Wing Reinforcement Makes Thunder More Lethal !

[DrWatson775]

Asymmetrical wing loadouts are quite common. Modern FCS can handle such scenarios.

View attachment 690372

View attachment 690374

View attachment 690375

Agree.
The current FCS in fighter aircraft maintains stability in asymmetric loads..... so I do not agree with this notion that two antiship missiles are not carried due to instability after initial weapon launch. The reason for carrying a single missile is probably the need for 2 fuel tanks.

 

[MastanKhan]

Where can you provide any link/ source and what about those pics that's shows JFT are flying with 2 400AKG on both wings, you delusional Mr professional

Hi

Did I ever say that. No. It was based on the interview of a particular avm where a question of 2 cm400 on jf17 cam up and he responded to that.

See. You are arguing about something that you gave no clue of it happening.

Once you educate yourself to that interview, then start to talk. Thank you.

Baba G please calm down,no need to remind us of your old age each time and for Godsake till this date I haven't learnt anything from you on this forum,I have always seen you crying about your age and calling others Kids and making a healthy discussion controversial..

Firing AG missiles with delay is very very normal,if you think AG missiles are always fired in pair you don't know anything about fighter flying

As far as bombs like Mk84 are concerned I have never seen any being dropped in single profile,they are dropped always in pairs

OTH likes of GBU 24 can be launched in single profile

Both are heavy bombs but why the difference? Its just because both are used for different purposes and scenarios, usually with dumb bombs you will be dropping those over a single target in one run while in case of GBU 24 you can drop it over 2 different targets in one or even two runs,so issue is not the bomb type rather the scenario

Now if you think likes of MK 84 or GBU 24 aren't heavy or wont cause much issue for the aircraft in stabilization then let me tell you..even if you fire an AGM 88 from an F-16,which is much much lighter than the bombs discussed above,it causes a bit of stabilization issue for the aircraft and it can be easily overcame by putting the aircraft on AP or trimming..and same for GBU 24, aircraft can easily be balanced even if not dropped in pair

So please, correct your facts... Missiles and bombs can be dropped in single and pair profiles,it totally depends on the scenario you are flying in..

What I discussed in my initial post was not specifically meant for JF17.

Now coming to JF-17,can you tell me any AG missile operational on JF17 that falls under heavy class? A missile that if not dropped in pair will cause the aircraft to go in spins? If not then all this talk of yours is useless

Mk 84 is ops but as mentioned above it is usually dropped in pair

LGB equal to GBU 24 isnt operational on JF17 (as per my knowledge).GBU 12 is and it can easily be dropped from JF17 in single profile..

Hi

It all depends on the weight of the bomb or missile and its location where it is mounted

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Did I ever say that. No

You're LIAR, here your post #76

The AVM in his interview clearly stated a single 400AKG on center point

And any particular AVM Interview didn't means that it can't be change
and you have a all clues and we don't Mr, DELUSIONAL PROFFESTIONAL

Once you educate yourself to that interview, then start to talk. Thank you.

and i am asking to you that give the link of that AVM interview

 

[Thorough Pro]

Flying with two weapons is one thing and releasing the weapons is another.
No one said anything regarding Thunder flying with two missiles, the stability comes in to pay when you release a weapon besides the pics in question are of the same tests, but no one knows what was the outcome of the tests? and has anyone ever seen Thunder flying with two CM400 again?

Another baseless rants by PROFFESIONAL AERODYNAMICST, we have lots of pics of JFT flying with 2 CM-400AKG on both wings

Everybody who is interested in aviation knew why the wings were strengthened. Did you not?

Even if it were true, did you guys follow up on this or highlighted the obvious benefit of wing restructuring.
It's news because it's a major boost to the capabilities of the JF-17.....something that was until now exclusive to the F-16s.

 

[MastanKhan]

You're LIAR, here your post #76

And any particular AVM Interview didn't means that it can't be change
and you have a all clues and we don't Mr, DELUSIONAL PROFFESTIONAL

and i am asking to you that give the link of that AVM interview

Hi

The interview is posted on this forum.

But then if you never knew about it never heard about it, why would you keep arguing about. Is it that because you are a Pakistani and do it out of habit.

Or uou have that unique Pakistani mentality that it does not exist because you did not know about it or did not hear about ?

 

[Shabi1]

This discussion has been had before and @MastanKhan was very active on it back then too, I'm disappointed you are at it again.

Any fighter can carry asymmetric heavy loads especially on inner most pylons, since pylons are near the fuselage and center of gravity of the aircraft the effect will be minimal. For cases were there is affect the pilot can adjust trim or the FBW can do it for him.

Since trim adds drag in modern commercial aircraft pilots can move fuel between the wings to alter desired balance. My argument back then was JF-17 can move fuel within fuel cells or external tanks as well since it has a modern fuel system visible in screen grabs of the cockpit MFDs. Nevertheless adjusting trim is the correct norm and aircraft are flyable with asymmetric loads, that is one wing load being heavier than other.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Hi

The interview is posted on this forum.

But then if you never knew about it never heard about it, why would you keep arguing about. Is it that because you are a Pakistani and do it out of habit.

Or uou have that unique Pakistani mentality that it does not exist because you did not know about it or did not hear about ?

So you are in your delusional it can't be change

 

[The Raven]

Flying with two weapons is one thing and releasing the weapons is another.
No one said anything regarding Thunder flying with two missiles, the stability comes in to pay when you release a weapon besides the pics in question are of the same tests, but no one knows what was the outcome of the tests? and has anyone ever seen Thunder flying with two CM400 again?



Everybody who is interested in aviation knew why the wings were strengthened. Did you not?

There was a video clip of the JF-17 firing the CM-400AKG 10 years ago! on Chinese defence forums. The PAF has ordered the missile, it is fully integrated, and the missile was specifically designed for the platform. It has been constantly displayed alongside the other weapons for the aircraft at static stands at airshows. Clearly the PAF doesn't publicise it to any great extent, in a similar manner as the H2/H4 stand off weapons on the Mirage - for years these weapons were speculated and discussed in the absence of any credible evidence, and only recently after Swift Retort did the PAF openly show the weapons. That isn't even the case for the CM-400AKG, because it has been shown from the outset. Not sure why this thread was created and to have these constant circular discussions - boredom and to keep activity alive on the forum perhaps?

Hi

The interview is posted on this forum.

But then if you never knew about it never heard about it, why would you keep arguing about. Is it that because you are a Pakistani and do it out of habit.

Or uou have that unique Pakistani mentality that it does not exist because you did not know about it or did not hear about ?

I'm well aware of the interview you are referring to. The AVM was specially referring to carrying asymmetrical loadouts of anti-ship missiles in favour of fuel, it has nothing to do with what you're bleating on about.

I'm not sure why the mods keep you here, on any other forum, someone like you would have been banned long ago given your constant derailing of every thread and arrogant mindset. You actually represent the epitome of everything wrong with Pakistan. Even when you have been shown to be constantly wrong and not know anything, you don't even have the decency and humbleness to accept and learn something.

 

[Readerdefence]

Hi I hope I’m not offending any body with more knowledge but it all gullible for me I just want to know after strengthening the roots now or earlier is it possible to carry couple of SD10 at the same station or not another of my Q is can those wing strengthen will able to hold ALCMs
or not
if possible by someone with more knowledge to answer will be appreciated
thank you

 

[Akh1112]

Hi I hope I’m not offending any body with more knowledge but it all gullible for me I just want to know after strengthening the roots now or earlier is it possible to carry couple of SD10 at the same station or not another of my Q is can those wing strengthen will able to hold ALCMs
or not
if possible by someone with more knowledge to answer will be appreciated
thank you

Yes, you can carry numerous SD-10s per station, i also dont see any reason for that to not be possible before, but i digress, ALCMs is a bit tougher, you cant carry Pakistani ALCM's such as RA'AD, however, thats based off of the fact that we know the maximum load the station can take is 2000 lbs, vs Ra'ad at 2500lbs it could carry it, we dont know.

 

[Marker]

Yes, you can carry numerous SD-10s per station, i also dont see any reason for that to not be possible before, but i digress, ALCMs is a bit tougher, you cant carry Pakistani ALCM's such as RA'AD, however, thats based off of the fact that we know the maximum load the station can take is 2000 lbs, vs Ra'ad at 2500lbs it could carry it, we dont know.

Ra'ad ALCM can be installed on JF-17. Ra'ad ALCM is 1100 kg and it can be attached to both wing stations 3, 5 and centerline station 4 of JF-17. However, there is no official confirmation of its integration and test firing from JF-17 till now.

 

[Readerdefence]

Yes, you can carry numerous SD-10s per station, i also dont see any reason for that to not be possible before, but i digress, ALCMs is a bit tougher, you cant carry Pakistani ALCM's such as RA'AD, however, thats based off of the fact that we know the maximum load the station can take is 2000 lbs, vs Ra'ad at 2500lbs it could carry it, we dont know.

Hi thanks for your reply
thank you

 

[MastanKhan]

I'm well aware of the interview you are referring to. The AVM was specially referring to carrying asymmetrical loadouts of anti-ship missiles in favour of fuel, it has nothing to do with what you're bleating on about.

I'm not sure why the mods keep you here, on any other forum, someone like you would have been banned long ago given your constant derailing of every thread and arrogant mindset. You actually represent the epitome of everything wrong with Pakistan. Even when you have been shown to be constantly wrong and not know anything, you don't even have the decency and humbleness to accept and learn something.

Hi,

Does not make any difference---. Asymmetrical load is just talk---this weapon is too heavy to be mounted and launched in the configuration being talked about---.

You can be as upset as you want to---it won't change the PHYSICS of the layout and the PHYSICS of the launch.

The JF17 has a very small wing---.

 

[razgriz19]

Carrying 1000kg weight on pylons #3 and #5 is different than carrying the same load on #2 and #6 hard point.

Hi

The first crash was for a different reason.

This wing root upgrade is normal at this time as is a more powerful engine would be a normal progression of utility at this time.

Just remember, jf17 was tested with two cm400akg's---over a 1000 kg each on each wing many many years ago. There was no problem with load carrying capability but only of stability after one missile was launched.

If wing root strength was an issue in the past, the jf17's would have been grounded.

 

[Enigma SIG]

Fire the FBW engineer if the aircraft rolls on its axes if a weapon isn't rippled.
Kon log ho yar tum