Why don't we use JF-17 to bomb TTP in N.Waziristan.

[razgriz19]

what makes us think that Mirages, JF-17s are not being used. media pics are not of the actual bombings. they are file pics and videos.

because it has been mentioned in the interview, i forgot the name of the person (higher rank in air force)
They mentioned that JF-17 has not seen combat and F-16s are being used in the operation

 

[notorious_eagle]

because it has been mentioned in the interview, i forgot the name of the person (higher rank in air force)
They mentioned that JF-17 has not seen combat and F-16s are being used in the operation

I spoke to the JF17 pilot who conducted bombing runs in 2010, this is 2014. I think there were a couple of articles that were posted here in PDF when that happened. You honestly think we invested this much blood and treasure to create an absolute 'Dud'.

 

[Bratva]

I spoke to the JF17 pilot who conducted bombing runs in 2010, this is 2014. I think there were a couple of articles that were posted here in PDF when that happened. You honestly think we invested this much blood and treasure to create an absolute 'Dud'.

Jf-17 project director has mentioned, Block 1 is configured for Air defense duties and hasn't seen a combat. No bombing runs has been made from block-1. It isn't configured for Precision attacks yet.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Jf-17 project director has mentioned, Block 1 is configured for Air defense duties and hasn't seen a combat. No bombing runs has been made from block-1. It isn't configured for Precision attacks yet.

They used MK-82 for the bombing runs, mostly to flatten hardened shelters. I don't know exactly what role they are being used for right now but in 2010 they used them flatten bunkers used by TTP.

 

[Chak Bamu]

@Bratva and @notorious_eagle , you are both right.

Indeed JF-17 is not cleared for precision strikes and therefore is probably not being used much right now. I did come across references to its use in SWA campaign, just as Notorius_eagle says. Oscar has clarified the reasons and I think he is spot on.

It would not be right to use JF-17 for precision strikes if it is not cleared for those. Otherwise, who would be responsible for any mistakes made in case something goes wrong?

Another issue is that F-16 bases are in Punjab and most likely have better security. The bases which host JF-17 have been targeted in the recent past and we probably should not publicize any role played by JF-17 to make it an attractive or symbolic target for terrorists. Once we have a 3rd squadron that is cleared for precision munitions, it might be OK to publicize any use to which JF-17 is actually put in combat.

 

[notorious_eagle]

@Chak Bamu

Thanks for clarifying. Just to add one more point, F16's are not the only ones being utilized right now. Mirage III and V's are also being also extensively utilized, they have the capability for precision strikes.

 

[thrilainmanila]

I spoke to the JF17 pilot who conducted bombing runs in 2010, this is 2014. I think there were a couple of articles that were posted here in PDF when that happened. You honestly think we invested this much blood and treasure to create an absolute 'Dud'.

what did the pilot say about the performance of the JF-17 how does it compare to the Mirage ROSE's or F-16s, The JF-17 doesn't appear to carry that much of a heavy load hopefully they can give it a bigger weapons capacity.

 

[ares]

Clever wording there.

Average sortie time for JF-17 is indeed that much, but that says nothing about its range.

I've noticed a few discrepancies in your posts that you are using to prop your POV that has nothing to do with the thread title.

1. You are using fuel figures and then mixing litres and Kilograms. 3300 litres comes to about 2650 Kg, that you ignored to convert in an earlier post.

2. Specs for JF-17 are out-dated. It was supposed to have 2300 Kg fuel capacity, but one can not be very certain as to how much fuel it can really carry. Most people quote figures from PAC Kamra website, and it is well-known that those figures are not accurate at all and have not been updated ever since they were posted.

3. You are comparing aircraft powered by Turbojet engines to an aircraft powered by a Turbofan engine. You have ignored the huge difference in consumption between the two types of engine. We can not say if the current RD-93 has the same consumption as the legacy RD-33, but still the difference between RD-33 and ATAR-09C is more than 30% (0.77 lb/(lb.ft).hr vs. 1.01 lb/(lb.ft).hr).

You have also ignored the great difference in the respective TWR of two engine types, which is for example, about 4 for ATAR-09C vs. about 8 for RD-33 (not current RD-93). TWR difference is almost 100%. I need not point out the great difference in performance that means.

4. PAF got designed an aircraft that would go beyond what PAF wanted it to replace.

Why so facetious my friend? Why say that JF-17 has short legs? How could you ever be in a position to make such an unfounded assertion? Do you wish to be taken seriously?

Here is the thing, two fighters JF-17 and Tejas are similar in size, carry similar amount of fuel(although on paper LCA carries more fuel, use turbofan engines(any difference is there specific fuel consumption will have negligible effect on their overall range).

I can claim Jf-17 is short legged as IAF finds Tejas short legged too.

"We have been hand-holding the LCA for a long time and will continue to support it. But it is not a replacement for a medium, multirole fighter aircraft. Its reach is barely 200 km while we need an aircraft with a reach of at least 1000-km if we have to pose any challenge in the Tibet Autonomous Region, where India expects a major threat to its air combat power in case of a conflict with China," said a top IAF officer.

