TrMhMt
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,242
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Any chance ASELSAN could develop a whole avionics suit for JF-17 in paticular that conforms to teh NATO standards?.
Most probably yes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Any chance ASELSAN could develop a whole avionics suit for JF-17 in paticular that conforms to teh NATO standards?.
Im sure they're capable of developing but I was wondering if there's one on offer or currently developed by ASELSAN that could be of application in JF17Most probably yes.
Aselsan has developed for ongoing project which named HURKUS and those avionics, electronics and electro-optics will be used for another ongoing project which named TFX project.Im sure they're capable of developing but I was wondering if there's one on offer or currently developed by ASELSAN that could be of application in JF17
Aselsan has developed for ongoing project which named HURKUS and those avionics, electronics and electro-optics will be used for another ongoing project which named TFX project.
If those materials can be used for 'em why not be adapted for JF17. I don't think it would be hard.
so is it confirmed that these pods will be part of the JF-17? or are they for existing F-16s.
The design may need some tweaks for the extra hard points to come i think. Chin mounted would be the easiest one but the difficulty of process should not stop PAF and PAC from exploring the option of adding two more hard points under wings. Twin ejector would be something extra that can be used on the inner most hard point if the wings are strengthened to that extent. If we are to explore the true multi-role potential we need to gradually keep moving forward with JF17. I have seen us being stagnant with such projects and i hope this is not the case. JF17 have provided us with an excellent base of work, something people do not realize often, what we need now is to move froward with all this and on to bigger and better things. That would be the actual gain and benefit of this whole JF17 exercise (an aircraft that meets our needs in an excellent way is a by product in a bonus ). In short, PAC should try to get this to a level where we get a special hard point on fuselage for POD, two extra hard points on wings with the possibility of dual ejectors on at least on of them. Effectively giving JF17 9 hard points able to carry 11 weapon systems. IF PAC can add those CFT at some point, the idea becomes that much more mouth watering. One question that remains is "which one is that more powerful engine? "WITH A MORE POWERFUL ENGINE, JFT can support 2 more wing pylons and a chinmounted hardpoint for the POD. However the better option might be to get the chin mounted hardpoint and have dual ejector racks for the wing hard points and instead look for CFT.
Hi,
What does a more powerful engine has to do with supporting hard points---nothing at all. Take off with lesser fuel and refuel and top off in air.
Hard points is the ability of the structure to carry weight---.
I think its the weight at the hard point that is in question. An engine with more thrust can support more weight at its hard points that is what i understand anyway.
I think its the weight at the hard point that is in question. An engine with more thrust can support more weight at its hard points that is what i understand anyway.
Think of a motorcycle you are sitting on as an engine and your outstretched arms lifting 5kg as the wings, now a bigger motorcycle is not going to add any strength to your arms to make them lift 10kg
Hi,
The issue is not about "understanding" but about engineering---. The engine has enough power----it is the frame that lifts the weight---the engine just propels the aircraft---which in its current form has enough juice---.
Big deal if it cannot take off in 600 yards--- with two extra hard pints---it will take off in 1000 yards----so what.