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

[MiG-35-BD]

When the production version of JF-17 was first revealed, the most significant aspect wasn't the DSI or the LERX but the powerful and complex EW suite.
As for as the JF-17 vis a vis the SU-30, it has been discussed here previously with the conclusion that the sheer size of the MKI would allow the Thunder to pick it up at the maximum range of the KLJ-7V2. And the relatively small size of the JF-17 would keep it hidden till it is much closer to the MKI. In essence, both jets would detect each other at about the same time. The primary missiles in service with both air forces are also similar to each other.
Quantity of payload wouldn't matter as the defending country would have the advantage due to SAMs and ground based radars coverage.

1. As far as I remember, the EW suite of the JF-17 was nothing revolutionary. It is technically unknown and possibly based around the Indra ALQ-500. Which is a system by a relatively unknown Spanish company. Originally this system was made to upgrade the Spanish F-18 Hornets.

2. The JF-17 is not going to be able to sneak up the MKI. I think that is not possible. It is not a stealth jet. Both sides have AWACS, meaning very little to no home advantage in detection.

3. With the same type of BVR missiles, essentially, the JF-17 will be at a major kinetic disadvantage. Something I have explained multiple times but seems convenient to ignore.

4. Pakistan does not have any major long range SAMs. And the ones available are placed defensively, and unlikely to have much of an impact on ingressing IAF fighters at high altitude, high speed, near the border.

But if PAF did have a SAM system like the S-300 / S-400 / HQ-9, it would be a major equalizer, and would help mitigate its disadvantage which is both in quantity and quality. Even if a simple system could be developed that has long range - based on the SRBMs perhaps. It doesn't have to be deadly accurate, only to force ingressing IAF aircraft to take evasive action, thus equalizing the playing field for the PAF.

S-300s / S-400s are very expensive, as are Chinese equivalents. But they can significantly enhance the overall IADS of a country. We see how scared the US and western governments are of these systems, Russia often blackmails them with it. And Western analysts can be seen online discussing and analyzing the systems to death.

A simple SAM, equivalent to a longer ranged S-200, would basically "do the job" we discussed above. The system could be based around the Nasr / Abdali with fins for maneuver. If one wanted to be even more innovative, you could have a multi-warhead as 4 SD-10s. Using mobile launchers and posted about 50-100 kms from the border, they could create an added headache for IAF. Breaking up their formations and slowing them down, allowing PAF to be vectored in at in a favorable position.

It would also reduce the risk of clashes, and the risk of IAF trying to be aggressive in a tit-for-tat escalation like we are seeing at the LOC. With cheap LRSAMs, the cost-benefit of misadventure becomes even more unfavorable: a missile is cheap, an MKI not so much.

Another aspect is that with any significant warload (such as A2G loads), the IAF planes, when targeted are likely to jettison whatever they have, which would be a mission kill.

 

[araz]

1. As far as I remember, the EW suite of the JF-17 was nothing revolutionary. It is technically unknown and possibly based around the Indra ALQ-500. Which is a system by a relatively unknown Spanish company. Originally this system was made to upgrade the Spanish F-18 Hornets.

2. The JF-17 is not going to be able to sneak up the MKI. I think that is not possible. It is not a stealth jet. Both sides have AWACS, meaning very little to no home advantage in detection.

3. With the same type of BVR missiles, essentially, the JF-17 will be at a major kinetic disadvantage. Something I have explained multiple times but seems convenient to ignore.

4. Pakistan does not have any major long range SAMs. And the ones available are placed defensively, and unlikely to have much of an impact on ingressing IAF fighters at high altitude, high speed, near the border.

But if PAF did have a SAM system like the S-300 / S-400 / HQ-9, it would be a major equalizer, and would help mitigate its disadvantage which is both in quantity and quality. Even if a simple system could be developed that has long range - based on the SRBMs perhaps. It doesn't have to be deadly accurate, only to force ingressing IAF aircraft to take evasive action, thus equalizing the playing field for the PAF.

