JF-17's ferry and combat ranges

[Hell hound]

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Our analysis of the more likely JF-17 combat mission profiles has concluded. However, before MK posts pictures such as for the following payload validation flights and asks questions on them, we will for exercise's sake, calculate mission radii for them:

View attachment 356273JF-17 with two C-802/803 class air-to-surface missiles, centerline tank, and four air-to-air missiles

View attachment 356274
JF-17 with two CM-400 class air-to-surface missiles

---

Mission Profile X - Anti-Shipping Mission:

Internal Fuel + 800 Liter Drop Tank + Two CM-400AKG Anti-Shipping Missiles + Two SD-10A + Two PL-5EII
27,500 pounds Takeoff Weight [TOW]
6,300 pounds [4,600 liters] fuel
- 500 pounds taxi & takeoff
- 800 pounds climbout covering 50 nautical miles
- 1,200 pounds cruise 190 nautical miles to target
- 1,600 pounds reserves for five minutes combat (including two minutes afterburner use)
- 1,400 pounds bring back all drop tanks and missiles, climbout & cruise up to 240 nautical miles
- 800 pounds reserves for 20 minutes Sea Level Loiter or 200 nautical miles Divert
@ 240 nautical miles mission radius (@ 250 nautical miles with C-802s)

---

Mission Profile XI - Short-Range Strike:
Internal Fuel + 800 Liter Drop Tank + Two 2,000 Pound Bombs + Two SD-10A + Two PL-5EII
27,500 pounds Takeoff Weight [TOW]
6,300 pounds [4,600 liters] fuel
- 500 pounds taxi & takeoff
- 800 pounds climbout covering 50 nautical miles
- 1,200 pounds cruise 190 nautical miles to target
- 1,600 pounds reserves for five minutes combat (including two minutes afterburner use)
- 1,400 pounds bring back all drop tanks and missiles, climbout & cruise up to 240 nautical miles
- 800 pounds reserves for 20 minutes Sea Level Loiter or 200 nautical miles Divert
@ 240 nautical miles mission radius

Internal Fuel + Targeting Pod + Two 2,400 Pound Precision Guided Bombs + Two SD-10A + Two PL-5EII
27,000 pounds Takeoff Weight [TOW]
5,000 pounds [4,600 liters] fuel
- 500 pounds taxi & takeoff
- 800 pounds climbout covering 50 nautical miles
- 500 pounds cruise 80 nautical miles to target
- 1,600 pounds reserves for five minutes combat (including two minutes afterburner use)
- 800 pounds bring back all drop tanks and missiles, climbout & cruise up to 130 nautical miles
- 800 pounds reserves for 20 minutes Sea Level Loiter or 200 nautical miles Divert
@ 130 nautical miles mission radius

---

All notes as for previous strike mission examples.

You can see the effect of heavy payloads on a light airframe here. Of course, you can go slightly farther by being tighter with your combat allowances, or more likely the strike weapons can be carried on a two-ship (two aircraft formation) and a two-ship fighter escort can accompany them.

Still, the reality is that even if you have exact target location data and fighter escort, you might need a couple of minutes afterburner use in evading enemy defenses and disengaging from the attack while the escort take care of the defenses. As clarified in the notes for the previous posts, the actual mission radius is further reduced by takeoff afterburner use; atmospheric conditions; and routes, speeds, and altitudes adopted.

So all in all, the mission ranges we have calculated should be taken as optimum ranges and a considerable allowance should be made for all foreseeable (calculate-able as shown previously) and some unforeseen obstacles (maybe an arbitrary figure such as 25% of optimum range).

Alternatively, while having to operate at the limits of your range in order to strike long-range high-value targets, if you run into obstacles and don't have enough fuel left to reach the target and make it back to base, the mission will need to be aborted.

While martyrdom is a worthy ambition indeed, it is also the responsibility of the pilot to bring back his valuable assets so that both he and the plane can fly again to wreak more damage on the enemy. You have to make sure that your life and damage to your force's assets come at a far greater cost to the enemy. The only way to achieve this is to fly as many sorties (aircraft-missions) as possible before your time is up.

Also, note that we have allowed for the jettisoning of stores in some examples, in order to get a feel of what is possible. In reality, pilots will be loathe to waste even dumb (non-precision guided) bombs and cheap war-reserve drop tanks. Only when forced to close-range combat or when running low on reserves on the final leg back to base, will these options be seriously considered.

