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

[Chak Bamu]

@WebMaster @The Eagle I want to call your attention to the state of this forum. It is a jungle where certain people act like animals and the only way to deal with them is to treat them like the animals they truly are. And then you have biased moderators like @araz and @Joe Shearer who dole out positive and negative ratings based on personal prejudices. I am now openly calling out the administration of this forum to ask a simple question. If your forum cannot guarantee respectful behavior towards knowledgeable posters and you have clueless people like @araz and @Chak Bamu overseeing discussions, then you can expect knowledgeable posters to leave for good. I can tell t

I retired a while back dude. So, please do not tag me. Thanks.

 

[gambit]

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.

Here is something about modern air combat you may not be aware of...

The missile have replaced the gun as the primary weapon of combat.

What this mean is that...If you are equipped with four missiles, regardless of combination of engagement type, once you expended them, you will return to base.

This is not WW II where a fighter have literally hundreds of rounds where he is able to have multiple engagements in a single sortie. Once you used up those four missiles, you will not hang around the area seeing if you can use the 200+ cannon rounds, but you will call 'Winchester', or whatever equivalent of your country, and leave. The lethality of modern AAM is such that even though misses can still happen, no pilot is going to risk life and mission to play chicken with an incoming missile.

If you are in a four-ship flight and one of you suddenly explodes, your entire sortie is fooked. Whatever your original target beyond is now secondary or even discarded. All of you will frantically search for the origin direction of the AAM that killed one of you. If you are on an AG mission, you will jettison whatever AG ordnance you have and do your best to survive. You and your jet are more valuable to the country than the target(s) you were originally tasked to destroy.

Am not making this up...Re: The air war over Viet Nam.

The North Vietnamese Air Force had to carefully husband its small inventory of MIG-21s so the NVAF decided not to engage US fighters but primarily fighter-bombers like the F-105. When a small flight of MIGs saw a formation of fighter-bombers, they would do what is called 'dash and slash' tactic. Dive from high, shoot at the Americans, and run home. It does not matter if any of the fighter-bombers were hit because the moment the Americans found they were under attack, ALL of them jettisoned their bombs and scatter for survival. Without the bombs, the sortie is worthless. The fighter-bombers were not going to strafe whatever they were originally tasked to hit.

I have been to two Red Flag, once in the F-111 and once in the F-16, and both times the scenarios were the same. You do not take chances with the missile. At Red Flag, we give the missile the benefit of the doubt, meaning if an 'aggressor', air or ground, has a radar lock on you, you are tagged 'dead' by the refs.

A flight of JF-17s on CAP do not need to 'hang around' for multiple engagements. Again, this is not WW II where there are large formations of bombers flying a steady pattern for you to shoot at your convenience. All the JF-17s has to do is cause a sortie disruption to the enemy because he too has to worry about fuel. Now that his flight is caught in the open by the JF-17s, some fuel expended in evasive maneuvers, maybe the AG ordnance discarded, there is nothing left of the mission.

As an interesting aside: Nellis air defense aggressor squadron do not like the F-111 because we usually 'killed' them.

 

[Elite General]

No one has seriously discussed Block 3 for the very simple reason we do not know what the configuration will be. You are going to order the MKIs and are going to order the upgrades. Like you are going to upgrade the M2k H to M2K5 standard. This is all farting aginst a storm and unrealistic as it has not happened NOW. Let us discuss what is there NOW.
A

Mirage 2000-5mk2 upgrade programme has been very successful. The first four upgraded Mirages delivered by HAL in July 2016 on top of two French upgraded Mirages.
8-10 being delivered by HAL a year

Mirage-2000 upgraded: Another HAL project takes off on schedule
ANIL URS
BENGALURU, JULY 29, 2016

Continuing its success in various projects recently, HAL flew the first FOC upgraded Mirage-2000 aircraft on July 28, adhering to the scheduled date of today.

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.

I doubt F-16 availibilty will be 80% since for USAF it is ~71%.
Also thanks to spareparts deal with Russia Su-30 availibilty increased to 65% by late 2016 ans is on track to increase to 75% soon.

Also IAF pilot shortage ia a total myth, out of 12015 required officers posts, IAF has 11, 971 officers which means it is at 99% of reauired strength.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

gambit
pla-mkii

The solution for the auxilery fuel source will have to be improved a CFT based solution would have certainly enabled Thunders to use the Under Wing Hard points , properly for more BVR missiles. However no formal solution has been in consideration to date , we have not even seen any attempted Prototyps yet for this Type of conversion

Making adjustments / in the core body structure perhaps might not be high priority for PAF at present juncture


4 is a perfectly fantasic figure considering Pakistan Airforce's main focus is National Airspace coverage

Tryin to fit more then 4 SD-10 would be not necessary here we can also see a bigger payload with SD-10 and Anti Ship missile

The gigntic fuel tank below the plane is cerainly taking up ample space, and if that fuel storage could have been moved to a CFT format solution Perhaps we could have added 2 SD-10 there but it is really optional

 

[MiG-35-BD]

I think I agree with Griffin that actual combat radius, for all practical purposes is in the 500-600 km range. Don't think its meaningful to put 1800 km.

Regarding MRSAMS - It would be hard to target high flying, high speed aircraft with them, in real world terms, as opposed to theoretical brochure ranges. Particularly since the battle will be near the border and PAF high value sams are used usually to protect high value targets (in contravention of the ISI brigadier who managed Afghan operations and wrote "The Bear Trap" where he highlighted that the high success rate of his manpads operations was achieved via utilizing sams in an offensive manner, that defensive SAMs are far less effective. This defensive SAM mentality was tragic at Kargil. Had they only taken heed of his successful experience which yielded 80% success rate).

Air combat has evolved, not only since the gun, but beyond that. Air combat today, IMHO, is not about shooting missiles and coming back to base. It can be, but tactics and strategies have evolved beyond that basic concept.

For a start, there are different kinds of air combat today. Firstly we can divide it to WVR and BVR. Practically, WVR takes place at 5-15km range and BVR (in actual practice not theoretical brochures) takes place at 20-40 km.

The further the range, the lower the probability of a successful engagement. One could go straight in like a bull, firing off all missiles, reaching WVR, firing off missiles, and merge.

Just like boxers in a ring, you will see some boxers want to go straight in to the enemy. While others want to keep a distance and use their greater reach, while just staying out of the reach of the opponent.

For a high flying, high speed aircraft, the BVR advantage increases. They can target slower and lower flying JF-17s from further away, even if they use the exact same missiles. Because a high flying, high speed aircraft will give the launched missile greater speed and height and ultimately greater range.

This was one of the main design philosophies of the Eurofighter, which was designed for this battle. Thankfully the Indians never bought this plane, and bought the Rafale, which is a more rounded fighter with good a2g capability, but not the same level of BVR a2a. (see: https://hushkit.net/2015/12/18/typhoon-versus-rafale-the-final-word/)

What does all this mean? That at high altitude and high speed, (not necessarily max theoretical speeds, but real world speeds), an MKI will be able to rain down BVRs at a flight of JF-17s, while staying away from the JF-17 enough to escape not only the NEZ but meaningful range so as to not need to "jettison fuel and munitions".

Meaning they can come to the border regions and essentially harrass PAF and take pot shots. This would be considerably worse with the Eurofighter, less so with the Rafale (specially if they get the Meteor), and with the Su-35. With the PAKFA, this danger would be exceedingly great.

The MKI can do the same as compared to the fighters mentioned above, but to a lesser extent. As it has overburdened itself, increasing its wing loading.

Key elements you need for this kind of BVR combat is:

1. optimal airfoil (ala F-22 / Eurofighter), low wing loading
2. Powerful engines optimized for such high-high combat
3. Effective sensors to detect but also to have fair warning of enemy BVR launches
4. Effective BVR missiles.
5. Netcentric, datalinked
Note: TVC is a meaningful device in this flight regime. It allows aircraft to have better maneuverability at such high altitudes.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

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?

So, it all have the potential to start with "Big Mac"s!!!! And, who cares for the French fries?????? ?It appears like MAD induced stalemate....

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

As interesting of a concept and fairly tale it is - Unicorn Technolgy and the Mana of invincibility

In real Combat Pilots don't have that much time to be calculating who is approaching from where and how to maintain the optimum distance

When the Game will begin this is how the situation will be like
The Unicorn Technology will be a nice hunt

Those 4 SD-10 will be coming at the big mouse from all direction, and the Short Range Missiles are also there just in case moose is too close

Just like the Moose is focused on 1 Wolf , he can't possibly account for all the other party members who have Territorial Advantage by being Home town Team


May be the Moose will panic and fire all missiles and then run for cover , but as he will aproach the exit route , guess what will be see there ?

More friends from Party of the Home Town Team

And while the Invading Pilot is wondering oh boy no , weapons left and no fuel what can possibly go Wrong



That is when the Hisar-0 will come into picture

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

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

As per the Indian sources, even during training the pilots are put on steroids (wake-up pills)!!!!

 

[MastanKhan]

Here is something about modern air combat you may not be aware of...

The missile have replaced the gun as the primary weapon of combat.

What this mean is that...If you are equipped with four missiles, regardless of combination of engagement type, once you expended them, you will return to base.

This is not WW II where a fighter have literally hundreds of rounds where he is able to have multiple engagements in a single sortie. Once you used up those four missiles, you will not hang around the area seeing if you can use the 200+ cannon rounds, but you will call 'Winchester', or whatever equivalent of your country, and leave. The lethality of modern AAM is such that even though misses can still happen, no pilot is going to risk life and mission to play chicken with an incoming missile.

If you are in a four-ship flight and one of you suddenly explodes, your entire sortie is fooked. Whatever your original target beyond is now secondary or even discarded. All of you will frantically search for the origin direction of the AAM that killed one of you. If you are on an AG mission, you will jettison whatever AG ordnance you have and do your best to survive. You and your jet are more valuable to the country than the target(s) you were originally tasked to destroy.

Am not making this up...Re: The air war over Viet Nam.

The North Vietnamese Air Force had to carefully husband its small inventory of MIG-21s so the NVAF decided not to engage US fighters but primarily fighter-bombers like the F-105. When a small flight of MIGs saw a formation of fighter-bombers, they would do what is called 'dash and slash' tactic. Dive from high, shoot at the Americans, and run home. It does not matter if any of the fighter-bombers were hit because the moment the Americans found they were under attack, ALL of them jettisoned their bombs and scatter for survival. Without the bombs, the sortie is worthless. The fighter-bombers were not going to strafe whatever they were originally tasked to hit.

I have been to two Red Flag, once in the F-111 and once in the F-16, and both times the scenarios were the same. You do not take chances with the missile. At Red Flag, we give the missile the benefit of the doubt, meaning if an 'aggressor', air or ground, has a radar lock on you, you are tagged 'dead' by the refs.

A flight of JF-17s on CAP do not need to 'hang around' for multiple engagements. Again, this is not WW II where there are large formations of bombers flying a steady pattern for you to shoot at your convenience. All the JF-17s has to do is cause a sortie disruption to the enemy because he too has to worry about fuel. Now that his flight is caught in the open by the JF-17s, some fuel expended in evasive maneuvers, maybe the AG ordnance discarded, there is nothing left of the mission.

As an interesting aside: Nellis air defense aggressor squadron do not like the F-111 because we usually 'killed' them.

Hi @gambit

About time you entered the arena.

What I have read and understand is that many an aircraft would not have the time to launch their air to air missiles---because they will be busy trying to save their behinds---or had been taken out without launching a single missile.

Pakistani kids have a misconception that on special bombing mission the aircraft would also be loaded with missiles as well.

I recall the 'special' F16 flight of the israelis into Iraq to strike at the nuc plant---.

That aircraft had 2---1000 thousand lb bombs and two large fuel tanks---no air to air missiles and no bullets for the canon / machine gun---which meant---no protection at all---if it gets shot down---it gets shot down---simple as that---.

Whomsoever gets to make the first shot would be at advantage---.

And again you are correct about the canon---and I had also commented about it---.

The further the range, the lower the probability of a successful engagement. One could go straight in like a bull, firing off all missiles, reaching WVR, firing off missiles, and merge..

Hi,

Modern day air battle scenario---there would hardly be any merges---unless you have a totally superior aircraft and the enemy cannot get a lock on it---.

Otherwise---as Gambit stated---you would launch at BVR range and scoot---.

And I would add that our adversary would also use its LRSAMS as well against the Paf.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

Even if you take the premise of shoot and scoot, a high flying high speed MKI would be able to "shoot and scoot" from ranges that the JF-17 would not be able to engage it from.

So "shoot and scoot" becomes a complicated affair. As is air combat.

 

[The Eagle]

@!eon @CriticalThought

It was very unfortunate to see such type of behaviour on Forum. Let me be very straight with you without any offense that you are hereby served with 1 fraction warning initially and banned from Thread for 7 days though, reversed -tives only for this time which were not given unjustified but giving you another chance to correct yourself.

No matter what, no one is allowed to personally attack anyone on the forum nor to use unethical language neither permitted to insult any member or someone's family at all. Furthermore, Staff Members granted authority in different domains, uses their power as & when needed while having no other option hence, if anyone has any issue, can contact GHQ Section and discuss as such.

We are here to debate, discuss, share and gain knowledge from each other whereby we also moves on when the point comes as we do not agree with each other. One cannot influence his/her opinion upon others nor can force anyone to agree with him/her all the time. The beauty of a debate or discussion is where we present our knowledge, observations & analysis mixed with opinion while having the liberty to disagree too and same goes both ways.

Please, keep it friendly and peaceful environment as we expect for ourselves and agree to disagree in-case of any conflict in opinion, move on with respect for each other.

Regards,

 

[MiG-35-BD]

Interesting point about Indian LRSAMs. Do you mean the S-125 that India has to protect its air bases? @MastanKhan

 

[MastanKhan]

Even if you take the premise of shoot and scoot, a high flying high speed MKI would be able to "shoot and scoot" from ranges that the JF-17 would not be able to engage it from.

So "shoot and scoot" becomes a complicated affair. As is air combat.

Hi,

Why would the JF17 not fly high?

 

[MiG-35-BD]

Hi,

Why would the JF17 not fly high?

Hi MK,

To fly high and fast with fuel, combat load, you will fly higher and faster depending on a very large number of parameters. We could try to look at a few. One for example is the engine thrust available on the JF-17. Compare that to the thrust available on a MKI or even an F-16. And you may find an issue.

To fly high and fast, drag is another important factor, as are certain aerodynamic characteristics such as wing loading, which would greatly impact your ability to maneuver effectively at altitude.

If everyone would build a competent modern air superiority platform with a single RD-33 (RD-93), the world of aircombat would be very simple and all these high powered aircraft that cost so much more, would be redundant in many ways.

Imagine the scenario of "shoot and scoot" as was being discussed. 4 Su-30MKI enter Pakistani airspace and is confronted with 4 JF-17s. The MKI are higher, are faster. They fire 4 BVR missiles each at the Thunders, at greater range than the JF-17s can respond. Now the JF-17s are on the back foot and trying to evade a very large number of missiles coming at them.

Even if they manage to fire a few BVRs, these would be so far away and at such energy states that the MKI would be able to turn away, go on a race track, and come back if they chose, to fire of a few more BVRs (or if they have to go home, for whatever reason, maybe to play with their kids, they can just go home).

Now if they chose to come back after a racetrack circle to avoid the JF-17's bvr, they would find the JF-17s at a great disadvantage, possibly without BVR missiles to boot. The JF-17s would most likely scoot for base, and be replaced by another flight of JF-17s. Doing so would not be impossible but operationally difficult as all this would hapen in a matter of a minutes.

This means PAF has to have a much higher tempo of operations, or more aircraft at any given point. Or F-16s that can more or less match the MKI in such kinds of combat.

Or better yet a combination of F-16s and JF-17s, which is how the PAF possibly envisioned it. Such a strategy would essentially negate the IAF advantage.

Here are some other points against the JF-17's BVR capability:
1. It has lousy acceleration through the Mach. This is crucial in a BVR optimized fighter
B. For any combination of weapon baseline SSPK and range, the farther you shoot the more misses you will have. Most MRAAMs are at best, a 2 point missile and with only 2 onboard, any shot past NEZ (6-8nm = .85 SSPK, 10-12nm = .5SSPK, 12-15nm = .35 SSPK) (these numbers are for the AMRAAM, SD-10 is equivalent?)

Where you have an effective 12-15nm AIM-120 pole, that is poor. Where you while 35-40nm T3 or Meteor RamAAM, are more useful. MKI could potentially field such LRAAM a lot sooner than PAF.

And without having to burner your fuel reserve to nothing in getting supersonic to make the cutoff.

 

[sohail.ishaque]

I thought his comparison was poor as he compared jf17 with the latest western 4++ aircraft and focused on things like helmet mounted systems etc but then I scrolled down to tejas.....ouch.....Indians where do I apply the burn cream

Tejas......joke or hope.....

Verdict joke.......read and cry

I am not an expert but i believe that in a war, you don't have the option of choosing.. i mean if a war breaks out, it won't be that you'll ask "Don't send heavy weight fighters, just send light weight against our light weight",.. JF 17 needs to be ready for any jet,. and have to be equipped with better ranged missile to make it more efficient in BVR combats