JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[sancho]

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.

It's not always more range that you aim for by adding more fuel, but as in CAP longer endurace for example, or in strike configs with heavier loads, simply to counter the higher fuel consumption.
However my point was, that the lack of hardpoints, makes additional fighters for escort necessary, even for multi role fighters:

 

[Side-Winder]

@sancho You have a valid point here

 

[Donatello]

It's not always more range that you aim for by adding more fuel, but as in CAP longer endurace for example, or in strike configs with heavier loads, simply to counter the higher fuel consumption.
However my point was, that the lack of hardpoints, makes additional fighters for escort necessary, even for multi role fighters:

I've been stating the same issue here. However, i am sure blk 3 would consider this. Adding 2 more hardpoints shouldn't be difficult because wings allow enough space and the load out is already there. Just need to put 2 hard wired points in there. If possible, MERs solve that problem as well. One thing for sure is, JF-17 is an evolving platform. Just like F-16 which had few hard points, to 11 in blk15 versions, JF-17 will do the same. The question is if any such hard upgraded can be retroed

 

[Viper0011.]

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:

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.

Your comparison is way off. You are comparing the JFT to the Jaguar which is a wrong comparison whether JFT can take the same amounts of weapons or not. F-16 is a better comparison but even then its not so much so. JFT was designed per different requirements altogether. A few things it shares with the F-16 is the multirole capability, agility / tech, etc.

Remember roles the JFT will be playing, won't call out for deep strike like the Jaguars were designed for. The PAF is focused more on strike platforms based on cruise missiles and standoff weapons. JFT will more than likely be used in AD-Interception roles due to its higher tech SD-10A and B missiles, working together with the F-16. Secondary profile would include it be used for limited ground support, naval support or to execute standoff weapons, still with air-combat configuration to defend itself.
I do agree on more hard-points. I think at-least four extra hard-points are needed or two hard-points with CFT's. Four hard-points would include two forward / chin mounted hard-points for different pods and two under wing for additional weapons.

 

[SQ8]

I've been stating the same issue here. However, i am sure blk 3 would consider this. Adding 2 more hardpoints shouldn't be difficult because wings allow enough space and the load out is already there. Just need to put 2 hard wired points in there. If possible, MERs solve that problem as well. One thing for sure is, JF-17 is an evolving platform. Just like F-16 which had few hard points, to 11 in blk15 versions, JF-17 will do the same. The question is if any such hard upgraded can be retroed

Space does not translate to strength. wing area may be available, but whether it can structurally support extra hardpoints is a different thing.

 

[Manticore]

Space does not translate to strength. wing area may be available, but whether it can structurally support extra hardpoints is a different thing.

what does the last year's load test signify?

 

[SQ8]

what does the last year's load test signify?
/quote]

The load test may be for particular structural points. Whether or not it means the structural load has been improved to handle a hardpoint at a certain point from the wing is ambiguous. If it had to be done, it would be done.. considering that it has not been done yet might be construed as not possible.. yet.

 

[Gentelman]

Your comparison is way off. You are comparing the JFT to the Jaguar which is a wrong comparison whether JFT can take the same amounts of weapons or not. F-16 is a better comparison but even then its not so much so. JFT was designed per different requirements altogether. A few things it shares with the F-16 is the multirole capability, agility / tech, etc.

Remember roles the JFT will be playing, won't call out for deep strike like the Jaguars were designed for. The PAF is focused more on strike platforms based on cruise missiles and standoff weapons. JFT will more than likely be used in AD-Interception roles due to its higher tech SD-10A and B missiles, working together with the F-16. Secondary, it'll be used for limited ground support, naval support or to execute standoff weapons, still with air-combat configuration to defend itself.
I do agree on more hard-points. I think at-least four extra hard-points are needed or two hard-points with CFT's. Four hard-points would include two forward / chin mounted hard-points for different pods and two under wing for additional weapons.

4 Hard Points????
Wakeup Call!!!
Are you forgetting it's a LCA??
Briefly No you won't see 4 hard points ever!!

 

[Viper0011.]

4 Hard Points????
Wakeup Call!!!
Are you forgetting it's a LCA??
Briefly No you won't see 4 hard points ever!!

Never mind. I forgot this post would be read by many fan boys who'd completely ignore what I wrote in there. Re-read my post and try to grasp the logic behind it. I think my post states in the beginning that this is supposed to be a mid-tier aircraft.....read and understand before just responding for the sake of responding....

 

[MastanKhan]

It's not always more range that you aim for by adding more fuel, but as in CAP longer endurace for example, or in strike configs with heavier loads, simply to counter the higher fuel consumption.
However my point was, that the lack of hardpoints, makes additional fighters for escort necessary, even for multi role fighters:

Sir

It does not work like that many a times. During GW 2, on many a specialized strike missions carried out by the F16's---the aircraft did not carry any missiles at all---just the ordinance---.

The poster needs to understand that in real life----not every family has a mini van---they may need it---but the get along without it.

Plus in air refuelling capabilities in coming aircraft would be a force multiplier---taking into consideration that almost 1/3 rd of the fuel is burnt on take off.

 

[sancho]

Sir

It does not work like that many a times. During GW 2, on many a specialized strike missions carried out by the F16's---the aircraft did not carry any missiles at all---just the ordinance---.

Just as in Afghanistan and in the later stages of the Libyan conflict, but only because the opponent had either no Air Force at all or no credible Air Force anymore. That doesn't however relate to the situation of Pakistan, India or China, nor even to any credible NATO war. If the opponent poses a risk, you obviously will carry AAMs for self defence and if possible even with modern BVR missiles.

Plus in air refuelling capabilities in coming aircraft would be a force multiplier---taking into consideration that almost 1/3 rd of the fuel is burnt on take off.

Of course, but you have to have IFR capability, which PAFs F16s and JF17 Block 1 doesn't have and you have to have enough numbers of tankers, that can provide necessary coverage and availability of tankers in the air. It's not like, only because PAF has some tankers, that every fighter will automatically be refuelled in air after take off isn't it?

 

[MastanKhan]

Just as in Afghanistan and in the later stages of the Libyan conflict, but only because the opponent had either no Air Force at all or no credible Air Force anymore. That doesn't however relate to the situation of Pakistan, India or China, nor even to any credible NATO war. If the opponent poses a risk, you obviously will carry AAMs for self defence and if possible even with modern BVR missiles.



Of course, but you have to have IFR capability, which PAFs F16s and JF17 Block 1 doesn't have and you have to have enough numbers of tankers, that can provide necessary coverage and availability of tankers in the air. It's not like, only because PAF has some tankers, that every fighter will automatically be refuelled in air after take off isn't it?

Sir,

You keep on harping on it----okay---keep at it---. it was during GW2 & possily GW1 as well.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Just as in Afghanistan and in the later stages of the Libyan conflict, but only because the opponent had either no Air Force at all or no credible Air Force anymore. That doesn't however relate to the situation of Pakistan, India or China, nor even to any credible NATO war. If the opponent poses a risk, you obviously will carry AAMs for self defence and if possible even with modern BVR missiles.



Of course, but you have to have IFR capability, which PAFs F16s and JF17 Block 1 doesn't have and you have to have enough numbers of tankers, that can provide necessary coverage and availability of tankers in the air. It's not like, only because PAF has some tankers, that every fighter will automatically be refuelled in air after take off isn't it?

do you normally think before you type or it just flows through you?

 

[sancho]

Sir,

You keep on harping on it----okay---keep at it---. it was during GW2 & possily GW1 as well.

I have no need on harp on anything, I just showed you how the situation was and when even modern multi role fighters fly with minimim AAM load nothing more. For JF 17 it doesn't matter anyway, since it lacks hardpoints as shown.

 

[Munir]

It's not always more range that you aim for by adding more fuel, but as in CAP longer endurace for example, or in strike configs with heavier loads, simply to counter the higher fuel consumption.
However my point was, that the lack of hardpoints, makes additional fighters for escort necessary, even for multi role fighters:

When exactly did you see multirole being used in practice? I mean, even in Red Flag they still use dedicated bombers, fighters and other roles. To my knowledge (And you can surely question that) the multirole is the way planes are used in roles but not all roles at the same time. And even then they will use certain planes for certain roles cause it suites them better. Repeating the same old stories that JF17 has less points is nice but practically it is perfect suited for PAK-Indian scenario.