Over the coming weeks, we will attempt to compare the JF-17's ferry range and one to three of the relevant mission profiles with other active-duty fighter aircraft, Insha'Allah. This is an attempt to form a database of aircraft payload-and-range capabilities in realistic scenarios and to overcome the confusion and obfuscation spread on-line (sometimes by the manufacturers themselves).

Allah keep everyone safe.

sir i don't know if some one said it before or not but you are a great asset to this forum.it good to have someone like you here.

 

[Sine Nomine]

@Naif al Hilali what will be combat radius of JFT without any external fuel.Flying in clean configuration with weapon load.

 

[Naif al Hilali]

Salam and thank you very much for your brilliant and informative posts. Could you please also evaluate JFT's High speed Intercept Mission profile with 4X MRAAM and 2X WVRAAM missiles without external fuel and also with 1 800L center line tank.

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Thank you, brother. From what I have been told, the PAF pilots were given an option for more missiles or maximum fuel; they chose fuel. Let's examine this below:

First of all, please note that the smallest-sized formation you fly is a two-ship, and there might also be other air defense assets available (fighters aloft plus surface-to-air missile batteries). In the modern era, you have Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C or AWACS) aircraft guiding these, in addition to Ground Control radar stations. So, you do not fight in isolation.

Now, fighter engagements, as mentioned in the last post, do not last long. Either you are going to run out of fuel or your enemy is. The F-16A could win many Within-Visual-Range (WVR) training engagements over the likes of the MiG-29 because the MiG would have to disengage first as it ran out of fuel quickly (The F-15, even the better-ranged C model, when operating at equivalent distances from its base as the F-16, also ran out of fuel slightly sooner than the F-16).

Of course, the MiG was the first to get radar-guided Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) missiles, Helmet Mounted Displays (HMDs), and High-Off-BoreSight (HOBS) missiles. These allow the aircraft to take the first shots in both BVR and WVR regimes, and force the opposing aircraft to disengage and attempt to evade your weapons.

Now, in many versus many air combat (2v2, 2v4, 4v4, ...), you need to remain unseen as long as possible and try to get into an offensive position from which to launch the weapons you have. The lead aircraft is the one to fire and his wing man follows him and watches out that the formation does not get attacked by unseen enemies instead.

Due to the high fuel-burn and short combat engagement durations, if somebody does not get shot, one party will have to engage afterburners and turn away from the fight to be able to get back to its base. Even this is a victory for the opponent: If you get an attack aircraft or escort fighter to leave the combat arena, you have saved yourself from being bombed or gained an opportunity to shoot down the now-unprotected attackers. Conversely, being able to engage defending aircraft for as long as possible allows the attackers to complete their mission, engage burners and head back home.

Experience has shown that even in many vs many engagements, normally your two-ship can only get to launch two to four missiles. Considering that between the two of you, you have four radar guided BVRs and four infra-red guided WVRs (plus two sets of cannon), this armament load is more than sufficient. Running out of fuel and crashing into the ground is a more sure-fire way to hand victory to your enemy.

Now, the F-15C operates in conjunction with tankers and AWACS; and with good situational awareness and topping up its fuel tanks, can stay aloft for three hours or more and can safely launch its BVR AIM-120 AMRAAMs from a distance. As a result, their payload is usually four BVR AMRAAMs plus four WVR AIM9 Sidewinders (or even six AIM-120s plus two AIM-9s, recently).

We worked through four examples of the F-16 Supersonic Interception Profiles in the F-16 Discussions 2 Thread. These were not all meant to be real-world scenarios and were done to impress the effects of fuel, drag, supersonic flight, and weight on the fighter's performance. However, small nations such as some European operators of the F-16, that might have short radar-alert times, may employ the aircraft in this role. The two drop tank plus four (or six) missile configuration is more likely for the F-16 here.

For the JF-17, if it has to make a supersonic point-defense interception, it will be likely to have to launch in a configured-for CAP or Fighter Escort payload of three drop tanks and four missiles. It will climb in subsonic, cruise out at Mach 1.2-1.4 to make the interception, jettison its tanks if combat is required and return to base. However, it is more likely that the outbound leg will be undertaken in high-subsonic flight so that more fuel is left over for the actual combat engagement.

Anyway, the answer is that the fuel and missile payload you have stipulated for the JF-17 is unrealistic due to many factors. Thank you for the question - this is a (secondary) reason I have started these posts, in order to clarify a fighter's missions, payloads, and ranges for people confused by all the fan-boyism and mis-information on-line.

Hifz u kum Allah

 

[Shoaib Aziz]

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Thank you, brother. From what I have been told, the PAF pilots were given an option for more missiles or maximum fuel; they chose fuel. Let's examine this below:

First of all, please note that the smallest-sized formation you fly is a two-ship, and there might also be other air defense assets available (fighters aloft plus surface-to-air missile batteries). In the modern era, you have Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C or AWACS) aircraft guiding these, in addition to Ground Control radar stations. So, you do not fight in isolation.

View attachment 356301

Now, fighter engagements, as mentioned in the last post, do not last long. Either you are going to run out of fuel or your enemy is. The F-16A could win many Within-Visual-Range (WVR) training engagements over the likes of the MiG-29 because the MiG would have to disengage first as it ran out of fuel quickly (The F-15, even the better-ranged C model, when operating at equivalent distances from its base as the F-16, also ran out of fuel slightly sooner than the F-16).

Of course, the MiG was the first to get radar-guided Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) missiles, Helmet Mounted Displays (HMDs), and High-Off-BoreSight (HOBS) missiles. These allow the aircraft to take the first shots in both BVR and WVR regimes, and force the opposing aircraft to disengage and attempt to evade your weapons.

Now, in many versus many air combat (2v2, 2v4, 4v4, ...), you need to remain unseen as long as possible and try to get into an offensive position from which to launch the weapons you have. The lead aircraft is the one to fire and his wing man follows him and watches out that the formation does not get attacked by unseen enemies instead.

Due to the high fuel-burn and short combat engagement durations, if somebody does not get shot, one party will have to engage afterburners and turn away from the fight to be able to get back to its base. Even this is a victory for the opponent: If you get an attack aircraft or escort fighter to leave the combat arena, you have saved yourself from being bombed or gained an opportunity to shoot down the now-unprotected attackers. Conversely, being able to engage defending aircraft for as long as possible allows the attackers to complete their mission, engage burners and head back home.

Experience has shown that even in many vs many engagements, normally your two-ship can only get to launch two to four missiles. Considering that between the two of you, you have four radar guided BVRs and four infra-red guided WVRs (plus two sets of cannon), this armament load is more than sufficient. Running out of fuel and crashing into the ground is a more sure-fire way to hand victory to your enemy.

View attachment 356303

Now, the F-15C operates in conjunction with tankers and AWACS; and with good situational awareness and topping up its fuel tanks, can stay aloft for three hours or more and can safely launch its BVR AIM-120 AMRAAMs from a distance. As a result, their payload is usually four BVR AMRAAMs plus four WVR AIM9 Sidewinders (or even six AIM-120s plus two AIM-9s, recently).

View attachment 356308

We worked through four examples of the F-16 Supersonic Interception Profiles in the F-16 Discussions 2 Thread. These were not all meant to be real-world scenarios and were done to impress the effects of fuel, drag, supersonic flight, and weight on the fighter's performance. However, small nations such as some European operators of the F-16, that might have short radar-alert times, may employ the aircraft in this role. The two drop tank plus four (or six) missile configuration is more likely for the F-16 here.

For the JF-17, if it has to make a supersonic point-defense interception, it will be likely to have to launch in a configured-for CAP or Fighter Escort payload of three drop tanks and four missiles. It will climb in subsonic, cruise out at Mach 1.2-1.4 to make the interception, jettison its tanks if combat is required and return to base. However, it is more likely that the outbound leg will be undertaken in high-subsonic flight so that more fuel is left over for the actual combat engagement.

Anyway, the answer is that the fuel and missile payload you have stipulated for the JF-17 is unrealistic due to many factors. Thank you for the question - this is a (secondary) reason I have started these posts, in order to clarify a fighter's missions, payloads, and ranges for people confused by all the fan-boyism and mis-information on-line.

