JF-17 Ready To Deliver Another Surprise

[Foxtrot Delta]

View attachment 577470

seems like an edited video. could be fake.

also Raad 1 had 350 Km range with 1080 Kg total weight
Raad 2 has 550 Km range with 1120 Kg weight.

 

[krash]

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---.

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

That is exactly the problem. You are trying to reach verdicts based on your elementary understanding of physics alone. You also need an elementary understanding of how aircraft work to come to the correct conclusion.

Your inference from the AVM's statement is also incorrect. In fact, it's quite ironic how the AVM answered your claim explicitly in the exact same interview.

"DIB: A question on weapons integration.....I suppose the heavy anti ship missile C802Ak is integrated while the later CM400AKG not quite yet. If the aircraft carries it, you need range to go out at sea and therefore you need at least one additional fuel tank. And if its suspended, you'd need to re-balance the weight.


ACRK: Yes and no. The C802 is in PAF-squadron-use in the Block-I at No.2 Squadron. Live firing was done together with CATIC in China. The CM-400 is however integrated, but not contracted. And if we carry a large anti-ship missile, we will carry one or preferably two fuel tanks, with the other one at the centre station. After it's been spent, the automatic flight-control/management system will compensate the changes in loads."

The configuration of one fuel tank on centre, the second on the wing opposite the AshM/ALCM on the other wing is more geared towards extending the range and loiter times. It is a pretty standard configuration for heavier load-outs across platforms. If it were about a balancing act then common sense would dictate that you place the AshM/ALCM on the centre and place the two fuel tanks on the wings. Surely you can't suggest that the pilot should keep a fuel tank on the wing and keep it full only to then jettison it at the exact moment that he launches the heavy ordinance? Why would he just not take two of that heavy ordinance instead and launch them both at the target at the exact same time? It does not work that way.

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

Aircraft that are smaller do it with heavier loads.

Basic center of gravity principle will suffice to understand. Easiest way to explain, do a wire act and hold 1x20kg bag on each hand held out; release one and see what happens to you!. but in aircraft it is even more complex with x,y,z planes to worry about.

On a light weight aircraft; even a 250kg release will invoke an opposing force

Not quite. That analogy is a fair way off since the lift being generated is not on the fuselage, i.e. the man would have to be hanging by two ropes, one in each hand with the loads hanging from his elbows. Now the situation changes from one about a balancing act to one about strength to hold one's self up.

The force vectors on the aircraft would not look like this,

They would instead look like this,

Anyway, imagine yourself without the wire and on firm ground. You would compensate for the load and not fall over. That is what a pilot/aircraft does as well, because it can.

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

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.

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.

All the pilot/flight control system needs to do is apply trim in the roll axis to compensate for the asymmetric load after the first missile's/bomb's release. In fact, one would also need to apply trim in the yaw axis to compensate for the asymmetric drag as well. Pilots have been asymmetrically dropping and flying with massive asymmetrical loads since decades. This is also how an airliner can still fly pretty and straight after losing one of its engines.

The Gripen has no problem with loading 2 KEPD 350 at 1,500 kg each, which is substantially heavier than the Ra'ad at 1,100 kg and the CM-400 at 910 kg each.

This Philippine F/A-50 didn't flinch dropping a GBU-31 (+900 kg) while still retaining the fuel tank (counter balance) on the opposite hard-point.

A-7s were dropping +900 kg Mark-56 aerial mines one at a time since the 70s and 80s.


It is no where near the big deal @Karam Ali is making it out to be. Will the heavy asymmetric load imbalance the aircraft in the roll axis? Yes it will. Will it imbalance it enough to send it flying into the Sun in endless barrel roles? Of course not. The aircraft and their wings apply and are subjected to a lot more powerful forces when manoeuvring with full load-outs than the weight of an AshM/ALCM. Applying a fraction of those forces as trim to keep the aircraft level with an asymmetric load is no big deal.

Take this as a rule of thumb; if a wing station is allowed to carry it then the aircraft can carry it on that station without a counterbalance as well.


https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/46999/what-exactly-is-trim

 

[Dazzler]

Credit to @Quwa

https://www.facebook.com/

 

[Path-Finder]

Credit to @Quwa

https://www.facebook.com/

Damn, REK and Raptor done what hyper dooper and overhyped shipice failed to do.

 

[Falgrine]

Damn, REK and Raptor done what hyper dooper and overhyped shipice failed to do.

I think that it’s not about the weapon’s performance. Either InAF had made mistakenly entered wrong GPS coordinates into the Spice 2000 guidance unit or, most likely, they did not have the correct elevation information of the target. Another possibility could be the flight path programmed for the bomb’s attack leg was too shallow during the attack phase due to low hanging clouds. Also, the poor thermal conditions could have made the EO/IR guidance used by the bomb in the terminal phase very difficult. Together, it could have resulted in a particularly challenging targeting scenario. It might very well also have been a combination of the above stated possibilities. Either way, it’s prudent to not to underestimate the performance of a potent weapon like Spice 2000. If GIDS can develop REK for Mk8x series bombs, I am sure IAI/Rafael with much wider intellectual pool (Israelis are brilliant in signal processing) and resources are able to deliver something much better. I know this as it is also my area of research, and many top scientists in Statistical Signal processing/sensor fusion are of Jewish extraction.

 

[ziaulislam]

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

Weight isnt the issue seems its ground clearance but more importantly raad is simply not build for jf17..by the time mirages go next gen cruise missle will be built..and mirages arent going anywhere till 2030 and possibly 2035

They are good for launching cruise missles and stand off weapons

Having said that there is no proof either way that raad isnt functional or functional with jf17

Certainly there isnt much need given we have an extensive mirage fleet and raad being mostly a nuclear weapon

 

[khanasifm]

@9:10. RAAD I and II info

 

[khanasifm]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...-nuclear-capable-raad-air-launched-cr-372647/

The missile was developed by Pakistan's Air Weapons Complex and the National Engineering and Scientific Commission. Media reports from Pakistan suggest that the Ra'ad will be employed on Pakistan air force Mirage III aircraft as well as the Chengdu/Pakistan Aeronautical Complex JF-17 Thunder.

"The Ra'ad missile enables Pakistan to achieve strategic standoff capability on land and at sea," says the ministry. "[Cruise missile technology] is extremely complex and has been developed by only a few countries in the world."

credit Pakistan Ministry of defence

 

[khanasifm]

H4 and h2 were kept away and so could be already test , 2016 test speculated to be jf-17 test

 

[messiach]

I agree. Their surprise could be nasty.

Either way, it’s prudent to not to underestimate the performance of a potent weapon like Spice 2000. If GIDS can develop REK for Mk8x series bombs, I am sure IAI/Rafael with much wider intellectual pool (Israelis are brilliant in signal processing) and resources are able to deliver something much better. .

 

[Thunder-17]

Raad can further be fine tuned. It is and will evolve into a terrifying weapon!

 

[khanasifm]

JF-17 Thunder .... Air to surface capabilities.

JF-17 Thunder is truly a successful multirole fighter and is proven recently this year on 27th february . Thunder not only performed air to air sorties but was one of the birds who guided Stand-Off weapons to six 6 different targets along with Mirages.

Its been speculated that Thunder guided Takbir or REK(range extension kit ) have range between 60-100 Km and was particularly used on 27th February. REK is actually MK-80 GPB bomb modified GIDS (Global Industrial Defense Solution) .

List doesn't stop here in laser guided Thunder is equipped with LT-2 laser guided bombs . LS-3 and LS-6 GPS aided bombs which are based on Mk-82 , 250Kg and MK-83, 500 KG respectively.

H-2 and H-4 SOW stand off weapons which are based on Daniel Dynamics Raptor I and Raptor II with range of 60KM and 120KM .

Raad cruise missiles which was tested on Mirages having range of 350KM is also equipped on Thunder . Interestingly Raad cruise missile is stealthy as well a with low terrain hugging capability.

Recently post 27th February 2019 another weapon on JF-17 thunder was tested but it's type range we're not disclosed , but the impact shown was quite surprising...

Thunder Air To Surface capabilities are reached to peak with Aeslan Aesalod which is quite big punch in Guiding laser and GPS guided to targets with pin point accuracy .




[IMG]

[IMG]

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/jf-17-fc-1-fighter-aircraft-thread.t5634/page-462

 

[khanasifm]

In 80s to increase range a 1700 litres centerline drop tank was designed for f-1 with Iraqi were first customer

Not sure if jf-17 centerline tank currently at 800 can be redesigned to carry 1100 litres like on wings ??

Best option internal capacity increase by 3-500 kg next conformal and finally third drop tanks

 

[The Eagle]

Its been speculated that Thunder guided Takbir or REK(range extension kit )

MoDP Book for last fiscal year also reveals development of IREK which I guess will have more range & capability as compare to current version. @Oscar @messiach @Bilal Khan (Quwa) or others any thoughts?

 

[khanasifm]

MoDP Book for last fiscal year also reveals development of IREK which I guess will have more range & capability as compare to current version. @Oscar @messiach @Bilal Khan (Quwa) or others any thoughts?

It’s not speculated but already known, tufail article , Mirages launches single weapon with manual guidance to the end via joy stick in two seater While jf-17 launched pk-83 with REK which is fire and forget mode looks like it was carrying drop tanks otherwise mk-84 based REK can also be launched from jf

Lastly I am not sure paf is going for Chinese lgb with aselpod but rather existing gbu-12/10 inventory along with aselpod

I had read in Janes long time ago that pak had license to produce lgb kit locally but not sure if it’s true or not but have seen some pic of locally developed lgb similar to GBu-12/10 named al-battar but not sure if lgb kit is locally licensed produced or imported with just locally developed pk-8x