JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[ziaulislam]

Yaaar waisee why haven't we invested in ground-based SAMs using the SD-10Bs ?

Surely an M-113 carrying it linked with one of those ground based mobile radars maybe able to provide decent deterrence up to 50-70 kms if not its full range when air-launched ?

An unmodified ground base sd-10will have a Max range of 20-25 km at best..

 

[Bilal.]

An unmodified ground base sd-10will have a Max range of 20-25 km at best..

But modified DK-10 is 50km slant range.

This is the issue prevalent in the rather generalized class of enthusiasts.
What they do not realize in a congested airspace such as ours with ever improving missile kill capability, the timeframe available to launch a weapon.. it will still only take one missile to bring down the aircraft that is carrying two or twenty.

But:

- PK of BVR missiles is still very low (and would be even lower against adversary posessing ECM) and carrying more means capability to launch more at a given target if missed.

- 8 ton payload may not be required for air to air configuration but would be extremely useful in strike/a2g missions.

 

[SQ8]

Yaaar waisee why haven't we invested in ground-based SAMs using the SD-10Bs ?

Surely an M-113 carrying it linked with one of those ground based mobile radars maybe able to provide decent deterrence up to 50-70 kms if not its full range when air-launched ?

That is a good question. However, even the ground launched AMRAAM has yet to take off. The reason for that is basic projectile physics. It takes a lot more to throw something off the ground and then for it to gain momentum as compared to something being shot in the air.

The SAM variant of the R-77 has a bigger motor to give it that oomph

- PK of BVR missiles is still very low (and would be even lower against adversary posessing ECM) and carrying more means capability to launch more at a given target if missed.

- 8 ton payload may not be required for air to air configuration but would be extremely useful in strike/a2g missions.

The PK of any missile launched outside of its optimum engagement envelope deteriorates. An adversary carrying ECM will prevent a lock on for the initial launch.. however, for missiles such as the AMRAAM and the SD-10.. the adversary's ECM is music to their home on jam capability.

Yes, the 8 ton payload helps in a strike configuration but that must be mated with smart weapons. The Rafale's payload is not just deadly because its 8 tons... its deadly because it can carry ordnance that can engage multiple targets at the same time.

 

[ziaulislam]

But modified DK-10 is 50km slant range.

dk-10 is heavily modified with two stage rocket and additional boaster. even so 50 km is a little over estimated i think.
usually a modified AMRAAM for example has a range of only 20 km

 

[sancho]

What they do not realize in a congested airspace such as ours with ever improving missile kill capability, the timeframe available to launch a weapon.. it will still only take one missile to bring down the aircraft that is carrying two or twenty.

But where is the rational midway wrt to the missile load of JF17? Do you think just 2 x BVR missiles in CAP missions would be enough or is it more likely that PAF will opt for the twin launchers like PLAAF J10s too and that 4 will be the standard load?

 

[SQ8]

But where is the rational midway wrt to the missile load of JF17? Do you think just 2 x BVR missiles in CAP missions would be enough or is it more likely that PAF will opt for the twin launchers like PLAAF J10s too and that 4 will be the standard load?

The rationale has come with the expected engagement scenario. The PAF does not seem to expect air engagements lasting beyond a particular time frame when it comes to CAPs. It expects that by the time the two BVRs have been launched for and engaged.. the aircraft will have either killed someone , been killed.. or about to merge. There is a lot of faith in the SD-10 for reasons unknown, but it would suffice to say that the PAF considers that its engagement capability is enough to cover the BVR phase of an intercept or CAP before ranges close into WVR.

 

[Munir]

The rationale has come with the expected engagement scenario. The PAF does not seem to expect air engagements lasting beyond a particular time frame when it comes to CAPs. It expects that by the time the two BVRs have been launched for and engaged.. the aircraft will have either killed someone , been killed.. or about to merge. There is a lot of faith in the SD-10 for reasons unknown, but it would suffice to say that the PAF considers that its engagement capability is enough to cover the BVR phase of an intercept or CAP before ranges close into WVR.

Oscar saheb, Pakistan-Indian air war is not about hundreds of planes doing dogfights a la Israeli war. So you will have in an huge area some planes trying to attack each others targets on the ground. And if dogfights happen then they would dump ground stores and first try to do BVR then move in for quick WVR. If you have 2-4 planes in formation then each plane having 2 BVR and 2 WVR is more then enough when in defending position.

 

[ziaulislam]

But where is the rational midway wrt to the missile load of JF17? Do you think just 2 x BVR missiles in CAP missions would be enough or is it more likely that PAF will opt for the twin launchers like PLAAF J10s too and that 4 will be the standard load?

JF-17 will not be used in DEEP strike mission, so if needed it can easily carry four sd-10s and 2WVR...
howver, i wonder whether PAF will go for 4 WVR and 2 sd-10s if WVR engagements are more likley...

 

[Kompromat]

JF-17 will not be used in DEEP strike mission, so if needed it can easily carry four sd-10s and 2WVR...
howver, i wonder whether PAF will go for 4 WVR and 2 sd-10s if WVR engagements are more likley...

4X - WVRAAM
2X - BVRAAM

This is the stated configuration.