Hifz u kum Allah

Thank you very much brother for a long and generous reply. I myself was considering it to be only a hypothetical scenario and wanted to compare the combat circle with that of F-16 you calculated under similar load. Moreover, the situation could be unrealistic in case of PAF, but don't you think another smaller air force operating JFTs might require supersonic interception of them, albeit with only 4X missiles and external tanks.

 

[Naif al Hilali]

Moved posts

Ranges are also posted here
https://defence.pk/threads/specifications-of-jf-17.297636/

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

It was very nice of Manticore to create a thread for me. These were very nice graphics put together by him and were one of the first striking things I saw, when I found out about this site (last year, I think).

However, beware (through no fault of the very diligent senior moderator) that there are serious errors specially in the first graphic above. In particular, most of the F-20's data are lifted from the completely different F-5E (a problem shared by Wikipedia if I remember correctly). Even then, I don't know from where they pulled one measure out of. Well, I might have an idea.

Anyway, comparing performance measures without standardizing on a set of metrics (ways and methods to calculate said measures from) is a fruitless exercise at best. This is why over the past few weeks, we have discussed and posted a lot of analysis to find out ways we can confidently analyze and compare the range and payload measures for fighter-attack aircraft.

To rectify the F-20 errors in the graphic quoted, please allow me to re-post the following figures. Even here, there are two sets of figures on the net. The realistic ones follow underneath (they will also serve to pictorially illustrate what we have been discussing):

F-20 Tigershark Cut-Away Drawing

F-20 Weapons Loadout Chart

Thank you very much brother for a long and generous reply. I myself was considering it to be only a hypothetical scenario and wanted to compare the combat circle with that of F-16 you calculated under similar load. Moreover, the situation could be unrealistic in case of PAF, but don't you think another smaller air force operating JFTs might require supersonic interception of them, albeit with only 4X missiles and external tanks.

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Even the PAF might, if it were needed to get from Kamra to Kahuta quickly (say) and save a couple of minutes. Please note the F-20 no-tanks air-superiority figure above (some of the reserves assumed by Northrop are not as strict as ours, so all its miles and minutes are not directly comparable to our JF-17 numbers).

Hifz u kum Allah

 

[Manticore]

Thankyou for the kind words
The original pic is from afm (or some other reputable magazine I dont remember after 9years when I first read some of its parts at keypublishing). The article was published way back when northrop was trying to get U.S sales. So the data is of the 80s and not complied by me, rather the article might be funded by northrop. The pic is online since 2009. The fading words/letters is a dead giveaway that its a pic from an old magazine chart. What it gives is a comparison of T20 to the single engine fighters operated at that time and in our environment even pertinent today

http://s146.photobucket.com/user/sampaix/media/F-20-Doc.jpg.html

 

[Naif al Hilali]

The original pic is from afm (or some other reputable magazine I dont remember after 9years when I first read some of its parts parts at keypublishing). The article was published way back when northrop was trying to get U.S sales. So the data is of the 80s and not complied by me, rather the article might be funded by northrop. The pic is online since 2009. The fading words/letters is a dead giveaway that its a pic from an old magazine chart

http://s146.photobucket.com/user/sampaix/media/F-20-Doc.jpg.html

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Thanks but all the numbers are wrong. The massive amount of mis-information on the F-20 on-line threw me for a whole year. The material I have posted is the likely genuine Northrop marketing material (and even doctored versions of that are available on-line).

I have generally found US manufacturers and the US defense branches to be accurate in their numbers (if you know what you are reading). Jane's is also circumspect; my 2005-2006 issue of their All The World's Aircraft listed SAAB's mission radius for the Gripen but not its ferry range due to the slight obfuscation from SAAB on this matter.

Even my Bill Sweetman book on the F-16 has the YF-16 and F-16A data all mixed up on the last page. With all due respect for Sweetman, the publisher's errors don't make the numbers gospel.

The F-20 had a larger wing (200 sq. ft. vs. 186 sq. ft.), was heavier, and had more range than the inefficient turbojet-engined F-5E.

