JF-XX(Strike Fighter)

[SQ8]

AZM is along similar concept ideas - an evolution of the JF-17.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Firstly who will finance the R&D cost? For Thunder cost was shared 50/50 between Pakistan & China. In case Chinese are not interested, can Pakistan afford to finance the development all by herself?

There won't be any major R&D apart from flight testing of new wing configuration.

Assuming R&D matters have been resolved. Since the availability of US origin engine is out of the question; is there any Russian or Chinese power plant available that would enable the new fighter to achieve near Mach 1 at sea level, and Mach 2 at altitude with a clean T/W ratio of >1.1, load carrying capacity of about 10,000 KG (16,000 lbs) and range of about 1000 Km at Hi-lo-lo on internal fuel? Because I have a feeling that while the design of the airframe is within the realm of probability, lack of a suitable engine may kill the project.

Sir,we don't need 10,000 kg of payload,the idea of using PGM's with pinpoint accuracy like
GBU-39/53 Small Diameter Bombs or BLU 105 isn't bomb truck supportive.
RD 93 is alreading powering JFT and we are ok with 3 fuel tanks config.Mirage 5/3 is powered by engine which gives it 9436 lbf try thrust,load carrying and range capability is 1,250 km (675 nmi, 777 mi) hi-lo-hi profile, payload two 400 kg bomb and max external fuel.Total payload is 4000kg.Total internal fuel is in between 2350 L to 3340 L,while Mirage 2000 14500 lbf engine is giving it payload of 6300kg.
Now JF-XX SF

• RD 93 would provide 11,105 of dry thrust,new version may have better already 7% increase in Rd-33mk.
• Already internal fuel is 2329 kg,new wing design which would 100% larger would allow almost 500 to 1000 kg of more fuel,total fuel would be almost 3000+ kg.
• As @Naif al Hilali calculated in thread https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17s-ferry-and-combat-ranges.462726/
  • Internal Fuel + Targeting Pod + Two 2,400 Pound Precision Guided Bombs + Two SD-10A + Two PL-5EII
    27,000 pounds Takeoff Weight [TOW]
    5,000 pounds [4,600 liters] fuel
    - 500 pounds taxi & takeoff
    - 800 pounds climbout covering 50 nautical miles
    - 500 pounds cruise 80 nautical miles to target
    - 1,600 pounds reserves for five minutes combat (including two minutes afterburner use)
    - 800 pounds bring back all drop tanks and missiles, climbout & cruise up to 130 nautical miles
    - 800 pounds reserves for 20 minutes Sea Level Loiter or 200 nautical miles Divert
    @ 130 nautical miles mission radius
  • It is safely assumed that range in A2G is around 700km.
• Current payload is in between 4000 and 4500 we want 5500 kg.
• In nutshell our target is 5500 kg of payload and Range of 1200km.
• Which can be achieved by having,
  • More efficient version of RD-93 like Rd-33mk or 93MS.
  • Extensive use of composites in wings area would save a lot of weight.
  • Stabilizer and removal of their related control mechanism, would save some weight.
• Going for new engine kills the whole idea of cost saving by using existing facilities.

Excellent piece of work idea is brilliant we have to find power plant , and rss for that

We don't need a new power plant,Rd 93 would do the job.

AZM is along similar concept ideas - an evolution of the JF-17.

My layman opinion is, it would better if it's a clean sheet design or above all we go for J-31.

Salute to you SIR! You shot the bird on the taxiway.

I am trying to make it fly

 

[Sine Nomine]

@Deino your thoughts sir.

 

[PDF]

Is it possible to induct another 5 gen platform besides from Azm.
(maybe J-xx or TF-X)

AZM is along similar concept ideas - an evolution of the JF-17.

Our designing area is quite weak. Rather than wasting time to bring up designs which keep getting rejected, is it not better to consult/Sub-Contract CAC. We already knew not everything can be done in Pakistan. Though we have to pay much more, but things atleast get done that way.

