What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I got just one question...

When everyone talks about upgrading JF-17 or other Pakistani planes to match Indians..Why does no one ever consider that IAF would be upgrading its planes as well.

I mean Su-30 has had its design specs frozen for over a decade now. In another 5-6 years, Su-30 will go for modernization with much better radars, missiles, possibly engines.

The contract for a complete modernization of M2000 to M2005/9 is already being signed i think. Double for MiG 29's.

Why do you assume, that the others will remain static?




if iaf planes would be moderinezed will they be superfisious then
not na
so it doesnt matter pak too is not sleelping and
it is moderinizing too its force
so so so
what ever is in the world is in reac of both of these with equal chances if india has a moderinzing plane than pak has too revesed emgineered tech of china

u need not to worry:azn::azn::azn:
 
.
China unveils more details of JF17 fire control radar


China’s CETE officially unveiled the performance parameters of KLJ-7 multi-functional radar in Bangkok recently. China is also using this radar system to bid for the first batch of 42 JF17 fighters to be manufactured in Pakistan.

any further details?
 
.
Hi,

First of all I want to thank the HEAVY HITTERS for joining the discussion.

The jf 17's part---where it has to fill in the role and replacement for the F7's---all of them---the A 5's and the Mirages is abosuletely correct and there are no second opinions about that. There is no doubt about the work horse issue either.

But the problem arises when there is an opponent in the picture right in my face and all of his game plans are targetted towards taking me out comprehensively.

Our battle tanks are purchased and manufactured to take out the enemy tanks mano a mano and come out ahead---we buy submarines to have better systems than the enemy subs---we design our missile to be better than the enemy missiles---we design our cruise missile to be better than the enemy cruise missile---DID I MISS SOMETHING WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO OUR MAIN POINT DEFENCE AIRCRAFT---.

The thing is that of pak had 200 jf 17's in stock and the enemy had 100 su30---I would still be a little skeptical about our defence and offence---but due to the numerical superiority, I may breath a little easier.

Over here neither there is numerical superiority, nor there is an air to air superiority---an su 30 can carry 8 bvr's---the jf 17 can only carry 2---an su 30 can see and act from a farther distance with immunity---it can do the same against the jf 17 that the f 22 is designed to do against other air craft.

The su 30's bvr's have a better killing range than the sd 10---it can get closer into the 90% killing range and fire multiple missile at the same target before the jf 17 can get within the 90% kill range of the sd 10---the su 30 can then turn around and scoot---the jf 17 may not even have the chance to fire at 90 % kill range.

Our design is based on somehow the jf 17 will get closer to the su 30 and then show what it is made up of. Well that might not happen. The playing field has been changed with what the F 22 is designed to do---other air forces will follow suite as well.

The only serious threat that comes to the su 30 is from the Blk 52's and the amraams---.

The missille defence shields that I talked about---india will get it and pakistan will be waiting for it.

India has become a too impoprtant of a nation for the u s and the world---.

You have quite rightly pointed out that JF-17 is not in the same class as SU30 MK1. Apart from other parameters, Mk1 can carry 8 BVR versus two of JF-17 and that SD-10 is inferior to BVR’s carried by Mk1.

There are two points to consider;
1. Performance of the aircraft on its own. Such as range, speed, thrust ratio etc.
2. Performance of the avionics.

SU-30 is a large plane with twice the range of JF-17. It can carry 3 times the weapon load of JF-17, with TVC power plant and thrust to weight ration of 1.1.

There is very little one can do about performance of JF-17. May be a more powerful engine to increase the speed to Mach 2 and thrust to weight ratio equal to that of Mk1. However Thunder could never be transformed into MK1 beating plane especially on weapons load and range. Let us not forget that MK1 is also more than three time more expensive. For the sake of argument let us accept that JF-17 would remain an inferior plane when compared to Mk1 on performance alone.


Avionics is a different matter. I wouldn’t be surprised if in future we see two variants of Thunder. In tactical support role, current aircraft would perform ok with some up to date anti missile defense such as chaff dispenser etc. So what if you need more planes to carry the same bomb load as Mk1?

For the air superiority role, modified with a better power plant, state of the art radar and armed with BVR missiles of the AIM -120D class; JF-17 could prove more than a match for the MK1.

Additionally, any battle between Mk1 & JF-17 is likely to be on or very near Pakistani soil, therefore data link to AWACS would negate the range advantage of the Mk1 to a great extent. If we have sufficient numbers available, there is no reason why we can’t put 8 JF-17 against a pair of Mk1’s to make up for the inferior performance.

In the final analysis, IMO with all its short comings; JF-17 Thunder is the best that PAF can afford in large numbers.

F-22 is a different matter altogether and don’t think that any aircraft currently in IAF or PAF inventory would offer any competition to F-22.
 
.
For the air superiority role, modified with a better power plant, state of the art radar and armed with BVR missiles of the AIM -120D class; JF-17 could prove more than a match for the MK1.
I would like to correct you here.

Just to make JF-17 comparable you are assuming the following things:
- a better engine
- a newer radar
- integration of AIM-120D with the radar

Expecting so much from a $15 million plane is a little too much isn't it?

JF-17 is good the way it is, cause it was never meant to compete with MKI, rather to replace the A-5 and J-7 which it does.

Additionally, any battle between Mk1 & JF-17 is likely to be on or very near Pakistani soil, therefore data link to AWACS would negate the range advantage of the Mk1 to a great extent. If we have sufficient numbers available, there is no reason why we can’t put 8 JF-17 against a pair of Mk1’s to make up for the inferior performance.
AWACS would not be everywhere at every moment. Even if it is, it is the radar of the aircraft that needs to get a lock on. So any way, the JF-17 will have to come in the range of the MKI, which negates any advantage AWACS would add.

Also numerical superiority is something that wouldn't be achievable, since right now India has around 115 MKIs and PAF doesn't even have 1/10 th of that number. And we're gonna have 280 MKIs eventually and most probably much earlier than PAF getting 250 Thunders.

In the final analysis, IMO with all its short comings; JF-17 Thunder is the best that PAF can afford in large numbers.

F-22 is a different matter altogether and don’t think that any aircraft currently in IAF or PAF inventory would offer any competition to F-22.

JF-17 is great with what it does and what it was supposed to do, ie replace the 3rd gen aircraft in PAF inventory. Comparing it with MKI or expecting it to give MKI a tough time wouldn't be wise.

I agree F22 is a different game altogether, but what he tried to say is, what F22 is to MKI, the MKI is to JF-17.
 
.
Hi,

All war planes are developed and designed by air forces directly or indirectly---this plane was developed by chinese industrial complex with pak giving the input what they wanted alongwith their engineers and pilots---so nothing new or big deal about it. Paf is talking like it has re-invented the wheel.

It is the same every where else as well. The nations that build planes have advanced engineering complexes and vast industrial base where private sector is ****** rich or is funded by the govt as well.

These private industrial complexes have serving air force pilots---retd air force pilots---aeronautical engineers---metalurgists---scientists---you name it they got it---they got money---technology---research---manpower that pakistan cannot imagine in its wildest of dreams---so why would the air forces of these nations start building what they don't need to.

In pakistan---WAKE UP YOUNG PAKISTANI---the only major industrial complex with any substantial engineering background and production capability is the pak millitary---take it to the private sector and they got nothing---just a little bit here a tad bit there---nothing of subsatnce---so who do you think would be involved in building the plane.

Pakistan air force is pursuing this plane just for the sake of their ego
---once they found out about the J 10---that is what they should gone after---and the J 11---.

JF 17 is a dumb mistake---one of many---.

Pak would be better served with 60-75 J 11's and 200 J 10's alongwith the F 16's.

60-75 plus J 11's will be sufficient to put pak airforce at par with the iaf on its own turf.

Paf desperately needed some heavy weight to go mano a mano against the su30---but they are strutting around with their puny little achievement---fool me once shame on you---fool me twice---shame on me---pak public has been fooled again.

Your fighter interceptors needs to make a power statement---where you needed a steriod filled heavy muscular machine---you are sending in a chicken hawk---.

Pakistan air force needed a PITBULL to face indian air force---all they have been able to come up is a chihuahua.

The sole purpose of the project was to come up with something that the enemy will stop for a moment and think about the consequences---jf 17 does nothing of that kind---if it didnot bring india to the table---then the project is a failure.

Suppose if pakistan had a fleet of 75 J 11's---75 F 16's blk 52's and MLU's and 75 M2K9's---does anyone think that india's power posturing would have been different---.

Please don't talk about paf being the only air force to make their own plane---.

Mastan Sir,

Musharaf was shown the J-10 even before it was officially shown or declassified to the world back in 2006 when he visited China early in the year.

