New Thunder with 9 Hardpoints

[ziaulislam]

a short cut/ simple, cost effective though not ideal solution to lower no. of hard points

Not correct. Additional wing hard point is a major structural re-arrangement.

 

[araz]

Not correct. Additional wing hard point is a major structural re-arrangement.

Madam.
Can you please explain whether the addittional wing hardpoints are a requirement and if so does PAF 8ntend to increase HPs to 9/10 from 7/8. We already know the plan for a chin mounted hardpoint for the Pod will be incorporated.
A

 

[messiach]

Not a new hard point but detachable pylon mounted as planned. This is for FC-1. I am not aware for FC-1b.

Madam.
Can you please explain whether the addittional wing hardpoints are a requirement and if so does PAF 8ntend to increase HPs to 9/10 from 7/8. We already know the plan for a chin mounted hardpoint for the Pod will be incorporated.
A

 

[Thorough Pro]

Aren't all pylons detachable?

Not a new hard point but detachable pylon mounted as planned. This is for FC-1. I am not aware for FC-1b.

 

[khanasifm]

9 pylon statement is old @ 330 onward

 

[Safriz]

No evidence of Thunder carrying Raad.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

9 hard point is too much ... just too much

indian to matam ker rahe hoonge

should put a dimond in his nose as well 2 hard points

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

Maazi ki galtiyan nai dohrai jaye gi LMFAO

9 pylon statement is old @ 330 onward

9 pylon statement is old @ 330 onward

 

[messiach]

Most.

Aren't all pylons detachable?

 

[khanasifm]

If the wingspan of Jf-17b and perhaps a model has been increase to 9.5 vs 9 meter it may give Clarence for adding new pylons plus chin mounted taking it to 10 or 11 depending upon number on chin

 

[MULUBJA]

That is nice. They must have worked to reinforcement of wings. Increasing load on any part of wing is not easy. It has a G load penalty particularly if you want the payload to be increased on the tip of plane wing.

 

[ghauri05]

Yes you are right as well but i believe thunder role for dual racks will be more of aggressor rather than defender ,so technically in Pakistan territory or in defensive role the load will be 2 BVRs/2 Side winders for A2A with fuel tanks but in Aggressor role it will gear up to defend and deliver


It will be 2 BVR and 2 Side winders with lots lots of fuel

@MOD can you please edit the title since its not 9 hardpoints

Why do u think, in Pak territory thunder should have less BVRs..on the contrary it should have more in Pak for defensive role...bcoz our adversary has a a huge advantage in numbers...let's just say IAF attacks withh 300 aircrafts..we have roughly 80 f-16s and and 100 thunders...how are we gonna fail their attack???the only solution is to shoot down enemy planes and for that it should have more BVRs

Also it is quite possible that we have to launch multiple A2A missile for 1 target..so for thunder carrying only 2 BVRs will become a sitting duck after expiring those 2 missiles

So it's good to have more BVRs

 

[Arsalan]

Pictures from Chinese websites showing JF-17 supporting multiple SD-10s on two extra hard points in addition to the seven seen in the image in the back ground.

View attachment 434677

Checked, It is NOT an extra hard point but a dual rack. The positive side is that it means that the earlier models may well support these dual launch rails as well. Also that the potential of 2 extra hard points remain (though not likely) for Blk-3 or beyond.

Plus Windy, the rail is quite visible in the picture anyway.



Perhaps we should slightly alter the title of the thread so that there is no confusion?
@The Eagle @Slav Defence ?

 

[MastanKhan]

If the wingspan of Jf-17b and perhaps a model has been increase to 9.5 vs 9 meter it may give Clarence for adding new pylons plus chin mounted taking it to 10 or 11 depending upon number on chin

For what purpose---?

 

[volatile]

Why do u think, in Pak territory thunder should have less BVRs..on the contrary it should have more in Pak for defensive role...bcoz our adversary has a a huge advantage in numbers...let's just say IAF attacks withh 300 aircrafts..we have roughly 80 f-16s and and 100 thunders...how are we gonna fail their attack???the only solution is to shoot down enemy planes and for that it should have more BVRs

Also it is quite possible that we have to launch multiple A2A missile for 1 target..so for thunder carrying only 2 BVRs will become a sitting duck after expiring those 2 missiles

So it's good to have more BVRs

Hi if you look around Indian total strength will never will be able to attack first the largest of fleet i.e SU is having availability rates close to 50% . The other platforms are smaller in numbers e.g Mirage @ 70% available but 30-35 jets rest i will not consider them as an option . The narrative here is that thunder is on normal mission in normal daily life , for instance in case of war it will be must ,the point here refers to the daily routine after all the war battles will last not more than few weeks if not days . In normal missions it will have standard load but in times of war the load will be added