What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

Existing/New Customers
  • Pakistan Airforce (On Going Customer)
  • Myanmar (Initial Order)
  • Nigeria (Initial Order)
  • Nigeria (Follow Up Order)
  • Argentina (Interest)
  • Iraqi (Interest)
  • Azerbaijan (Interest)
  • Indonesia (Interest)
  • Malaysia (Interest)
  • Zambia (Interest)
I know that Qatar AF has taken a lot of inrerest and visited PAC repeatedly. I understand there is a lot between interest and signed contracts or even expression of interest but wanted your thoughts on Qatari interest in JFT.
A
 
PL-15 E spec
243148091_403160288053642_87504059782408879_n.jpg
 


The only thing share by mbda about meteor eta he is more than nauticle miles or 100 km and 60km no escape zone

Folks thout aim120 ranges but usaf only stayed more than 30 nm safe to say about same as 70/75km against fighter, these 100 plus range for older types are pretty much just internet tigers ranges and no one else , real ranges subject to opponent speeds and altitudes receding vs approaching etc factors but almost 150 km ago at all target is impressive and was predicated more a than double of sd-10 Or Aim120
 
Without knowing the investment I don’t think that can be determined yet. More importantly, a total of 14 active C-130s means that they will have to be pulled from airlift duties to undertake these tasks and makes them an even more HVAA target for Indians.

On the other hand, a pallet onboard with paratroops would mean they can soften their own landing zone without needing CAS assets.
However, considering all the other places investment is lacking along with knowledge base I would never put this high on the priority list unless more C-130s were available.

Pakistanis tend to either look at easy tasks where they lose motivation due to being bored&lazy, or they pick bigger projects beyond their scope(AZM) where the challenge overwhelms them and they give up. It has to be the sweet spot of edge of capability so it’s right near learning skill sets.

Block-III JF is exactly that. Then it’s onto tech that goes into AZM but not AZM.

This is how I analyze the situation. There is definitely a need for supersonic and hypersonic missiles against the threat of S400. We can expect them to be in the 2000+ Kg range. To try and get a 9000 Kg fighter to carry this into battle is irrational. I disagree that Block 3 is the exact fighter for that. Maybe F-16, but then it will have to be pulled away from duties as well.

Which brings us to J-10. And between a squadron of J-10s and a squadron of multi-purpose transports, I will choose multi-purpose transports every single time. Transports are a key element of fifth and sixth gen warfare, and if our doctrine is not being updated to take advantage of the capabilities they offer, that shows complacency.

Yes, they become HVTs, but fifth and sixth gen tactics have solutions for dealing with incoming missiles. They range from jamming to shooting down the incoming missiles to decoys and ghost echos. We are already planning to field 9 different AEWACS, amongst them the monster ZDKs. What's the plan to safeguard these HVTs? The same plan can work for transports as well.
 
This is how I analyze the situation. There is definitely a need for supersonic and hypersonic missiles against the threat of S400. We can expect them to be in the 2000+ Kg range. To try and get a 9000 Kg fighter to carry this into battle is irrational. I disagree that Block 3 is the exact fighter for that. Maybe F-16, but then it will have to be pulled away from duties as well.

Which brings us to J-10. And between a squadron of J-10s and a squadron of multi-purpose transports, I will choose multi-purpose transports every single time. Transports are a key element of fifth and sixth gen warfare, and if our doctrine is not being updated to take advantage of the capabilities they offer, that shows complacency.

Yes, they become HVTs, but fifth and sixth gen tactics have solutions for dealing with incoming missiles. They range from jamming to shooting down the incoming missiles to decoys and ghost echos. We are already planning to field 9 different AEWACS, amongst them the monster ZDKs. What's the plan to safeguard these HVTs? The same plan can work for transports as well.
I don’t think I implied using the block-3 - however, what is missing from your proposal is the investment. What is expected to be put into the R&D of this system?
What is expected as the unit cost?
You’re providing the benefits but not the opportunity costs for this.
Either way, this could be looked at further in the transport thread.
 
Jf-17 good bird. But we needed a medium weight multirole fighter which would have greatly increased the survivability of air assets and ground.

But what can we do missed opportunities never arise again.

Also, am not very well-read on the Air domain. I like to stick to the sentry posts and naval planks. So go easy on me.
This is the reason for interest in J-10CE.

One thing most ppl miss while analyzing JF-17 is the very quick turn-around time it has. This means a high sortie rate. This is why time on station is not a major priority. This is also why medium weight fighters with longer loiter time & range are needed. JF-17 could do quick strikes while medium weight air-superiority assets provide cover. The obvious problem then is that JF-17 does not carry much weight in armaments, so it won't sting as hard. But it can saturate a battle-field with its presence merely due to its much higher sortie rate. Based purely on sortie rate, JF-17 can matter more than any one aircraft type that enemy can field.
This is how I analyze the situation. There is definitely a need for supersonic and hypersonic missiles against the threat of S400. We can expect them to be in the 2000+ Kg range. To try and get a 9000 Kg fighter to carry this into battle is irrational. I disagree that Block 3 is the exact fighter for that. Maybe F-16, but then it will have to be pulled away from duties as well.

Which brings us to J-10. And between a squadron of J-10s and a squadron of multi-purpose transports, I will choose multi-purpose transports every single time. Transports are a key element of fifth and sixth gen warfare, and if our doctrine is not being updated to take advantage of the capabilities they offer, that shows complacency.

Yes, they become HVTs, but fifth and sixth gen tactics have solutions for dealing with incoming missiles. They range from jamming to shooting down the incoming missiles to decoys and ghost echos. We are already planning to field 9 different AEWACS, amongst them the monster ZDKs. What's the plan to safeguard these HVTs? The same plan can work for transports as well.
Great post. However, I think enemy won't be playing on our terms. The one thing that really bothers me is a massive first-wave saturation attack. That is why number of combat jets matter a great deal.

I think a high priority should be accorded to GDP & Tax growth, so that we may be able to afford more / better assets in the future.
 
Last edited:
Great post. However, I think enemy won't be playing on our terms. The one thing that really bothers me is a massive first-wave saturation attack. That is why number of combat jets matter a great deal.

I think a high priority should be accorded to GDP & Tax growth, so that we may be able to afford more / better assets in the future.

Thank you. If the surprise saturation attack is successful, we are already in trouble. Because that means a lot of our fighters will be obliterated on the ground. What remain will face a massive Indian assault. Given Pakistan's geography, the number of fighters to safeguard against this situation would be absolutely massive. Which is why we wield that theoretical nuclear stick.

There is no disagreement on the subject of human development and economic improvement. But even after that, I would still prefer multi-purpose transports over J-10s.
 
Thank you. If the surprise saturation attack is successful, we are already in trouble. Because that means a lot of our fighters will be obliterated on the ground. What remain will face a massive Indian assault. Given Pakistan's geography, the number of fighters to safeguard against this situation would be absolutely massive. Which is why we wield that theoretical nuclear stick.

There is no disagreement on the subject of human development and economic improvement. But even after that, I would still prefer multi-purpose transports over J-10s.
Being able to put up assets in the sky can blunt a massive attack. They lob SOWs, so do we; they fire BVR missiles, so do we; they come in, we meet them head-on. The next iteration would be on more favorable terms because I think our one-engine birds can be turned around much faster than their's. That is why numbers matter in my view, & that is why we have JF-17 as it is. Transport planes are certainly important, but if we can not blunt a massive attack then those transport planes would hardly matter.

But then, I am no expert & I yield to better informed & analytical people here. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Being able to put up assets in the sky can blunt a massive attack. They lob SOWs, so do we; they fire BVR missiles, so do we; they come in, we meet them head-on. The next iteration would be on more favorable terms because I think our one-engine birds can be turned around much faster than their's. That is why numbers matter in my view, & that is why we have JF-17 as it is. Transport planes are certainly important, but if we can not blunt a massive attack then those transport planes would hardly matter.

But then, I am no expert & I yield to better informed & analytical people here. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Your scenario is valid, but it is not taking into account Indian S-400/S-500. Now you have an intact IAF turning up in massive numbers hurling BVRs, while LRSAMs have been moved closer to the border. IAF can stay behind the SAMs and harass you. You need supersonic and hypersonic missiles to quickly strike them out. Fighter jets will not give you a fast turnaround when loaded with 2000+ kg missiles.

And again, all of this presumes there are enough fighters, runways, and infrastructure left after the first saturation attack. The IAF didn't just take out fighters on the ground, it destroyed your runways, ammo dumps, forward radars, command and control systems. You will quickly find out that you are in no shape to fight. It would be disingenuous for IAF to do anything less than this. Why would it initiate hostilities, only to leave enough of PAF to fight back?
 
Your scenario is valid, but it is not taking into account Indian S-400/S-500. Now you have an intact IAF turning up in massive numbers hurling BVRs, while LRSAMs have been moved closer to the border. IAF can stay behind the SAMs and harass you. You need supersonic and hypersonic missiles to quickly strike them out. Fighter jets will not give you a fast turnaround when loaded with 2000+ kg missiles.

And again, all of this presumes there are enough fighters, runways, and infrastructure left after the first saturation attack. The IAF didn't just take out fighters on the ground, it destroyed your runways, ammo dumps, forward radars, command and control systems. You will quickly find out that you are in no shape to fight. It would be disingenuous for IAF to do anything less than this. Why would it initiate hostilities, only to leave enough of PAF to fight back?
Even a HVAA has to fly out.

But the scenario you present means the trigger for the Pakistani samson option has been reached quite a bit already. If the iAF has managed to already destroy major runways, ammo dumps , radars and C4I centers then the strategic systems have already left their bunkers and at this point panic phones are ringing from foriegn leaders to
Both capitals while the key leadership on both sides is getting ready to make peace with their makers.

Trust me, things aren’t going that horribly for us to think of a HVAA based CM system and if they are then the airlifters are likely toast as well.
 
Even a HVAA has to fly out.

But the scenario you present means the trigger for the Pakistani samson option has been reached quite a bit already. If the iAF has managed to already destroy major runways, ammo dumps , radars and C4I centers then the strategic systems have already left their bunkers and at this point panic phones are ringing from foriegn leaders to
Both capitals while the key leadership on both sides is getting ready to make peace with their makers.

Trust me, things aren’t going that horribly for us to think of a HVAA based CM system and if they are then the airlifters are likely toast as well.

I am in complete agreement here. It wasn't my scenario, I was just helping Chak Bamu to think through what he was proposing.

But I maintain that Indian LRSAMs necessitate HVAA based missiles, cruise or otherwise. In any case, it is the future of aerial warfare. America recently tested such a system. When China and Russia follow suit, it will become mainstream. At some point, India might field something like this against us.
 
Model of JF-17 Thunder fighter jet displayed with Ramjet powered Supersonic Missiles at Zhuhai 2021 air show

View attachment 779763
IMO the missile mock-ups seem more like the MBDA ASMPA than the HD-1A.

I wonder if there's some at AHQ thought about pairing miniature nuclear warheads to supersonic-cruising missiles (akin to what France is doing with the ASMPA).

Just imaging pairing a twin-engine WS-10/AL-41-powered F-15-sized fighter (AZM ASR) with Ra'ad-2 and ASMPA-type missiles for the strategic role. Yikes.

1632772203336.png
 
Your scenario is valid, but it is not taking into account Indian S-400/S-500. Now you have an intact IAF turning up in massive numbers hurling BVRs, while LRSAMs have been moved closer to the border. IAF can stay behind the SAMs and harass you. You need supersonic and hypersonic missiles to quickly strike them out. Fighter jets will not give you a fast turnaround when loaded with 2000+ kg missiles.

I am not sure what makes you believe that PAF will not be breaking the target acquisition chain of S400s, and what makes you believe they'd even let the Indians operate the S400s closer to the border, without being threatened? Why do you think Army has been testing their guided missile systems off late? The system is not a silver-bullet solution, the last time Indians operated with that belief, they ended up shooting their own bird out of the sky.

As for the kind of LFEs scenarios that you're putting up, that's nothing new, PAF did the same on the 27th of Feb. Without going into many details, simply hurling missiles does not work in real life. Simple hiding behind SAMs does not work in real life. PAF has options amongst the SOW armament that range from 60KM to 600KMs (in public view) in range, for targetting the other side.

And the kind of saturation attacks that you're talking about, every base would need more than 30-40 Brahmos picking up targets (not decoys) with pinpoint accuracy across the board, in order to be successful. IAF would require multiple hundreds - if not well over a thousand such missiles in order to perform a successful saturation strike against PAF - that too with the PAF sleeping on the wheel.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom