So how good is Pakistan’s JF-17 fighter? Analysis from RUSI think-tank’s Justin Bronk

[!eon]

Well, even JF17 blk-I and II interlinked to a AW&C can take on them furthermore we have F-16 block 52/50 and PAF has an excellent experience and expertise on flying these machines. This first week thingy is so ridiculous ...what makes you believe all AW&C will be gone in the first week? and I don't think the war will last for multiple weeks..a full fledge conflict may transition from conventional to nuclear in matter of days.

Where you can hide your AW&Cs from long range g 2 a in war , have you depth in your airspace for that ?
Don't think about block 52/50 in war. It's even ridiculous to rely on US equipment in current scenario. Where were your F-16s hiding in Kargil conflict, when IAF was butchering your soldiers ?

Nukes are another story to discuss, and Uncle knows all locations of your nuke facilities.

Thinking enemy weak and not prepared has fatal consequence, again and again in history. Do you really satisfied with PAF war preparations ?

 

[war&peace]

Where you can hide your AW&Cs from long range g 2 a in war , have you depth in your airspace for that ?
Don't think about block 52/50 in war. It's even ridiculous to rely on US equipment in current scenario. Where were your F-16s hiding in Kargil conflict, when IAF was butchering your soldiers ?

Nukes are another story to discuss, and Uncle knows all locations of your nuke facilities.

Thinking enemy weak and not prepared has fatal consequence, again and again in history. Do you really satisfied with PAF war preparations ?

Well, most of the members on this thread complaint of your ignorance and nonesensical tirade but I instead gave a serious rejoinder to your below average contribution. But now I have to ignore your rants. So have a good day..

 

[BATMAN]

PS: Maneuverability of the Indian MKI is not the same as an Su-27. Because of increased weight and the second seat, it has much higher wing loading, a short hand for lower EM performance.

Sure... i meant at least not better than SU27, while J11 is even better.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

I think @!eon makes an important point about the survivability of AWACS on all sides.

It is a plausible case. As AWACS are basically overburdened airliners. Given the proliferation of very long ranged AAMs and in the future stealth aircraft, it is very possible they won't survive particularly well. Plus, there are very few of them on either side, its not like they can be easily replaced.

Perhaps in the future we will see more survivable AEW&C aircraft.

The MKI will be fielding Russian LRAAM which have incredible range.

There was a very interesting poster on Keypub, probably Israeli, Sanem who was suggesting some innovative tactics that could be relevant:

1. An SRBM type missile with a payload of multiple BVRAAM to be launched towards incoming groups of fighters
2. UAVs that circle around an AEW&C aircraft, protecting it with BVRs and, if needed, taking a hit for the AEW&C. Reminds me a bit of the Voldremort vs the wizard in Harry Potter and their fight at the Ministry.. LOL

 

[deep_blue]

and Putin coming to buy one more maneuverability than theirs ... it's jf-17 .. their are sitting ducks ... no missile can reach jf17 ..

Cool down man.you are getting too much emotional.

 

[CriticalThought]

I think @!eon makes an important point about the survivability of AWACS on all sides.

It is a plausible case. As AWACS are basically overburdened airliners. Given the proliferation of very long ranged AAMs and in the future stealth aircraft, it is very possible they won't survive particularly well. Plus, there are very few of them on either side, its not like they can be easily replaced.

Perhaps in the future we will see more survivable AEW&C aircraft.

The MKI will be fielding Russian LRAAM which have incredible range.

There was a very interesting poster on Keypub, probably Israeli, Sanem who was suggesting some innovative tactics that could be relevant:

1. An SRBM type missile with a payload of multiple BVRAAM to be launched towards incoming groups of fighters
2. UAVs that circle around an AEW&C aircraft, protecting it with BVRs and, if needed, taking a hit for the AEW&C. Reminds me a bit of the Voldremort vs the wizard in Harry Potter and their fight at the Ministry.. LOL

Actually modern AEWACs are equipped with chaff/flares and possibly even with DRFM decoys. They aren't 'just' going to take out an AEWACs, it will be operating behind multiple levels of fighter escorts. You think PAF is aiming for 10 AEWACs just to get them blasted out of the sky in the first week?

