JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[monitor]

 

[monitor]

Battle configuration

 

[monitor]

 

[Tempest II]

Am I in the minority that I find a load of 2 x SD-10 inadequate? This issue is not the weight! Am I missing something?

In the Red Flag 2008 video, the guy says the F-22 does not carry enough missiles. If 6 AMRAAMs are not enough for the Raptor, I don’t see the sense in 2 MRAAMs being enough for the Thunder. My logic says the JF-17 will soon have dual racks and carry at least 4 x SD-10s. The Thunder should be able to take off with 3 x ETs, 4 x MRAAMs and 2 x SRAAMs.

 

[SQ8]

Btw.. just so you know.. the right and left MFD's are swappable..also.. the center one can also display everything that the others can.

Tempest..

Perhaps the MER rack seen on the J10 may find its way to the Thunder.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Am I in the minority that I find a load of 2 x SD-10 inadequate? This issue is not the weight! Am I missing something?

In the Red Flag 2008 video, the guy says the F-22 does not carry enough missiles. If 6 AMRAAMs are not enough for the Raptor, I don’t see the sense in 2 MRAAMs being enough for the Thunder. My logic says the JF-17 will soon have dual racks and carry at least 4 x SD-10s. The Thunder should be able to take off with 3 x ETs, 4 x MRAAMs and 2 x SRAAMs.

It depends on the configuration I suppose...If it is an Interceptor configuration it might carry a twin rack SD 10 and if it in Patrol just 2 SD 10 is enough. It all boils down to mission requirements and availability of the missiles in respective bases. You must also consider the Thrust of the engine....with a max thrust of 93-96 KN I think it will be insufficient for the RD 93 to carry a load carried by an MMRCA. C'mon it is a light weight fighter and you want it to do as much as a Rafale? Then you need to fit another engine to it.

 

[unicorn]

Am I in the minority that I find a load of 2 x SD-10 inadequate? This issue is not the weight! Am I missing something?

In the Red Flag 2008 video, the guy says the F-22 does not carry enough missiles. If 6 AMRAAMs are not enough for the Raptor, I don’t see the sense in 2 MRAAMs being enough for the Thunder. My logic says the JF-17 will soon have dual racks and carry at least 4 x SD-10s. The Thunder should be able to take off with 3 x ETs, 4 x MRAAMs and 2 x SRAAMs.

For enough missiles may be he mean to say the effective combat loading.As for JFT can you predict how effective it should be in this regard.

 

[TOPGUN]

I my self have been & still am a viper lover but i must say as time has passed iam starting to fall more and more in love with the thunder

 

[Manticore]

 

[MastanKhan]

Am I in the minority that I find a load of 2 x SD-10 inadequate? This issue is not the weight! Am I missing something?

In the Red Flag 2008 video, the guy says the F-22 does not carry enough missiles. If 6 AMRAAMs are not enough for the Raptor, I don’t see the sense in 2 MRAAMs being enough for the Thunder. My logic says the JF-17 will soon have dual racks and carry at least 4 x SD-10s. The Thunder should be able to take off with 3 x ETs, 4 x MRAAMs and 2 x SRAAMs.

Tempest,

No you are not---but then you have to look at the battlefield scenario----what does the opponent carry---is it the su30 with 8 of them with comparative longer kill range---or is it the mig21 bis----.

No aircraft is designed to fight its own battles against itself----there is always an adversary, which is most of the times different than itself. Most of the times you need to be equipped with better numbers of missiles----higher number of bullets in your machine gun and a better radar to outdo the enemy's radar----.

 

[razgriz19]

Am I in the minority that I find a load of 2 x SD-10 inadequate? This issue is not the weight! Am I missing something?

In the Red Flag 2008 video, the guy says the F-22 does not carry enough missiles. If 6 AMRAAMs are not enough for the Raptor, I don’t see the sense in 2 MRAAMs being enough for the Thunder. My logic says the JF-17 will soon have dual racks and carry at least 4 x SD-10s. The Thunder should be able to take off with 3 x ETs, 4 x MRAAMs and 2 x SRAAMs.

but then again PAF f-16s always carried a load of 4-AAM. no more no less...
maybe two MRAAMs and 2 SRAAM were the requirments of PAF when they started the work on the aircraft.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

...
Perhaps the MER rack seen on the J10 may find its way to the Thunder.

Can the J-10, and more so the JF-17, still carry 2 MERs (therefore 4 MRAAMs) and two wingtip AAMs as regular battle loads? Some people who fly think it is already too much load, not yet even considering external fuel tanks. IIRC even the Typhoon couldn't carry 6 AAMs in a current African campaign when there wasn't even dogfighting involved.

 

[CallsignAlzaeem]

Battle configuration

Pod and Glided bomb have been wrongly pointed in the pic.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

but then again PAF f-16s always carried a load of 4-AAM. no more no less...
maybe two MRAAMs and 2 SRAAM were the requirments of PAF when they started the work on the aircraft.

PAF f-16 also carried three sindwinder configurations many times, but in usual case it carries two or max four ... because in case of any accident or crash ur going to loose all missiles on rails together. Also in A2G role it carries max 2 - 4 missiles because middle pylon of wing is used to carry A2G munitions ..
Majority of images we see here or any other web are of usual flights not from war, so u see limited numbers of missiles.

here's three missile configuration of F-16, though these are missile rails only and no missile but they are there for missiles only.

 

[rockstarIN]

Can you type the names of the aircraft too in order?