A JF-17 equipped with Aselpod & SOM cruise missiles ?

[Quwa]

Hi,

Relax my man---when you write---it is normal to be inquisitive---. There is nothing wrong with it---. This time---your questions were very pointed---like up playing the turkish products and down playing the pakistani products---.

Keeping your past writings in the background and then seeing your comments was a little strange---I mean to say---here is a guy who has a lots of information---so what is he try to achieve here----what's at play here---! Why is he he down playing something and uplifting the other-----?

That was all---. I am not hurling any claims at you---this was just an observation.

I can only go by what I know for sure. We see the Turks show off the full gamut of what they can do by literally integrating a LACM from home onto the F-17 and F-4, and then I learn we can't deploy Ra'ad from JF-17, but rather, our Mirages.That is demoralizing to me because I deeply believed it would happen since the day ISPR disclosed the Ra'ad. I just want assurances that it could at least be done.

 

[RAMPAGE]

Still pretty heavy to kill tanks. The Israelis have the Nimrod missile that is of that weight class.
We need a missile that can be carried at least 6 at a time and kill that number of tanks at least 90% of the time.
If you are facing an advance of over 100 tanks, you need to be able to kill at least 33% of them to cause massive cohesion and morale disruptions.

I thought we were killing ships? I'd invest in a mobile long range NLOS missile sytem coupled with very long range GSR for anti armor role. Why would you endanger a $40 million aircraft when you've got land based defence and choppers?

@Oscar

This one has an air launched variant too. Please understand that I don't have your vast knowledge. I don't know why we would use fighters against enemy armoured formations (which would probably have a good air defence cover) when we can use ground based smart systems for the same role without endangering our air assets.

 

[Blue Marlin]

I thought we were killing ships? I'd invest in a mobile long range NLOS missile sytem coupled with very long range GSR for anti armor role. Why would you endanger a $40 million aircraft when you've got land based defence and choppers?



This one has an air launched variant too. Please understand that I don't have your vast knowledge. I don't know why we would use fighters against enemy armoured formations (which would probably have a good air defence cover) when we can use ground based smart systems for the same role without endangering our air assets.

there you go @Oscar i knew the chinese whould have something and there it is. yes its ground launched and your more looking into to the air launched stuff but a software update will change that and rails to launch it from too and sinch its got a range of >70km and can travel at more than mach 1 and can be ir guided you have your self a winner

 

[RAMPAGE]

there you go @Oscar i knew the chinese whould have something and there it is. yes its ground launched and your more looking into to the air launched stuff but a software update will change that and rails to launch it from too and sinch its got a range of >70km and can travel at more than mach 1 and can be ir guided you have your self a winner

It is a 150 kg missile. The Chinese always have something up their sleeves.

 

[SQ8]

I thought we were killing ships? I'd invest in a mobile long range NLOS missile sytem coupled with very long range GSR for anti armor role. Why would you endanger a $40 million aircraft when you've got land based defence and choppers?

@Oscar

This one has an air launched variant too. Please understand that I don't have your vast knowledge. I don't know why we would use fighters against enemy armoured formations (which would probably have a good air defence cover) when we can use ground based smart systems for the same role without endangering our air assets.

This might be a good option if there is an actual air launched reliable system and if that air launched variant can be carried in multiple ejector racks.

Aircraft offer the advantage of faster response and suitability. The Indians have a massive advantage in Anti-tank weaponry since their success with it in the previous wars has made them endeared to the concept.
We've digressed from the topic a lot, but make no mistake; in case of a conflict the Indians will maul our armoured forces both from the air and the ground.

there you go @Oscar i knew the chinese whould have something and there it is. yes its ground launched and your more looking into to the air launched stuff but a software update will change that and rails to launch it from too and sinch its got a range of >70km and can travel at more than mach 1 and can be ir guided you have your self a winner

How many from the air? Based on its brochure only I see very little clearance to fit anymore than 4 on the Thunder.
This is the sort of configuration needed to stop a armoured column in its tracks.

You're basically talking about wanting a JAGM like system. At its core, you're looking at a standard laser-guided air-to-ground missile (e.g. Hellfire, Mokopa, Mizraak), but for fire/forget, you'd need an IIR or - in Brimstone's case - active mmW homing. The active mmW homing is tightly held by MBDA UK, so Pakistan's best bet would be IIR. Lest someone accuse me of being a Roketsan or Denel lobbyist, I'd suggest Mizraak or Mokopa. But a Chinese variation of the HJ-10 with a slightly beefier warhead and IIR seeker can be plausible too.

A IIR seeker is still better but can be fooled by countermeasures(although I doubt the Indians are there).

 

[MastanKhan]

I can only go by what I know for sure. We see the Turks show off the full gamut of what they can do by literally integrating a LACM from home onto the F-17 and F-4, and then I learn we can't deploy Ra'ad from JF-17, but rather, our Mirages.That is demoralizing to me because I deeply believed it would happen since the day ISPR disclosed the Ra'ad. I just want assurances that it could at least be done.

Hi,

I had similar thoughts when I say the picture of the JF17 the first time and said to myself " it cannot carry a heavy weapons under its belly---it is too close to the ground.

I just could simply not understand the design concept behind it----they already have planes that stand tall---the mirages---the F7's---the F16's---so where was the screw up---I have no clue---but that is what I would call it---.

 

[ghazi768]

really? if the jf-17 can carry a 240 gallon which is about 1100kg which is what the raad weighs too then dont you think it can carry it.

or at least the later block 2's which a reinforced variant can carry them

or what about the raads last test chinese forums were saying it was tested on a jf-17

The best I can say is that you have made a good point..

I think that its usually the inner wing weapon stations which are designed to carry the heaviest load, for some reason people think that the weapon station under fuselage should be able to carry the heaviest load. Unless it is designed for this, this is not necessarily the case. In case of JfF-17, I think it has three weapon stations capable of carrying 1000+ kg payload.

Raad has been marked as 'strategic' asset, I think in PAF except very few not many know its actual parameters such as range etc. I'll seriously doubt that Pakistan will leave it to go for SOM which is limited by MTCR, may be if they REALY want to arm F-16s with it.
Also Raad will never get exported unless it is completely redesigned with a different engine, different guidance system which will not give up its true abilities and can be confirmant to MTCR.

 

[ghazi768]

Im not too keen on any more SOM's since we have a decent array which for the time being the Mirages carry and are well suited to use. We need more Maverick like systems to allow our CAS jets greater survive-ability, otherwise with the current Indian ADGE over their battlegroups it will be a one way trip for most of them.


No it did not, and weight is not the only criteria.
Clearance is.

SEAD operations are highly complicated but I do not agree with your insertion that we need more Maverick like systems. Such are not strictly for anti-AD operations but we may need more anti-radiation munitions.
The thing is do we have enough anti-radiation munitions for the number of AD systems which will be deployed by enemy, how many search and fire control radars we are expecting to be deployed in a certain area by a system. Clearing air defences is a layer by layer operation and is developed based on the number and kind of systems you expect to face. CAS-wise what is important is to neutralise the medium range level systems, once you are down to a layer below about 15km and you have got guided munitions AD do not stand a chance. Historically if an airforce is not contested in air by another airforce than air defences end up taken out over time.
So the most important factor will be whether your airforce will be able to get air-superiority or area denial against enemy airforce over the areas where they forward AD will be operating.

 

[SQ8]

SEAD operations are highly complicated but I do not agree with your insertion that we need more Maverick like systems. Such are not strictly for anti-AD operations but we may need more anti-radiation munitions.
The thing is do we have enough anti-radiation munitions for the number of AD systems which will be deployed by enemy, how many search and fire control radars we are expecting to be deployed in a certain area by a system. Clearing air defences is a layer by layer operation and is developed based on the number and kind of systems you expect to face. CAS-wise what is important is to neutralise the medium range level systems, once you are down to a layer below about 15km and you have got guided munitions AD do not stand a chance. Historically if an airforce is not contested in air by another airforce than air defences end up taken out over time.
So the most important factor will be whether your airforce will be able to get air-superiority or area denial against enemy airforce over the areas where they forward AD will be operating.

I am not suggesting that they are for anti-AD. Rather, we need them for stand off anti armour operations whilst the battlespace is contested. Where our jets will have to face first the enemy CAP over their battlegroup, then the medium level SAMS such as Akash and Barak over their advancing armour, then the SHORADS. The Israelis found out the hard way how ignoring these threats can lead to a massacre even if your pilots and planes are superior to the enemy.

SEAD will only be effective as part of a package, but if you cannot stall the enemy advance during their opening hours then you've essentially had it.

 

[Blue Marlin]

How many from the air? Based on its brochure only I see very little clearance to fit anymore than 4 on the Thunder.
This is the sort of configuration needed to stop a armoured column in its tracks.

i would assume 8

The best I can say is that you have made a good point..

I think that its usually the inner wing weapon stations which are designed to carry the heaviest load, for some reason people think that the weapon station under fuselage should be able to carry the heaviest load. Unless it is designed for this, this is not necessarily the case. In case of JfF-17, I think it has three weapon stations capable of carrying 1000+ kg payload.

Raad has been marked as 'strategic' asset, I think in PAF except very few not many know its actual parameters such as range etc. I'll seriously doubt that Pakistan will leave it to go for SOM which is limited by MTCR, may be if they REALY want to arm F-16s with it.
Also Raad will never get exported unless it is completely redesigned with a different engine, different guidance system which will not give up its true abilities and can be confirmant to MTCR.

thats what im going of as the inner points are the ones carrying the 240 gallon tanks which weigh 1000kg+.
yes why have the som when they can go for a c802 variant the raad is a 300+km sow and the h-2/4 are sows at <130km there isa gap that need to cover the 200km range but i feel theres no need and theres definatly no need to induct a new missile just for that role. the c802 will fill that role if they want it to.

theres no need to make an export variant of the raad you may as well design a new missile. and besides china has saturated the low cost cruise/antiship missile market. they are europens missiles but they are small and expensive. whats the status on the micro engine development of cm's in pakistan~?do they buy them from china or elsewhere or do tey make their own?

 

[ghazi768]

I am not suggesting that they are for anti-AD. Rather, we need them for stand off anti armour operations whilst the battlespace is contested. Where our jets will have to face first the enemy CAP over their battlegroup, then the medium level SAMS such as Akash and Barak over their advancing armour, then the SHORADS. The Israelis found out the hard way how ignoring these threats can lead to a massacre even if your pilots and planes are superior to the enemy.

SEAD will only be effective as part of a package, but if you cannot stall the enemy advance during their opening hours then you've essentially had it.

Ok, I get your point and do share your concerns as well.. actually very deeply..

On a doctrinal level, IBGs will be brigade sized formations which I think will be more for diversionary tactics and ruses to get engaged our corps level reserves. The real shit will hit after that..

Although these things are getting debated a lot in 'circles' and new doctrines and tactics being worked upon but I think that PAF because of its size discrepancy and probable offensive from IAF will be too much involved in winning the air battle atleast over our areas and will have limited numbers to spare..

On a doctrinal level, airforce is inherently an offensive arm and its main job is to win the air battle first and also to fight out with Army an Air Land Battle, ideally at the same time but must later on. That is where SOWs and ALCMs get involved and will never be talked about much. Being smaller it also needs all its air assets to be able to fight an air superiority battle and than be in position to quickly change mode to Air Land Battle with Army. Our fleet-wise we are not there yet but are getting there faster. Munition-wise what I think is important is to first have either kits to convert most of dumb munitions into smarter ones which than can be easily used for CAS operations as well. For SOWs, first the offensive target set needs to be catered, that is strategically far more important. Once you have air-superioty it does not matter whether you are using a maverick above 10,000 feet or a dumb bomb laced with a laser kit with an infantry soldier pointing a laser at something or using a pod doing it yourself.

 

[Falcon26]

The best I can say is that you have made a good point..

I think that its usually the inner wing weapon stations which are designed to carry the heaviest load, for some reason people think that the weapon station under fuselage should be able to carry the heaviest load. Unless it is designed for this, this is not necessarily the case. In case of JfF-17, I think it has three weapon stations capable of carrying 1000+ kg payload.

Raad has been marked as 'strategic' asset, I think in PAF except very few not many know its actual parameters such as range etc. I'll seriously doubt that Pakistan will leave it to go for SOM which is limited by MTCR, may be if they REALY want to arm F-16s with it.
Also Raad will never get exported unless it is completely redesigned with a different engine, different guidance system which will not give up its true abilities and can be confirmant to MTCR.

There are no MTCR restrictions on export of SOM to Pakistan. Turkey (an MTCR member) can export SOM to Pakistan (none MTCR member) same way Russia (MTCR member) exported Brahmos to India (none MTCR member) without any consequences. MTCR membership shields both Turkey and Russia.

 

[ghazi768]

There are no MTCR restrictions on export of SOM to Pakistan. Turkey (an MTCR member) can export SOM to Pakistan (none MTCR member) same way Russia (MTCR member) exported Brahmos to India (none MTCR member) without any consequences. MTCR membership shields both Turkey and Russia.

what I meant was that when we have a system which is not restricted in range by MTCR than why not to develop/produce it more. Lowering/increasing weight or size of an already developed cruise missile system is frankly not a big task, the real task is to develop the guidance system and that, I think, we are on very comfortable grounds. Unless we have unlimited funds, diverting funds to another similar weapon may impact further development/induction of your own similar system.

 

[MastanKhan]

what I meant was that when we have a system which is not restricted in range by MTCR than why not to develop/produce it more. Lowering/increasing weight or size of an already developed cruise missile system is frankly not a big task, the real task is to develop the guidance system and that, I think, we are on very comfortable grounds. Unless we have unlimited funds, diverting funds to another similar weapon may impact further development/induction of your own similar system.

Hi,

Some foreign members are taking it for granted that just because Hatf 8 is being produced by pakistan---it is for that reason very inferior to the item under discussion.

 

[Quwa]

Hi,

I had similar thoughts when I say the picture of the JF17 the first time and said to myself " it cannot carry a heavy weapons under its belly---it is too close to the ground.

I just could simply not understand the design concept behind it----they already have planes that stand tall---the mirages---the F7's---the F16's---so where was the screw up---I have no clue---but that is what I would call it---.

Well. The airborne stand-off range nuclear deterrent has to live on beyond the Mirage. Worst case scenario, we at least know the idea to develop a lighter and smaller ALCM exists, it is just a matter of time if and when it materializes. Best case scenario, we'd get the new ALCM as well as a new platform.