JF-17 Thunder - Information Pool

[SQ8]

Raad wont go on the Thunder- too big for any station. This is a co developed stand off system which is around 60-65km from 20k feet.

 

[ziaulislam]

Raad wont go on the Thunder- too big for any station. This is a co developed stand off system which is around 60-65km from 20k feet.

any replacement planned?

 

[SQ8]

any replacement planned?

For what?

 

[Thorough Pro]

Other than REK and H2/H4?
When did that happen?

Raad wont go on the Thunder- too big for any station. This is a co developed stand off system which is around 60-65km from 20k feet.

 

[Dazzler]

Paf f16 has gbu32, 38, 10, 12 and bunker buster with range 10-20 miles max so even REK with app 40 miles /60km range outclass it you do not need 300-500 km range weapon to classify outclass


Last raad launched no launch platform was disclosed unlike previous launches so speculations are it was jf esp chalky by Chinese media sources

But it's a strategic weapon not some commonly used in large number per acm in AFM August issues standard load is gbu12 and 10 for f16 and even 1600 or so gbu38/32 will be for strategic impact

http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-She...4572/joint-direct-attack-munition-gbu-313238/


https://web.archive.org/web/20121026092532/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123017613

Raad has been integrated on jft. I suggest you to confirm it from your sources. Even LD-10 and Mectron MAR-1ARM with around 100km engagement range outrange the F-16s ammo. Didn't include the c802,AK series with 180/ 250km ranges respectively.

 

[CriticalThought]

Raad wont go on the Thunder- too big for any station. This is a co developed stand off system which is around 60-65km from 20k feet.

Sir, can you please shed some light on this picture, posted by @The SC here:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/twit...m-with-horus-oscar.513417/page-7#post-9813409

 

[TaimiKhan]

Raad wont go on the Thunder- too big for any station. This is a co developed stand off system which is around 60-65km from 20k feet.

From wht i heard the size wasnt much of a problem as c802 and cm400 are larger in size and they fit under the wing pylons. The issue was weight as except for underbelly pylon other hardpoints werent strong enough for 1100kg weight, but last i heard this issue also resolved as wings been made stronger to bear such heavy load. 2 raad alcm under each wing will give it a very good boost.

 

[Sinnerman108]

From wht i heard the size wasnt much of a problem as c802 and cm400 are larger in size and they fit under the wing pylons. The issue was weight as except for underbelly pylon other hardpoints werent strong enough for 1100kg weight, but last i heard this issue also resolved as wings been made stronger to bear such heavy load. 2 raad alcm under each wing will give it a very good boost.

Weight is not only about the wing's strength.

It is about stability. see when almost a ton separates from the airplane it causes a moment
in the opposite direction which the control surfaces may or may not be capable of countering.

Looking at JF's wing profile, they may not be capable of countering such a large force.
If the weight (missile) is under the belly, then there is no moment; thus less problems.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Weight is not only about the wing's strength.

It is about stability. see when almost a ton separates from the airplane it causes a moment
in the opposite direction which the control surfaces may or may not be capable of countering.

Looking at JF's wing profile, they may not be capable of countering such a large force.
If the weight (missile) is under the belly, then there is no moment; thus less problems.

A few days back windjammer i believe posted a pic of jf17 with just one under wing fuel tank, and the fbw system is there to take care, it adjusts flight profile accordingly. This isnt a big problem.

 

[Dazzler]

A few days back windjammer i believe posted a pic of jf17 with just one under wing fuel tank, and the fbw system is there to take care, it adjusts flight profile accordingly. This isnt a big problem.

 

[Sinnerman108]

A few days back windjammer i believe posted a pic of jf17 with just one under wing fuel tank, and the fbw system is there to take care, it adjusts flight profile accordingly. This isnt a big problem.

I never said it is impossible; I said that the wing profile may not allow it.
And even if does allow, then flight characteristics are limited because the control surfaces are working over time
to keep the aircraft steady.

The problem is in the separation;
If the FBW computers and aerodynamics can cater for almost one tonne weight removal,

Then Kudos to the team; Very well done.

 

[messiach]

Good post. The resultant arm is instantaneously distributed irrespective of the fact it is in range of CoG or not, creating a favorable fore-to-aft balance.

Weight is not only about the wing's strength.

It is about stability. see when almost a ton separates from the airplane it causes a moment
in the opposite direction which the control surfaces may or may not be capable of countering.

Looking at JF's wing profile, they may not be capable of countering such a large force.
If the weight (missile) is under the belly, then there is no moment; thus less problems.

 

[CriticalThought]

Good post. The resultant arm is instantaneously distributed irrespective of the fact it is in range of CoG or not, creating a favorable fore-to-aft balance.

Madam, what about lateral moment around the length of the aircraft? With a 2000 lbs hanging on one side and the aircraft horizontal, dropping 2000 lbs on the other side will create a lateral moment around the length of the aircraft. Toss bombing will make it easier because a large part of the weight vector will no longer create a perpendicular downward force on the wing.

 

[ziaulislam]

For what?

for RAAD that can be carried on jf-17, assuming that PAF is not getting any other heavy platform for strategic strike role after the mirages are retired and if the assumption that RAAD is too big for jf-17 is true

 

[Khadim e Darul Ehsaan]

Weight is not only about the wing's strength.

It is about stability. see when almost a ton separates from the airplane it causes a moment
in the opposite direction which the control surfaces may or may not be capable of countering.

Looking at JF's wing profile, they may not be capable of countering such a large force.
If the weight (missile) is under the belly, then there is no moment; thus less problems.

Weight and stability offcourse matter , in addition i want to ask that can jf17 carry raad alcm on centerline hardpoint under belly bcz it has very low ground clearance ?
Ground clearance can be problm or not for center line hard point ???