JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[The SC]

Your posts amaze me. You write about every topic and so far, it appears that 90% of the time, you have no idea or expertise about that topic, and it shows up pretty darn clear from your posts. But you write with so much authority that it appears you were a part of the issue when it took place .

Looking at the bold part from your post, "Theoretically the combo B1-F22-F35 might work"...since when did the world's largest and most combat proven air-force (the USAF) needed "your" input to realize what can or can't happen theoretically or in reality? . The rest of the post isn't worth responding to as an individual's statement means nothing when compared to the most professional combat organization's ops tactics. Sorry.

When answering relevant questions is beyond your knowledge, do not rant , keep your shame for yourself and do not hide behind the US armed forces in everyone of your posts. you showed so much ignorance to members of this forum that you should be ashamed of yourself..

 

[DJ_Viper]

When answering relevant questions is beyond your knowledge, do not rant , keep your shame for yourself and do not hide behind the US armed forces in everyone of your posts. you showed so much ignorance to members of this forum that you should be ashamed of yourself..

That's it? I responded to your other thread about the Oil issue and how OPEC and the Market work, vs. your comprehension. You've not responded to it. Nor will you (unless the response was like above, just personals, no sense or logic in any of your posts). Also, common sense wise, an individual giving their "expert" (not) opinion against an entire force is dumb. The last thing the USAF or anyone needs, is mine or your input. No one's hiding behind the American military, I am just explaining to you that the way you comment on stuff with total lack of experience, yet, authority is really grandiosity.

People see through bullshiit on air in a few sentences. You should research an issue before commenting on it like experts. That is all the advise I can give you.

By the way, the F-22 and F-35 are Stealth jets, the B1B's are stealth optimized and can carry 84 tons of weapons. 2-4% of B1B flights during the Iraqi war dropped 40-50% of all munitions . And 96-98% of the remainder of flights were done by all other American air and naval platforms with remainder of like 50% of the weapon loads dropped over so many weeks. That's B1B for ya . Don't forget my advice, research something before sounding like an authority on stuff.

 

[The SC]

That's it? I responded to your other thread about the Oil issue and how OPEC and the Market work, vs. your comprehension. You've not responded to it. Nor will you (unless the response was like above, just personals, no sense or logic in any of your posts). Also, common sense wise, an individual giving their "expert" (not) opinion against an entire force is dumb. The last thing the USAF or anyone needs, is mine or your input. No one's hiding behind the American military, I am just explaining to you that the way you comment on stuff with total lack of experience, yet, authority is really grandiosity.

People see through bullshiit on air in a few sentences. You should research an issue before commenting on it like experts. That is all the advise I can give you.

By the way, the F-22 and F-35 are Stealth jets, the B1B's are stealth optimized and can carry 84 tons of weapons. 2-4% of B1B flights during the Iraqi war dropped 40-50% of all munitions . And 96-98% of the remainder of flights were done by all other American air and naval platforms with remainder of like 50% of the weapon loads dropped over so many weeks. That B1B for ya . Don't forget my advice, research something before sounding like an authority on stuff.

Are you talking to yourself?

 

[Khafee]

Are you talking to yourself?

He has an old habit of doing that, ignore him.

 

[The SC]

The JF-17 III: Major Changes Ahead on JF-17 Block-3
Country PortfolioPakistan
Aug 30, 2015

Previous articles on Quwa discussed why the JF-17 is a significant advancement for the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). Not only is the JF-17 an effective multi-role platform that is poised to form the backbone of the PAF fighter fleet, but it is immune to sanctions, and it is a program that Pakistan ‘owns’ in terms of being able to freely decide on how to equip and develop it. With this article, it would be a good idea to have a clearer understanding of exactly what the PAF has in store for the JF-17 in the coming years in terms of its upgrade and development path. By the end of this piece, there should be little doubt in the seriousness of the PAF in as far as its commitment to the JF-17 is concerned.

The first upgrade to the JF-17 is at this time coming through the Block-2. The first JF-17 Block-2 made its maiden flight in February 2015, and it is the current production type rolling out of Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) Kamra. The Block-2 is at heart an iterative update, so it would not be right to assume that it includes significant improvements or changes over the Block-1 currently in service.