 

[Tempest II]

4X - WVRAAM
2X - BVRAAM

This is the stated configuration.

I year ago a senior PAF guy said 2+2 as standard. He said 4+2 is possible by for PAF, 2+2 will be standard. .. ... Where have you seen/heard the "4+2" standard?

I will search for the 2+2 comments. I believe it was made at Dubai.

 

[Kompromat]

I year ago a senior PAF guy said 2+2 as standard. He said 4+2 is possible by for PAF, 2+2 will be standard. .. ... Where have you seen/heard the "4+2" standard?

I will search for the 2+2 comments. I believe it was made at Dubai.

I think it depends on the mission when you calculate endurance. If you are going to carry two drop tanks, than it will be 2+2. In one formation you might have mix of 4+2 and 2+2 to negotiate different threat types.

 

[SQ8]

Oscar saheb, Pakistan-Indian air war is not about hundreds of planes doing dogfights a la Israeli war. So you will have in an huge area some planes trying to attack each others targets on the ground. And if dogfights happen then they would dump ground stores and first try to do BVR then move in for quick WVR. If you have 2-4 planes in formation then each plane having 2 BVR and 2 WVR is more then enough when in defending position.

Its not about hundreds of planes, its about the congested airspace. Or rather the time you have till you merge. Unlike a scenario with say China or Japan over the seas where they can exchange BVR shots twice over before they finally get to see each other, the time we have between each others bases and targets means that anything other than totally unconventional approaches will leave little room for more than one or two BVR shots.

As for dropping stores, that may not happen immediately.. the Rafale has demonstrated its ability to engage both A2A and A2G targets at the same time without having to drop stores. Its that advantage stand off systems like the AASM or H-2 give you. Those that will end up dropping stores will be the jaguars and M2Ks.

 

[Tempest II]

4X - WVRAAM
2X - BVRAAM

This is the stated configuration.

The interview on the standard configuration: JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4] | Page 667
Interview: Air Commodore Khalid Mehmood, Deputy Chief Project Director, JF-17 Programme, Pakistan Air Force Author:Tomislav Mesaric, Zagreb

At the moment the JF-17 is already qualified for quick-reaction alert duty. "We have IFF on board, so we can go straight up and shoot at the enemy," said Air Cdre Khalid. In standard configuration the JF-17 carries two PL-5EII missiles, two SD-10 missiles and two or three fuel tanks. "The aircraft could have the capability to carry four SD-10 missiles," he noted, "but we decided to pursue the present configuration. The digital weapon interface is on all hard points, which gives us a lot of flexibility for weapons carriage."

 

[Munir]

Its not about hundreds of planes, its about the congested airspace. Or rather the time you have till you merge. Unlike a scenario with say China or Japan over the seas where they can exchange BVR shots twice over before they finally get to see each other, the time we have between each others bases and targets means that anything other than totally unconventional approaches will leave little room for more than one or two BVR shots.

As for dropping stores, that may not happen immediately.. the Rafale has demonstrated its ability to engage both A2A and A2G targets at the same time without having to drop stores. Its that advantage stand off systems like the AASM or H-2 give you. Those that will end up dropping stores will be the jaguars and M2Ks.

If you were correct that it was congested airspace and no time for BVR then they would go for 6 WVR... It is no way congested as it is in Israeli wars or average day above Europe. Trust me. PAK en Indian airspace is as empty as can be. They may share huge border and there is little time to react when passing the border but congested, I disagree.

You mention Rafale doing two things at the same time. Well, with ground stores you just have limited speed and a2a. Surely you can launch AAM and do AGM but that has to do with the radar modes it just received a few days ago. Nothing to do with tactical reality. Either you dump heavy load/drag to gain kinetic speed/altitude or one skips getting into WVR... And the BVR range gives you a few seconds to do you a2g work. Good luck.

 

[SQ8]

If you were correct that it was congested airspace and no time for BVR then they would go for 6 WVR... It is no way congested as it is in Israeli wars or average day above Europe. Trust me. PAK en Indian airspace is as empty as can be. They may share huge border and there is little time to react when passing the border but congested, I disagree.

You mention Rafale doing two things at the same time. Well, with ground stores you just have limited speed and a2a. Surely you can launch AAM and do AGM but that has to do with the radar modes it just received a few days ago. Nothing to do with tactical reality. Either you dump heavy load/drag to gain kinetic speed/altitude or one skips getting into WVR... And the BVR range gives you a few seconds to do you a2g work. Good luck.

Perhaps the issue is with the use of the word congested. When I refer to congested, I do not refer to two hundred aircraft in the air(although it might very well be so in the next war given the increasing numerical and technological disparity). But rather congested in the sense of small distances an limited conventional approaches for attackers.

If you read the article on ATLC 2009 in AFM, you would notice where it clearly says that the Rafale engaged its first targets in BVR while firing a salvo of AASMs at their preprogrammed GPS targets. Sure, A full A2G load does not allow you the manoeuvring space or rapid KE gains.. but then there is a small time frame were you have the ability to notch to the beam and still engage in BVR while carrying out your task. The ATLC scenario did not represent our air war.. but it was still a good demonstration of capability that is valid for use. .. so luck may very well be on the side of the user of such a capability.