The principal decision to buy the J-10 was done in that year alone as per reports.

As for JF-17, the forth evolved prototype came into existence in mid of 2006.

So if PAF had come to know that this is a dumb plane when compared to J-10, they would have stopped its, JF-17 development and concentrated on J-10, but some of the members have very perfectly explained what role JF-17 is gonna play.

And as for ego, well we are not a cash rich country to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a plane to just keep up our ego and not let it hurt. We are cash trapped and these hundreds of millions of dollars would have helped our ego in many other ways if we had this ego problem.

When there is ego problem, then such projects are kept alive barely, just like a human is kept alive on different kind of machines knowing the person will not be opening his eyes to see another day, so that egos are not hurt, but JF-17 has not only been kept alive, rather its now working fully and has a long road of its own life span ahead of it.

And past wars and conflicts have clearly told us that, size or technological superiority doesn't always guarantees success, be it machines, economies, man power or human being himself.

Its good you and others think or take JF-17 to be a chihuahua, but may be this same chihuahua one day becomes a pain in the arse of someone else.

Plus, how many of us, including you Sir, know about the true capability & advantages of what JF-17 is offering us ??

Anyhow, was surprised with you above post, did not thought to ever hear something from you.

But, would be better if you and others stop taking JF-17 as a frontline fighter whose main role is to take on MKIs rather see it as a replacement of the hundreds of decades old fighters in PAF service, and see the F-16s & FC-20s as the main contenders to take on the MKIs and other newer platforms which they are gonna add in coming years except for the 5th gen ones.

And one other thing, JF-17 in its current form can take on any of the other fighters serving the IAF fleet except the MKIs, which itself is something.

Wouldn't it be better that JF-17 takes on the Mig-21s or Bisons or other Mig variants in IAF fleet rather then the A-5s taking the job and failing misreably.
 
.
JagjitNatt, You really described the comparision very well here. Well I would like to add something regarding upgrades which Jf-17 and Su-30MkI both will be getting in next 2-4 yrs.
After upgrade you can imagine Jf-17 would be able to fire 60-70 Km range BVR missiles , addition of a radar which may have range nearly 120-130 Kms, Engine no one knows if it can be replaced in next 5 yrs or not.
But on the other hand Su-30MKI will be getting much better radar which will enable Su-30MKI to fire AntiAwacs/AntiTanker, along with that BVR missiles in range above 100-125 Kms perfectly and high thrust engines which will make is more deadly in combat.
 
.
I would like to correct you here.

Just to make JF-17 comparable you are assuming the following things:
- a better engine
- a newer radar
- integration of AIM-120D with the radar

Expecting so much from a $15 million plane is a little too much isn't it?

JF-17 is good the way it is, cause it was never meant to compete with MKI, rather to replace the A-5 and J-7 which it does.


AWACS would not be everywhere at every moment. Even if it is, it is the radar of the aircraft that needs to get a lock on. So any way, the JF-17 will have to come in the range of the MKI, which negates any advantage AWACS would add.

Also numerical superiority is something that wouldn't be achievable, since right now India has around 115 MKIs and PAF doesn't even have 1/10 th of that number. And we're gonna have 280 MKIs eventually and most probably much earlier than PAF getting 250 Thunders.



JF-17 is great with what it does and what it was supposed to do, ie replace the 3rd gen aircraft in PAF inventory. Comparing it with MKI or expecting it to give MKI a tough time wouldn't be wise.

I agree F22 is a different game altogether, but what he tried to say is, what F22 is to MKI, the MKI is to JF-17.

Not expecting anything out of the ordinary from JF-17, these are all the things which the JF-17 can do and the price tag may remain or will hardly go up above 20-25M figure, still better compared to the 40-50+M fighters who can do the same things.

As for engine, well we would be hearing news about it soon and see what kN it has, if it comes near to 95-100kN, that would be perfect for JF-17, wouldn't it be.

Newer radar is also very feasible and as for cost comparison, worth it looking at its performance.

Do remember the JF-17 avionics are all made based on the MIL-STD 1530 standard and the weapons management or hard points use the MIL-STD 1760 standard, thus fully capable to integrate any weapon system of western origin, be it AIM-120s.

JF-17s are not for MKIs.

MKIs for air dominance will have to come near to or inside the Pakistan air space, and as for PAFs main role is to negate the chances to let IAF have air dominance, so when MKIs will have to come into our airspace, they will not only be threatened by our interceptors or fighters, rather SAMs are also to be seen, thus with two way threats, MKIs can become very vulnerable.

And in war, it would be made sure that there is nearly 24/7 all Pakistan AEW&C coverage, one of the reason why going for Chinese systems as those we can have in good numbers for nearly everywhere all the time coverage.

And the BVR A2A missile doesn't needs a lock on from its carrier aircraft to be launched, that is what datalink capability is, the fighters can shut their radars off to reduce the chances of getting detected and based on data link capability, launch their missiles on the data provided by the AEW&C.
 
.
Its requested not to make it into another MKI Vs JF-17 thread, as this is not what JF-17 is for.

Keep the discussion for just JF-17

 
.
JagjitNatt, You really described the comparision very well here. Well I would like to add something regarding upgrades which Jf-17 and Su-30MkI both will be getting in next 2-4 yrs.
After upgrade you can imagine Jf-17 would be able to fire 60-70 Km range BVR missiles , addition of a radar which may have range nearly 120-130 Kms, Engine no one knows if it can be replaced in next 5 yrs or not.
But on the other hand Su-30MKI will be getting much better radar which will enable Su-30MKI to fire AntiAwacs/AntiTanker, along with that BVR missiles in range above 100-125 Kms perfectly and high thrust engines which will make is more deadly in combat.

Engine is in development and would be soon tested on a prototype, rather taxi runs were done way back in March, may have already started flying with it.

It can fire BVR missiles with 70+KM range, and some sources quote the range to be 100KM+ of the SD-10 and during testing stages, JF-17 fired every weapon system and fully capably to do it now.

Radar is much better then what you have quoted, it can easily identify, target and track MKIs at 110KM+ range, rather the real figure is classified.

And for firing any kind of AEW&C killer or tanker killer missiles, MKIs will have to come inside Pakistan territory, and when it will do that, don't think PAF is gonna sit idly and let it do that.
 
.
Niaz---Taimikhan---notorious eagle and others,

Thankyou very much for the posts.

You people misunderstood about the F 22.

F 22 is not designed for engagement one on one---it will shoot its missiles from a distance that is farthest from the reach of enemy air to air missiles and then turn around and go back---the pilot training for an F 22 is different---no mano a mano.

In a similiar manner---the Su 30 mkI has bvr's that have a longer range than the future sd 10 of paf.

Tha max range of the russian bvr is around 100 km---the max range of sd 10 is around 60 km----the 90 % kill range of russian bvr is around 50--60 km---the 90% kill range of sd 10 is around 30 to 40 km if it is.

What I am trying to share is that the su 30 can launch a volley of missiles at the target way beyong the 90% kill range of sd 10---it is simple physics now---don't you guys study physics in your engr class. The rules of engagement have changed when your missile can kill from a longer distance than mine.

Again----to simplify---the su 30 is shooting with a .50 calibre barret ( where .50 has scored regular kills at 2000 yds and beyond )----the jf 17 with sd 10 is more like a .338 lapua round----scoring kills at 1000 plus yds or regular basis maybe 1250 on a rare occassion ).

What the reader needs to understand is that the su 30 can launch a volley of missiles at one or two, three or four targets at the same time and even before it gets in the kill range of the sd 10, the su 30 can turn around and leave the battle field---if 4 jf 17 in one sortie---they will have two missiles each locked on to the---.

The jf 17 would be trying to save its life---it cannot launch its missiles from max distance---because they will be useless. The jf 17 will be busy in breaking the missile lock---.

Now flying over its own territory, if the paf have some nice decent quality air craft with jammers then maybe it might work or maybe it maynot work.

The enemy has a numerical superiority---the enemy has a technical superiority---the enemy has the support of many.

So what do we do now---.

Major weapons systems are purchased for show---they are purchased to make a political statement---they are purchased to make the enemy come to the table to make peace. The non conventional weapons and missiles systems did create those circumstances, but our lack of air superiority was and is our weakest link.

We have developed a belief that we are okay as long as we have weapons that can bloody the enemy's nose---well that is a bad bad strategy and gameplan. You never know how the opponent will react after a bloodied nose---you have thrown the ball in the enemy court and let the enemy decide what to do.

We ough to have weapons systems that can smash the enemy's pride---bring it down to its knees momentarily and make him think---peace is better than war.

