JF-17 Block II, A Final Thunder & The FC-20 - Updates

[Jango]

This most curious - should the specs be equal to be effective?

a mere misconception in most minds.

 

[Tempest II]

Just one Query to respected senior members.

PAF is going to induct large number of JF-17 to replace old plane, F-7, mirrage 3/5 and A5.While IAF is going to induct large number of Su30MKI to replace old planes.Dont you think, in future Jf-17 would be direct competition with Su30MKI.Currently JF-17 specification looks not equal to Su-30 MKI.So, would'nt it be imballance.?

I know, FC-20, F16 are there but to counter MMRCA(Typhon/rafale).

The PAF is a system. The IAF is a system. In fact the Pakistan Defence Force (army and navy included) IS A SYSTEM and the same can be said about the Indians. So don't look at the JF-17 in isolation or the MKIs ... ... because the PAF is not looking at the JF-17 as a stand alone aircraft.

Another fact is that the defending force does not have to be equal to the attacking force to defend successfully ... ... yes, a "weaker" force in defence mode and upset a "stronger" force that is attacking. Rule of thumb is that the attacking force needs a 3 to 4 times advantage. This advantage can be numerical, technological or in tactics or combined.

 

[epinephrine]

with modern aircrafts in its arsenal PAF will be able to launch offensive n defensive missions at an equal rate as they did in past wars esp in 65.in 71 it was not just the difference in the quantity of the aircraft but the bengali traitors in PAF also had a marked negative impact on the overall efficiency of the PAF still it managed to have a 3 to 1 kill ratio in its favour

 

[MastanKhan]

The PAF is a system. The IAF is a system. In fact the Pakistan Defence Force (army and navy included) IS A SYSTEM and the same can be said about the Indians. So don't look at the JF-17 in isolation or the MKIs ... ... because the PAF is not looking at the JF-17 as a stand alone aircraft.

Another fact is that the defending force does not have to be equal to the attacking force to defend successfully ... ... yes, a "weaker" force in defence mode and upset a "stronger" force that is attacking. Rule of thumb is that the attacking force needs a 3 to 4 times advantage. This advantage can be numerical, technological or in tactics or combined.

Tempest,

This system doesnot live and breath in ETHER ----i t has to live in the world of reality where each su30 strike aircraft which has a 4 times force multiplier effect---visavis----8 BVR as compared to 2----plus those 8 have longer range and longer 95% kill range as compared to sd10-----.

India / SU30 already has a 4 times adavantage when facing JF 17 mano amano---but suddenly loses it when facing the F 16 with aim 120c----the reason is very obvious----it is mostly in the missile itself + the radar package---.

If you can put an aesa radar on a B52 bomber and load it with the top of the line Aim 120's----it will play havoc on enemy aircraft----.

This time the SU 30 will rain death from a longer distance that can't be reached by SD 10----. The only way paf can counter is with better electronics and longer range missiles with a better launch to kill ratio at longer distance.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Just one Query to respected senior members.

PAF is going to induct large number of JF-17 to replace old plane, F-7, mirrage 3/5 and A5.While IAF is going to induct large number of Su30MKI to replace old planes.Dont you think, in future Jf-17 would be direct competition with Su30MKI.Currently JF-17 specification looks not equal to Su-30 MKI.So, would'nt it be imballance.?

I know, FC-20, F16 are there but to counter MMRCA(Typhon/rafale).

The two aircrafts can never be equals man....it just cant...the actual design is different and the roles are different. Just like comparing F 16 to the F 15. Those two are totally different aircrafts.

 

[SBD-3]

Tempest,

This system doesnot live and breath in ETHER ----i t has to live in the world of reality where each su30 strike aircraft which has a 4 times force multiplier effect---visavis----8 BVR as compared to 2----plus those 8 have longer range and longer 95% kill range as compared to sd10-----.

India / SU30 already has a 4 times adavantage when facing JF 17 mano amano---but suddenly loses it when facing the F 16 with aim 120c----the reason is very obvious----it is mostly in the missile itself + the radar package---.

If you can put an aesa radar on a B52 bomber and load it with the top of the line Aim 120's----it will play havoc on enemy aircraft----.

This time the SU 30 will rain death from a longer distance that can be reached by SD 10----. The only way paf can counter is with better electronics and longer range missiles with a better launch to kill ratio at longer distance.

Sir, Its not always like it what you're saying, Being fully loaded is in itself a disadvantage. PAF is known for its tough standards when it comes to platforms it operates. PAF was not satisfied with SD-10A so pushed Chinese friends towards a better SD-10B, Else we would see R Darters or may be some other A2A on its platforms. In fact, if I can recall pshamim shaib's thoughts, he said the same thing, "PAF is determined not to enter into numbers game, but has decided to enhance the capabilities of its aircrafts for more versatile roles", thats why we see more focus on ECM/EW warfare, Wild Weasel ops, A2A BVR, A2G PGA, SoWs, Aerial refuling with only three or so operational platforms. BVR is an advantage, but has never been a game changer unless you have the performance of F-22ish systems to enhance its Kill probability. The major element in the aerial warfare has been the element of surprise rather than range,It is said that approximately 70% of kills to date never knew what hit them. with Enhanced AWACS coverage coupled with the RCS of MKI, it gets naked well before it reaches the position to do the dead. for instance upon detection AWACS along with defenders can create a dense EW environment, making BVR kill much much more difficult while creating a wrap for its interceptors to sneak in for an unpleasant surprise.