 

[PakShaheen79]

What is the purpose of this lengthy exercise. This still will be a 4th gen fighter. Better ask China to made customizations as per PAF requirements in either J-10 or JH-7A. We need a platform which can enter and exit battlefield quickly after making some precision hits. If we are looking for strategic bombers, then it is time to invest in H-20 like project. May be a scaled down version will be enough. But then there is economic factor and PAF's priorities where Project AZM remains the principle long term strategic program.

 

[Sine Nomine]

What is the purpose of this lengthy exercise. This still will be a 4th gen fighter. Better ask China to made customizations as per PAF requirements in either J-10 or JH-7A. We need a platform which can enter and exit battlefield quickly after making some precision hits. If we are looking for strategic bombers, then it is time to invest in H-20 like project. May be a scaled down version will be enough. But then there is economic factor and PAF's priorities where Project AZM remains the principle long term strategic program.

J-10 or JH-7 both would require more then we can.

 

[Signalian]

As Oscar and many members having required knowledge have said

"Induction of no, new fighter jet in PAF is going to happen, nor it is possible in foreseeable future"



There are few factors,

1. New Generation of fighters (5th Gen) is around the corner, spending cash on new 4th Gen is unwise.

2. New Induction means new training fields of (Airframe, Avionics, Engine) different type of maintenance.

3. That means training required amount of personal and purchase of required equipment for maintenance for max serviceability of fleet.

4. Training of aviators on new machine.

5. Development of air combat doctrine and tactics.

6. Integration of new fighter with old fleet and assets(AWACS, Fighters, EW assets, Command nodes etc)

7. Construction of MRO facility.

8. Development of new facilities that would cater new fleet on selected bases.

9. State economy is already in bad shape, Incapable of supporting new induction.

That whole process requires handsome amount of cash and time, of which everyone knows what we don’t have.PAF has chosen a good path for future i.e. saving funds for New Generation of fighters+ investing in in-house development of tech under Project AZM and acquiring old Airframes of(F-16&Mirages) already present fleet from around the world on cheap prices for spares or raising new Sq in no time while nullifying above factors of cost and time.

Now coming to Point, we all know that induction of new fighters is not possible and Mirages being used for strike are getting very old and crash rate is increasing, PAF is in love with these, obviously due to their operational value which in my opinion comes out of their DELTA wing configuration.

Mirages are quite old and they must be replaced as soon as possible after every passing year flying them is becoming risky due to Airframe life.

What should be replacement???

J-10,Saab Gripen,Typoon,SU-34, etc we can’t have them due to above mentioned factors of cost and time. Then why not, we should alter wing configuration of JF-17 and develop a strike fighter based on JF-17.

JF-XX(Strike Fighter)

JF-XX(Strike Fighter) would be developed utilizing max amount of components from JFT-blk3 including Engine but has enhanced capabilities for strike missions and ground penetration. It would be same as F-16 XL.

F-16XL

Background
The General Dynamics F-16XL is a derivative of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, with a cranked-arrow delta wing. It was originally conceived as a technology demonstrator, later entered in the United States Air Force's (USAF) Enhanced Tactical Fighter (ETF) competition but lost to the F-15E Strike Eagle.

Design
View attachment 554000
The wing and rear horizontal control surfaces were replaced with a cranked-arrow delta wing 120% larger than the original wing. Extensive use of carbon fiber composites allowed the savings of 600 lb (270 kg) of weight but the F-16XL was still 2,800 lb (1,300 kg) heavier than the original F-16A.

Less noticeable is that the fuselage was lengthened by 56 in (1.4 m) by the addition of two sections at the joints of the main fuselage sub-assemblies. With the new wing design, the tail section had to be canted up 3°, and the ventral fins removed, to prevent them from striking the pavement during takeoff and landing. However, as the F-16XL exhibits greater stability than the native F-16, these changes were not detrimental to the handling of the aircraft.