We have two items worthy of that---our missiles system---and our non conventional weapons---but we don't have a third leg to stand upon. That is the air force---if our air force was better equipped years ago---all our peace deals would have been signed----we would have not been at the brink of war---india and pakistan would have been onto bigger and better things in the life of their citizens.

Again the purpose of any major weapons system is to bring about peace---jf 17 doesnot do that. It will be a wonderful aircraft in its category---no doubt about it.
 
.
Pak would be better served with 60-75 J 11's and 200 J 10's alongwith the F 16's.

JF 17 is a dumb mistake---one of many---.


Sir I don’t think it is.

Mastan sahib you just want 60-75 J 11's and 200 J 10's alongwith the F 16's but how will you take and train your pilot from Academy level and directly to these very heavy weight modern fighters ? Where and which will be the intermediate fighter that will provide the stepping stone? Currently PAF is doing:

MFI-17---> T-37/K-8---> FT-5---> F-7/A-5 ---> Mirage ---> F-16 A/B

Or

MFI-17---> T-37/K-8---> FT-5---> F-7/A-5 ---> F-16 A/B

Just look at the flow of training pattern and it will all make sense. PAF always had an intermediate fighter that were in abundance like F-86,F-6,F-7 and in the future it will be BVR capable JF-17 thunder. With T-37s, FT-5s, F-7s and Mirages gone in next few years and as per your statement the training pattern that you are suggesting is looking more like this.

MFI-17---> K-8---> J10/ J11/ F-16 A/B/C/D

IMO The above pattern will be a very costly disaster. And once we will loose $ 35/40 million jets for pity reasons then perhaps someone will say that why PAF is putting young guns directly in these jets and PAF must have some decent platform before these jets……and hence the solution is a low cost BVR JF-17 thunder that will be our primary/basic fighter and will comprise of at least 7 to 8 squadrons.

PAF lost a good about 20 years where we could have another decent fighter after the F-16s…PAFs leadership waiting too long before someone had to give them wake up call and they started to act….If IAF hadn’t inducted SU-30s, perhaps PAF still hadn’t thought about inducting a new fighter….SU-30s have created such a huge gap between IAFs and PAF current capability that finally we had to shake our rear ends too.

As far is PAFs punch is concerned. Well F-16 C/Ds are already on their way…..and trust me J-10s will be the next. They are coming as well… :)
 
.
Mastan sahib you just want 60-75 J 11's and 200 J 10's alongwith the F 16's but how will you take and train your pilot from Academy level and directly to these very heavy weight modern fighters ?
Did PAF not do that when the F-16s were inducted back in early 80s? I think induction of F-16s back than was quiet a leap in terms of technology for the PAF pilots flying 50s era F-6s, and 60s era Mirage III/V.
 
.
As far is PAFs punch is concerned. Well F-16 C/Ds are already on their way…..and trust me J-10s will be the next. They are coming as well… :)


x_man,

Thanks for elaborating on this unique aspect that most of the members missed here.

I have a question about J-10s performance. Right now 4 of them have crashed and I imagine only 20s of those would be in the Chinese air-force by now. What do you think about performance of J-10s and how much weight can we put on this aircraft for the National Defense?
 
.
I have a question about J-10s performance. Right now 4 of them have crashed and I imagine only 20s of those would be in the Chinese air-force by now.
You meant J-10Bs as there are at least 150 (as high as 200) J-10As in Chinese service. I am also not sure that the four that crashed were all J-10Bs.
 
.
Did PAF not do that when the F-16s were inducted back in early 80s? I think induction of F-16s back than was quiet a leap in terms of technology for the PAF pilots flying 50s era F-6s, and 60s era Mirage III/V.

Yes it was a big leap but they weren’t just fresh academy graduates but all were well trained fighter pilots with each one of them having 1000s of hours under their belt.

F-16 wasn’t their first fighter and when those guys went for training they already had their air-air and air-ground skills sorted. They were not there to learn fighting skills from abintio but just for the conversion onto a new/modern weapon system.

Now imagine a young guy with barely 300 flying hours with no fighter tactics skill and you put him into a J-11. What are you going to expect from him? Of course he will learn weapon system eventually but at what cost? Even if you train a Boeing 737 pilot for a month to fly F-16, he will……But its not just about flying the aircraft but its about utilizing your machine as a weapon system in variety of combat situations….and it doesn’t come overnight .

JF-17 will be an excellent lo cost platform to train our young pilots onwards to the more complex and expensive weapon systems.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom