JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF

[araz]

Bro, I ll give you some advice...do not waste your time giving lectures to people here on science and facts, this forum runs on speculation and discussion of news articles.
People who are not as learned as you or not as smart as you 'will not' understand your point/argument. It is analagous to speaking with a mad man continously.
Find a proper scientific/engg. forum where you as well others like you can grow, and visit Pdf only to speculate, argue on stupid speculations, or enjoy troll wars.
Good day from a fellow engineer.

That is a silly post. I think @Amardeep is being told by professionals that whereas there is no denying that if you have concrete data available it would be an undeniable proof of the veracity or otherwise of a claim but since a lot of this data is kept confidential more so by the Chinese and in persuance the Pakistani establishment such data is not available for discussion unless declassified.
The second point is that the posters here are laymen mostly who come to the forum to learn about a topic which they love .In this regard people like @gambit and @Bilal Khan 777 and@Oscar are so valuable as they explain things in simplistic terms to those laymen thereby contributing to our knowledge base. This is not too difficult to understand but @Amardeep is taking it very literally. His background is research and he wants to see the JFT in that light. However for most members on the board and indeed on most boards this is not possible. I can only hope he can understand and reconcile himself to the limitations of a public forum.
We all speculate in our lives and not wait for a mathematical solution. One of the biggest speculations is marriage!! Beat that @Amardeep. However in all fields there is a move towards being more definitive in ones assessment. However speculation works in most spheres as one has to understand that specific data is not always available.
On the foxbat issue @Amardeep totally missed the point of discussion. The speculations were based on visual accumulation of knowledge as well as data secured from secret knowledge. This was confirmed/rebutted on the evaluation of a platform . Till the platform remained elusive there was the need to discuss the capabilities based on speculation which tended to over estimate at times and sometimes under estimate the capabilities, but still you base a defensive strategy against the platform based on those speculations. To wait for specific data would be fatal.
A

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

The time has come to also have a New Branch to make Thunders (New production line)

 

[ZAC1]

every body ,PAF says jf-17 thunder made for PAF actually PAF requirement are to counter IAF fighter jets including Su-30MKI etc....so i bet if it really means made for PAF and it fulfills their requirement so its a very capable fighter jet...

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The deeper bases do also need assets that can attack them, but the effectiveness of India's Air Defence system and the sheer distance means that even a heavy aircraft going to strike them is going on a one way mission. Those targets are handled best by cruise missile strikes or by simply keeping air defence coverage good enough to make their impact the least

I have a question albeit a silly one.
why cant the bases which are closer to border be also targeted with cruise missiles? why risk manned aircraft for that?

 

[Star Expedition]

A real beauty!

We should equip her with a more sophisticated heart as soon as possible.

 

[gambit]

I have a question albeit a silly one.
why cant the bases which are closer to border be also targeted with cruise missiles? why risk manned aircraft for that?

Not a silly question at all. However, the question belongs to pay grades much higher than our levels. So for the sake of clarity, take your time reading the following...

Cruise missiles, like all missiles, are one-way weapons, as in they cannot return. Once launched, they cannot be recalled. Precisely because of this, using a one-way weapon is very much a final decision. The selected target must be one that you either cannot afford or do not want to expend further interest, in other words, once it is attacked you do not want to attack it again. It must be rendered a 'non-contributor' to the enemy's war effort on the first visit by you.

Now comes target selection.

Every explosive event have an effective blast radius. Did you know that fine particles inside a farm grain silo can explode and can kill ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_explosion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_radius

For instance, a 2000 pound Mk-84 bomb has a blast radius of 400 yards (365 metres).

What this mean is that in order to render a truck out of commission, as in being a 'non-contributor' to the enemy's war efforts, the truck must be in the inner 1/2 of that 400 yds blast radius.

An airbase have many targets that -- ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS -- can be destroyed or rendered ineffective to the enemy's war effort. So if an airbase have 100 such targets, either you send 100 missiles, one hundred precision artillery rounds, or one hundred precision bombs.

Can you send one hundred cruise missiles ? If you wallet is large enough to have the stockpile, of course you can.

Can you rain down 100 precision artillery rounds ? If your army is close enough.

Can you drop 100 precision guided bombs ? There is your air force.

But why is it that a ship can be rendered a 'non-contributor' or decreased effectiveness by a single cruise missile hit ?

Because unlike an airbase, the ship, by its operating environment which is the sea, requires everything to be integrated into one portable package -- the ship. A single hit anywhere on the ship have immediate effects to the rest of the ship. If an airman or soldier on land falls to the ground, he can get up and run to where he is supposed to be. But if a sailor falls into the water, he is immediately a 'non-contributor' with no telling when he can be effective again. Everything on a ship is very much like this. The ship, as a weapons package, is so tightly integrated regarding its components that it is more vulnerable than a land base to a single cruise missile hit.

That does not mean the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier can be out of action by one or even multiple cruise missile hits. But what it means is that the ship, whether it is a large aircraft carrier or small destroyer, is different enough from a land target that you can produce a negative effect to a ship much quicker than you could on a land target. The ship's mobility on the vast sea make your SEARCH for it extremely difficult. But once you are able to attack it, you can much quicker render that ship a 'non-contributor' to the enemy's war effort.

So you put yourself in the general's shoes. You have a wide variety of weapons systems at your disposal, from fully manned to different degrees of autonomous systems. With manned systems, you can recall and reassign or even cancel the attack. With unmanned and fully autonomous weapons systems, you cannot do anything after launch so your decision must be absolute. You have to study the enemy regarding how he array his forces to threaten you, then you have to study your own resources to nullify those threats.

For your scenario, if your war strategy need the airbase to be only temporarily ineffective, then a salvo of cruise missiles will be enough. You can revisit the airbase later and really kill it. But if your war strategy requires that airbase to be permanently a 'non-contributor', then manned weapons systems, or a combination of manned and unmanned, are necessary.

All leaders have to do this, whether it is an admiral with his ships or a general with his tanks or aircrafts. The decision to use which method to attack what type of target are not made on whims like how the movies portray wars.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Not a silly question at all. However, the question belongs to pay grades much higher than our levels. So for the sake of clarity, take your time reading the following...

Cruise missiles, like all missiles, are one-way weapons, as in they cannot return. Once launched, they cannot be recalled. Precisely because of this, using a one-way weapon is very much a final decision. The selected target must be one that you either cannot afford or do not want to expend further interest, in other words, once it is attacked you do not want to attack it again. It must be rendered a 'non-contributor' to the enemy's war effort on the first visit by you.

Now comes target selection.

Every explosive event have an effective blast radius. Did you know that fine particles inside a farm grain silo can explode and can kill ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_explosion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_radius

What this mean is that in order to render a truck out of commission, as in being a 'non-contributor' to the enemy's war efforts, the truck must be in the inner 1/2 of that 400 yds blast radius.

An airbase have many targets that -- ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS -- can be destroyed or rendered ineffective to the enemy's war effort. So if an airbase have 100 such targets, either you send 100 missiles, one hundred precision artillery rounds, or one hundred precision bombs.

Can you send one hundred cruise missiles ? If you wallet is large enough to have the stockpile, of course you can.

Can you rain down 100 precision artillery rounds ? If your army is close enough.

Can you drop 100 precision guided bombs ? There is your air force.

But why is it that a ship can be rendered a 'non-contributor' or decreased effectiveness by a single cruise missile hit ?

Because unlike an airbase, the ship, by its operating environment which is the sea, requires everything to be integrated into one portable package -- the ship. A single hit anywhere on the ship have immediate effects to the rest of the ship. If an airman or soldier on land falls to the ground, he can get up and run to where he is supposed to be. But if a sailor falls into the water, he is immediately a 'non-contributor' with no telling when he can be effective again. Everything on a ship is very much like this. The ship, as a weapons package, is so tightly integrated regarding its components that it is more vulnerable than a land base to a single cruise missile hit.

That does not mean the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier can be out of action by one or even multiple cruise missile hits. But what it means is that the ship, whether it is a large aircraft carrier or small destroyer, is different enough from a land target that you can produce a negative effect to a ship much quicker than you could on a land target. The ship's mobility on the vast sea make your SEARCH for it extremely difficult. But once you are able to attack it, you can much quicker render that ship a 'non-contributor' to the enemy's war effort.

So you put yourself in the general's shoes. You have a wide variety of weapons systems at your disposal, from fully manned to different degrees of autonomous systems. With manned systems, you can recall and reassign or even cancel the attack. With unmanned and fully autonomous weapons systems, you cannot do anything after launch so your decision must be absolute. You have to study the enemy regarding how he array his forces to threaten you, then you have to study your own resources to nullify those threats.

For your scenario, if your war strategy need the airbase to be only temporarily ineffective, then a salvo of cruise missiles will be enough. You can revisit the airbase later and really kill it. But if your war strategy requires that airbase to be permanently a 'non-contributor', then manned weapons systems, or a combination of manned and unmanned, are necessary.

All leaders have to do this, whether it is an admiral with his ships or a general with his tanks or aircrafts. The decision to use which method to attack what type of target are not made on whims like how the movies portray wars.

That explains it. Thank you.

 

[SQ8]

So am I. But I also know squat about aerial warfare and systems. It's that Gambit and Oscar were in positions to afford them great insight that's a boon for PDF.

I did this.

I didn't work with radars or missiles, can't tell you much about the heloes I was on, can't tell you much about the air force in general, especially as I worked closer with the Navy and Coast Guard at sea.

Medicine I know about. AUVs and subsurface warfare I know about - because I work with them professionally. Aerial warfare despite leaving the service as a Captain? Not an insightful thought to be found. I just wasn't in a position within the service that afforded me an in-depth look at anything of note.

Just a bit of cautious advice, not everyone who served is an expert on the service they were in. It's more dependent on what you did, or had access to, or who you had access to and Gambit and Oscar have a bevy of experience and contacts to call up that provides this forum with great insight.

Never served.. termed too "free" for military life. All I did was a few years of R&D and met the right people throughout my life; that and an obsession with aviation is why I know stuff.

 

[MastanKhan]

As I tried to infer in the article. The term defensive here is not per se referring to defensive.
Take the Israeli Air Force (IDF/AF), As such their task is to defend Israel but they carry out offensive operations regularly to ensure that Israel is not threatened. Their Defence lies in a good offensive capability. The same goes for the PAF.
However, Israel has multiple neighbours that threaten it and whose key critical targets that threaten Israel immediately lie both within and further out from Israel. Take Iran for e.g. Israel has to fly all the way over multiple "less than friendly" territories to get to Iran. Hence, it has the need for long range heavy assets that can fly all the way to Iran, fight their way through without any support and return in some shape.

By contrast, Pakistan has one main enemy that threatens it in a similar manner to Israel's various ones. If we look at the map
Scramble

We will see that most of India's major air bases are fairly close to the border(Just as Pakistan's are) and as such are not that far away in terms of flight time.Out of all these bases, the ones that really matter to the PAF are those closest to the border as those are the ones capable of generating strikes the fastest and providing the least in response time for our Air Defence to pick up. Which makes the F-16s fairly suitable to carry out operations against the deepest bases and even the JF-17s can pitch in against the closer ones.

The deeper bases do also need assets that can attack them, but the effectiveness of India's Air Defence system and the sheer distance means that even a heavy aircraft going to strike them is going on a one way mission. Those targets are handled best by cruise missile strikes or by simply keeping air defence coverage good enough to make their impact the least.

So when I say defensive, I do not mean that the PAF will operate only in Pakistani skies; but rather that that object is to ensure that India is unable to inflict damage on Pakistan and/or capture territory by carrying out both offensive and defensive operations against and inside India to that its ability to achieve its objectives is deterred.

Hi,

What a poorly written gutless piece----.

The fear of deep strike----in the heartland---the multiplier effect of the panic factor---the sense of insecurity and the terror of enemy strike that would result in chaos deep inside the territories is worth a one way trip for any deep strike aircraft pilot.

See---the poster has no combat or service experience---all his information is verbal---it is not 'attained'---that is why it is all fluff----there is not much substance to it many a times---.

Why does pakistan need deep strike capability aircraft---because the enemy has a very large area to protect---and in that large area---there are many many vulnerable targets to be protected---and each major target in the deep strike zone---is like the FEMORAL artery---so far away from the heart---but deadly when cut off----.

So---to protect that femoral artery---the enemy has to move its major assets and disperse it---and when it disperses its assets over a large area---the assets thin out---which means that they cannot give out the needed protection.

The enemy in its current form can keep its heavy assets farther back---with a long loiter time and at discretion refuelling capability---its aircraft can stay farther out and make a dash when needed.

The air bases closer to the border are just for show now---by the enemy---. Their assets will be moved back immediately once the hostilities start---. The enemy is not going to put itself in fighting from a position of weakness.

Readers should think about it---.

Deep strike mission capability creates a fear of its own deep down into the bowels of the enemy---.

Salahuddin Ayubi was shocked into disbelief and fear when he found a momento from the Old man of the mountain on his pillow case---. That was a successful deep strike mission. It made him change his priorities of attacking the stronghold of the assassins.

When one reads the military history spread over the centuries---the most important and the most cherished missions are the deep strike missions of the opposing forces and the effects they had on those receiving them.

It brings the warm---ugly---stenchy rotten breath of death and destruction to areas that were never familiar of its existence---and the panic and fear that it creates in the wealthy and upper echelons of the society spreads like wild fire amongst the peers and then travels down to the ordinary---.

It is just like slipping a sharp knife side to side under the overhang of a fat belly and see the slippery and slithering guts spill out.

Oscar---you are such a fake---you have no clue about real combat.

 

[gambit]

Why was it necessary for the air force to sever its ties to the army ? Note I used lower cases to denote the forces in general, not any particular force from any country.

When the army fight, its objectives are immediately in front of it. Those objectives are enemy troops, hills that are just over the horizon, and so on. Because of this, the army as an organism are genetically and institutionally shortsighted. This is not to say army members, from low to high, are stupid. But what it means is that because the threat to the army lies in front of it, whatever sight the army has must be focused on the highest priority, therefore, the army have effectively been conditioned thru thousands of yrs of warfare to be shortsighted.

Proponents of air power realized the potential of air power to shortened wars by attacking targets that while several degrees away from the battlefields are no less vital to the war effort. That was why in WW II the US Army Air Corps (USAAC) and other allied air forces attacked oil refineries, ball bearing factories, and train depots. The immediate needs of the war put the philosophical discussions about air power to the back and all the generals got busy on how to use air power to strategic targets such as oil refineries, ball bearing factories, and train depots.

Once the war was over, those philosophical discussions were moved to the front and understandably, the army resisted any loss of control of air power. It was understandable because attacks to the enemy from the third dimension reduces deaths of one's own troops. Without the institutional severance from the army that allows air power proponents to explore new aspects of warfare, air power would never developed into the potent threat it is today.

What this means is that a military that have an air force must have doctrines that will allow its air force to extend its views beyond what is immediately in front of it and what that air force sees, it must have the freedom to attack. Constraints to the air force, no matter the reasons that may range from finance to institutions, is to practically assure a loss in a war.

 

[Star Expedition]

A handsome boy, composed of the strength and spirits of Pakistan.

 

[SQ8]

Hi,

What a poorly written gutless piece----.

The fear of deep strike----in the heartland---the multiplier effect of the panic factor---the sense of insecurity and the terror of enemy strike that would result in chaos deep inside the territories is worth a one way trip for any deep strike aircraft pilot.

See---the poster has no combat or service experience---all his information is verbal---it is not 'attained'---that is why it is all fluff----there is not much substance to it many a times---.

Why does pakistan need deep strike capability aircraft---because the enemy has a very large area to protect---and in that large area---there are many many vulnerable targets to be protected---and each major target in the deep strike zone---is like the FEMORAL artery---so far away from the heart---but deadly when cut off----.

So---to protect that femoral artery---the enemy has to move its major assets and disperse it---and when it disperses its assets over a large area---the assets thin out---which means that they cannot give out the needed protection.

The enemy in its current form can keep its heavy assets farther back---with a long loiter time and at discretion refuelling capability---its aircraft can stay farther out and make a dash when needed.

The air bases closer to the border are just for show now---by the enemy---. Their assets will be moved back immediately once the hostilities start---. The enemy is not going to put itself in fighting from a position of weakness.

Readers should think about it---.

Deep strike mission capability creates a fear of its own deep down into the bowels of the enemy---.

Salahuddin Ayubi was shocked into disbelief and fear when he found a momento from the Old man of the mountain on his pillow case---. That was a successful deep strike mission. It made him change his priorities of attacking the stronghold of the assassins.

When one reads the military history spread over the centuries---the most important and the most cherished missions are the deep strike missions of the opposing forces and the effects they had on those receiving them.

It brings the warm---ugly---stenchy rotten breath of death and destruction to areas that were never familiar of its existence---and the panic and fear that it creates in the wealthy and upper echelons of the society spreads like wild fire amongst the peers and then travels down to the ordinary---.

It is just like slipping a sharp knife side to side under the overhang of a fat belly and see the slippery and slithering guts spill out.

Oscar---you are such a fake---you have no clue about real combat.