Improvement Over F-16 A/B

These changes resulted in a 25% improvement in maximum lift-to-drag ratio in supersonic flight and 11% in subsonic flight, and a plane that reportedly handled much more smoothly at high speeds and low altitudes. The enlargements increased fuel capacity by 82%. The F-16XL could carry twice the ordnance of the F-16 and deliver it 40% farther. The enlarged wing allowed a total of 27 hard points.

· 16 wing stations of capacity 750 lb (340 kg) each

· 4 semi-recessed AIM-120 AMRAAM stations under fuselage

· 2 wingtip stations

· 1 centerline station

· 2 wing "heavy/wet" stations

· 2 chin LANTIRN stations

However, the "heavy/wet" stations interfered with up to four wing stations.

​

In my opinion JF-XX(Strike Fighter) would utilize same wing configuration as F-16 XL, which is cranked area Delta.

Advantages Delta Wing configuration.

View attachment 553997

· The delta wing offers advantages in structural integrity and both high-speed and low-speed flight.

· Because of the wing's large surface area compared to its span, it can be built stronger and stiffer,

· It's also cheaper and easier to build.

· The delta wing also gives the airplane a higher critical angle of attack.

· Vortexes generated along the leading edge of the wing re-energize the flow boundary layer, delaying separation and stall. This gives the wing more stable flight characteristics at low speed.

· At transonic/supersonic speeds, the delta wing keeps the shock cone behind its leading edge, giving it more stable supersonic flight characteristics.

· The primary cost to all these benefits is the significantly increased drag due to the greater lifting area. Delta-wing aircraft must produce much more power to reach the same airspeeds as swept-wing aircraft.

· Cranked Arrow Delta Wing gives aircraft substantial gains in payload and agility without sacrificing agility.

· It allows higher speed dash(Mach 2 dash)
. A delta wing is naturally stable in pitch; therefore it does not require a separate tail surface.
· Due to the large root chord, a delta wing combines low relative wing thickness with a sufficiently thick wing spar for a lightweight structure. Since a low relative thickness keeps wave drag down (a drag component which occurs only in supersonic flow), this makes delta wings especially attractive for supersonic aircraft.

· The large root chord gives the delta wing a high internal fuel volume even at a low relative thickness.

· The large root chord also provides it with a large surface area which helps to bring the minimum speed of the aircraft down.

· With sufficient leading edge sweep, a delta wing produces vortex lift, so flow separation can be turned into a means of increasing lift.

·

JF-XX Strike Fighter
View attachment 553998

Design

· JF-17 blk 3 fuselage, engine, avionics.

· Same airframe construction material.

· Cranked arrow delta wings.

· Increasing length of landing gears for more ground clearance.

· DSI intakes.

· Fully digital fly by wire system (derived from blk-3).

· Enhanced capabilities for strike missions and ground penetration(NOE flight)

Advantages

· Cost effective when it comes to cost and time factors.

· Manufacturing would be easy.

· Will be operational in short span of time.

· Maintenance friendly.

· Will be better equipped for A2A engagement.

· Longer range due to high amount of fuel.

· Good amount of A2G munitions carrying capability both in terms of load and hard points.

· Ra’ad Integration.

· Good for Navy.



Note:- Don’t jump the guns. Whole of idea is my personal opinion, every valuable member is free to correct me as whole article lacks solid technical parameters on many accounts.




Sources:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...ntages-of-a-delta-wing-compared-to-a-swept-wi

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch12-4.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL

https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...amar/8391e952f1ce64eb8e497064bca6b1d37001a09c

I like your idea, a few Q's :

1. survivability increases with stealth design, so internal payload ? 5th gen design ?

2. I think longer range is more required than larger payload. can you defend your position of such a large payload? carpet bomber ?

3. How many ALCM should it carry ?

4. How can it be comparable to SU 30MKI ? Rafale? in terms of weapon payload and range ? apart from sensory systems, avionics, radar.

5. is it envisioned as a BVR missile truck ? due to multiple pylons.

6. Will it completely replace Mirage III / V ?

7. CFT's ?

8. Why are two targeting pods required ?

9. why not twin seater ?

10. Can it replace EW DA-20?

 

[CHACHA"G"]

Great idea bro.... if we can manage R&D and Engine...… But personally I will say go for J-10 , customize to Pakistani needs

As Oscar and many members having required knowledge have said

"Induction of no, new fighter jet in PAF is going to happen, nor it is possible in foreseeable future"



There are few factors,

1. New Generation of fighters (5th Gen) is around the corner, spending cash on new 4th Gen is unwise.

2. New Induction means new training fields of (Airframe, Avionics, Engine) different type of maintenance.

3. That means training required amount of personal and purchase of required equipment for maintenance for max serviceability of fleet.

4. Training of aviators on new machine.

5. Development of air combat doctrine and tactics.

6. Integration of new fighter with old fleet and assets(AWACS, Fighters, EW assets, Command nodes etc)

7. Construction of MRO facility.

8. Development of new facilities that would cater new fleet on selected bases.

9. State economy is already in bad shape, Incapable of supporting new induction.

That whole process requires handsome amount of cash and time, of which everyone knows what we don’t have.PAF has chosen a good path for future i.e. saving funds for New Generation of fighters+ investing in in-house development of tech under Project AZM and acquiring old Airframes of(F-16&Mirages) already present fleet from around the world on cheap prices for spares or raising new Sq in no time while nullifying above factors of cost and time.

Now coming to Point, we all know that induction of new fighters is not possible and Mirages being used for strike are getting very old and crash rate is increasing, PAF is in love with these, obviously due to their operational value which in my opinion comes out of their DELTA wing configuration.

Mirages are quite old and they must be replaced as soon as possible after every passing year flying them is becoming risky due to Airframe life.

What should be replacement???

J-10,Saab Gripen,Typoon,SU-34, etc we can’t have them due to above mentioned factors of cost and time. Then why not, we should alter wing configuration of JF-17 and develop a strike fighter based on JF-17.

JF-XX(Strike Fighter)

JF-XX(Strike Fighter) would be developed utilizing max amount of components from JFT-blk3 including Engine but has enhanced capabilities for strike missions and ground penetration. It would be same as F-16 XL.

F-16XL

Background
The General Dynamics F-16XL is a derivative of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, with a cranked-arrow delta wing. It was originally conceived as a technology demonstrator, later entered in the United States Air Force's (USAF) Enhanced Tactical Fighter (ETF) competition but lost to the F-15E Strike Eagle.

Design
View attachment 554000
The wing and rear horizontal control surfaces were replaced with a cranked-arrow delta wing 120% larger than the original wing. Extensive use of carbon fiber composites allowed the savings of 600 lb (270 kg) of weight but the F-16XL was still 2,800 lb (1,300 kg) heavier than the original F-16A.

Less noticeable is that the fuselage was lengthened by 56 in (1.4 m) by the addition of two sections at the joints of the main fuselage sub-assemblies. With the new wing design, the tail section had to be canted up 3°, and the ventral fins removed, to prevent them from striking the pavement during takeoff and landing. However, as the F-16XL exhibits greater stability than the native F-16, these changes were not detrimental to the handling of the aircraft.

Improvement Over F-16 A/B

These changes resulted in a 25% improvement in maximum lift-to-drag ratio in supersonic flight and 11% in subsonic flight, and a plane that reportedly handled much more smoothly at high speeds and low altitudes. The enlargements increased fuel capacity by 82%. The F-16XL could carry twice the ordnance of the F-16 and deliver it 40% farther. The enlarged wing allowed a total of 27 hard points.

