JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[StormBreaker]

RCS yes it'll effect that for sure but I don't see much design dynamic of CFTs beyond the shape and size of F-15/F-16. The design if we get one looking like the F-16 which expands and sides going straight i'll cut through the air flow without much issue.

I guess we should stop constructing the wind tunnel test facility at PAC and also instruct all other facilities in the world since aircraft designing is just fold the paper and “phooo”.

Bhai, I am not a pro, but judging by the videos of wind tunnel testing and the air flow graphs, every small cm curve matters to change of air resistance.

RCS yes it'll effect that for sure but I don't see much design dynamic of CFTs beyond the shape and size of F-15/F-16. The design if we get one looking like the F-16 which expands and sides going straight i'll cut through the air flow without much issue.

If we want to see CFTs, they won’t be much significant, more like this, would be broader instead of being tall like the ones on F-16s. I am quoting the ones used on F-18s

 

[PakFactor]

I guess we should stop constructing the wind tunnel test facility at PAC and also instruct all other facilities in the world since aircraft designing is just fold the paper and “phooo”.

Bhai, I am not a pro, but judging by the videos of wind tunnel testing and the air flow graphs, every small cm curve matters to change of air resistance.


If we want to see CFTs, they won’t be much significant, more like this, would be broader instead of being tall like the ones on F-16s. I am quoting the ones used on F-18s

View attachment 605019

True, I'm just throwing a theory out there. If can develop something without reinvesting the wheel as time is the issue as well.

But I do wonder if anyone with inside info on PAF knows if this is being planned out or not.

I guess we should stop constructing the wind tunnel test facility at PAC and also instruct all other facilities in the world since aircraft designing is just fold the paper and “phooo”.

Bhai, I am not a pro, but judging by the videos of wind tunnel testing and the air flow graphs, every small cm curve matters to change of air resistance.


If we want to see CFTs, they won’t be much significant, more like this, would be broader instead of being tall like the ones on F-16s. I am quoting the ones used on F-18s

View attachment 605019

Now that's something would be much better if we go F-18 route. Smooth along the air frame than bulking out like F-16.

 

[StormBreaker]

True, I'm just throwing a theory out there. If can develop something without reinvesting the wheel as time is the issue as well.

But I do wonder if anyone with inside info on PAF knows if this is being planned out or not.



Now that's something would be much better if we go F-18 route.

JF-17 does resemble F-18 a lot, especially the LERX and wing joints, I wouldn’t be surprised if we ever see a CFT resembling to The one used on F-18

 

[Kabotar]

I read somewhere that USAF bought last F16 in 1996, maybe CFT came later.

The U.S. Air Force has enough Air Refueling capability for them to have CFTs is pointless and for Pakistan and Israel (among other countries) CFT is much more cost effective then maintaining Air Refueling aircraft.



I believe in one of the threads someone posted an article saying CFTs do not effect the dynamics of the air craft -- and their was no difference in performance with or without CFT and I will venture out and say the same would be for JF-17.



I love the last portion of the 1st picture now if we can take this set up and invest in public sector and could start a fabrication facility to make our own PCBs and export with and do JV with other companies internationally. Imagine the potential and economic development from just this.

 

[PakFactor]

I read somewhere that USAF bought last F16 in 1996, maybe CFT came later.

I believe the CFTs for F-16 came around 1993 when the F-16ES was developed for Israel but they refused it and went with more F-15s but after this the Israeli's took the CFT and went with the flow from there.

 

[khanasifm]

True, I'm just throwing a theory out there. If can develop something without reinvesting the wheel as time is the issue as well.

But I do wonder if anyone with inside info on PAF knows if this is being planned out or not.



Now that's something would be much better if we go F-18 route. Smooth along the air frame than bulking out like F-16.

I am sure the design is wing tunnel tested and air test and not just some drawing

So your logic of how it looks may not hold


https://www.researchgate.net/public...nformal_Fuel_Tank_using_Design_of_Experiments


http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article781.html

 

[Syntage]

Thunder can not carry that much extra weight bro.The engine can not take that much load in addition to full armament load and the design will not be able to host them without creating high drag. So its a waste of time and energy to talk about CFTs.

I think its high time for a comparatively powerful engine if PAF is satisfied with its performance and maintenance cost.

 

[JamD]

Not sure whether this has been asked but why do we not see JF-17s being refueled by the IL-78? We've seen pictures of Mirages being refueled but even though we are now regularly seeing JF-17s with IFR probes I don't recall seeing any footage or pictures of the actual aerial refueling of the JF-17. Maybe I'm missing something. @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

 

[StormBreaker]

Not sure whether this has been asked but why do we not see JF-17s being refueled by the IL-78? We've seen pictures of Mirages being refueled but even though we are now regularly seeing JF-17s with IFR probes I don't recall seeing any footage or pictures of the actual aerial refueling of the JF-17. Maybe I'm missing something. @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Most probably they aren’t public

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Not sure whether this has been asked but why do we not see JF-17s being refueled by the IL-78? We've seen pictures of Mirages being refueled but even though we are now regularly seeing JF-17s with IFR probes I don't recall seeing any footage or pictures of the actual aerial refueling of the JF-17. Maybe I'm missing something. @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Not sure whether this has been asked but why do we not see JF-17s being refueled by the IL-78? We've seen pictures of Mirages being refueled but even though we are now regularly seeing JF-17s with IFR probes I don't recall seeing any footage or pictures of the actual aerial refueling of the JF-17. Maybe I'm missing something. @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

There's footage of it linking up to an IL-78, but that aside, we rarely see any refueling pics of Mirages by the PAF, much less footage.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1473318669426269

 

[JamD]

There's footage of it linking up to an IL-78, but that aside, we rarely see any refueling pics of Mirages by the PAF, much less footage.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1473318669426269

But why? What's so classified about AAR?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

But why? What's so classified about AAR?

With the exception of the Sherdils, we don't see a lot of media of systems from the PAF, especially in mission-like situations. Most of what we see comes from individual PAF personnel.

 

[aliyusuf]

But why? What's so classified about AAR?

With the exception of the Sherdils, we don't see a lot of media of systems from the PAF, especially in mission-like situations. Most of what we see comes from individual PAF personnel.

Probably in mission like situations the loadout on the Mirages may be something that the PAF may not want to reveal?

 

[khanasifm]

 

[MastanKhan]

I think this can be achieved with JF-17 and F-16 currently, though not from Gwadar but from Bholari or Masroor Airbase towards Mumbai. I am not sure about Mirage-III/V.

Estimated aerial distance in N-Miles from Karachi to Mumbai is 476 NM. Thats from airport to airport.

JF-17 in A2A config can achieve combat radius of up to 620 N-Miles.
JF-17 carrying PGM can achieve combat radius of 470 N-Miles up to 620 N-Miles. (no Dog fight -Escort to handle A2A combat)

JF-17 carrying 1 x AShM can achieve combat radius of 370 N-Miles. (can fire C-802 and turn back, unless missile requires constant guidance)
2 x AShM can achieve combat radius of 250 N-Miles (limitation of carrying fuel tank can occur)


F-16 in A2A config for escort can achieve combat radius of 600 N-Miles ( 2 extra BVR AAM than JF-17)
F-16 carrying PGM can achieve combat radius of 450 N-Miles up to 810 N-Miles (configuration dependent but minimum 2 x Aim-9, Targeting pod and 2 x PGM)

Ranges of missiles would matter though. The ones i know for surface strike mission are AGM-65 for F-16. JF-17 fires DEAD missile and AShM, unless im missing any other missiles for both.

I think the longest range of A2G missile that PAF F-16 carries is around 25 km (2.5 N-Miles). Officially AGM-84 and AGM-88 are not in PAF inventory for F-16.
JF-17 carries longest range missile as AShM ( C-802 or CM-400) aorund 65 N-Miles to 135 N-Miles. C-400 states longer ranges, so above 135 N-Miles even.

This leaves Mirage-III/V ranges. If combat radius are comparable to JF-17, then Mirage-III carrying Ra'ad can do the job easily, considering Mirage-III flies 176-200 N-Miles fires Ra'ad (Range of 295 N-Miles)

So DEAD Ops in question as well as induction of long range A2G surface strike missiles for F-16 and JF-17. MAR-1 has range of 30 -50 N-Miles.

Combat radius data from:

JF-17
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17s-ferry-and-combat-ranges.462726/

F-16
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistan-f-16-discussions-2.15226/page-649#post-8916212

Hi,

You really are clueless about the strike profile and route to the target---.