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

[ziaulislam]

Weapons capability, aircraft availability, proven combat record, maintenance ease, radar, engine, performance, cockpit ergonomics, voice (can be changed....I've heard a guy's voice in the Block 40 when things were really bad). If it was really up to par, then countries would be buying the JF-17 in frequent numbers as opposed to F-16s.....just my opinion....I can be wrong....

weapon deals is 80% politics and 20% weapons..we know this from arab deals

 

[GriffinsRule]

Does JF-17 have terrain following radar modes in its current Block 2 or Auto Ground Collision Avoidance systems?

Part of the reason, besides geopolitics, for US barring PAF pilots to train Turkish AF was that their F-16s have digital terrain mapping systems installed which are not available in our F-16s. So I would say until we have such capabilities in our homegrown jet, I would consider it lacking behind the F-16s in overall capabilities, even if it does somethings better (at least 4 that were alluded to by the PAF).

 

[Trango Towers]

wait what ? got any link for that! it would make for an interesting read

No link but the man responsible for the initial jf17 project is my personal friend. He actually resigned when Zardari ordered him to scrap the project. Other officers took over and told Zardari to f off

 

[MastanKhan]

It will be when BLOCK 3 comes. Main advantage will be it will have AESA in BLOCK 3 and JHMCS and more hardpoints. But as of now it's better than BLOCK 40 and behind BLOCK 52

Hi,

You need to understand something---. Extra hard points on this size of aircraft are a burden and not an asset---.

It is not your truck that you can ride overloaded without and repurcussions---.

Damn---it just dawned on me---now I understand why every jack sh-it pakistani wants more hard point---.

Every machine in Pakistan is overloaded---from bicycle to a truck---no wonder the fools want the fighter aircraft to be over loaded to satisfy their egos---.

 

[!eon]

Actually IAF and PAF is not ready for WAR at this movement and both facing problem for their up gradation program and IAF is espcially in serious trouble because her program is going way short as compare to their program. Today IAF is well short of 100 planes compare to her planning till now.

A war won't start. A war with Pakistan would simply be too costly for Hindustan, even if we take nukes out of the equation and assume they magically win.

The PAF would be on the defensive, has to control a much smaller area of land, and has better pilots. These help significantly, allowing the PAF to defend Pakistan relatively well.

The problems only come in if the war drags on too long (but that's unlikely), and the fact that the PAF can't launch offensive raids into Hindustan as successfully as it was able to in the past.

So PAF is living on hypothesis that there would be no war and enemy is not ready.
Same was thinking of Khalifa of Baghdad when Mongols attacked.

if block III can see SU30 MKI with a much bigger RCS or our AW&C helps, then all pilot has to do is to lock it and press the button.

They have SU 30MKI and Pakistan has not even a single Block 3. It's all about today. Tomorrow your enemy would also increase his capability and that too many time more than yours.
AW&Cs would be gone in first week of war.

Yes, war is not just air force to air force fight but PAF is not war ready today.

 

[!eon]

get flames and burst like anything else. The only difference is that SU30 can carry a bigger payload which is not an advantage in dog fight

In dog fight even the block 3 would be no match for Sukhoi's maneuverability, no matter how much tweaked.
It's one of the most maneuverable jets today and with new thrust vectoring nozzles where would JF 17-3 stand in front of this king of maneuverability ?

 

[CriticalThought]

In dog fight even the block 3 would be no match for Sukhoi's maneuverability, no matter how much tweaked.
It's one of the most maneuverable jets today and with new thrust vectoring nozzles where would JF 17-3 stand in front of this king of maneuverability ?

Yes, you are the authority on dog fighting around here, so obviously your word is final.

 

[!eon]

Yes, you are the authority on dog fighting around here, so obviously your word is final.

you tell me Mr. authority how jf is more maneuverable than Su-30 .. come on , go ahead !

 

[araz]

Because when it comes down to spending hard cash, people unwittingly raise the bar. Thunder today is a war fighter that will win an air war when use in the appropriate supporting ecosystem and in the right hands. Of course that doesn't make a good commercial fighter jet. But then again, we recently saw the F-15 in amateurish hands over Syria. Obviously Thunder is not meant for those hands.

We are complicating things here. A platform is what it is. You determine its effectiveness based on it being jn the hands of a competent person.
So where are we with the JFT. I would say we are in the ball park of a block 40 at the moment. My own very amateurish assesment based on what is available on the net is that it lacks a good engine, but has a decent range which can be augmented with IFR. The radar is nearly there however my understanding is that the Bl.40 can simultaneously track and attack more targets. EW suite is definitely better on bl.40, based on the maturity of the systemsand general quality. This has resulted in PAF going to other EU sources for a hybrid systsm. Weapons are there and choice of and variety of weapons for PAF is better on JFT than the 16s. Ease of maintenance is there as well. However the longevity of platform(air frame as well as engine) is not there.
Let us be pragmatic. JFT was never meant to be a replacement for the 16s. It is based on the Gripen and the16s as PAF studied both platforms very closely. However to say it is nlw better than platforms tyat cadry decades of experience and are made by very mature avaition industry is a fallacy.
Comparisons have again been made with SUseries, M2K, the Rafale and others. My only humble suggestion is dont treat air warfare like Akram Inoki Dungal. Modern day warfares will be fought in net centric environments. So it will never be X vs Y. My own thoughts are that whosoever has better integrated platforms in the Net centric envoronment will have an upper hand. My opinion may be biased but with platforms from multiple sources, IAF MAY encounter difficulties in integration and may struggle. PAF has done slightly better with a two tier system which is integrated either via ground nodes or bridging software.
A

 

[Maarkhoor]

In dog fight even the block 3 would be no match for Sukhoi's maneuverability, no matter how much tweaked.
It's one of the most maneuverable jets today and with new thrust vectoring nozzles where would JF 17-3 stand in front of this king of maneuverability ?

Both aircraft equipped with BVR so there is no chance of dog fight, only matters who fire BVR first.

 

[araz]

It will be when BLOCK 3 comes. Main advantage will be it will have AESA in BLOCK 3 and JHMCS and more hardpoints. But as of now it's better than BLOCK 40 and behind BLOCK 52

Yaar Zarvan.
Dont compare a future platform with a present one. Let us wait for a comparison when the platform is available. We use the same rules for the Indians. Why should the rules be different for us?
You say more hardpoints. We have only heard of one additional chin mounted hardpoint. What is the source for more hardpoints? With a DER for BVR in the works why do we need additional hardpoints? I dont think any encounter in the Sub continent arena will have more than 4 bvr+2 wvr. So JFT is fine with a DER.
A

 

[!eon]

Both aircraft equipped with BVR so there is no chance of dog fight, only matters who fire BVR first.

Of course they are equipped with BVR and then WVR.
I didn't bring dog fight into discussion, but chances are there even if 0.01%. US Air force did make that mistake, thinking dog fights part of history and paid for that in early days of Vietnam war.

 

[BATMAN]

The JF-17 as an airframe is certainly competitive with the F-16,

jF-17 airframe is lighter than F-16 and it features design elements from F-35, F-18, F-22, F-16, hence the name jF-17

less efficient engine than the F-16s latest F110-GE-129/132

Probably he wanted to say.. less power as compare to F110-GE-129/132
People should study science before commenting on issues like efficiency/power/torque/speed etc.

The JF-17 also doesn’t have a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio

It does.... writer should do proper search or watch takeoff videos from various airshows, before going specific.

The JF-17s small wing area and lightweight also limit its missile-carrying capacity which further disadvantages it in BVR engagements.

Large wing area has large cross section and drag, which infact are the true disadvantage in BVR engagement.

what exactly Pakistan got to counter SU-30 MKI and Rafale ?

MANPADS are enough

 

[CriticalThought]

We are complicating things here. A platform is what it is. You determine its effectiveness based on it being jn the hands of a competent person.
So where are we with the JFT. I would say we are in the ball park of a block 40 at the moment. My own very amateurish assesment based on what is available on the net is that it lacks a good engine, but has a decent range which can be augmented with IFR. The radar is nearly there however my understanding is that the Bl.40 can simultaneously track and attack more targets. EW suite is definitely better on bl.40, based on the maturity of the systemsand general quality. This has resulted in PAF going to other EU sources for a hybrid systsm. Weapons are there and choice of and variety of weapons for PAF is better on JFT than the 16s. Ease of maintenance is there as well. However the longevity of platform(air frame as well as engine) is not there.
Let us be pragmatic. JFT was never meant to be a replacement for the 16s. It is based on the Gripen and the16s as PAF studied both platforms very closely. However to say it is nlw better than platforms tyat cadry decades of experience and are made by very mature avaition industry is a fallacy.
Comparisons have again been made with SUseries, M2K, the Rafale and others. My only humble suggestion is dont treat air warfare like Akram Inoki Dungal. Modern day warfares will be fought in net centric environments. So it will never be X vs Y. My own thoughts are that whosoever has better integrated platforms in the Net centric envoronment will have an upper hand. My opinion may be biased but with platforms from multiple sources, IAF MAY encounter difficulties in integration and may struggle. PAF has done slightly better with a two tier system which is integrated either via ground nodes or bridging software.
A

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.

Yaar Zarvan.
Dont compare a future platform with a present one. Let us wait for a comparison when the platform is available. We use the same rules for the Indians. Why should the rules be different for us?
You say more hardpoints. We have only heard of one additional chin mounted hardpoint. What is the source for more hardpoints? With a DER for BVR in the works why do we need additional hardpoints? I dont think any encounter in the Sub continent arena will have more than 4 bvr+2 wvr. So JFT is fine with a DER.
A

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.

Both aircraft equipped with BVR so there is no chance of dog fight, only matters who fire BVR 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.

 

[Falcon26]

We are complicating things here. A platform is what it is. You determine its effectiveness based on it being jn the hands of a competent person.
So where are we with the JFT. I would say we are in the ball park of a block 40 at the moment. My own very amateurish assesment based on what is available on the net is that it lacks a good engine, but has a decent range which can be augmented with IFR. The radar is nearly there however my understanding is that the Bl.40 can simultaneously track and attack more targets. EW suite is definitely better on bl.40, based on the maturity of the systemsand general quality. This has resulted in PAF going to other EU sources for a hybrid systsm. Weapons are there and choice of and variety of weapons for PAF is better on JFT than the 16s. Ease of maintenance is there as well. However the longevity of platform(air frame as well as engine) is not there.
Let us be pragmatic. JFT was never meant to be a replacement for the 16s. It is based on the Gripen and the16s as PAF studied both platforms very closely. However to say it is nlw better than platforms tyat cadry decades of experience and are made by very mature avaition industry is a fallacy.
Comparisons have again been made with SUseries, M2K, the Rafale and others. My only humble suggestion is dont treat air warfare like Akram Inoki Dungal. Modern day warfares will be fought in net centric environments. So it will never be X vs Y. My own thoughts are that whosoever has better integrated platforms in the Net centric envoronment will have an upper hand. My opinion may be biased but with platforms from multiple sources, IAF MAY encounter difficulties in integration and may struggle. PAF has done slightly better with a two tier system which is integrated either via ground nodes or bridging software.
A

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