JF-17: Low Level Strike (Concept)

[MiG-35-BD]

So I was reading one of @MastanKhan posts about how low level strike is important, and why Pakistan doesn't / didn't buy the JH-7A/B.

While Red Flag and other combat drills have shown that low level penetration is increasingly perilous, it is still not an outdated concept.

I also thought about how some of the senior posters were discussing the replacement of Mirage-Rose with FLIR, a night strike capability that no other asset has.

All this got me thinking...

The central concept of the JH-7A comes from the Spey engine, an engine originally designed in the 1950s/60s for a low level naval strike aircraft, the Blackburn Buckaneer. The Soviet navy had just built a line of giant cruisers, which where fast and deadly, and the British didn't have anything that could counter them. So the British decided to respond asymmetrically.

They decided they needed a low level strike aircraft. But the engines where the issue. You see, most engines are designed, even today, with a mid-to-high altitude in mind. This means that they have very little range when aircraft with such engines are flown at low level.

The genius of the Spey engine was that it was designed for low level performance. It gave the Blackburn Buckaneer excellent low level strike range. Later it gave the British F-4 Phantoms better range and a shorter takeoff.

The engine was / is highly simple and easy to maintain, and effective. It was a pioneering Turbofan engine, although low aspect ratio. They kept improving this engine over time.

When the West became friendly with China, they gave this engine to the Chinese. But they didn't give them the best and latest version - the 204/205s, which has single crystal blades and many other modifications, creating higher and better thrust.

However, the Chinese managed to get the 204/205s by hook or by crook (well by buying off used, old discarded ones that where originally sold to a company using them as spare parts for Rolls Royce equivalent gas turbines.)

This may in fact be how China got hold of the single crystal blade tech that later found its way into the JF-17 (classified superior performance than vanilla RD-93s).

ANYWHO

The Spey isn't too much bigger than the RD-93. Which got me thinking that if one wishes to, they could design a "Mastan Khan Thunder". Of course, it would need a two seater from the get-go and EMI options. Along with an optional stereo system. D)

A Spey engined JFT would make a cheap and effective low level strike option, similar to the Jaguars with IAF. They could also be used for naval strike. With lengthened fuselage like the JF-17-B model, but without the second seat, it would have a lot of additional fuel.

The biggest sub-system cost in the JF-17 is very likely the RD-93. Switch that out, and it becomes really, really, cheap. The second most expensive item is probably the radar. Switch that out with an FLIR and it becomes even cheaper.

A Mastan Khan JF-17 (I hope our respected sir doesn't mind) would be very very competitive in the world market. And would be one of the few dedicated low level strike platforms in the world. Probably could cost as little as 10-12 million a piece (complete guess).

What other low-level dedicated strike platforms are in the market?

1. JH-7A.
2. ??? Seems nothing else. everything else is out of production.

Using the latest Chinese iteration of the Spey, the JF-17-MK (MK stands for Mastan Khan) would be a low cost, dedicated strike platform that can defend itself. A PAF Jaguar-type, albeit considerably superior to the Jaguar.

I don't know if its practical or not, but just an idea I wanted to share in a fun and friendly way.

 

[araz]

So I was reading one of @MastanKhan posts about how low level strike is important, and why Pakistan doesn't / didn't buy the JH-7A/B.

While Red Flag and other combat drills have shown that low level penetration is increasingly perilous, it is still not an outdated concept.

I also thought about how some of the senior posters were discussing the replacement of Mirage-Rose with FLIR, a night strike capability that no other asset has.

All this got me thinking...

The central concept of the JH-7A comes from the Spey engine, an engine originally designed in the 1950s/60s for a low level naval strike aircraft, the Blackburn Buckaneer. The Soviet navy had just built a line of giant cruisers, which where fast and deadly, and the British didn't have anything that could counter them. So the British decided to respond asymmetrically.

They decided they needed a low level strike aircraft. But the engines where the issue. You see, most engines are designed, even today, with a mid-to-high altitude in mind. This means that they have very little range when aircraft with such engines are flown at low level.

The genius of the Spey engine was that it was designed for low level performance. It gave the Blackburn Buckaneer excellent low level strike range. Later it gave the British F-4 Phantoms better range and a shorter takeoff.

The engine was / is highly simple and easy to maintain, and effective. It was a pioneering Turbofan engine, although low aspect ratio. They kept improving this engine over time.

When the West became friendly with China, they gave this engine to the Chinese. But they didn't give them the best and latest version - the 204/205s, which has single crystal blades and many other modifications, creating higher and better thrust.

However, the Chinese managed to get the 204/205s by hook or by crook (well by buying off used, old discarded ones that where originally sold to a company using them as spare parts for Rolls Royce equivalent gas turbines.)

This may in fact be how China got hold of the single crystal blade tech that later found its way into the JF-17 (classified superior performance than vanilla RD-93s).

ANYWHO

The Spey isn't too much bigger than the RD-93. Which got me thinking that if one wishes to, they could design a "Mastan Khan Thunder". Of course, it would need a two seater from the get-go and EMI options. Along with an optional stereo system. D)

A Spey engined JFT would make a cheap and effective low level strike option, similar to the Jaguars with IAF. They could also be used for naval strike. With lengthened fuselage like the JF-17-B model, but without the second seat, it would have a lot of additional fuel.

The biggest sub-system cost in the JF-17 is very likely the RD-93. Switch that out, and it becomes really, really, cheap. The second most expensive item is probably the radar. Switch that out with an FLIR and it becomes even cheaper.

A Mastan Khan JF-17 (I hope our respected sir doesn't mind) would be very very competitive in the world market. And would be one of the few dedicated low level strike platforms in the world. Probably could cost as little as 10-12 million a piece (complete guess).

What other low-level dedicated strike platforms are in the market?

1. JH-7A.
2. ??? Seems nothing else. everything else is out of production.

Using the latest Chinese iteration of the Spey, the JF-17-MK (MK stands for Mastan Khan) would be a low cost, dedicated strike platform that can defend itself. A PAF Jaguar-type, albeit considerably superior to the Jaguar.

I don't know if its practical or not, but just an idea I wanted to share in a fun and friendly way.

I would put you in the back seat and Mastan Khan in the front seat and gladly send you off to the wild blue yonder to get your just rewards. Bhai You want to send in 2 pilots into an air space with good Radar cover and smattered with Low and intermediate range missiles, when you can do the job equally well with CMs at stand off range. Why do you have a suicide wish?
A

 

[!eon]

So, all you mean single seated JF-17B optimized for low flight?

So I was reading one of @MastanKhan posts about how low level strike is important, and why Pakistan doesn't / didn't buy the JH-7A/B.

While Red Flag and other combat drills have shown that low level penetration is increasingly perilous, it is still not an outdated concept.

I also thought about how some of the senior posters were discussing the replacement of Mirage-Rose with FLIR, a night strike capability that no other asset has.

All this got me thinking...

The central concept of the JH-7A comes from the Spey engine, an engine originally designed in the 1950s/60s for a low level naval strike aircraft, the Blackburn Buckaneer. The Soviet navy had just built a line of giant cruisers, which where fast and deadly, and the British didn't have anything that could counter them. So the British decided to respond asymmetrically.

They decided they needed a low level strike aircraft. But the engines where the issue. You see, most engines are designed, even today, with a mid-to-high altitude in mind. This means that they have very little range when aircraft with such engines are flown at low level.

The genius of the Spey engine was that it was designed for low level performance. It gave the Blackburn Buckaneer excellent low level strike range. Later it gave the British F-4 Phantoms better range and a shorter takeoff.

The engine was / is highly simple and easy to maintain, and effective. It was a pioneering Turbofan engine, although low aspect ratio. They kept improving this engine over time.

When the West became friendly with China, they gave this engine to the Chinese. But they didn't give them the best and latest version - the 204/205s, which has single crystal blades and many other modifications, creating higher and better thrust.

However, the Chinese managed to get the 204/205s by hook or by crook (well by buying off used, old discarded ones that where originally sold to a company using them as spare parts for Rolls Royce equivalent gas turbines.)

This may in fact be how China got hold of the single crystal blade tech that later found its way into the JF-17 (classified superior performance than vanilla RD-93s).

ANYWHO

The Spey isn't too much bigger than the RD-93. Which got me thinking that if one wishes to, they could design a "Mastan Khan Thunder". Of course, it would need a two seater from the get-go and EMI options. Along with an optional stereo system. D)

A Spey engined JFT would make a cheap and effective low level strike option, similar to the Jaguars with IAF. They could also be used for naval strike. With lengthened fuselage like the JF-17-B model, but without the second seat, it would have a lot of additional fuel.

The biggest sub-system cost in the JF-17 is very likely the RD-93. Switch that out, and it becomes really, really, cheap. The second most expensive item is probably the radar. Switch that out with an FLIR and it becomes even cheaper.

A Mastan Khan JF-17 (I hope our respected sir doesn't mind) would be very very competitive in the world market. And would be one of the few dedicated low level strike platforms in the world. Probably could cost as little as 10-12 million a piece (complete guess).

What other low-level dedicated strike platforms are in the market?

1. JH-7A.
2. ??? Seems nothing else. everything else is out of production.

Using the latest Chinese iteration of the Spey, the JF-17-MK (MK stands for Mastan Khan) would be a low cost, dedicated strike platform that can defend itself. A PAF Jaguar-type, albeit considerably superior to the Jaguar.

I don't know if its practical or not, but just an idea I wanted to share in a fun and friendly way.

 

[KapitaanAli]

A PAF Jaguar-type, albeit considerably superior to the Jaguar.

In that configuration against DARIN3, doubt it.

 

[MastanKhan]

So I was reading one of @MastanKhan posts about how low level strike is important, and why Pakistan doesn't / didn't buy the JH-7A/B.

While Red Flag and other combat drills have shown that low level penetration is increasingly perilous, it is still not an outdated concept.

I also thought about how some of the senior posters were discussing the replacement of Mirage-Rose with FLIR, a night strike capability that no other asset has.

All this got me thinking...

The central concept of the JH-7A comes from the Spey engine, an engine originally designed in the 1950s/60s for a low level naval strike aircraft, the Blackburn Buckaneer. The Soviet navy had just built a line of giant cruisers, which where fast and deadly, and the British didn't have anything that could counter them. So the British decided to respond asymmetrically.

They decided they needed a low level strike aircraft. But the engines where the issue. You see, most engines are designed, even today, with a mid-to-high altitude in mind. This means that they have very little range when aircraft with such engines are flown at low level.

The genius of the Spey engine was that it was designed for low level performance. It gave the Blackburn Buckaneer excellent low level strike range. Later it gave the British F-4 Phantoms better range and a shorter takeoff.

The engine was / is highly simple and easy to maintain, and effective. It was a pioneering Turbofan engine, although low aspect ratio. They kept improving this engine over time.

When the West became friendly with China, they gave this engine to the Chinese. But they didn't give them the best and latest version - the 204/205s, which has single crystal blades and many other modifications, creating higher and better thrust.

However, the Chinese managed to get the 204/205s by hook or by crook (well by buying off used, old discarded ones that where originally sold to a company using them as spare parts for Rolls Royce equivalent gas turbines.)

This may in fact be how China got hold of the single crystal blade tech that later found its way into the JF-17 (classified superior performance than vanilla RD-93s).

ANYWHO

The Spey isn't too much bigger than the RD-93. Which got me thinking that if one wishes to, they could design a "Mastan Khan Thunder". Of course, it would need a two seater from the get-go and EMI options. Along with an optional stereo system. D)

A Spey engined JFT would make a cheap and effective low level strike option, similar to the Jaguars with IAF. They could also be used for naval strike. With lengthened fuselage like the JF-17-B model, but without the second seat, it would have a lot of additional fuel.

The biggest sub-system cost in the JF-17 is very likely the RD-93. Switch that out, and it becomes really, really, cheap. The second most expensive item is probably the radar. Switch that out with an FLIR and it becomes even cheaper.

A Mastan Khan JF-17 (I hope our respected sir doesn't mind) would be very very competitive in the world market. And would be one of the few dedicated low level strike platforms in the world. Probably could cost as little as 10-12 million a piece (complete guess).

What other low-level dedicated strike platforms are in the market?

1. JH-7A.
2. ??? Seems nothing else. everything else is out of production.

Using the latest Chinese iteration of the Spey, the JF-17-MK (MK stands for Mastan Khan) would be a low cost, dedicated strike platform that can defend itself. A PAF Jaguar-type, albeit considerably superior to the Jaguar.

I don't know if its practical or not, but just an idea I wanted to share in a fun and friendly way.

Hi,

Thank you very much for digging in deeper into what I stated multiple times---. Different machines are designed for different operations---.

Many a years ago---a customer asked about the TOWING capacity of a Jeep Wrangler---when the salesman told him the number in lbs---the cust was very critical---.

I had to get involved and clarified to the customer---the Jeep is designed to climb rocks---and not for towing---.

People buy it for its off road capabilities---and not for its on the road towing cabilites---.

Similary---certain aircraft have specialized functions---as does the JH7A---.

Most people don't read my posts---whenever I mention the JH7A/B aircaft---I am talking about the naval strike missions---missions over water---.

My naval strike mission aircraft would have the ability to carry two 1100 KG AShm / ASM---one on each wing---.

Missions---where a route can easily be taken away from the range of the enemy SA missile batteries which are situated on the shoreline---.

 

[Kompromat]

You're talking about 80s tech.

 

[randomradio]

Fighter sweep? Top cover? Escort? Recce?

 

[Mitho1980]

Wont a long range cruise missile be more cheaper and not one way suicide mission

 

[randomradio]

Wont a long range cruise missile be more cheaper and not one way suicide mission

Subsonic cruise missiles are easily intercepted by long range and fast aircraft like the MKI.

 

[denel]

Hi,

Thank you very much for digging in deeper into what I stated multiple times---. Different machines are designed for different operations---.

