JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Armstrong]

They are willing to provide you soft loans any day of the week. But there is something known as respect which the PAF wants to maintain vis-a-vis the Chinese and refuses to take more soft loans.

Twin engines are great over water, but even the Norwegians were happy using the F-16 AGM-119 combo as a ASW system.
What matters is range, and the Sea target detection capability. The ideal weapon system is the C-802 paired with a CM-400. Preferably timed with the strike, with the C-802 released earlier while the CM-400 is released later to essentially have both systems "arriving" within similar time frames.

The issue is that the Navy needs an aircraft that can provide escort for its long range maritime surveillance assets or BARCAP for its surface assets. The JF-17 cannot provide the loiter capability needed for the Navy's key needs and so the issue of the J-11s keeps popping up. But in a nutshell, the J-11s are an expense that is just too much and too frivolous in our current economic conditions.

A better aircraft for the role is the CFT equipped F-16 which is ready to be used in that role by UAE and Turkey.

Can't we come up with CFTs for the Jf-17s perhaps at a later Block ?

Maybe they wouldn't be as good as those sported by the F-16s but even if gives it a respectable loiter time wouldn't we, in our already small shore-line & maritime limits, be happy with something like that ?

 

[Munir]

What do you intend to do with the load weight if you cannot utilize it? Sure, you may sling some sort of airborne Babur sized missile on it but really what is point if you can lift 10000 kg but only can carry four things to make that weight?

The scenario's of today have little that is not accomplished by the existing plans for the F-16s and the JF-17s. The scenarios of tomorrow make the FC-20 irrelevant. You dont need a slightly bigger JF-17(in your words). You need a new capability that matches or trumps that of the opposition. Sadly, you have funds for neither.

You might be shocked cause when did we expect nukes being exploded or Babur or tactical nukes in Nasr... But I do have to agree with you. Do we have to pay for that little more? PAF seems to agree with you cause we do not see a deal (yet). But what will happen if India signs Rafale in three months? I would not be that shocked... Just like the fact that I am not shocked to see suddenlt MIL mi 35 being ordered in big numbers. Upgraded Mil mi 24 but still... No Cobra's...

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar, we also need a replacement of our fast ageing mirages and while JF-17 is a good replacement for A-5 and F-7 in terms of added performance, it does not seem to be the same for mirages specially the upgraded ones.

Actually, the JF takes care of most of the mirage's capabilities as well except its potency as a strike platform. This is back in 2004 when I had the opportunity to ask a senior aide of our then president about the PAF getting the Gripen.. and his reply echoes plain today: the PAF did not want another fighter, it already had the JF.. it wanted a bomber and was at that time looking to acquire some M2Ks. It had the F-16s, but it was vary of going the US way again due to the rather shaky nature of the relationship. However, as things were the US was forthcoming with its assurances and the best thing available to the PAF was the block-52+.. which we went for.

The same rings true for why the FC-20 was envisioned in the first place, the PAF wanted a strike fighter that could make it all the way deep into the east to successfully strike a target(whether they make it back or not is not certain given the increasing disparity). This staff req came about after it was decide to ALWAYS have an asset that was free of sanctions that could do what the PAF wanted. The F-16-52 is completely( and VERY VERY) capable of doing that job mentioned before and will probably make it back as well, but they come with strings that are on very taut pull. The FC-20 was to assure that we have something that does exactly what the F-16-52 is capable of and can be kept flying even if the US of A says its cutting spares off or not giving us the support we get for certain system via the US defence attache for certain systems we have on board the jet.

Sadly, comes the PPPP government and its imbeciles who leave us with no funds, and the PAF decides that it would rather get the JF-17 program afloat instead of trying to get the FC-20 going on more loans and lose ground on the JF-17. The US also gives us assurances on the F-16s and we decide that we are good with some 80 F-16s and 150 JF-17s to form our forces till close to 2020.

At no point was the fanboy ideal of the FC-20 coming to match the MKI or Rafale ever true. The PAF needs less of the Air combat assets since it has enough, it needs more capable strike platforms that can wreak havoc across the eastern border with precision and survivability. The PAF has been however, smart in a way that it tried to compensate for the lack of a modern(or brand spanking new) strike asset by focusing on heavy development of stand off systems and upgrading its existing assets for enough survivability that it allows them to employ these assets from their respective ranges with a considerably higher chance of success. I mentioned this before elsewhere, the IAF was a little flummoxed by this whole flanking by the PAF and ended up with a lot of consternation in the late 90s and early 2000s.

You might be shocked cause when did we expect nukes being exploded or Babur or tactical nukes in Nasr... But I do have to agree with you. Do we have to pay for that little more? PAF seems to agree with you cause we do not see a deal (yet). But what will happen if India signs Rafale in three months? I would not be that shocked... Just like the fact that I am not shocked to see suddenlt MIL mi 35 being ordered in big numbers. Upgraded Mil mi 24 but still... No Cobra's...

I am not shocked, the budget for SPD is a black hole. However, I was shocked to know that despite the huge budget.. we still have people in these sensitive place allocating funds for new Landcruiser V-8s and Iphone 5s's for their personal use instead of R&D.. but that is a different topic.

The PAF doesn't agree with me, I just knew what the PAF was going to do three years ago while everybody here(and on supposedly "authentic" forums) was beating the drums of the FC-20. I dont know if in those three years the plans have changed or not, but from the looks of it.. they have not.

 

[Tempest II]

@warnesyworld: Until more JF-17s come on line, the Mirage will continue to play a vital part in defending Pakistan. For another six or so years at least.

 

[SQ8]

Can't we come up with CFTs for the Jf-17s perhaps at a later Block ?

Maybe they wouldn't be as good as those sported by the F-16s but even if gives it a respectable loiter time wouldn't we, in our already small shore-line & maritime limits, be happy with something like that ?

Sure, you can slap on CFTs, that frees you two hardpoints for weapons.. but to do that you need to have an engine powerful enough as well. You also need to reinforce the airframe as the current construction is fairly basic in nature and has its stress limits(you can tell that by the ripples that form on the aircraft when its pulling G's in displays). If you make these changes, you add to the cost of production which increased the expense, which in turn means that the cost effectiveness of the aircraft gets reduced to the point where you may be just better off finding older F-16s or reverse engineering them with a few tweaks.

 

[Chak Bamu]

I don't think so its about what PAF like and what they don't. Thunder is a multi role jet and they choose the configuration meeting the profile. As Munir mentioned delta provides the ability to carry more load and provides more lift. For dedicated naval or deep strike missions delta design is more beneficial. PAF may not choose to modify JF-17 but it doesn't mean they hate delta wing jets. BTW they don't have to induct, modification can be done just for the sake of research and to explore the new possibilities. Americans tried several modifications on F-16 and those prototypes are still helping them with scientific research.

Two problems:

1. Money to spend on redesign
2. Facilities to model, test, manufacture, and testing again.

There is another problem: High wing loading is good for low altitude performance. Delta is good for high altitude performance. Unless we have a 5th gen stealth plane, we do not need a delta for deep penetration in enemy territory. It would be picked up by AWACS and ground-based radars before it even enters enemy territory. So what would be the use?

 

[Bilal.]

@Oscar, F-16 is an excellent platform and could be a more than worthy replacement of mirage but we can't dream to field sufficient numbers not just due to financial reasons but also because US won't agree to sell enough numbers that we may call it sufficient to replace 180 odd mirages. JF-17 technology wise is good enough but lacks in payload capacity to a great degree.

 

[Armstrong]

Sure, you can slap on CFTs, that frees you two hardpoints for weapons.. but to do that you need to have an engine powerful enough as well. You also need to reinforce the airframe as the current construction is fairly basic in nature and has its stress limits(you can tell that by the ripples that form on the aircraft when its pulling G's in displays). If you make these changes, you add to the cost of production which increased the expense, which in turn means that the cost effectiveness of the aircraft gets reduced to the point where you may be just better off finding older F-16s or reverse engineering them with a few tweaks.

Isn't it possible to make these changes on a squadron or two of the Jf-17 while letting the rest continue in the default configuration in that if it takes $30 million per unit for a 100 air craft & $50 million a unit for another 50 dedicated for a maritime role - Wouldn't that be both economically feasible & effective so far as our maritime requirements are concerned ?

And we can reverse engineer older F-16s even at a minor level - Is there true ?

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar, F-16 is an excellent platform and could be a more than worthy replacement of mirage but we can't dream to field sufficient numbers not just due to financial reasons but also because US won't agree to sell enough numbers that we may call it sufficient to replace 180 odd mirages. JF-17 technology wise is good enough but lacks in payload capacity to a great degree.

The Payload you can improve with a better engine and better structure. What is important is the sophistication of the payload. Sure, a 2000 pound bomb leaves a big boom. But a well aimed 500 pound warhead launched from 60 km away may do the same job just as well and also keep the aircraft safe.

Isn't it possible to make these changes on a squadron or two of the Jf-17 while letting the rest continue in the default configuration in that if it takes $30 million per unit for a 100 air craft & $50 million a unit for another 50 dedicated for a maritime role - Wouldn't that be both economically feasible & effective so far as our maritime requirements are concerned ?

And we can reverse engineer older F-16s even at a minor level - Is there true ?

You yourself know the A/B inside out. You have the ability to scan structure via phase shift 3d scanning. Having that replicated is not a problem since you have done the same with Rotax engines for a while now. So essentially what is missing was the manufacturing capability and specifically knowing honeycomb construction techniques. That the Chinese have now mastered. So yes, theoretically you can build a replica of a F-16.

But that aircraft will only save you on labor cost and nothing else...and what will you power it from? since you do not have the sophistication in metallurgical process to recreate the PW-F-100.. the Chinese have been trying and not getting the results they want. A Rd-93 on a F-16 is pretty useless.. and the AL-31 may not be easy to engineer to fit without having to redesign lots of the aircraft.

So essentially, it is a bad idea.. but makes sense if you end up with an overbloated JF-17 that costs you $45 million a pop.

 

[slapshot]

Two problems:

1. Money to spend on redesign
2. Facilities to model, test, manufacture, and testing again.

There is another problem: High wing loading is good for low altitude performance. Delta is good for high altitude performance. Unless we have a 5th gen stealth plane, we do not need a delta for deep penetration in enemy territory. It would be picked up by AWACS and ground-based radars before it even enters enemy territory. So what would be the use?

Neither F-16 B60 or FC20 is stealth but they fit the role for deep strike as explained by Oscar. Delta is till preferred over sea so it makes even more sense for naval role. Regarding first two points I am not sure. The idea was to discuss the possibilities of such modifications, in order setup aviation industry you have to get the basic infrastructure in place. Bad Economy is not a permanent thing and hopefully if things stayed on track we will have the resources to spend on aviation related RND in couple of years.

 

[Bilal.]

The Payload you can improve with a better engine and better structure. What is important is the sophistication of the payload. Sure, a 2000 pound bomb leaves a big boom. But a well aimed 500 pound warhead launched from 60 km away may do the same job just as well and also keep the aircraft safe.

No matter how smart the weapons get, importance of payload can't be under stated. I mean if one platform can carry twice the number of the same munition then surely it can do much more damage in a single sortie. Even if the payload capacity of JFT is increased by a 20-25% it will still leave much to be desired when we see modern fighters capable of hauling 8 tons around in our adversaries hand.

 

[slapshot]

Isn't it possible to make these changes on a squadron or two of the Jf-17 while letting the rest continue in the default configuration in that if it takes $30 million per unit for a 100 air craft & $50 million a unit for another 50 dedicated for a maritime role - Wouldn't that be both economically feasible & effective so far as our maritime requirements are concerned ?

And we can reverse engineer older F-16s even at a minor level - Is there true ?

Thunder is already under powered. Adding CFT will need us a more powerful engine. Some one may provide input if we consider RD93MA to power the Jet having CFT?

 

[Bilal.]

Thunder is already under powered. Adding CFT will need us a more powerful engine. Some one may provide input if we consider RD93MA to power the Jet having CFT?

To CFTs defence, it adds less penalty when compared to drop tanks but the down side is you can't ditch it mid flight to start a fight.

 

[SQ8]

No matter how smart the weapons get, importance of payload can't be under stated. I mean if one platform can carry twice the number of the same munition then surely it can do much more damage in a single sortie. Even if the payload capacity of JFT is increased by a 20-25% it will still leave much to be desired when we see modern fighters capable of hauling 8 tons around in our adversaries hand.

That may be, but if the trend in the west is any indication ,the focus is to carry many more smaller and very precise weapons.
Currently the JFT is limited to carrying one 500 pound LGB if it carries fuel tanks and its LDP(until a chin hardpoint comes in).
Ideally , what suits the JFT is a smaller weapon around 250 pounds that is based on GPS/Beidou guidance which the JF can carry four of and launch four at a time. Aerial refuelling before a strike might allow the ditching of the wing tanks and let it carry more. Now, 250 kg may not bust open the very potent Hardened Aircraft shelters that the IAF has , nor perhaps the AMMO dumps that the IA uses. But it is more than enough for the smaller front line fuel depots that the IA has to set up, fixed SAM or AAA sites.. and other open buildings that are available. The size of such a weapon will also allow for an anti-runway weapon that can create craters at exact points along tarmac.

 

[Bilal.]

That may be, but if the trend in the west is any indication ,the focus is to carry many more smaller and very precise weapons.
Currently the JFT is limited to carrying one 500 pound LGB if it carries fuel tanks and its LDP(until a chin hardpoint comes in).
Ideally , what suits the JFT is a smaller weapon around 250 pounds that is based on GPS/Beidou guidance which the JF can carry four of and launch four at a time. Aerial refuelling before a strike might allow the ditching of the wing tanks and let it carry more. Now, 250 kg may not bust open the very potent Hardened Aircraft shelters that the IAF has , nor perhaps the AMMO dumps that the IA uses. But it is more than enough for the smaller front line fuel depots that the IA has to set up, fixed SAM or AAA sites.. and other open buildings that are available. The size of such a weapon will also allow for an anti-runway weapon that can create craters at exact points along tarmac.

Well TBH the trend is to go smart even intelligent/autonomous, from SDBs to gigantic bunker busters. But aircraft payloads are not going down, it's going progressively up. For instance, our light JFT has almost same payload of B-57 of the yester years and now a rafale or eurofighter can haul massive 9 tons of ordinance.