JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[The Accountant]

It cannot be STEALTH but it can be STEALTHY
There is a difference.

Well, no use of half stealthy as it is too expensive to maintain a stealthy aircraft ... why to incur such a cost if it is not doing the job right ,,, by the way from stralthy point of view JF17 already have one of the smallest RCS with respect to design ... It is a light weight, DSI equipped, plane ,,, now you can bring a V shaped tail but that will put a pressure on aerodynamics and will require a powerful engine

 

[Arsalan]

Well, no use of half stealthy as it is too expensive to maintain a stealthy aircraft ... why to incur such a cost if it is not doing the job right ,,, by the way from stralthy point of view JF17 already have one of the smallest RCS with respect to design ... It is a light weight, DSI equipped, plane ,,, now you can bring a V shaped tail but that will put a pressure on aerodynamics and will require a powerful engine

Sir it is expensive to maintain a STEALTH aircraft. A Stealthy aircraft is not same case. An aircraft can be made stealthy with more use of composites, better deflection angles, jamers etc etc. A full stealth aircraft is expensive to maintain, a stealthy one, NOT SO MUCH!

 

[The Accountant]

Sir it is expensive to maintain a STEALTH aircraft. A Stealthy aircraft is not same case. An aircraft can be made stealthy with more use of composites, better deflection angles, jamers etc etc. A full stealth aircraft is expensive to maintain, a stealthy one, NOT SO MUCH!

Agreed , but apparently to me the article is not talking about stealthy features ...

 

[Shane]

Not likely. The size of it (compared to size or the height of glass canopy) looks TOO BIG for it to be IRST. May be an illusions and this is the cockpit area? Cant see the hinges either but the canopy is too small for it to be "B" model. Surely different from anything we have seen till now.

If you look again, hinges are there and in numbers too...so is the yellow arched bar in the middle of the canopy between front and back seat. The peculiatiries are one; the missing front glass part with its metal arch where it meets the larger part of the canopy or top and two; that protrusion on front starboard side with a yellow cover over it.

It is giving the impression of a bubble canopy without the separate front glass shield.

 

[fatman17]

JF-17X- A Pakistani Stealth Fighter


Posted by: Larkins Dsouza January 10, 20096 Comments

In what is seen as a counter to India’s effort to jointly develop the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) with Russia’s Sukhoi Aircraft Corp, Pakistan’s Kamra-based Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) and China’s Chengdu Aerospace Corp (CAC) last October inked a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to jointly develop an advanced, stealthy, single-seat and single-engined derivative of the JF-17 Thunder fourth-generation light multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) that is already being co-developed by PAC and CAC.

Consequently, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is expected to induct only 100 JF-17s into service between this year and 2014, and subsequently switch over to the acquisition of another 150 JF-17-derived fifth-generation stealthy MRCAs between 2015 and 2025. Present plans call for the latter MRCA to be powered by SNECMA Moteurs’ M88-3 twin-shaft bypass turbofan, incorporate a digital glass cockpit and open-architecture avionics suite, and use SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems’ Vixen 500E X-band multi-mode active phased-array radar, or AESA, an integrated electronic warfare/defensive aids suite being developed by China’s CETC, along with a helmet-mounted sighting-cum-cueing system for which systems from THALES, BAE Systems and Denel Aerospace are being evaluated.

The M88 turbofan for this aircraft will have variable camber inlet guide vanes, while its high-pressure compressor will have a sixth stage, and its exhaust nozzle will be of the ejector type. The turbofan will deliver 50kN (11,250lb) of dry thrust and 75kN (17,000lb) with afterburning. The primary offensive armament to be carried by this aircraft will be two underwing-mounted Hatf-8 (also called ‘Raad’ or ‘thunder’ in Arabic) air-launched cruise missile, which has a range of 350km. For air combat engagements, the stealthy MRCA will be armed with three types of air-to-air missiles: 60km-range PL-12 beyond visual range missile; 15km-range PL-13 within visual range missile; and PL-14 ramjet-powered 100km-range missile. The latter two have been developed by China in cooperation with South Africa’s Denel Aerospace.

