JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[raazh]

When exactly did you see multirole being used in practice?

Probably against Libyan, Iraqi and Afghan target practice. In Pak vs Ind; JF17 with a 2BVR and 2WVR load is perfectly suited for any misadventure from IAF.

 

[araz]

I salute the empty space between both of your ears. You've wasted so many posts with personal insults but nothing concrete has come out. Good luck, please no need to respond as there is nothing to discuss here. Learn first kid

Orangzeb.
You have raised some interesting points which I would appreciate you expanding a bit further on.
I certainly agree wth the notion of at least one hardpoint below the inlet for a mounted IRST ?other probe. We can then have possibly 2 oter points for BVRs , or have 4 BVRs on MERs. Do we still need 2 additional hardpoints given the dire need to replace platforms and the length of the engagement corridor. Then there will be the problems of getting a higher thrust engine with its own procurement/integration testing and consequent delays. So what would be the advantage of having additional hardpoints over MERs?
Given the problems with procurement of newer higher thrust engines , two questions arise.
a)What is the maximum thrust that the frame can tolerate?
b) where is the new engine going to come from.
input would be appreciated.
Araz

 

[EyanKhan]

So is the first Bulk2 jet/squadron out yet?

 

[nomi007]

 

[sancho]

When exactly did you see multirole being used in practice?

Sorry, but I have no idea of what you are talking. Multi role only means that a fighter can be used in A2A and A2G roles, not that it does it at the same time. That's why I said that JF 17 is a multi role fighter unlike the Jaguar for example, that is a dedicated strike fighter.
The point however is, that in strike config, both fighters have the same number of hardpoints for similar weapons, therefor are limited to very basic self defence capabilities and that's what I showed in that picture. Not more not less!

And please don't make an Indo-Pak issue out of it, which has nothing to do with my statements. I only showed that the the lack of hardpoints is limiting the fighter in it's operations, even if it is a 4th gen multi role fight!

 

[Munir]

Sorry, but I have no idea of what you are talking. Multi role only means that a fighter can be used in A2A and A2G roles, not that it does it at the same time. That's why I said that JF 17 is a multi role fighter unlike the Jaguar for example, that is a dedicated strike fighter.
The point however is, that in strike config, both fighters have the same number of hardpoints for similar weapons, therefor are limited to very basic self defence capabilities and that's what I showed in that picture. Not more not less!

And please don't make an Indo-Pak issue out of it, which has nothing to do with my statements. I only showed that the the lack of hardpoints is limiting the fighter in it's operations, even if it is a 4th gen multi role fight!

Let us then focus on a2g or a2a... Why would you need more hard-points for JF17? And yes, let us not compare LCA cause that one is not even operational or fully tested with BVR... Or guided A2G.

 

[The SC]

PAF F-17 Thunder program hopefully aims towards similar equipments, avionics and performances as the latest Saab Gripen:

Gripen

Thunder

 

[sancho]

Let us then focus on a2g or a2a... Why would you need more hard-points for JF17?

That's what I did, I showed that in A2G it lacks BVR missiles to defend itself and asked Oscar some pages ago what the requirement of PAF is in CAP, wrt the number of BVR missiles carried. Oscar and Tempest II then confirmed that 2 + 2 or a total of 4 x AAMs is the standard, contrary to PLAAF and the J10 for example, that carries 2 + 4 (SD10s on twin launchers). Since JF 17 has also only 3 wingstations, it would also need twin launchers to carry more missiles in CAP, which then adds weight, drag and RCS of course.

So if it has 2 more hardpoints that could carry BVR missiles, it would increase it's self defence capabilities during strike roles and add more AAM's in CAP if the customer (which can be an export customer with differnt requirements) too.

Here is another example that shows operational limitations, by the lack of hardpoints:

Old Mirage 2000, with 2 wingstations only, which limits it to a single centerline fuel tank with 4 x AAMs

Mirage 2000 strike version, with the same number of hardpoints, limited to 2 x WVR missiles only for self defence

Upgraded Mirage 2000, with MICA missiles and rear fuselage stations, which opens wingstations for more fuel if necessary and increases the AAM load

Same upgraded Mirage 2000 in strike CAS config, with 2 + 3 x AAMs for self defence

 

[Chak Bamu]

Let us then focus on a2g or a2a... Why would you need more hard-points for JF17? And yes, let us not compare LCA cause that one is not even operational or fully tested with BVR... Or guided A2G.

Sancho has a point. Plus he is not talking about LCA. I hope that JF-17 Block-3 has an additional hard point per wing, and another under fuselage for a pod, for a total of 3 hard points.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@sancho, in a2g I would question the utility of JF-17 carrying BVR missiles. Sure it would be nice to have JF-17 carry a pair of BVRs, but two factors would negate the need: 1. An a2g mission package would likely entail a pair of escorting warplanes in a2a config. 2. In case of low-level ingress BVRs would have little utility, plus after expending ordnance, a JF-17 in a2g config would likely hit the deck and run for it. Your point matters if a JF-17 is flying at reasonable altitude, and in that case it would likely be carrying stand-off weapons - another complication for various reasons.

So yeah Sancho you have a valid point. But if PAF feels that it can have JF-17 work within this limitation then they must know how to avoid scenarios in which the limitations might matter. That, then is a matter of tactics in view of intended roles. Also, block-2 standard would be applied to first 100 JF-17 only. The rest would likely be Block-3 variants and we can not be sure today as to what improvements would it have - but I guess improvements would target perceived weaknesses. Until then, let us wait.

 

[Dazzler]

payload increase is a planned path, just like IFR and IRST etc. whats the fuss folks.

what does the last year's load test signify?

primarily meant for under wingand fuselage load.

 

[khanasifm]

@3:40

 

[khanasifm]

under intake & rear like M2000 and J10
pylons Photos: Pakistan JF-17 Thunder Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

 

[Viper0011.]

Orangzeb.
You have raised some interesting points which I would appreciate you expanding a bit further on.
I certainly agree wth the notion of at least one hardpoint below the inlet for a mounted IRST ?other probe. We can then have possibly 2 oter points for BVRs , or have 4 BVRs on MERs. Do we still need 2 additional hardpoints given the dire need to replace platforms and the length of the engagement corridor. Then there will be the problems of getting a higher thrust engine with its own procurement/integration testing and consequent delays. So what would be the advantage of having additional hardpoints over MERs?
Given the problems with procurement of newer higher thrust engines , two questions arise.
a)What is the maximum thrust that the frame can tolerate?
b) where is the new engine going to come from.
input would be appreciated.
Araz

I see that some people have already started to address this before I could get to it. Here's my take:
- No MERS (the current Chinese style ones). They are too wide, these will will create more drag and RCS. If you want to use MERS, use the ones the USAF or USN uses on F-15's or F-14's in the past. These are tight width MERS with up to 3 missile holding capacity each. Due to less space in the racks, it create much less drag than the Chinese MERS. When MERS are linked to the wing in shape of hard points knitted together, with missiles on the racks, the whole thing becomes an extension of the wing. aerodynamically, it creates MUCH less drag and less wind flows throw it, and resulting in much more stability.
- The plane can handle two more hard points for AAM's, with the current engine so two more hard points should be added for CAP/air combat AAM's. Whether the radar supports two more missiles simultaneously or not....is a whole different question. Someone can shed light on this?
- An upgraded engine is going to be needed. But even in a conflict where you know you'd get rid of majority of your BVR's way before you get into the WVR or Dog-Fights, you could use additional BVR and hard points with the current engine. When the merge happens with the enemy aircraft, you'd theoretically have already fired the majority of the BVR weapons (weight shredding) and you'd be back to the optimal configuration that's within the current engine's capacity.
- PODS shouldn't take up critical hard points (when you only have a few, like 7 in JFT's case). Because if there is no POD hanging of one of these 7 hard points, the hard point can be used for BVR or Standoff weapons or Fuel. PODS are usually lighter weight, so chin / under belly based one or two hard points can better serve for PODS.
- I don't know the maximum thrust the JFT's airframe can tolerate. Usually these things are kept confidential. I do know that the Chinese have been doing static load testing for structure - airframe testing with up to 200% of the allowed load. That means, the actual capacity with the current engine's thrust is more than the current allowed payload. However, will more be optimal? Probably not.
But can higher than recommended payloads be used.... say in ground support configuration for a small flight like 200 miles from the border, in and out after dropping the payload in less than 20 minutes? Absolutely and should be done in a wartime if block 1's won't be upgraded.
- Net, net, you'll need to expand the airframe of the JFT block III, it should be based on close to 90% composite (IMO), with 9 solid hard points and with a couple forward hard points under belly for PODS and FLIR's (these additional ones can be used in war scenarios).
Add newer airframe with more powerful engine and stealthy features with smaller tech based on J-20 and J-31, you got yourself a nice little 5th gen stealthy plane....that should be the way to go. Chinese are doing a LOT of work on 3D printing technology so you guys can get certain things done rather quickly.
- New engine, I thought RD-93 M was being discussed. Ideally, for Pakistan's internal ability, you should get the WS-10 or one of the newer ones when these are ready for mass production. Buy TOT and produce that locally and strengthen your own industry the way you like it.

 

[MastanKhan]

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.

Hi,

Then be happy that it is a worthless aircraft---no reason for concern for the iaf----.

 

[Munir]

Sancho has a point. Plus he is not talking about LCA. I hope that JF-17 Block-3 has an additional hard point per wing, and another under fuselage for a pod, for a total of 3 hard points.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@sancho, in a2g I would question the utility of JF-17 carrying BVR missiles. Sure it would be nice to have JF-17 carry a pair of BVRs, but two factors would negate the need: 1. An a2g mission package would likely entail a pair of escorting warplanes in a2a config. 2. In case of low-level ingress BVRs would have little utility, plus after expending ordnance, a JF-17 in a2g config would likely hit the deck and run for it. Your point matters if a JF-17 is flying at reasonable altitude, and in that case it would likely be carrying stand-off weapons - another complication for various reasons.

So yeah Sancho you have a valid point. But if PAF feels that it can have JF-17 work within this limitation then they must know how to avoid scenarios in which the limitations might matter. That, then is a matter of tactics in view of intended roles. Also, block-2 standard would be applied to first 100 JF-17 only. The rest would likely be Block-3 variants and we can not be sure today as to what improvements would it have - but I guess improvements would target perceived weaknesses. Until then, let us wait.

My dear friend... If you want a plane with that many useful hardpoints and a "multi role" mission I would suggest that they ould have designed medium weight fighterjet. Not a LIGHT fighterjet. The whole idea of more hardpoints is just showing that people do not understand the concept of light, medium and heavy fighterjets. Everything is related to that. One needs certain thrust (hence certain engine), one has certain range (fuel capacity) and certain load... If Sancho wants a light weight fighter with medium weight fighter capabilities then he probably needs to be hired by HAL, Lockheed, CAC, Dassault, PAC etc. So saying plane A has x hardpoint and plane B has Y hardpoints is pretty hollow discussion for an engineer...

Secondly, warfare and weapons have evolved. Where one needed 10 years a go F15E and F16A with wing filled with dozens of unguided bombs one can do the same with precision guided smart bombs. This discussions shows me that a poster is still living in the past.

Thirdly, more and more weapons means more and more drag. That means that you have to lower your overall fighting capability. Multi-role/omni-role is nice but would you be happy startting a fight with one hand on your back? Surely you can but it is plain stupid. As Red Baron said... Never go into a fight you cannot win. And mr Sancho has not even looked at these concepts but starts pushing the idea that one needs more and more...

And last but not least... How many weapons do you need on a mission? Light fighter jets need 2 wvr, 2 bvr and fueltanks. More is just adding drag and won't be needed. I think we can trust our PAF what the configuration the best is.And frankly I am becoming to understand that after a few decades. Why is no one saying that a Bison with 2 BVR and 2 fueltanks is waste of funds? And how many BVR and WVR do you expect on a CAP mission for LCA? Naaa... Some are so obsessed with terms like "smoking engine", low number of hardpoints or whatever...

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.

A poster that says these kind of things seriously needs to reconsider the idea whether he is suited to be called a think tank/analyst... It does suit the majority of the posters that shouting certain PERSONAL ideas but act like they are well informed or educated in this field. If you ask Sancho why or what there is never a informative reply. So Chack Bamu, you still think the poster has a point? Then please enlighten me how whole PAF is filed with idiots like me.