What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with need to induct a stealth platform and that it should be manufactured in-house.

However, I would stress the need to reduce JF-17's RCS as much as possible while keeping the expense within certain limits. Every little bit helps, and it does not matter what RCS is contributed by missiles attached to JF-17. Lowering RCS is important for its own sake and the argument about aircraft attachments contributing to RCS is not decisive in my opinion. How much does a single SD-10 contribute? What difference would be made by two BVR and two WVR missiles? Anything beyond that should be eliminated as much as possible. If JF-17's small size counts as a strength, then we might as well make it matter by lowering RCS as much as possible without going broke.

What if the RCS is already low enough that investment in reducing it further will lower it a bit beyond external weapons.
 
.
I agree with need to induct a stealth platform and that it should be manufactured in-house.

However, I would stress the need to reduce JF-17's RCS as much as possible while keeping the expense within certain limits. Every little bit helps, and it does not matter what RCS is contributed by missiles attached to JF-17. Lowering RCS is important for its own sake and the argument about aircraft attachments contributing to RCS is not decisive in my opinion. How much does a single SD-10 contribute? What difference would be made by two BVR and two WVR missiles? Anything beyond that should be eliminated as much as possible. If JF-17's small size counts as a strength, then we might as well make it matter by lowering RCS as much as possible without going broke.
Sir we need jf_-17 sir and need them in large numbers sir and improved version will help us a lot and two more bvr and wvr can make hell off a difference and yes we need stealth but their will be still need off planes like j-10 and jf-17 block 2 sir even USA is not retiring f-16
 
.
What if the RCS is already low enough that investment in reducing it further will lower it a bit beyond external weapons.

can jf 17 at present carry 4 bvr missiles or just 2 ?
And also combat range with internal fuel is 1800 km and combat radius with the same should be around 850 km right ?
 
.
can jf 17 at present carry 4 bvr missiles or just 2 ?
And also combat range with internal fuel is 1800 km and combat radius with the same should be around 850 km right ?

JFT can carry and is seen carrying more than 700kg+ c-802a on the hardpoint 3rd and 5th.
While twin sd-10 might be 400kg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRK
. . . .
JFT can carry and is seen carrying more than 700kg+ c-802a on the hardpoint 3rd and 5th.
While twin sd-10 might be 400kg.

SD-10a is around 190 kg, nowhere near 400 kg...

Whops... Saw that you are talking about twin SD-10... that should be the right weight for twin launcher.
 
.
I agree with need to induct a stealth platform and that it should be manufactured in-house.

However, I would stress the need to reduce JF-17's RCS as much as possible while keeping the expense within certain limits. Every little bit helps, and it does not matter what RCS is contributed by missiles attached to JF-17. Lowering RCS is important for its own sake and the argument about aircraft attachments contributing to RCS is not decisive in my opinion. How much does a single SD-10 contribute? What difference would be made by two BVR and two WVR missiles? Anything beyond that should be eliminated as much as possible. If JF-17's small size counts as a strength, then we might as well make it matter by lowering RCS as much as possible without going broke.

Chak Bamu
JFTs RCS is smaller than that of the 16s bl.15as far as I know. The real issue is not with the reduction of the RCS but ths amount by which it will be reduced and the cost involved. I strongly suspect the cost to benefit ratio would be in favour of not doing anything unless you know something that I dont know which is entirely plausible. The other factor is tbe need for fleet replacement vs incremental cost. So for instance if we can achieve our end by investing 10 million per plane it maybe alright for 20 platforms but would it be logical for the whole250?.we need to be cognisant of our purse.
RAZ
 
.
It's about what PAF like to see on JF-17 and according to JF-17 project director, 2 SD-10 config is sufficient for them for now

on Block 2 will some more missiles and bombs added ? @araz and others
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. . . .
Even right now. JF-17 can be modified to have 9 external hard points. The question is about payload which is not very sufficient with the current powerplant.
 
.
The cost of rsdesigning would be prohibitive. Why not keep it simple and buy the rights to build J31 in house. That would be more sensible approach
Araz

Some points need to be considered here

* For how long in foreseeable future STEALTH will be a game changer? Before 2020 you will see comprehensive antidote for stealth. Even now Stealth is only to get really close enough to the target but it is not 100% invincible.
* At any stage how many Stealth aircraft will PAF need in their inventory?
* What is PAF doctrine regarding heavy multirole fighters vs-a-vis medium/light ones?
* What is your opinion regarding sizable investment (human/financial) PAF has made in JF-17? Do you think PAF will just wind up the assembly line after 250 thunders induction and start from scratch building J-31?
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom