What's new

JF17:---More Hard Points Bigger Engine---Why!!!!!

Easier to integrate dual-rack for BVR than messing with the wing to add another hardpoint.

Question, do we have a Dual Rack? Or this is a development R&D that needs to happen. F-15 has the Amber Rack giving it the ability to carry like 16 AAMs into combat.
 
Question, do we have a Dual Rack? Or this is a development R&D that needs to happen. F-15 has the Amber Rack giving it the ability to carry like 16 AAMs into combat.

Hi,

The F15 is a very large aircraft---thus it can carry that many missiles---. The JF17 is a small aircraft---there is limited space---therefore its utility is designed s such---.

Double racks are not a simple solution---because sometimes once the weapons are launched---they get entangled with the aircraft as there is very little space from the launch position and the weapon---.

Now if the missile rack has ejector like mounts like those on the F35 / F22---where the missile is actually pushed out hard to move it away from the body---that would possible work for he JF17---or the aircraft get the conformal fuel cells mounted on the aircraft and then there would be more BVR missiles---.
 
Hi,

The F15 is a very large aircraft---thus it can carry that many missiles---. The JF17 is a small aircraft---there is limited space---therefore its utility is designed s such---.

Double racks are not a simple solution---because sometimes once the weapons are launched---they get entangled with the aircraft as there is very little space from the launch position and the weapon---.

Now if the missile rack has ejector like mounts like those on the F35 / F22---where the missile is actually pushed out hard to move it away from the body---that would possible work for he JF17---or the aircraft get the conformal fuel cells mounted on the aircraft and then there would be more BVR missiles---.
That entanglement phenomenon is not restricted to MERs and can happen with regular single weapon pylons too. Though it is almost always the case with bombs or at least I have never heard or read about it happening in terms of missiles. Someone else can explain the physics behind it, but I am guessing its something to do with the airflow and bombs acting as a lifting body. Missiles however are not free falling and have a rocket motor propelling them forward at much greater speeds than the launch aircraft. Eject launchers make sense when the missile is carried either internally or in a semi-recessed form, such as on Typhoons, Tornados, or the upcoming Korean KFX. Carrying missiles under the wing on a hardpoint removes that complication.

Overall, the technology for carrying multiple missiles has been around for decades and in service with a lot of aircraft. Technically, all attack helicopters carry multiple missile racks as well for anti-tank guided missiles. We should certainly look to develop this technology in house, especially if we are going to have our own weapons down the line.

I think it would be beneficial to see what types of missile racks are out there that we can get ideas for the JF-17s future development. Even the dual-rack used for bombs on the JF-17 can be refined to carry more bombs. There are also a lot of developments going on in this space that are in effect force multipliers on a smaller scale. These are integrating systems into the pylons themselves to make them multifunctional (carrying EW, ECM, Decoys etc) and are really handy for smaller aircraft with limited space.


Air-to-Air
Dual-LAU-127 on F/A-18E/Fs and F-15s
By Marvin Engineering Company
http://marvineng.com/product_category/launch-systems/

F-18-Hornet-da-RAAF-com-JASSM-e-AMRAAMS-foto-Min-Def-Australia.jpg




Air-to-Ground

Cobham AMGL III rack for Brimstone AGM:
Carried by Typhoon, Tornado, F/A-18, Harrier, Apache, & UAVs. India is interested in acquiring them for their Su-30s
https://www.cobham.com/mission-syst...nd-rail-launchers/agml-iii-datasheet/docview/
33673827-195578e4-da6b-11e7-940b-72c4d0ddf88f.jpg



Electronic Counter Measures
Terma PIDS & PIDS+ (Pylon Integrated Dispensing System)
F-16s and T-50s so far.
https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/terma-modify-belgian-defences-f-16-pylons/
https://www.terma.com/media/105019/two-pager_defense_air_pylon-based_ew_solutions.pdf

leuchars-2013_73.jpg



There was a discussion on PDF before but it seems to have died down.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/term...ronic-combat-integrated-pylons-system.612429/
 
Dcs review of jf speak highly of jf except 2 points

1) internal fuel without drop tanks range is impacted 5135 liters so need to carry two 800 drop tanks all the time not sure if 1100 liters are only used for ferry flights or also on missions

2) due to pylon and weapons option can only be in a2a role with drop tanks and 2xpl5 plus 4xsd-10 or a2g with wingtip aam plus ground load