MK
Go back to cars man. Unlike you I don't hold imaginary conversations with Musharraf at 3am in the morning and pretend to have knowledge.
Take those haloperidol pills and go back to sleep

 

[Naif al Hilali]

Bismilah ir Rahman ar Raheem

"Lastly, please note that the F-16A we used as a benchmark here had a fuel fraction of (14,000 pounds fuel / 33,000 pounds takeoff weight=) 0.425 and the JF-17 has a fuel fraction of (10,000/26,500 =) 0.375. The F-16C from our afore-mentioned analysis had a fuel fraction of (14,000/36,500 =) 0.385 and we had estimated its ferry range in this configuration at approximately 1,900 nautical miles."

To compare with the JF-17's grandpa (philosophically speaking) from https://defence.pk/threads/jf-17-thunder-made-for-the-paf.398270/page-23#post-8907808:

F-20 Tigershark (14,000 pounds empty)
Fuel Fraction with 5,000 pounds Internal Fuel & Three 330 US gallon drop tanks (11,500/27,500 =) 0.415
Ferry Range 2,020 Nautical Miles
(Note: Most online sources are highly inaccurate and mix up the F-20's numbers with the F-5E's)

And its daddy and cousins:

SAAB Gripen JAS-39A/C (14,500-15,000 pounds empty)
Fuel Fraction with 5,000 pounds Internal Fuel & Three 300 US gallon drop tanks (11,000/27,000 =) 0.405
Ferry Range 1,800 Nautical Miles
(Usually conservatively under-reported as 3,000 kilometers or 1,620 nautical miles)

SAAB Gripen JAS-39E (17,500 pounds empty)
Fuel Fraction with 7,500 pounds Internal Fuel & Three 480 US gallon drop tanks (17,000/36,000 =) 0.485
Ferry Range 2,200 Nautical Miles
(Usually rounded to 4,000 kilometers or 2,080 nautical miles)

Hifz u kum Allah

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

4,000 kilometers is approximately 2,160 kilometers obviously. Sorry, my brain seems to be slowing down as it gets older. Time to start using calculators now.

The other numbers should be accurate:

F-20 Tigershark (14,000 pounds empty)
Fuel Fraction with 5,000 pounds Internal Fuel & Three 330 US gallon drop tanks (11,500/27,500 =) 0.415
Ferry Range 2,020 Nautical Miles
(Note: Most online sources are highly inaccurate and mix up the F-20's numbers with the F-5E's)

SAAB Gripen JAS-39A/C (14,500-15,000 pounds empty)
Fuel Fraction with 5,000 pounds Internal Fuel & Three 300 US gallon drop tanks (11,000/27,000 =) 0.405
Ferry Range 1,800 Nautical Miles
(Usually conservatively under-reported by SAAB as 3,000 kilometers or 1,620 nautical miles)

SAAB Gripen JAS-39E (17,500 pounds empty)
Fuel Fraction with 7,500 pounds Internal Fuel & Three 480 US gallon drop tanks (17,000/36,000 =) 0.485
Ferry Range 2,200 Nautical Miles
(Usually rounded to 4,000 kilometers or 2,160 nautical miles)

Sorry again for the mistake.

Hifz u kum Allah

 

[MastanKhan]

MK
Go back to cars man. Unlike you I don't hold imaginary conversations with Musharraf at 3am in the morning and pretend to have knowledge.
Take those haloperidol pills and go back to sleep

Hi,

Thank you for the advise---I will take it into consideration---. But the truth to the matter is---most of your information is hearsay---heard it from here---relayed it over there---.

A few days ago I posted about the deaths of senior Paf officers during airplane crashes---and I wrote something like ' a wing commander / air commodore rank officers cannot be replaced just like that ---you can replace multiple aircrafts' and your reply put no value to their rank and loss of experience---.

And I realized that you have no clue about the importance of the hierarchy of a military rank. You were clueless to its importance---and were just repeating what yu had heard others say.

Just a reminder for you--- a better equipped and a better trained iranian military got whipped by the inferior iraqi military in the 80's---because the iranians had no generals to lead the army---Khomeini sure did kill them all.

Enjoy your prestige here with clever postings---.

Back to discussion---.

 

[war&peace]

Two of our senior and respectables members (@Oscar @MastanKhan) have (again or as usual) a difference of opinion and both are claiming that they are right. Now there are three possibilities

1. One of them is right
2. Both of them are right
3. None of them is right

To decide who is right, let them solve an easy puzzle on this thread ..

Puzzles and fun math