it firing but the pictures suggested rail launch but that doesn't necessarily mean no ejector launch. We'll have to wait for more knowledgeable members to shed light on this.

 

[HRK]

 

[Viper0011.]

1) @Viper0011. Do we know whether the SD10A is rail launched, rack/ejector launched or both?

2) If that is indeed is a hardpoint it wouldn't make much sense to put a pod there for visibility reasons. For example if it is an IRST pod It would see terribly little. Even if its ground targeting pod it would be on one side of the aircraft with its visibility practically nil on the other side. You could protrude it out a little though. What I am saying it would make more sense for it to be used for a weapon like bombs or a BVR (a short range IR missile's seeker would face the same problems as the pods).

3) Would be really nice to see two additional SD10As mounted under the fuselage. If this can be managed this, in my opinion, is better then multiple racks on the wing pylons. Should sacrifice less on the aircraft's performance.

4) Pods should be chin mounted. Opposite the gun perhaps.

5) Someone suggested moving the gun to the top. The gun is pretty big. And you don't put random things on wings or parts of wings for general flying reasons :p The gun is fine where it is.

1) I don't know if the SD-10 is a beam rider or an active / active-passive missile. I can probably research it out for you. But generally speaking, when, let's say a - 22 fires it missiles, it extends the missile down to slipstream and then ignites the booster. There is usually a coil that extends out and triggers the firing sequence of the AAM. Even if you plugged it on a rail, you could have a primary and a secondary ignition. The primary one to push the missile off the rail but not have a huge after-burn, more rail-fired / ejected but front-stream, not down to slipstream. And the firing sequence could trigger a secondary ignition giving it full thrust. Both ways are possible but I don't know which one SD-10 uses.

2) You are forgetting, even if its a hard point, there is a full integrated 8-10 inch thick piece of the ejector and metal housing that has to go on top of this physical hard-point. Then, you have spacer on there to install the missiles on. So between the air-frame and the actual weapon, there is like 10 inch worth of space. So for any missile, the seeker won't have an issue, for any pod, its sensors will be out to see downwards in a look down, shoot down mode. I don't think anyone would put sensors on these hard-points which are required to look ahead though.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Missile launch---depends---like Phoenix used to be dropped and then it would ignite---some others ignite on rack---.


You can the videos on youtube

 

[Thorough Pro]

fast forward to 1.01 for PL5E firing.

1) I don't know if the SD-10 is a beam rider or an active / active-passive missile. I can probably research it out for you. But generally speaking, when, let's say a - 22 fires it missiles, it extends the missile down to slipstream and then ignites the booster. There is usually a coil that extends out and triggers the firing sequence of the AAM. Even if you plugged it on a rail, you could have a primary and a secondary ignition. The primary one to push the missile off the rail but not have a huge after-burn, more rail-fired / ejected but front-stream, not down to slipstream. And the firing sequence could trigger a secondary ignition giving it full thrust. Both ways are possible but I don't know which one SD-10 uses.

2) You are forgetting, even if its a hard point, there is a full integrated 8-10 inch thick piece of the ejector and metal housing that has to go on top of this physical hard-point. Then, you have spacer on there to install the missiles on. So between the air-frame and the actual weapon, there is like 10 inch worth of space. So for any missile, the seeker won't have an issue, for any pod, its sensors will be out to see downwards in a look down, shoot down mode. I don't think anyone would put sensors on these hard-points which are required to look ahead though.

 

[Aung Zaya]

hi.. bros..
Anyone can prove JF-17s which is bought from Myanmar are block 1 or 2 or custom made..? any links for further detail information about this..?

 

[JamD]

Hi,

Missile launch---depends---like Phoenix used to be dropped and then it would ignite---some others ignite on rack---.


You can the videos on youtube

For the AIM120 I saw both rail launched and ejected. Perhaps different versions or maybe it can be fired both ways.

Any information about SD10A?

 

[MastanKhan]

For the AIM120 I saw both rail launched and ejected. Perhaps different versions or maybe it can be fired both ways.

Any information about SD10A?

Hi,

It is similar to the aim120---so it should be similar in launch as well---rail launched.

Here is a video of PL 15 launch----rail launch.

hi.. bros..
Anyone can prove JF-17s which is bought from Myanmar are block 1 or 2 or custom made..? any links for further detail information about this..?

Hi,

They will be minimum BLK 2---maybe BLK3----.

Today at 7:06 PM#4269

 

[Zarvan]

Hi,

It is similar to the aim120---so it should be similar in launch as well---rail launched.

Here is a video of PL 15 launch----rail launch.



Hi,

They will be minimum BLK 2---maybe BLK3----.

Today at 7:06 PM#4269

The places pointed our by Viper in new JF-17 prototype under going testing in China for Air Refueling can hard points be added on those points. If you don't get what I am talking about looking at previous posts of Viper

 

[MastanKhan]

The places pointed our by Viper in new JF-17 prototype under going testing in China for Air Refueling can hard points be added on those points. If you don't get what I am talking about looking at previous posts of Viper

Hi,

I read his post and saw the photo as well---that could happen and a more powerful engine as well.

And if it is a WS13---then you may see the loiter time almost double as well. So---let us keep on speculating---and beat each other up---and then let us see who comes on top.

 

[Shabi1]

Hope to see this on JFT soon. Multi SD-10 Launcher.