Unless it carry on one side 2xsd-10 and on other wing a2g load like 2xlgb or rek based on ok-82

A2A

Adjustments.JPG


A2G

Adjustments.JPG
 
Dcs review of jf speak highly of jf except 2 points

1) internal fuel without drop tanks range is impacted 5135 liters so need to carry two 800 drop tanks all the time not sure if 1100 liters are only used for ferry flights or also on missions

2) due to pylon and weapons option can only be in a2a role with drop tanks and 2xpl5 plus 4xsd-10 or a2g with wingtip aam plus ground load

Unless it carry on one side 2xsd-10 and on other wing a2g load like 2xlgb or rek based on ok-82

A2A

View attachment 592518

A2G

View attachment 592519


Are these DCS shots? Looks so real?
 
Dcs review of jf speak highly of jf except 2 points

1) internal fuel without drop tanks range is impacted 5135 liters so need to carry two 800 drop tanks all the time not sure if 1100 liters are only used for ferry flights or also on missions

2) due to pylon and weapons option can only be in a2a role with drop tanks and 2xpl5 plus 4xsd-10 or a2g with wingtip aam plus ground load

Unless it carry on one side 2xsd-10 and on other wing a2g load like 2xlgb or rek based on ok-82

A2A

View attachment 592518

A2G

View attachment 592519
Jf17 has an impressive loadout but limiting factor is fuel and its engine dry thrust

Rd 33mk supposedly can adress the second. The first isssue haa to be figure out by PAC

It needs atleast 30% improvement there..

CFTs will be a good solution to an amateur
 
Jf17 has an impressive loadout but limiting factor is fuel and its engine dry thrust

Rd 33mk supposedly can adress the second. The first isssue haa to be figure out by PAC

It needs atleast 30% improvement there..

CFTs will be a good solution to an amateur

Hi,

Ultimately Paf will have to make 3 versions of BLK3---.

I Believe @Bilal Khan (Quwa) possibly stated that or started that idea and I as well stated it possibly later---.

The 2 seater with its design can be modified---the rear seat and equipment taken out and the area configured for fuel---same thing by taking out the canon---once these two items are taken out---there is room enough for adding fuel cells in that area that can hold around to 350 to 450 liters of fuel---.

As the fuel cells are pretty much in the center of the aircraft---hardly any changes to the aerodynamics of the aircraft would be needed---.

So you can have a 2 seater---a dedicated single seater and a modified 2 seater to a single seater carrying extra fuel---.
 
pakistan and turkey must develop fighter aircraft jointly they both have know how
 
Are these DCS shots? Looks so real?

I think the cheapest options is to go French way as they did for mirage f-1 they developed a 2000 litres drop tank for centerline and Iraqi requested and used it draw back take off and ground clearance but who cares rather than two 800 litres drop tanks on wings carry single large say 1200 litres on centreline and leave everything under wing for other loads on near target before attack drop the empty tank deliver and get out

A2A role jf is fine plenty of load 6 aam for jf size aircraft is fine


Lastly no problem as ground attack have escorts to clear air threats so not a big deal

Also jf wing tanks are
Not all true to Wingtip but partially covers wings compared to f-16 or j-10 where whole wing is a fuel tank

Correction jf internal fuel capacity is 5135 lbs not litre compared to f-16 7000 lbs

Adjustments.JPG
 
Last edited:
Larger JF17 , called the JF18 , would be a welcomed evolution for the program

All fighter Jet companies, use a progressive approach , to enhance existing designs every 10-15 years

If we look at

US airforce for local needs
F14 -> F15 -> F18 -> F18 Super Hornet (Larger craft on Steriods vs F18) -> F22

For export markets they have
  • F16 which has largely only gotten avionics upgrades

The same successful concept was continuously improved over generations

The F-35 only came to life when there was a need for Vertical Takeoff it was something that a f-22 could not do


For Pakistan's Thunder program , the program should follow a route similar to the F-14 to F-22
 
Last edited:
Engineering is Iterative, evolution of successful design

China has unlimited resources so it can research 10 plane platform at once
we, unfortunately, have limited resources so we can continue to improve the JF17 program

Just like Saab/Sweeden continues to invest in Gripen, improvements for Pakistan our situation is a bit like like Sweeden and their Saab Program in relation to JF17
 

Back
Top Bottom