JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF

[Bossman]

Hi,

Most of the posters---due to a lack of information---or too much zeal----are blinded by their passion for the air force.

A knowledgeable poster would question---why would IAF fight from the position of strength of the PAF and why not from its own position of strength---.

I don't want to write up an order of battle for the IAF to prove my point.

Get a life!

 

[MastanKhan]

Get a life!

Oh Lordy---the bear hunter is back----.

 

[SQ8]

Hi,

Most of the posters---due to a lack of information---or too much zeal----are blinded by their passion for the air force.

A knowledgeable poster would question---why would IAF fight from the position of strength of the PAF and why not from its own position of strength---.

I don't want to write up an order of battle for the IAF to prove my point.

Or basically you dont have a point that you can prove. The only person posting without information is you.
I dare you on even the slightest ounce of intellectual integrity that you might hold..post something with actual facts and information.

So far, you've been the personification of Donald Trump here.. how about proving it otherwise.

 

[Viper0011.]

i wish they will convert them to IFR

That's the next logical step. Block III should come standard with it and with more hard points, etc.

 

[MastanKhan]

So far, you've been the personification of Donald Trump here.. how about proving it otherwise.

Hi,

There is no such thing as proving it---that is a " Pakistani " expression----. The proof will be on the day of the battle----.

The simple truth is that IAF will not fight from a position of weakness.

 

[SQ8]

Hi,

There is no such thing as proving it---that is a " Pakistani " expression----. The proof will be on the day of the battle----.

The simple truth is that IAF will not fight from a position of weakness.

Oh I dont disagree. But that is usual tangent( chipkali ki dum) shooting to avoid having to answer the question posted.

 

[MastanKhan]

Oh I dont disagree. But that is usual tangent( chipkali ki dum) shooting to avoid having to answer the question posted.

Sir,


Chicken sh-it does not beat cow du-ng---not yesterday---not today---not tomorrow---. Cow du-ng is going to over power and smother chicken sh-it any time of the day.

And remember the " sensei thing " you mentioned---do you think that you are the first one to use that term---do you think I never said the same thing to my seniors 40-45 years ago---and what do you think the answers that I got 30 and 40 years later.

My answers are already posted on the threads that I started and in many other posts

 

[Oracle 33]

Excellent detailed write up but the IAF will not be used in any first stage outbreak, Drones, Brahmos, Spy Sats etc will be utilised first. Indian defence planners did much research during the last Iraq war and the missile blitz the Americans did before they 'actually' sent in fighter jets.

Another thing to bear in mind is AWACS and anti aircraft missiles like the Spyder will play a big role as well. There is also things like Cyber warfare which can do plenty of damage before war is officially declared. Point is future warfare is rapidly changing and evolving the days of tanks, dog fights have a place but are loosing to new tactics.

 

[Mukhtaar ka Waar]

thanks brother but here... current scenario is too difficult to understand war games and war practices.... one think i want to ask you that what's your opinion about this matter.... Why does not Pakistan Navy going for Aircraft Carrier and also Nuclear Submarine...... Pakistan's deal with China for 8 conventional submarines.... why not for nuclear submarines..... why always we reactive.... India have both but we not.... what's logic behind this matter....??

 

[araz]

Blk 3 must exhibit significant improvements over current air crafts as AESA radar+9 Hard points+WS10 engine (or AL31 if possible)+improved avionics+Load capacity+Improved EW suits+Improved weapon package+Improved counter measures. If Blk 3 is not going to integrate all such attributes then sorry to say, it will be disappointing just like Blk 2. If yes then it will carry more than enough punch and will be able to stand against any non fifth generation air craft. bhai g AGar JF he sab requirments pori kar dy ga to J10B Or SU35 OR j31 Buy karny ka faida ?

You will forever remain disappointed. Bhai please read a bit or ask questions before you post.
Back in the mid 80s I used to go around Karachi in an 800 cc Suzuki. The silencer was always broken just like my pocket so it made a loud noise but the engine remained an 800 cc engine. What do you think would have happened if I had put in a 2200cc Nissan truck engine. Would the chasis have taken it?And even if the chasis somehow tookk the engine and did not collapse what do you think would have happened to the car?It would not have been able to handle the engine. The same is the case of the JFT.
You cant just fit an engine like the WS10 or AL31F or for that matter AL117S(which at the moment is my current favourite engine). The engine is too big for the plane. You need to find an RD93 sized engine with increased thrust for it to work. The RD93MA or WS13B will be ready around 2018 and we will have to see then what happens.
Araz

That's the next logical step. Block III should come standard with it and with more hard points, etc.

Why in your opinion is there a need for more hardpoints? I think it is a more worthy topic for discussion. Iam all for a chin mounted hardpoint designated for a POD. However with the news of twin ejectors for BVRs do we really need extra hardpoints. As per printed data PAF initially tried the JFT with 9 hardpoints but following test decided to stick with 7. Was it just a case of the engine not having enough thrust or something else.
@Oscar,@ Bossman ,and @gambit input would be appreciated. What are the relative advantages and drawbacks in having additional hardpoints vs twin enector racks.
Regards
A

 

[Oracle 33]

The main theory of this article is that PAF will be using a defensive posture vs the IAF in protecting it's air space but IAF is not going into the hornets nest (initially)

 

[Viper0011.]

Why in your opinion is there a need for more hardpoints? I think it is a more worthy topic for discussion. Iam all for a chin mounted hardpoint designated for a POD. However with the news of twin ejectors for BVRs do we really need extra hardpoints. As per printed data PAF initially tried the JFT with 9 hardpoints but following test decided to stick with 7. Was it just a case of the engine not having enough thrust or something else.
@Oscar,@ Bossman ,and @gambit input would be appreciated. What are the relative advantages and drawbacks in having additional hardpoints vs twin enector racks.
Regards

The hard point don't need to be there because there is something serious that a light-fighter gains from those. Your weight carrying capability will still be limited to what it is today, unless you introduce a new engine with higher thrust, like PW or GE engines used on the -16's.

But, I am looking at the threat perception. In the absence of proper numerical advantage with the IAF, or heavier platforms, the JFT needs a couple of things, higher internal fuel storage so it can get more loiter time. Then, you need a better Radar with multi-target lock and fire capability. And more hard points can then be used to install more BVR missiles. Currently in a standard configuration, I've seen the JFT with three fuel tanks and 2 BVR's and 2 WVR's. With two more hard points, you could add two more BVR's.

With the IAF's numerical advantage, this time around, it won't be 2 or 4 IAF jets coming in. The numbers will be larger and each SU-30 can lock on and fire on about 6 targets. The JFT can lock on two and for a better kill ratio, both the missiles should be fired on one target. That means the JFT will take on just 1 SU-30 at a time. Now, if there was a better radar allowing 4 targets to be locked on simultaneously, and 4 BVR's were available, you can obviously target 4 incoming jets, or fire 2 BVR's on each incoming jet, raising the hit to kill ratio significantly and turning the JFT into a better force-multiplier than it is today. Just my two cents.
Regards,

 

[WishLivePak]

The hard point don't need to be there because there is something serious that a light-fighter gains from those. Your weight carrying capability will still be limited to what it is today, unless you introduce a new engine with higher thrust, like PW or GE engines used on the -16's.

But, I am looking at the threat perception. In the absence of proper numerical advantage with the IAF, or heavier platforms, the JFT needs a couple of things, higher internal fuel storage so it can get more loiter time. Then, you need a better Radar with multi-target lock and fire capability. And more hard points can then be used to install more BVR missiles. Currently in a standard configuration, I've seen the JFT with three fuel tanks and 2 BVR's and 2 WVR's. With two more hard points, you could add two more BVR's.

With the IAF's numerical advantage, this time around, it won't be 2 or 4 IAF jets coming in. The numbers will be larger and each SU-30 can lock on and fire on about 6 targets. The JFT can lock on two and for a better kill ratio, both the missiles should be fired on one target. That means the JFT will take on just 1 SU-30 at a time. Now, if there was a better radar allowing 4 targets to be locked on simultaneously, and 4 BVR's were available, you can obviously target 4 incoming jets, or fire 2 BVR's on each incoming jet, raising the hit to kill ratio significantly and turning the JFT into a better force-multiplier than it is today. Just my two cents.
Regards,

Or you can just get SAM 300/400

 

[araz]

The hard point don't need to be there because there is something serious that a light-fighter gains from those. Your weight carrying capability will still be limited to what it is today, unless you introduce a new engine with higher thrust, like PW or GE engines used on the -16's.

But, I am looking at the threat perception. In the absence of proper numerical advantage with the IAF, or heavier platforms, the JFT needs a couple of things, higher internal fuel storage so it can get more loiter time. Then, you need a better Radar with multi-target lock and fire capability. And more hard points can then be used to install more BVR missiles. Currently in a standard configuration, I've seen the JFT with three fuel tanks and 2 BVR's and 2 WVR's. With two more hard points, you could add two more BVR's.

With the IAF's numerical advantage, this time around, it won't be 2 or 4 IAF jets coming in. The numbers will be larger and each SU-30 can lock on and fire on about 6 targets. The JFT can lock on two and for a better kill ratio, both the missiles should be fired on one target. That means the JFT will take on just 1 SU-30 at a time. Now, if there was a better radar allowing 4 targets to be locked on simultaneously, and 4 BVR's were available, you can obviously target 4 incoming jets, or fire 2 BVR's on each incoming jet, raising the hit to kill ratio significantly and turning the JFT into a better force-multiplier than it is today. Just my two cents.
Regards,

Thank you for your post. My argument stemmed around the presence of increased hardpoints when you already have a multirack ejector giving you the 4 BVRs and 2 WVRs. This would be in keeping with the current doctrine of PAF. We need to ask @gambit whether USAF specifically carries more than 4 BVRs on a sortie or not. I strongly suspect the answer is No. So what do you gain by excessively loading your platform with stock that you may well have to jettison in case of an encounter. It is this pojnt which does not make sense to me.
A

 

[MastanKhan]

The hard point don't need to be there because there is something serious that a light-fighter gains from those. Your weight carrying capability will still be limited to what it is today, unless you introduce a new engine with higher thrust, like PW or GE engines used on the -16's.

But, I am looking at the threat perception. In the absence of proper numerical advantage with the IAF, or heavier platforms, the JFT needs a couple of things, higher internal fuel storage so it can get more loiter time. Then, you need a better Radar with multi-target lock and fire capability. And more hard points can then be used to install more BVR missiles. Currently in a standard configuration, I've seen the JFT with three fuel tanks and 2 BVR's and 2 WVR's. With two more hard points, you could add two more BVR's.

With the IAF's numerical advantage, this time around, it won't be 2 or 4 IAF jets coming in. The numbers will be larger and each SU-30 can lock on and fire on about 6 targets. The JFT can lock on two and for a better kill ratio, both the missiles should be fired on one target. That means the JFT will take on just 1 SU-30 at a time. Now, if there was a better radar allowing 4 targets to be locked on simultaneously, and 4 BVR's were available, you can obviously target 4 incoming jets, or fire 2 BVR's on each incoming jet, raising the hit to kill ratio significantly and turning the JFT into a better force-multiplier than it is today. Just my two cents.
Regards,

Hi,

It is very difficult for them to understand the significance of 8-10-12 BVR's----. Till yesterday these same Pakistanis were arguing tooth and nail that the primary battles will be fought WVR---. It took them years to change their minds to understand that the game has changed.

These same guys were arguing that it would take about a year to integrate the JF 17---now it s close to 8 years or what----and still no end in sight.

Even Boeing or Northrop announced a 16 BVR version for the F15 SE----a few days ago. An article yesterday on yahoo.com talked about the concern about the new PL15 of the Chinese air force---and again it was concerned that the F22 carries only 6 BVR's---whereas the J 11 would be carrying 12---PL15.

With its ability to lock onto a stealth target---a range possibly longer than the AIM120D----or the same range----it creates issues for the opponent.

An aircraft with 2 BVR's is going to launch them and then scoot---it has to land and refuel---and that is where it becomes vulnerable.

So---there are two problems here amongst the many---2 BVR's and short legged----. And even if can get refueled in the air----it cannot re-load missiles in the air.

That is why I have been saying---Pakistan needs a heavy strike aircraft with long legs---a naval version---that can reach out to the heart of MUMBAI and below areas----. Put your strength where the enemy is weak or where the odds are even.