What's new

PAF has plans to deploy Thunder Bravo for SEAD Ops

Good progress in Thunder project. too bad we have limited engine options what we gonna miss most in further development is improving power and more load capacity.
This could be the biggest bottle neck in development of future block. if we could source a more powerful engine a strike version JAF 17 could be a huge capability.

Hi,

The power of the engine needs to be in line with the capability of the structure that holds it---.

Some of us have spent 1000's of hours on this forum trying to teach pakistanis what is more important in today's combat---and yet young & middle age pakistani posters come here and talk illiterate---.

The engine has no consequence other than offer appropriate power---. It is your electronic gadgets and EW package and your strike package that would make the difference---.

The engine is of least importance in this equation other than to provide the required power output at the needed time---.

Apart from Sead missions, some JF-17b should be optimized as airborne electronic attack (AEA) aircraft.

Hi,

I already told them years ago when they started on the two seater design some 10 years too late---.
 
Although I am a bit sceptical about the news, however, if it turns out to be true then its really a great news. The missile should have enough range to tackle future air defence systems to be deployed by India i.e. S400. Though, I realize it's a tough ask for our first missile of the category...

We need to develop our own version of the AARGM-ER (300 km) range design specially to take on the S-400


We can develop it based on our current CM-400AKG. IMHO It will require some redesign work to be optimized for the role and a different guidance to home into the S-400’s radar is needed, but a dedicated effort could meet this need if it is made a priority requirement.

 
Please forgive me for disappearing. There is 1 hour light and then 1 hour load shedding. Have to manage everything in this time. Yes. It is MK.

[/USER] back to PDF.
12 hr loadshedding?? which city
 
Hi,

The power of the engine needs to be in line with the capability of the structure that holds it---.

Some of us have spent 1000's of hours on this forum trying to teach pakistanis what is more important in today's combat---and yet young & middle age pakistani posters come here and talk illiterate---.

The engine has no consequence other than offer appropriate power---. It is your electronic gadgets and EW package and your strike package that would make the difference---.

The engine is of least importance in this equation other than to provide the required power output at the needed time---.



Hi,

I already told them years ago when they started on the two seater design some 10 years too late---.

Some people on this forum have more knowledge than others. I do acknowledged that I am in the category of one's with least knowledge. And forgive me if I have offended some one here who is the brain hehind the pakistani defense related policies and project.

The point I was trying to make is quite simple. A light strike aircraft vs medium size strike aircraft. US navy realised same with F 18 and developed Super hornet. Pakistan can't do that.

as we lack sufficient capabilities both industrial and technical.
To make matters worse we don't have access to every thing needed.

I was just narrating the same fact that.
Would PAF hand choses R 33 if it had access to F110.

So please don't be offended. I do realise that our professional are doing the best in limited space both financial and technical. And some of us here have more contributions in defense related development and policies. best of luck keep up the good work,,,,,,,,,,,.
 
Apart from Sead missions, some JF-17b should be optimized as airborne electronic attack (AEA) aircraft.

The Growler platforms should use the three panel version of the KLJ-7A AESA radars along side dedicated jamming pods so that it can do both Airborne and SEAD optimally (not having to either rotate the radar or maneuvering to maintain a lock on the targeting being jammed) without the need for two different variants; one for the air and one for the ground.

If a PAF squadron has approx. 17 fighters and an average of 3 are these kind of “Growlers”; the mix out of the final planned run of 289 planes (some mention of 250 planes originally plus a number of two deters to get to ~288-289 in total) would be approx. 238 Single seat variants (Enough for 14 squadrons on their own) and 51 twin seat variants (enough for three squadrons in their own). If we currently have 14 twin seat variants, the Kamra factory can keep putting out 37 more JF-17B over the next 2-3 years if there is a delay in the production of Block III variants.

3 full strength all growler JF-17 variants could allow one squadron to be deployed to each of the three sectors, and growlers to train together in one unit then meet up with the squadrons they would be deployed to. Externally it would look like a JF-17 but internally it would be more akin to the special mission jamming platforms like the Dassault Falcon 20
 
Last edited:
https://falcons.pk/photo/JF-17B-Thunder/2723

Photo-2723.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom