JF-17 Block III Multirole Fighter

[MastanKhan]

To all pakistanis brothers

JF17 is quite a big achievement for PAF and Pakistan. But we should admit that it is not a super duper jet which will kill easily ohers opponents.

If i remember correctly, the jet was said, at the start of the project, to be build on modular basis for enablng it to handle any future enhancements. But today it seems to have limited enhancements room without coastly financially and in time consuming redesigning, development and testing processes. And unfortunately, it is not the jet which will afraid enemies. Because of it capabilities against is enemies if today's and tomorrow's

Agreed it is a good start, as it bringed sme experience on jet development and technology. Without it I'm not sure if we have thought to start ACE institution, or aéronautique city/university...

Even if JF17 is flying, we should keep our feet on ground and stay in real life.

Hi,

You are correct---this MODULAR aircraft is 2 sizes too small---the minimum size should have been the J10---.

 

[araz]

To all pakistanis brothers

JF17 is quite a big achievement for PAF and Pakistan. But we should admit that it is not a super duper jet which will kill easily ohers opponents.

If i remember correctly, the jet was said, at the start of the project, to be build on modular basis for enablng it to handle any future enhancements. But today it seems to have limited enhancements room without coastly financially and in time consuming redesigning, development and testing processes. And unfortunately, it is not the jet which will afraid enemies. Because of it capabilities against is enemies if today's and tomorrow's

Agreed it is a good start, as it bringed sme experience on jet development and technology. Without it I'm not sure if we have thought to start ACE institution, or aéronautique city/university...

Even if JF17 is flying, we should keep our feet on ground and stay in real life.

JFT was never meant to be a super duper jet. It was meant to be an economical easy to run and maintain fighter that will replace the fast obsolescent fleet of PAF fighters and allow us to establish an aviation industry in Pakistan.
The jet is modular. You are wrong about the changes being costly. To give you an example just the research and integration of AESA onto Bl. 60s of the UAE armed forces cost them 8 billion$ in costs and proprietary rights. The whole project including our development costs plust100 planes has been 2.5 billion $ . This is nothing compared to what has been achieved. Considering that it will have AESA and HMDS and another 50 planes might cost us another Billion dollars(very rough estimate) to have 150 planes for 3.5 billion is not a joke.
You talk about capability. BVR integration onto 170 odd planes is not a joke. People think of air fights as a wrestling match without realizing the implications of having a network centric environment and multiple planes interacting. Alghough the JFT ARremains untested but to be fair with the exception of the US fighters and to a limited extent the M2ks and EU fighters in Libya all air assetts are untested.
I would disagree that the JFT is not a force to be reckoned with in a networmed environment which is what it has been designed for.
A

 

[GriffinsRule]

Hi,

Thanks for asking the question.

TACTICALLY----JF17 has replaced nothing---numerically it has replaced the F7's and mirages---.

Tactically---you have to look at the strategic position of pakistan before and after 9/11---. The position of strength was lost due to the procurement of the JF17's---.

Pakistan did not need the JF17 as its prime time aircraft---PAF might have---but it was not in the best interest of Pakistan---.

The capabilities are not judged against what is being replaced on your side---but the capabilities are judged against whom you are going to fight---.

Pakistan needed a right in your face kind of aircraft---that would have made the enemy squirm scream and holler---but---come to the peace table and sign on the dotted line---.

See---when I write Pakistan & Paf---I write them seperate---. Paf constitutes of traitors---.

They slapped Pakistan and its flag in the face when yesterday gave a departing salute to the Traitor Asghar Khan---the ex Air Marshall who called india and told them his air force would not fight them---.

This is despicable---. For younger generation of this board---there should be a hue and cry over it.

If you want to "inspire" the younger generation, you should put in more thought in your arguments and provide context as well as evidence to back your claims. Making claims without any substance behind them, you are in fact setting a bad example. You posted your opinion about "position of strength lost since 2001" due to the induction of JF-17 but what does that actually mean? And against whom did we lose it?

As a matter of fact, JF-17 first and foremost replaced two squadrons of A-5s, a 60s era fighter/bomber. It has indeed been replacing F-7s (another 60s era design). So yes, it has tactically replaced A LOT. Feel free to refresh yourself with the capabilities of these three jets such as weapons, ease of maintenance and flying, situational awareness etc, among the many benefits a 4th generation aircraft brings over legacy platforms.

As for your second point, even though now you have the luxury of hindsight, pray tell me which aircraft would fit the bill (besides F-16s of course, which we did induct, and still make the Indians lose their shit) that would have given PAF/Pakistan to make "the enemy squirm", as you put it AND be in the strategic interest of Pakistan. Do not put aside the fact that it would still need to replace some 200-250 aging aircraft btw. So take into account the timelines and costs and any other parameter of importance, in the induction of this mystery aircraft you have in mind.

While you formulate your response to the above, my opinion is that JF-17 is not and will never be the tip of the spear for PAF. It is meant to replace far far less capable aircraft in numbers and at the same time provide a platform that brings PAF into a new age across the entire air force, and not just a few squadrons. To that end, it has provided them, for the first time, an ability to massively improve their situational awareness and engage in netcentric warfare. If that is not a "tactical" replacement, then I am afraid I don't understand what you meant by the word.

On the latter part of the spectrum, (ie 4.5 - 5th gen platforms), the search continues, amid economic and politically turbulent times, and they will have the edge they need in due time. If it comes in 10 years or 15 is anyone's guess. If it comes after IAF gets a similar capability, then so be it.

So I fail to see your argument or your point. I am not even going to comment on you calling anyone a traitor, so gonna leave that aside. Wait to hear from you as to what alternates do you offer besides JF-17.

 

[ziaulislam]

JFT was never meant to be a super duper jet. It was meant to be an economical easy to run and maintain fighter that will replace the fast obsolescent fleet of PAF fighters and allow us to establish an aviation industry in Pakistan.
The jet is modular. You are wrong about the changes being costly. To give you an example just the research and integration of AESA onto Bl. 60s of the UAE armed forces cost them 8 billion$ in costs and proprietary rights. The whole project including our development costs plust100 planes has been 2.5 billion $ . This is nothing compared to what has been achieved. Considering that it will have AESA and HMDS and another 50 planes might cost us another Billion dollars(very rough estimate) to have 150 planes for 3.5 billion is not a joke.
You talk about capability. BVR integration onto 170 odd planes is not a joke. People think of air fights as a wrestling match without realizing the implications of having a network centric environment and multiple planes interacting. Alghough the JFT ARremains untested but to be fair with the exception of the US fighters and to a limited extent the M2ks and EU fighters in Libya all air assetts are untested.
I would disagree that the JFT is not a force to be reckoned with in a networmed environment which is what it has been designed for.
A

same concept what swedish did and acheived against vastly superior Soviet union ALONE
its been clearly mentioned gripen was inspiration with respect tot his ideology of maintenance friendly, cheap and net centric vastly produced fighter

 

[araz]

same concept what swedish did and acheived against vastly superior Soviet union ALONE
its been clearly mentioned gripen was inspiration with respect tot his ideology of maintenance friendly, cheap and net centric vastly produced fighter

The Swedes have an aviation industry in place since the 20s. They also have no retrictions placed on them with regards to technology sharing and transfer. That does make a difference. The Gripen is a beautiful fighter but the JFT is the start of an aviation hub in Pakistan and its design parameters reflect this fact.
A

 

[Vortex]

JFT was never meant to be a super duper jet. It was meant to be an economical easy to run and maintain fighter that will replace the fast obsolescent fleet of PAF fighters and allow us to establish an aviation industry in Pakistan.
The jet is modular. You are wrong about the changes being costly. To give you an example just the research and integration of AESA onto Bl. 60s of the UAE armed forces cost them 8 billion$ in costs and proprietary rights. The whole project including our development costs plust100 planes has been 2.5 billion $ . This is nothing compared to what has been achieved. Considering that it will have AESA and HMDS and another 50 planes might cost us another Billion dollars(very rough estimate) to have 150 planes for 3.5 billion is not a joke.
You talk about capability. BVR integration onto 170 odd planes is not a joke. People think of air fights as a wrestling match without realizing the implications of having a network centric environment and multiple planes interacting. Alghough the JFT ARremains untested but to be fair with the exception of the US fighters and to a limited extent the M2ks and EU fighters in Libya all air assetts are untested.
I would disagree that the JFT is not a force to be reckoned with in a networmed environment which is what it has been designed for.
A

Brother, I fully agreed with you about replacement, but JF17 has limitations in itself, like numbers of hardpoints, range... I agree with you about the technological jump it brought to PAF, but 2 BVR missiles and 2 others lower range missiles are the result of what i all a lack of vision. What about our oppenents we could face ?

Maybe I'm wrong as I'm not an expert at all.

 

[Mrc]

Brother, I fully agreed with you about replacement, but JF17 has limitations in itself, like numbers of hardpoints, range... I agree with you about the technological jump it brought to PAF, but 2 BVR missiles and 2 others lower range missiles are the result of what i all a lack of vision. What about our oppenents we could face ?

Maybe I'm wrong as I'm not an expert at all.

Numbers are less important than innovation these days

 

[Vortex]

Numbers are less important than innovation these days

Brother, it depends on which numbers we are talking about.

Replacing 200 F7 with 150 JF17, ok they are more technologically advanced so 150 it's ok.

But 150 JF17 will face Su31 and Rafale, then having more BVR on JF17 is very important. So number is important.
It's only my humble opinion, i maybe wrong.

 

[Mrc]

Brother, it depends on which numbers we are talking about.

Replacing 200 F7 with 150 JF17, ok they are more technologically advanced so 150 it's ok.

But 150 JF17 will face Su31 and Rafale, then having more BVR on JF17 is very important. So number is important.
It's only my humble opinion, i maybe wrong.

if you are able to see first and off load a single missile wth greater than 90 percent hit probability and than scoot out , it wont matter if enemy was carrying 8 BVRs

that's again my opinion... but that the concept behind stealth fighters... none of which will carry same amount of BVRs as current gen sukhois but are designed to win every time

 

[Vortex]

if you are able to see first and off load a single missile wth greater than 90 percent hit probability and than scoot out , it wont matter if enemy was carrying 8 BVRs

that's again my opinion... but that the concept behind stealth fighters... none of which will carry same amount of BVRs as current gen sukhois but are designed to win every time

I'm not advocating for a parity. But your scenario put finger on a point nobody talked : the countermeasures. And more specifically on the quality of the countermeasures.
If we are taking of network centric environment, the we can safely assume the countermeasures will be high, then the probability of 90% will decrease, and then having more than 2 BVR modules will be needed.

And we know JF17 is limited as it is a lightweight jetfighter... And we are back at starting point... Agreed it is quite big achievement for us, but we should had correctly assessed the future threats, and the futures possibles requirements....

 

[Mrc]

I'm not advocating for a parity. But your scenario put finger on a point nobody talked : the countermeasures. And more specifically on the quality of the countermeasures.
If we are taking of network centric environment, the we can safely assume the countermeasures will be high, then the probability of 90% will decrease, and then having more than 2 BVR modules will be needed.

And we know JF17 is limited as it is a lightweight jetfighter... And we are back at starting point... Agreed it is quite big achievement for us, but we should had correctly assessed the future threats, and the futures possibles requirements....

dual racks for bvr has been definitely in planning... it surely be there in block 3... I don't know what the delay is but I do hope we see them soon...
by the way there was a pic of JF with dual rack bvrs posted on this forum from a model in Chengdu factory

 

[BATMAN]

So number is important.

number in air is important and here jF17 beats them all.
Number of hard points comes at a cost of increased RCS and lowered agility.
BVR weapon quantity is no good, if their quality is no good.
In real world airwarfare has moved tooooo far ahead than simple BVR talk.
Stealthy design, counter measurements, IFF, communications, data exchange, computing power to processing war theater information, early warning, purpose built equipment, are just few to name.
In the end we fight with what we have, as they say.... a bird in hand is better than 2 in the fucking bush.

 

[Vortex]

dual racks for bvr has been definitely in planning... it surely be there in block 3... I don't know what the delay is but I do hope we see them soon...
by the way there was a pic of JF with dual rack bvrs posted on this forum from a model in Chengdu factory

It's good developpement, in the rigth direction.

number in air is important and here jF17 beats them all.
Number of hard points comes at a cost of increased RCS and lowered agility.
BVR weapon quantity is no good, if their quality is no good.
In real world airwarfare has moved tooooo far ahead than simple BVR talk.
Stealthy design, counter measurements, IFF, communications, data exchange, computing power to processing war theater information, early warning, purpose built equipment, are just few to name.
In the end we fight with what we have, as they say.... a bird in hand is better than 2 in the fucking bush.

JF17 beat them all ? who are "them all" ? The jets it is replacing ? or jets it will face ?
Having few BVR and facing enemi with more BVR is like going to fight with a pistol with 2 bullets against enemy equiped with machine gun. Yes it is not a goof example, but i hope you understand what i mean.
So what is the quality of SD10 ? good or not good ? I don't know personnaly. So if in future we have good quality of BVR, then we could go for more missiles on the JF17. But due to its limitation, we will have maximum 4 if dual rack is added. It's better than 2.

Kind regards Bro.
You are talking about the real world air warfare, so where does stand our JF17 currently in all aspects you cited ? and where it can stand with future enhancements ? Do you think its limitations would enable to stand correctly in the real world warfare ?

Yes we fight with what we have, that's not the point, but we have what we planned after having assessed the requirements. The main problem here is does the requirements defined then were good enough to respond to the requirement of today's real world warfare ?

But I say it again, JF17 bring big technological jump.

 

[Safriz]

8x ASELPOD and 39x SD-10A Launchers bought for thunders.

 

[MastanKhan]

It's good developpement, in the rigth direction.




JF17 beat them all ? who are "them all" ? The jets it is replacing ? or jets it will face ?
Having few BVR and facing enemi with more BVR is like going to fight with a pistol with 2 bullets against enemy equiped with machine gun. Yes it is not a goof example, but i hope you understand what i mean.
So what is the quality of SD10 ? good or not good ? I don't know personnaly. So if in future we have good quality of BVR, then we could go for more missiles on the JF17. But due to its limitation, we will have maximum 4 if dual rack is added. It's better than 2.

Kind regards Bro.
You are talking about the real world air warfare, so where does stand our JF17 currently in all aspects you cited ? and where it can stand with future enhancements ? Do you think its limitations would enable to stand correctly in the real world warfare ?

Yes we fight with what we have, that's not the point, but we have what we planned after having assessed the requirements. The main problem here is does the requirements defined then were good enough to respond to the requirement of today's real world warfare ?

But I say it again, JF17 bring big technological jump.

Hi,

In modern day air battle---many an aircraft would be destroyed BVR without even launching their own missiles---.