JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[raazh]

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.

Gentlemen this single statement changes many things in a Pak vs India scenario. In any escalated war like situation I don't think it will ever come to a Rafale doing bombing runs at will; rather I reckon its going to be the variety of BM and CM ready and targeting all the critical Targets of each other that will do the damage. I am afraid with the location data of all Air bases already known to both countries; they will be one of the top priorities to take out in case of any war declaration.

Apart from crossing such a threshold there is only chance of minor skirmishes where a 2BVR loaded JF17 is pretty ok against an intruding IAF plane.

 

[Donatello]

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

With 3 fuel tanks and 4 missiles, where do bombs for precision strike go? And above all where do Pods go? JF-17 seriously needs 9 or more hardpoints, more like Gripen configuration.

 

[Gentelman]

With 3 fuel tanks and 4 missiles, where do bombs for precision strike go? And above all where do Pods go? JF-17 seriously needs 9 or more hardpoints, more like Gripen configuration.

You can't get everything at the start or there will be a fuss like Tejas program!
Just wait and let things proceed in their natural way!

 

[Munir]

With 3 fuel tanks and 4 missiles, where do bombs for precision strike go? And above all where do Pods go? JF-17 seriously needs 9 or more hardpoints, more like Gripen configuration.

Donatello my friend, There is difference between omnirole (switch) of the Rafale and multirole... The first means being able to do it at the same time... The other means one can have 1 plane doing multiple roles.. Not per definition at the same time.

I do not think one should perform all the tasks at the same time. A plane is doing interdiction, CAP etc. Therefore he has set of weapons. That is de idea behind light weight. You can change that when you are medium weight like F16, Rafale, EF2000 etc.

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.

Rafale is medium weight fighterjet and delta... It can handle more stores/weight. Still it has not the same speed, agility.... I thing you can do 2 bvr, 2 wvr and PGM under the belly or fuel stations on the JF17. Handy? I do not think so. Possible? I think it is possible.

 

[SQ8]

Donatello my friend, There is difference between omnirole (switch) of the Rafale and multirole... The first means being able to do it at the same time... The other means one can have 1 plane doing multiple roles.. Not per definition at the same time.

I do not think one should perform all the tasks at the same time. A plane is doing interdiction, CAP etc. Therefore he has set of weapons. That is de idea behind light weight. You can change that when you are medium weight like F16, Rafale, EF2000 etc.



Rafale is medium weight fighterjet and delta... It can handle more stores/weight. Still it has not the same speed, agility.... I thing you can do 2 bvr, 2 wvr and PGM under the belly or fuel stations on the JF17. Handy? I do not think so. Possible? I think it is possible.

The Omnirole/ Swing-Role are just marketing terms. Both the EF and eurofighter have the ability to perform A2A and A2G.. just as the F/A-18 did. The Superhornet is able to engage A2A, Drop a JDAM as well. If the french contingent were more marketing focused on their performance at ATLC 2009 it does not mean that the EF or the Superhornet are not capable of it as well. The EF falls behind due to the wishes of the partner manufacturers and not essentially due to a design issue.

The Rafale is what you will face in the strike role along with the Jaguar and M2K. The MKIs are generally still focused more on air dominance roles. The JF-17 can do 2 BVR and 2 WVR and carry a PGM with it under the belly. But unless its backed up by air refuelling , the most it can do is carry out a swing role mission at pathankot from Kamra.. and that will be rather pointless.

The aircraft is designed to defend itself if need be, but lets not expect levels of performance out of it unrealistically. It is a light aircraft, it is multi-role in the very same manner as the F-16 block-52 is. And that is best compliment any aircraft in its weight and price class can get.

 

[Donatello]

The Omnirole/ Swing-Role are just marketing terms. Both the EF and eurofighter have the ability to perform A2A and A2G.. just as the F/A-18 did. The Superhornet is able to engage A2A, Drop a JDAM as well. If the french contingent were more marketing focused on their performance at ATLC 2009 it does not mean that the EF or the Superhornet are not capable of it as well. The EF falls behind due to the wishes of the partner manufacturers and not essentially due to a design issue.

The Rafale is what you will face in the strike role along with the Jaguar and M2K. The MKIs are generally still focused more on air dominance roles. The JF-17 can do 2 BVR and 2 WVR and carry a PGM with it under the belly. But unless its backed up by air refuelling , the most it can do is carry out a swing role mission at pathankot from Kamra.. and that will be rather pointless.

The aircraft is designed to defend itself if need be, but lets not expect levels of performance out of it unrealistically. It is a light aircraft, it is multi-role in the very same manner as the F-16 block-52 is. And that is best compliment any aircraft in its weight and price class can get.

What's the full load range for JF-17? (without external fuel tanks)

 

[SQ8]

What's the full load range for JF-17? (without external fuel tanks)

Probably less than the F-16 or F-20 in the same configuration. But that cannot be guessed without knowing internal fuel load and SFC of the RD-93. I think I did do a basic comparison sometime back between the JF and the Mig-29 vis-a-vis combat range.. dont know what guesstimates were made then.

