What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand that PAF wants to improve the range of the Mirages; however, I do not agree that the Mirage V are much better than the F-16s in the strike role. You can say the M2K is better (again much would be a little too much) than F-16 in A2G but certainly not the Mirage V even in its ROSE configuration. The Mirage III/V started their career in the PAF (as well as other Air Forces around the world) as multi-role fighter just like the F-16 did. However, in the PAF, these ancient birds are still lingering on because we just don’t have other platforms in number to replace them. It is obvious that PAF would never like to send its handful of the F-16s (even if they are superior to Mirage in every respect, including A2G) to perform the air interdiction role, PAF just can’t afford to loose its handful F-16s.

With the onboard avionics, self defense systems, Mirage III/V are not suitable for the long range strike missions deep into enemy territory; they’ll prove sitting ducks for the IAF’s Mig-29s (naval Mig-29Ks), M2Ks even the Bisons, forget about MKIs. However, IFR-capable Mirage will have an advantage of carrying more weapon load. The PAF is inducting the JFs mainly to replace the ancient A5s and the Mirages, hence to me, the primary role of the JF would be what was designated to the aircrafts its is replacing, that is air-interdiction. JF-17 is not an air-superiority fighter rather a multi-role fighter. I also do not agree that lot of life is left in the Mirage’s airframes. We make fun of the IAF’s Mig-21, whereas fact of the matter is, our Mirage are also flying coffins, and this can be verified by checking the number of Mirages crashed in past five or so years. At any rate if PAF thinks that the 50s technology Mirage III/V are still viable, than who am I to say otherwise.

but sir considering that what we have in shape of F16z is just blk 15 planes whereas as Mirage V have also undergone ROSE upgrade package. thus i tend to agree that the mirages we have a=in service are better then the F16 operated by PAF, atlaeast in role of strike fighter!!
what do you think?
 
.
but the combat radius will decrease!

JF-17 is not for deep strike missions. It can easily without fuel tanks from any forward base in Pakistan can strike targets within few hundred KMs of the border, as within that area maximum targets are situated.

And for now, the real figure of combat radius of JF-17 without fuel tanks, with maximum ordnance, and mission frequency like hi-lo-hi or whatever isn't known.

Plus it has 7 hard points, combination could be anything depending as per the mission involved, one fuel tank under the belly and ordnance on all others or all 7 with ordnance.
 
.
Hi,

Reading all these posts--I believe that there is a lots of misconception about hard points and weapons load---.

For deep strike missions----there will be no maximum load----you will have one or two smart bombs and the extra fuel tanks---possibly no air to air missiles---possibly an empty machine gun rack---a light weight aircraft designed to sneak deep into the enemy territory---possibly on a one way ticket---barely enough fuel left to get back---and no escort on the final leg.

With today's technology, it is not how much you can carry---but what can you do with the given load. The dumb bombs will be basically used for ground support---which is a different issue.
 
.
Hi,

Reading all these posts--I believe that there is a lots of misconception about hard points and weapons load---.

For deep strike missions----there will be no maximum load----you will have one or two smart bombs and the extra fuel tanks---possibly no air to air missiles---possibly an empty machine gun rack---a light weight aircraft designed to sneak deep into the enemy territory---possibly on a one way ticket---barely enough fuel left to get back---and no escort on the final leg.

With today's technology, it is not how much you can carry---but what can you do with the given load. The dumb bombs will be basically used for ground support---which is a different issue.

are u suggesting 'suicide-bombers' ala japanese 'zero' pilots
 
.
Our missiles are good enough for deep strike missions..... launched from variety of plat forms.
Hence no burning need for a dedicated manned machine for as such strikes.
What PAF need to focus is A2A a/c equiped with effective BVR (BVR range should not be prime parameter) and ECM suites.
 
.
are u suggesting 'suicide-bombers' ala japanese 'zero' pilots


Hi,

Not really---they went in to slam their planes into the enemy ships on purpose. Over here the pilot is flying deep into the hostile enemy territory knowing fully well that he barely has any chance of getting to the target alive, let alone coming back in one piece. It is a planned flight---how to get to the target---deliver the load and get out of dodge.

There is always a way out on the paper and under favourable conditions---. But the pilot flying in would know in his heart that he has punched in a one way ticket.
 
Last edited:
.
Hi,

Deep strike missile launches can also create a new issue---it will be only left to the enemy to interpret what to make of the missile launch---a conventional warhead or a nuclear. The enemy can at his discretion make a strike back deciding and chosing as to what level he wants to take the conflict to.

They may just be waiting for that oppurtunity right from the gitgo---they can always tell the world that they made an error in judgement in the heat of the excitement.

The problem here is of minimal reaction time---in just a blink of an eye fortunes can be reversed. There is no reaction time at all. So---my analysis is that deep strike missiles are just for show at this moment. They will only be a part of the grand finale.
 
.
Well, if you see it that way then there is no gurantee either what a Fighter jet is dropping. Fat Man and little boy were dropped using a bomber. I agree thought that missiles in general will raise more eyebrows and cause more suspicion on what its carrying.

As far as deep strike mission are concerned, the 150 or so higher-end jet PAF intends to keep would be used and would be the cruise missiles which are less provoking than say a BM. Moreover, even our ALCM have a good range and can augment the range of the JF-17 and other fighers (FC-20) though unlikely to be carried on a F-16.

BM's would probably be a part of grand finale when everything else seems not to work or if something goes wrong in the heat of the moment. Unlikely to be used in any limited war.
 
.
^^Exactly.. i was thinking of a JF-17 equiped with Raad! is equivalent to the strike air craft our enemy posses. I'm sure Raad is more stealth than Su-31MKI ;)
Considering our missiles have pin point accuracy incl. Babur and Raad those are more effective/stealth than a dedicated deep strike a/c.
So far we have seen cruise missile were shot first in recent international conflicts and so do i expect Babur to go first and Blastic missiles at end when all enemy defences are taken out.

A/c will be mainly used for interception of enemy a/c when ground defences are not enough or got hit.
 
.
26a47e890215d25658f166be4be6d026.jpg

021d145d0eebeb307d27101876840e54.jpg

The reason i have uploaded both pics is that i couldnt see JF 17 with the same refeulling pipe as rafael is having.so the question is how jf 17 will be refeulled by il 78 tanker.?:undecided:
 
.
Can I get the list of indigenous Equipments inside JF-17? Iam sorry to ask it here, I could not find it on web... thank you.....
 
.
26a47e890215d25658f166be4be6d026.jpg

021d145d0eebeb307d27101876840e54.jpg

The reason i have uploaded both pics is that i couldnt see JF 17 with the same refeulling pipe as rafael is having.so the question is how jf 17 will be refeulled by il 78 tanker.?:undecided:

there is no refueling pod in First Block of JF-17, so it won't get AA refueling

Now don't start comparing JF-17 with Rafale :lol:
 
. . . .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom