JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[virkjee]

Jf-17 Thunder's Performance in Dubai air Show 2013 Video | PAKISTAN DEFENCE NEWS BLOG | Pakarmedforces.com

 

[Tacticool]

Mafiya,

This post of yours was neither expected nor required of you.

A missile test is not a simple test. It's not like you can fire a missile at a dummy target and say it is integrated. It will take multiple firings from many different parameters to make sure the missiles fire properly.

For example, firing SD-10 from 20 km range to target, is way different to firing it from 50km.
Firing SD-10 at 50,000 ft while going mach 0.9 is different to firing it at say 30,000ft.

Same thing with stand-off weapons.


They have to be tested in ECCM and ELINT environments, check and re check that the rocket motors fire and perform as expected.

AIM-120-C5 amraam costs about $700,000-1million $, but still does not have a 100% kill probability.

1 mil for a single missile?

 

[Donatello]

1 mil for a single missile?

Yes, but i believe that is for the AIM-120D version

PAF got AIM120C, which is about half a million.

 

[razgriz19]

Rather tyres I guess...

no actually, it is brakes that needs replacing quite often
that's the most frequent job that every mechanic have to do

 

[Bratva]

Mafiya,

This post of yours was neither expected nor required of you.

A missile test is not a simple test. It's not like you can fire a missile at a dummy target and say it is integrated. It will take multiple firings from many different parameters to make sure the missiles fire properly.

For example, firing SD-10 from 20 km range to target, is way different to firing it from 50km.
Firing SD-10 at 50,000 ft while going mach 0.9 is different to firing it at say 30,000ft.

Same thing with stand-off weapons.


They have to be tested in ECCM and ELINT environments, check and re check that the rocket motors fire and perform as expected.

AIM-120-C5 amraam costs about $700,000-1million $, but still does not have a 100% kill probability.

and none of that SD-10 tests ever performed on JF-17 block 1 and it's been 5-6 years since JF-17 block 1 inducted in PAF and not a single SD-10 fired from it. What I said and what you said two parallel things. All these performance tests are being done on PT-06. Not on Block 1 JF-17.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

Fish,, Where did you come to know that ??

It was widely SPECULATED and even Alen Warns tweeted (if i am not wrong) back in 2012, that 3rd Sqn of Thunder was likely to be stationed in Karachi. But now after so many delays in raising 3rd Sqn Alan tweeted again for Tail Choppers. An article mentioning JF-17 has yet to test Chinese ASM, which you can find in JF-17 DAS'13 thread, clears everything that why third sqn is not going to Karachi

Mirages III / V (Including ROSE) will stay in service at least till 2017. PAF has 5 F-7P squadrons to replace with JF-17. This will be followed by F-7PG or Mirages (excluding ROSE)...

Yes but they are all used when bought from different countries. While M-VPA3 were all brand new when they joined PAF in 1978-79 and they might be in very good condition and have more life as compared to the rest overhauled / upgraded Mirages. So i highly doubt that M-VPA3 will be removed from ASM role at once replacing by immature JF-17.

Have you seen reports that (some) Mirages are being upgraded with an air-to-air capability and are capable of firing R-Darter BVR missiles? Besides, PAF has got a new supply of spares...

R-Darter ! this is a just a fuss theory ... Unlike H-2/4 SOW, we have no proof for it. If Pakistan really had R-darter missile then why PAF was so eager to induct a BVR capable aircraft like JF-17.

 

[Donatello]

and none of that SD-10 tests ever performed on JF-17 block 1 and it's been 5-6 years since JF-17 block 1 inducted in PAF and not a single SD-10 fired from it. What I said and what you said two parallel things. All these performance tests are being done on PT-06. Not on Block 1 JF-17.

If PT06 is what all production JF-17s are based on, then that is not an in issue.

We can't do weapons test on each JF-17.

Actually, it is better that there is a dedicated aircraft to do all the tests.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

If PT06 is what all production JF-17s are based on, then that is not an in issue.

We can't do weapons test on each JF-17.

Actually, it is better that there is a dedicated aircraft to do all the tests.

Block-I (101 - 150) aircrafts are based on PT - 04 not 06.

 

[Donatello]

Block-I (101 - 150) aircrafts are based on PT - 04 not 06.

I think PT-01,PT-02,PT-03 were based on one structure, and PT-04,05 and 06 were based on the one that eventually went into production.

Let's wait for a senior member to clarify.

 

[Munir]

Indeed one needs additional wiring and sensors to do the testing of weapons. So not every plane is equipped to do that. Sometimes production aircraft are altered to do the testing.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

I think PT-01,PT-02,PT-03 were based on one structure, and PT-04,05 and 06 were based on the one that eventually went into production.

Let's wait for a senior member to clarify.

There is no PT-02 and PT-05 .... Early design of JF-17/ FC-1 was PT-01/03 but PAF was not satisfied with it and proposed some changes that resulted as PT-04 in 2006 and become the standard design for productional aircrafts. Later we received upto eight aircrafts from China starting from 2007 by next 2 - 3 years and assembled two aircraft at home and later started production from JF-17 09-111 from 2009 on wards all based on same design. Where as PT-06 appeared in 2009 - 10 when we already had started the production .... and it continued several trials and tests till early months of 2013 then it suddenly disappeared from the scene. Also note that we brought PT-04 at PAC to perform all the productional aircrafts related weapon integration, testing and trials at home.

PT-06 is actually the same design as PT-04 but it is not surely the aircraft on which productional aircrafts are based. Its a complete multirole JF-17 unlike the PT-04 and (101 - 150) aircrafts.

 

[Chak Bamu]

There is no PT-02 and PT-05 .... Early design of JF-17/ FC-1 was PT-01/03 but PAF was not satisfied with it and proposed some changes that resulted as PT-04 in 2006 and become the standard design for productional aircrafts. Later we received upto eight aircrafts from China starting from 2007 by next 2 - 3 years and assembled two aircraft at home and later started production from JF-17 09-111 from 2009 on wards all based on same design. Where as PT-06 appeared in 2009 - 10 when we already had started the production .... and it continued several trials and tests till early months of 2013 then it suddenly disappeared from the scene. Also note that we brought PT-04 at PAC to perform all the productional aircrafts related weapon integration, testing and trials at home.

PT-06 is actually the same design as PT-04 but it is not surely the aircraft on which productional aircrafts are based. Its a complete multirole JF-17 unlike the PT-04 and (101 - 150) aircrafts.

So what is your point? The first 50 Thunders are missing a wing or two? There are a hundred KG of bricks instead of a radar? PAF could not afford to put on pylons to carry A2A missiles?

It is only a matter of a few wires and perhaps a software update. Ability to split hair does not an analyst make. Perspective is important. I totally fail to understand why you are bent upon making a mute point? It is not like the first batch of 50 can not EVER fir BVR. If they can not do so today, they can do so tomorrow. I doubt if anyone can be sure about this any way. PAF is not in business to advertise sensitive information about weapons systems. Maybe deployed JF-17 can fire BVR, maybe they can not. Either way I doubt if any adversary would like to find out. Fog is important in war.

 

[TaimiKhan]

It was widely SPECULATED and even Alen Warns tweeted (if i am not wrong) back in 2012, that 3rd Sqn of Thunder was likely to be stationed in Karachi. But now after so many delays in raising 3rd Sqn Alan tweeted again for Tail Choppers. An article mentioning JF-17 has yet to test Chinese ASM, which you can find in JF-17 DAS'13 thread, clears everything that why third sqn is not going to Karachi

Yes but they are all used when bought from different countries. While M-VPA3 were all brand new when they joined PAF in 1978-79 and they might be in very good condition and have more life as compared to the rest overhauled / upgraded Mirages. So i highly doubt that M-VPA3 will be removed from ASM role at once replacing by immature JF-17.

R-Darter ! this is a just a fuss theory ... Unlike H-2/4 SOW, we have no proof for it. If Pakistan really had R-darter missile then why PAF was so eager to induct a BVR capable aircraft like JF-17.

Plans were there to induct something at Karachi, but later it was realized that 2 Sqds would be at Peshawar (Northern Command), manufacturing & training happening at Kamra (Again under & near to Northern Command, Kamra being just 80Km away from Peshawar), thus it will be a logistical nightmare to have a 3rd Sqd so far away especially at a time when the aircraft is being inducted needing lot of human resource interaction with local staff & Chinese staff to be available right on the base or nearby to get to the stationed sqds in short time. So, 2 Sqds at Peshawar 01 at Kamra will put them within 80Km of each other, making lot of logistical issues simplified resulting in less cost.

We do have something for the Mirages, but the eagerness for induction of JF-17 was simple, Mirage are old, are not multi role, cost a lot to keep flying, and updating Mirage to specific roles as per ROSE upgrades was expensive and not much room left for any future upgrades.

There is no PT-02 and PT-05 .... Early design of JF-17/ FC-1 was PT-01/03 but PAF was not satisfied with it and proposed some changes that resulted as PT-04 in 2006 and become the standard design for productional aircrafts. Later we received upto eight aircrafts from China starting from 2007 by next 2 - 3 years and assembled two aircraft at home and later started production from JF-17 09-111 from 2009 on wards all based on same design. Where as PT-06 appeared in 2009 - 10 when we already had started the production .... and it continued several trials and tests till early months of 2013 then it suddenly disappeared from the scene. Also note that we brought PT-04 at PAC to perform all the productional aircrafts related weapon integration, testing and trials at home.

PT-06 is actually the same design as PT-04 but it is not surely the aircraft on which productional aircrafts are based. Its a complete multirole JF-17 unlike the PT-04 and (101 - 150) aircrafts.

PT-06 is a Chinese testbed equipped with entirely Chinese avionics suit and systems. While PT-04 was equipped with western / pakistani / chinese avionic suit.

That is the major difference between the both. One is tailored as per PAF requirements, the other one is tailored on wholly chinese systems for either induction in PLAAF or incase an export order is received based from a buyer who wants or can afford a totally chinese aircraft with no western / pak origin equipment.

 

[Donatello]

There is no PT-02 and PT-05 .... Early design of JF-17/ FC-1 was PT-01/03 but PAF was not satisfied with it and proposed some changes that resulted as PT-04 in 2006 and become the standard design for productional aircrafts. Later we received upto eight aircrafts from China starting from 2007 by next 2 - 3 years and assembled two aircraft at home and later started production from JF-17 09-111 from 2009 on wards all based on same design. Where as PT-06 appeared in 2009 - 10 when we already had started the production .... and it continued several trials and tests till early months of 2013 then it suddenly disappeared from the scene. Also note that we brought PT-04 at PAC to perform all the productional aircrafts related weapon integration, testing and trials at home.

PT-06 is actually the same design as PT-04 but it is not surely the aircraft on which productional aircrafts are based. Its a complete multirole JF-17 unlike the PT-04 and (101 - 150) aircrafts.

you can read here, there were 6 prototypes made:

Chengdu JF-17 Thunder (FC-1 Xiaolong) - Lightweight Multirole Fighter - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft

and the weapons integration has been mentioned by our senior member Najam Khan here:

http://pafwallpapers.com/blog/category/jf-17/



@Oscar

Which prototype is the production JF-17 based on?

 

[TaimiKhan]

you can read here, there were 6 prototypes made:

Chengdu JF-17 Thunder (FC-1 Xiaolong) - Lightweight Multirole Fighter - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft

and the weapons integration has been mentioned by our senior member Najam Khan here:

http://pafwallpapers.com/blog/category/jf-17/



@Oscar

Which prototype is the production JF-17 based on?

Some of the prototypes are used for ground testing things, like airframe stress testing and stuff like that. So the ones you did not see in the air are the ones which are used for airframe stress testing.Pt-02 & Pt-05 most probably went for airframe testing.

Our JF-17 is based on the Pt-04 testbed.