What's new

New Load Out On JF-17 Thunder

The new HMD seems to have an uncanny resemblance to the one from View attachment 896695 for the EuroFighter Typhoon.



It looks more like the cobra HMD.

View attachment 896697
IIRC it's a bespoke Chinese HMD/S. We'll use it across both the JF-17 and J-10CE. In fact, any GDP starting their career on one of those 2 fighters would get a custom-made shell that they'll use throughout their career. You'd mount the optronics stack to the shell.
 
.
...any GDP starting their career on one of those 2 fighters would get a custom-made shell that they'll use throughout their career.
So, the idea behind it is similar to the Helmets used/worn by F-35 Pilots, as they too are custom built for each Pilot.

Unlike the JHMCS, which is a tech based on GENTEX Helmets with the conventional sizes - these new Helmets for the JF-17 (Block III) & J-10's must cost a pretty buck if they're being custom built.

Any clue as to what the price tag would be - ball park?
 
.
So, the idea behind it is similar to the Helmets used/worn by F-35 Pilots, as they too are custom built for each Pilot.

Unlike the JHMCS, which is a tech based on GENTEX Helmets with the conventional sizes - these new Helmets for the JF-17 (Block III) & J-10's must cost a pretty buck if they're being custom built.

Any clue as to what the price tag would be - ball park?
Yea, so there are 2 items in play:

1. The optronics module

2. The shell helmet

The PAF will acquire 1 optronics module per fighter (just like how there's a JHMCS for each F-16). Obviously, this is the costliest part of the HMD/S. I think the Chinese HMD/S may cost more than the JHMCS because it's a more advanced stack. IIRC the JHMCS is a monocular system, while the Chinese HMD/S seems to leverage a visor-based display (like the BAE Striker II).

The shell helmet is a continuous procurement run. This is custom-fit for every pilot. I think it'll basically start supplanting the PAF's Gentex HGU orders over the long term. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Gentex itself pivots a bit and starts offering custom-fit shell helmets. Most air forces now are moving towards the Striker-II-style HMD/S, including the F-35. Gentex basically needs the measurements and spec of how the optronics module would fit to make custom helmets. The custom-fit aspect would make these helmets cost more than a standard HGU.
 
.
Yea, so there are 2 items in play:

1. The optronics module

2. The shell helmet

The PAF will acquire 1 optronics module per fighter (just like how there's a JHMCS for each F-16). Obviously, this is the costliest part of the HMD/S. I think the Chinese HMD/S may cost more than the JHMCS because it's a more advanced stack. IIRC the JHMCS is a monocular system, while the Chinese HMD/S seems to leverage a visor-based display (like the BAE Striker II).

The shell helmet is a continuous procurement run. This is custom-fit for every pilot. I think it'll basically start supplanting the PAF's Gentex HGU orders over the long term. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Gentex itself pivots a bit and starts offering custom-fit shell helmets. Most air forces now are moving towards the Striker-II-style HMD/S, including the F-35. Gentex basically needs the measurements and spec of how the optronics module would fit to make custom helmets. The custom-fit aspect would make these helmets cost more than a standard HGU.
305133332_10160184679989660_8217544861463269138_n.jpg

15.jpg
 
.
Yea, so there are 2 items in play:

1. The optronics module

2. The shell helmet

The PAF will acquire 1 optronics module per fighter (just like how there's a JHMCS for each F-16). Obviously, this is the costliest part of the HMD/S. I think the Chinese HMD/S may cost more than the JHMCS because it's a more advanced stack. IIRC the JHMCS is a monocular system, while the Chinese HMD/S seems to leverage a visor-based display (like the BAE Striker II).

The shell helmet is a continuous procurement run. This is custom-fit for every pilot. I think it'll basically start supplanting the PAF's Gentex HGU orders over the long term. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Gentex itself pivots a bit and starts offering custom-fit shell helmets. Most air forces now are moving towards the Striker-II-style HMD/S, including the F-35. Gentex basically needs the measurements and spec of how the optronics module would fit to make custom helmets. The custom-fit aspect would make these helmets cost more than a standard HGU.

One of the marque features of the BAE Striker II is the wide view angle and augmented reality display. Do you think this new Chinese HMD/S offers the same features?
 
. . . .
This bird is now transforming into a Hunter / Killer & Destroyer.
In case some of you missed out. Apart from four SD-10s two PL-5s, ECM Pod and the drop tank, the Thunder is also carrying a pair of REK SOW.
View attachment 896982
This load out is impractical to say the least as this makes the jf17 a point defence ac at best.
So it to be a practical fighter with time on station it needs two drop tanks on the inner most pylons.
 
. .
This load out is impractical to say the least as this makes the jf17 a point defence ac at best.
So it to be a practical fighter with time on station it needs two drop tanks on the inner most pylons.
If the mission profile requires for JF-17 to be deployed only as a fighter aircraft, then it wouldn't need to carry the the two SOW thus leaving those two hardpoints vacant for the drop tanks.
 
.
This load out is impractical to say the least as this makes the jf17 a point defence ac at best.
So it to be a practical fighter with time on station it needs two drop tanks on the inner most pylons.
The main limitation of a light-weight fighter like the JF-17, is it's lack of capability in a multi-mission role. I always speculated this was one of the main reason the PAF adopted the J-10. Think about it, the J-10 doesn't bring anything game changing over the Block 3, other than it's a completely different weight class. JF-17s cannot replaced Mirages, but the J-10 can.
 
.
The main limitation of a light-weight fighter like the JF-17, is it's lack of capability in a multi-mission role. I always speculated this was one of the main reason the PAF adopted the J-10. Think about it, the J-10 doesn't bring anything game changing over the Block 3, other than it's a completely different weight class. JF-17s cannot replaced Mirages, but the J-10 can.


can u explain why JF17 cannot replace mirages ?
 
.
The main limitation of a light-weight fighter like the JF-17, is it's lack of capability in a multi-mission role. I always speculated this was one of the main reason the PAF adopted the J-10. Think about it, the J-10 doesn't bring anything game changing over the Block 3, other than it's a completely different weight class. JF-17s cannot replaced Mirages, but the J-10 can.

"JF-17s cannot replaced Mirages"

Is "the one" for me!!! and related to the very upgraded III/V series is at least plus 2.0 Gen ahead from they...

For this reason Argentina evaluate and selected JF-17 Block 3 as a "favorite" replacement pretending of your old Mirage III/Finger/Mara family.

Economy disaster of the actual goverment and internal political affairs are the only reason related to delay in the purchase.

Best regards
 
Last edited:
.
can u explain why JF17 cannot replace mirages ?
Completely different class of fighters, you can't reasonably replace a medium-weight attacker, with a light-weight multirole fighter. It's like replacing a Pickup truck, with a Sedan. JF-17 can't carry as much payload as the Mirage, and THAT alone makes it ill suited to replace the Mirages in their intended role in the PAF, as a dedicated attack aircraft.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom