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

[Mav3rick]

• Since Pakistan have plenty of Missiles at our disposal , the Thunders might not even be needed to fly into India

• The moment our Missile Program Matured to cover all of India the Airforce Jet race was effectively finished

• Now if Indians want to commit a suicide by taking on China/Pakistan they can complicate their own existance

• Pakistan is not wide as USA map so thunder is more then enough for our need

I am of the same view, that our Missiles can not only take out SAM sites but also IAF airfields and bunkers.

However, isn't there a possibility that IRBM launch from Pakistan against India is picked up by India as a possible Nuclear Strike and retaliated to by Indian strategic forces?

 

[gambit]

• Since Pakistan have plenty of Missiles at our disposal , the Thunders might not even be needed to fly into India

• The moment our Missile Program Matured to cover all of India the Airforce Jet race was effectively finished

• Now if Indians want to commit a suicide by taking on China/Pakistan they can complicate their own existance

• Pakistan is not wide as USA map so thunder is more then enough for our need

You are missing the point.

When the US designed the B-52, we did not consider the existence of our ICBMs as a stand-in for how many bombs can the B-52 carry.

The nuclear triad:

- Bomber
- Land based ICBM
- Sea based ICBM

None of them were intended to replace the other. Each was conceived to give the country the FLEXIBILITY it needs to deliver nuclear weapons.

Just in case you still do not get the point, the issue for Pakistan is not nuclear weapons but whether Pakistan has the flexibility to wage an air campaign that can be from measured to all-out. So for you to casually dismiss the JF-17 in your first statement is really shortsighted.

 

[HRK]

Slide form the presentation of JF-17 in Duabi Air show by Chief Designer

1- Take the combat radius of a JF-17 in an air-air configuration and make a circle of that.

As per this slide Air to Air Configuration (2 x SRAAM+2 MRAAM+2 x 1100L Fuel Tanks + 1 x 800L Fuel Tank) Range 1,800 KM (in H-H-H Mode)

some of the earlier figures suggested the range as + 1,400 Km in the same role and the same H-H-H mode

2- Take the combat radius of a JF-17 in an air-ground configuration and make a circle of that.

As per the slide attached above Air to Ground Configuration (2 x SRAAM+ 4 x 250KG bombs + 2 x 1100L Fuel Tanks + 1 x 800L Fuel Tank) Range 1,000 KM (in M-L-L-H Mode)

4- Superimpose the circles on a regional map of Pakistan.

A/A (1,800 KM) + A/G (1,000 KM)

A/A Mode(1,400 KM) + A/G Mode(1,000 KM)

NOTE: All circles are drawn from PAF Base Faisal and PAF Base Minhas

 

[usman012]

What he said about Tejas is hilarious !!! Worst Payload,Higher cost and took 30 years to develop .

 

[ziaulislam]

and sir drag consideration also with 6+2 AAMs early F-15 were had a capability to carry 10 AAMs but with this weapon load out early F-15 had a drag penalty so the reasonable weapon load-out of 8 AAMs for compensate drag and same goes to early Su-27 series, its impossible for JF-17 to carry 8 AAMs without drag


and sir drag consideration also with 6+2 AAMs early F-15 were had a capability to carry 10 AAMs but with this weapon load out early F-15 had a drag penalty so the reasonable weapon load-out of 8 AAMs for compensate drag and same goes to early Su-27 series, its impossible for JF-17 to carry 8 AAMs without drag

i think optimum maximum load will be 4 BVRSs +2 WVR+/- 1 drop tank..the drag will be less than other configuration like the 2+2+2 configuration(WVR, BVR,ANTISHIP)

drag would be an issue with rumored dual ejection racks

given the close proximity in airdef role, i wont be surprised to see loads of 4WVR+2 BVRs more practical

PS:
i am no expert

with lack of f16s, it would be interesting to see how much improvement would we see in fuel carrying capacity, would it be NG Style improvement, f16 style improvement( +CFTs ) or no improvement

 

[gambit]

Slide form the presentation of JF-17 in Duabi Air show by Chief Designer

As per this slide Air to Air Configuration (2 x SRAAM+2 MRAAM+2 x 1100L Fuel Tanks + 1 x 800L Fuel Tank) Range 1,800 KM (in H-H-H Mode)

some of the earlier figures suggested the range as + 1,400 Km in the same role and the same H-H-H mode

As per the slide attached above Air to Ground Configuration (2 x SRAAM+ 4 x 250KG bombs + 2 x 1100L Fuel Tanks + 1 x 800L Fuel Tank) Range 1,000 KM (in M-L-L-H Mode)

A/A (1,800 KM) + A/G (1,000 KM)

A/A Mode(1,400 KM) + A/G Mode(1,000 KM)

NOTE: All circles are drawn from PAF Base Faisal and PAF Base Minhas

Outstanding job...!!! Now show this to any critic of the JF-17 on how far the jet can go and what it can do.

But ultimately, how effective is the JF-17 depends on how smart is the PAF's leadership to exploit its capabilities. From this baseline model, you can extrapolate what the JF-17 could do with unfinished airfields, air refueling, or foreign basing.

I recommend you guys save these graphics in the forum's JF-17 archive for future reference.

 

[ziaulislam]

in my opinion you have to see this from regional prospective
the Swedish goal for example was not to attack deep inside Russia but to neutralize an invading force and deny air superiority so they developed something like gripen that would be cheap to produce/maintain

making a heavier platform was possible but at what cost, at sometime buying and making heavier platform will be a bigger national issue(due to economical pressure) rather than foreign country invading (not even factoring the nuclear option you have)

Soviet union didnt lose a war, they probably over did their weapons, never to be used in any war and in process doomed themselves

Indian intelligence has realized that, there objective is thus to spend billions and defeat Pakistan in an economical, political war rather than on the battlefield..of course they wont miss 1971 like opportunities

 

[Falcon26]

In addition to having complete lack of understanding about aerial warfare, you also have poor English. So let me explain more clearly. Your father defiled your mother and left you on the roads like the cur you are to spread disease. Understand?

Hi,

Please stop these sorts of ridiculous insults. If you have disagreements with someone, articulate them in a respectful manner. If you are incapable of doing so, please refrain from posting in the thread. You posts in the last few days have become a distraction to members who frequent this forum to exchange healthy views.

I am of the same view, that our Missiles can not only take out SAM sites but also IAF airfields and bunkers.

However, isn't there a possibility that IRBM launch from Pakistan against India is picked up by India as a possible Nuclear Strike and retaliated to by Indian strategic forces?

This is where cruise missile come into play. It’s not hard to imagine why PAF would want to take out IAF’s airfields and air defense systems along the border region in the opening stages of the war. You don’t need IRBM for that.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Thunders are ready for all Type of Action
A little refuel in middle of trip and fantastic range extended

Personally would not mind seeing 1 Squadron based in Turkey for Solidarity purpose
Save us the hassle of long trips

And 2 Squadrons based in both Madina and Mekkah

In Ideal case scenario would be a great honor

Really depends on bilateral friendly relation with friendly nations not some FATF

No real plans for CFT like solution for Thunders as we have not seen signs of any upgrade in the Body of thunder to add hooks to fit these CFT

 

[MiG-35-BD]

Actual combat range is different from ferry range.

This means that with 3 tanks, at optimal cruise, and Point A - B, JF-17 can fly for 3000 KM.

Actual combat radius with three tanks is then a third - 1000 KM. This is for a simple high mission profile, one that does not work in modern air combat.

This does not yet account for all munitions nor for high energy maneuvering. Which would take the actual combat radius down to about 500-800 km.

Now, an aircraft that is in combat will not magically know when the enemy will show up, or where. It will often have to hang around the border doing CAPs. Furthermore, 3 drop tanks may not be usable (particularly with a 4-2 configuration, which in my opinion is not optimal as it will increase drag and decrease maneuverability and range).

All this means, in a high speed, high altitude BVR fight, where the JF-17 can't cruise at optimal military power and level flight, the JF-17 will bingo fuel very quickly. It may only be able to make a single attack before having to return to base.

While the MKI will fire, turn away, fly back in, fire some more, turn away... multiple times.

Another interesting configuration would be a 1-2-2. With a single air breathing BVR LRAAM in the middle position.

 

[My-Analogous]

There has never been a peer-level BVR conflict, so we don't really know how BVR will perform, when not being used against hapless Iraqi forces with dumbed down yesterday's planes.

The JFT in a war setting will carry 2WVR and 2 BVR. A very limited loadout. In contrast, the MKI has 12 hardpoints, can can easily carry 8 BVR. This means a single MKI can fire 2 BVR each at a flight of 4 JFT.

Estimates I have seen from certain USAF / LM posters suggests at about 30 kms, the pk of a missile will be as little as 30% probability of hit. With a little maneuvering and position, this would be even less. Closer shots may have a pk of 50-60%.

In this scenario, MKI flying in high and fast, can shoot and scoot, come around and shoot again, multiple times, as it has the fuel to stay in the fight. The JFT will be lower and slower, and will very quickly bingo fuel and return to base, needing to be replaced by another batch.

This is why a better fighter is needed in the longer term, with not only FLANKERS but Mirage 2000s, Rafales and possibly F-16s / F-35s / PAKFAs...
Would be a very big disadvantage for Pak.

This is why J-31 is not a good solution for PAF, as it is not designed to fight the Hi-hi battle at 400 FL+ at high speeds. You need an aircraft optimized to fight at those altitudes, with corresponding wing loadings and EM performance.

