Thanks for your post. I'll not say whether software-wise present JF-17 is programmed to pull +9G or not. But fact is that a jet should be able to handle well above 9G if you want to put a limit in software for upto 9G. Also gyros are not placed exactly at CG so when your HUD is showing 9G, it is possible that you are pulling a bit above it in terms of CG of air-frame. Also software based limits are related to how much stress you want to put on the air-frame in the long run.
I am very confident that CFTs will come sooner or later. CFTs provide too many benefits and our air-force already knows this very well. Range-wise they are much better than drop tanks as drop tanks add significant drag which results in reducing the actual benefit from that fuel to 60-65% compared to internal. Also positive impact on payload in some operational configurations.
But biggest impact will be much more freedom in planning operations whether in terms of air to air or air to ground.In dog fights, historically more than half of kills occur when one of the opponents tries to exit it because of lower fuel. With agile and energy conserving fighters like F-16 and CFTs this increases chances to have higher kill ratios. In CAP you can either loiter more or take up more weapons payload while CFTs do not stress your air-frames the way drop tanks do and neither inhibit acceleration or agility. In naval operation, you will have significant range and also combat radius advantage for fighters who will be tasked to provide air superiority role in the mixed sorties. In deep strikes, you can drop your tanks much deeper in enemy territory if needed and enter merges.
Before this can accepted I would like to hear that JF-17 is getting a different / better engine. All this is not possible with current engine.
