JF-17 Thunder Structure Change For Longer Range & BVR Load:---

[Mastankhan]

Hi,

The Israelis bought the Mirage 5 from the French and a part of design changes were to remove the electronics from the aircraft and add a place for additional fuel tank---. It was the late 60's---the israelis assessed the dry & clear weather conditions of region & the removal of the equipment was of lesser concern and having more fuel was more important---.

If someone else has come up with this idea---credit is theirs---. With manufacture of the JF-17 BLK B---Paf may have found a solution to carry extra fuel on the aircraft---. Keeping the fuselage design the same ---but removing the rear cockpit and canopy---but keeping the hump in place and extending it behind the front pilots seat would give the aircraft a lots of extra space where the second pilot sat---.

A space---where OBOGS can be installed---and the rest of the space utilized with an additional conformal fuel tank---. With dedicated air superiority fighters---the cannon may also be removed and a hard point made available for a BVR missile and the space inside where cannon shells are placed may also be used for another conformal fuel tank---if not for any other electronic devise.

The installation of obogs gives the JF-17 pilot limitless supply of oxygen---the air to air refuelling gives the pilot a longer time in the air---the extra fuel carried on the aircraft---increases its combat radius capabilities substantially---removing the cannon from this dedicated air superiority model and adding a hard point for a BVR missile or two gives it enough air to air fighting abilities against a larger enemy that can field a larger number of aircraft---.

The utility of this modification would be multi fold---. With extra fuel on board---an obogs system in place---air to air refueling available---Paf has found itself a reasonable long range strike aircraft as well---that can take off with one centerpoint HATF V111 missile---two fuel tanks on inner wings and wing tips mounted WVR missiles---the Paf has a winner in it hands---.

If the same modification can result in getting between 5 or 6 BVR missiles---2 on each inner pylon of the wing---makes it 4---1 or 2 BVR missiles where the cannon is makes it either 5 or 6 BVR missiles---.

It is not a massive task but a very simple project---that gives the aircraft a utility that was probably not anticipated at all---.

MK

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

Hi,

The Israelis bought the Mirage 5 from the French and a part of design changes were to remove the electronics from the aircraft and add a place for additional fuel tank---. It was the late 60's---the israelis assessed the dry & clear weather conditions of region & the removal of the equipment was of lesser concern and having more fuel was more important---.

If someone else has come up with this idea---credit is theirs---. With manufacture of the JF-17 BLK B---Paf may have found a solution to carry extra fuel on the aircraft---. Keeping the fuselage design the same ---but removing the rear cockpit and canopy---but keeping the hump in place and extending it behind the front pilots seat would give the aircraft a lots of extra space where the second pilot sat---.

A space---where OBOGS can be installed---and the rest of the space utilized with an additional conformal fuel tank---. With dedicated air superiority fighters---the cannon may also be removed and a hard point made available for a BVR missile and the space inside where cannon shells are placed may also be used for another conformal fuel tank---if not for any other electronic devise.

The installation of obogs gives the JF-17 pilot limitless supply of oxygen---the air to air refuelling gives the pilot a longer time in the air---the extra fuel carried on the aircraft---increases its combat radius capabilities substantially---removing the cannon from this dedicated air superiority model and adding a hard point for a BVR missile or two gives it enough air to air fighting abilities against a larger enemy that can field a larger number of aircraft---.

The utility of this modification would be multi fold---. With extra fuel on board---an obogs system in place---air to air refueling available---Paf has found itself a reasonable long range strike aircraft as well---that can take off with one centerpoint HATF V111 missile---two fuel tanks on inner wings and wing tips mounted WVR missiles---the Paf has a winner in it hands---.

If the same modification can result in getting between 5 or 6 BVR missiles---2 on each inner pylon of the wing---makes it 4---1 or 2 BVR missiles where the cannon is makes it either 5 or 6 BVR missiles---.

It is not a massive task but a very simple project---that gives the aircraft a utility that was probably not anticipated at all---.

MK

My dear MK,


Great post!

I believe PAF would go the NG route with Thunder... what you have been advocating for years. Whatever specs that are available do point to first step in this direction...

We do need a dedicated strike platform... as you have been head banging for years... and Thunder can offer us that through NG route..enlargement and more feul carrying capacity as well.

With SOM version coming on line by Turkey... we can see more diversity in weapons as well. However, I think we need to focus more on naval variants... we need to create capabilities to create Cordone Sanitaire ... beyond our EEZ... afterall our biggest province is at sea.

Or perhaps as @Khafee has given us another #KhafeeLeak about Su35... we might get our heavy platform finally. Hopefully, it will make you less grumpy! (Just pulling your leg, oldman)

 

[Mastankhan]

Mangus,

Naval strike capability of the Paf would be the game changer---. Our shoreline has a unique geography in relation to the enemy major cities on the ocean front---.

Our aircraft can take off from the farthest point and not come within the radars of the enemy awacs---they can fly at a certain distance parallel to the coastline that they will be away from all the enemy's SA missiles range all the time---.

The enemy will have to position a fair number of their interceptors at multiple locations to keep a eye on the strike force---. The enemy aircraft will have to flyy all the time at or around 250 miles parallel to its coastline to keep an eye on the strike element---because the strike element just has to be around 250 miles away from the target city to launch its weapon and then dash away---giving the enemy very little time to respond---.

This target is obviously mumbai---hit mumbai and let the enemy feel our pain---.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

Mangus,

Naval strike capability of the Paf would be the game changer---. Our shoreline has a unique geography in relation to the enemy major cities on the ocean front---.

Our aircraft can take off from the farthest point and not come within the radars of the enemy awacs---they can fly at a certain distance parallel to the coastline that they will be away from all the enemy's SA missiles range all the time---.

The enemy will have to position a fair number of their interceptors at multiple locations to keep a eye on the strike force---. The enemy aircraft will have to flyy all the time at or around 250 miles parallel to its coastline to keep an eye on the strike element---because the strike element just has to be around 250 miles away from the target city to launch its weapon and then dash away---giving the enemy very little time to respond---.

This target is obviously mumbai---hit mumbai and let the enemy feel our pain---.

MK,

That is the poit. You are absolutely correct... Our Naval Doctorine needs to become agressive/offensive than the current resource-constrained defensive one.

I do believe with the emerging CPEC Command PNS will become a very potent force. However, NavalAviation is critical. We need to demonstrate clear ability and will to smash Bombay to smitherness... otherwise, we have to put up with daily Gangu noise of ShooperPauer.

With integeration of SOMs exceeding range of 350Km... we can achieve the strategic goal as you so aptly described in your post.

However, I do see a much more enhanced role of large NavalDrones as well. This is an area we need to gain quick competence...with localised production. Imagine HALE drones with SOMs!

Anyhow, I am hopeful that Thunder can perform all intended roles ..and after Blk3 we can see GrippenNG type evolution for Blk4/NGF... Azm is going to be a true 5thGenFighter!

Let us see how it pans out.

Mangus

 

[Khafee]

MK,

That is the poit. You are absolutely correct... Our Naval Doctorine needs to become agressive/offensive than the current resource-constrained defensive one.

I do believe with the emerging CPEC Command PNS will become a very potent force. However, NavalAviation is critical. We need to demonstrate clear ability and will to smash Bombay to smitherness... otherwise, we have to put up with daily Gangu noise of ShooperPauer.

With integeration of SOMs exceeding range of 350Km... we can achieve the strategic goal as you so aptly described in your post.

However, I do see a much more enhanced role of large NavalDrones as well. This is an area we need to gain quick competence...with localised production. Imagine HALE drones with SOMs!

Anyhow, I am hopeful that Thunder can perform all intended roles ..and after Blk3 we can see GrippenNG type evolution for Blk4/NGF... Azm is going to be a true 5thGenFighter!

Let us see how it pans out.

Mangus

With Ra'ad 2 and a range exceeding 550km, SOM is not required. What is required is Ra'ad 2 in new slimmer packaging, to fit under the JF-17.

Drones usually do not have the payload capacity to carry LR-SOW's or cruise missiles, but this is in the works and will change.

As of now PN seriously lacks a "Strike Aviation Wing." A min of 2 sqdns, is needed ASAP.

@PewPew @TsAr @AliYusuf @Mingle You Gentlemen are missing from this interesting thread.

 

[TsAr]

For Naval Strikes at the moment PAF first choice of plane in Mirage and then Jf-17. Work is in progress on Raad-2 and many more other projects are underway, but cannot be disclosed.
Primary roll of Jf-17 would be air support, for heavier work load we have Mirages at the moment (it could change with Jf-17 Blk3). Mirages are here to stay at least till 2030, by that time hopefully good progress would be made of Project Azam.
Plus if we get the SU-35 then they would fill in the role of heavier and deep strike aircraft.

 

[TsAr]

As of now PN seriously lacks a "Strike Aviation Wing." A min of 2 sqdns, is needed ASAP.

@PewPew @TsAr @AliYusuf @Mingle You Gentlemen are missing from this interesting thread.

The only reason we require heavier twin engine aircraft's is naval strikes, as our beloved member @Mastankhan keeps on stressing upon. For ground attacks we have various missiles or different ranges.

 

[Khafee]

The only reason we require heavier twin engine aircraft's is naval strikes, as our beloved member @Mastankhan keeps on stressing upon. For ground attacks we have various missiles or different ranges.

The capability that twin heavies would bring is undeniable. It would be a REAL game changer, making the soft underbelly of India vulnerable. as well as giving CBG's a run for their money.

 

[Mastankhan]

The capability that twin heavies would bring is undeniable. It would be a REAL game changer, making the soft underbelly of India vulnerable. as well as giving CBG's a run for their money.

Hi,

Paf has to shifts its stance from a ground pounder to a blue water air force---.

The thing is---it cannot compete against the enemy mano a mano over dry land---but over water---it may come out ahead of the enemy---.

Plus it may be able to strike areas that were not imaginable in the past---the prime target being mumbai---.

People think that surface launched missiles---ie surface to surface missiles can do the job---but they are wrong in their assessments---.

Missiles bring unpredictability to the battle field---is it nuc tipped or is it conventional---.

That is why missile war is not the best position to be in---.

 

[Mastankhan]

Hi,

There has been a lots of talk about the shape and design of the BLK3 thunder---. Specially on the other forum---. Some have made the BLK3 look like the BLK B---and they are wrong---.

For a single seater BLK 3 without the massive hump on its spine---the tail is going to be like that of the BLK 2---the reason the tail is different for the BLK B is due to the disruption of aerodynamics due to a larger cockpit in the front and the large spine on the back---.

Both these items have a disrupting effect on the flow of air---and thus needed to have the compensation built in by changing the angle of the tail---.

The chinese had to learn the lesson the hard way---.

When they put a rotating dish antennae on one of their awacs a few years ago---it was their first try---they did not realize to that it would need a larger tail to accommodate for the disruption of airflow over the fuselage due to the big antennae---.

That aircraft crashed to the ground---. Once the problem got rectified---they did not have any issues with the flight parameters of their awacs---.

 

[PewPew]

Hi,

The Israelis bought the Mirage 5 from the French and a part of design changes were to remove the electronics from the aircraft and add a place for additional fuel tank---. It was the late 60's---the israelis assessed the dry & clear weather conditions of region & the removal of the equipment was of lesser concern and having more fuel was more important---.

If someone else has come up with this idea---credit is theirs---. With manufacture of the JF-17 BLK B---Paf may have found a solution to carry extra fuel on the aircraft---. Keeping the fuselage design the same ---but removing the rear cockpit and canopy---but keeping the hump in place and extending it behind the front pilots seat would give the aircraft a lots of extra space where the second pilot sat---.

A space---where OBOGS can be installed---and the rest of the space utilized with an additional conformal fuel tank---. With dedicated air superiority fighters---the cannon may also be removed and a hard point made available for a BVR missile and the space inside where cannon shells are placed may also be used for another conformal fuel tank---if not for any other electronic devise.

The installation of obogs gives the JF-17 pilot limitless supply of oxygen---the air to air refuelling gives the pilot a longer time in the air---the extra fuel carried on the aircraft---increases its combat radius capabilities substantially---removing the cannon from this dedicated air superiority model and adding a hard point for a BVR missile or two gives it enough air to air fighting abilities against a larger enemy that can field a larger number of aircraft---.

The utility of this modification would be multi fold---. With extra fuel on board---an obogs system in place---air to air refueling available---Paf has found itself a reasonable long range strike aircraft as well---that can take off with one centerpoint HATF V111 missile---two fuel tanks on inner wings and wing tips mounted WVR missiles---the Paf has a winner in it hands---.

If the same modification can result in getting between 5 or 6 BVR missiles---2 on each inner pylon of the wing---makes it 4---1 or 2 BVR missiles where the cannon is makes it either 5 or 6 BVR missiles---.

It is not a massive task but a very simple project---that gives the aircraft a utility that was probably not anticipated at all---.

MK

I wonder ... did the PAF stop hating on a twin-seat JF-17 if/when AVIC brought up the idea of using the twin-seat as the basis for the single-seat Block-3. Basically, as you said, seamlessly get the additional fuel and space while keeping development costs lower than say trying to develop a single seater alone. Moreover, the JF-17B itself was driven by export demand, so it stands to reason that the buyers who wanted it basically paid for its development, at least partially.

 

[Ghessan]

Hi,

There has been a lots of talk about the shape and design of the BLK3 thunder---. Specially on the other forum---. Some have made the BLK3 look like the BLK B---and they are wrong---.

For a single seater BLK 3 without the massive hump on its spine---the tail is going to be like that of the BLK 2---the reason the tail is different for the BLK B is due to the disruption of aerodynamics due to a larger cockpit in the front and the large spine on the back---.

Both these items have a disrupting effect on the flow of air---and thus needed to have the compensation built in by changing the angle of the tail---.

The chinese had to learn the lesson the hard way---.

When they put a rotating dish antennae on one of their awacs a few years ago---it was their first try---they did not realize to that it would need a larger tail to accommodate for the disruption of airflow over the fuselage due to the big antennae---.

That aircraft crashed to the ground---. Once the problem got rectified---they did not have any issues with the flight parameters of their awacs---.

Dear Mr. Khan
is there any news that we are going the NG route may be in next block?

Also any improvement in the engine that could be seen on block iii and with which if so, would it maintain same ratio or will add a lb or more?
thanks

 

[Khafee]

Dear Mr. Khan
is there any improvement in the engine that could be seen on block iii and with which if so, would it maintain same ratio or will add a lb or more?

"lb or more" = thrust or weight?

 

[Ghessan]

"lb or more" = thrust or weight?

thrust

 

[AliYusuf]

Missiles bring unpredictability to the battle field---is it nuc tipped or is it conventional---.

That is why missile war is not the best position to be in---.

Spot on Sir!
That is precisely why we need the heavies. Not only for the naval theater but also over the normal air space. The latter, because, the enemy too needs to remain apprehensive of consequences that we can hit anywhere we want deep inside enemy territory where it hurts them, if a tit for tat is attempted ... i.e. without the complication of any inadvertent nuclear exchanges arising from the usage of cruise missiles.