India's Rafale Fighter Jet Deal in Final Lap, Awaits Government's Nod - NDTV

Tejas also, cannot compete with the Rafale’s range of 200 kms to 1000 Kms of the Rafale jet, which is necessary to combat Chinese aggression.
The IAF - combat ready for challenges?

Rest assured if Tejas can barely reach 200 Km, I can assure you JF-17 will not be going much farther either, atleast not without external fuel tanks, which take up space(weapons stations) and add weight, thereby reducing the aircraft's capacity to carry heavy air to ground munition.

Now India-Pak FOB are pretty close to each other, it is possible for these air-crafts to carry out shallow incursions into enemy airspace and return, but they can neither cut deep, nor hit hard.

and it not just me who, thinks JF-17 is short legged..Ex-PAF comodores are of the same opinnion.

JF-17 Still a ” Work In Progress “ | idrw.org
Potential payload shortcomings have also been highlighted by analysts. The JF-17 is often seen with three large drop-tanks indicating low internal fuel capacity and/or high consumption by the Klimov RD-93 engine.

However, Ahmed says the three-tank configuration is for ferry flights or “extended operational training exercises/missions” with routine flights made “in clean or single-tank configuration.”

Therefore, for smaller nations and those conducting tactical missions, “it has the requisite reach to engage targets and can also provide required on-station time in an air defense role,” and aerial refueling “further augmented reach and endurance.”

Tufail is unconvinced, though, and highlights that 10,000 hours/13,500 sorties, equates to 45 minutes per sortie.

“Notwithstanding the aerial refueling capability [which has many operational and logistics limitations], the short sortie time may be a no-no for prospective buyers,” he said.

His most likely solution is not so straightforward, however.

“[Conformal fuel tanks] are absolutely essential to a multi-role JF-17, but these are not easy to install, since the aerodynamics of the aircraft is greatly altered and it would call for flight testing in all regimes, including certification of all stores anew.”

Ahmed says other solutions are being considered “based on customer requirements.”

JF-17 Developments Indicate Aircraft Is Still On Track | Defense News | defensenews.com

Since the topic is why jf-17 is not being used extensively in NW, one of the reasons for that could be that current air bases where JF-17 are deployed are more than 250 Km away from NW.

And carrying external fuel tanks will again eat into the aircraft's ordnance carrying capacity, which is as it very limited to due small number of weapons stations, low payload capacity.

 

[In arduis fidelis]

No friend, this is a Bomb truck

I have played the game unfortunately that is not a bomb truck,that is a forklift.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Here is the thing, two fighters JF-17 and Tejas are similar in size, carry similar amount of fuel(although on paper LCA carries more fuel, use turbofan engines(any difference is there specific fuel consumption will have negligible effect on their overall range).

I can claim Jf-17 is short legged as IAF finds Tejas short legged too.


Rest assured if Tejas can barely reach 200 Km, I can assure you JF-17 will not be going much farther either, atleast not without external fuel tanks, which take up space(weapons stations) and add weight, thereby reducing the aircraft's capacity to carry heavy air to ground munition.

Now India-Pak FOB are pretty close to each other, it is possible for these air-crafts to carry out shallow incursions into enemy airspace and return, but they can neither cut deep, nor hit hard.

and it not just me who, thinks JF-17 is short legged..Ex-PAF comodores are of the same opinnion.

Since the topic is why jf-17 is not being used extensively in NW, one of the reasons for that could be that current air bases where JF-17 are deployed are more than 250 Km away from NW.

And carrying external fuel tanks will again eat into the aircraft's ordnance carrying capacity, which is as it very limited to due small number of weapons stations, low payload capacity.

1. All your writing is based on silly conjectures. That is why your are contradicting yourself. 200 KM range and 45 min sortie time does not match up. You are stressing that both these figures are correct. That can not be. I know where you are making the obvious mistake, but you are not the type who can walk away from an argument, and I won't feed you.

2. The range is not a simple calculation in combat scenario.

3. Specific fuel consumption is a pretty important figure. I do not know why you down-play it.

4. You are trying to bring LCA. You Indians never ever learn.

5. You can not quote an average as a limit. I cautioned you on it, but you still wish to insist by quoting the source of that average figure, without realizing why that would actually be erroneous.

6. Putting everything together, your post has nothing to do with the subject here. You are trying to make an excuse to bring your conjectures and LCA to discussion, by making unfounded claims.

7. My post should have sufficed, I had already addressed every possible 'explanation' that you may come up with. This exchange is a waste of people's time.

@gslv , I see that you thanked ares's post. Are you daft?

Over and Out.

 

[Mughal-Prince]

F16 SniperPod!

Yes and bills which goes to those who left this mess to this region :: because some one has to pay the bill !!!

 

[SammiiPryo34]

this is just ... great

 

[Dr Lee]

Does that mean the PAF has little or no confidence in their JF-17s? This would have been the ideal opportunity to test them.

One of the roles of the Thunder is ground attack / close air support. So I wonder why it's not being used for close support of troops in NW?

This indeed is intriguing.

Pakistan is famous in china for buying Prototypes ! How many prototypes of JF17 Pk have bought so Far?