JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[Bilal.]

please elaborate

As per the presentation of chief designer of JF-17 given in Dubai in air to ground mode it's range is 1000km so anti ship role range would be similar. Saying it can't conduct anti ship ops beyond 150 km of coast is simply baseless.

 

[S.Y.A]

Read my above post clearly and fully.. I also clearly quoted 60nm=112km..
The difference is., they were Sea hawks and now we have mig29k

difference is those gunboats had no airdef, but now ships have pr

Read my above post clearly and fully.. I also clearly quoted 60nm=112km..
The difference is., they were Sea hawks and now we have mig29k


You missed the whole thing man.. Read the previous posts of descussion.. Our descussion topic was about air launched anti ship missile CM400akg from jf17.. So you are saying shore based anti ship cruise missiles are more good than this pgm with nick name carrier killer.. Exactly what I am tryied to say..

your argument is that the indian navy ships will be 500km away, my argument is that to enforce a blockade they need to be much closer than that. simple.

 

[kaykay]

difference is those gunboats had no airdef, but now ships have pr


your argument is that the indian navy ships will be 500km away, my argument is that to enforce a blockade they need to be much closer than that. simple.

I think he is talking about Ins Viki stationed beyond 500 km from Pak shores as MIG ks have good range and they can very well provide air support to other warships, gunboats operating near shores.
Anyway having said that, I guess these things have nothing to do with the topic so I will urge Indian and well Pakistani members to not to drag unnecessary stuffs which contributes nothing on topic.

 

[Bilal.]

I think he is talking about Ins Viki stationed beyond 500 km from Pak shores as MIG ks have good range and they can very well provide air support to other warships, gunboats operating near shores.

This argument is wrong as JF-17 has similar (probably better) range than mig-29K.

 

[S.Y.A]

I think he is talking about Ins Viki stationed beyond 500 km from Pak shores as MIG ks have good range and they can very well provide air support to other warships, gunboats operating near shores.
Anyway having said that, I guess these things have nothing to do with the topic so I will urge Indian and well Pakistani members to not to drag unnecessary stuffs which contributes nothing on topic.

the aircraft carrier in question can carry24-30 MiG29s, how many will be in the air at any given time? the answer is: not enough to provide a proper air cover. other than that some navy assets are now based at oramara, and gwadar, merchant vessels will also be using gwadar if such a situation arises. mr. lil mathew is basing his arguments on the assumptions that PN is as helpless and hopeless as it was in '71 and that Karachi is still the only port PN has.

 

[Lil Mathew]

Mister If anything is shortlegged it is Mig 29. Looks like u missed quite a bit On Jf-17.

JF-17 Developments Indicate Aircraft Is Still On Track | Defense News | defensenews.com
Potential payload shortcomings have also been highlighted by analysts. The JF-17 is often seen with three large drop-tanks indicating low internal fuel capacity and/or high consumption by the Klimov RD-93 engine.

However, Ahmed says the three-tank configuration is for ferry flights or “extended operational training exercises/missions” with routine flights made “in clean or single-tank configuration.”

Therefore, for smaller nations and those conducting tactical missions, “it has the requisite reach to engage targets and can also provide required on-station time in an air defense role,” and aerial refueling “further augmented reach and endurance.”

Tufail is unconvinced, though, and highlights that 10,000 hours/13,500 sorties, equates to 45 minutes per sortie.

“Notwithstanding the aerial refueling capability [which has many operational and logistics limitations], the short sortie time may be a no-no for prospective buyers,” he said.

His most likely solution is not so straightforward, however.

“[Conformal fuel tanks] are absolutely essential to a multi-role JF-17, but these are not easy to install, since the aerodynamics of the aircraft is greatly altered and it would call for flight testing in all regimes, including certification of all stores anew.”

 

[SQ8]

Please avoid pointless "baseless knowledge" comparisons on this thread.
Thank you

 

[M.AsfandYar]

JF17 is a light aircraft designed as a substitute for F7 for defence roles.. It's a low speed aircraft(1.6 mach at optimum alt).. Air defence fighters going beyond country's boundary is a huge risk..

Wrong there. It is to be our Frontline fighter. 2nd speed is irrevent, this is not a bloody first to finish u know. Rafale has the same speed too.

* it has only 7 hardpoints and limited payload..

Which is more than enough for this role.

*Internal fuel carrying capacity is low.

Thats y there are tankers and external tanks.

*Need 3 drop tanks for multi roles (according to Analyst Usman Shabbir of the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank)
Here for such a deep strike.. It's configuration will be 2 bvr,2wvr, 2drop tanks.. Then 900 kg CM400akg..
What will happen if it has to engage a mig29k with 8 air to air missiles(13 hard points,6t payload,2+ mach speed) 250km far from its costline or to face a Su30 mki.. Its suicidal..

U know u r funny. There exists something by the name of Escorts, that participate in these kind of scenarios. They carry BVRS AND WVRS. 2 wvrs will be enough for self defence.
Here are some mission profiles.
JF-17 configuration of weapon load - PAFwallpapers Blog

 

[Rain]

JF-17 Developments Indicate Aircraft Is Still On Track | Defense News | defensenews.com
Potential payload shortcomings have also been highlighted by analysts. The JF-17 is often seen with three large drop-tanks indicating low internal fuel capacity and/or high consumption by the Klimov RD-93 engine.

However, Ahmed says the three-tank configuration is for ferry flights or “extended operational training exercises/missions” with routine flights made “in clean or single-tank configuration.”

Therefore, for smaller nations and those conducting tactical missions, “it has the requisite reach to engage targets and can also provide required on-station time in an air defense role,” and aerial refueling “further augmented reach and endurance.”

Tufail is unconvinced, though, and highlights that 10,000 hours/13,500 sorties, equates to 45 minutes per sortie.

“Notwithstanding the aerial refueling capability [which has many operational and logistics limitations], the short sortie time may be a no-no for prospective buyers,” he said.

His most likely solution is not so straightforward, however.

“[Conformal fuel tanks] are absolutely essential to a multi-role JF-17, but these are not easy to install, since the aerodynamics of the aircraft is greatly altered and it would call for flight testing in all regimes, including certification of all stores anew.”

Let me put a naïve question: what about JF 17 (being in large nos, cheap and with air to air fueling capability) harassing and making Mig29 too busy in initial stages of conflict so that AC ran out of fuel/maintenance services (in respect of MIG 29) in few days/ weeks, Once AC retires or goes to refueling (retiring from conflict area), JF 17 will have a heyday. by the time AC returns JF 17 might have scored some hits on surface assets making blockade more difficult.(I am simplifying things to make a point here otherwise War is a complicated thing we all know).

 

[Lil Mathew]

Let me put a naïve question: what about JF 17 (being in large nos, cheap and with air to air fueling capability) harassing and making Mig29 too busy in initial stages of conflict so that AC ran out of fuel/maintenance services (in respect of MIG 29) in few days/ weeks, Once AC retires or goes to refueling (retiring from conflict area), JF 17 will have a heyday. by the time AC returns JF 17 might have scored some hits on surface assets making blockade more difficult.(I am simplifying things to make a point here otherwise War is a complicated thing we all know).

No such scenarios.. PAF has limited assets against bigger enemy..For fuel oil -fuel oil bunkering: Barges with aviation fuel will top up..

 

[Bilal.]

JF-17 Developments Indicate Aircraft Is Still On Track | Defense News | defensenews.com
Potential payload shortcomings have also been highlighted by analysts. The JF-17 is often seen with three large drop-tanks indicating low internal fuel capacity and/or high consumption by the Klimov RD-93 engine.

However, Ahmed says the three-tank configuration is for ferry flights or “extended operational training exercises/missions” with routine flights made “in clean or single-tank configuration.”

Therefore, for smaller nations and those conducting tactical missions, “it has the requisite reach to engage targets and can also provide required on-station time in an air defense role,” and aerial refueling “further augmented reach and endurance.”

Tufail is unconvinced, though, and highlights that 10,000 hours/13,500 sorties, equates to 45 minutes per sortie.

“Notwithstanding the aerial refueling capability [which has many operational and logistics limitations], the short sortie time may be a no-no for prospective buyers,” he said.

His most likely solution is not so straightforward, however.

“[Conformal fuel tanks] are absolutely essential to a multi-role JF-17, but these are not easy to install, since the aerodynamics of the aircraft is greatly altered and it would call for flight testing in all regimes, including certification of all stores anew.”

All speculation based on total flight hour and total number of sorties. Where as below is the link to actual hard data shared by none other than the chief designer of JF-17:

YouTube

Watch 5:00 min onwards for range and endurance data.

 

[Windjammer]

 

[nomi007]

 

[Windjammer]

Dawn Sortie

 

[Reichmarshal]

Dawn Sortie

View attachment 84197

View attachment 84198

That looks more like a dusk sortie