JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[AsifIjaz]

Actually your wish was stupid to start with. Look at the pic above this post and calculate how much more internal space in an already a small airframe would be wasted to accommodate two feet longer landing gears (one folding forwards, the other backwards) and then make it impossible to hang anything on the centerline hardpoint

And you are an idiot to respond the way you did on a forum which is there to learn and discuss. It was clearly marked as a question and not a wish, that for some odd reason burned your behind as if I had stepped on ur tail.
Let us look at it this way, you thought it was an illogical question and you had a perfect justification for it, even then, a humble educated person would have answered the question, given a one liner or pointed out towards technical difficulty that you are blabbering out now. That is what a forum is for and that is how I and i am sure many like me, have learned a lot from posters out there.
Bottom line while responding to a general question which is not specifically directed to you, either be humble or simply put a sock in it.

 

[The Accountant]

And you are an idiot to respond the way you did on a forum which is there to learn and discuss. It was clearly marked as a question and not a wish, that for some odd reason burned your behind as if I had stepped on ur tail.
Let us look at it this way, you thought it was an illogical question and you had a perfect justification for it, even then, a humble educated person would have answered the question, given a one liner or pointed out towards technical difficulty that you are blabbering out now. That is what a forum is for and that is how I and i am sure many like me, have learned a lot from posters out there.
Bottom line while responding to a general question which is not specifically directed to you, either be humble or simply put a sock in it.

Cool down bro ignore it.

 

[Thorough Pro]

That carrying a tank itself was a sarcastic post incase you missed it.

Just a sarcastic post in response to carrying a tank as payload ... you can ignore it.

 

[araz]

@AsifIjaz and @Thorough Pro.
Brothers it was just a bit of banter between brothers. Dont mind it and move on. Please dont escalate it further by toing and froing posts.
Kind regards
A

 

[GriffinsRule]

That carrying a tank itself was a sarcastic post incase you missed it.

Yes I know ... I was adding to it lol

 

[The Accountant]

Bus ker do bhaiyon kya abb bachy ki jaan logy kya

 

[Thorough Pro]

Yes, then "Learn and discuss" don't suggest ludicrous solutions to a problem which does not even exist thinking you know better than the designers. Every equipment is designed with a specific role/function in mind, anyone can change that role in their own head and find a thousand shortcoming in the design. So the fault is not in the design rather your thinking.

I am tired of seeing extreme stupidity on JF-17 improvements, it's a 4th gen fighter jet, not LEGO toy that can be changed with every new iteration. Even the automakers who sell millions of cars every year don't make any changes to the chaises for 5/6 years.

and then there was one with a marker ruining every single thread showing the designers where they can hang extra missiles

You did exactly what ignorant people do, not learn and zip it, rather start ranting about it. Stupid questions deserve stupid answers. every newcomer who comes here to "learn and discuss" thinks he is the only genius who's come up with a bright idea so let's just vomit the stupidity on the forum rather than "learning" by going through millions of posts and then "discuss" in an educated manner instead of repeating the same stupidity a millionth time

And you are an idiot to respond the way you did on a forum which is there to learn and discuss. It was clearly marked as a question and not a wish, that for some odd reason burned your behind as if I had stepped on ur tail.
Let us look at it this way, you thought it was an illogical question and you had a perfect justification for it, even then, a humble educated person would have answered the question, given a one liner or pointed out towards technical difficulty that you are blabbering out now. That is what a forum is for and that is how I and i am sure many like me, have learned a lot from posters out there.
Bottom line while responding to a general question which is not specifically directed to you, either be humble or simply put a sock in it.

 

[ziaulislam]

Yes, then "Learn and discuss" don't suggest ludicrous solutions to a problem which does not even exist thinking you know better than the designers. Every equipment is designed with a specific role/function in mind, anyone can change that role in their own head and find a thousand shortcoming in the design. So the fault is not in the design rather your thinking.

I am tired of seeing extreme stupidity on JF-17 improvements, it's a 4th gen fighter jet, not LEGO toy that can be changed with every new iteration. Even the automakers who sell millions of cars every year don't make any changes to the chaises for 5/6 years.

and then there was one with a marker ruining every single thread showing the designers where they can hang extra missiles

You did exactly what ignorant people do, not learn and zip it, rather start ranting about it. Stupid questions deserve stupid answers. every newcomer who comes here to "learn and discuss" thinks he is the only genius who's come up with a bright idea so let's just vomit the stupidity on the forum rather than "learning" by going through millions of posts and then "discuss" in an educated manner instead of repeating the same stupidity a millionth time

are you telling me the f16, gripen, f18 and numerous other example aircrafts are not 4th gen aircrafts that saw massive external changes during their lifetime period..?

so asking such a question does show lack of knowledge but are not unrealistic or scy-fci or lego-like questions..
the reality is jf17 never went through major changes due to financial issues rather than anything else

 

[Thorough Pro]

I am afraid I can't give you a short answer to that. You'll have to look at a number of factors to understand.

All the western planes you mentioned are owned, designed, manufactured and sold by huge commercial organizations and all their development costs are funded by the US military. All their design changes come at the request of their Airforce, Air Guard, Navy, or Marine's request for a specific purpose.

Nothing is impossible. If a plane like JF-17 could be envisioned, designed, and manufactured in a short time, then it is not impossible to make any number of changes to its design, provided the organization that operates it feels the need, can justify the cost vs. benefits.

IF the PAF came up with a recommendation/proposal to make some changes in the Thunder design for a stated purpose, then it makes sense and justifies to discuss that, but just coming up with a stupid singular idea without mentioning the resulting negatives in other areas is only laughable.


Before making random suggestions, people should study the development of 2 seat version and see (and learn) how making a small change affects the total design of the product, how it affects other critical areas and how long it takes and how much it costs.

There was a reason PAF announced AZM project to start a new design from scratch. People should discuss all new ideas in that forum as the design is not confirmed/revealed yet. nobody knows what's the size of the final product, I won't mind if someone suggests hanging 6 ICBM's under its wings, you can't do that with Thunder, its design is firm.

are you telling me the f16, gripen, f18 and numerous other example aircrafts are not 4th gen aircrafts that saw massive external changes during their lifetime period..?

so asking such a question does show lack of knowledge but are not unrealistic or scy-fci or lego-like questions..
the reality is jf17 never went through major changes due to financial issues rather than anything else

 

[Tamiyah]

I am afraid I can't give you a short answer to that. You'll have to look at a number of factors to understand.

All the western planes you mentioned are owned, designed, manufactured and sold by huge commercial organizations and all their development costs are funded by the US military. All their design changes come at the request of their Airforce, Air Guard, Navy, or Marine's request for a specific purpose.

Nothing is impossible. If a plane like JF-17 could be envisioned, designed, and manufactured in a short time, then it is not impossible to make any number of changes to its design, provided the organization that operates it feels the need, can justify the cost vs. benefits.

IF the PAF came up with a recommendation/proposal to make some changes in the Thunder design for a stated purpose, then it makes sense and justifies to discuss that, but just coming up with a stupid singular idea without mentioning the resulting negatives in other areas is only laughable.


Before making random suggestions, people should study the development of 2 seat version and see (and learn) how making a small change affects the total design of the product, how it affects other critical areas and how long it takes and how much it costs.

There was a reason PAF announced AZM project to start a new design from scratch. People should discuss all new ideas in that forum as the design is not confirmed/revealed yet. nobody knows what's the size of the final product, I won't mind if someone suggests hanging 6 ICBM's under its wings, you can't do that with Thunder, its design is firm.

Cool down bruh.

 

[Armchair]

I think Gripen, JF-17, F-16, Mirage-2000 all have remained remarkably similar to their first production models so far. The Super Hornet was actually a political move to show Congress "its an upgrade of the same 'ol" to get funding after the end of the Cold War.

In reality, the Super Hornet is essentially a new aircraft. I would suggest a new airfame for the JF-17 subsystems (like radar, avionics, EW, etc) would essentially be a new aircraft and unlikely to retain the JF-17 nomenclature. An enlarged JF-17 as some members have been suggesting for so long would be a new development.

Making the landing gear taller by a bit opens up lots of opportunities..
Bigger weapons, multi launchers and even mirage style ext fuel tanks with arsenal attached to the tanks. I hope tht they would have given it a thought.

A few inches taller landing gear is plausible. I thought this was part of the block 3 upgrade but I may be wrong (distinctly remember seeing photos with markings of the same). I would imagine the airframe can also carry more so the landing gear would be beefed up a bit, unless the increased load is within the spec limits.

 

[araz]

Making the landing gear taller by a bit opens up lots of opportunities..
Bigger weapons, multi launchers and even mirage style ext fuel tanks with arsenal attached to the tanks. I hope tht they would have given it a thought.

I will go back to the original post. I think the answer is that making the landing gear longer interferes with the centreline point so not possible.
PAC seems to think it maybe easier to redesign weaponry rather than the landing gear so there is talk of redesigning RAAD and Raptor 3 wings have been modified to be able to carry it on the jft. With REKs various bombs can be guided to target from various distances so the need to modify landing gear seems less and less.
Regards
A

 

[MastanKhan]

Making the landing gear taller by a bit opens up lots of opportunities..
Bigger weapons, multi launchers and even mirage style ext fuel tanks with arsenal attached to the tanks. I hope tht they would have given it a thought.

Hi,

Before making posts like these---some personal educational professional background would have helped.

The one thing that is not easy to do is the increase in length of the landing gear of the JF17 or of other fighter aircraft.

Taller the landing gear---more unstable the aircraft at landings---because the aircraft---and easier to roll over---.

This process would generally involve the modification done on Grippen NG---a taller landing gear needs a wider wheel base---. Strengthening the structure strengthening the wings etc---. Not a simple job---but doable with some expense.

You might see it in the Blk 4.

 

[air marshal]

https://falcons.pk/photo/JF-17-Thunder/2425

 

[Syed1.]

Hi,

Before making posts like these---some personal educational professional background would have helped.

The one thing that is not easy to do is the increase in length of the landing gear of the JF17 or of other fighter aircraft.

Taller the landing gear---more unstable the aircraft at landings---because the aircraft---and easier to roll over---.

This process would generally involve the modification done on Grippen NG---a taller landing gear needs a wider wheel base---. Strengthening the structure strengthening the wings etc---. Not a simple job---but doable with some expense.

You might see it in the Blk 4.

Also taller/beefier landing gear means more internal space used up to stow it. In a small jet like Thunder that is already crammed for space, I do not think there is alot of spare space available for such an endeavor. Not to forget the added weight of such a landing gear, if you do not complement that with added thrust it reduces fighter performance.