Arguably, the most significant change in the Block-2 is the incorporation of an air-to-air refuelling (AAR) probe, and this will enable the JF-17 to refuel in-flight with the support of the PAF’s IL-78 tankers. The Block-2 also incorporates improvements in the JF-17’s avionics and electronic suites, but there are no specific details. There are rumours about a KLJ-7V2 pulse-Doppler radar with increased range, but this has not been confirmed by the PAF or PAC. If one were to simply refer to this piece by Jane’s, it would seem that the Block-2’s goal is to increase the JF-17’s flight-time (via in-flight refuelling and improved oxygen systems) and mission usefulness (in-flight refuelling can free up hard-points that would otherwise be used for external fuel-tanks). The 51st to 100th JF-17s will be Block-2.

The first major jump is in reality the JF-17 Block-3, which is currently in development. There are no known airframe updates or changes in the Block-3, but in terms of electronics, it is essentially confirmed that the JF-17 Block-3 will house an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Helmet Mounted Display and Sight (HMD/S) system, and possibly an additional hard-point suitable for specialized targeting and tracking pods. This article will breakdown each of these aspects, but if taken together (alongside a suitably upgraded avionics and ECM/EW suite), the Block-3 is positioned to be a significant upgrade.

Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar

The integration of an AESA radar is perhaps the most important development in the JF-17’s upgrade path. AESA radars are complex and expensive systems, but they are a standard feature of 4.5 generation fighters such as the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon. In a battlefield environment that is increasingly ridden with electronic warfare, AESA radars can help fighter aircraft resist enemy jamming, thus helping said fighters successfully engage their targets.


Selex ES Vixen AESA Radar. The Vixen 1000E might be in contention for use on the JF-17 Block-3. Photo credit: Selex ES

An AESA radar is equipped with many small solid-state transmit/receive modules (TRM), and each TRM is capable of emitting its own radio wave. There are many advantages borne out of this arrangement.

The first is “low probability of intercept.” For example, an older radar would typically send out a single signal per pulse, and that signal will be received by the target’s receiver. Over time, that receiver will recognize that the specific signal that “stands out” of the environment (or background noise) is an enemy’s radar, and thus, the aircraft using its radar will have its presence exposed. An AESA radar on the other hand is much more difficult for radar warning receivers (RWR) to interpret as that radar is not just one unit sending one signal, but many small TRMs sending different signals. In general, RWRs would have difficulty pinpointing a peculiar signal (or limited set of signals) from the background noise, thus giving the AESA-equipped aircraft a “low probability of intercept.” In general terms, the AESA- equipped fighter is more difficult to detect.

The second advantage is higher resistance to jamming (from an adversary’s electronic warfare suites). Older radars cannot as easily change their frequencies, and as a result, a jamming system would have a higher chance of registering that specific frequency and sending out that very same one to confuse the pulsing aircraft. Modern radars could change their frequencies with every successive pulse, but an AESA radar could go a step further by emitting different frequencies within a single pulse. Here, jamming would become much more difficult as there is no single frequency to expose from the background noise. Given that an AESA radar is composed of different TRMs transmitting discrete signals, groups of TRM can be allocated to take on specific tasks, e.g. one can engage in targeting, the other in counter-jamming.

If the JF-17 were equipped an AESA radar, its ability to withstand enemy jamming as well as close in on enemy targets with a low probability of intercept would make it a much more effective system. That said, it is important to note that while an AESA radar can offer these advantages, it is imperative that one not sacrifice tracking range and engagement capabilities. If the PAF wishes to see the JF-17 Block-3 substantially improve upon the Block-1 and Block-2, then it should ensure that its AESA radar substantially improves upon the KLJ-7’s range and ability to engage targets. In other words, the JF-17 Block-3’s AESA radar could very well be an expensive system, and that will likely serve as an impediment.

Speaking of impediments, there is also the question of sourcing. In an article meant for the 2015 Paris Air Show, Alan Warnes (a very credible PAF watcher) noted that a radar from the British-Italian firm Selex ES was in the running. On a DefenseNews piece, retired PAF Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail was quoted saying, “Given the Western concerns about transfer of sensitive technology, which could find its way further east, I think we may have had no other option but to buy Chinese.” This is an extremely important point. AESA technology is new and it is very sensitive, so the PAF can (and likely will) run into serious issues when it comes to Western suppliers (e.g. the latter might demand overbearing checks and guarantees, and possibly refuse to let Pakistan produce the radars locally). It is very likely that the PAF will ultimately eschew its Western options and go Chinese, especially if the latter enables the PAF to learn and understand AESA technology more deeply and bring this prized technology to local production.

Helmet Mounted Display & Sight (HMD/S)

The incorporation of HMD/S is also a very important step for the JF-17. An HMD/S is basically a visor equipped with optical and processing systems (in other words, a ‘smart display’). Current day HMD/S systems like the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing and Sight (JHMCS) system enable a fighter pilot to cue their air-to-air and air-to-surface weapon systems to the direction of where his or her head is pointing. Targets can be designated and engaged with minimal aircraft maneuvering, thereby increasing the efficiency (and thus lethality) of the fighter in combat.

Although slotted for the Block-3, it seems the PAF was at least toying with the idea of some kind of HMD on JF-17 for a few years. The proof for that is this screen-capture (below) taken from a PAF documentary from 2008 called “In Pursuit of Self Reliance.” Although the PAF could have tacked on a random image, there is a clear hint that this particular system (which has a startling resemblance to the Denel Archer from South Africa) may have been at least tested by the PAF. For one thing, the Gentex MBU-5/P oxygen mask that was – at least in 2008 – the standard issue mask for PAF fighter pilots (though that is gradually being supplanted with current MBU-20/23 masks). Moreover, this specific photo was only ever shown on the PAF documentary and nowhere else prior.


A HMD/S system showcased on the PAF documentary “In Pursuit of Self Reliance.” The system shown here has some close similarities to the South African Denel Archer.

This image would suggest that the PAF was (and possibly still is) cooperating with numerous foreign vendors on the JF-17’s HMD/S system, especially if the Brazilian-South African A-Darter high-off-bore-sight (HOBS) within visual range air-to-air missile (WVRAAM) is in the running for use on JF-17. A HOBS WVRAAM can be paired with an HMD/S system to allow the pilot to utilize the system’s cueing advantages in dogfights with enemy fighter aircraft.

At this stage it is difficult to see exactly where the HMD/S system will come from, but there is a chance that this might be a solution that is heavily centric to the PAF’s specific needs. In other words, the HMD/S might in fact end up being an indigenously-sourced solution developed with external assistance, primarily Chinese with peripheral South African, European and possibly even Turkish support. The rationale for this argument is the reality that the JF-17’s HMD/S will need to be accessible to the full range of potentially compatible air-to-air and air-to-surface munitions in use by the PAF. An imported solution with limited access to the technology will limit the PAF from freely using the system, thus mitigating the actual need and advantage of the JF-17.


A JHMCS being used by a PAF F-16D pilot. Photo credit: PAFWallpapers

It is important to note that the PAF already uses an HMD/S system with its F-16s, the Boeing JHMCS. There is a good chance that the JHMCS is in fact influencing the PAF’s idea of a suitable HMD/S, and as a result, one might see the PAF’s solution adopt a few similar characteristics. For example, the JHMCS was designed to be adapted to a modified HGU-55/P helmet, the standard issue helmet in use by the U.S Air Force and many other air forces, including that of Pakistan’s. Modularity and flexibility are key advantages to have, and a possible solution might even mirror the Thales Visionix “Scorpion” Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS). The Scorpion was developed to essentially fit onto the HGU-55/P helmet with an add-on mount, the mount could also be used to fit night-vision-goggles (NVG) in lieu of the HMD/S visor.

Additional Station for Specialized Targeting Pods

It is possible, though not clearly verified, that the JF-17 Block-3 would have an additional station or hard-point (likely under the fuselage, by the ‘chin’) to house special-purpose targeting pods.


The Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod

One incredibly useful-kind of pod would be a system similar in form and function to the Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod. The Sniper (which is also used on the PAF’s F-16s) is a multi-purpose pod that allows for tracking, targeting and engagement irrespective of the time of day or the weather. The Sniper can be paired with a wide range of air-to-surface weapon systems, including laser-guided bombs (LGB) and TV-guided stand-off missiles such as the AGM-65 Maverick.


The Chinese WMD-7 targeting pod. It is similar in form and function to the Sniper, and it may be used on the PAF’s JF-17s in the near future.

