Have The Paf Disclaimers Sabotaged The Sale Of The JF17's!

[Kurlang]

@MastanKhan @Quwa @Horus

 

[EasyNow]

No doubt PAF is undermining the JF17 in order to acquire the f16. But not many craft can match the f16.

Customers for JF17 already know that it's no f16, if they could buy an f16 they would have.

 

[optimisticlad]

The News of PAF dissatisfaction with WMD7 pod also appeared in the same time.
I believe this is not a stunt to show Americans that We need Blk52 for good reason as Jf17 capabilities are questionable as far as ground strike missions are concerned.

We have yet to see Jf17 with complete ground strike package. We always see two/three Drop tanks under the fuselage and wings telling us the "story" about Fuel consumption rate of RD93 & lower internal fuel carrying capacity.

As result, only two hardpoints remain to station bombs. If we install IFR probe and get better engine with for better fuel efficiency then It will give Jf17 rid of drop tanks. After it will be able to carry Targeting pod under the fuselage and laser guided bombs at four hard points. Or it will be able to carry unguided bombs at five hard points.

By then, this is the best we got

View attachment 303688

Compare it with F16

View attachment 303697

Also

View attachment 303698

View attachment 303699

thats great demonstration .....it means JFT is not goood for ground attack....only two bombs..............
serious repercussions......

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

thats great demonstration .....it means JFT is not goood for ground attack....only two bombs..............
serious repercussions......

Those are serious assumptions. The ATP for JF17 is yet to be final, and WMD7 was never procured. There are many ordnance options for JF17 under consideration. Kindly hold your horses with the judgements.

 

[optimisticlad]

Those are serious assumptions. The ATP for JF17 is yet to be final, and WMD7 was never procured. There are many ordnance options for JF17 under consideration. Kindly hold your horses with the judgements.

Ok Sir......i have locked all the horses...
But the hype of JFT raised our expectations sky high......we are over the moon......our baby is going to equate if not surpass the Gripen NG (least level of expectation)......

 

[ghazi768]

Hi,

Years ago--the aircraft built by an air force---for the air force---came out with a bang but in the years gone by---its declared potency fizzled out like a can of stale beer on a hot sunday afternoon.

The claims were big initially---the chest thumping loud---pride of ownership and strut in the step. All the news that came out then was that it was way beyond expectations---ie the BLK 1---a very strong and modern machine that is around somewhat 80-90 % of the F16 BLK 15 capabilities.

We were all happy---we all went gaga---we all praised our air force personal. In due time---the aircraft got equipped with a better radar to make it BVR capable---the output of the power plant was increased to give it more thrust and the paf did claim it on public forums about its achievements.

The weight carrying capacity also increased from 3500 KG to 4500 KG. The ability to integrate and launch the C802, AM400CKG, SD10 B BVR missile were all very welcome news to the pakistanis.

It was all wonderful till the paf started down playing the capabilities of the JF17 and started pitching to the U S that they do not have anything to make the strike runs against the terrorist hideouts other than the F16.

What that meant was that there were some shortcoming in the JF17 aircraft that it was not programmed to use smart bombs---and in this day and age---if your aircraft cannot use the smart bombs---you have a problem.

But I have had probelm believing in this news---because I remember very well when the first batch of the JF17's came out---it was declared that they were for ground strike missions---and there was a lot of hue and cry by the members of this forum as to why---we needed a BVR capable air superiority aircraft and what we are being rewarded is a ground pounder---. We were looking for an eagle in the skies and we ended up with a mule.

Supposedly the BLK 2 aircraft corrected that problem---and all the JF17's being upgraded to BLK 2 capabilities were also BVR capable.

So---my question has been that to get the F16's---did the Paf sabotage the capabilities of the JF17 and made it look worst than it is---.

Now---in doing so---has it done any thing that could have had a negative effect on the sale of this aircraft.

The problem with the JF 17 aircraft is that it has no outside oversight committee that oversees this program and keeps a sharp eye on the shortcoming of the program---I mean to say---if the fox is guarding the hen house---who is going to complain about the missing chicken?

