Jump to content

JF-17 Thunder Discussions


probad

Recommended Posts

RD-93MA undergoing testing at Klimov https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27376/RD_93MA_Engine__to_Power_Pakistan_JF_17_Block_III_Jets__Enters_Thermal_Chamber_Tests

 

1 ton more thrust, single crystal turbines, fuel dumping through afterburner

20E46762-B2DA-453C-9678-AEE42A9E53F6.jpeg.117319288bac11e40507fe164514b1f2.jpeg

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thermobaric Bombs tested on JF-17 Bravo

 

Was surprised to see this, and then a quick google search shown that it has already been used operationally in Myanmar against MNDAA. Pretty crazy to think how fast things move

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was surprised to see this, and then a quick google search shown that it has already been used operationally in Myanmar against MNDAA. Pretty crazy to think how fast things move

 

 

Thermobaric damage effect is not support in DCS so far,

we can model these weapons, but the effect may be incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be lovely! Do it please! It may could be done with an Damage on Area effect maybe?

 

GB-6 also reportedly has thermobaric warhead option, but it’s likely to only be effective against soft targets. I translated the placard, it says it may be good against parked planes because of area effect, but does mention parked planes, missile defenses, and radars as targets

 

Online there’s pictures showing it involves some kind of parachute, so it may not be so straight forward to implement as other dumb bombs. Who knows how that parachute is supposed to work

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think a better area for focus should be the re-classification of GB-6 and LS-6 as bombs instead of missiles, coz they are in fact bombs with wings, no propulsion. Reason being they wont end up being shot down by every tom dick and harry SA .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think a better area for focus should be the re-classification of GB-6 and LS-6 as bombs instead of missiles, coz they are in fact bombs with wings, no propulsion. Reason being they wont end up being shot down by every tom dick and harry SA .

 

Eh that’s the very reason they are classified as missiles. I know the SD-10/LD-10 has AMRAAM RCS, but I don’t know about the other weapons

 

They can actually make very good decoy:D

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah ur rite probably, but i still think to classify as a missile, independent propulsion should be a factor. RCS wise, LS-6 isnt much bigger dimension-wise than an Sd-10/Ld-10 also, besides the wings, i dont know how much the wings would contribute to the rcs. For comparison :

jf-17-Bombs.png.172ed8af470095a72af6c4c442178c08.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
RCS wise, LS-6 isnt much bigger dimension-wise than an Sd-10/Ld-10

 

Size does not affect RCS unless the phsysical construction is the same inside and outside. Shaping and RF opaqueness/absorption control RCS, not size. A tiny luneburg lens will have a gigantic RCS.

 

Never base RCS estimates on size.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Size does not affect RCS unless the phsysical construction is the same inside and outside. Shaping and RF opaqueness/absorption control RCS, not size. A tiny luneburg lens will have a gigantic RCS.

 

Never base RCS estimates on size.

 

Yes you're right, i stand corrected, was just wondering on the reasons LD-10 aren't intercepted while LS-6s are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you're right, i stand corrected, was just wondering on the reasons LD-10 aren't intercepted while LS-6s are.

 

LD-10 is not often intercepted because it’s RCS is the same value as AMRAAM in game. I’ve seen modern ships intercept it, but most land SAMs have trouble

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in the changelog, the SD-10 now uses the AIM-120 scheme.

 

Could you elaborate what this changes besides preventing the F-16/18 RWR from receiving TWS launches?

 

Does this make it behave like the current 120 in regards to losing lock? notching, spoofing with chaff, etc.

 

Does it affect its loft profile?

 

Does it affect its kinematics and booster performance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in the changelog, the SD-10 now uses the AIM-120 scheme.

 

Could you elaborate what this changes besides preventing the F-16/18 RWR from receiving TWS launches?

 

Does this make it behave like the current 120 in regards to losing lock? notching, spoofing with chaff, etc.

 

Does it affect its loft profile?

 

Does it affect its kinematics and booster performance?

 

i was gonna ask the same question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-----------------------

For Sept update

-----------------------

......

Added special option to select cockpit model for visual quality or performance (big fps drop when warning light test on, etc)

 

 

so will we have a medium/low poly cockpit for VR user ? that could be nice !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is for the lightning effects, anyway, that was a big FPS hit for VR users, so it should be a lot better with that option!

 

That seems to be it. No more point lighting from the MFCDs, Warning/Advisory and panel lights. I assume the floodlights will be baked light maps too, which means you probably won't be able to move them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

https://eurasiantimes.com/indian-rafales-far-superior-to-pakistans-jf-17-thunder-chinese-military-experts-make-rare-admission/

 

Quote

JF-17 Block 3

However, last year, Yang Wei, the chief designer of the fighter jet, said the development and production of the JF-17 Block 3 were underway, with the third block seeing an enhancement in information-based warfare capability and weapons.

 

Soon 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HMCS is a little late. It is tied to PAF acquisition of NEW high off-boresight missiles (similar to AIM9X). Without new missile HMCS has little purpose (at least in reality). 

 

@Deka IronWorks, can you be requested to enable Thunder with EEGS gunsight? PAF all Thunders (1,2 & Bravo blocks) have EEGS ( FCR software upgrade couple of years ago enabled it across entire fleet ). Current gunsights are very ineffective for snapshots or high aspect shooting.  Enabling EEGS should not be a challenging because DCS engine SDK/APIs supports it as EEGS is there in viper and hornet.

Without EEGS, this airframe cannot show its true potential as Guns-only dogfighting which is very popular in community. 

Please consider it for your next revision if possible. 

Thanks for the great work and efforts you put into this module. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...