JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[SBD-3]

PT04 and 06 Flying Togather

Some more pics

 

[Thorough Pro]

Not saying it should be done, not saying it should'nt be done, but a simple comparison between the two options (additional hard point Vs twin rail) additing an additionalhard point would be advantegous. Twin rail would cause additional drag and weight around 100~150 kg more.

i don't think apart from one pod station another hardpoint is expected in jft kind of small fighter..

4 hardpoint should be made capable of taking twin bombs/bvr

(2-3 and 5-6 hardpoints)

CAn anyone post a to the scale comparative size charts of F-16 and JF-17 please. Thanks.

 

[farhan_9909]

Not saying it should be done, not saying it should'nt be done, but a simple comparison between the two options (additional hard point Vs twin rail) additing an additionalhard point would be advantegous. Twin rail would cause additional drag and weight around 100~150 kg more.



CAn anyone post a to the scale comparative size charts of F-16 and JF-17 please. Thanks.

from left

mig 21,f-16 and jft

 

[Gentelman]

That's not correct, since you only look at the A2A configuration and even here, additional hardpoints are better that draggy twin pylons, especially when you get into WVR combats.
More important are 2 additional wingstations, to make JF 17 to 4th gen fighter with credible self defence capabilities, because currently it can carry only fuel tanks, bombs and 2 x IR missiles, but no BVR missiles! Twin pylons are of no use in this case, since the hardpoint for them is occupied by the A2G weapon:

In any configuration where range is important and 2 fuel tanks have to be carried, the current hardpoint layout restrics JF 17 to IR missiles only, that in return requires additional fighters in A2A config as escorts, which is not usual for modern fighters anymore.
The pod station is a downside too, but only for configurations where laser guidance is required.

So if the graphics are correct and the block 2 gets not only a pod station, but also 2 winstations, it would be an important step forward in JF 17s weapon layout, even better than J10B!

Just to point this out, not in any relations to Anonys posts.



Apart from that, the point is as usual which F16s? Most likely of the Block 15s without any special coatings and as we heared from several Pakistani senior members, JF 17 so far has no coatings either. So it might have a lower RCS than the older F16s, due to it's smaller size possibly, but not compared to the F16 B52s or comparable modern designs with RCS reductions.

wll JF17 RCS is comparable to F16 block 30+ standard just a bit low with new radars......and it is very low

 

[graphican]

JF 17 so far has no coatings either.

Ah.. let there be a big surprise when its the time

 

[farhan_9909]

Well pakistan does has RAM coating capabilities be it on jft or babur cruise missile courtesy oscar

 

[Dazzler]

 

[A.Rafay]

That Antonov Is From Russia?? probably Delivering RD-93 Engines !

 

[Dazzler]

That Antonov Is From Russia?? probably Delivering RD-93 Engines !

Private airliner Antonov 124, delivering JFT fuselage to PAC KAMRA.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Private airliner Antonov 124, delivering JFT fuselage to PAC KAMRA.

@nabil_05 you sure about that ?

2 questions.

1. Why is the fuselage covered in top 2 pics and uncovered in last pic ?

2. Why is the front of the fuselage so broad ? JFT's fuselage is taller than the breadth.

 

[araz]

That's not correct, since you only look at the A2A configuration and even here, additional hardpoints are better that draggy twin pylons, especially when you get into WVR combats.
More important are 2 additional wingstations, to make JF 17 to 4th gen fighter with credible self defence capabilities, because currently it can carry only fuel tanks, bombs and 2 x IR missiles, but no BVR missiles! Twin pylons are of no use in this case, since the hardpoint for them is occupied by the A2G weapon:

In any configuration where range is important and 2 fuel tanks have to be carried, the current hardpoint layout restrics JF 17 to IR missiles only, that in return requires additional fighters in A2A config as escorts, which is not usual for modern fighters anymore.
The pod station is a downside too, but only for configurations where laser guidance is required.

So if the graphics are correct and the block 2 gets not only a pod station, but also 2 winstations, it would be an important step forward in JF 17s weapon layout, even better than J10B!

Just to point this out, not in any relations to Anonys posts.



Apart from that, the point is as usual which F16s? Most likely of the Block 15s without any special coatings and as we heared from several Pakistani senior members, JF 17 so far has no coatings either. So it might have a lower RCS than the older F16s, due to it's smaller size possibly, but not compared to the F16 B52s or comparable modern designs with RCS reductions.

My friend.
Additional hardpoints at this stage will reqjire further testing and evaluation.If we can fit 2 bvrs on a twin rack ala J10, it achieves the same end. As to your point about going into wvr combat,theo bvrs would have been fired a long time ago. So it makes sense to prioratisethe need to replace an aging and fast obsolescent fleet rather than delaying that in favour ofadding additional hardpoints which might never be neededin the Indo Pak scenario where distances between the adversaries are small. Most of the deeppenetration work would be done by stand off weapons and BMs rather than risking JFTS.In any case I dont even think there will be a war in the region for the next 15-20 yrs. The prospect of MADwill keepany situation from getting out of hand.
Araz

 

[Dazzler]

@nabil_05 you sure about that ?

2 questions.

1. Why is the fuselage covered in top 2 pics and uncovered in last pic ?

2. Why is the front of the fuselage so broad ? JFT's fuselage is taller than the breadth.

Answer to the first question could be that they covered the complete fuselage after fitting it inside.

However, i am puzzled about the second one myself :O

 

[ghilzai]

Answer to the first question could be that they covered the complete fuselage after fitting it inside.

However, i am puzzled about the second one myself :O

Nabil Sahib do sawal

1: Is this block 2 being delivered for assembly?

2: This antonov plane is this at kamra minhas?.

Thankyou in advance.

@nabil_05 you sure about that ?

2 questions.

1. Why is the fuselage covered in top 2 pics and uncovered in last pic ?

2. Why is the front of the fuselage so broad ? JFT's fuselage is taller than the breadth.

Well spotted, i was was thinking that myself.

 

[Dazzler]

1: Is this block 2 being delivered for assembly?

* I think its blk 1, 3 Sqds of blk 1, 18 per Sqd mean 54 aircraft.

2: This antonov plane is this at kamra minhas?.


* A Chinese member uploaded it so i presume its in China

Thankyou in advance.

Most Welcome.

 

[Armstrong]

1: Is this block 2 being delivered for assembly?

* I think its blk 1, 3 Sqds of blk 1, 18 per Sqd mean 54 aircraft.

2: This antonov plane is this at kamra minhas?.


* A Chinese member uploaded it so i presume its in China

Thankyou in advance.

Most Welcome.

Yaraa is Block 1 the basic most Block or does it follow the same numeral nomenclature as the Al-Khalids do with their AKs, AK-1s & so on & so forth, & the Block 1 is a follow on from the basic Block in service with the PAF ?