@Quwa

You have a valid point but I think it is very unfair to reject a fighter just because it may not have a relevant pod yet available. It after all has the benefits of source codes available to us which allows us to integrate any weapon or pods we want to integrate. Also when it come to stand-off ranges and munitions, what it provides and can provide is not yet available to us on any other platform we have.

Also it is not fair to use our every action in regards of F-16 to conclude things for JF-17. We have a big number of F-16s and we have rich experience of operating them. Why should we not do efforts to keep them updated and useful until they become obsolete and ready for retirement. Also thousands of them are going to be available in market sooner or later, keeping our worries of spares and attritions low.

I think there are reasons, not associated with the performance of JF-17, for these kind of impressions being built. First is we are new in the market of exporting jets and have not yet learned the tricks of the trade yet. Big ones I think is, making lot of marketing buzz and noise about what you have on offer and criticising and be-littleing what your competitor has on offer. I remember hearing a discussion about MK-2000s where guys were discussing their experience against MK-2000 and even a US pilot with lots of viper's experience was surprised by his experiences in this regard and question being debated was, was it the men behind the machine or the machine itself.
Also I suspect a sort of bias and prejudice involved, whether it is matter of nuclear or conventional weapons they some how think we are incapable of making anything and if we have done that it must be low grade and shitty.
I think that they are taking future competition from JF-17 so seriously that it will be tough to get good pods and other integrations from French especially and west in general.

The News of PAF dissatisfaction with WMD7 pod also appeared in the same time.
I believe this is not a stunt to show Americans that We need Blk52 for good reason as Jf17 capabilities are questionable as far as ground strike missions are concerned.

We have yet to see Jf17 with complete ground strike package. We always see two/three Drop tanks under the fuselage and wings telling us the "story" about Fuel consumption rate of RD93 & lower internal fuel carrying capacity.

As result, only two hardpoints remain to station bombs. If we install IFR probe and get better engine with for better fuel efficiency then It will give Jf17 rid of drop tanks. After it will be able to carry Targeting pod under the fuselage and laser guided bombs at four hard points. Or it will be able to carry unguided bombs at five hard points.

By then, this is the best we got

View attachment 303688

Compare it with F16

View attachment 303697

Also

View attachment 303698

View attachment 303699

I think your impression is not correct. JF-17 has three wet points for drop tanks and that actually is a good thing. AG operations will have drop tank attached, actually show me any operational scenario except a quick scramble to defend your base where you initially do not have a drop tank attached. Also look at Rafale, it is considered to have such a long range, but I do not know a single operational scenario where it will not be carrying a drop tank and most probably two or three.
Best way to get an idea about lift and engine efficiency and therefore possible loiter times is to look at what ferry ranges manufacturer provides. combat ranges are all dependant upon played configurations and useless to discuss on a forum.
Smoke is not indicative of low fuel efficiency but after burner design. Its engine is based on MK 33 which is regarded as very efficient engine, because of modifications to increase its dry and wet thrust that results in higher SFC but is not such a cause of concern. An AL 31 will still guzzle much more fuel than a juiced up 93. Also I think that latest upgrades from MK 33 will appear in 93 as well in future.
FLIR pods is an issue but I think the bigger thing is that we most probably do not want just an FLIR pod but one with an integrated IRST package as well. Lets see how things work out in this regard.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Ok Sir......i have locked all the horses...
But the hype of JFT raised our expectations sky high......we are over the moon......our baby is going to equate if not surpass the Gripen NG (least level of expectation)......

For reminders, JF17 was to replace F6, A5, F7, and Mirage. For all those 4 aircraft types, JF17 exceeds PAF requirements and expectations. Aside from the hype and online speculation, JFT is a really good aircraft, and most of you will enjoy whats coming in the future.

 

[Super Falcon]

PAF has no sensible think tank only day dreamers

 

[Tipu7]

most of you will enjoy whats coming in the future.

Can you mention weapon systems which are INTEGRATED & OPERATIONAL with Jf17....?

Anti radiation missile?
Anti ship missile?
Stand off weaponry?
Precise munition?

Some times we hear such discouraging news that we began to doubt it has even BVR capability or not.......

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Can you mention weapon systems which are INTEGRATED & OPERATIONAL with Jf17....?

Anti radiation missile?
Anti ship missile?
Stand off weaponry?
Precise munition?

Some times we hear such discouraging news that we began to doubt it has even BVR capability or not.......

Cant answer all of this, but ARM is MAR-1, while other options are under consideration. ASM is C802A, integrated and tested, and on order, so is PL5 SRAAM. Next gen TVC AAM under consideration. Stand-off weapons i think you mean Air to Ground weapons, not able to reveal, at least 5 options already proven, 2 under study. Precise munitions cannot reveal, 3 options under study, one already integrated.

Program is coming along fine. The discouraging news is propaganda. Pay no heed.

PAF has no sensible think tank only day dreamers

Disgruntled, or recently retired? Please take your skepticism elsewhere. With one sentence you discount the whole airforce? Is that arrogance, or vanity?

 

[Tipu7]

Stand-off weapons i think you mean Air to Ground weapons, not able to reveal, at least 5 options already proven, 2 under study. Precise munitions cannot reveal, 3 options under study, one already integrated.

Thanks.........
Does status of ALCM is also in "cannot reveal" category??

(RAAD)

 

[RAMPAGE]

MK i have so much to say, but alas, I can't. Maybe I tell you in 10 years, if my smoking doesnt kill me by then.

All good things, I hope?

@Quwa

Perhaps the JF-17 could do with some constructive criticism?

 

[Bratva]

Thanks.........
Does status of ALCM is also in "cannot reveal" category??

(RAAD)

It depends upon the ground clearance. RAAD cant be integrated with wing hard points and Underbelly HP has the deficiency of being close to the ground

 

[TaimiKhan]

Cant answer all of this, but ARM is MAR-1, while other options are under consideration. ASM is C802A, integrated and tested, and on order, so is PL5 SRAAM. Next gen TVC AAM under consideration. Stand-off weapons i think you mean Air to Ground weapons, not able to reveal, at least 5 options already proven, 2 under study. Precise munitions cannot reveal, 3 options under study, one already integrated.

Program is coming along fine. The discouraging news is propaganda. Pay no heed.

Disgruntled, or recently retired? Please take your skepticism elsewhere. With one sentence you discount the whole airforce? Is that arrogance, or vanity?

Well said, as far as my info goes things are not as bad as its being shown here.

Well Sir, these are the same kind of remarks which we used to hear that JF-17 has no BVR and then we saw BVR on its wings, it can't take big missiles then we saw C-802s & in China we saw CM-400AKG, then we used to hear why PAF JF-17s have no multi rack ejectors and then we saw those too.

Majority of the people don't understand that it is a huge initiative by PAF and with changing times & technology, we need to introduce change in the program also and such changes for the betterment of the program result in delays as we need to make it upto date fighter program.

And for other guys i wanna make clear, no matter how good Chinese products become, PAF will always keep its doors open to western options as that way PAF can have the best available to them from all sides and they have a certain bench marking in place to compare the products.

It depends upon the ground clearance. RAAD cant be integrated with wing hard points and Underbelly HP has the deficiency of being close to the ground

Raad can't be integrated with wing hard points, that is something i don't understand.

3 hard points of JF-17 are certified to carry 1000Kg payload, Raad is at 1,100KG weight as per published figures, reduce the warhead weight and you can manage it upto 1000kg. Length is 4.85m, while CM-400AKg is 5.1meter & C-802 is even lengthier thus length is not an issue and i don't see diameter to be an issue for wing hard points.

So we are left with the center hard point and there ground clearance is to be seen.

 

[Tipu7]

It depends upon the ground clearance. RAAD cant be integrated with wing hard points and Underbelly HP has the deficiency of being close to the ground

The wing roots of of Blk2 are ''strengthened'' to carry two Raad ALCM or two C802 or two CM400AKG............