JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Safriz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow

Ok.... But Raad-2 is also very similar to Storm Shadow.
I saw the MBDA storm Shadow at MBDA stall at Farnborough back in 2012 i guess.
Never imagined back then that Pakistan will have a similar missile.

 

[GriffinsRule]

i believe we asking of too much from JF17 is we go for CFT....
lets keep it as it is suppose to do.....
even f16 cd with cft has huge drag. cft for thunder will be counterproductive

Where did you read that F-16 CFTs have a huge drag? Because every source I have read says its completely the opposite of what you are saying.

“The CFTs have very little adverse effect on the F-16’s renowned performance,” said Maj. Timothy S. McDonald, U.S. Air Force project pilot for CFT testing at Eglin. “A set of CFTs carries 50 percent more fuel than the centerline external fuel tank, but has only 12 percent of the drag.” The CFTs are designed for the full F-16 flight envelope – up to 9 g’s, maximum angle of attack and sideslip and maximum roll rate.
https://defense-update.com/20040204_f-16-cft.html

Similar information available on the web if you care to search.

 

[ziaulislam]

i believe we asking of too much from JF17 is we go for CFT....
lets keep it as it is suppose to do.....
even f16 cd with cft has huge drag. cft for thunder will be counterproductive

no CFT has negligible drag ...that's the whole point

with center + CFT jf17 will have almost same range as jf17 with two under wing tanks (if f16 like performance in CTs is acheived). This will also give jf17 same enevelop of operation -15%. so if f16 like CFTs are acheiveable it will be huge plus
you can easily go with 2+4 or 4+2 BVR/WVR combo

 

[ZAC1]

I think in war case scenario on defense jf-17 will only be fitted with one fuel tank and 4 bvr n 2 wvr missiles.thats my guess.we also have air refuelers.in case of attack drop tanks also works as dumb bombs.

 

[KAI KAI Baloch]

no CFT has negligible drag ...that's the whole point

with center + CFT jf17 will have almost same range as jf17 with two under wing tanks (if f16 like performance in CTs is acheived). This will also give jf17 same enevelop of operation -15%. so if f16 like CFTs are acheiveable it will be huge plus
you can easily go with 2+4 or 4+2 BVR/WVR combo

Well there are benefits of drop tanks, u cant jettison cft in combat...
I mighy be wrong but what i have discussed is that cft on 16s have huge drag...
Plus cft wont in the profile of a thunder...
But again there are people who can judge it better...
I dont think paf will go for it

Where did you read that F-16 CFTs have a huge drag? Because every source I have read says its completely the opposite of what you are saying.

“The CFTs have very little adverse effect on the F-16’s renowned performance,” said Maj. Timothy S. McDonald, U.S. Air Force project pilot for CFT testing at Eglin. “A set of CFTs carries 50 percent more fuel than the centerline external fuel tank, but has only 12 percent of the drag.” The CFTs are designed for the full F-16 flight envelope – up to 9 g’s, maximum angle of attack and sideslip and maximum roll rate.
https://defense-update.com/20040204_f-16-cft.html

Similar information available on the web if you care to search.

Buddy the link you shares states 12 % more drag and at supersonic flights it more...
Please re read the artical u posted my friend


And thunder is already slow... how much more slow it will get coz of cft...
16 have a superior engine with amazing thrust...
But its not the case with 17

 

[GriffinsRule]

Well there are benefits of drop tanks, u cant jettison cft in combat...
I mighy be wrong but what i have discussed is that cft on 16s have huge drag...
Plus cft wont in the profile of a thunder...
But again there are people who can judge it better...
I dont think paf will go for it


Buddy the link you shares states 12 % more drag and at supersonic flights it more...
Please re read the artical u posted my friend


And thunder is already slow... how much more slow it will get coz of cft...
16 have a superior engine with amazing thrust...
But its not the case with 17

12% drag of the drag compared to centerline tank so 88% reduced drag basically. Even better compared to drop tanks carried under the wings.

 

[KAI KAI Baloch]

12% drag of the drag compared to centerline tank so 88% reduced drag basically. Even better compared to drop tanks carried under the wings.

that 88% (which you are quoting) drag can be dropped (Jettisoned) in case of a battle!!!
brother again you are bringing your points based on an f16..... it will be a different story for jf17 thunders....
even when f6 had gondula tanks, all pilots said that it became sluggish...
the profile of an f16 is different from a thunder...
Let thunder remain a thunder and lets not stretch the limits, let it do what is suppose to do......
and i will personally say sorry to u the day PAF installs cft on thunders ..... for now they will never do that

 

[ziaulislam]

that 88% (which you are quoting) drag can be dropped (Jettisoned) in case of a battle!!!
brother again you are bringing your points based on an f16..... it will be a different story for jf17 thunders....
even when f6 had gondula tanks, all pilots said that it became sluggish...
the profile of an f16 is different from a thunder...
Let thunder remain a thunder and lets not stretch the limits, let it do what is suppose to do......
and i will personally say sorry to u the day PAF installs cft on thunders ..... for now they will never do that

And then what? You jetson your tanks and barely have enough time to do combat ..
Its not an era of super manveribilty or WVR fights but BVR fights in which first BVR might be shoot at maximum range/probing

 

[Armchair]

I think posters are misunderstanding. By CFT you are saving that 88% drag from the centerline drop tank.

 

[Shabi1]

Lets wait for JFT Blk-3 specs, new internal design means better use of space for fuel and with a upgraded RD-93MA we could see better economy.

I think posters are misunderstanding. By CFT you are saving that 88% drag from the centerline drop tank.

CFTs have benefits, no denying that. But arguing for CFTs on JF-17 when China hasn't made them operational on any other platform yet is a stretch at the moment. Pakistan is gearing up for doing systems integration work but regardless of our pioneering with F-6 Gondola, flight dynamics are something still totally outsourced to China and will be for Azm as well. Lets wait and see for J-10 first.

Also more range is good but with regards to PAF our prospective enemy is just next door we don't need the same range as needed by USAF or RuAF. JF-17 is a light jet and will remain in that category to keep it easy to operate. For medium and plus category we have F-16s and future Azm

 

[KAI KAI Baloch]

And then what? You jetson your tanks and barely have enough time to do combat ..
Its not an era of super manveribilty or WVR fights but BVR fights in which first BVR might be shoot at maximum range/probing

OK lets take it in different scenarios:
firstly: you notion of few min of flying after dropping tanks; please state how far can a thunder fly without fuel tanks... (in case of a aerial combat or BFM). (Also please tell me whats the sop if you engage in a WVR, what do u do with fuel tanks).....
secondly if you r done with your mission and ur fuel tanks are empty and u need to exit the area in speed, you can jettison the fuel tanks and scoot.....
regarding BVR fights well that depends from situation to situation, you cannot rule WVR out.... by your logic PAF should stop doing BFM...... stop carrying pl5e2 and AIM9l
My views remain the same, let the thunder be what it is........ and if you think i am wrong (then PAF will prove me wrong by going to cft)....

 

[Armchair]

Lets wait for JFT Blk-3 specs, new internal design means better use of space for fuel and with a upgraded RD-93MA we could see better economy.


CFTs have benefits, no denying that. But arguing for CFTs on JF-17 when China hasn't made them operational on any other platform yet is a stretch at the moment. Pakistan is gearing up for doing systems integration work but regardless of our pioneering with F-6 Gondola, flight dynamics are something still totally outsourced to China and will be for Azm as well. Lets wait and see for J-10 first.

Also more range is good but with regards to PAF our prospective enemy is just next door we don't need the same range as needed by USAF or RuAF. JF-17 is a light jet and will remain in that category to keep it easy to operate. For medium and plus category we have F-16s and future Azm

According to Messiach, (check her posts) CFTs are no big deal and have already been designed some actually built. They are to be integrated on the block 3s.

 

[Shabi1]

According to Messiach, (check her posts) CFTs are no big deal and have already been designed some actually built. They are to be integrated on the block 3s.

Then nothing we can do but wait. If we get CFTs on JF-17 it's good but if we don't not a deal breaker. Unfortunately not enough information to debate on it.

Hope this image is enough to feed curiosity for now.

 

[Armchair]

Then nothing we can do but wait. If we get CFTs on JF-17 it's good but if we don't not a deal breaker. Unfortunately not enough information to debate on it.

Hope this image is enough to feed curiosity for now.

According to messiach, the CFT on the JF-17 is different from what we expect from the F-16 ones. You may want to check the CFT on the F*CK-1 of Taiwan. It has a CFT version whose images are bouncing around online. I posted it a few days ago too. Not on this device I am using just now.

 

[air marshal]

https://falcons.pk/photo/JF-17-Thunder-Block-2/2725