JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[ziaulislam]

hypothetical its seems possible to add more but i am not expert on this. if this is achieved the only way will be dual missiles on one hard point as we see in J-10.

@sancho
regardless central hard point according to data seems to carry 800l fuel tank due to space problem, already discussed here to death.
in 4 sd-10 and 2 SRAM the range and endurance will not be much effected as its carrying capacity will be much less(less than 2 tones).secondly havnt we been discusing this that JFT is suppose to be a fighter to operate on home ground, lastly if JFT is operted from forword pakistani bases. range wouldnt matter much to get into near by indian space, use standoff weapons or give close support to pakistan army and most importantly to deny superiority to indian fighters.
these things dont require more endurance then what JFT provides us.

 

[Armstrong]

Not exactly.. there is a great need however for a larger payload capacity and extended range..
currently only possible with twin engines.

Noob questions :

1) I read in another thread that Pakistan on average is around 300Km wide and around a 1000Km in length; doesn't the JF-17's stated combat range of around 1300km and with the possible inclusion of a fuel tank be more than enough to defend an air-space as small as ours when most of our FOBs are going to be pretty near the Indian border and even our furthest ones (perhaps in Peshawar) can fly to Lahore and back quite comfortably with enough fuel in store for another 3-500 km of travel ! Hence do we need an air-craft with a considerably more extended range ?

2) Can't our intrusion into Indian territory, seeing that their FOBs are much closer to the border as well, be relegated to the F-16s or our SRBMs and MRBMs in carrying out some special missions in their territory and targeting their FOBs respectively ?

3) And lastly can the payload capacity be increased by using a stronger engine or is the structural integrity of the air-craft compromised if one goes for a stronger engine on a less robust (as it was designed keeping in mind a said T/W ratio) frame ?

I'd appreciate a response !

Regards,

Armstrong

 

[MZUBAIR]

I am back to defence forum after 6 months
So please update me !!!

What are the exact number of JF17 in PAF inventory [Operational] + number of SQD's now???

 

[SQ8]

Noob questions :

1) I read in another thread that Pakistan on average is around 300Km wide and around a 1000Km in length; doesn't the JF-17's stated combat range of around 1300km and with the possible inclusion of a fuel tank be more than enough to defend an air-space as small as ours when most of our FOBs are going to be pretty near the Indian border and even our furthest ones (perhaps in Peshawar) can fly to Lahore and back quite comfortably with enough fuel in store for another 3-500 km of travel ! Hence do we need an air-craft with a considerably more extended range ?

2) Can't our intrusion into Indian territory, seeing that their FOBs are much closer to the border as well, be relegated to the F-16s or our SRBMs and MRBMs in carrying out some special missions in their territory and targeting their FOBs respectively ?

3) And lastly can the payload capacity be increased by using a stronger engine or is the structural integrity of the air-craft compromised if one goes for a stronger engine on a less robust (as it was designed keeping in mind a said T/W ratio) frame ?

I'd appreciate a response !

Regards,

Armstrong

that range comes with loss of payload capacity.. to achieve that range the JF-17 will be carrying less bang for the litre..
Moreover.. in a general hi-lo-hi mission(high alt journey, low alt a few min before attack.. high alt back to base) ..the JF-17 will not do better than 680nm armed with a modest payload.
The JF-17 can maintain a Combat air patrol for 140 minutes or so around 130km away from the base armed with 6 A2A missiles.
Which is sufficient for the defence of Pakistan's airspace..
You are correct in stating that the F-16's can take up the task of attacking Indian FOB's. However, the current range of the IAF force permits it to fall back on bases well into their territory to shield their assets while still being able to mount an offensive.
To be able to threaten their assets deep within India, you need a fighter which can carry a large payload, electronic equipment and still be able to fly that far and fight.. the Chinese J-11B is an example of this.

Lastly.. the Jf-17 is compatible with the PW F-100 engine of the F-16.. which has a maximum thrust of around 106KN..
compared to the Thunders current engine...the RD-93..which has a maximum thrust of some 98KN.
So a more powerful engine does not cause problems to an airframe sufficiently strengthened for it.

 

[ziaulislam]

what is the max thrust of thunder..i have been seeing values from 86kn to 98? anyone have a inside info?

 

[Arsalan]

what we must also keep in mind while discussing JF-17 potential that it is still a new born baby in aviation world. it will grow bigger, better and stronger as PAF have shown faith in it and are really impressed with what it is right now. this is the main thing, this will make them believe more in the fighter jet and in years to come, we will all see JFT evolution, this is almost certain!

the range, the payload and distance to IAF FOB and all, if we know this all and we discuss this all, be sure that PAF also knows it, i m sure they are also keeping an eye on it and planning for future accordingly. we are on right track with the JFT program, and in time to come, you will see better engine, more payload better range and endurance, IF, the authorities also feel this way, or we can say, IF we are discussing right now is all correct, i mean if we are right about limitations, PAF also surely knows them and will certainly sort these issues.

keep faith guys, JFT is young! delivering what it is now, at this stage proves that it will go way forward in years to come!

regards!

 

[ziaulislam]

@oscar.
if thunder can pull 600 nautical miles incursion into india that will be pretty deep. a fighter that can go upto 1000 nautical miles can effectively reach any point into india.

 

[fatman17]

I am back to defence forum after 6 months
So please update me !!!

What are the exact number of JF17 in PAF inventory [Operational] + number of SQD's now???

2 sqdn operational.(16,26)
3rd sqdn about to stand up. (15)
50 JFT produced/manufactured. 1 attrition loss.
blk 2 production to start in 2nd/half of 2012.
BTW welcome back!

i doublt JFT would be used for 'deep-strike'. it is intended to be the work-horse of the PAF. it will mostly be used in the defensive/deny the adversary 'air superiority' over PK skies. meanwhile the F16, Mirages (night-strike) and probably FC-20 will be used in the deep-strike role. and what do we mean by deep-strike?. the PAF will restrict itself to degrade IAF bases along the eastern border.

 

[Edevelop]

2 sqdn operational.(16,26)
3rd sqdn about to stand up. (15)
50 JFT produced/manufactured. 1 attrition loss.
blk 2 production to start in 2nd/half of 2012.
BTW welcome back!

i doublt JFT would be used for 'deep-strike'. it is intended to be the work-horse of the PAF. it will mostly be used in the defensive/deny the adversary 'air superiority' over PK skies. meanwhile the F16, Mirages (night-strike) and probably FC-20 will be used in the deep-strike role. and what do we mean by deep-strike?. the PAF will restrict itself to degrade IAF bases along the eastern border.

As far as 'deep strike' is concerned, CURRENTLY, i think the F-16 Block 52+ can do the job. It has more Hard Points, CFT, mission Pods, etc...
J-10B also has a chance in the future....

I agree, JF-17 is supposed to be a work horse or in other words meant to be used for defensive purposes....
Right now, its going through development stage and at most as a low cost fighter, you will see an AESA radar, improved ECM suite, and new engine... which again does not change its role...

 

[S.Y.A]

the bases further in depth could be targeted by CMs easily

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

jf-17 needs modern avionics , like AESA radar , i would like to see AESA upgrade in upcoming blocks.....
i believe 150 advance fighters are better than 250 comparatively less advance fighters .

 

[Last Hope]

jf-17 needs modern avionics , like AESA radar , i would like to see AESA upgrade in upcoming blocks.....
i believe 150 advance fighters are better than 250 comparatively less advance fighters .

Don't worry, JF-17 Block 2 will emerge with a new platform in avionics and a better, stronger radar.

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

Don't worry, JF-17 Block 2 will emerge with a new platform in avionics and a better, stronger radar.

i am quite optimistic about jf-17 , this bird has great potential to prove a versatile jet.
it has a beautiful shape, addition of composite material, more powerful engine and advance radar.

 

[ice_man]

when will we integrate the SD-10 with our JF-17s!! it has been many years and we still haven't done so .

 

[khattak.44]

what about its night capabilities since A-5 are retired no fighter jet has taken off at night form Peshawar Airbase.though at day time JF-17's are taken out for a ride and its manoeuvres are great.especially the high G high speed turn.