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
![2GUNS :guns: :guns:](/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/cute/2GUNS.gif)
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