Many a years ago---a customer asked about the TOWING capacity of a Jeep Wrangler---when the salesman told him the number in lbs---the cust was very critical---.

I had to get involved and clarified to the customer---the Jeep is designed to climb rocks---and not for towing---.

People buy it for its off road capabilities---and not for its on the road towing cabilites---.

Similary---certain aircraft have specialized functions---as does the JH7A---.

Most people don't read my posts---whenever I mention the JH7A/B aircaft---I am talking about the naval strike missions---missions over water---.

My naval strike mission aircraft would have the ability to carry two 1100 KG AShm / ASM---one on each wing---.

Missions---where a route can easily be taken away from the range of the enemy SA missile batteries which are situated on the shoreline---.

Congrats my pal.... honorary thread in thy name!!!

 

[syed_yusuf]

MK-17S WOULD be the fighter name ..

Interesting idea , a 2 seater converted will carry 1 piolet and rest by of the space is used for fuel. This could probably add additional 1000 kg of internal fuel. Plus another 2 hard points would help.

Not a bad idea but it will look ugly and integration of ws-9 will be extremely difficult. It will require ample amount of investment

 

[MastanKhan]

Wont a long range cruise missile be more cheaper and not one way suicide mission

Hi,

First of all---cruise missiles have a predictable route---.

To understand it better---take a look at the indo pak map---from how many places can you launch the cruise missile---.

But then look at the ocean---how far and deep the aircraft can fly---from how many different positions you can launch your ASM's----.

The US has tken those old B52 bombers---and have re-furbished them to launch its ASM from over 250 miles---the enemy would not even know where the missile came from---& who launched it---.

If the super power the US can re-furbish the B52 to do the job what I am talking about the JH7A/B to do---

Then don't you kids think that you must be idiots to negate what I am saying---just think about it---.

Also---the surface SAM batteries will stay active for so long---anti radiation missiles and cruise missiles and and other ASM's would take care of them pretty fast---.

By the 3rd or the 4th day of the battle---most of the SAM sites would be neutered.

So this absurdity that the other side has SAM does not fly---.

Congrats my pal.... honorary thread in thy name!!!

Hi,

I really give credit to the young man for digging in deeper and looking into what was being said---.

And I also learnt something new---about the Spey engine and is flight characteristics---.

Prior to this---I was more focused on the wing design of the JH7---which was designed for low flight---and I completely missed the part about the engine---which is really the most important part---fuel conmsumption and flight time---.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

Hi MK,

Thanks, I am glad you appreciated what I wrote, although I joked around a bit as well. The Spey engines were designed from the ground up for low level flight. This is something that every attack in the future Indo-Pak scenario will look to do, as flying high will mean detection and interception.

Flying low in a strike profile was also one of the requirements of the Rafale program.

Now, someone mentioned that they would like to send MK and myself on a mission presumably to get rid of us from the forum, because they think that flying low in a strike mission is suicidal. My question to such person(s) would be, what do you think Jaguars, Rafales, F-16s, Mirage ROSE will be doing?

I agree however that strike itself will be a very very dangerous affair in such an Indo-Pak scenario. But as long as there are going to be strike missions (which is clear since both air forces are fielding specialized strike aircraft, SEAD/DEAD munition), it makes sense to look at all possible theories, ideas and options.

I am not seriously suggesting the PAF will take such a route. I am only saying its a possibility with arguable costs and benefits. Regarding meaningful naval defense, low level flight for strike is very relevant. As is range and loiter time. This is why PN was looking for the Su-35 FLANKER fighter bombers.

Strike has been the most successful Israeli tactic. They destroyed most of the Arab air forces on the ground. In a future conflict, I sure hope Bangladesh can get a platform that can meaningfully attack Myanmar air bases. Right now, with the MiG-29 and F-7, we actually cannot strike them. So engage in complex ACM.

Best is always to take the enemy unawares. Strike in an unexpected time, place. This has been a sure way to victory since time immemorial.

 

[Fawad alam]

I think this thing will add diversity in our operations and will increase options during any conflict if we are ready to spend some amount(Our weakest part is Navy if you compare with India).

 

[monitor]

Question no one is Can JF-17 fly longer with single engine compare to flying in its normal altitude, if it can then you can use it as low level attack naval fighter to avoid enemy radar But if I am not wrong it's probably wouldn't able to fly long in low level.
Best option available is JH-7A which design as this role but it will lack fighting enemy Mig-29K and other potentially SU-30 / Rafale as it design as bomb truck not multi role fighter . If Pakistan wants to use JH-7A it need to buy 1/2 squadron of J-11/16/10 fighter to counter any threats to JH-7A . It only possible if PN get enough fund to raise it's dedicated Air wing not PAF secondary role. @MastanKhan