 

[Donatello]

Probably less than the F-16 or F-20 in the same configuration. But that cannot be guessed without knowing internal fuel load and SFC of the RD-93. I think I did do a basic comparison sometime back between the JF and the Mig-29 vis-a-vis combat range.. dont know what guesstimates were made then.

Hmm, then what range does PAC quote? Ferry range is 1880Nmiles, but that is with 3 drop tanks and standard 2 wvr missiles?

 

[SQ8]

Hmm, then what range does PAC quote? Ferry range is 1880Nmiles, but that is with 3 drop tanks and standard 2 wvr missiles?

3 drop tanks flying a particular profile...ferry means flying from one point to another. Combat radius is what matters to us in our analysis.

 

[Tempest II]

Hmm, then what range does PAC quote? Ferry range is 1880Nmiles, but that is with 3 drop tanks and standard 2 wvr missiles?

My assumption is Basic Range is clean configuration, No ETs, and no weapons.
The Max range is 1,200 km more than the basic. This 1,200km I assume equates to the 3,000 litres in the ETs. (i.e. 2 x 1100 + 800 = 3,000 litres).

The internal fuel is 2,300kg = 2,840l (assuming density is 0.81). The lesser 2,840L internal gives you 1,800 range than the 3,000L in the external tanks giving you 1,200km. This, I reason is because ETs add more drag and 2,430 kg of weight.

There is also the reserve fuel and fuel to execute the mission factored in on the profiles given in the presentation. I believe this will have a bias against the internal fuel range.

 

[nomi007]

 

[raazh]

The side view of JF17 resembles more like a Mirage2000 rather than a F16. The fuselage seems to be more spacious than the F16 and I reckon it should be able to pack more gadgets as and when available. In Block3 I would love to see PAF add a F16D type dorsal spine on it creating more room for electronics/fuel etc.

 

[Fahad Khan 2]

My assumption is Basic Range is clean configuration, No ETs, and no weapons.
The Max range is 1,200 km more than the basic. This 1,200km I assume equates to the 3,000 litres in the ETs. (i.e. 2 x 1100 + 800 = 3,000 litres).

The internal fuel is 2,300kg = 2,840l (assuming density is 0.81). The lesser 2,840L internal gives you 1,800 range than the 3,000L in the external tanks. The ET give more drag and 2,430 kg of weight.

The is also the reserve fuel and fuel to execute the mission. I believe this will have a bias against the internal fuel range.

Which HMD PAF use in JF-17 if it not use is it evaluating any for future use???

 

[sancho]

I do not think one should perform all the tasks at the same time. A plane is doing interdiction, CAP etc. Therefore he has set of weapons. That is de idea behind light weight. You can change that when you are medium weight like F16, Rafale, EF2000 etc.

It's actually not a matter of multi role or not, but about having enough hardpoints to carry enough weapon loads. Th Jaguar for example is a dedicated single role strike fighter and even after the Darin 3 upgrades, it will remain to do so, although it's techs and weapons are more modern. At the same time, a JF 17 would carry the same strike config as the Jag, with the same ammount of AAM's, fuel tanks and LDPs:

- 1 x LDP at the centerline
- 2 x fuel tanks at the inner wingstations
- 2 x 1000lb LGBs at the mid wingstations
- 2 x IR missiles at the wingtips (overwingstations for the Jag)

So although being a 4th gen multi role fighter, the JF 17 will be operationally limited by the lack of hardpoints! The result is, that PAF will need dedicated fighters in escort configs, to protect the once in strike, since they can't carry credible AAM if in strike config. The F16s on the other side are multi role fighters too after the upgrade, but offer enough hardpoints to carry all kind of loads + a full set of 2 + 2 AAM's in any role => better self defence capability and less fighters needed for the same mission.

 

[Chak Bamu]

It's actually not a matter of multi role or not, but about having enough hardpoints to carry enough weapon loads. Th Jaguar for example is a dedicated single role strike fighter and even after the Darin 3 upgrades, it will remain to do so, although it's techs and weapons are more modern. At the same time, a JF 17 would carry the same strike config as the Jag, with the same ammount of AAM's, fuel tanks and LDPs:

- 1 x LDP at the centerline
- 2 x fuel tanks at the inner wingstations
- 2 x 1000lb LGBs at the mid wingstations
- 2 x IR missiles at the wingtips (overwingstations for the Jag)

So although being a 4th gen multi role fighter, the JF 17 will be operationally limited by the lack of hardpoints! The result is, that PAF will need dedicated fighters in escort configs, to protect the once in strike, since they can't carry credible AAM if in strike config. The F16s on the other side are multi role fighters too after the upgrade, but offer enough hardpoints to carry all kind of loads + a full set of 2 + 2 AAM's in any role => better self defence capability and less fighters needed for the same mission.

I believe that the load-out mentioned by you is for some sort of strike role. That is different from CAP. Range would matter much more for mounting CAPs than a strike sortie not took far from the border.