Also as an example, the US Navy Fact File for the F-5N/F-5F gives extremely accurate ranges but what the first figure, 2314 miles, alludes to is anybody's guess (one refueling, two stops along the way, what ...):

Service
USN, USMC, USAF and current worldwide air forces

Point Of Contact
Naval Air Systems Command
Public Affairs Department
47123 Buse Road, Unit IPT Bldg. 2272, Suite 075
Patuxent River, MD 20670-5440
(301) 757-1487

General Characteristics
Contractor: Northrop Grumman.
Date Deployed: F-5N First flight: March 2003; F-5F First Flight: September 1974.
Propulsion: (2) J85-GE-21C turbojet engines each producing 5,000 pounds (2,273 kg) of thrust.
Length: F-5N: 47 feet 4.7 inches (14.4 meters); F-5F: 51 feet 7 inches (15.7 meters).
Height: F-5N: 13 feet 4.25 inches (4.1 meters); F-5F: 13 feet 1.75 inches (4.0 meters).
Wingspan: F-5N/F: 26 feet 8 inches (8.1 meters).
Weight: F-5N/F5F: Maximum Design Takeoff Weight is 24,722 pounds (11,214 kg). Maximum Design Zero Fuel Weight is 9,723 pounds (4,410 kg).
Airspeed: F-5N: Mach 1.64 at 36,000 feet; F-5F: Mach 1.56 at 36,000 feet; F-5N/F: Maximum Dive Pull-Out = Mach 1.68; Aircraft Placard Number = Mach 2.0 at 31,000+ feet.
Ceiling: F-5N/F-5F: 50,000+ feet.
Range: Maximum: 2,314 miles (4,286 kilometers). F-5N Ferry: 825 miles, clean; 1,155 nautical miles, with centerline fuel tank; 1,340 nautical miles, with three 275 fuel tanks; 1,545 miles, tanks dropped. F-5F Ferry: 745 nautical miles, clean; 1,075 nautical miles single tank; 1,270 nautical miles three tanks and 1,455 nautical miles three tanks dropped. (These include 20 minutes reserved for landing.).
Crew: F-5N: 1; F-5F: 2
Armament: AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles on wingtip launchers.

Last Update: 17 February 2009

Anyway I apologize; I did not intend to pick any arguments. Just wanted to show how critical you have to be if you want to make an accurate analysis of anything.

Hifz u kum Allah

 

[YeBeWarned]

@Naif al Hilali you are Welcome Addition to PDF sir ... your Posts are easy to read and even somewhat understandable to a layman like me ... Keep it coming Brother

 

[Desertfalcon]

Great read over at War is Boring:
​

B-17s unload over Germany in March 1945. U.S. Air Force photo
America’s Over-Hyped Strategic Bombing Experiment
Bombers blasted the Hell out of Pantelleria

You totally lost me on this one. What has this got to do with the JF-17?

 

[Naif al Hilali]

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

You totally lost me on this one. What has this got to do with the JF-17?

Moderator moved this here by mistake also. It was in reply to a discussion on the previous thread.

I did not complain as the heavy bomber / light CAS asset impact on the psychological side of war had a slight relevance to what we intend to discuss later.

Thanks for the observation.

@Naif al Hilali you are Welcome Addition to PDF sir ... your Posts are easy to read and even somewhat understandable to a layman like me ... Keep it coming Brother

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Thank you for the welcome, brother. I am particularly concerned about the readability part - I am learning as I go along. Pictures and media help here but I had enough on my plate with the mathematical analysis, research, and the write-ups themselves. There were also problems as there were a lot of restrictions on my account as a new user.

Unfortunately my language and vocabulary are somewhat limited and I cannot seem to be able to break open a thesaurus and tone down the verbiage (definition 1: overabundance of words, definition 2: manner in which something is expressed - prime example of that right here).

Thankfully, the great part of exposition and debate are over with now and we can just present the results of the analysis (and pretty pictures) from here on forward.

Also, I must re-iterate here that I am an engineer (non-aeronautical) and not a pilot. I would love for the flying and tactics part to be explained by a seasoned pilot but there is a paucity of them on this forum. Even the engineering side would be better explained by a real engineer from the relevant field.

Being an engineer does have the advantage of giving you great empathy for the end-user (your client) and you have to learn to understand and appreciate their needs and design for these requirements. This helps in understanding and then explaining concepts such as flying and fighting to others.

An advantage of being a relative layman myself is that I have to learn everything from the experts myself (sans the intricate calculus) and can distill it down to fundamental principles and very simple terms. This should help other laymen in understanding the concepts, if they can get past the language.