Please disregard. Indian propaganda

 

[ziaulislam]

this a serious question. ?
If PAF wants long range strike fighter, and If it doesn't has access to flankers, and obviously F16s and if for some reason it believes j-10 to be inadequate (or not much better), have we considered the economical viability of modifying jf-17 radically for this role

I mean this has been done in the past with mirage 4 (from3), J8 from J7 or even a delta f-16

it could be a twin engine rd93 package? a couple of squadrons would be enough and may be cheaper than acquiring a foreign platform

or has PAF left that role for upcoming fifth gen fighter?
or is long range not part of PAF doctrine and focusing of ensuring to deny air superiority to india

 

[CriticalThought]

this a serious question. ?
If PAF wants long range strike fighter, and If it doesn't has access to flankers, and obviously F16s and if for some reason it believes j-10 to be inadequate (or not much better), have we considered the economical viability of modifying jf-17 radically for this role

I mean this has been done in the past with mirage 4 (from3), J8 from J7 or even a delta f-16

it could be a twin engine rd93 package? a couple of squadrons would be enough and may be cheaper than acquiring a foreign platform

or has PAF left that role for upcoming fifth gen fighter?
or is long range not part of PAF doctrine and focusing of ensuring to deny air superiority to india

Before even thinking about deep strikes into India, you need something like FA-18 Growler accompanying even a 'stealthy jet'. Remember, we use 'Stealth' as a general term. We don't have the technological advancement to create an F-22 in Pakistan.

In order to perform deep strikes you have three options:

1. Punch your way through Indian air defences. Expect a very high attrition rate.
2. Use high-power jamming/EW aircraft such as FA-18 Growler (or equivalent).
3. Attack from a side they least expect. This can be:
a. Fly all the way south while avoiding air defences (land and naval) along the Western border.
b. Fly over China, to hit North East India, or dash across the Chicken's Neck and Bangladesh to reach Eastern border.

That's it. Point 3 above requires a jet that has a very high endurance. It would be a classical bomber with radar avoidance features, so it stays strictly out of radar range. Think how Americans performed the OBL raid.

These are the only options that I see.

 

[araz]

Before even thinking about deep strikes into India, you need something like FA-18 Growler accompanying even a 'stealthy jet'. Remember, we use 'Stealth' as a general term. We don't have the technological advancement to create an F-22 in Pakistan.

In order to perform deep strikes you have three options:

1. Punch your way through Indian air defences. Expect a very high attrition rate.
2. Use high-power jamming/EW aircraft such as FA-18 Growler (or equivalent).
3. Attack from a side they least expect. This can be:
a. Fly all the way south while avoiding air defences (land and naval) along the Western border.
b. Fly over China, to hit North East India, or dash across the Chicken's Neck and Bangladesh to reach Eastern border.

That's it. Point 3 above requires a jet that has a very high endurance. It would be a classical bomber with radar avoidance features, so it stays strictly out of radar range. Think how Americans performed the OBL raid.

These are the only options that I see.

PAF does not have the assetts and will not have them to carry out any of your suggestions.It amazes me that you guys do not look at the obvious and go for the obscure to impossible.
For instance why would China allow you to use its air space to attack India? Would it not trigger a response from India and result in a nuclear exchange?
Secondly you need to have a ratio of 3:1 for an aggressive stance and take the attrition that goes with aggressive maneovering over enemy terrain. With a border guarded as well with Air defence systems like India-Pak border you will deplete your assetts in 3-4 days with the enemy laughing all the way to their trenches.
Even if you somehow breached their defences and neutered them what will you have left over to avail the advantage gained? Your ground units will be at the mercy of their air assetts and how will you defend them.
The most logical solution is saturation atracks with LACM /drones depleting their defences and then attack under air cover with your assetts intact as the real fight will start then. You will only be able to hold 2-300 kilometres of enemy land and fight from there and sue for peace from an advantageous point.
Their response would be to open up multiple fronts and dilute your resources and man power from a concentrated attack. You will lose some land mass but as long as you can hold them and contain them which is a big if, in the negotiations you will have an upper hand.
Mind you this is all theoretical because no one will await the landing of aLACM to check whether it is nuke tipped or not. At the first sight they will unleash their Nukes and so will you. So this whole debate is a mute point in any case.
I think the whole business of weaponry is the deterrent level of them. Once you start using them the big guns will be out sooner or later and it will be curtains for both India and Pak. Best to make your economy strong and make peace.
A

 

[The Accountant]

PAF does not have the assetts and will not have them to carry put any of your suggestions.It amazes me that you guys do not look atcthe obvious and go for the obscure to impossible.
For instance why would China allow you to use its air space to attack India? Would it not trigger a response from India and result in a nuclear exchange?
Secondly you need to have a ratio of 3:1 for an aggressive stance and take the attrition that goes with aggressive maneovering over enemy terrain. With a border guarded as well with Air defence systems like India-Pak border you will deplete your assetts in 3-4 days with the enemy laughing all the way to their trenches.
Even if you somehow breached their defences and neutered them what will you have left over to avail the advantage gained? Your ground units will be at the mercyy of their air assetts and how will you defend them.
The most logical solution is saturation atracks with LACM /drones depleting their defences and then attack under air cover with your assetts intact as the real fight will start then. You will only be able to hold 2-300 kilometres of enemy land and fight from there and sue for peace from an advantageous point.
Their response would be to open up multiple fronts and dilute your resources and man power from a concentrated attack. You will lose some land mass but as long as you can hold them and contain them which is a big if, in the negotiations you will have an upper hand.
Mind you this is all theoretical because no one will await the landing of aLACM to cjeck whether it is nuke tipped or not. At the first sight they will unleash their Nukes and so will you. So this whole debate is a mute point in any case.
I think the whole business of weaponry is the deterrent level of them. Once you start using them the big guns will be out sooner or later and it will be curtains for both India and Pak. Best to make your economy strong and make peace.
A

Sir g hola hath rakhn ,,,

You scolded him like a school kid ...

 

[araz]

Sir g hola hath rakhn ,,,

You scolded him like a school kid ...

Yar.
Perhaps I am getting too old for this. Time to go. I dont quite know why I stick around. However if someone calls himself critical thought and brings up statements like he did in an environment where we are fighting so many wars internally and externally then they need to be questioned. Mood aside see if there is a flaw in my logic. But people will listen to dreamers rather than pragmatic sould like me.
A

 

[CriticalThought]

PAF does not have the assetts and will not have them to carry out any of your suggestions.It amazes me that you guys do not look at the obvious and go for the obscure to impossible.
For instance why would China allow you to use its air space to attack India? Would it not trigger a response from India and result in a nuclear exchange?
Secondly you need to have a ratio of 3:1 for an aggressive stance and take the attrition that goes with aggressive maneovering over enemy terrain. With a border guarded as well with Air defence systems like India-Pak border you will deplete your assetts in 3-4 days with the enemy laughing all the way to their trenches.
Even if you somehow breached their defences and neutered them what will you have left over to avail the advantage gained? Your ground units will be at the mercy of their air assetts and how will you defend them.
The most logical solution is saturation atracks with LACM /drones depleting their defences and then attack under air cover with your assetts intact as the real fight will start then. You will only be able to hold 2-300 kilometres of enemy land and fight from there and sue for peace from an advantageous point.
Their response would be to open up multiple fronts and dilute your resources and man power from a concentrated attack. You will lose some land mass but as long as you can hold them and contain them which is a big if, in the negotiations you will have an upper hand.
Mind you this is all theoretical because no one will await the landing of aLACM to check whether it is nuke tipped or not. At the first sight they will unleash their Nukes and so will you. So this whole debate is a mute point in any case.
I think the whole business of weaponry is the deterrent level of them. Once you start using them the big guns will be out sooner or later and it will be curtains for both India and Pak. Best to make your economy strong and make peace.
A

Sir, I just delineated possible responses without attaching any sense of reality to them. They are all theoretical possibilities. That said, a successful war planner approaches war with the mindset of winning. What you have described above is the mindset of losing. In that case, we have already lost the war.

Yar.
Perhaps I am getting too old for this. Time to go. I dont quite know why I stick around. However if someone calls himself critical thought and brings up statements like he did in an environment where we are fighting so many wars internally and externally then they need to be questioned. Mood aside see if there is a flaw in my logic. But people will listen to dreamers rather than pragmatic sould like me.
A

You need to re-read my post carefully.

 

[The Accountant]

Sir, I just delineated possible responses without attaching any sense of reality to them. They are all theoretical possibilities. That said, a successful war planner approaches war with the mindset of winning. What you have described above is the mindset of losing. In that case, we have already lost the war.



You need to re-read my post carefully.

Brother don't drag it , what @araz is saying is absolutely correct and there is nothing we can do about it ... there is no aggression we can do in air and sea,,, the only aggression we can do is on land and for that agression, we need air cover and open sea lanes ... due to the huge military budget, we cannot compete India in technology intensive field i.e. air and sea and we have to use A2/AD methods whereas our main offensive is to be done the on ground ... that is the way to fight 5 times bigger force ... This is not a loosing strategy but the strategy to defeat 5 times bigger army ...

 

[CriticalThought]

Brother don't drag it , what @araz is saying is absolutely correct and there is nothing we can do about it ... there is no aggression we can do in air and sea,,, the only aggression we can do is on land and for that agression, we need air cover and open sea lanes ... due to the huge military budget, we cannot compete India in technology intensive field i.e. air and sea and we have to use A2/AD methods whereas our main offensive is to be done the on ground ... that is the way to fight 5 times bigger force ... This is not a loosing strategy but the strategy to defeat 5 times bigger army ...

If you follow the whole thread of conversation, you will find I am actually trying to show how deep strikes within Indian territory are beyond our current means. I am perfectly grounded in reality, and my posts convey the same message.

At the same time, I see no problem in delving into theoretical, so we are able to see what exactly it takes to win. Perfectly appropriate discussion to have on a defence forum.

 

[The Accountant]

Yar.
Perhaps I am getting too old for this. Time to go. I dont quite know why I stick around. However if someone calls himself critical thought and brings up statements like he did in an environment where we are fighting so many wars internally and externally then they need to be questioned. Mood aside see if there is a flaw in my logic. But people will listen to dreamers rather than pragmatic sould like me.
A

Sir g still we are all here to learn and learning never stops , we should accept the fact that most of here are to learn for example even my take on war was similar to like some fency stuff but after joining this forum and read from learned fellows like you and other I feel that it is a dirty business and should be avoided unless necessary ...

So rather than confronting such thoughts harshly I would request a mild approach for telling the reality, so that people like me can learn from you

If you follow the whole thread of conversation, you will find I am actually trying to show how deep strikes within Indian territory are beyond our current means. I am perfectly grounded in reality, and my posts convey the same message.

At the same time, I see no problem in delving into theoretical, so we are able to see what exactly it takes to win. Perfectly appropriate discussion to have on a defence forum.

I think point 3 is totally unrealistic ... Not possible even theoratically ... We need to understand that nobody is going to fight our war ,,, So China will not allow to use space and will help for nothing except for ensuring weapons supply for which we will be paying for decades ...

First two points are theoretically correct but given the high attrition rate and our small air force point no 1 do not exist in real world whereas even in real world growler or any like aircraft is not in our reach as of now ... So all theoretical assumptions only ... now peace ...

 

[araz]

Sir, I just delineated possible responses without attaching any sense of reality to them. They are all theoretical possibilities. That said, a successful war planner approaches war with the mindset of winning. What you have described above is the mindset of losing. In that case, we have already lost the war.



You need to re-read my post carefully.

Beta. (And I mean it with the utmost of respect). All wars in the subcontinent or any where else are a form of loss. The gravity of which needs to be understood in the context of the Russian incursion onto Afghanistan and the US trysts into Vietnam and Afghanistan. The problem is there is no plausible defence of your arguments as you do not have the material assetts or the national cohesion or the political or military will to take the losses necessary to achieve the ends. The ends in this equation need to be quantified. What are we trying to achieve? What is the end poont of this war ? You set those out and then work out how much money, manpower, resources, assetts and time you need to accrue them. Then you work out how your enemy will respond with similar acquisitions and other parameters. There are other external factors which you have to consider such as your support in the internatiknal political arena, can you sell your narrative to tbe world to justify your avgression, can you even find a supporter for your cause.
The " you have already lost the war" bit I will not respond to as other jingoistics individuals have always accused me of doing so.
Interestingly you have not looked atthe counternarrative and gauged it against your plan in light of assetts we have available as against the typical "we should get 400 planes from Laala land and exchange weed for weapons" bit.
Generally I do not indulge in frivulous debates but I do object to unnecessary indulgence into war mongering and the subsequent troll fest which ensues.
I have read the Quran and understand from a study into the Ahadeeth of the end of times and the life of ohr Prophet SAW to rightly or wrongly guage the times. The last thing we need at the moment is indulge in another war.
Rest is upto you. I will not engage in an argument with you as I simply lack the time. Whether you understand where I am coming from or not is upto you.
Kind regards.
A