Exclusive interview with new Pakistan Air Force Chief: PAF’s Cutting Edge Grows

[paki_rambo]

Plus the pilots don't get bored because they have one another to talk to.

i found this one to be more useful .anyway thanks for helping out

 

[Bratva]

the new and best news is that JF-17 dual seater will be the main LIFT. this will save millions and allow investment in other areas

Irony is It was same PAF which were advocating they don't need dual seater awhile back. @Oscar isn't Shortsightedness a hallmark ?

hi
hold on sir jf 17 is now using klj-7 radar which detection range for 5m2 is about 125 km and PAF is replacing it with AESA
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
sir klj-7 will detect su30 mki at about 140 km
and AESA will detect it about 170 km and blk 3 of jf17 will have less rcs ......
so jf 17 will be on safer side i think....your thoughts plz

For comparative aesa comparison, you can look up the stats of gripen aesa radar. More or less JF-17 AESA stats would be the same.

Who says Blk 3 would have less rcs? when there is talks of increasing hardpoints which means a more loaded configuration and increase in RCS ?

Oh Bahi, firstly it's good news that JF-17 transition is going smoothly without any glitches. I have said this before that PAF has it's hands full with this aircraft and it's proving to be a very potent system. The article only discloses some basic information as PAF likes to continue with it's work quietly. I bet you weren't aware of the JF-17 performing duties on ADA equipped with BVR rounds. PAF is well conscious of the surrounding developments. No point making a song and dance about something and then you find a decade later you are still on the drawing board.

As photos of F-16 armed with AIM-120 being released constantly now a days. A photo of JF-17 with SD-10 A round would've have been released to interwebs if it was actually doing ADA with SD-10. I'm still skeptical about the claim. It's more or less similar to what JF-17 director claimed in one of it's interviews. We sent 30-40 JF-17 in china for large scale exercise.

So as per last article of Alan warnes. SD-10 A would appear on JF-17 in late 2015 to mid-2016 when Version 2 of radars become operational. So I will stick to that claim instead of what PAF chief being saying for promotional stuff.

 

[MastanKhan]

Well I'm disappointed, AESA is nodoubt a giant leap, but it wont safe JF-17 from more maneuverable aircraft like MKI, Rafale, Mirage-2000. HMDS/HOBS missile would save it. But PAF is in no mood to integrate it even in 3rd block.

HI,

You are correct in a way----. The JF 17 covers the weakness from bottoms up---. It gives strength where the opponent has none----. So---with the aesa---the JF 17 would not be the weaker link---its only setback is off course the lack of HOBS capability----but that will be needed in a merge----. Is paf changing its combat tactics from wvr to bvr!!!!

In our scenario with aesa---we are still going to be in somewhat of a commanding position at bvr ranges---.

It also seems like the game plan in training of fighter pilots has changed as well. Switching a fighter pilot after 250 hrs from a F7PG to an F16 or a JF 17 is a very aggressive approach.

I think someone who can successfully operate an F7PG---it would be easier for them to operate the Jf 17----.

But again---a lack of a true air superiority fighter is going to hurt real bad---. There is no treason not to have 50 of them procured---.

When I talk about the SD10---it is already understood that it is the latest version---SD10A.

 

[Goenitz]

Oh Bahi,
No point making a song and dance about something and then you find a decade later you are still on the drawing board.

Man hoe come indians making helis both transprt and attack when they aren't successful in making operational tank and aircrafts. as far as i know Helis are way more difficult to develop than fixed wing air craft...

 

[Donatello]

HI,

You are correct in a way----. The JF 17 covers the weakness from bottoms up---. It gives strength where the opponent has none----. So---with the aesa---the JF 17 would not be the weaker link---its only setback is off course the lack of HOBS capability----but that will be needed in a merge----. Is paf changing its combat tactics from wvr to bvr!!!!

In our scenario with aesa---we are still going to be in somewhat of a commanding position at bvr ranges---.

It also seems like the game plan in training of fighter pilots has changed as well. Switching a fighter pilot after 250 hrs from a F7PG to an F16 or a JF 17 is a very aggressive approach.

I think someone who can successfully operate an F7PG---it would be easier for them to operate the Jf 17----.

But again---a lack of a true air superiority fighter is going to hurt real bad---. There is no treason not to have 50 of them procured---.

When I talk about the SD10---it is already understood that it is the latest version---SD10A.

That is what i was confused and amused about. A pilot coming off a F-7P/PG would easily fit in a JF-17, since 250 hours on an unforgiving aircraft (despite all the improvements PAF made) is more than enough for a 'luxury' FBW aircraft....not to mention they already have plenty of Jet flying hours on the K-8s before they transitioned to F-7s

 

[patriotpakistan]

Dont knw but I hate this aircraft jf17 more thn.anything else... the aircraft is seriously lacking in aggressive look n feel... n some uncle comeup with oo bhai military aircraft harware is more important thn look n feel for those.. eek unko kuch pata wata nahi about the importance of look, feel overall design... na unko ye aaj tak pata chala hay why from B1 to f16... why every single US made weapons are so aggressive in shape... anyway hope Pakistan get rid of this single engine walay jahaaz...

The point of making the JF-17 was to learn how to make fighter jets (A BIG and much needed step). First attempts aren't usually perfect. The Swedish Gripen is a beautiful machine. Have you seen the first attempt of the Swedish at making fighter jets? It's hideous:

I agree the JF-17 doesn't look aggresive from all aspects (The Mig-21 remnants in the rear fuselage are fat and hideous), however it is plenty aggresive from the front and bottom:

 

[Humble Analyst]

In the presence of JF-17 Block 3, We will have no need for J-10s

What are plans to counter Rafale?

 

[ConcealCarry]

and the twin seat too, so its two good news + new weapons for Thunders

Hi,

So---the first of the good news is released---thank you---ie the confirmation of AESA in blk 3. Now that is a giant leap----. More to come.

Aggressiveness is not in the looks (Jests don't brow beat other jests), its the avionics + weapons package that makes the difference. thunder already has great and diverse weapons package, with AESA and advanced EW package, its going to up the air warfare game in the region.

I agree the JF-17 doesn't look aggresive from all aspects (The Mig-21 remnants in the rear fuselage are fat and hideous), however it is plenty aggresive from the front and bottom:

 

[SQ8]

Irony is It was same PAF which were advocating they don't need dual seater awhile back. @Oscar isn't Shortsightedness a hallmark ?.

Less short-sightedness, more change of plans due to an increase in budget. The PAF was looking at the Fs coming in slower than they are now due to 90%'s corruption. However, this government has managed to increase funding which is leading to a speedup in plans..hence the jumping of pilots to better platforms. I would not be surprised if the PAF actually expands its squadrons before it contracts.

And so where they were expecting pilots with 300-400 hours to take on the JF-17, it is likely that it may be that pilots now will be taking it on at 150 hours.

 

[Sine Nomine]

@Oscar @Bratva @Windjammer @MastanKhan
I have seen in all images of JF-17 and even at in flight in Sargodha , that all JFT's carry two drop tanks in flight, during performing circuits and tight loops, it makes a lot of noise more then mirages,f-7 and viper's in same maneuvers most likey consumes lot of thrust..
"The primary disadvantage with drop tanks is that they impose a drag penalty on the aircraft carrying them. External fuel tanks will also increase the moment of inertia, thereby reducing roll rates for air maneuvers. Some of the drop tank's fuel is used to overcome the added drag and weight of the tank itself. Drag in this sense varies with the square of the aircraft's speed. The use of drop tanks also reduces the number of external hardpoints available for weapons, reduces the weapon-carrying capacity, and increases the aircraft's radar signature."
From above statement it is clear that usage of drop tanks has serious disadvantage on performance of JFT,
sir i am not clear on two things please clear them to me....
regards
1)1350 km stated combat radius is on internal fuel? or only when carrying two drop tanks it has the combat radius of 1350 km?
2)what serious shortcoming it will have in any given A2G , A2A and Dog fight engagement while carrying two drop tanks?
What is solution for that problems from your expert point of view....

 

[MastanKhan]

@Oscar @Bratva @Windjammer @MastanKhan
I have seen in all images of JF-17 and even at in flight in Sargodha , that all JFT's carry two drop tanks in flight, during performing circuits and tight loops, it makes a lot of noise more then mirages,f-7 and viper's in same maneuvers most likey consumes lot of thrust..
"The primary disadvantage with drop tanks is that they impose a drag penalty on the aircraft carrying them. External fuel tanks will also increase the moment of inertia, thereby reducing roll rates for air maneuvers. Some of the drop tank's fuel is used to overcome the added drag and weight of the tank itself. Drag in this sense varies with the square of the aircraft's speed. The use of drop tanks also reduces the number of external hardpoints available for weapons, reduces the weapon-carrying capacity, and increases the aircraft's radar signature."
From above statement it is clear that usage of drop tanks has serious disadvantage on performance of JFT,
sir i am not clear on two things please clear them to me....
regards
1)1350 km stated combat radius is on internal fuel? or only when carrying two drop tanks it has the combat radius of 1350 km?
2)what serious shortcoming it will have in any given A2G , A2A and Dog fight engagement while carrying two drop tanks?
What is solution for that problems from your expert point of view....

Hi,

At the first hint of engagement or before approaching the target, the tanks will be dropped and the plane will be flying on internal fuel only.

 

[Erroroverload]

For comparative aesa comparison, you can look up the stats of gripen aesa radar. More or less JF-17 AESA stats would be the same.

Who says Blk 3 would have less rcs? when there is talks of increasing hardpoints which means a more loaded configuration and increase in RCS ?

blk 3 will not be the same as blk 2 there will be structural changes because of AESA and that doesn't mean that it will increase its RCS blk 3 would be designed as low RCS

just look RAFALE it has 14 hardpoints but very low RCS.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Hi,

At the first hint of engagement or before approaching the target, the tanks will be dropped and the plane will be flying on internal fuel only.

i knew it they can be dropped at will but what about 2 precious hardpoints and external load capacity used in mounting fuel tanks.

 

[Windjammer]

Irony is It was same PAF which were advocating they don't need dual seater awhile back. @Oscar


As photos of F-16 armed with AIM-120 being released constantly now a days. A photo of JF-17 with SD-10 A round would've have been released to interwebs if it was actually doing ADA with SD-10. I'm still skeptical about the claim. It's more or less similar to what JF-17 director claimed in one of it's interviews. We sent 30-40 JF-17 in china for large scale exercise.

So as per last article of Alan warnes. SD-10 A would appear on JF-17 in late 2015 to mid-2016 when Version 2 of radars become operational. So I will stick to that claim instead of what PAF chief being saying for promotional stuff.

Now let's see, the F-7PGs have been in PAF service since 2002, i have yet to see one flying with it's armament of BVR missiles. Where as JF-17 has appeared with it's supplement of weapons including the SD-10s.

 

[Hell hound]

Hi,

At the first hint of engagement or before approaching the target, the tanks will be dropped and the plane will be flying on internal fuel only.

don't you think we will be needing 2 more upgrades if we want aesa to work on jf 17
1) more power output from engine to power significantly power hungry aesa so it means either going for RD93MA or Chinese option.
2)and with these bigger fuel hungry engine we will needing cft to have sufficient fuel for reasonable TOT(time on target).