 

[!eon]

Well, most of the members on this thread complaint of your ignorance and nonesensical tirade but I instead gave a serious rejoinder to your below average contribution. But now I have to ignore your rants. So have a good day..

No answer ? run away

 

[araz]

I am looking it from the point of view of, what if a JF-17 Thunder Block 2 goes head to head against a Block 40 F-16. Does it have a better than 50% chance against it? And the answer is, yes definitely. It won't be a walk in the park for Thunder, but neither for Block 40. This is how my comment should be interpreted.



Those SU-30 MKIs can wield up to 10 BVRs. It all depends on how the Indians want to wield them. Our strategy is to shoot first, kill first.



And although our strategy is to shoot first/kill first. there is a reasonable chance of both platforms surviving the initial exchange. In this case, the merge will ensue.

I am lamenting the fact that people often take on comparisons on a one on one basis which is wrong. It will be a system on system warfare and integration within that system should be considered. One on one comparisons are good only if you compare like for like but if you field a heavy against a light on an individual basis the light aircraft will encounter problems.
The SU series are real beasts. I really admire them. However in a war arena IAF will maximally field a configuration of 4+4 or 6+4.(BVR to WVR). The strategy will be to shoot and Scoot so it will be a case of who sees whom first. I think if you let loose a salvo of BVRs the enemy will be busy counteracting it rather than stay around and find an enemy platform to fry. With enemy bases within 2.-300 miles of each other, for a defensive role it may be a case of sending 3-4 fighters within a 5 minute gap so as soon as the first wave has emptied out the other wave is on their way to take up the guarding role(entirely my thinking and could be totally wrong). I think it will be foolish to stand around and find out what happened to the plane you fired at. I think in the next 5 years the engagement of fighters will become totally different and the advantage will be to the side that can turn their planes around sooner. If the fighters can remotely control UCAVS then the war planning will take a totally different route altogether and the requirement may yet change. However that scenario is yet too far away to consider.
One can ask why then is the IAF fielding twin engined jets. The answer is simply the terrain they have to cover. With the exception of the Naval patrolling and the relative safety of twin engined/long ranged jets we dont need them for land cover for lack of depth of the country. The advent of IFR has been an attempt to circumvent this deficiency.
A

 

[CriticalThought]

I am lamenting the fact that people often take on comparisons on a one on one basis which is wrong. It will be a shstem on system warfare and integration within that system should be considered. One on one comparisons are good only if you compare like for like but if you field a heavy against a light on an individual basis the light aircraft will encounter problems.
The SU series are real beasts. I really admire them. However in a war arena IAF will maximally field a configuration of 4+4 or 6+4. The strategy will be to shoot and Scoot so it will be a case of who sees whom first. I think if you let loose a salvo of BVRs the enemy will be busy counteracting it rather than stay around and find an enemy platform to fry. With enemy bases within 2.-300 miles of each other it may be a case of sending 3-4 fighters within a 5 minute gap so as soon as the first wave has emptied out the other wave is on their way to take up the guarding role. I think it will be foolish to stand around and find out what happened to the plane you fired at. I think in the next 5 years the engagement of fighters will become totally different and the advantage will be to the side that cwn turn their planes around sooner.
One can ask why then is the IAF fielding twin engined jets. The answer is simply the terrain they have t0 cover. With the exception of the Naval patroling and the relative safety of twin engined/long ranged jets we dont need them for land cover for lack of depth of the country.
A

You are right. India has strategic depth, and the long legs of SU-30 means IAF has many more options. For example, pull back the jets and fly from the safety of deeply situated bases, while rocketing and bombarding PAF front line bases. At this point, no amount of 'heavy fighters' will save the day for us. They will be sitting ducks on the ground.

But, one on one comparisons are done all over the world, and for good reason. It gives a summarized view of capabilities. It lets you compare one on one the different aspects of the platform on offer. It is great for showcasing your own capabilities, and it underlines what deficiencies you have. Yes, it is system on system, but systems comprise individual elements, and such comparisons show you where to upgrade. You really can't compare system with system - it's too complex. You could run simulations, but how do you ensure they are realistic? The only real test of system on system is actual war. So short of a full on war, one on one gives you a taste of where you stand.

 

[araz]

Very well written and most logical response on this thread. JF-17 can not be viewed in isolation. What will make it a credible threat is the over all support system around it in terms of net centric capabilities and IFR. Certainly, a JF-17 supported by AWACS, on home skies and piloted by experienced aviator will be a nightmare for any enemy and this is the reason why it was originally conceived. Exactly why 1-on-1 comparisons fall flat.

Having side this, it’s clear JF-17 needs better engines. Hopefully, block III will correct this

The engines are another story. There are weaknesses there some of which have been corrected and some arexin the process of being rectified. The RD93MA is due out in 2018. Knowing the red bear and its efficiency it will be in no hurry to bring out the newer engines. What might coax it into action is if WS13 or some equivalent engine makes it to the fore. Turkey's involvement with the EJ series has also to be viewed with interest as well and of the financial condition of Pakistan which is currently grim improves(and it seems less and less likely) we may venture into that. However are we then stepping from the frying pan into the fire? Can we afford to anger the only supplier currently willing to field and engine to us? Will the engines also be prone to sanctions which will no doubt be put on as we are and remain a thorn in the side of the great game. My main worry is our leadership is so clueless to what is approaching ahead.
A

What makes you think it’s designed to dance? Lol you guys are simply hilarious or ignorant.

I won’t delve deep into the subject but there is a reason Su 30 is regarded as an able competitor to western fighters on the twin engine segment.

Just look at the passive BARs radar spec and find out how colossal the power ratio and how long it’s range in look up mode.

There is a reason Su 30 is called mini AWACS. And if you talk about the RSS of this fighter both at low speed and max out then couple that with 3D thrust vectoring, you will understand what it can do.

Yehh yehh!! We have heard all of that before. This is not a thread about the SU series. Confine the discussion to the topic at hand. If you have a huge radar with huge output and detecting range you will also light up the sky with your huge RCS adding to it with the crown jewels you will hang out to show to the world. So this argument works both ways.
A

SU-30 is capable to stop in midair search pugachev cobra maneuver.

Look no one denies it is a beautiful and potent platform. But is it right for this theatre where FOBs are nearby and the adversary is fielding small RCS planes which on a frontal view will be eifficult to spot till too late. Your fighters turn around time will be larger needing more maintenance and these planes are maintenance heavy!.! So even if you have a very exaggerated 50% Turn around time half your fleet is going to be on the ground all the time. So there is a lot to be said for small easily turnaround able fighters. The overall results will depend on a lot of factors some known and some unknown. Both parties have developed strategies against the other. How do they work out? PAF has done its work against the Chinese SUs. How did that go for it? What did they learn and what changes were implemented and how effective has it been?. What info is available to the IAF ? What steps have they taken and how has that increased their efficiency and efficacy?. Arm chair generals like me dont have this sort of information.
The other factors are how is the Pak Govtt going tp handle the upcoming onslaught. They have shown themselves to be incapable of dealing with anything. Perhaps the IAF may not have to do anything and Pak politicains with their greed and infighting will do the job for them.
A

Really ?e

First you make some sense and explain how's that disadvantage ...

@!eon. If you want to argue a point do so coarently and with respect. You have made fun of a poster but not said a word about your own point of view. This is not very nice. So please if you wantcto debate do so but dont make fun of poster's point of view without presenting a counter narrative.
Thanks.

You won’t survive to see the day when flanker tries JF. Pun intended.

If some says so then you walk out of that debate. It’s like saying 1300cc doesn’t stand a chance with 2500cc. I don’t think he meant that. All you need to do is talk with maturity.

OK! So you want to talk, lets talk. Tell me first what you know about the JFT. By your own post parameters need to be set first.
Secondly set you scenario in which the IAF will configure an attack, how you will load your platform and what will be the strategy. Then let us play it out here.
A

 

[!eon]

If you really want to know then you should have gone back to comment from where it all started, then come to me and tell I am guilty. Don't pick just one random comment out of fight.

The engines are another story. There are weaknesses there some of which have been corrected and some arexin the process of being rectified. The RD93MA is due out in 2018. Knowing the red bear and its efficiency it will be in no hurry to bring out the newer engines. What might coax it into action is if WS13 or some equivalent engine makes it to the fore. Turkey's involvement with the EJ series has also to be viewed with interest as well and of the financial condition of Pakistan which is currently grim improves(and it seems less and less likely) we may venture into that. However are we then stepping from the frying pan into the fire? Can we afford to anger the only supplier currently willing to field and engine to us? Will the engines also be prone to sanctions which will no doubt be put on as we are and remain a thorn in the side of the great game. My main worry is our leadership is so clueless to what is approaching ahead.
A


Yehh yehh!! We have heard all of that before. This is not a thread about the SU series. Confine the discussion to the topic at hand. If you have a huge radar with huge output and detecting range you will also light up the sky with your huge RCS adding to it with the crown jewels you will hang out to show to the world. So this argument works both ways.
A


Look no one denies it is a beautiful and potent platform. But is it right for this theatre where FOBs are nearby and the adversary is fielding small RCS planes which on a frontal view will be eifficult to spot till too late. Your fighters turn around time will be larger needing more maintenance and these planes are maintenance heavy!.! So even if you have a very exaggerated 50% Turn around time half your fleet is going to be on the ground all the time. So there is a lot to be said for small easily turnaround able fighters. The overall results will depend on a lot of factors some known and some unknown. Both parties have developed strategies against the other. How do they work out? PAF has done its work against the Chinese SUs. How did that go for it? What did they learn and what changes were implemented and how effective has it been?. What info is available to the IAF ? What steps have they taken and how has that increased their efficiency and efficacy?. Arm chair generals like me dont have this sort of information.
The other factors are how is the Pak Govtt going tp handle the upcoming onslaught. They have shown themselves to be incapable of dealing with anything. Perhaps the IAF may not have to do anything and Pak politicains with their greed and infighting will do the job for them.
A


@!eon. If you want to argue a point do so coarently and with respect. You have made fun of a poster but not said a word about your own point of view. This is not very nice. So please if you wantcto debate do so but dont make fun of poster's point of view without presenting a counter narrative.
Thanks.

@araz this is way he started discussion with me. I don't know him earlier .. I am not so active member. I would reply to his respect and also to his disrespect.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/so-h...anks-justin-bronk.545942/page-7#post-10282274

 

[araz]

You are right. India has strategic depth, and the long legs of SU-30 means IAF has many more options. For example, pull back the jets and fly from the safety of deeply situated bases, while rocketing and bombarding PAF front line bases. At this point, no amount of 'heavy fighters' will save the day for us. They will be sitting ducks on the ground.

But, one on one comparisons are done all over the world, and for good reason. It gives a summarized view of capabilities. It lets you compare one on one the different aspects of the platform on offer. It is great for showcasing your own capabilities, and it underlines what deficiencies you have. Yes, it is system on system, but systems comprise individual elements, and such comparisons show you where to upgrade. You really can't compare system with system - it's too complex. You could run simulations, but how do you ensure they are realistic? The only real test of system on system is actual war. So short of a full on war, one on one gives you a taste of where you stand.

I will confine my answer to your first paragraph. You are absolutely right in that the IAF will pull back its force barring a token one from its FOBs and fight from behind. It will be the most sensible strategy as most FOBs with in a couple of hundred miles will be gone in 24 hours due to long range stand off weapons. However it does put PAF at a disadvantage as well. Being held back means more time to reach station to engave enemy allowing yime for them to straff close to the border areas and return. How does one counter this? You can have planes take off with a 4+2 configuration plaus a central tank and half feul refuel in air and loiter on patrol. You cannot have ARPs anywhere near the war zone as they will need protecting as will your AWACs. With good coordination the leader holds back and directs planes towards bogeys with secure radio and radars off.
Enemy enters aCombo of 16s and JFT encounters. 5he 16s use their EW Suite to take care of the enemy jwmmers and JFTs let off their arsenal and immediately return to base. The second wave is ready and in air to approach the area in 2-3 minutes to take care of any stragglers. So attrition ratez may be higher on the enemy side. The enemy may also institute countermeasures, however I doubt one will remain in the arena once the missiles are let loose. So the advantage may be for the SUs to ready themselves into positions to counter the onslaught and take on fighters as they enter the arena. They will will not have that time depending on how muchctime PAF takes to get the sefond wave of fighters. If it comes on before the SUs recover from the original onslaught then IAF will have no option but to return to base and look for another opportunity. Attrition on both sides depends on who firse first when they fire ie in the missile's kill zone or on the periphery, what the robustness of the missile is against countermeasures and experience of the pilots. Isuspect there may b3 wome attrition on the offensive side depending on how quickly they can spot the attackers and this is where the game will lie. If they cannot then it will be high attrition especially if the missiles function to their full capability. For the defenders the real game is not to be spotted . If they fail in this they will become vulnerable.
My own assessment therefors feel free to shred it to bits. It is after all just my opinion.
Regards.
A

If you really want to know then you should have gone back to comment from where it all started, then come to me and tell I am guilty. Don't pick just one random comment out of fight.



@araz this is way he started discussion with me. I don't know him earlier .. I am not so active member. I would reply to his respect and also to his disrespect.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/so-h...anks-justin-bronk.545942/page-7#post-10282274

But why fight at all. Little brother life is too short to be fighting all the time. If you disagree with him explain cooly why you disgree and if he still persists in hos view point agree to disagree and move on. I spend most of my time on this forum dissipating fights. why????.Lets be friends here and move on please.
Kind regards
A

 

[!eon]

But why fight at all. Little brother life is too short to be fighting all the time. If you disagree with him explain cooly why you disgree and if he still persists in hos view point agree to disagree and move on. I spend most of my time on this forum dissipating fights. why????.Lets be friends here and move on please.
Kind regards
A

I hope you have seen how he has introduced himself to me.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/so-h...anks-justin-bronk.545942/page-7#post-10282274

That's the way you go somewhere and start talking ?
So am I guilty ? He started it first. After sometime I said him bye, I wanted no more fight with him, but he wanted to teach me a lesson. Rest is all there.
I am open here also, as in my life. He admits his fault and I am like a friend.

 

[araz]

I hope you have seen how he has introduced himself to me.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/so-h...anks-justin-bronk.545942/page-7#post-10282274

That's the way you go somewhere and start talking ?
So am I guilty ? He started it first. After sometime I said him bye, I wanted no more fight with him, but he wanted to teach me a lesson. Rest is all there.
I am open here also, as in my life. He admits his fault and I am like a friend.

I agree a bit harsh. But come onnnnnnn!!!!! Little brother you cannot come on the forum blast the Block 3 without justification(specs unknown) as we do not know its current configuration and wont know till it is out in 2019-20. Till then a lot can change. We have the SU series in mind with our developments so I think it is fair to say we have enough to counter it. Whether it is going to be enough or not needs to be seen. Now lets move on shall we?
A

 

[Super Falcon]

You can say Thunder role is to like A 10 thuderbolt and bit air to air fight to indian older aircrafts and tejas it can beat them hands of and support ground tropps very well

Pak needs heavy beast to give backup to our multirole jets can be used effectivvly

Su 35 is a great deal pak airforce should consider it will not only change balance of air power again to pak favour but new aqusations from IAF also can be challanged by monstrous Sukhoi