S-300s / S-400s are very expensive, as are Chinese equivalents. But they can significantly enhance the overall IADS of a country. We see how scared the US and western governments are of these systems, Russia often blackmails them with it. And Western analysts can be seen online discussing and analyzing the systems to death.

A simple SAM, equivalent to a longer ranged S-200, would basically "do the job" we discussed above. The system could be based around the Nasr / Abdali with fins for maneuver. If one wanted to be even more innovative, you could have a multi-warhead as 4 SD-10s. Using mobile launchers and posted about 50-100 kms from the border, they could create an added headache for IAF. Breaking up their formations and slowing them down, allowing PAF to be vectored in at in a favorable position.

It would also reduce the risk of clashes, and the risk of IAF trying to be aggressive in a tit-for-tat escalation like we are seeing at the LOC. With cheap LRSAMs, the cost-benefit of misadventure becomes even more unfavorable: a missile is cheap, an MKI not so much.

Another aspect is that with any significant warload (such as A2G loads), the IAF planes, when targeted are likely to jettison whatever they have, which would be a mission kill.

EW to my understanding has nothing to do with the plane hiding from another. Nonstealth platforms may be difficult to visualize on radars on account of their RCS not due to the EW suite. So I think your supposition is wrong. The MKI is a big plane as compared to JFT. When you hang missiles on them the RCS increases even further.So the advantage of the large BARS radar mqy be counteracted by the actual plane size. The presence of AWACS will also possibly not affect this situation.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

I was replying to the points the person I quoted was making. Please re-read.

 

[CHI RULES]

View attachment 456516

plz I request you not to post just on the basis of assumptions about the supplies of spare for PAF F-16 fleet

Sir thks for info but my statement was based on some govt officials wording abt F16 spares, but what abt future prospects of F16 0 chances of modernization vs JF17 continuous development.

It's my pleasure. I have always been a vocal support of the JF-17 program, a few of the senior members may know about it.

I do not know per se, how effective the EW are, except from 3rd hand information. What we know is the MKI has very effective Israeli EW systems. The Elta EL/M-8222 is the same pod used in the Israeli F-15s.

Given the reputation of Israel in EW, that is all we have to go by.

There is some confusion as to what exactly the EW system is of the JF-17, there was some info out there that suggested it may not be the Indra.

Whatever it is, it would be limited in size and weight as well compared to the MKI's. And Indra is probably not in the same class as an Israeli system.

Sir sorry but info I have got from well learned people Indra is quite reliable and capable supplier of Spanish origin. Either the entire EW suit or some elements are provided by Indra in Block 2, JF17, may be tailor made and some secrecy maintained.

 

[niaz]

“Raison d’etre” / the reason for which Jf-17 exists; was to develop as an affordable, multi-role combat aircraft to replace PAF’s large fleet of ageing Mirages, A-5’s and the F-7’s. The Thunder in the Block -1 has delivered all that and even more.

JF-17 was never meant to be a world beater or a replacement of the F-16. Chinese were at that time developing J-10 & J-20 for that purpose.

Sufficient to say that JF-17 is a lot more modern and capable than the fighter planes it is supposed to replace and leave it at that.

 

[HRK]

Sir thks for info but my statement was based on some govt officials wording abt F16 spares,

If you are referring the interview posted in one of the thread few day back by an Indian poster than that interview is quit old, i think that was published after Kargil

but what abt future prospects of F16 0 chances of modernization vs JF17 continuous development.

our future is not bind with F-16 we have to move on but for time being its a potent system serving Pakistan

 

[MastanKhan]

1. As far as I remember, the EW suite of the JF-17 was nothing revolutionary. It is technically unknown and possibly based around the Indra ALQ-500. Which is a system by a relatively unknown Spanish company. Originally this system was made to upgrade the Spanish F-18 Hornets.

Hi,

Your posts are getting funny---.

If it was made / or in contention for the F18 Hornet upgrade---then it must have been a top notch system -1 by default---.

So---if out of the 2 or three systems being considered for a top notch fighter aircraft of its time---the one that loses the bid is not a dud by any means---.

It could mean a difference between a 100 and 99.99

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

I would pick a light weight highly agile fighter over a heavy weight any day

Entire history of Muslim conquests is all about agile, fast moving and small bands of fighters, riding on horses, charging with Iman and Ihlas their humongous, highly over-rated and extremely egoistic enemies who are under the direct supervision and guidance of Iblis!!!! By the by, Iblis invariably leaves them just at the crucial junctures. Let JF-17s be the modern-day Duldul....

 

[MiG-35-BD]

“Raison d’etre” / the reason for which Jf-17 exists; was to develop as an affordable, multi-role combat aircraft to replace PAF’s large fleet of ageing Mirages, A-5’s and the F-7’s. The Thunder in the Block -1 has delivered all that and even more.

JF-17 was never meant to be a world beater or a replacement of the F-16. Chinese were at that time developing J-10 & J-20 for that purpose.

Sufficient to say that JF-17 is a lot more modern and capable than the fighter planes it is supposed to replace and leave it at that.

I think that sums it up nicely. Its a simple, affordable "bang for the bucks" plane. Its not meaningful to compare it with high end fighters, but can surely play a useful role in the overall air battle.

Regarding the Indra - as I said, I don't know much about this system or even the EW system on the MKI. Just my layman general view is that a Spanish company making an upgrade for local legacy F-18s, compared to a high end Israeli EW system used in an F-15. I would guess the latter is better than the former but hey, whatever rocks your boat. For all we know Indra of Spain is as good if not better than any Israeli EW system, designed for the heavy weight F-15.

Entire history of Muslim conquests is all about agile, fast moving and small bands of fighters, riding on horses, charging with Iman and Ihlas their humongous, highly over-rated and extremely egoistic enemies who are under the direct supervision and guidance of Iblis!!!! By the by, Iblis invariably leaves them just at the crucial junctures. Let JF-17s be the modern-day Duldul....

A beautiful analogy. I believe in this. We don't need super weapons. We need reasonable weapons like the JF-17. At the same time we should not be blinded by our egos and understand the reality of things.

 

[Arsalan]

Hi,

Your posts are getting funny---.

If it was made / or in contention for the F18 Hornet upgrade---then it must have been a top notch system -1 by default---.

So---if out of the 2 or three systems being considered for a top notch fighter aircraft of its time---the one that loses the bid is not a dud by any means---.

It could mean a difference between a 100 and 99.99

And in almost 100% cases, it is not even that! The decision do not solely depends on "performance" as we know very well.

 

[Shabi1]

I think that sums it up nicely. Its a simple, affordable "bang for the bucks" plane. Its not meaningful to compare it with high end fighters, but can surely play a useful role in the overall air battle.

Regarding the Indra - as I said, I don't know much about this system or even the EW system on the MKI. Just my layman general view is that a Spanish company making an upgrade for local legacy F-18s, compared to a high end Israeli EW system used in an F-15. I would guess the latter is better than the former but hey, whatever rocks your boat. For all we know Indra of Spain is as good if not better than any Israeli EW system, designed for the heavy weight F-15.



A beautiful analogy. I believe in this. We don't need super weapons. We need reasonable weapons like the JF-17. At the same time we should not be blinded by our egos and understand the reality of things.

Did some searching and apparently Indra is being courted in India for supply of EW components for various platforms including the LCA. Although couldn't find any confirmation on which EW JF-17 block2 uses but QUWA speculates its the ALQ-500, same one chosen for Spanish F-18 upgrades and also a probable for LCA/Tejas. PAF has the option to switch to Aselsen alternative if needed.

http://indiandefence.com/threads/analysis-of-rfqs-for-tejas-mk-1a-equipment-trishul.57496/
http://www.sps-aviation.com/story/?id=210

For JF-17 since the Block-3 variant is going to be equipped with AESA, the EW supplier will likely be the radar supplier. AESA transceivers are capable of performing additional tasks like EW capability and datalink functions.

Further note Selex is pitching its next gen cockpit for the JF-17. Even if not selected whatever supplier chosen for the JF-17 Block-3 will likely be a similar offering.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/selex-advances-m-345-cockpit-development-417972/

"Selex believes that other potential applications for the advanced cockpit design could include South Korea’s future TTX trainer programme, and an upgrade of Pakistan’s Chendgu/Pakistan Aeronautical Complex JF-17 fighter, which could be implemented from nation’s third production batch."

Similar from China, this picture is for a J-16 system.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

Everybody wants performance. This is not a new discovery. Question is what you can afford and who will sell to you. The PAF originally wanted French sub systems in the JFT.

 

[Shabi1]

Everybody wants performance. This is not a new discovery. Question is what you can afford and who will sell to you. The PAF originally wanted French sub systems in the JFT.

French supply of avionics eventually deadlocked because of politics and Chinese had matured enough to offer alternatives on better terms. Now there are even Turkish alternatives. Benefits of an open architecture system.

 

[Dazzler]

1. As far as I remember, the EW suite of the JF-17 was nothing revolutionary. It is technically unknown and possibly based around the Indra ALQ-500. Which is a system by a relatively unknown Spanish company. Originally this system was made to upgrade the Spanish F-18 Hornets.

2. The JF-17 is not going to be able to sneak up the MKI. I think that is not possible. It is not a stealth jet. Both sides have AWACS, meaning very little to no home advantage in detection.

3. With the same type of BVR missiles, essentially, the JF-17 will be at a major kinetic disadvantage. Something I have explained multiple times but seems convenient to ignore.

4. Pakistan does not have any major long range SAMs. And the ones available are placed defensively, and unlikely to have much of an impact on ingressing IAF fighters at high altitude, high speed, near the border.

But if PAF did have a SAM system like the S-300 / S-400 / HQ-9, it would be a major equalizer, and would help mitigate its disadvantage which is both in quantity and quality. Even if a simple system could be developed that has long range - based on the SRBMs perhaps. It doesn't have to be deadly accurate, only to force ingressing IAF aircraft to take evasive action, thus equalizing the playing field for the PAF.

S-300s / S-400s are very expensive, as are Chinese equivalents. But they can significantly enhance the overall IADS of a country. We see how scared the US and western governments are of these systems, Russia often blackmails them with it. And Western analysts can be seen online discussing and analyzing the systems to death.

A simple SAM, equivalent to a longer ranged S-200, would basically "do the job" we discussed above. The system could be based around the Nasr / Abdali with fins for maneuver. If one wanted to be even more innovative, you could have a multi-warhead as 4 SD-10s. Using mobile launchers and posted about 50-100 kms from the border, they could create an added headache for IAF. Breaking up their formations and slowing them down, allowing PAF to be vectored in at in a favorable position.

It would also reduce the risk of clashes, and the risk of IAF trying to be aggressive in a tit-for-tat escalation like we are seeing at the LOC. With cheap LRSAMs, the cost-benefit of misadventure becomes even more unfavorable: a missile is cheap, an MKI not so much.

Another aspect is that with any significant warload (such as A2G loads), the IAF planes, when targeted are likely to jettison whatever they have, which would be a mission kill.

You just called one of the largest European defense compnies relatively unknown??

Go through their damn portfolio..
www.indracompany.com

 

[MiG-35-BD]

I think it is a stretch of an imagination to call Indra "one of the largest defence companies" in Europe.

I guess BAE, Dessault, EADS, MBDA, Finmechanica, RR, etc all must not exist in your world. Anyways, this is getting ridiculous so I will let you believe whatever you wish. As I said, if you wish to think Indra of Spain is an equal to Israeli EW systems, that's your choice. Let's move on and discuss ideas, theories, weapon systems and not "I don't like your opinion so I'm going to start attacking you".