JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[Sulman Badshah]

This aircraft can carry only 1 CM400AKG AShM----that is not enough---we need something that can carry 4 of them or at least 3---- per aircraft.

CM400 AKG is a 900 kg category missile ,.. JF 17 3 weapon station (1 under fuselage and 2 under wing) are capable of handling 1000 kg ... So in full configuration JF 17 will be able to handle 3 CM400AKG missile

 

[RAMPAGE]

CM400 AKG is a 900 kg category missile ,.. JF 17 3 weapon station (1 under fuselage and 2 under wing) are capable of handling 1000 kg ... So in full configuration JF 17 will be able to handle 3 CM400AKG missile

And with what range, speed and RCS?

 

[aliyusuf]

They can work on shedding some weight by replacing metal with composits, may be carbon fiber sheets for lesser joints and thus weight. And thus smaller RCS. Lighter jet means greater range. And spare power for AESA .
So, if I had to suggest modifications priorities, it will be,

1) composits + whatever is necessary to reduce weight. (& hopefully RCS)
2) bigger & better AESA (in a bigger nose)
3) ws13
4) more air to air missiles
5) more fuel capacity

Anything is possible. But keeping unit cost down and meeting induction timelines are an overriding constraint that may govern what modification is carried out in which block.

Furthermore, composites by themselves do not reduce RCS. The profile of the plane and its basic design, radar absorbent material (RAM) and radar absorbent paint (RAP) ... all contribute towards reducing RCS. Composite materials reduce weight and increase strength. But increase upfront cost and maintenance cost.

 

[Sulman Badshah]

And with what range, speed and RCS?

definitely with low range because there will be no fuel tanks ... speed varies according to altitude and no idea about missile material that effect RCS

 

[MastanKhan]

CM400 AKG is a 900 kg category missile ,.. JF 17 3 weapon station (1 under fuselage and 2 under wing) are capable of handling 1000 kg ... So in full configuration JF 17 will be able to handle 3 CM400AKG missile

Hi,

Read the interview my man---read the interview in detail----. Only one and only one CM400AKG


Page 3 of the interview

#3541

 

[Paksanity]

Hi,

Read the interview my man---read the interview in detail----. Only one and only one CM400AKG


Page 3 of the interview

#3541

JF17 with two 400 AKG

 

[Sulman Badshah]

Hi,

Read the interview my man---read the interview in detail----. Only one and only one CM400AKG


Page 3 of the interview

#3541

Thanks .. i have understand the point ... my previous comment was irrelevent

 

[Paksanity]

View attachment 264447

If true, it could be really interesting. AESA from Russia is much likely to materialise compared to Su-35 deal.

 

[OTTOMAN]

Unless we solve the power-plant issue, JFT will remain handicapped.

I'm not sure, what you mean by 'power plant issue' but RD is as perfect fit for JFT as JFT is for PAF... a match made in heaven!

Now, if you fanaticize some other engine, post its name / specs. and we shall see how far it excels.
If you have political constraints in mind, than also mark your horse, so we all can clap.

View attachment 264449

JF17 with two 400 AKG

and there can be 2 multi racks each carrying 2 BVR, 2 IR at wing tips and one conformal tank at belly.
This is why its a true force multiplier for PAF.

 

[RAMPAGE]

definitely with low range

Exactly. The question is, whether or not the range of a JF-17 with a weapon configuration shown below plus 370 kg (the weight added by exchanging YJ-8 s with CM 400 AKG s) is enough to conduct air support/strike missions for PN in every possible/expected scenario.

@RASHID MEHMOOD @Oscar

I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

 

[MastanKhan]

View attachment 264449

JF17 with two 400 AKG

Hi,

No fuel tanks----so how far is the plane going to fly---. 2 is always better than one-----. So---you launch one---then how are you going to balance the weight.

You really need a bigger and heavier strike aircraft to carry that load.

You can also do with confirmal fuel tanks and a centerline fuel tank and one missile on each inner pylon----that will make for two missiles.

There is another way to do is------with a bigger engine----confirmal fuel tanks---two missiles on inner pylon----one missile in the center----and where the sd10 missile is have on smaller fuel tank on each wing---and refueling capabilities as well.

So---the only missiles that you have are on the out pylons----

 

[Tempest II]

Are we not missing the fact that the final solution will have in-flight refuelling?

 

[Basel]

View attachment 264447

They are willing to provide avionics for JFT and even new engine since 2014 IDEAS expo.

 

[RAMPAGE]

Are we not missing the fact that the final solution will have in-flight refuelling?

Ok, add that to the equation. In-flight refuelling after take off.

 

[Tempest II]

From the Dubai 2011 presentations below:

Internal fuel = (2,300/0.84) = 2,738l.

External fuel = 3,000l.

Total fuel = 5,738l.

Now, this will give 1,000km range in an A2G configuration.

If you loose both the 1,100l tanks, you get rid of 1,848kg, and add 1,600kg from the two missiles. You end up 248kg lighter.

You loose the 4 x 250kg bombs = 1,000kg. You add the 2 x 200kg SD-10s. This is 600kg lighter.

In total you are now 848kg lighter.

Back to the fuel: 5,738l = 1,000km radius.

2,200l less 5,738l means 3,538l = ((3,538/5,738)*1000km) = 617km with CM-400 AKG

I have ignored the weight differences and focused on fuel.