Thank you again for a wonderful welcome; I had been anxious about being shot down and torn to pieces by the flamers and the trolls but finally registered on the forum after much introspection.

Allah keep everyone safe.

 

[Naif al Hilali]

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Our analysis of the more likely JF-17 combat mission profiles has concluded. However, before MK posts pictures such as for the following payload validation flights and asks questions on them, we will for exercise's sake, calculate mission radii for them:

View attachment 356273JF-17 with two C-802/803 class air-to-surface missiles, centerline tank, and four air-to-air missiles

View attachment 356274
JF-17 with two CM-400 class air-to-surface missiles

...

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Had an excellent question on another thread why the aircraft in the first picture above was so dirty. Since this was a question very germane (relevant) to this thread and specially the unspoken question answered above, we will briefly look at the why of the dirt below:

The short answer was that this is probably a Development Testing & Evaluation (DT&E) aircraft and unlike operational squadron aircraft, these are flown a lot more to test all sorts of likely and unlikely payloads. Hence the dirt, soot, and sometimes gunpowder (& other ejecta) residue.

Normally, for an aircraft under development, there would be a few DT&E aircraft set aside or deputed to a central testing center (say Kamra for the JF-17). The responsibilities of this unit include:

1. Testing the aircraft under all flight regimes and charting the limits of its capabilities - takeoff & landing limitations, speed & altitude limits, g- (maneuvering) limits at various speeds & altitudes, ...

2. defining payload limits for takeoffs, landings, level flight, maneuvering flight, ...

3. testing all combinations of payload to
a) determine how many of these combinations can be taken off with, flown safely, and landed with ...
b) the interference effects of one payload with the others in both level and maneuvering flight.
c) separation limits, that is, at what speeds, altitudes, and g- (maneuvering) limits the weapons can be launched; how many at a time; and in what order ...

4. determining flying times and combat ranges for all payload combinations.
etc.

DT&E is the probable reason we went from the SAAB Gripen style Multiple Ejection bomb Racks (MERs):

to the F-16 style bomb carriage that can be employed better in a rolling attack without it hitting the drop tanks

DT&E testing (along with static load tests of the wings) probably also showed that the three drop tank plus four 250kg bomb payload was un-realistic. The wings have been strengthened since

but probably not the landing gear (whose strength is a defining limit for both taxi and landing weights), and anyway, the centerline station seems to be reserved for the ASELSAN targeting pod now.

Now after DT&E, some aircraft are also separately assigned to a fighter weapons tactics school (say something like CCS Sargodha, though Kamra may handle this portion of the workload in Pakistan). A primary responsibility of such schools (in addition to training instructor pilots, sometimes, and squadron commanders) is to develop tactics for using the fighter:

1. for attack missions
a) deciding what payloads to employ for which missions ...
b) devising tactics to deceive and evade enemy defenses with said payloads ...
c) practice these evasive techniques, delivering the weapons to a practice range, and getting the aircraft safely back to base ...

2. in case of air combat training
a) devising tactics to detect enemy fighters ...
b) approaching the enemy undetected ...
c) employing your weapons and electronics to effectively attack the enemy ...
b) repeating for all possible Defensive and Offensive Counter Air (DCA & OCA) situations ...

So the best person to ask the whats and whys of all of the above is the fighter pilot who has done it all. As before, please Google for, download, and read "Sierra Hotel - Flying Air Force Fighters in the Decade after Vietnam" by C.R. Anderegg for the history of the development of USAF fighter weapons tactics.

Hifz u kum Allah

@graphican

 

[Signalian]

@Mentee

The ferry ranges for JF-17 that you have been looking for are posted here.

 

[khanasifm]

Ferry 3000 km with 3 tanks at high altitude

A2A ~1400km with 3 tanks

A2G 1000 km with 3 tanks

I think with one tank or no tanks A2G is 700 km

There was a presentation video in Dubai few years ago

 

[khanasifm]

That’s why j-10c does not bring much in range as it’s range is pretty much same as jf

but can carry more load ~6000 kg and bigger dia radar not sure how much of a difference is that perhaps 800-900 mm jf vs 1000/1100 mm dia ?? Guessing

F-16 ferry range is 36/3900 km

And a2A range is ~1800 km

A2g is about ??