JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[GriffinsRule]

There is no real indication that the wings are changing in any form in Block III. Its a wishlist item as it stands currently

 

[denel]

There is no real indication that the wings are changing in any form in Block III. Its a wishlist item as it stands currently

Friend, if you look at B version, that will be the basis for Blk III; wings are longer.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Friend, if you look at B version, that will be the basis for Blk III; wings are longer.

wing span which is increases wing aera

 

[khanasifm]

B model

Like the original version, it's capable of firing beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile SD-10, which is known as PL-12 in China, reported Chinese news website Sina.

Compared to the last model, its loaded weight has been increased by 25 per cent - from 3,600 kilograms (7,936 pounds) to 4,500 kilograms (9,920 pounds) - meaning it could carry more missile tubes.

The Sina report also said the jet could fire air-to-ground missiles, anti-ship missiles and precision-guide weapons.

The new FC-1 Xiaolong has reportedly received orders from oversea clients, but Chinese media didn't specify the identify of the buyers.

FC-1 Xiaolong, or JF-17 Thunder, is jointly developed by China Aviation Industry Corporation and Pakistan Aeronautical Complex.

The intended budget for the project was said to be £348 million ($450 million

 

[khanasifm]

It comes down to laying integration standards; everything is doable if you have standard interfacing defined.


Upgrading the older blocks is most likely not possible given the significant changes between I/II vs III.

per pac jf-17 promotional video all blocks can be upgraded to latest variant

 

[Dazzler]

per pac jf-17 promotional video all blocks can be upgraded to latest variant

As far as i know, all blk 1 aircraft have been upgraded to blk 2 standard.

The last ones were upgraded in 2017.

 

[Deino]

Friend, if you look at B version, that will be the basis for Blk III; wings are longer.

wing span which is increases wing aera

Care to prove? As far as I've seen images in comparison, they are the same. Neither the "wings are longer", the span wider or anything else...

 

[khanasifm]

Care to prove? As far as I've seen images in comparison, they are the same. Neither the "wings are longer", the span wider or anything else...

I think it’s specs on catic/AVIC website and news item at the time of first flight for dual seater

Single seater had 8.5 meter wing span w/o wingtip missile and 9m with wingtip missile

Dual seater has ~9.5m same as f-16

Not sure how much difference is in wing area but it does give dual seater more wing span so possible of adding another under wing station , guessing


https://defence-blog.com/aviation/p...art-in-test-flight-of-new-jf-17b-fighter.html

https://quwa.org/2017/12/11/second-jf-17b-prototype-now-flying/

View attachment 484523

 

[khanasifm]

 

[ANG]

Hi, this is an interesting read on the new AAMs and the JF-17.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...re-transforming-balance-of-power-in-the-skies

 

[Tempest II]

View attachment 484524

The dual bomb rack is not symmetrical. Any rationale for this? i don't think they planned it that way from the start but they had to fix an unexpected challenge and ended up with the current design. That is my reasing. Anyway with a better and more enlightened explanation?

Thanks

 

[SQ8]

The dual bomb rack is not symmetrical. Any rationale for this? i don't think they planned it that way from the start but they had to fix an unexpected challenge and ended up with the current design. That is my reasing. Anyway with a better and more enlightened explanation?

Thanks

If by symmetry you refer to the staggering; that is to allow better seperation clearance for the weapons from each other.

 

[khanasifm]

The dual bomb rack is not symmetrical. Any rationale for this? i don't think they planned it that way from the start but they had to fix an unexpected challenge and ended up with the current design. That is my reasing. Anyway with a better and more enlightened explanation?

Thanks

You will also notice now day in pics triple ejector racks on f-16 carrying just two gbu or bombs and not usual three with third inward rack empty before take off


Perhaps same reasons the inner rack can/ will eject only if drop tank are
Dropped to get clearance

 

[Tempest II]

You will also notice now day in pics triple ejector racks on f-16 carrying just two gbu or bombs and not usual three with third inward rack empty before take off


Perhaps same reasons the inner rack can/ will eject only if drop tank are
Dropped to get clearance

View attachment 484812

View attachment 484813

View attachment 484814

thanks. I had searched for exactly these but couldn't find any. So it is not unusual.

I guess the greater distance from the EFT the greater/expanded release envelope. However i think there it turning moment on the pylon. ... The usual compromise in engineering

 

[krash]

The dual bomb rack is not symmetrical. Any rationale for this? i don't think they planned it that way from the start but they had to fix an unexpected challenge and ended up with the current design. That is my reasing. Anyway with a better and more enlightened explanation?

Thanks

Not entirely sure if that's an independent design. Someone once posted a picture of a USAF aircraft with a dual ejector rack of the same design (not just a triple ejector with a dual load out). Unable to find the picture.