JF-17: Low Level Strike (Concept)

[Ultima Thule]

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

No sir latest version of JH-7 (A) can be armed with PL-12 for BVR fight @monitor

 

[Shabi1]

replace those 8 x 250 bombs with 2 x antiship and performance should be same.
1000km in MLLH.

I think this is a pretty decent low level performance from the Thunder. No need for a dedicated variant.

A JF-17 Block-4 strike variant exactly similar to ROSE could be debated but PAF doesnt plan to retire the ROSEs till 2025. With the 2025 timeline there is high likelyhood that the next strike aircraft to replace ROSEs for PAF have stealth capability inline with Project AZM.

 

[Ultima Thule]

A JF-17 Block-4 strike variant exactly similar to ROSE could be debated but PAF doesnt plan to retire the ROSEs till 2025.

you're just assuming there are no Plan to build JF-17 block-4 currently @Shabi1

 

[Shabi1]

you're just assuming there are no Plan to build JF-17 block-4 currently @Shabi1

There will inshallah be more variants Block-4 and above but since we are waiting for 2025 I expect the Project Azm stealth platform would be more suited for penetration/strike role as they will have better survivability against SAMs

Electro-optical and sensor system (EOSS) pod and infrared search-and-track sensors below the nose of J-31 indicates designers have intended strike role.

 

[Ultima Thule]

There will inshallah be more variants Block-4 and above but since we are waiting for 2025 I expect the Project Azm stealth platform would be more suited for penetration/strike role as they will have better survivability against SAMs

Electro-optical and sensor system (EOSS) pod and infrared search-and-track sensors below the nose of J-31 indicates designers have intended strike role.

but as you said ROSE mirage will be retiring in 2025 and project azm anf J-31 will be ready in 2025 why we need block-4

 

[Shabi1]

but as you said ROSE mirage will be retiring in 2025 and project azm anf J-31 will be ready in 2025 why we need block-4

So far trend has been 50 jets per block and PAF needs to go beyond 150 jets if it has to replace the legacy F-7s and non ROSE mirages. And add to that I suspect that Block-1 airframes might end up being replaced by a block 4/5+ variant once their airframes reach their limits.

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

There will inshallah be more variants Block-4 and above but since we are waiting for 2025 I expect the Project Azm stealth platform would be more suited for penetration/strike role as they will have better survivability against SAMs

No sign of gen. 5 by 2025. Plus if we are thinking to produce a 5 gen. plane from project azm than timeline will hit 2030. Don't forget that jf 17 block 3 were planned for 2018 but has been pushed back to 2020. Please stop giving optimistic timelines which has even less than 50% chances of meeting up.

 

[Shabi1]

No sign of gen. 5 by 2025. Plus if we are thinking to produce a 5 gen. plane from project azm than timeline will hit 2030. Don't forget that jf 17 block 3 were planned for 2018 but has been pushed back to 2020. Please stop giving optimistic timelines which has even less than 50% chances of meeting up.

looking how MBT-2000/Al-Khalid and JF-17 went I expect project Azm to be a J-31 with Pakistani sub components so 2025 by PAF higher brass is no bluff.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

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

yes, because the engine is a little bit bigger than the RD-93. It would also mean that the CoG (center of gravity) will move aft. Which is an opportunity to lengthen the forward fuselage a little more. Meaning perhaps 1500 kg of fuel may become possible. these are just rough guestimates.

 

[Taygibay]

OK so back to the low level need to
signal that the opponent will do both
high & low flying with one aircraft :

​

That in turn signals that the Spey
concept is not major anymore due
to improvements in engine tech ...

This said, why exactly couldn't PAC
ROSE-up the JF-17? I'm even ready
to believe that a modified rating of
the engine for the purpose is within
reach with the help of Chinese OEM.

The only other option is a temporary
( more or less temporary as the AZM won't be here in
2025 but still ) used capacity specific ACs.

Design from scratch is price prohibited.

Every development of the Thunder is
best for the nation; it's that central!

Good day MastaK, MiG and all, Tay.

 

[Gallium Nitride]

View attachment 460611




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

What do you mean by flying long in low level? Can you please explain further? Thanks

 

[randomradio]

Flying over the Arabian Sea would mean the IN's Western Fleet no longer exists.

Good luck.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

Some basic aerodynamics: All aircraft that fly low will have shorter range than flying high. The question is by how much.

Physics does not change and there is always a trade-off to be made. An engine of equal technological build, built for low level vs high level will always perform better than an engine designed otherwise. Laws of physics do not change because of technology.

This is also why Rafale is not as good at high-high (high altitude, high speed) combat as Eurofighter. It had to make design compromises.

Just like how stealth 5th generation fighters did not mean that they will be "the best" at everything. You can see that the PAKFA trades stealth for better aerodynamic performance. These are basic things that people who study physics, aeronautical engineering know.

In South Asia, given the highly sensor rich environment, once you are at medium to high altitude, everyone and their uncle can see you. Unless you are a stealth fighter. So if you start vectoring towards the border, the opponent has a good idea of what to do and where to head. This is why strike aircraft fly at low level. With MiG-27s and Jaguars on the other side and Mirage ROSE on the PAF side.

Obviously when you fly low, you have lower range. But with a specialized aircraft, you have relatively longer range, and are faster on the deck.

Why? Some ballpark aerodynamics:

The higher you fly, the thinner the air. The lower you fly, the more dense the air in the atmosphere. The thicker the air, the more drag you will have. The thinner the air, you have less drag. An engine is designed to optimize for a certain density of air.

An example perhaps is when you serve soup or dal, you prefer a certain shape of spoon. When you are serving meat, you prefer a different kind of spoon. Now, if technology improves, you can improve the spoon, but a one size fits all, will not make a single spoon that is best at serving all food.

Let me try to think of a Mastan Khan example.

You can either design a Ferrari or a Landcruiser. Technology improving does not mean you have one super duper car that can both be a Ferrari and a Landcruiser. Even if it was somehow possible, it would be extremely expensive.

At lower altitudes, ceteris paribus (everything else held constant), you would need lower volume of airflow into the engine. Same engine at higher altitudes will need a bigger volume of airflow, as the air is less dense. At lower altitude, drag increases, and density is greater. To simplify, you tend to optimize with a shorter wingspan and fatter airfoil. While at higher altitude, you need longer wingspan and thinner foils to be optimal.

These are just barest of basics, there are dozens of other paramaters, each of which has to make a tradeoff choice of for the requirements, the specifications, the flight profiles.

To have a mature conversation, one has to speak within the boundaries of what they know. Just having an opinion without a solid basis doesn't do much for the conversation.

 

[Tipu7]

A generations ahead option in comparison of JHA/B is in of sight PAF. Forget JH7 A/B, its not coming in PAF no matter what type of argument is presented by members on random forums.

 

[Maxpane]

For deep strike missions what options paf have?