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

[araz]

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

Yaara. Maulana saheb made a mistake. Leave him be. He realizes it is an AESA now but not during hos Zor e khitabat.
Lets move on brother. JazakAllaho khairan.
A

 

[gambit]

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.

If the graphics on post 220 is accurate, a JF-17 with only centerline fuel tank and full complement of air-air missiles can still penetrate into half of India's airspace. Either that, or if the jet is performing CAP at the border, the same configuration can still provide sufficient loiter time.

 

[Metanoia]

Yaara. Maulana saheb made a mistake. Leave him be. He realizes it is an AESA now but not during hos Zor e khitabat.
Lets move on brother. JazakAllaho khairan.
A

Janab aap bilkul durust farma rahay hai. However, "maulana" sahab has had a habit/history of claiming things with certainty, and when confronted or proven wrong he silently skips altogether as if nothing happened A person should have the guts and decency to admit when they are mistaken, especially when they were adamant about a certain point.

I'll move on.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

If the graphics on post 220 is accurate, a JF-17 with only centerline fuel tank and full complement of air-air missiles can still penetrate into half of India's airspace. Either that, or if the jet is performing CAP at the border, the same configuration can still provide sufficient loiter time.

The graphics are made on this page by somewhat excited young posters here. And obviously not correct.

 

[araz]

Janab aap bilkul durust farma rahay hai. However, "maulana" sahab has had a habit/history of claiming things with certainty, and when confronted or proven wrong he silently skips altogether as if nothing happened A person should have the guts and decency to admit when they are mistaken, especially when they were adamant about a certain point.

I'll move on.

Sometimes it is good to hide some one's mistakes. He is our brother after all. Thank you for having listened.
A

 

[araz]

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

An AEWAC is never left to its own devices but protected by a group of planes. Because of the range of its radar it could be 100to 150 miles away and still be passing information. If need and the situation is dire the accompanying patrol can manage the hit while allowing the AWAC to escape. However stealth ACs may spoil that plan once introduced into the sub continental arena.
A

JF17 Serves a defensive purpose and for that reason it is a proper machine based on Price and Weapon Load cobination.

There is no platform which has only a defensive or offensive purpose. These are multirole platforms suitable for all activities. So your assumption is incorrect. However roles of bothAFs will be different due to our doctrines.

A

 

[Hassan Guy]

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

View attachment 456239


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

I think 1 JF-17 squadron in southern Saudi would be good

 

[araz]

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.

A very reasonable analysis. A few things that have been pointed out. Firstly we have 100 JFT fighters as of now. I think you have over estimated JFT availability. It should be around 80%. I also think MKI availabilty is exaggerated but for the purposes of discussion let it stand. There are a couple of other factors that need to be considered. The IAF is bound to be the more aggressive party in line with their doctrine of offence. The likelihood of their losses being higher than PAF which will not venture into Indian air space much has to be taken into account. Secondly PAF pilot to plane ratio is much better than IAF which will sooner or later affect its proficiency. This is another factor.
I am relying only on published date of 1.8 to 1 plane for IAF Ato 3to 1 plane for PAF. So all in all even though IAF may yet come out on top or be in a stale mate, enough loss would occur for it to think twice.
I have repeatedly said we dont want to see war in the subcontinent. If there was a way to resolve the outstanding issues it would be much better to resolve these politically and do a no war pact after wards. We can then both spend our energies on making the life of the common man better.
A

 

[MiG-35-BD]

A very reasonable analysis. A few things that have been pointed out. Firstly we have 100 JFT fighters as of now. I think you have over estimated JFT availability. It should be around 80%. I also think MKI availabilty is exaggerated but for the purposes of discussion let it stand. There are a couple of other factors that need to be considered. The IAF is bound to be the more aggressive party in line with their doctrine of offence. The likelihood of their losses being higher than PAF which will not venture into Indian air space much has to be taken into account. Secondly PAF pilot to plane ratio is much better than IAF which will sooner or later affect its proficiency. This is another factor.
I am relying only on published date of 1.8 to 1 plane for IAF Ato 3to 1 plane for PAF. So all in all even though IAF may yet come out on top or be in a stale mate, enough loss would occur for it to think twice.
I have repeatedly said we dont want to see war in the subcontinent. If there was a way to resolve the outstanding issuesit qould be much better 5o resolve these politically and do a no war pact after wards. We cqn then both spend our energies on making the life of the common man better.
A

Intentionally put 120 as a rough hack for the faster rate of JF-17 production which would mean by the time a conflict starts JF-17 numbers would have increased.

I have no actual data about JF-17 availability but I am assuming better or equal to brand new Gripens. Sure, I could be wrong.

PAF didn't invest in meaningful high altitude SAMs so for MKI, attacking will not be quite as expensive as compared to PAF. At a high altitude and high speed attack on say, AWACS or standoff Brahmos, Pakistan has no meaningful SAM defense capability to shoot down or meaningfully threaten the IAF.

they have some nice and well thought out low altitude sam traps for the MiG-27s and Jaguars (and Rafale!) though.

I didn't factor in pilot to plane ratio which will be an issue as you pointed out, particularly as the war drags on. Also legacy jets such as Mirages and f-7s can be manned (or emergency jets from China)

 

[araz]

Intentionally put 120 as a rough hack for the faster rate of JF-17 production which would mean by the time a conflict starts JF-17 numbers would have increased.

I have no actual data about JF-17 availability but I am assuming better or equal to brand new Gripens. Sure, I could be wrong.

PAF didn't invest in meaningful high altitude SAMs so for MKI, attacking will not be quite as expensive as compared to PAF. At a high altitude and high speed attack on say, AWACS or standoff Brahmos, Pakistan has no meaningful SAM defense capability to shoot down or meaningfully threaten the IAF.

they have some nice and well thought out low altitude sam traps for the MiG-27s and Jaguars (and Rafale!) though.

I didn't factor in pilot to plane ratio which will be an issue as you pointed out, particularly as the war drags on. Also legacy jets such as Mirages and f-7s can be manned (or emergency jets from China)

The lack of long range missiles is a deficiency. There is only a rumour that we have some to defend high value targets. The medium range missiles are being built up. However my understanding is that the range of missiles is dependent on the distance travelled. To my understanding MKI can operate upto 68k meters which is more or less the height that MRSAMS do cover. So I am failing to understand why you are so insistent on the height the plane can achieve. The speed is also a bit of a fallacy as by the time you achieve mach 2 you would be well into enemy terrain. However, there may be aspects I may not be understanding so would appreciate a clarification.
A

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

A great post and well done. You have really made our job easier.
Regards

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

Please keep Tejas out of the discussion. I have only just stopped one lot of bickering. I dont want to start on another.
Keep discussion on Tejas in the relevant section.
A

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.

If you read HRKs post he has done the exact same as per publically available information. You have taken into consideration the maneouvering of the JFT while not taking into account the same penalties being applied to the SUs twin engines. If a BVR is fired at it from a close enough range, I am certain it will jettison everything to try and escape the missile approaching it. The likelihood is that it will be a salvo of twin BVR missiles fired one after the other. There will then be no spirit left to fight but to survive. I suspect it will be hightailing it back home to live to fight another day.
The superiority of the fight in the arena will be in the hands of the force that can hide its fighters from the enemy radars for longer. The Bl.52 Radars have had severe diffculty locating this small blighter once it is in silent mode. The Bars will not be turned on either otherwise you have a bigger problem on your hand. So the situation will become quite tricky. If the fighter is detected as it fires a salvo at you, you will not be thinking of anything other than running on the defensive. What I dont know is that will the JFT follow in with a WVR if close enough or will it be RTB as well.
A

 

[GriffinsRule]

I think that the graphics with the ranges indicated, while nice and perhaps even accurate for ferry ranges, are not realistic in combat scenarios. A H-H-H mission profile would work nicely while the aircraft are on CAP duties but once combat is initiated, all those tanks would be jettisoned to give the aircraft access to its full flight profile. This would drastically cut down that range, not to mention once engaged with the enemy, afterburners and aggressive maneuvering would take some toll on the internal fuel as well. Hence, a 500-600 combat radius might be very realistic in such a scenario.
For A-G missions, that might not be such a hindrance as most of those sorties would occur fairly close to the border or against enemy's forward operation bases and other targets. Here too, glide bombs and other stand-off weapons can be utilized to strike without leaving the Pakistan airspace for too long.
Strike missions against Indian bases or other targets would not be a piece of cake as any formation would not only have little air cover (expect any planes providing top-cover to be engaged fairly quickly by interceptors in greater numbers), they would also be operating without their local radar cover and possibly in a high ECM and AD environment. In that scenario, we should expect a high number of losses to the JF-17s due to the enemy aircraft as well as the large array of SAM that India fields.
What Pakistan could do with is a dedicated EW/ECM platform based on the JF-17B that could degrade India's AD long enough for the safe egress of any strike package. While the F-16C/Ds do have this capability, their numbers are still limited and they would be pressed for all sorts of missions as well. (It is possible PAF looks at JF-17 as mainly to be used in AD role and not strike missions, but given that it will be the mainstay of the force, I think that is not very likely.)

BTW the assumption that just because we have IRBMs, we can neutralize all Indian FAB is a fallacy, and of course even if it were true, the reverse would also be applicable to us as India has a large enough number of missiles as well.

 

[HRK]

Now, an aircraft that is in combat will not magically know when the enemy will show up, or where.

Air and ground based radar network will have no role in detection and tracking of potential target ???

It will often have to hang around the border doing CAPs

For Combat Area Patrol with 3 drop tanks and 2 x SRAAM + 2 X MRAAM it have a range of 1,800 KM (not 1,000 Km) which mean it will stay in air for quite a reasonable time in CAP role

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.

you want a Jet to do HIGH ENERGY MANEUVERING in A/G role ...??

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.

& how exactly have you reached at this assumption ....???
any calculation ???

It may only be able to make a single attack before having to return to base.

this will happen not because of fuel but because of the low number AA missiles

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

https://web.archive.org/web/20060516182355/http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su30mk/lth/
note the range of Su-30 Maximum Flight Range with (2 x R-27R1 + 2 x R-73RE + 5270 kg fuel internally)= 1,270 KM (at sea level) and 3,000 KM (at height same as JF-17 with 3 fuel tanks)
so how is it coming and going and coming back with only this load out as you suggested ???

The graphics are made on this page by somewhat excited young posters here. And obviously not correct.

don't make such comment about me again .... if want to contribute CONRTIBUTE positively post something substantial not some HALF BAKED THEORIES

 

[MastanKhan]

On the F-16, we call her "Bitchin Betty". You can reprogram the JF-17's warning to have a deep operatic baritone male voice. For every missile lock, the guy can encourage the pilot with 'Inshallah' or something similar.

Hi,

I think that the Paf is too americanized to do that.

 

[khanasifm]

He is right on point as of now JF-17 is better than BLOCK 40 but is behind BLOCK 52. But if we manage to bring AESA upgraded along with JHMCS and more hard points in BLOCK 3 than it would be at par with even BLOCK 60 if not better.

He is comparing apple and oranges plus you have to consider integrated environment of awacs and ground linked into cockpit like the Swedish which was the basis of paf mimicking the Saab jas39 and other components

Anyway nothing new in the article

 

[GriffinsRule]

If you read HRKs post he has done the exact same as per publically available information. You have taken into consideration the maneouvering of the JFT while not taking into account the same penalties being applied to the SUs twin engines. If a BVR is fired at it from a close enough range, I am certain it will jettison everything to try and escape the missile approaching it. The likelihood is that it will be a salvo of twin BVR missiles fired one after the other. There will then be no spirit left to fight but to survive. I suspect it will be hightailing it back home to live to fight another day.
The superiority of the fight in the arena will be in the hands of the force that can hide its fighters from the enemy radars for longer. The Bl.52 Radars have had severe diffculty locating this small blighter once it is in silent mode. The Bars will not be turned on either otherwise you have a bigger problem on your hand. So the situation will become quite tricky. If the fighter is detected as it fires a salvo at you, you will not be thinking of anything other than running on the defensive. What I dont know is that will the JFT follow in with a WVR if close enough or will it be RTB as well.
A

Not so long ago, when PAF did not have BVR missiles in its inventory while IAF was fielding them, training pilots to deal with a BVR engagement was part of the training. I am sure that in itself is not going to go away. A while back I read accounts of how USAF trained for such scenarios, and basically your objective as a pilot is to make the missile burn off its fuel before it can get to you and thus reducing its ability to maneuver to kill when in close proximity. The way it mentioned that is done is to actually fly in a track perpendicular to that of the incoming missile. (Turning around and trying to outrun a missile would never work of course as they are flying at twice the speed and will catch up to you.)
Of course knowing when you have been targeted and the approach of the incoming threat are also variables that depend on the quality of the aircraft as well as the proficiency of the pilot.