JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread


Status
Not open for further replies.

i.e.

Senior Member
Indeed. If they can handle 500 kg bombs on the same station then two bvr should have no impact.
local flow impact would be the most concern, not necessarily cg.
flutter, aero-servo etc.
stores can also affect things like stall characteristics, as shown by Super Hornets/Growler.

a JF-17 that can mount 4 sd-10s would be nice and worth to have, the ability for a JF-17 CAP to shoot a large number of AAMs timely onto the attacking IAF formations, force them to turn and evade, thus buying time, would be something worth the penalties to have.
but I doubt the current radar system it has can efficiently handle more than 2 in a ripple fire situation.
 

plawolf

Brigadier
local flow impact would be the most concern, not necessarily cg.
flutter, aero-servo etc.
stores can also affect things like stall characteristics, as shown by Super Hornets/Growler.

a JF-17 that can mount 4 sd-10s would be nice and worth to have, the ability for a JF-17 CAP to shoot a large number of AAMs timely onto the attacking IAF formations, force them to turn and evade, thus buying time, would be something worth the penalties to have.
but I doubt the current radar system it has can efficiently handle more than 2 in a ripple fire situation.
The radar might not support a silly number of simultaneous engagements, but in terms of BVR, 4 missiles is probably the ideal number you would want for a two target simultaneous engagement as one missile per target is a bit risky. The number given in the simultaneous engaged is the number of targets the radar can keep locked, not missiles it can direct.

With the PL12's passive engagement capability, a single JF17 can probably get away with firing off a lot more than 4 if the JF17 can carry that many, especially if faced with a IAF massed attack swam.

It took several months to test SD-10/PL-12 on J-10 (we don't know the reason). PL-12 was successfully tested on other platforms (J-8B?) before. Eventually the problem was found on the J-10 side. Basic weapons integration process?

First, we don't know if JF-17's weapon control system can support two missiles on the same rack.

Second, the best way to balance out weapon launches with minimum impact on performance is to have a intelligent fuel system to adjust the center of gravity. We don't know if JF-17 has that.

Third, JF-17's FWB is limited to yawl.

Like I said, if PAF wants it, I am sure CAC can add it. But there is a cost (time and money) cost associated with it. It all comes down to whether the benefit is worth the cost.
Yes, all the basic things you would need to do with any weapons integration.

You can keep reeling off things to do all you like, but it does not change the fact that there is nothing inherently more challenging about clearing a plane with dual racks than any other large missile, so unless you want to enlighten us as to why it would be fundamentally different I do not see the point of continuing this pedantic hair splitting exercise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

johnqh

Junior Member
The radar might not support a silly number of simultaneous engagements, but in terms of BVR, 4 missiles is probably the ideal number you would want for a two target simultaneous engagement as one missile per target is a bit risky. The number given in the simultaneous engaged is the number of targets the radar can keep locked, not missiles it can direct.

With the PL12's passive engagement capability, a single JF17 can probably get away with firing off a lot more than 4 if the JF17 can carry that many, especially if faced with a IAF massed attack swam.



Yes, all the basic things you would need to do with any weapons integration.

You can keep reeling off things to do all you like, but it does not change the fact that there is nothing inherently more challenging about clearing a plane with dual racks than any other large missile, so unless you want to enlighten us as to why it would be fundamentally different I do not see the point of continuing this pedantic hair splitting exercise.
Did I say it is more challenging than any other large missiles?

All weapon integration are equally involving. It is not "simply put it on rack". I would also bet that integrating C803 would be much more difficult (JH-7A was created just as C803 launch platform, instead of using any other existing aircrafts), and I bet PAF would love to have it on JF-17.
 

plawolf

Brigadier
Did I say it is more challenging than any other large missiles?

All weapon integration are equally involving. It is not "simply put it on rack". I would also bet that integrating C803 would be much more difficult (JH-7A was created just as C803 launch platform, instead of using any other existing aircrafts), and I bet PAF would love to have it on JF-17.
And since when did I say it was as simple as "simply put it on a rack"? :rolleyes:

Maybe you would care to look up what quotation marks mean, because you either do not seem to realize how to use them, or is trying to deliberately put words in my mouth.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I remember seeing a (promotional?) picture of a maws or optics system a while ago that was offered on JF-17 which provided 360 degree (or near 360) covreage of the aircraft like DAS, and I believe it was Chinese as well.

Does anyone have a picture which looks like what I described? Cheers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top