JF-17 Thunder's Armament

[Khafee]

Hi,

It can carry those two missiles----but that is not the problem----. The issue is with the balance of the aircraft after 1 missile is launched----this thing weighs what like 900-1100 KG.

So the weight distribution is an issue---. Secondly---with two missiles on the wings---and only one center line fuel tank----the range and flying time of the aircraft is curtailed a lot.

Technically you can say yes we can have two missiles on the wings---and use it on short range missions when the enemy has already come within 150-200 miles of your shore.

But practically this system is there to keep the enemy 400-500 miles +++ away from the shore unless the enemy is ready to accept heavy losses and still push inwards.

Weight balancing is taken care of by the FBW system, insuring that the aircraft remains within it's set parameters.

 

[MastanKhan]

Weight balancing is taken care of by the FBW system, insuring that the aircraft remains within it's set parameters.

Hi,

I guess there are some issues with weight balancing----the AVM spoke about it in his interview posted on the forum---so--accordingly---it will only have 1 for the time being with 2 fuel tanks on the sides---.

Seems like that setup would be for on the hunt long range flight---and understanding it as mentioned by the AVM---so my assessment is that it would be to keep the enemy farther out----to keep it away from ship to surface strike distance.

But off course---2 can be loaded up for local duty if the intrusion has already occured and the enemy is with 200--250 miles away as compared to 450--500 miles away.

 

[Khafee]

Hi,

I guess there are some issues with weight balancing----the AVM spoke about it in his interview posted on the forum---so--accordingly---it will only have 1 for the time being with 2 fuel tanks on the sides---.

Seems like that setup would be for on the hunt long range flight---and understanding it as mentioned by the AVM---so my assessment is that it would be to keep the enemy farther out----to keep it away from ship to surface strike distance.

But off course---2 can be loaded up for local duty if the intrusion has already occured and the enemy is with 200--250 miles away as compared to 450--500 miles away.

Or you would like to fire 2 in a short time.

 

[Zarvan]

Hi,

I guess there are some issues with weight balancing----the AVM spoke about it in his interview posted on the forum---so--accordingly---it will only have 1 for the time being with 2 fuel tanks on the sides---.

Seems like that setup would be for on the hunt long range flight---and understanding it as mentioned by the AVM---so my assessment is that it would be to keep the enemy farther out----to keep it away from ship to surface strike distance.

But off course---2 can be loaded up for local duty if the intrusion has already occured and the enemy is with 200--250 miles away as compared to 450--500 miles away.

Please somebody tell me why we can't do this on JF-17. I mean multi racks on each hardpoint or at least those 4 under wings 2 on each side and change positions of landing gear a little and add two more hard points. @Windjammer @Oscar @Manticore @Dazzler and others

 

[MastanKhan]

Please somebody tell me why we can't do this on JF-17. I mean multi racks on each hardpoint or at least those 4 under wings 2 on each side and change positions of landing gear a little and add two more hard points. @Windjammer @Oscar @Manticore @Dazzler and others

Hi,

In some of my recent older posts that is what I have suggested that the BLK 4 may get some similar changes----. The aircraft needs to sit higher---wheels placed farther out----and that space used for extra fuel---current round fuel tanks need to be upgraded---shaped and designed like those on the newer grippen----.

The JF 17 can and must get an exact same uplift as that of the grippen in the blk 4---it is too late to do it in blk 3----.

 

[Zarvan]

Hi,

In some of my recent older posts that is what I have suggested that the BLK 4 may get some similar changes----. The aircraft needs to sit higher---wheels placed farther out----and that space used for extra fuel---current round fuel tanks need to be upgraded---shaped and designed like those on the newer grippen----.

The JF 17 can and must get an exact same uplift as that of the grippen in the blk 4---it is too late to do it in blk 3----.

But at least their would be one more hardpoint on BLOCK II and also Multi Racks for BVR

 

[JamD]

Hi,

I guess there are some issues with weight balancing----the AVM spoke about it in his interview posted on the forum---so--accordingly---it will only have 1 for the time being with 2 fuel tanks on the sides---.

Seems like that setup would be for on the hunt long range flight---and understanding it as mentioned by the AVM---so my assessment is that it would be to keep the enemy farther out----to keep it away from ship to surface strike distance.

But off course---2 can be loaded up for local duty if the intrusion has already occured and the enemy is with 200--250 miles away as compared to 450--500 miles away.

To add credence to your claim we know the JF17 has FBW only in the pitch axis so they probably would have to install some sort of lateral autopilot to the automatic balancing in roll. Perhaps a trim adjustment just won't be enough.

Please somebody tell me why we can't do this on JF-17. I mean multi racks on each hardpoint or at least those 4 under wings 2 on each side and change positions of landing gear a little and add two more hard points. @Windjammer @Oscar @Manticore @Dazzler and others

There is also the issue of how much weight each hard point can carry. It's not just a matter of how many things you can physically connect to a hard point.

 

[MastanKhan]

But at least their would be one more hardpoint on BLOCK II and also Multi Racks for BVR

Hi,

It is not the missiles----we need more fuel---to keep the aircraft in the air for longer period of times----. The missiles are important-----. But to be in the air for longer period of times is equally or more important.

 

[Zarvan]

Hi,

It is not the missiles----we need more fuel---to keep the aircraft in the air for longer period of times----. The missiles are important-----. But to be in the air for longer period of times is equally or more important.

But more hard points mean more fuel and more weapons and also multi racks specially for BVR and bombs would be great boost

 

[Windjammer]

Please somebody tell me why we can't do this on JF-17. I mean multi racks on each hardpoint or at least those 4 under wings 2 on each side and change positions of landing gear a little and add two more hard points. @Windjammer @Oscar @Manticore @Dazzler and others

We are already witnessing improvements being made in JF-17's weapon carrying capabilities, from single to dual racks and lately after wing root strengthening, it's now able to carry a Mk-84 under each wing, something until now, only the F-16 was capable of doing.

 

[MastanKhan]

We are already witnessing improvements being made in JF-17's weapon carrying capabilities, from single to dual racks and lately after wing root strengthening, it's now able to carry a Mk-84 under each wing, something until now, only the F-16 was capable of doing.

Hi,

Promise less---deliver more.

To add credence to your claim we know the JF17 has FBW only in the pitch axis so they probably would have to install some sort of lateral autopilot to the automatic balancing in roll. Perhaps a trim adjustment just won't be enough.


There is also the issue of how much weight each hard point can carry. It's not just a matter of how many things you can physically connect to a hard point.

Hi,

Thank you for your comments. What would interest me more than anything is the loiter time on this aircraft---.

If the fuel tanks are re-designed like the upgraded Gripen----that will add somewhere from 75 to a 125 gals of fuel---which would substantially increase the loiter time of the aircraft---.

But then I guess the weight factor of each loaded fuel tanks comes into play as well---and how much each hardpoint can carry as you mentioned----which then possibly means that a streamlined conformal fuel tank would be a better solution.

 

[Viper0011.]

Hi,

In some of my recent older posts that is what I have suggested that the BLK 4 may get some similar changes----. The aircraft needs to sit higher---wheels placed farther out----and that space used for extra fuel---current round fuel tanks need to be upgraded---shaped and designed like those on the newer grippen----.

The JF 17 can and must get an exact same uplift as that of the grippen in the blk 4---it is too late to do it in blk 3----.

If you want to do that, then Pakistan should just pay for J-10B/C TOT and call that block III / IV. That would make perfect sense. The technology set put into both air-frames (the current one and the future J-10B/C one) will be the same. So it shouldn't have extra maintenance cost. But Pakistan will get Rafale comparable, upgraded heavier jet.

For the current air-frames, MERS are a must have. I'd imagine in block III, those would be available.

 

[JamD]

Hi,

Promise less---deliver more.




Hi,

Thank you for your comments. What would interest me more than anything is the loiter time on this aircraft---.

If the fuel tanks are re-designed like the upgraded Gripen----that will add somewhere from 75 to a 125 gals of fuel---which would substantially increase the loiter time of the aircraft---.

But then I guess the weight factor of each loaded fuel tanks comes into play as well---and how much each hardpoint can carry as you mentioned----which then possibly means that a streamlined conformal fuel tank would be a better solution.

I fear the aircraft is just too small for us to increase its loiter time by any significant amount practically. I would focus more on decreasing structural weight if we can invest a large sum of money into composites research. I have a feeling that would go a longer way in improving loiter time and/or payload.

 

[Manticore]

 

[Arsalan]

It looks like these missed the target by a huge margin, mile or so i would say!
Doesn't look like guided munitions anyway!