What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

Here www.pac.org.pk/assets/files/it_for_0226_p-3_open_tender.doc is a tender from PAC for "Bomb Rack Unit GDG-601 for fuel tanks"
Bomb unit for Fuel Tanks.JPG


Are we talking about something similar to this:

RAAF Mirage III with MATRA TK500 bomb-drop tank system, combining 500lt fuel and 4 x 500-lb bomb.jpg


0JL100_JK200.jpg
 
Last edited:
Will the JFT have enough clearance below the tanks to mount bombs?
A
 
Here www.pac.org.pk/assets/files/it_for_0226_p-3_open_tender.doc is a tender from PAC for "Bomb Rack Unit GDG-601 for fuel tanks"
View attachment 327510

Are we talking about something similar to this:

View attachment 327513

View attachment 327514

That will be good to have, if fuel tank+guided rockets (may be Cirit 70mm laser guided rockets with 8km range or other similar weapon) module could carry 4 SDBs at least then very good for JFT's CAS capabilities.

@gambit @Tempest II @Windjammer your opinion please
 
I am all for SDBs. BUT there has to be matching accuracy and precision of the delivery system.

accu_prec.jpg

A war's outcome depends largely, if not mostly, on mobility. Anything that stays in one place have increased odds of being killed. What it means is that you do not have to destroy a thing, only degrade its operations and/or capabilities. If an APC is damaged to the point where it cannot keep up with the pack, it will be removed from the fight. If an aircraft cannot be repaired in time, it will not contribute to the fight, and when it is repaired, it might be too late.
 
I am all for SDBs. BUT there has to be matching accuracy and precision of the delivery system.

accu_prec.jpg

A war's outcome depends largely, if not mostly, on mobility. Anything that stays in one place have increased odds of being killed. What it means is that you do not have to destroy a thing, only degrade its operations and/or capabilities. If an APC is damaged to the point where it cannot keep up with the pack, it will be removed from the fight. If an aircraft cannot be repaired in time, it will not contribute to the fight, and when it is repaired, it might be too late.[/QUOTE
This is an interesting topic. was reading a few days back on "efficiency" in war, and the point was exactly what you are saying about, I.e. The minimum damage necessary as this saves your own resources in the war effort but very likely makes it easier for you to rebuild assuming some or all the reconstruction bill/effort is yours after the war.

Then you touch on manoeuvre warfare and mobility. Extends to "manoeuvre" as in changing priorities quickly and adapting to achieve these flexible objectives.
 
This is an interesting topic. was reading a few days back on "efficiency" in war, and the point was exactly what you are saying about, I.e. The minimum damage necessary as this saves your own resources in the war effort but very likely makes it easier for you to rebuild assuming some or all the reconstruction bill/effort is yours after the war.

Then you touch on manoeuvre warfare and mobility. Extends to "manoeuvre" as in changing priorities quickly and adapting to achieve these flexible objectives.
That does not mean the days of the big bombs are over. The advent of improved sensor/guidance package mean that regardless of the size of the bomb, you will be able to deliver the maximum force to the point you want.

If the target is a hardened facility, improved guidance on the big bomb mean increased odds of total destruction of that facility since I will be able to deliver that big bomb at the precise structural point I want on that facility.

If on a strike mission, which sometimes means delaying the enemy's resupplying efforts to his own forces, I would rather have a load of SDBs where I can spread out the damages, to his troops and to his equipment.

If on an opportunistic mission, meaning you never know what you will find but hit whatever you find anyway, a load of SDBs would offer more flexibility in terms of area to patrol.

Ultimately, what you load depends on as much target intel as possible. But if that intel is not available, a readied SDB loadout would give the mission planners a much quicker response.

We did not have SDBs back in D-Storm and I wish we did. My F-16 would have been great with SDBs. With air refueling, a centerlined F-16C with all of its wing stores loaded with SDBs would have been a great asset on any short call CAS sortie.

Looking at this from an objective perspective. Pakistan and India are most likely immediate opponent to each other. No surprise there. :rolleyes:

The JF-17 with be great with SDBs and would be the most flexible air support and deterrence platform. The mountain range between the two countries belongs to Pakistan. That mountain range is both cover for air assaults and limited access points for any ground troops incursions. You guys live there and know your country better I do, but I would guess that this would be opportunistic sorties all the way.

Going thru the mountains on the ground is hard work. You are limited in forward speed and maneuvering room. It cost more fuel for your heavy equipment because you cannot adequately plan for slopes. Just as the mountains are cover for you, they are also cover for the enemy's air divisions. Your air cover is a beacon telling the other guy about you on the ground instead of a help.
 
JF-17 Max Take off weight gone up from 12400/12700 (12 + Ton) to 13.5 Tons, looks like will replace Mirages as well especially if Twin seaters with more external weight and range is possible , will see


upload_2016-8-21_13-14-45.png


upload_2016-8-21_13-17-18.png
 
JF-17 Max Take off weight gone up from 12400/12700 (12 + Ton) to 13.5 Tons, looks like will replace Mirages as well especially if Twin seaters with more external weight and range is possible , will see


View attachment 327876

View attachment 327877

Information about the JF 17 is very mixed up.

Indians still quote specs from 2008 but the JF 17 has improved s9 much since then
 
Back
Top Bottom