The closest plane today for such a role (available to the PAF) is the J-10, aerodynamically. Unless PAF can go for the Eurofighter or the Su-35. But the J-10 is not stealth, so it would face difficulty against the next gen. Which is why project Azm is so important.

What do think like that PAF didn't check all these parameters with Chinese SU30MK2?. We had live practice with these birds. Beside some changes in avionics in MK2 and MKI but structure remains same. MK2 is more advance then MKI

my guess would be 2+2 for the JF-17 unless its as a pure short range interceptor ala F-7, when it could do 4+2.

6+2 for the MKI. Possibly 8+2 in certain situations. The engine power difference and size difference is gigantic between the two.

Assuming the following:
PAF:
120 JFT x 0.9 (90% servicibility)
85 F-16s x 0.80 (80% servicibility)
=108 + 68 = 176

IAF:
250 MKI x 0.55 (55% servicibility)
150 Other 4th gen x 0.7 (70% servicibility)
= 137.5 + 105 = 242.5

As a rough estimation of sortie generation and actual firepower available to both forces, discounting legacy platforms. This translates to a 27% superior force generation capacity, without taking into account quality of aircraft, etc.

This also doesn't account for legacy platforms, which is more of an advantage for PAF than IAF, as its defensive posture allows better utilization of J-7s and Mirages, as opposed to MiG-21Bis, which do not have the legs to impact an offensive air war against Pakistan.

Just a short and rough estimate.

Also point to be noted that how much IAF fleet can be used against Pakistan and she need to station fleet for China and other nations too. So i think IAF can utilized her 50% to 60% maximum against Pakistan where as Pakistan can enjoy that upto 80% to 90%

Slide form the presentation of JF-17 in Duabi Air show by Chief Designer

As per this slide Air to Air Configuration (2 x SRAAM+2 MRAAM+2 x 1100L Fuel Tanks + 1 x 800L Fuel Tank) Range 1,800 KM (in H-H-H Mode)
View attachment 456203

some of the earlier figures suggested the range as + 1,400 Km in the same role and the same H-H-H mode
View attachment 456207


As per the slide attached above Air to Ground Configuration (2 x SRAAM+ 4 x 250KG bombs + 2 x 1100L Fuel Tanks + 1 x 800L Fuel Tank) Range 1,000 KM (in M-L-L-H Mode)
View attachment 456210



A/A (1,800 KM) + A/G (1,000 KM)
View attachment 456211

A/A Mode(1,400 KM) + A/G Mode(1,000 KM)
View attachment 456213

NOTE: All circles are drawn from PAF Base Faisal and PAF Base Minhas

We can play with that more due to Aerial refueling

 

[araz]

b@st@rd ? that's your family name ? No I don't belong your family

I was really nice to you and gave you a chance to cool down and you came down to street level language. If the one who dished out filth got a negative rating you now get one for responding and involving his family. Now will the 2 of you behave civilly or do I ask the mods to give you some cooling time outside the forum. BEHAVE YOURSELF AND STOP SPEWING FILTH ON THE FORUM.
A

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Certainly not having CFT planned for Thunder and not having Refuellers is certainly something of concern but in all realistic scenarios for our immediate concerns i.e India the Thunder existing range is more then sufficient

Perhaps PIA's old inventory should be converted into some make shift refueller is I always say too bad not long ago we sold a plane for minimum amount could have been converted into a refueller Tanker, I think we sold few items for cheaper then a common bus

I am not family with the technical conversion aspect of such an effort as passnger planes are quite air tight and pressurized

ANY CFT solution would look a bit awkward runining the clean simple cylindrical body shape of the plane

 

[araz]

@CriticalThought and @!eon.
I am really disgusted with both of you that you have adorned this board with filth that may have value on the street but none over here.
None of us are here to listen to the kind of language and descriptive terminology that you have let loose on the forum. By now I have dished out another couple of Negative ratings. Iam not a Mod but a member of the TT and this is a power that the board has given me. I may have been called clueless or other things and frankly I dont care. In between some very good learning opportunities you have spoilt the whole thread with your useless bickering. Now will you both be civil. I will give you 24 hours to apologize to each other irrespective of who said what first. If you apologize I will remove the negative ratings. If you dont they stand. I have further reported you both to the Moderators for punitive measures as per forum rules. The rest is upto you. If you continue I will continue to dish out reds to both of you.
I dont know anyone of you and have no reason to be biased to one over other. All that I care is that forum rules are obeyed in letter and spirit. An abusive post is an automatic negative rating. That is the rule. You are more than welcome to complain to the Webmaster about me.
Thank you.
A

 

[Metanoia]

Block 60 has the AN/APG-80 radar. Now you tell me whether it's an AESA or not?

@Zarvan I am still waiting for your reply, post# 38 being the point of reference in case if you've forgotten our discussion.