JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[BelligerentPacifist]

10 mln for RD-93MA?? It is around 1.5-2 mln at best, There are other improvements which drag the price over 20-22mln, 25 mln for blk 2 is an imaginary figure as of now UNLESS it houses an AESA.

From memory, this and other forums have put the cost of a single RD-93 at just under 4mil$. And that's the vanilla RD-93, an evolved one could easily touch 5mil$ apiece.

 

[MastanKhan]

Lets not all lose it.. lets agree to disagree and move on. You folks arent the run of the mill members to get down to this.

Lets take a page out of a VERY fine book, that validates your point.
Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering: Robert L. Shaw: 9780870210594: Amazon.com: Books



The same goes for a attack aircraft coming back from a mission. They are not looking to get into a fight, rather get home safely.
So while I do not agree with @sancho that an extra hardpoint may mean life or death for the JF-17 in a strike role, what I do agree with is that it needs the ability to carry a BVR weapon in that role. Perhaps on a strengthened wingtip hardpoint. The reason for that is the capability a BVR weapon brings to engage an incoming threat from a distance and put it on a defensive while allowing the JF-17 the chance to escape.

Oscar,

& neither r you

You want to jump on the band wagon---. There is no reason to carry a bvr----.

The target is the primary goal---the supporting aircraft may want to engage any on coming threat for you to slip thru.

Now are you discussing this as a senior mod or as a poster?

If you are talking as a snr mod---then " my apologies SIR " but if you are talking just as a poster---then the same answer to you as well.

 

[SQ8]

Oscar,

& neither r you

You want to jump on the band wagon---. There is no reason to carry a bvr----.

The target is the primary goal---the supporting aircraft may want to engage any on coming threat for you to slip thru.

Now are you discussing this as a senior mod or as a poster?

If you are talking as a snr mod---then " my apologies SIR " but if you are talking just as a poster---then the same answer to you as well.

Since I am answering as a member.

Now here is a force that can actually carry four AAMs.. yet they decided to stick to the BVR loadout??
Must be something nutty about the USAF that your logic is superior to theirs. The reason is still the same, the BVR weapon allows for taking a LONGER shot at a bogey hence keeping him from being able to engage you. Just the idea of a Missile flying at you keeps the enemy away.

Perhaps the well versed auto parts dealer would like to clarify why this loadout for the F-16 existed in the first place
If you cant respect anothers opinion, then dont expect jack on your own status.

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

Read last few posts about how much BVRs are enough for a MRCA?

Lets say 4, 6 or 8?
What about we pick up a C130, load it with tons of PGMs. Attached about 2 dozens of BVRs. What about a heavy duty AESA in place? I think it will be sufficient to perform all missions which a MRCA is supposed to perform.

Have someone read the 6 different configurations of JF17?
In air superiority role, 2 BVRs and 2 MRAAMs, aren't they sufficient?
How long it will be, before a BVR engagement will be changed to dog fight?

It was Soviet's strategy to create bomb trucks. Huge plane with load of BVRs. That can fire solvo of mixed BVRs at target, so to suppress the opponent jamming ability and to maximize the chances of taking out enemy. The core of their strategy was to avoid dog fight all together. Now what Soviets enjoyed were their huge numbers. That numbers are not available and never will be in context of Indo-Pak. What PAF top brass has planed for JF17 is good enough to implement their strategies.

 

[sancho]

So while I do not agree with @sancho that an extra hardpoint may mean life or death for the JF-17 in a strike role, what I do agree with is that it needs the ability to carry a BVR weapon in that role.

I am not saying that it means life or death, but that such a (not necessarily JF 17) fighter in that config is more survivable with a full set of AAMs and less dependent on dedicated escorts. The point you are making with BVR missiles during retreat is a perfect example for that. If the fighter has no escorts then and is limited 2 just 2 x WVR missiles, it is far more vulnerable.

Now here is a force that can actually carry four AAMs.. yet they decided to stick to the BVR loadout??

To be fair though, that depends on the war situation and stage too:

A US F16 plane takes off from the Aviano air base on March 21, 2011

USAF F-16C block 50 #90-0813 from the 480th FS is seen returning to Aviano AB after flying a mission for Operation Odyssey Dawn on April 3rd, 2011

 

[Chak Bamu]

No pilot can tell from BVR distance what missiles the other plane is carrying. As long as the opposition knows that a plane *may* be carrying BVR missiles, all is well.

There certainly is a reason why PAF is pleased with JF-17 and that this bird is tailored to our needs. Though hard points increase options, role and tactics will decide how the plane would be used. The opposition can not be sure what they might find if they give chase. Therefore, risk aversion will make its demands.

I always thought that JF-17 was not necessarily meant to dominate, but to be able to survive. I see no problem as such.

 

[Munir]

I am not saying that it means life or death, but that such a (not necessarily JF 17) fighter in that config is more survivable with a full set of AAMs and less dependent on dedicated escorts. The point you are making with BVR missiles during retreat is a perfect example for that. If the fighter has no escorts then and is limited 2 just 2 x WVR missiles, it is far more vulnerable.



To be fair though, that depends on the war situation and stage too:

again... Medium weight F16 (well it was original light weight but it is no longer that after C/D was introduced) versus light weight JF17... And indeed, this is after stealth has evaporated pretty much anything. Then these planes get in and give some punches to very important targets (CC, SAM, Airfields) and that does not comply with what Pak-Indian war will be... I mean here we will see SSM do most of that job cause there is less risk and more speed... The USA tried to do that with Tomahawks but not enough firepower compared what India and Pakistan got...

 

[SQ8]

I am not saying that it means life or death, but that such a (not necessarily JF 17) fighter in that config is more survivable with a full set of AAMs and less dependent on dedicated escorts. The point you are making with BVR missiles during retreat is a perfect example for that. If the fighter has no escorts then and is limited 2 just 2 x WVR missiles, it is far more vulnerable.



To be fair though, that depends on the war situation and stage too:

That is the added benefit of an extra hardpoint. However, what comes with an extra hardpoint(or extra anything really) is cost. There is clear space in the JF-17 to add another hardpoint.. but whether that wing structure is strong enough to support it or not is the question.
Delta's have the advantage of being stronger than most other wing forms, which is why it would be easier to add a hardpoint on a Mirage III than a comparable straight wing fighter... but with a light fighter like the JF-17 with the emphasis on cost effectiveness means there are things you have to forgo as a compromise. The structure of the F-16 for instance is reinforced honeycomb.. which means a lot more strength.. by contrast, the JF-17 is still aluminium plates on spars at all but the most crucial places.

But then again, if you look at the cost of a F-16 in 1981 it is close to around $11 million per unit.. that today is $28 million dollars. By contrast.. if you take the cost of a JF-17 today at $20 million.. that in 1981 was $7.6 million. So the price difference still remains... hence the whole objective of the JF-17 program.. cost effective solution to PAF's quagmire of keeping up with the world. A better comparison would be the F-20 tigershark to the JF-17.. a fighter that really comes close to the Block-I in terms of performance(relative to the eras)... back in 1985.. northrop offered the USAF the F-20 at $15 million..which today would come out at $33 million. So if one really looks at it.. the JF-17 offers a LOT more for a much more affordable sum.

Aviation Unit Costs

again... Medium weight F16 (well it was original light weight but it is no longer that after C/D was introduced) versus light weight JF17... And indeed, this is after stealth has evaporated pretty much anything. Then these planes get in and give some punches to very important targets (CC, SAM, Airfields) and that does not comply with what Pak-Indian war will be... I mean here we will see SSM do most of that job cause there is less risk and more speed... The USA tried to do that with Tomahawks but not enough firepower compared what India and Pakistan got...

That light weight was also relative. As the "light" was much heavier than the actual light of the time; the F-5.

The Light weight was essentially a counter to the heavy F-X(F-15) and its predecessor( F-4). Both aircraft cost a greater deal of money and had considerable electronic gizmos for their time. Yet.. the F-4 ended up being nicked early on by a much simpler metal hunk in the Mig-21(lot of it due to tactics, but also to the aircraft).

 

[Munir]

T
That light weight was also relative. As the "light" was much heavier than the actual light of the time; the F-5.

The Light weight was essentially a counter to the heavy F-X(F-15) and its predecessor( F-4). Both aircraft cost a greater deal of money and had considerable electronic gizmos for their time. Yet.. the F-4 ended up being nicked early on by a much simpler metal hunk in the Mig-21(lot of it due to tactics, but also to the aircraft).

The plane is build around the availability of an engine. Engines come better and better so the light category becomes heavier. Never the other way around. There is a light-medium-heavy plane in tactical/strategic scenario. That is what you get and not what I think one gets. JF17 with RD93 will grow thanks to 10% but the medium engines will also grow (like two RD93MA for Mig29) and so will AL31 become more potent...

So yes, light then is a bit more now. And maybe it will become more in the future... Relative to the time (aka technology level).

 

[DrWatson775]

View attachment 35152

Is this a prototype? Helmet has loose wires coming out the back. One is also taped to the pilot's neck. Probably prototype testing.

 

[sancho]

That is the added benefit of an extra hardpoint. However, what comes with an extra hardpoint(or extra anything really) is cost. There is clear space in the JF-17 to add another hardpoint.. but whether that wing structure is strong enough to support it or not is the question.

Not only if the structure is suitable, but also what kind of weapons would be suitable! The J10 for example seems to be able to use wingtip stations, which were tested on some prototypes. But they are limited to WVR missiles only and it seems that is the same for the external wingstations too. So the J10 has the capability to carry 4 x WVR missiles, by simply added the wingtip stations, but not the 4 x SD 10s.

 

[Gryphon]

Myanmar looks to acquire JF-17 aircraft

Jon Grevatt, Jane's Asia-Pacific Industry Reporter, Bangkok - IHS Jane's Defence Industry
17 June 2014

The government of Myanmar is planning to procure the Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC)/Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) JF-17 Thunder multirole combat aircraft, according to a local report.

The programme will feature Myanmar's licenced-production of the aircraft following technology transfer from CAC-PAC, reported the Yangon-based Burma Times on 15 June. The report stated that the aircraft is required to expand the capabilities of the Myanmar Air Force (MAF), although it did not elaborate.

The Myanmar government has not confirmed the report, although it has previously indicated a requirement for additional air combat platforms partly in light of its continuing conflict with the insurgent Kachin Independence Army (KIA) in northern Myanmar.

(108 of 377 words)

Myanmar looks to acquire JF-17 aircraft - IHS Jane's 360

 

[My-Analogous]

Yes meant the same. Additional $10mn would include alot of new goodies other than just the engine. We have to wait and see.

My speculations for block-2 are;

HMD
Additional hardpoint opposite cannon for pods
RD-93MA
Integrated Inflight Refueling
More loading capacity on hardpoints with support for multi missile racks
More composites to reduce weight.
KLJ-7V2 (Improved)
Other changes to improve maintenance and operational readiness.

Join 2006 and only 8 massages

 

[nomi007]

by manticore/antibody

 

[Munir]

We are positive but do not underestimate the Indian buy it all option in LCA. They indeed can ask Saab/Dasault to give latest... I mean, they already have HMS but JF17 is being "tested"...