Hello brother what i was saying that yes it can carry 12-14 missile without a doubt but to actually use an air craft in such configuration in an actual combat is not a very realistic scenario, yes for pictures/show of force it will fly with 12-14 AAM missile in accords to the YAK-130 its hard points max out at 250 kg and wet plumb at 450 kg while the JFT max out is almost twice of the yak-130. Now where you are mistaken is calling the yak a "small trainer" it might be 10 or so feet shorter than the f-16/JFT but its wing area is greater from the JFT by utmost 14 inches and very near to the f-16 the yak just being off by a couple of inches.
One can classify the yak as a tandem seat light strike fighter or a light fighter which is also a very capable fighter
trainer.
I have attached some pictures of what some fighters are capable to carry and what they actually carry (hope you can count)
there are ways to make the jf-17 better but adding more hard points is not a potent benefit, DER can do the job for your 4 bvr fetish, what we actually need is the best radar and a longer ranged by maneuverable missile with out standing no-escape
Absolutely they are outstanding for photo shoot but not practicality, btw I have been reading your posts since i was 10
I apologize for my spelling mistakes I was in an extreme hurry but i hope you get the point
Exactly the reason why i joined PDF is that so many people compare things out of the category for the jf-17 and basically object, fuss and grouch about almost ever damn thing the jf-17 stands for, is it the ultra super beast beast mode fighter ....... NO! but can it do pakistan's required job
YES. It is hilarious to see what people think by no means am I an experts but I know some stuff.
NA POHEGUM ZU CHI MASALA SA DA DU TA