JF-17 Ready To Deliver Another Surprise

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

I ve been wondering if a large transpo plane can be turned into a bvr and these flying bombs.
We could actually deliver these bad boys from teh air in large numbers instead of using several jets.
Its just a design issue with a large plane but can be accomplished. Would be a lot easier for dropping the guided bombs though as missiles would need a tube system with rails and exhaust outlets etc. C130 for excmple can fly with the rear bay door open and used for the purpose.Not sure how practical this would be or even if possible.
@Windjammer

 

[1Paki$tani]

Hi,

Okay---if you insist---I assumed anyone educated in college level physics would understand what the problem would be---.

It is not a problem mounting the missiles---the problem starts when one missile is launched---the physics was already there---but now the physical aspects of sudden release of a heavy weight from one wing is release becomes obvious---while the counter weight is still there---.

Has anyone studied the issue between weight and counter weights---when one weight is release what happens to the other weight---. Remember you have many other forces acting upon the aircraft and the missile---.

Keep in mind that the JF17 is a very small aircraft---the smaller the aircraft---the more difficult the adjustments---.

Now please start thinking for yourself and if there is a problem---we can further address it---.

Leaving aside the issue of landing gear what about the centre pylon? Mirage carries Ra'ad on centre pylon.

If gear issue can be worked out than Ra'ad can be carried on centre pylon by JF-17 without causing the issue you mentioned.

 

[Foxtrot Delta]

Leaving aside the issue of landing gear what about the centre pylon? Mirage carries Ra'ad on centre pylon.

If gear issue can be worked out than Ra'ad can be carried on centre pylon by JF-17 without causing the issue you mentioned.

Heavier missiles than raad have been tested on jf 17 thunder in chengdu china. Two config. One under each wing. Raad is just 1100 kg each

 

[1Paki$tani]

Heavier missiles than raad have been tested on jf 17 thunder in chengdu china. Two config. One under each wing. Raad is just 1100 kg each

It might have been, but just pointing out the fact that it is possible for JF-17 carry Ra'ad assuming the post is correct about other aspect.

However, the question is not about carrying the missile but what happens after release, now if on one side you suddenly lose 1100kg while other side still has that weight so how do you solve that problem? Naturally it will tip towards the heavier side without counter.

 

[Foxtrot Delta]

It might have been, but just pointing out the fact that it is possible for JF-17 carry Ra'ad assuming the post is correct about other aspect.

However, the question is not about carrying the missile but what happens after release, now if on one side you suddenly lose 1100kg while other side still has that weight so how do you solve that problem? Naturally it will tip towards the heavier side without counter.

i guess thats why Nato always fires two Missiles at once.
same is the case when PAF releases 500 KG weapons both sides at once from F-16 C/D
and both Fuel tanks dropped by israeli Airforce F-16s on multiple occasions deep inside enemy territory. they release both wing pylons at the same time.

Also Raad 1 Raad 2, Babur air launch cruise missiles don't need to aquire target in advance. they can be feed information mid flight they just need to be launched in general direction of a target and co-ordinated or signatures can b posted in later on.

after all these missiles have 550 KM+ ranges.

 

[1Paki$tani]

i guess thats why Nato always fires two Missiles at once.
same is the case when PAF releases 500 KG weapons both sides at once from F-16 C/D
and both Fuel tanks dropped by israeli Airforce F-16s on multiple occasions deep inside enemy territory. they release both wing pylons at the same time.

Also Raad 1 Raad 2, Babur air launch cruise missiles don't need to aquire target in advance. they can be feed information mid flight they just need to be launched in general direction of a target and co-ordinated or signatures can b posted in later on.

after all these missiles have 550 KM+ ranges.

Though not weapons expert or air craft expert or needing lectures, from on particular member, on my lack of knowledge in advance or basic science I thought changes in weight could be counteracted by flyby wire however for that the wing structure needs to be strong to adjust to additional stresses from changes in control surfaces.

Technically (if I am not wrong) nighthawk should not fly due to aerodynamics but it still did due to adjustments being made by flight control systems.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I have read that interview..

it clearly states "we would like to carry 1 or PERFERABLY 2 fuel tanks with one being in the center..."
Preferable load for routine mission will obviously thus involve one antiship missle for extended loitering and coverage ..you automatically cherry picked and implied this means that jf17 cannot carry 2 antiship missles with 1 fuel tank which has been mentioned in same Interview ...
Same reason why BVR load out would be 2 with 2 fuel tanks...range and loitering
We call it selection bias...

Conveniently ignoring PAF own documentary showing it flying with 2 antiship missiles

let it pass and move on

 

[GriffinsRule]

I would think that FBW systems are designed to compensate for such loads and tested on the aircraft to determine the robustness of the systems and to check if theyworks as intended.

Here is an image of a Mirage 2000 with a 700KG Exocet under the wing. This jet has a similar load out to what the PAF interview hinted at. Does it mean that the jet will suddenly be unable to correct itself after the launch of the ASM without having to jettison the drop tank as well? I would say nope, not at all.

Food for thought: What would happen in a case of an emergency where JF-17 had to jettison its 1100 lb fuel tank and for whatever reason only one tank drops and the other does not. Doesnt mean the aircraft will sudden go out of control. Yes there will be external forces working on the jet while its software would be working hard to compensate for them to keep the aircraft in level flight.

PS, what are the chances of PAC Kamra to move into manufacturing of newer drop tanks made from kevlar instead of metal alloys. That could theoretically save anywhere from 300-500lbs of extra weight alone and improve the performance, range and reduce long-term stresses on the wings.

Heres a picture of a Gripen carrying 1500KG TAURUS KEPD 350 cruise missiles under each wing ...

 

[1Paki$tani]

I would think that FBW systems are designed to compensate for such loads and tested on the aircraft to determine the robustness of the systems and to check if theyworks as intended.

Here is an image of a Mirage 2000 with a 700KG Exocet under the wing. This jet has a similar load out to what the PAF interview hinted at. Does it mean that the jet will suddenly be unable to correct itself after the launch of the ASM without having to jettison the drop tank as well? I would say nope, not at all.

Food for thought: What would happen in a case of an emergency where JF-17 had to jettison its 1100 lb fuel tank and for whatever reason only one tank drops and the other does not. Doesnt mean the aircraft will sudden go out of control. Yes there will be external forces working on the jet while its software would be working hard to compensate for them to keep the aircraft in level flight.

PS, what are the chances of PAC Kamra to move into manufacturing of newer drop tanks made from kevlar instead of metal alloys. That could theoretically save anywhere from 300-500lbs of extra weight alone and improve the performance, range and reduce long-term stresses on the wings.

Heres a picture of a Gripen carrying 1500KG TAURUS KEPD 350 cruise missiles under each wing ...

The heavier load is also carried close to centre ( inner wing pylon) this would mean there is lesser stresses than say if the heavier missile or weapon was carried on outer edge under wing pylon.

The closer it is to the centre the easier it will be for the FBW to adjust to change in weight if one is dropped.

 

[khanasifm]

 

[khanasifm]

F-16 3rd underwing pylon attachment for aim120 class weapon

 

[khanasifm]

800 liters drop weight with fuel is 672 kg than 1100 litres would be around 924kh jf inner wing pylons and and centerline pylon are classified as 1000 plus kg per specs, not shore if that mean 1100 kg ? But possible I think it has more do priorities as Sd-10 and c-803 were priority than RAad

last two 23 March parade statements RAad is cleared on all /multiple paf aircraft and it was speculation that last launch was for jf

Can someone tell

 

[khanasifm]

 

[mourning sage]

Yes 3 times for all 3 of my degrees

Basically, a structure's ability to support a weight doesn't depend on how much stated weight the structure can support. It depends purely on the stress distribution within the structure, what you call internal stresses. Every mass induces stresses like bending (similar to torque, not a great description but I am not sure what your background is) and torsional (similar to shear stress). These stresses then translate into principle stresses and if this exceeds the fractural limits of the materials (two types - brittle and malleable), the structure fractures.

I am sorry, there's a lot of technical jargon here. But this is a very hardcore mechanical engineering subject. But I have given you stuff to read about if you want to. Again, it is possible you know all of this. So I apologize. I do not intend to sound condescending or anything. I just wanted to offer insight into how this payload or mission profile has to be planned around certain constraints.

Just answer a simple yea or nay---if you learnt physics at school---meaning your university---.

MK sahib, please direct them towards relevant content. I get it-you're not here to spoon-feed anyone but this is a bit more advanced than highschool physics. And after all, you are here to teach us, young lads, right?

I am not sure where you went to high school but at least in Pakistan, bending, torsional, Von Misses stresses and fracture mechanics aren't taught in high school. Although, I also realize that anyone who studied high school physics should have been able to quickly point out that a mass attached further away from the fixed support - induces greater turning moment.

 

[khanasifm]

I would think that FBW systems are designed to compensate for such loads and tested on the aircraft to determine the robustness of the systems and to check if theyworks as intended.

Here is an image of a Mirage 2000 with a 700KG Exocet under the wing. This jet has a similar load out to what the PAF interview hinted at. Does it mean that the jet will suddenly be unable to correct itself after the launch of the ASM without having to jettison the drop tank as well? I would say nope, not at all.

Food for thought: What would happen in a case of an emergency where JF-17 had to jettison its 1100 lb fuel tank and for whatever reason only one tank drops and the other does not. Doesnt mean the aircraft will sudden go out of control. Yes there will be external forces working on the jet while its software would be working hard to compensate for them to keep the aircraft in level flight.

PS, what are the chances of PAC Kamra to move into manufacturing of newer drop tanks made from kevlar instead of metal alloys. That could theoretically save anywhere from 300-500lbs of extra weight alone and improve the performance, range and reduce long-term stresses on the wings.

Heres a picture of a Gripen carrying 1500KG TAURUS KEPD 350 cruise missiles under each wing ...

You mean fuel and center of gravity management system fcgms