JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Basel]

The size of JF17 is not big enough to have retractable refueling probe, unless we have this:
View attachment 468843

It can have expendable re-fueling prob, check history since 2nd gen fighters.

Will it able to carry future version of ALCM , Not think so there are already academic articles done on this until the missile it self is modified

It can still carry SOM-J if PAF want to have it of the shelf or with ToT from Turkey.

 

[Jinn Baba]

you caught the resemblance but missed Air force uniform...

Lol aapki aankho ko salaam for spotting that

 

[MastanKhan]

Dear your idea is very much clear, our neighbor is spending lot of money for quantity and quality, at least we need to spend 1/3 of that on heavy and modern platforms otherwise survival will be difficult.

Hi,

The problem over here is that the neighbor has changed the rules of combat---ie the rules of engagement and disengagement---.

A superior aircraft would launch all its BVR missiles from a distance and scoot away----no merge---.

See---the JF17 or the BLK52 can only launch 1 BVR missile at one enemy aircraft at one time---otoh---the SU30 can launch a volley of 4 BVR missiles at the same target in one go---.

So---a JF17 would have to fight off 4 BVR missiles at one go---.

This is what I have stated for many a years---and I have yet to come across a pakistani who has the ability to understand the intensity of the issue at hand---.

At least no one has replied back to me acknowledging the fact---.

The SU30 can carry upto 12 BVR missiles---let us say 8 BVR missiles for convenience---.

2 SU30's flying in---face 4 JF17's---they launch a volley of 4 missiles each at the JF17's and then turn and run---.

The JF17's are forced into taking evading turns---.

While that is happening---another SU30 pops up---the 4 JF17's are trying to save their lives---this SU30 gets in closer to an 80% kill range---it has 8 BVR missiles---.

Now it launches a volley of 2 BVR missiles at each target---the targets are in desperate move to save their lives from the original 4 BVR's on each target---.

I would like to hear from a Paf pilot---how they would counter it---.

 

[wulff]

Hi,

Welcome---.

What air to air performance do you want---?

None of your opponents are into air to air performance ( dog fight ) any more---.

They are all trained to launch BVR and scoot---launch BVR and scoot---launch bvr and scoot.

When a SU30 can launch a volley of 4 BVR's at a single target---why does it need to be in a position of performance---.

Peformance is a totally over rated term---the great early F15 had barely 6G capabilities---but was the greatest twin engine air craft flying.

F14 Tomcat was severely under powered---but was still way ahead of the curve---.

Performance is an overrated term---.

Please don't fall for it---.

Second thing---you never understood what I wrote---.

If you want to---read my post again---and if you still don't understand it---let me know and I will explain it further. Thank you.

Mastan Sb,

Thank you for your reply.

My post was more about why the JF-17 ended up the way it is, and how it was the pragmatic option 20 years ago (but not now). I was addressing why a 25% larger JF-17 airframe wasn't very feasible back then. I wasn't referring particularly to close combat performance. Close combat is a different topic, but the TWR and climb rate have a direct effect on BVR capability of the aircraft. During a scramble, unless a JF-17 can take off and rapidly climb and gain speed, it will be flying lower and slower than the intruding aircraft (Su-30MKI ). This will put it at a major disadvantage in BVR combat against the intruder. The SD-10 it launches will have drastically reduced range when fired from the low and slow flying thunder and will arrive at the target with lesser energy. The BVR missile fired by the intruder will attain close to its max range and will arrive at target with much higher energy as it will be diving from a higher altitude on the JF-17 when launched from a higher and faster plane. Thats why for BVR interception, a high rate of climb, fast acceleration and supercruise matter. these allow the plane to shoot missiles farther and the missiles retain more energy to pull high-G maneuves at the terminal phase.

All these would be affected negatively if the JF-17 were 25% and had the same engine. It would be in the size/weight range of the F-16 but with 30-40% lower thrust.

Your views on the sensor suite being behind our times are something I completely agree on. Which is why I pointed out that the Chinese industry was perfectly capable of producing a reasonably priced and capable IRST & ECM/ELINT suite by 2010.

Please do explain if I have missed something

 

[MastanKhan]

@MastanKhan sir whats your opinion about j 10 ? I mean j 10 still need of the time or not?

Hi,

There is no way that Paf can fill in the hole with just the JF17's---.

Between the 5th gen and 4th gen---Paf needs 2 aircraft---a J10 and a JH7---.

 

[Mentee]

This is what I have stated for many a years---and I have yet to come across a pakistani who has the ability to understand the intensity of the issue at hand---.

At least no one has replied back to me acknowledging the fact---.

