Kashmir front - High Wing loading JF17, F-16 and Mi35

[abdulbarijan]

I find it really funny, how the thread is started with the whole tirade of " Don't derail this thread" and how this thread is concerning "certain design aspects" concludes in how "IAF IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK"

Two serious points though

- The exact wing area of JF-17 might not even be known, I've seen the 24 odd square meters figure from the time PT01 was around. The production JFT is based on PT-04 with LERX, which in of itself provides more wing area and as a resultant a lower wing loading. Just a comparison ..

-As far as engine power is concerned, here is a summarized version of all the credible information available on the engines and as a resultant the T/W ratio.

Poster for the claims by Kilmov - ( The manufacturer of the RD-93 engine.) stating the thrust from 79-98 KN.

Quote of Wg Cmndr. Ronald Felix regarding the engine thrust ..

Our very own contributor @Tempest II reporting back from Farnborough, UK in 2010 ...

Now, I have slept and rested after a loong day at the show and can write a little bit more:

1. Concerning the TWR, he said this after I specifically asked about the thrust of the RD-93. I was asking this because I still find it hard that the RD-93 is based on RD-33 Series 1. The pilot then said to me, "What I can tell you is the thrust-to-weight ratio. Do you know what that is?" I said "yes". And he said, the RD-93 will give the plane a TWR of over 1:.1.1." I started asking about the loading conditions (how much fuel and minutions) it will be carrying to come to this figure. He got his attention take away by other ppl and then they had to go and do a TV interview.

Squadron Leader Nadir Ali around 2 minute mark in the following video...

In addition, you have the vertical takeoff at Paris, with the tires out producing a huge drag yet the jet still goes in to a vertical climb ... There are also snippets of good vertical performance in the Zhuhai airshow 2011, and Paris air show 2015. In addition you can also look at the following video where you see quite aggressive climbing performances ..

The sources that mention the 19,000 lbs class thrust are as following ..

Izmir airshow chart 2011 - 19391 lbs or 86.2 KN
PAFWallpaper.com - 19391 lbs or 86.2 KN
PAC poster at IDEAS - 19200 lbs or 85.4 KN
PAC website - 19,000 lbs or 84.5 KN

Even among these sources we can see quite a variation, the latest claims come from the pilots who fly the aircraft, be it Wing Commander Ronald or Sq Leader Nadir ... the engine thrust is rated as quite high which gives a T/W above 1 .. which has been practically demonstrated in the Paris airshow ...

 

[karakoram]

As, I already mentioned you are another cow special drink drinker and hiding to be some dumb Caribbean island guy, you retard brainless jerk the first part of the video is animation! Did you ever heard about animation besides a poor indian guy living in isolated a tiny country which have no existence? Talking about Pakistan? Lol we have many things better than USA and UK look like our brave Army and ISI spy agency, if you are an Indian then you coward always feeling shame for being called an Indian due to rape situations prevailing in your wn country, and if you are not you are the first dumb illiterate Caribbean island joker which i have seen on PDF forum where he doesn't watched full video and complain first part of the video as animation<< This sounds proves as you are a complete stupid, dumb, illiterate as i was correct at first part LOL! Indians feeling shame living in their own country, lol you are ashaming of living in your tiny country so called landlocked joker's island? Caribbean island full of joker because they only are dumb jokers and isolated from rest of the world being in landlocked condition, that's why living in Jamaica because living in TINY NO EXISTENCE A SMALL LAND COUNTRY SO CALLED DUMB Barbados has no existence outside the world except to the Caribbean island full of mad jokers and dumb people like you?

Mate its a serious thread why are you trolling please stay on topic or else moderators will ban you. @Oscar

 

[.]

I think the PAF regularly flies Air patrols over kargil heights and JF17 is designed as a BVR combat aircraft,So it doesn't really matter if its Low powered or whatever.

 

[Alpha BeeTee]

I'm trolling? Just double check mate, that guy was rude to me and calling my proud JF 17 fighter jet a joke, and any Pakistani can't bear that when something against his country or country things is said, and my blood boils when someones said this regarding my country. So, it's not trolling it was counter post which i have made to that jerk guy simple as that cheers

You need to control your boiling blood if you are to stay on pdf otherwise you will find yourself entertaining the trolls 24/7 and you will become a joke urself in the process.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

I highly doubt that as I recall an interview by your ACM or AM stating that F-16s are essential in anti terror roles which no other aircraft in your inventory can perform or something to that effect.

There are a few other reasons for the use of F-16's. This does not imply JF-17 is not capable.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

More like Heliborne infantry.



A few points :

1. Pakistan Gunships like Cobra has primary Anti Tank role in Plains of Southern Punjab and Sindh.
2. The helicopter role in kashmir is more of transport/supply/med Evac role.
3. Primary doctrine of the Armed forces in Kashmir is Offensive rather than defensive. Pakistan wants to take Kashmir.

1. Thats pretty much the main role that attack helicopters provide, anti-vehicle. Theres no way a ground offensive can be conducted in Kashmir without vehicles given its hilly and mountainous terrain, so helis such as the cobra are suitable for quick strafe runs, and tank defense.

2. I agree, and the bell helis are for the most part transport and evac helicopters, they can also be equipped with machine guns/ rockets but I believe that the army primary uses them in non-combat roles.

3.Pakistan Army doctrine is defence, i saw a program on tv a week ago where the reporter went to the LOC in azad Kashmir and the local commander told him how they've placed all of these defensive fortifications (bunkers, trenches, bases), and placed weapons at strategic points, he mentioned specifically that the Indian Army outnumbers them, so the policy has primarily adapted to defense, however he also mentioned that if they had to go offense then they have detailed plans and strategies for that.

 

[MilSpec]

just because it is from CAG, and not from the IAF personnel or the maintenance crew, doesnt mean it holds less weight, may be more.

The fact that the MKI regardless of its long range or heavy payload capability does not change the fact that less availability does hamper its operators capability beyond any doubt. How good is the range and payload when your aircraft spends most of the time at maintenance depot?

Lastly, i would appreciate if you ask your fellow members to rather open constructive threads instead of formulating elaborate troll invitaions.

Hope this cleared the Smog.

I did not attribute any lesser value to the CAG audit report, How about backing your 90% claim now with a similar report by a internal auditing agency?

Again service rate of Long range fighter doesn't turn it into "so called " long range fighter, does it? SR 71 and Mig25R and U2 were both High Altitude Recon Aircrafts, their service rates did not determine their role but their design intent did.

 

[Spectre]

I did not attribute any lesser value to the CAG audit report, How about backing your 90% claim now with a similar report by a internal auditing agency?

Again service rate of Long range fighter doesn't turn it into "so called " long range fighter, does it?

It is probably off topic but can you elaborate on why LCA has considerably lesser range (combat radius- 500 -700 kms) as compared to JF-17having combat radius of 1300-1500 kms (as advertised).

 

[MilSpec]

It is probably off topic but can you elaborate on why LCA has considerably lesser range as compared to JF-17 (as advertised)

Different evaluation load outs for estimating standard performance.

 

[Spectre]

Different evaluation load outs for estimating standard performance.

Thought as much, can't defy physics (yet)

 

[Irfan Baloch]

In case of war, heavy concentration of air power will be in regions with plains and deserts. Nobody uses heavy, concentrated air power in extremely high battle ground regions---especially in presence of SAMs, enemy ground forces with shoulder anti-aircraft weapons, and so on.

Having said that, I do not see any reason as to why JF-17 Thunder can not operate in Kashmir/Gilgit region. PAF can deploy JF-17s in point defense roles with BVRs and WVRs missiles. You don't have to have bombs on every hardpoint. Furthermore, air-to-air refueling can be used to fuel JF-17s in air after they take off with minimum fuel in the tanks etc.

PAF has deployed JF-17s in mountainous regions of Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan--and seems quite happy with the performance of the jet.

a picture and a video of JF-17 in the northern areas of Pakistan.

 

[ghazi768]

It is probably off topic but can you elaborate on why LCA has considerably lesser range (combat radius- 500 -700 kms) as compared to JF-17having combat radius of 1300-1500 kms (as advertised).

I think you are mixing things up, combat range is a very subjective term, can change significantly based on mission profile. Also I do not think that Tejas range or ferry range will be significantly less or more than Jf-17, for their full fuel loads with drop tanks they'll have comparable ranges.

 

[araz]

This thread is not about glory or weakness of JF17 but about a certain design aspect please stay on that if you can else dont post and derail.

While reading about Pakistan defence procurement and equipment I come across this thought many times, PDF seems to be a good place where experienced professionals can help me understand it better.

Right from '47 attack on Kashmir, Pakistan had tried various strategies to conquer Kashmir irrespective of means and so far all our conflicts/wars are more concentrated in that particular area. Whenever there will be next war it will again concentrated more in Kashmir as opening another front in Punjab, Rajasthan or Gujarat wont be possible for Pakistan and its more like an advantage of India to open these front. Having said that our future conflict/war is generally limited to high altitude warfare in Kashmir.

Now when the objective is clear the preparedness or doctrine will be accordingly but while examining some important assets of Pakistan I am little surprised that is just opposite to it, I will take just two examples here.

JF17 :

Keeping aside all the who wha of trolls, I would like to talk about it more objectively and its role. As I have said Indo-Pak war is more limited to Kashmir domain and its India that is more likely to open another front on low altitude International border rather than Pakistan, I would like to know how will JF 17 fare in Kashmir.

Two basic aspect I would like to discuss about is:
1) Wing area of JF-17 is just 24.4 sq.mtr. which makes it ridiculously high wing loading which in turn favors it at supersonic speeds but induce a big penalty during take off.

2) Engine of JF17, PAF have so far miraculously managed low crash rate even with single engine jet of Russian engine (kudos to them) but the thrust of RD 93 coupled with low wing area makes it even more grim to take off with high loads and at high altitudes I wonder will it ever take off with all 7 hardpoints occupied with full load even with KM's long airstrip.

I would like to know why PAF preferred a low wing area and low powered jet as its backbone of airforce when they are most likely to fight in high altitude only and these two factors combined induces penalty on performance in those altitudes.

Beside the low number of Airbase in Kashmir, I am yet to see JF17 in Kashmir area (if anyone else have link of performance please share.). The JF17 bases are in Karachi, Peshawar and none in Kashmir or any mountainous area (info based upon wikipedia).

Mi35 :

This is again a heavy beast, though only 4 are on order, Pak will buy more in future for sure. Now they are kept for western border of Pakistan, mostly for anti terror ops but a machine of this caliber limited just to no air threat Jihadis is not wasting the capability of it? Wouldn't it be good with limited resources to buy more versatile or multirole machines that can help Pakistan in Kashmir, the only place they need serious power.

We have to use Mi17 last time in Kargil even after having Mi 35.

They again cant be used in Kashmir against India.


Now comparing this to India, which is most probably preparing exclusively for high altitude warfare with low wing loading Tejas or double engine long range Su30MKI and high altitude gunship LCH it seems India is on right track for mountainous warfare. While PAF doctrine/preparedness looks like mystery that how will they fight in Kashmir with old F-16 against Flankers and other IAF assets.


I would like to keep this discussion more of academic than troll fest, tagging a few username I know please add more and if there is mod please keep it clean. @MilSpec @hellfire @PARIKRAMA @MastanKhan

You asked for a troll free environment, yet you made assumptions which will invariably lead to a troll fest. Any ways you posed questions which require answers. However, By the same token I request that if we respond with counter suppositions that you and your colleagues dont troll the thread.
You have assumed that all future warfare will be in kashmir. I will counter that it will be in kashmir as well as in the plains. On the assumption that we dont mutually turn into toast within the first day due to lack of trust between the two countries, as soon as the pressure mounts on Kashmir, pressure relieving measures in the form of opening other fronts, so you will see warfare in the desert as well as the plains of Punjab. The likelihood is that beyond lobbing of shells in each other,s laps along with any cruise missiles, we may not see much action in Kashmir.
As far as air action, there will be air action but the platforms may well be at risk from Manpads mounted on mountain tops. as has been observed during the Kargil affair.
With regards to aerial warfare, people have already answered your query regarding JFT taking off from Skardu. I suspect we will fly with 1/3 tank get fuelled in air and be up up and away. So that hypothesis does not hold.
You have included Tejas in your equation. I think a platform with a range of 250-300 miles at best and having problems and not yet inducted, it is highly presumptuous of you to include it in the equation. Personally , if the US deal goes through I think Tejas may well assume the role of tech demonstrator and will slowly fade away as to my inexpert eye, its service utility is minimal especially in the time it will take you to induct it in enough numbers for it to be relevant. This is my opinion and I dont troll so take it or leave it.
M2Ks remain a threat in the high environment and they are in many ways ideal for the High of the hi - lo environment. So they will remain a potent risk. However, one thing which I have never understood and I am sure someone will elaborate on it, is the utility of a bomb truck in an environment where enemy bases are so close to each other, both countries have at least mid range SAM cover, and are armed with MRAAMS. In a close in aerial warfare I think the likely loadout will be4+2+1 (bvr+wvr+dt) for an aerial encounter. With the lethality of MRAAMs increasing with each iteration I think the likelihood is it will be a case of shoot and scoot to reload. It is here that you have a problem with your beautiful MKIs which are more prone to being tempramental and therefore likely to need more TLC. You will invariably have a blockade of spares from the french as per International rules so it is another matter as to how long the M2Ks will last. We will have a similar problems with the 16s. So the likelihood is that initial salvos of CMs will be followed by attempted parries with platforms, a few BVRs will be fired and then both parites will confine themself to " come inside if you dare" and confine their activities to inside their own terrain.
I suspect at some stage this empasse will be broken and an aerial warfore will happen. This may happen once the vollies of CMS may compromise the aerial defence environment for both sides. Your MKIs will have the advantage here as they can fly longer disatance, however, if you invade the likelihood of losses is going to be high and a 1:3 loss is a reasonable one to assume. Because your MKI will carry more armaments I suspect that loss may be 1:2 but even then you will lose more platforms and the MKI serviceability will hurt you badly.
I dont know diddly about land battles so will keep myself awy from it but suspect the losses will be high on both sides.
I think the real battle will be on the seas and this is where you are infinitely better equipped than us. UI suspect that this side of 2020 you will be able to execute a naval blockade which may well choke us . Post 2020, is a long way for me to see so i will keep away from it. Our agostas mauy well down a couple of your ships but we will lose one or two platforms and then the response will become muted.
The major proviso to all of this hogwash is that we have enough trust to assume that the CM hurtling down our way is a conventional one and not nuke tipped. That is not going to happen so all bets will be off once a salvo is fired.
May God protect the people on both sides of the border.Amen.
A

 

[amardeep mishra]

You asked for a troll free environment, yet you made assumptions which will invariably lead to a troll fest. Any ways you posed questions which require answers. However, By the same token I request that if we respond with counter suppositions that you and your colleagues dont troll the thread.
You have assumed that all future warfare will be in kashmir. I will counter that it will be in kashmir as well as in the plains. On the assumption that we dont mutually turn into toast within the first day due to lack of trust between the two countries, as soon as the pressure mounts on Kashmir, pressure relieving measures in the form of opening other fronts, so you will see warfare in the desert as well as the plains of Punjab. The likelihood is that beyond lobbing of shells in each other,s laps along with any cruise missiles, we may not see much action in Kashmir.
As far as air action, there will be air action but the platforms may well be at risk from Manpads mounted on mountain tops. as has been observed during the Kargil affair.
With regards to aerial warfare, people have already answered your query regarding JFT taking off from Skardu. I suspect we will fly with 1/3 tank get fuelled in air and be up up and away. So that hypothesis does not hold.
You have included Tejas in your equation. I think a platform with a range of 250-300 miles at best and having problems and not yet inducted, it is highly presumptuous of you to include it in the equation. Personally , if the US deal goes through I think Tejas may well assume the role of tech demonstrator and will slowly fade away as to my inexpert eye, its service utility is minimal especially in the time it will take you to induct it in enough numbers for it to be relevant. This is my opinion and I dont troll so take it or leave it.
M2Ks remain a threat in the high environment and they are in many ways ideal for the High of the hi - lo environment. So they will remain a potent risk. However, one thing which I have never understood and I am sure someone will elaborate on it, is the utility of a bomb truck in an environment where enemy bases are so close to each other, both countries have at least mid range SAM cover, and are armed with MRAAMS. In a close in aerial warfare I think the likely loadout will be4+2+1 (bvr+wvr+dt) for an aerial encounter. With the lethality of MRAAMs increasing with each iteration I think the likelihood is it will be a case of shoot and scoot to reload. It is here that you have a problem with your beautiful MKIs which are more prone to being tempramental and therefore likely to need more TLC. You will invariably have a blockade of spares from the french as per International rules so it is another matter as to how long the M2Ks will last. We will have a similar problems with the 16s. So the likelihood is that initial salvos of CMs will be followed by attempted parries with platforms, a few BVRs will be fired and then both parites will confine themself to " come inside if you dare" and confine their activities to inside their own terrain.
I suspect at some stage this empasse will be broken and an aerial warfore will happen. This may happen once the vollies of CMS may compromise the aerial defence environment for both sides. Your MKIs will have the advantage here as they can fly longer disatance, however, if you invade the likelihood of losses is going to be high and a 1:3 loss is a reasonable one to assume. Because your MKI will carry more armaments I suspect that loss may be 1:2 but even then you will lose more platforms and the MKI serviceability will hurt you badly.
I dont know diddly about land battles so will keep myself awy from it but suspect the losses will be high on both sides.
I think the real battle will be on the seas and this is where you are infinitely better equipped than us. UI suspect that this side of 2020 you will be able to execute a naval blockade which may well choke us . Post 2020, is a long way for me to see so i will keep away from it. Our agostas mauy well down a couple of your ships but we will lose one or two platforms and then the response will become muted.
The major proviso to all of this hogwash is that we have enough trust to assume that the CM hurtling down our way is a conventional one and not nuke tipped. That is not going to happen so all bets will be off once a salvo is fired.
May God protect the people on both sides of the border.Amen.
A

Hi dear @araz
I will begin my response touching two major areas from your comment-
(a) Tejas
(b) Wing loading of JF-17 and how it might potentially define the instantaneous and sustained turn rates.
I would like to make it very clear that I do not wish to delve into the strategy of war fighting and certainly the figure of 1:2 or 1:x is rather debatable and would depend on a lot of parameters viz- network centricity,sophistication of the platform,various countermeasures,degree of threat in which either of aircrafts fly etc etc. I will leave this debate to other members and shall focus on (a) and (b) on strictly technical lines.