· 16 wing stations of capacity 750 lb (340 kg) each

· 4 semi-recessed AIM-120 AMRAAM stations under fuselage

· 2 wingtip stations

· 1 centerline station

· 2 wing "heavy/wet" stations

· 2 chin LANTIRN stations

However, the "heavy/wet" stations interfered with up to four wing stations.

​

In my opinion JF-XX(Strike Fighter) would utilize same wing configuration as F-16 XL, which is cranked area Delta.

Advantages Delta Wing configuration.

View attachment 553997

· The delta wing offers advantages in structural integrity and both high-speed and low-speed flight.

· Because of the wing's large surface area compared to its span, it can be built stronger and stiffer,

· It's also cheaper and easier to build.

· The delta wing also gives the airplane a higher critical angle of attack.

· Vortexes generated along the leading edge of the wing re-energize the flow boundary layer, delaying separation and stall. This gives the wing more stable flight characteristics at low speed.

· At transonic/supersonic speeds, the delta wing keeps the shock cone behind its leading edge, giving it more stable supersonic flight characteristics.

· The primary cost to all these benefits is the significantly increased drag due to the greater lifting area. Delta-wing aircraft must produce much more power to reach the same airspeeds as swept-wing aircraft.

· Cranked Arrow Delta Wing gives aircraft substantial gains in payload and agility without sacrificing agility.

· It allows higher speed dash(Mach 2 dash)
. A delta wing is naturally stable in pitch; therefore it does not require a separate tail surface.
· Due to the large root chord, a delta wing combines low relative wing thickness with a sufficiently thick wing spar for a lightweight structure. Since a low relative thickness keeps wave drag down (a drag component which occurs only in supersonic flow), this makes delta wings especially attractive for supersonic aircraft.

· The large root chord gives the delta wing a high internal fuel volume even at a low relative thickness.

· The large root chord also provides it with a large surface area which helps to bring the minimum speed of the aircraft down.

· With sufficient leading edge sweep, a delta wing produces vortex lift, so flow separation can be turned into a means of increasing lift.

·

JF-XX Strike Fighter
View attachment 553998

Design

· JF-17 blk 3 fuselage, engine, avionics.

· Same airframe construction material.

· Cranked arrow delta wings.

· Increasing length of landing gears for more ground clearance.

· DSI intakes.

· Fully digital fly by wire system (derived from blk-3).

· Enhanced capabilities for strike missions and ground penetration(NOE flight)

Advantages

· Cost effective when it comes to cost and time factors.

· Manufacturing would be easy.

· Will be operational in short span of time.

· Maintenance friendly.

· Will be better equipped for A2A engagement.

· Longer range due to high amount of fuel.

· Good amount of A2G munitions carrying capability both in terms of load and hard points.

· Ra’ad Integration.

· Good for Navy.



Note:- Don’t jump the guns. Whole of idea is my personal opinion, every valuable member is free to correct me as whole article lacks solid technical parameters on many accounts.




Sources:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...ntages-of-a-delta-wing-compared-to-a-swept-wi

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch12-4.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL

https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...amar/8391e952f1ce64eb8e497064bca6b1d37001a09c

 

[LKJ86]

I like your idea, a few Q's :

1. survivability increases with stealth design, so internal payload ? 5th gen design ?

2. I think longer range is more required than larger payload. can you defend your position of such a large payload? carpet bomber ?

3. How many ALCM should it carry ?

4. How can it be comparable to SU 30MKI ? Rafale? in terms of weapon payload and range ? apart from sensory systems, avionics, radar.

5. is it envisioned as a BVR missile truck ? due to multiple pylons.

6. Will it completely replace Mirage III / V ?

7. CFT's ?

8. Why are two targeting pods required ?

9. why not twin seater ?

10. Can it replace EW DA-20?

Why not consider H-6K?

 

[Sine Nomine]

But personally I will say go for J-10 , customize to Pakistani needs

Sir,I have mentioned factors due to which inducting J-10 or any new platform is not feasible.

1. survivability increases with stealth design, so internal payload ? 5th gen design ?

For survivbility it would armed with AAM's,cranked arrow delta wing would allow it to be as agile as JFT.

2. I think longer range is more required than larger payload. can you defend your position of such a large payload? carpet bomber ?

7. CFT's ?

It would have longer range as compared to JFT because it's wings would have more fuel.
CFT's or an option for longer on station time and going for EA-18 like configuration.

3. How many ALCM should it carry ?

3
1xCentreline
2xUnderwings

How can it be comparable to SU 30MKI ? Rafale? in terms of weapon payload and range ? apart from sensory systems, avionics, radar.

It's meant for strike ops with good self defence.
Payload is between 5000-5500 and range is around 1000 to 1200

5. is it envisioned as a BVR missile truck ? due to multiple pylons.

Can be used with having active data link.

6. Will it completely replace Mirage III / V ?

yes,in all roles.

9. why not twin seater

Would be based on JFT-BLK3 which is based on JFTB so it can be.

10. Can it replace EW DA-20?

As it has CFT's and good amount on internal fuel,so it can be used for EW roles much like EA-18.

. Why are two targeting pods required ?

I haven't said i am in favour of integrated trageting system,mounted below radar.
Basically idea is just changing wing design of JFT and giving it required flight characteristics due to which they are in love with Deltas.
JFT airframe has inbuilt tendency for changes.
It would be same as JFT but with enhanced A2G.
Payload would be small but we would employ GBU 39/53 SDB's.

 

[Khafee]

There won't be any major R&D apart from flight testing of new wing configuration.

Sir,we don't need 10,000 kg of payload,the idea of using PGM's with pinpoint accuracy like
GBU-39/53 Small Diameter Bombs or BLU 105 isn't bomb truck supportive.
RD 93 is alreading powering JFT and we are ok with 3 fuel tanks config.Mirage 5/3 is powered by engine which gives it 9436 lbf try thrust,load carrying and range capability is 1,250 km (675 nmi, 777 mi) hi-lo-hi profile, payload two 400 kg bomb and max external fuel.Total payload is 4000kg.Total internal fuel is in between 2350 L to 3340 L,while Mirage 2000 14500 lbf engine is giving it payload of 6300kg.
Now JF-XX SF

• RD 93 would provide 11,105 of dry thrust,new version may have better already 7% increase in Rd-33mk.
• Already internal fuel is 2329 kg,new wing design which would 100% larger would allow almost 500 to 1000 kg of more fuel,total fuel would be almost 3000+ kg.
• As @Naif al Hilali calculated in thread https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17s-ferry-and-combat-ranges.462726/
  • Internal Fuel + Targeting Pod + Two 2,400 Pound Precision Guided Bombs + Two SD-10A + Two PL-5EII
    27,000 pounds Takeoff Weight [TOW]
    5,000 pounds [4,600 liters] fuel
    - 500 pounds taxi & takeoff
    - 800 pounds climbout covering 50 nautical miles
    - 500 pounds cruise 80 nautical miles to target
    - 1,600 pounds reserves for five minutes combat (including two minutes afterburner use)
    - 800 pounds bring back all drop tanks and missiles, climbout & cruise up to 130 nautical miles
    - 800 pounds reserves for 20 minutes Sea Level Loiter or 200 nautical miles Divert
    @ 130 nautical miles mission radius
  • It is safely assumed that range in A2G is around 700km.
• Current payload is in between 4000 and 4500 we want 5500 kg.
• In nutshell our target is 5500 kg of payload and Range of 1200km.
• Which can be achieved by having,
  • More efficient version of RD-93 like Rd-33mk or 93MS.
  • Extensive use of composites in wings area would save a lot of weight.
  • Stabilizer and removal of their related control mechanism, would save some weight.
• Going for new engine kills the whole idea of cost saving by using existing facilities.

We don't need a new power plant,Rd 93 would do the job.


My layman opinion is, it would better if it's a clean sheet design or above all we go for J-31.


I am trying to make it fly

You are working pretty hard at it. In a room full of fanboys, very hard to take you seriously. BUT good work!!

How about you add a little on it - list a/c's that could be bought of the shelf, east & west, with or without a little customization.

 

[jupiter2007]

As Oscar and many members having required knowledge have said

"Induction of no, new fighter jet in PAF is going to happen, nor it is possible in foreseeable future"



There are few factors,

1. New Generation of fighters (5th Gen) is around the corner, spending cash on new 4th Gen is unwise.

2. New Induction means new training fields of (Airframe, Avionics, Engine) different type of maintenance.

3. That means training required amount of personal and purchase of required equipment for maintenance for max serviceability of fleet.

4. Training of aviators on new machine.

5. Development of air combat doctrine and tactics.

6. Integration of new fighter with old fleet and assets(AWACS, Fighters, EW assets, Command nodes etc)

7. Construction of MRO facility.

8. Development of new facilities that would cater new fleet on selected bases.

9. State economy is already in bad shape, Incapable of supporting new induction.

That whole process requires handsome amount of cash and time, of which everyone knows what we don’t have.PAF has chosen a good path for future i.e. saving funds for New Generation of fighters+ investing in in-house development of tech under Project AZM and acquiring old Airframes of(F-16&Mirages) already present fleet from around the world on cheap prices for spares or raising new Sq in no time while nullifying above factors of cost and time.

Now coming to Point, we all know that induction of new fighters is not possible and Mirages being used for strike are getting very old and crash rate is increasing, PAF is in love with these, obviously due to their operational value which in my opinion comes out of their DELTA wing configuration.

Mirages are quite old and they must be replaced as soon as possible after every passing year flying them is becoming risky due to Airframe life.

What should be replacement???

J-10,Saab Gripen,Typoon,SU-34, etc we can’t have them due to above mentioned factors of cost and time. Then why not, we should alter wing configuration of JF-17 and develop a strike fighter based on JF-17.

JF-XX(Strike Fighter)

JF-XX(Strike Fighter) would be developed utilizing max amount of components from JFT-blk3 including Engine but has enhanced capabilities for strike missions and ground penetration. It would be same as F-16 XL.

F-16XL

Background
The General Dynamics F-16XL is a derivative of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, with a cranked-arrow delta wing. It was originally conceived as a technology demonstrator, later entered in the United States Air Force's (USAF) Enhanced Tactical Fighter (ETF) competition but lost to the F-15E Strike Eagle.

Design
View attachment 554000
The wing and rear horizontal control surfaces were replaced with a cranked-arrow delta wing 120% larger than the original wing. Extensive use of carbon fiber composites allowed the savings of 600 lb (270 kg) of weight but the F-16XL was still 2,800 lb (1,300 kg) heavier than the original F-16A.

Less noticeable is that the fuselage was lengthened by 56 in (1.4 m) by the addition of two sections at the joints of the main fuselage sub-assemblies. With the new wing design, the tail section had to be canted up 3°, and the ventral fins removed, to prevent them from striking the pavement during takeoff and landing. However, as the F-16XL exhibits greater stability than the native F-16, these changes were not detrimental to the handling of the aircraft.

Improvement Over F-16 A/B

These changes resulted in a 25% improvement in maximum lift-to-drag ratio in supersonic flight and 11% in subsonic flight, and a plane that reportedly handled much more smoothly at high speeds and low altitudes. The enlargements increased fuel capacity by 82%. The F-16XL could carry twice the ordnance of the F-16 and deliver it 40% farther. The enlarged wing allowed a total of 27 hard points.

· 16 wing stations of capacity 750 lb (340 kg) each

· 4 semi-recessed AIM-120 AMRAAM stations under fuselage

· 2 wingtip stations

· 1 centerline station

· 2 wing "heavy/wet" stations

· 2 chin LANTIRN stations

However, the "heavy/wet" stations interfered with up to four wing stations.

​

In my opinion JF-XX(Strike Fighter) would utilize same wing configuration as F-16 XL, which is cranked area Delta.

Advantages Delta Wing configuration.

View attachment 553997

· The delta wing offers advantages in structural integrity and both high-speed and low-speed flight.

· Because of the wing's large surface area compared to its span, it can be built stronger and stiffer,

· It's also cheaper and easier to build.

· The delta wing also gives the airplane a higher critical angle of attack.

· Vortexes generated along the leading edge of the wing re-energize the flow boundary layer, delaying separation and stall. This gives the wing more stable flight characteristics at low speed.

· At transonic/supersonic speeds, the delta wing keeps the shock cone behind its leading edge, giving it more stable supersonic flight characteristics.

· The primary cost to all these benefits is the significantly increased drag due to the greater lifting area. Delta-wing aircraft must produce much more power to reach the same airspeeds as swept-wing aircraft.

· Cranked Arrow Delta Wing gives aircraft substantial gains in payload and agility without sacrificing agility.

· It allows higher speed dash(Mach 2 dash)
. A delta wing is naturally stable in pitch; therefore it does not require a separate tail surface.
· Due to the large root chord, a delta wing combines low relative wing thickness with a sufficiently thick wing spar for a lightweight structure. Since a low relative thickness keeps wave drag down (a drag component which occurs only in supersonic flow), this makes delta wings especially attractive for supersonic aircraft.

· The large root chord gives the delta wing a high internal fuel volume even at a low relative thickness.

· The large root chord also provides it with a large surface area which helps to bring the minimum speed of the aircraft down.

· With sufficient leading edge sweep, a delta wing produces vortex lift, so flow separation can be turned into a means of increasing lift.

·

JF-XX Strike Fighter
View attachment 553998

Design

· JF-17 blk 3 fuselage, engine, avionics.

· Same airframe construction material.

· Cranked arrow delta wings.

· Increasing length of landing gears for more ground clearance.

· DSI intakes.


· Fully digital fly by wire system (derived from blk-3).

· Enhanced capabilities for strike missions and ground penetration(NOE flight)

Advantages

· Cost effective when it comes to cost and time factors.

· Manufacturing would be easy.

· Will be operational in short span of time.

· Maintenance friendly.

· Will be better equipped for A2A engagement.

· Longer range due to high amount of fuel.

· Good amount of A2G munitions carrying capability both in terms of load and hard points.

· Ra’ad Integration.

· Good for Navy.



Note:- Don’t jump the guns. Whole of idea is my personal opinion, every valuable member is free to correct me as whole article lacks solid technical parameters on many accounts.




Sources:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...ntages-of-a-delta-wing-compared-to-a-swept-wi

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch12-4.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL

https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...amar/8391e952f1ce64eb8e497064bca6b1d37001a09c

Great idea and very well explained!
Hope people like you continue to share great ideas like these.

Some members think that introducing a new platform in PAF is easy.

 

[Sine Nomine]

You are working pretty hard at it. In a room full of fanboys, very hard to take you seriously. BUT good work!!

How about you add a little on it - list a/c's that could be bought of the shelf, east & west, with or without a little customization.

Thanks i would try about it.

 

[Khafee]

Thanks i would try about it.

I hope you don't mind what I said, and take it in a positive manner.

Really happy to see you saw a problem, and went about trying to solve it, in whatever way you could. It has to be appreciated no doubt.

Best Regards & Good Job

Why not consider H-6K?
View attachment 554095

It has to be considered seriously, and PAF needs it. Will China sell / lease?

 

[LKJ86]

It has to considered seriously, and PAF needs it. Will China sell / lease?

Why not?
China used to export H-6 to Iraq.