Pakistan needs to Accelerate Development of newer Blocks of JF-17 Thunder

[Ultima Thule]

Has a radar cross section of 0.05m2 which is very good, very good sensors, top class data link, and many more features.. JF-17 radar cross section is 5m2?

where are you get those figures that grippen has a RCS of 0.05m2? its basically a scantion prone jet lots of technology from US in it

 

[Akasa]

#4 JAS 39E/F NG Gripen: (SWEDEN)
-HMD: (Cobra)
-AESA Radar: (Raven ES-05 detection range 1m2 150 km and aerial targets >14 targets)
-Weapons: (1× 27 mm BK-27 120 rounds, 2x IRIS-T 12 km, and 10x Meteor 100 km or 10x AIM-120C7 50-80 km)
-Avionics: (Skyward-G is an advanced infrared search and track (IRST), BOL is a high capacity dispenser for chaff and flare, BOP/B chaff, flare and expendable decoys, EWS39 is a modular integrated Electronic Warfare, Modular Reconnaissance Pod System (MRPS), Digital Joint Reconnaissance Pod (DJRP), and BOW-21 is a modular radar warning receiver)
-Turbofan Engine: (1 × F414-GE-39E, Mach 2 and Super cruise 1.2)
-Performance: (Maximum Range: 3,250 km, Ferry Range: 4,000 km, RCS: 0.05 square meter, Service Ceiling: 50,000 ft, Combat Radius: 1,300 km, Rate of Climb: 50,000 ft, Thrust/weight: 1.06, and Max Maneuvering Load Factor: +9 g)

China don't have good tech yet. NG Gripen is worth it.

There is nothing on the Gripen NG that cannot be found on other Chinese aircraft.

 

[The SC]

THIS ARTICLE WILL HELP EXPLAIN the limitations of JF17 in its current block 2 configuration

ITR ,STR , HMD & HIGH OFF BORE SIGHT MISSILES:

This for all those who are of the opinion that F16 has better turn rate and hence will win a dog fight. This downright ignorance.

Delta wing jet fighters gave better Instantaneous Turn Rate (ITR) and poor Sustained Turn Rate (STR) , when compared with swept wing fighters like F16 (strictly speaking F16 is a cropped delta design) . Delta wing fighters also have better supersonic maneuverability than swept wing fighters.

Now combining better ITR , Helmet mounted display , which enables look down - shoot down capability , pilot just needs to point the nose of the aircaft in the general direction of the enemy fighter , lock on to it and launch his High offbore sight missiles like R73 , which allow for off bore sight upto 60 degrees. So the fighter need not turn in a sustained manner to lock on to the enemy fighter and cannons are the last resort only after everything else fails to work as it was supposed to.

This allows a delta wing fighters like Mirage 2000 & TEJAS to have an upper hand over F16 in dog fights, especially when mounting combat air patrols.

The article was comparing F16 with delta Fighters armed with HMD/HOBS.

The THEORY applies to JF17 as well.

IN A DOG FIGHT Thunders will struggle against DELTA/HMD/HOBS combo

Having said that MAYBE the JF17 idea concept is standoff strike missions & BVR engagement only.

However, some sources dispute the value of maneuverability of fighters in the contemporary and near future environment, given the expected abilities of medium-range air-to-air missiles to out-turn, outrun, and out-accelerate any manned aircraft, and the ability of new short-range missiles (with helmet sights) to be launched at a very wide range of angles and with a very high probability of hits. The extreme version of this view states that any aircraft will do, as long as it can carry the missiles and radar. In exercises using the new missiles, pilots report using only a small fraction of their available maneuverability, and that in WVR (within visual range) combat “everybody dies at the same rate”, and “F-5 or a MiG-21 with a high-off-boresight missile and HMD is as capable in a 1-v-1 as an F-22” . As to the validity of this argument, it is worth noting that the F-22 (on the basis of the estimates presented here) has a very high thrust-to-weight ratio, low wing loading, and thrust vectoring to improve maneuverability; but whether this maneuverability is simply a remnant of its 1980’s genesis is open to question. There are also plans to upgrade the thrust of, and possibly add thrust vectoring to, the Typhoon. If these plans are implemented, it would be reasonable to assume the users of the Typhoon still regard maneuverability as an important combat feature.

http://www.***************/comparison-of-modern-fighter-aircraft-17086/

Has a radar cross section of 0.05m2 which is very good, very good sensors, top class data link, and many more features.. JF-17 radar cross section is 5m2?

JF-17 has tiny RCS due to DSI technology

Take a look at these figures from Russia:

And these from western sources (RCS)

RCS (m2) RCS (dB)
automobile 100 20
B-52 100
B-1(A/B) 10
F-15 25
Su-27 15
cabin cruiser 10 10
Su-MKI 4
Mig-21 3
F-16 5
F-16C 1.2
man 1 0
F-18 1
Rafale 1
B-2 0.75 ?
Typhoon 0.5
Tomahawk SLCM 0.5
B-2 0.1 ?
A-12/SR-71 0.01 (22 in2)
bird 0.01 -20
F-35 / JSF 0.005 -30
F-117 0.003
insect 0.001 -30
F-22 0.0001 -40
B-2 0.0001 -40


Obviously what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof..

 

[Zarvan]

JF-17 Block II , Pakistan


Jf-17 Block 2
Our mounting aversion to the idea of Pakistan spending any money towards new-built F-16C/D Block-52+ is no secret, and our strong support for the JF-17 Thunder is well-established.

As a general point, the greatest value of the JF-17 (at least for Pakistan) does not rest in its performance, but in the reality that Pakistan has authority over the platform. By “authority” we refer to the fact that the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) can configure the JF-17 according to its will. This is the most essential point. While the F-16 is inherently the superior platform in terms of performance and quality, the PAF does not have the luxury to push the Viper to its available potential.

Just consider the fact that the PAF cannot readily integrate a high off-boresight (HOBS) air-to-air missile (AAM) onto its F-16s without U.S. approval of some shape or form. Even HOBS AAM that have been technically cleared for the F-16, such as the IRIS-T (developed by the German company Diehl BGT), cannot be configured onto the PAF’s F-16s without the U.S.’ approval. It would basically have to wait on America’s willingness to release the comparable AIM-9X; and this story is repetitive – the PAF’s F-16s have yet to be equipped with stand-off weapons (SOW), anti-ship missiles (AShM), and anti-radiation missiles (ARM).

On the other hand, despite the JF-17’s comparatively limited performance, the PAF has been able to arm the JF-17 with the C-802 AShM, and has the H-2/H-4 SOW and MAR-1 ARM in the pipeline (if not in the process of integration). And as we have repeatedly stated in earlier articles, it is the JF-17 that has a HOBS AAM, active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar, infrared search and track (IRST), and air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) integration in the pipeline – not the PAF’s F-16s. What benefit does the F-16’s multi-role prowess offer the PAF when that prowess is gradually eroding in the face of the Indian Air Force (IAF) and Indian Navy (IN)’s impressive qualitative advancements?

Finally, there is the reality that unlike the F-16, the PAF benefits from an increasingly adept domestic base capable of thoroughly supporting the JF-17. Yes, Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) is a novice in terms of being an aerospace industry entity, but it is gradually and incrementally becoming capable, despite the difficult political and economic limitations Pakistan throws onto itself. The workshare agreement has shifted 58% of the JF-17’s airframe manufacturing to Kamra, and efforts are underway to bring a maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) for Klimov turbofans as well. With the maintenance and support channel being domestic, the PAF can draw upon the benefits of assured and affordable accessibility. The necessities produced in Pakistan (and in some cases imported from China and Russia) are at the affordable side of the cost-spectrum; the money that goes back into PAC also goes back into Pakistan.

To be honest, the points being explained in this article are mostly earlier ideas being conveyed from a different set of angles, but they set the basis of why it is important to consider ideas about next steps, not just for the PAF, but for PAC and the JF-17 Thunder program.

The F-16 (and import route generally) has become a difficult path to take on, hence the reason why it is imperative that domestic development now take on a much higher level of importance. The PAF ought to seriously consider the value of bringing more of the airframe manufacturing to Kamra. China has been a dependable partner, but urgency and the desire to not take relationships for granted needs to be adopted.

There is a learning curve and a lot of building blocks to set-up, but the expertise and infrastructure built for the JF-17 will prove valuable for future projects. Make no mistake, a unique and independent program is not going to happen, but Pakistan could potentially (one day) offer something of tangible value to an outside partner. We are not talking about ground-breaking research, but at least a chance at becoming a viable co-production partner (that could help pull costs down), or capable licensed manufacturer of more sophisticated sub-systems, etc. It would be a huge shame if – like the K-8 Karakoram – the JF-17 program ends up at a plateau, and then just stays flat from an indigenization and development standpoint.

The PAF should also be critically averse to the notion of capping the JF-17. In other words, the fighter must not be relegated into becoming just a ‘second-tier’ fighter (relative to other fighter options for the PAF). For all intents the purposes, the geo-political and economic reality has made the JF-17 the backbone and edge-driver of the PAF fighter fleet. By “edge-driver” we refer to the idea of it being the platform where the PAF has the flexibility to keep up with qualitative changes in South Asia, such as the eventual entry of AESA radars. While the PAF must not waste funds, the PAF ought to ensure that the JF-17 Block-III (and potentially Block-IV and Block-V) are equipped with the most appropriate – in terms of the cost-to-performance ratio – subsystems available. It would be a shame to see a less capable AESA radar (e.g. via less transmit/receive modules than possible) due to prohibitive costs (which could have been avoided by walking away from a certain F-16 deal).

Finally, it is no secret that the PAF and PAC have been seeking to secure export clients for the JF-17. There is some substantive potential, but again, it is important that the PAF/PAC are careful with next steps. At some point, it may be prudent to clearly separate work between domestic and export variants of the JF-17. In terms of export, some areas could be accelerated, such as the procurement of a helmet-mounted display and sight (HMD/S) or HOBS AAM. Subsystems such as radars and electronic warfare (EW) and electronic countermeasure (ECM) suites for export-grade JF-17s could be acquired from the market; the risk for the PAF is minimal because it would not necessarily intend to use those systems for itself. The PAF cannot let its own requirements get guided by the market, but on the other hand, it cannot muddle the needs of prospective clients with its own, which is what happened with the omission of the dual-seat JF-17 in the initial years of the JF-17’s development.

http://www.asian-defence.net/2016/05/pakistan-needs-to-accelerate.html

If JF-17 B dual seater can carry multi racks and two BVR each on those racks than Pakistan should produce 50 of them. We also need to get AESA radar for first two BLOCKs and escalate work on BLOCK III.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

We should not be getting comparable planes to f16, we need plane with some close to stealth features, good radar, good missiles, good sensors, cheap to operate.. My vote goes to NG Gripen E.

They refused to sell us gripens in the past. Secondly we should change our strategy and induct strong air defense systems.

 

[araz]

They refused to sell us gripens in the past. Secondly we should change our strategy and induct strong air defense systems.

All the talk of Gripen is a lot of water under the bridge. The Swedes did not want to sell us their offensive weaponry. However it never made sense to buy something in the class of which you are developing A COMPARABLE FIGHTER. If you observe closely the development cycle of the Thunder has been a lot quicker than the Gripen possibly because of the fact that we were playing catchup. Let us not be in any delusion and say that the Gripen NG is as good as JFT3 as the later is not out yet and the NGs sophistication is apparent for all to see.
From the sanctions point of view, The Gripen would have been equally prone to get sanctioned and your ability to integrate weaponry from multiple sources would not have been there. So in many ways the Thunder carries many advantages for us which any other fighter would not have. We should stick to what we have control over.
A

 

[Centurion2016]

However, some sources dispute the value of maneuverability of fighters in the contemporary and near future environment, given the expected abilities of medium-range air-to-air missiles to out-turn, outrun, and out-accelerate any manned aircraft, and the ability of new short-range missiles (with helmet sights) to be launched at a very wide range of angles and with a very high probability of hits. The extreme version of this view states that any aircraft will do, as long as it can carry the missiles and radar. In exercises using the new missiles, pilots report using only a small fraction of their available maneuverability, and that in WVR (within visual range) combat “everybody dies at the same rate”, and “F-5 or a MiG-21 with a high-off-boresight missile and HMD is as capable in a 1-v-1 as an F-22” .

THIS is 100% MY POINT TO PDF MEMBERS

The emergence of HMD/HOBS missles make agility and maneuverability less crucial.

THE IAF are well AHEAD OF PAF in this game ALL 500 air combat fighters have HMD and OFF BORE SIGHT wvr missles. From Russia Israel & France .

IN CONTRAST Not only is the JF17 lacking this crucial technology so are the F7 mirages and EVEN the older F16s

in dog fights PAF are at the mercy of IAF

 

[CrusherChamp]

All the talk of Gripen is a lot of water under the bridge. The Swedes did not want to sell us their offensive weaponry. However it never made sense to buy something in the class of which you are developing A COMPARABLE FIGHTER. If you observe closely the development cycle of the Thunder has been a lot quicker than the Gripen possibly because of the fact that we were playing catchup. Let us not be in any delusion and say that the Gripen NG is as good as JFT3 as the later is not out yet and the NGs sophistication is apparent for all to see.
From the sanctions point of view, The Gripen would have been equally prone to get sanctioned and your ability to integrate weaponry from multiple sources would not have been there. So in many ways the Thunder carries many advantages for us which any other fighter would not have. We should stick to what we have control over.
A

True

THIS is 100% MY POINT TO PDF MEMBERS

The emergence of HMD/HOBS missles make agility and maneuverability less crucial.

THE IAF are well AHEAD OF PAF in this game ALL 500 air combat fighters have HMD and OFF BORE SIGHT wvr missles. From Russia Israel & France .

IN CONTRAST Not only is the JF17 lacking this crucial technology so are the F7 mirages and EVEN the older F16s

in dog fights PAF are at the mercy of IAF

My dear bro. Dont forget it dog fight pilot skills r the most important thing. Ok i have few questions for u. 1 is jf17 equipt with wvr misiles. 2 if yes then do u think PAF pilots dont know how to use them withoUT HMD. Oh yes there is 1 more thing the surface area and combat radius of jf17 is greater than tejad and migs. In dog fight if jf17 is flying above u and u cant go up further what do u think will happebd?

True


My dear bro. Dont forget it dog fight pilot skills r the most important thing. Ok i have few questions for u. 1 is jf17 equipt with wvr misiles. 2 if yes then do u think PAF pilots dont know how to use them withoUT HMD. Oh yes there is 1 more thing the surface area and combat radius of jf17 is greater than tejad and migs. In dog fight if jf17 is flying above u and u cant go up further what do u think will happebd?

And yes i am not trying to say that jf17 dont nead HMD OR OTHER UPGRADES ALL I AM TRYING TO SAY IS PAF THINK TANK KNOWS THE NEEDS OF PAF AND WELL AWAIR OF THE PROBLEMS THAY R FACING REGARDING THESE UPGRADES

 

[khanasifm]

All caps means you are shouting

 

[Centurion2016]

Thunder has to remain the core project ........FOR ALL reasons you mentioned.. like sanctions like add and improve...

BUT for THUNDER to fight and effective against a massiuve fleet of SU30MKI mirage2000/rafale combo and over 120 mig29smt/k & now Tejas

YOU NEED TO INVEST IN THS PLANE and SOON.

HMD and /HOBS MISSLES have to procured from a western soiurce
New AESA RADARS
better more modern engine leaving less smoke and having less maitenamce

Above all bigger variety of weapons CURRENTLY thunder uses CHINEASE weapons only
improve the engine with more compsites to reduce RCS

all of this will add $ 30 million per plane

but THE THUNDER will be closer match to Gipen anf F16/52/60

TODAY its one STEP above F7/MIRAGE 3/5 and 2 steps BEHIND gipen F16 mirage2000/5

 

[CrusherChamp]

Br

Thunder has to remain the core project ........FOR ALL reasons you mentioned.. like sanctions like add and improve...

BUT for THUNDER to fight and effective against a massiuve fleet of SU30MKI mirage2000/rafale combo and over 120 mig29smt/k & now Tejas

YOU NEED TO INVEST IN THS PLANE and SOON.

HMD and /HOBS MISSLES have to procured from a western soiurce
New AESA RADARS
better more modern engine leaving less smoke and having less maitenamce

Above all bigger variety of weapons CURRENTLY thunder uses CHINEASE weapons only
improve the engine with more compsites to reduce RCS

all of this will add $ 30 million per plane

but THE THUNDER will be closer match to Gipen anf F16/52/60

TODAY its one STEP above F7/MIRAGE 3/5 and 2 steps BEHIND gipen F16 mirage2000/5

Bro calm down. JFT block 1 and 2 r not built to fight mirage 2000 su 30 or rafil. First 50 block 1 and second 50 of block 2 r just build to replace f7 and mirage which r not upgraded by Turkey. After that thay r not going to keep building block 2 and definately start building block 3 which will b far more siperiir than block 1 and 2. And will be able to compeat with grephen In Sha Allah.

 

[WarFariX]

Good, you can find the original source here

http://quwa.org/2016/05/02/next-steps-pac-jf-17-thunder/

SAVAGE

 

[MastanKhan]

Br


Bro calm down. JFT block 1 and 2 r not built to fight mirage 2000 su 30 or rafil. First 50 block 1 and second 50 of block 2 r just build to replace f7 and mirage which r not upgraded by Turkey. After that thay r not going to keep building block 2 and definately start building block 3 which will b far more siperiir than block 1 and 2. And will be able to compeat with grephen In Sha Allah.

Hi,

Welcome to the forum----. Aircraft are not build to just replace older aircraft for the sake of replacement---. They are build to fight the current enemy aircraft and come out ahead---.

If the BLK1 or BLK2 don't fit some of that criteria---then the air force Generals have comitted treason against the state for getting a sub par weapon.

 

[I FLY HIGH]

Hi,

Welcome to the forum----. Aircraft are not build to just replace older aircraft for the sake of replacement---. They are build to fight the current enemy aircraft and come out ahead---.

If the BLK1 or BLK2 don't fit some of that criteria---then the air force Generals have comitted treason against the state for getting a sub par weapon.

absolutely right , if that is the case all the Jf17 blocks must be upgraded to block 3 as soon as possible.

 

[CrusherChamp]

Yes

Hi,

Welcome to the forum----. Aircraft are not build to just replace older aircraft for the sake of replacement---. They are build to fight the current enemy aircraft and come out ahead---.

If the BLK1 or BLK2 don't fit some of that criteria---then the air force Generals have comitted treason against the state for getting a sub par weapon.

Thanks bro.

Yes buddy u r wright aircrafts r build to fight. But not build to fight each and every aircraft of the world. All the aricrafts have their specific rowl. The thing is can thay perform their rowl well enoughef. For example f22 raptor is the best killing machine then whu us airfirce build a lighter aircraft f 35. Or lets say gripen is not build to fight f22 raptor or PAK T 50. I Think u r getting my point. Its is all about ur needs. Beside i think PAF can easily upgrade block 1 and 2 into block 3 in mid life upgrade because air frame is same.