(a)Tejas as you have wrongly pointed out wont be just a "experimental technological demonstrator".It was and is supposed to replace the mig-21s. It sure wont be a cutting edge or even IAF's top of the line fighting platform but it will fulfill itz intended role in bigger scheme of things in IAF. India has already spent close to $2.5-$3bn(by varying estimates) on just the R&D of tejas. This R&D includes a lot more than you can fathom sitting in the comforts of your room. A lot of pakistanis who are not familiar with any kind of research let alone aerospace research keep making brazen remarks without knowing the true contribution of various labs and colleges like my own that went into Tejas- this kind of "industry-academic" interaction doesnt even exist in pakistan!

(b) Wing loading.
Wing loading is an important parameter in aerial dogfighting but it ALONE doesnt quantify the sustained turn rates.If you ever had a chance to analyze the EM graph,you would quickly point out that the maximum instantaneous turn rate occurs at the max possible "G" or load factor and at a velocity that is also known as corner velocity.

Picture Courtesy: SimHQ
In the graph above the solid line that envelops everything else corresponds to ITR(instantaneous turn rate). For this particular aircraft the max ITR occurs when a 6g turn is pulled at somewhere around 260mph. But we need to ask this question can we sustain this turn or for that matter any turn?By sustaining a turn I mean,can be make a turn "without bleeding any energy" and hence "altitude"?To answer this question we need to go a bit deeper.
Lets imagine we calculated that top corner velocity using very simple calculations and got some results ,lets call it x dps. To pull x-dps,we can also calculate the corner speed ,lets call it V1.To ascertain whether we can sustain this rate,all we need to do is find the drag coefficient which is famously given by drag polar and using it find the drag!Lets call the drag we obtained in previous step as D1. If our Tmax<D1- then we can NEVER sustain that turn rate no matter what!
The aircraft will loose energy and hence height as indicated by dotted lines below that top bold line.The rate at which aircraft will loose altitude is determined by "how far you're away from STR line".The STR line is the solid line in the middle of the graph which has 0 written over it and itz corner shows the max STR possible.That 0 also indicates that if you're on that line,you wont be loosing any energy hence altitude.

You see,a sustained turn rate is perhaps a more useful parameter from dogfight perspective vis-a-vis ITR that merely works as a sign post-where you want to eventually go to. Theoretically speaking ,sustained turn rate is a kind of turning maneuver where thrust is strictly equal to drag. Lets call this condition (1).It is because of this condition that wing loading is inversely proportional to the turn rate. Condition (1) is also sometimes known as "un-constrained" case.
But condition (1) can at times gives mis-leading information as we have not included two major constraints in a flight-
(a) Clmax-max Cl possible
(b) Nmax- or max load factor- structural or aerodynamic limit.
So,ideally speaking our job is to maximize the turn rate equation,subjected to following equalities or inequalities-
(1)T=D
(2)Cl=Clmax
or
(3)n=nmax
We have to choose between (2) and (3),and as my calculations show (2) normally yields higher sustained dps than (3).

PS-if you want to see all the calculations,I can post screenshots of my rough.
PSS- skardu is almost 1000m lower than Leh airbase.
@Oscar

 

[ziaulislam]

I dont know diddly about land battles so will keep myself awy from it but suspect the losses will be high on both sides.
I think the real battle will be on the seas and this is where you are infinitely better equipped than us. UI suspect that this side of 2020 you will be able to execute a naval blockade which may well choke us . Post 2020, is a long way for me to see so i will keep away from it. Our agostas mauy well down a couple of your ships but we will lose one or two platforms and then the response will become muted.
The major proviso to all of this hogwash is that we have enough trust to assume that the CM hurtling down our way is a conventional one and not nuke tipped. That is not going to happen so all bets will be off once a salvo is fired.
May God protect the people on both sides of the border.Amen.
A

this is where air force comes in, the very reason why you should have strong air force, antiship missles, presence of gawadar will make it very difficult o do a full blockage due to its location, if they start targeting sea vessels outside in international waters, than a tit for tat is very easy

the only way naval blockade is possible if they achieve air superiority over Pakistani territory