Although the JF-17 could house such a pod in one of its existing hard-points, if the pod were in fact light and deployable in a separate area, the JF-17 would be able to utilize all of its existing stations for actual munitions (and fuel-tanks, if aerial refuelling were not available or sufficient). An advanced targeting pod could greatly improve the JF-17’s capacity to undertake stand-alone (i.e. without satellite-aided guidance) precision-strikes using LGBs such as the LT-2 as well as TV-based stand-off glide-bombs such as the locally produced H2 and H4.

Possible Additions and Upgrades

One system that would be of use to the JF-17 is Infrared Search and Track (IRST). Ideally, the IRST system ought to be integrated into the nosecone of the fighter, but it is unclear if the PAF is actually going to take this route. IRST can be used to track enemy aircraft based on thermal signature using infrared, which allows for passive tracking (as opposed to the active tracking of a radar, which sends out pulses). In a scenario where enemy electronic warfare capabilities are of exceptional depth or where there is need to reduce the probability of intercept to the absolute minimum (below that of an even an AESA radar), an IRST-system can be used instead of radar. An IRST system can be paired with a 5th-generation HOBS WVRAAM, enabling the JF-17 to dogfight with minimal effects from enemy EW jamming.

Another area of discussion is the JF-17’s turbofan engine, the Russian RD-93 (a variant of the RD-33 used on the MiG-29). A higher thrust engine such as the in-development RD-93MA can help the JF-17 in achieving a better thrust-to-weight-ratio (TWR), enabling improved maneuverability, speed and payload. Again, it is unclear if an engine change is on the horizon for the JF-17 program, and if so, whether it would be incorporated as early as the Block-3. A new engine may be more likely on a later variant, especially if said variant exhibits a lighter airframe (as a result of a higher proportion of composite use).

Concluding Remarks

When taken collectively, the major changes coming with the JF-17 Block-3 will offer a significant leap for the PAF. It is important to remember that this upgrade will not be confined to a few planes, but in time it will be diffused across the rest of the PAF’s JF-17 fleet. The Block-3 will probably be the upgrade that defines the JF-17 more as a high-tech asset and a potent force-multiplier.

http://quwa.org/2015/08/30/jf-17-iii-jf-17-block-3/

Photoshop of Blk 3

 

[Naif al Hilali]

You aren't making any sense. But its cool. May be my response should be "Two Thousand Apologies"?

"A Thousand Apologies" -
Caricature of the Oriental being subservient to superior (or is it supercilious) White Man's Knowledge

Albert Moses as Ranjeet Singh in Mind Your Language (1977-1979)

among other tropes of this genre.

Come on bro, for a fellow Texan you seem to lack the wit, the self-deprecation, and the great poetry and command of language I always admired there, specially among my friends living out in the country away from the suburbs.

Anyway, please don't take offense; like you said, it's all cool.

Hope to say goodbye to the Russian engines as soon as possible

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

The RD-93's are excellent value for the money. For the same capitalization, you can buy two to three times as many engines, the engines have decent performance across the board (compared to the F-100 generation), are proving to be as reliable as the later (improved) F-100s, and lifetime operating costs even considering a conservative life-span of 1,800 hours are pretty decent.

That's because JF17 engine is RD33 engine.This engine is often appear inadequate lean oxygen combustion phenomenon.So it looks dirty.

F16 and F15 engines don't need to waste gas.

Smokeless combustors have nothing to do with fuel consumption. The RD-93 is as efficient as the F-100 and F-404, less so than the F-414 and the even more excellent EJ-200.

My take is that it would be better to go for something based on the newer RD-33's in the future, with smokeless combustors, a little more dry power, and 2,500-4,000 hours life-spans. The extremely low Russian/Chinese prices cannot simply be beaten.

 

[gambit]

What is the RCS of a B1 Lancer?
What is its radar range?
What is the range of the missiles it carries?

You have no need to know.

Theoretically the combo B1-F22-F35 might works, but the questions above deal with reality..

The USAF have a better than average record of turning the theoretical into the practical. People have learned the hard way.

When answering relevant questions is beyond your knowledge, do not rant , keep your shame for yourself and do not hide behind the US armed forces in everyone of your posts. you showed so much ignorance to members of this forum that you should be ashamed of yourself..

Take your own advice.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...62/pentagon-announces-arsenal-plane-platform/

The questions you asked may give the impression to others that you know what you are talking about, but that impression does not work on me.

When it comes to what we can do with our hardware, we do not need, nor do we solicit, the opinions of anyone else. If we say we can make the B-1B and stealth fighters combination work, you can bet your life that we will make it work.

 

[Naif al Hilali]

You have no need to know.


The USAF have a better than average record of turning the theoretical into the practical. People have learned the hard way.


Take your own advice.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...62/pentagon-announces-arsenal-plane-platform/

The questions you asked may give the impression to others that you know what you are talking about, but that impression does not work on me.

When it comes to what we can do with our hardware, we do not need, nor do we solicit, the opinions of anyone else. If we say we can make the B-1B and stealth fighters combination work, you can bet your life that we will make it work.

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

The B-1B's frontal Radar Cross section [RCS] is reported to be in the sub 1.0 square meter class. It also has decent enough RCS figures from other aspects as well as some thermal signature management, and excellent acceleration and disengagement speeds up to Mach 1.2 at all altitudes.

Importantly, it already has excellent avionics with good jamming modes. There is huge room for expansion and the Sniper pod is already integrated - stealthily integrated Eagle Eyes type Infra-Red Search and Tracking [IRST] units are also doable.

An arsenal version will probably be equipped with something like the SABR-derived Active Electronically Scanned Array [AESA] radar version that has been developed for the B-1B, rather than its current radar.

With a larger antenna than the F-16, tracking and engagement ranges might be in the 200 nautical miles range for fighter-sized targets but something like the Navy's NIFC-CA connectivity system would probably be more suitable for it, to let it employ comparatively more forward-deployed stealth-optimized F-35s, F/A-18Gs, etc. and occasional use of their Low Probability of Intercept [LPI] radar modes while itself keeping silent.

Dozens of AIM-120Ds could be carried inside so engagement will be limited to their range capabilities, probably in the 50+ nautical miles zone. Development of ramjet AIM 120s (currently dropped, presumably) or adaptation of the smaller versions of the Standard Missile line would be desirable.

I normally detest arsenal planes (the Boeing 747 version from a couple of decades back was laughable and completely unsurvivable in combat) but this model would make sense to me with the USAF's coming paucity of air-superiority airframes and the F-35's lack of sufficient internal carriage of air-to-air weapons. It is more the long reach and endurance, time on patrol, and a dedicated air warfare crew station that are more important operationally than the huge numbers of missiles that most people find salivating - I would rather have 16 SM-type missiles than 48 AMRAAMs.

Anyway, everyone is entitled to an opinion and questions unless this is not that type of forum anymore. In that case, I will just shut up and you all can have the administrators delete my account.

 

[DJ_Viper]

whats does it states ? whats is AF2k

So F404 and F414 has same issue???

I think its APU/Jet fuel starters exhaust causing spots

Almost all the engines, whether jet or commercial, have some oil leak issue. GE's reportedly have it the lowest (with their F4XXX and PW's F10XXX series put on the jets due to multi-cycle combustion techniques used, (aka, advanced combustion techniques). Hell, a Mercedes Benz engines put onto trucks can give you a little oil leaks here and there. We are talking about massive engines running their turbines at very high speed with very high heat.

The American and Western platforms in general, are maintained very well. So even a small leak is checked and cleansed at the Depot visit. Many other countries may not have that much intensive maintenance so you'd see oil spots on their planes. Its just a common process. The JFT shows more, because the RD-93 was the first design of the Russian jet manufacturing based on advance principles of combustion (created in 1991 I think?, but the design itself was being used since the 70's in the West). So this engine would have some issues. Hopefully, the MA version of RD-93 would have more advanced techniques used in it and that would reduce the oil leakage to the majority of the degree, and the Carbon emission as well. Thanks

You have no need to know.

The USAF have a better than average record of turning the theoretical into the practical. People have learned the hard way.

When it comes to what we can do with our hardware, we do not need, nor do we solicit, the opinions of anyone else. If we say we can make the B-1B and stealth fighters combination work, you can bet your life that we will make it work.

Thanks Gambit. Exactly what I was trying to explain. Its silly to argue or challenge the most professional organization's tactics and operations. All modern air-force's send their best pilots to the Red Flag to learn ops + tactics from our guys and deploy those in their country later.

But we have some internet warriors here who won't get that logic.

 

[CHINA83NEWS]

Then which is suitable for it?

Can but all the data I have reaction after Posting a bit time consuming.

 

[The SC]

You have no need to know.


The USAF have a better than average record of turning the theoretical into the practical. People have learned the hard way.


Take your own advice.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...62/pentagon-announces-arsenal-plane-platform/

The questions you asked may give the impression to others that you know what you are talking about, but that impression does not work on me.

When it comes to what we can do with our hardware, we do not need, nor do we solicit, the opinions of anyone else. If we say we can make the B-1B and stealth fighters combination work, you can bet your life that we will make it work.

You can keep your fiction to yourself.. yes I know it is just an Idea, but till it comes into practice, we'll wait and see.. Do not feel you are Gods.. The US armed forces have failed in many endeavors.. not all ideas are practical!
Answer the questions for yourself, I know the answers as you expected.. if that hurts you or doesn't suite your mind, refrain from answering.. you are a professional aircraft mechanic, not a DARPA think thank, so keep things in proportion please..
By the way this is a thread about JF-17, stop derailing it with your trolling along with your "friends"!!!

 

[MastanKhan]

You have no need to know.


The USAF have a better than average record of turning the theoretical into the practical. People have learned the hard way.


Take your own advice.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...62/pentagon-announces-arsenal-plane-platform/

The questions you asked may give the impression to others that you know what you are talking about, but that impression does not work on me.

When it comes to what we can do with our hardware, we do not need, nor do we solicit, the opinions of anyone else. If we say we can make the B-1B and stealth fighters combination work, you can bet your life that we will make it work.

Hi,

Only if it was that easy to comprehend what the true capabilities of the USAF---.

People have no reference point to judge to understand where the USAF stands apart from the rest of the world---.

You can keep your fiction to yourself.. yes I know it it is an Idea, but till it comes into practice, we'll wait and see.. Do not feel you are Gods.. The US armed forces have failed in many endeavors.. not all ideas are practical!
Answer the questions for yourself, I know the answers as you expected.. if that hurts you or doesn't suite your mind, refrain from answering.. you are a professional aircraft mechanic, not a DARPA think thank, so keep things in proportion please..
By the way this is a thread about JF-17, stop derailing it with your trolling along with your "friends"!!!

Hi,

Please name one place they have failed---.

And by the time you are able to realize---there will be a flash and then darkness.

And no reason to insult the poster just because you are feeling impotent.

 

[The SC]

Hi,

Only if it was that easy to comprehend what the true capabilities of the USAF---.

People have no reference point to judge to understand where the USAF stands apart from the rest of the world---.



Hi,

Please name one place they have failed---.

And by the time you are able to realize---there will be a flash and then darkness.

And no reason to insult the poster just because you are feeling impotent.

Hi there, feeling impotent is some big word.. they have failed in many instances, they have failed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan for instance, with all their might, they have fought small countries and they needed coalitions to do that, otherwise it was impossible!

But here to the point:
15 of the most expensive projects abandoned by the US military
http://www.businessinsider.com/some-of-the-militarys-most-expensive-sunk-cost-projects-2016-4

Top 10 Failed Defense Programs of the RMA Era
http://warontherocks.com/2014/12/top-10-failed-defense-programs-of-the-rma-era/

How To Waste $100 Billion: Weapons That Didn't Work Out
How To Waste $100 Billion: Weapons That Didn't Work Out

And the list goes on.. have a good read it might expand your knowledge.. I understand you defending a fellow mechanic, but there is no need to go to insults, I don't post what I do not know about.. your fellow citizen has a false high esteem of himself , I know the books he posts from and he is too emotional, you can go to the Chinese forum and see what he thinks of others, I knew very young that Americans used to think they were gods *not surprised from their concept that modern civilization is based about Greek civilization, skipping everything else", they were believing in Greek mythology and unfortunately some still do, like your friend you are defending, hope you didn't get influenced by this Mythology.. .
A sudden flash and than darkness also apply to the US, that is why they are spending hundreds of billions$ trying to prevent it.. but nothing is sure, it still applies to the US too..
While I am saying this, I have no negative thoughts about Americans, in fact I had and still have great American friends.. I was responding to arrogance of your friend, please read his post before mine and see how he tried to avoid the questions in his first sentence! by being arrogant and stupid at the same time.. Buy where do you see an insult in my post?

And here is the article about the arsenal "concept":
The US Air Force wants to deploy ‘arsenal planes’ to improve the F-35’s limited firepower

One of the limits of stealth aircraft, including the F-35, is that they have to carry their armaments in internal bays if they want to remain in full stealth mode. While it’s possible to mount external hardware on the aircraft, doing so hurts its stealth profile. The problem with the internal bays is that they don’t hold much in the way of ordnance. The F-22 carries six beyond-visual-range missiles, while the F-35 can currently hold just four.

The Air Force has a proposed solution to this problem — so-called “arsenal” planes, which would be remotely guided by fighter aircraft. As the name implies, an arsenal plane is a bomber or cargo plane that’s been retrofitted to carry a variety of mission-specific missiles and precision-guided ordnance. It’s an idea that the Air Force is borrowing from the Navy, which converted four Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines (called “Boomers”) into multi-role vessels that also carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Twenty-two of the 24 Trident missile tubes were converted to hold seven Tomahawks each, while the remaining two tubes were outfitted for use by Special Forces.


An Ohio-class “boomer” converted into an SSGN — nuclear-powered guided missile submarine.

An arsenal plane would fill a similar role. In this scenario, the fighter jet is a scout that relays precision targeting information back to the arsenal plane. The arsenal plane then fires its own precision-guided ordnance at the target.

Parts of this system are already in place, thanks to precision targeting upgrades to bombers like the B-1B and B-52. But the Air Force is taking the concept further, envisioning a network of datalinks between fighter aircraft, surveillance craft, arsenal planes, bombers, and close air support planes like the A-10. The result would be a comprehensively networked fighting force with arsenal planes fed data on virtually every aspect of the battlefield in real time.

There are multiple potential advantages to the arsenal plane concept. Stealth aircraft could still serve as potent scouts, even when they’d exhausted their weapons, and the project would retrofit existing craft rather than building new vehicles from scratch. The current proposal doesn’t specify which aircraft would be tapped for this duty; Foxtrot Alpha speculates that the B-1B is more likely than the B-52, since the latter has a specific nuclear mission, and that we might see lower-end arsenal craft built from C-130 transport planes as well.

Whether the Air Force will continue to pursue the project long-term is still unknown. There are ongoing projects to develop smaller munitions that fit into the F-35’s weapon bays more effectively and external weapon pods with stealth characteristics. Modestly expanding the firepower of the F-22 or F-35 isn’t as revolutionary as deploying precision-guided flying missile turrets, but it might be simpler and easier to deploy in the long run.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...planes-to-improve-the-f-35s-limited-firepower

But for your friend it is already there and functional and he knows all about it..

 

[gambit]

You can keep your fiction to yourself.. yes I know it is just an Idea, but till it comes into practice, we'll wait and see.. Do not feel you are Gods.. The US armed forces have failed in many endeavors.. not all ideas are practical!

This is where your limited mind is evident. Nowhere have I or other Americans on this forum even implied we are perfect.

How would you know if an idea is 'impractical' unless you actually put it into the real world ?

If you want to criticize shortsightedness, look at the Soviet Union when they dismissed Ufimtsev's math as nothing of value. We took it, ran with it, and the world have 'stealth'.

In the progress towards success, there must be failures, but all that does is prove to US that there are methods and/or paths that are inapplicable to our goals. The fact that the US military continues to lead the world in terms of technology and tactics should have clued you in that the only constraint for US is money, not creativity and certainly not persistence at a problem.

 

[The SC]

This is where your limited mind is evident. Nowhere have I or other Americans on this forum even implied we are perfect.

How would you know if an idea is 'impractical' unless you actually put it into the real world ?

If you want to criticize shortsightedness, look at the Soviet Union when they dismissed Ufimtsev's math as nothing of value. We took it, ran with it, and the world have 'stealth'.

In the progress towards success, there must be failures, but all that does is prove to US that there are methods and/or paths that are inapplicable to our goals. The fact that the US military continues to lead the world in terms of technology and tactics should have clued you in that the only constraint for US is money, not creativity and certainly not persistence at a problem.

Limited mind is yours, you just prove it in your post.. you seem to have no arguments left, you repeat what I was telling you in different words..glad you can understand a bit because money is not the limit for the US.. What has happened to the US hyper speed vessel? Star wars? Some ideas are just not practical! The arsenal plane project might be but not for sure.. read post # 1003 again, the part in red, you might understand what I mean..but for that you need to take some covers from your mind and expand it a bit..

Now let's get back on topic.. to remind you again this is a JF-17 thread, what has it to do wit the US asenal plane , Pakistan does not have the B1B!!!