What's new

JF-17 Block-3 -- Updates, News & Discussion

GumNaam

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 23, 2016
9,380
-2
11,980
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Again, why would you want to travel deep inside someones airspace in age of SoW, CM and BMs ? With 2 BVR AAMs, "4 BVR AAMs if rumor of dual rack is true" two tanks, JF-17 got enough juice to perform CAP or escort duty even if taking off from Peshawer, if on strike then enough juice to perhaps ingress 30/50 miles in Indian Airspace if needed be, not sure why though, launch the SoW and bug out and let the escorts worry about BVR sluging match. Think package, package, package.

"PS: Sorry, I didn't mean to write thesis on this, however I couldn't pen it all down in Cliff Notes"
-- .. .-.
what the PAF really needs to do is proliferate air refueling tankers so that we get to the point where every JF17 that is loaded with 3 fuel tanks and BVR missiles or AGMs can take off, go refuel and then go to the mission, whatever that may be. With full load including 3 fuel tanks, it consumes probably a quarter of its internal fuel just during take off. this isn't an uncommon practice. usaf's f15s and f16s do this all the time, take off with a full load, go up there and air refuel and then proceed towards the mission. there are youtube videos available from the pov of the refueler where a fully laden f15/f16/f18 is refueling.
 

TNT

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 2, 2019
3,762
-1
5,903
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I heard in A2A mode the combat range of jf17 is 900km, that is not bad. With aerial refueling this range can increase alot.
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
14,460
10
13,568
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I heard in A2A mode the combat range of jf17 is 900km, that is not bad. With aerial refueling this range can increase alot.
no this is the range with three fuel tanks
with around 2-3 hours endurance

JF17 needs a 30% fuel BUFF, we should look at how sweds realized this with NG version
 

MIRauf

FULL MEMBER
Mar 23, 2018
522
0
678
Country
United States
Location
United States
what the PAF really needs to do is proliferate air refueling tankers so that we get to the point where every JF17 that is loaded with 3 fuel tanks and BVR missiles or AGMs can take off, go refuel and then go to the mission, whatever that may be. With full load including 3 fuel tanks, it consumes probably a quarter of its internal fuel just during take off. this isn't an uncommon practice. usaf's f15s and f16s do this all the time, take off with a full load, go up there and air refuel and then proceed towards the mission. there are youtube videos available from the pov of the refueler where a fully laden f15/f16/f18 is refueling.
Actually, Objective of the Air-Refueler use be to carry just Center Line Tank, thus freeing up other stations. Other use could be that forward bases are being constantly hit with CM, BM, Sow and your are taking off from western bases, get refuel midway and have ample fuel to carry out CAP / Strike.

I doubt that any of the PAF fighters be carrying three tanks during wartime, three tanks usually means ferry flight anyway or one way mission.
 

Marker

FULL MEMBER
Dec 31, 2019
861
5
1,109
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Offical presentation on block 1 can be seen on you tube
With three fuel tanks and just two hardpoint the radiius is merely 500km

We can therefore hit only areas around 400km from boarder or 500km with stand off weapons..that too with maximum fuel load rather then ammunition load. thats about it
Can you please post YouTube video link showing official presentation of JF-17 Block 1.

From the very beginning, PAF leadership is claiming that JF-17 will replace F-7s and Mirages.

We all know F-7s are being used as interceptor and Mirages as strike aircraft.

Combat range for Mirage aircraft is 1250 km. If JF-17 is to take strike role, the combat range should be around or more than 1250 km.

PAF will not invest its valuable financial resources on JF-17 just for point defense role only. JF-17 is a muti-role aircraft, therefore, it should be a potent strike aircraft and 1350 km is a fair combat range.
 

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
3,604
18
4,370
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
You don't need to send fighter / bomber package to bomb 1000+ miles away, you are not fighting Iraqi Armed forces, the survivability of the package will go down as it travels further inland in the Indian airspace. You have CMs and BMs for that job. This is not 1965 where B-57 could travel 300+ miles to deliver the payload and return back to the base, intact.

If JF-17s ever ends up matching the F-16s weapon / range capabilities aka "F-16 of the East," you would want it to be as good as F-15 and so on.

You are 100% correct about limited number of Air to air Refueling tankers, more are needed, however only PAF can answer as to why more are not inducted / planned.

"PS: Sorry, didn't mean to write the thesis on it, just couldn't pen it all down in Cliff Notes."
-- .. .-.
If the PAF starts sending fighters on extended patrols in the EEZ, it may induct more refuelers, IMHO, it would rather induct more planes to generate higher sortie rates directly, then through a vulnerable platform that could be taken out ear on in a war.

the current IL-78 fleet is probably to support flights to overseas exercises and as a heavy cargo Transport aircraft

also, it would be more cost effective to have long range weapons then tweak the JF-17 into something it wasn’t meant to be.
 

ziaulislam

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 22, 2010
14,460
10
13,568
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Can you please post YouTube video link showing official presentation of JF-17 Block 1.

From the very beginning, PAF leadership is claiming that JF-17 will replace F-7s and Mirages.

We all know F-7s are being used as interceptor and Mirages as strike aircraft.

Combat range for Mirage aircraft is 1250 km. If JF-17 is to take strike role, the combat range should be around or more than 1250 km.

PAF will not invest its valuable financial resources on JF-17 just for point defense role only. JF-17 is a muti-role aircraft, therefore, it should be a potent strike aircraft and 1350 km is a fair combat range.
This is well known
Anyone following thunder should knw this
It is also not bad but still short of i would say 20-25% as compare its peers like gripen

See the 2011 presentation around minute 5-6

ROA (range of operations) is around 1400km with three fuel tanks
& 1000km with three fuel tanks with 2000lbs load out
Note..this is better then mirage3/5

Ideally you would like the load out to be 4000 lb with such range
And Air to Air endurance with 4 SDs

The solution is rd93ma, more internal fuel and possible CFTs if feasible
Hence why F16s and future strike aircrafts are under consideration otherwise that would have been in discussion
 

Marker

FULL MEMBER
Dec 31, 2019
861
5
1,109
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
no this is the range with three fuel tanks
with around 2-3 hours endurance

JF17 needs a 30% fuel BUFF, we should look at how sweds realized this with NG version
If basic range (without external tanks) 1800 km, then combat range without external tanks will be around -900 km and of course it will be way much more than your previously quoted figure of 500 km.

What do mean by 30% fuel BUFF? Please elaborate.
 

Tempest II

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Mar 15, 2007
1,372
9
2,232
The picture doesnt give range in a2a mode. The 1000km on a2g is clearly pasted on top of the pic, so not genuine.
Sometimes I don't know why I bother! .... ....
please watch the designer presenting the plane and giving the above details. He say radius of action is 1,400km for air to air mode. This is at 5:26

Screenshot 2021-01-22 001314.png
 

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
3,604
18
4,370
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
no this is the range with three fuel tanks
with around 2-3 hours endurance

JF17 needs a 30% fuel BUFF, we should look at how sweds realized this with NG version
If the JF-17 is to true evolve to meet those requirements, it would require a redesign. It would be a totally new block, and probably something too much to take on just yet. PAF will see how Block III pans out before considering a Block IV.

The first factor would be to make the plane larger, so more fuel is carried internally, but the key to this will be engine development. If the engine thrust improves 15-25% over those shown for the RD-93MA, then you can expect them to give serious consideration to a new variant (JF-17 is after all the backbone of the PAF fleet), but short of that it wouldn’t justify the development costs when the PAF could just go for the J-10 now.

Considering the J-31/35 looks like it maybe picked up as the future PLANAF carrier fighter, expect a lot attention will go to WS-13/WS-19 engine development.
 

PDF

STAFF
May 1, 2015
2,792
10
3,968
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
You can increase the range by refuelling the Jeff after take-off. Alot of fuel is consumed in that process and might be up to 1/4 of the total fuel if not more.
 

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
3,604
18
4,370
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
You can increase the range by refuelling the Jeff after take-off. Alot of fuel is consumed in that process and might be up to 1/4 of the total fuel if not more.
Tankers would be prime targets for the enemy even if they are orbiting near the Afghan Border. Long range BVR missiles could easily take them out. It would be more cost effective to carry fuel tanks and safely jettisoned them after take off. Dual racks and triple racks could help make up for using pylons for drop tanks just for take offs. Perhaps a SpaceX style drop tank recovery mechanism would help safe them from damage upon landing and allow ground crew to retrieve them for re-use.

something like this (yes, I know this is a b61-12, but I’m just focusing on the parachute recovery system)
 
Last edited:

PDF

STAFF
May 1, 2015
2,792
10
3,968
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Tankers would be prime targets for the enemy if if they are orbiting near the Afghan Border. Long range BVR missiles could easily take them out. It would be more cost effective to carry fuel tanks and safely jettisoned them after take off. Dual racks and triple racks could help make up for using pylons for drop tanks just for take offs. Perhaps a SpaceX style drop tank recovery mechanism would help safe them from damage up landing and allow ground crew to retrieve them for re-use.
At the cost of payload. Those pylons need weapons and missiles for the mission profile. Tankers and AWAECs can have escort.

The way you put it, in a conflict, our AWAECs will be useless thanks to BVRS like R-77/37, Meteors, ASTRA etc. Maybe that is why Indian hasn't invested heavily in AWACs cause they know we are gonna shoot it down by firing BVRs at them.

In such case, we need to make preparations to keep our net-centric capability intact and even if AWACs which play a vital role, is taken out of picture, we can perform the operations successfully.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Top Bottom