I did sir! and also came back with a foolish plan to equip the jh7b's with 19 bvr, s

 

[araz]

The production of J-10 is said to stop soon.

And why would that be? Possibly because J10 has run its development potential to the max? I know about J20 and the success of J11/16 series in PLAAF. But why a total reliance on twin engines when there is a need for 800 to 1000 fighters?
Any thoughts?
A

 

[MastanKhan]

Mastan Sb,

Thank you for your reply.

My post was more about why the JF-17 ended up the way it is, and how it was the pragmatic option 20 years ago (but not now). I was addressing why a 25% larger JF-17 airframe wasn't very feasible back then. I wasn't referring particularly to close combat performance. Close combat is a different topic, but the TWR and climb rate have a direct effect on BVR capability of the aircraft. During a scramble, unless a JF-17 can take off and rapidly climb and gain speed, it will be flying lower and slower than the intruding aircraft (Su-30MKI ). This will put it at a major disadvantage in BVR combat against the intruder. The SD-10 it launches will have drastically reduced range when fired from the low and slow flying thunder and will arrive at the target with lesser energy. The BVR missile fired by the intruder will attain close to its max range and will arrive at target with much higher energy as it will be diving from a higher altitude on the JF-17 when launched from a higher and faster plane. Thats why for BVR interception, a high rate of climb, fast acceleration and supercruise matter. these allow the plane to shoot missiles farther and the missiles retain more energy to pull high-G maneuves at the terminal phase.

All these would be affected negatively if the JF-17 were 25% and had the same engine. It would be in the size/weight range of the F-16 but with 30-40% lower thrust.

Your views on the sensor suite being behind our times are something I completely agree on. Which is why I pointed out that the Chinese industry was perfectly capable of producing a reasonably priced and capable IRST & ECM/ELINT suite by 2010.

Please do explain if I have missed something

Hi,

With the current engine---the time factor would have a minimal effect on the take off and BVR launch altitude with a 25% larger aircraft---.

That aircraft would have opened up new venues of advancements---.

Why did the japanese make the F2 25% larger than the F16---. Were the japanese stupid when they had a perfect aircraft the F16 availabe to them---.

No---they were not stupid---they knew---for them to inflict damage to the enemy---their single engine aircraft needed to carry 2 AShM ( MUST CARRY )---each weighing in a minimum of a 1000KG---because most of their decisive conflict would be over the ocean---they knew that one AShM per aircraft won't do the job---.

And who knows better than the Japanese about the failure of aircraft of not having AShM or bombs---( 2nd WW ).

The Paf never envisaged the role of the JF17 over the arabian seas---they never anticipated that the war over the arabian seas/indian ocean would be a decisive war and a better aircraft would give them a massive advantage over the enemy---.

Even to this day---Paf is still a dry land airforce---it has not seriously focused on strike on enemy lands from over water---.

War over water and access to enemy important assets can only be attained by a right aircraft and a change in mentality---.

The production of J-10 is said to stop soon.

Hi,

The J10D is coming up---so that might be a rumor---.

But then there might be truth to it as well---. China has filled in some of the hole that it was in---.

They have a good number of J10's---. What they are finding out is---that their GEOGRAPHY needs a twin engine twin tail heavy aircraft---heavy load---longer distance capabilities.

The J10 was a stepping stone---. A goal of getting to a higher technology was achieved---a weapon was designed to get them to a higher tier---they got to the higher tier---.

When they reached the higher tier---they found out---that it was not high enough---they acknowledged the issue---realized what the problem was---and possibly have found out---that they need to have a minimum twin engine aircraft for what they are facing and what they are going to face---.

So---what we see here is that the chinese air force needs are changing with what the enemy has on the other side---it also shows that the chinese air force is not living in a vaccuum like the Pakistan air force---.

 

[ziaulislam]

VS Mirage

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/anatomy-of-the-hatf-viii-raad-air-launched-cruise-missile.436702/
@JamD has already put a scholarly article on this ,I guess you are missing the point raising the height doesnt require cost increase

My point is straight forward..raad is strategic nuclear cm built for mirages but there shouldn't be issue in arming the thunder with it on wing stations..if there is than small redesign will be enough...it can carry many heavy CM like 802CK

 

[Fawad alam]

Hi,

There is no way that Paf can fill in the hole with just the JF17's---.

Between the 5th gen and 4th gen---Paf needs 2 aircraft---a J10 and a JH7---.

Mastan sahab, J10C with PL-15 is very good aircraft, but JF-17 Block-III with PL-15 will be almost equal,in my opinion SU-35 is our requirement, we need to spend some money if we want to survive.

 

[MastanKhan]

My point is straight forward..raad is strategic nuclear cm built for mirages but there shouldn't be issue in arming the thunder with it on wing stations..if there is than small redesign will be enough...it can carry many heavy CM like 802CK

Hi,

I t is very important to remember what has been stated over the years---and if you read books on issue---that also helps---.

The JF17 is a small aircraft---the Raad is a heavy missile---. It can only be mounted on the center pylon under the belly---.

It cannot be mounted on the wings---a launch from one wing would cause a massive weight shift and the JF17 cannot handle that.

 

[wulff]

Hi,

With the current engine---the time factor would have a minimal effect on the take off and BVR launch altitude with a 25% larger aircraft---.

That aircraft would have opened up new venues of advancements---.

Why did the japanese make the F2 25% larger than the F16---. Were the japanese stupid when they had a perfect aircraft the F16 availabe to them---.

No---they were not stupid---they knew---for them to inflict damage to the enemy---their single engine aircraft needed to carry 2 AShM ( MUST CARRY )---each weighing in a minimum of a 1000KG---because most of their decisive conflict would be over the ocean---they knew that one AShM per aircraft won't do the job---.

And who knows better than the Japanese about the failure of aircraft of not having AShM or bombs---( 2nd WW ).

The Paf never envisaged the role of the JF17 over the arabian seas---they never anticipated that the war over the arabian seas/indian ocean would be a decisive war and a better aircraft would give them a massive advantage over the enemy---.

Even to this day---Paf is still a dry land airforce---it has not seriously focused on strike on enemy lands from over water---.

War over water and access to enemy important assets can only be attained by a right aircraft and a change in mentality---.



Hi,

The J10D is coming up---so that might be a rumor---.

But then there might be truth to it as well---. China has filled in some of the hole that it was in---.

They have a good number of J10's---. What they are finding out is---that their GEOGRAPHY needs a twin engine twin tail heavy aircraft---heavy load---longer distance capabilities.

The J10 was a stepping stone---. A goal of getting to a higher technology was achieved---a weapon was designed to get them to a higher tier---they got to the higher tier---.

When they reached the higher tier---they found out---that it was not high enough---they acknowledged the issue---realized what the problem was---and possibly have found out---that they need to have a minimum twin engine aircraft for what they are facing and what they are going to face---.

So---what we see here is that the chinese air force needs are changing with what the enemy has on the other side---it also shows that the chinese air force is not living in a vaccuum like the Pakistan air force---.

Mastan Sb,

I disagree on the first statement. I have tried to explain this in my previous posts. I would only like to add the following:

The F-2 is just a slightly enlarged F-16. Its purpose was to allow a Japanese developed aesa radar, sensors, avionics and missiles to be incorporated into a fighter (the F-16 was not planned to have an AESA radar at the time)
and enhancing its anti-shipping capability by strengthening of the airframe to be able to carry 2x japanese developed heavy anti ship missiles. The result is an aircraft with a 25% higher NTOW which needed a 25% larger wing, and costs 50% more than the F-16--basically as much as an F-15.

Japan considers itself the policeman of the western pacific, its forces are heavily oriented towards naval warfare, naval strike is one of the primary missions of the AF.

Overall, its A2A capability was not better than the F-16 in any way on account of its larger size (ignoring for a moment the AESA radar and the newer AAMs, which can technically be installed on the F-16 as well).

Coming back to the JF-17, yes, a larger aircraft would have gained range, and be a better a2g and marittime strike aircraft. But this would have come at the cost of its A2A performance. That is the entire point. Everything in aircraft design is a tradeoff. The PAF needed an air defence fighter more than it needed the strike aircraft. They still do. The JF-17 was the right air defence fighter they needed in 2000. It is not the right fighter in 2020.

 

[volatile]

It can still carry SOM-J if PAF want to have it of the shelf or with ToT from Turkey.

It will be disaster just for one platform whole tot or prodcution will be done

My point is straight forward..raad is strategic nuclear cm built for mirages but there shouldn't be issue in arming the thunder with it on wing stations..if there is than small redesign will be enough...it can carry many heavy CM like 802CK

There is no debate on it can carry in future roles or not point here is that sooner or later Mirages role Infact some squadrons are already started to get thunder ,Now increasing the height of thunder in design phase was miscalculated or not envisioned .In its current form there are challenges

PS increase wheel height

 

[MastanKhan]

Mastan Sb,

I disagree on the first statement. I have tried to explain this in my previous posts. I would only like to add the following:

The F-2 is just a slightly enlarged F-16. Its purpose was to allow a Japanese developed aesa radar, sensors, avionics and missiles to be incorporated into a fighter (the F-16 was not planned to have an AESA radar at the time)
and enhancing its anti-shipping capability by strengthening of the airframe to be able to carry 2x japanese developed heavy anti ship missiles. The result is an aircraft with a 25% higher NTOW which needed a 25% larger wing, and costs 50% more than the F-16--basically as much as an F-15.

Japan considers itself the policeman of the western pacific, its forces are heavily oriented towards naval warfare, naval strike is one of the primary missions of the AF.

Overall, its A2A capability was not better than the F-16 in any way on account of its larger size (ignoring for a moment the AESA radar and the newer AAMs, which can technically be installed on the F-16 as well).

Coming back to the JF-17, yes, a larger aircraft would have gained range, and be a better a2g and marittime strike aircraft. But this would have come at the cost of its A2A performance. That is the entire point. Everything in aircraft design is a tradeoff. The PAF needed an air defence fighter more than it needed the strike aircraft. They still do. The JF-17 was the right air defence fighter they needed in 2000. It is not the right fighter in 2020.

Hi,


The reason the F2 cost more was japanese first time investment---new technologies---aesa---.

It was not to enhance the anti shipping capabilities per say---but to have superior anti shipping capabilities and range---.

That was the primary reason for the size---minimum 1 one thousand KG AShM's on each wing---.

Mastan Sb,

Thank you for your reply.

My post was more about why the JF-17 ended up the way it is, and how it was the pragmatic option 20 years ago (but not now). I was addressing why a 25% larger JF-17 airframe wasn't very feasible back then. I wasn't referring particularly to close combat performance. Close combat is a different topic, but the TWR and climb rate have a direct effect on BVR capability of the aircraft. During a scramble, unless a JF-17 can take off and rapidly climb and gain speed, it will be flying lower and slower than the intruding aircraft (Su-30MKI ). This will put it at a major disadvantage in BVR combat against the intruder. The SD-10 it launches will have drastically reduced range when fired from the low and slow flying thunder and will arrive at the target with lesser energy. The BVR missile fired by the intruder will attain close to its max range and will arrive at target with much higher energy as it will be diving from a higher altitude on the JF-17 when launched from a higher and faster plane. Thats why for BVR interception, a high rate of climb, fast acceleration and supercruise matter. these allow the plane to shoot missiles farther and the missiles retain more energy to pull high-G maneuves at the terminal phase.

All these would be affected negatively if the JF-17 were 25% and had the same engine. It would be in the size/weight range of the F-16 but with 30-40% lower thrust.

Your views on the sensor suite being behind our times are something I completely agree on. Which is why I pointed out that the Chinese industry was perfectly capable of producing a reasonably priced and capable IRST & ECM/ELINT suite by 2010.

Please do explain if I have missed something

Hi,

If pak air force has to depend on a high rate of climb to launch a SD10 at the right altitude---then the country has already lost the air war---.

The enemy will allow you to do it one time---maybe two---after that they will come out with strategy to neuter that capability---.

Also the RD93 would not be the forever engine for the JF17---.

Just like the current engine for the J20 is not a forever engine for the J20.

 

[wulff]

Primarily, what i wrote here:

Mastan Sb,

Thank you for your reply.

My post was more about why the JF-17 ended up the way it is, and how it was the pragmatic option 20 years ago (but not now). I was addressing why a 25% larger JF-17 airframe wasn't very feasible back then. I wasn't referring particularly to close combat performance. Close combat is a different topic, but the TWR and climb rate have a direct effect on BVR capability of the aircraft. During a scramble, unless a JF-17 can take off and rapidly climb and gain speed, it will be flying lower and slower than the intruding aircraft (Su-30MKI ). This will put it at a major disadvantage in BVR combat against the intruder. The SD-10 it launches will have drastically reduced range when fired from the low and slow flying thunder and will arrive at the target with lesser energy. The BVR missile fired by the intruder will attain close to its max range and will arrive at target with much higher energy as it will be diving from a higher altitude on the JF-17 when launched from a higher and faster plane. Thats why for BVR interception, a high rate of climb, fast acceleration and supercruise matter. these allow the plane to shoot missiles farther and the missiles retain more energy to pull high-G maneuves at the terminal phase.

All these would be affected negatively if the JF-17 were 25% and had the same engine. It would be in the size/weight range of the F-16 but with 30-40% lower thrust.

Your views on the sensor suite being behind our times are something I completely agree on. Which is why I pointed out that the Chinese industry was perfectly capable of producing a reasonably priced and capable IRST & ECM/ELINT suite by 2010.

Please do explain if I have missed something