 

[Mani2020]

Sir, Its not always like it what you're saying, Being fully loaded is in itself a disadvantage. PAF is known for its tough standards when it comes to platforms it operates. PAF was not satisfied with SD-10A so pushed Chinese friends towards a better SD-10B, Else we would see R Darters or may be some other A2A on its platforms. In fact, if I can recall pshamim shaib's thoughts, he said the same thing, "PAF is determined not to enter into numbers game, but has decided to enhance the capabilities of its aircrafts for more versatile roles", thats why we see more focus on ECM/EW warfare, Wild Weasel ops, A2A BVR, A2G PGA, SoWs, Aerial refuling with only three or so operational platforms. BVR is an advantage, but has never been a game changer unless you have the performance of F-22ish systems to enhance its Kill probability. The major element in the aerial warfare has been the element of surprise rather than range,It is said that approximately 70% of kills to date never knew what hit them. with Enhanced AWACS coverage coupled with the RCS of MKI, it gets naked well before it reaches the position to do the dead. for instance upon detection AWACS along with defenders can create a dense EW environment, making BVR kill much much more difficult while creating a wrap for its interceptors to sneak in for an unpleasant surprise.

Hmmm. It also depends upon the role and the nature of the aerial warfare and the time span of it . Nothing can be solely judged when you have such integrated style of warfare. None of the aircraft can be declared good or bad on the basis of standing analysis. You have to first see the roles of the the aircraft or the possibility of them facing each other in what role. If one says jf-17 to be effective in an offensive role than i would definitely say that jf-17 will easily be handicapped due to its short range and weapon carrying ability , Once you enter the enemy airspace for offence the first and foremost priority of one is to drop as much weapons as one possibly can to create a havoc for that you definitely need something that can carry more payload and have better range . But for a defending aircraft jf-17 is a good match where it has to remain in its own air-space while getting help form un-countable assets

For an MKI pilot in Pakistani airspace it not only has to deal with jf-17 but many other assets like AWACS and SAMs that itself puts a psychological pressure on the pilot because he knows that he can easily be hit without he been realizing it and that psychological pressure always makes an ant look like an elephant and that is what make you suffer most of the times in a battle field. , what it has to do is effecting the performance of the offensive in a negative manner .

Also in warfare scenario a rational IAF with current inventory will not put its MKIs against PAF or atleast not many of them(thats what i meant by time span, MRCA hasn't arrived yet) because of the fact that they can't afford to give China an open back door to sneak in . So there will be a two war front scenario ,not necessarily be physically but surely psychologically

Here you need to compare these aircrafts and not on standing mode

 

[IND151]

will JF 17 have new engine?

current engine is underpowerd

 

[Mani2020]

will JF 17 have new engine?

current engine is underpowerd

Who said this? not carrying much hard points/ payload doesn't necessarily always mean that the engine is underpowered , lot has to do with the priorities. Current engine has proved to be very responsive . but due to jf-17 as a light aircraft the payload is limited which can be enhanced by reducing aircrafts weight by adding more composites which you will most probably see in next block

Also the engine replacement can be a possibility if China comes up with something more powerful and efficient but then PAF will have to decide whether to keep running the current aircrafts with current engine and seek for the replacement in the next block or batches or thoroughly replace it in all aircrafts, in both cases cost will be the one major factor

 

[Jungibaaz]

Tempest,

This system doesnot live and breath in ETHER ----i t has to live in the world of reality where each su30 strike aircraft which has a 4 times force multiplier effect---visavis----8 BVR as compared to 2----plus those 8 have longer range and longer 95% kill range as compared to sd10-----.

amount of BVR on either side count for nothing 1 vs 1.
As for the SD-10..... there is a difference between the SD-10 and the specs we know of.... the 70km specs are very old, from 2003 in fact, SD-10A and B are what you need to be counting up.

India / SU30 already has a 4 times adavantage when facing JF 17 mano amano---but suddenly loses it when facing the F 16 with aim 120c----the reason is very obvious----it is mostly in the missile itself + the radar package---.

Radar advantage? Yes MKI has a larger radar, but JF-17 has an RCS advantage.
Now to truly count up.... 1 vs 1 it will either be the MKI's radar or the JF-17s RCS that wins the day....

Now I've seen many folks overestimate the BARS range, stats... saying it's output lies between 7-8kw and other BS claiming it's max effective search and track range is 350km, mini awacs etc....

JF-17 has THE lowest RCS of any PAF fighter, lower then any of our F-16 variants... how low is unknown for now.
IMHO KLJ-7 will have no problem detecting MKI at even 150km range even more then that if I'm feeling less pessimistic.

If you can put an aesa radar on a B52 bomber and load it with the top of the line Aim 120's----it will play havoc on enemy aircraft----.

as long as you can keep this bird away from an AWACS with a fighter that may be armed with a Long range AAM such as Novator, PL-21 etc.....

and given that a long range SAM isn't near you, or else you can kiss your very expensive bird good bye, ECM alone are not enough to evade an income AAM(s).

This time the SU 30 will rain death from a longer distance that can be reached by SD 10----.

Not entirely.... SD-10B might have decent range.... PL-21 may come in the future, hell even AIM-120C-5 will do just fine.
Just out of curiosity.... what kind of ranges are you imagining for the MKI to 'rain death' at?

The only way paf can counter is with better electronics and longer range missiles with a better launch to kill ratio at longer distance.

PAF has so far made all the right moves.... small birds with low RCS to cut the radar advantage MKI has, then further demolish it with AWACS+datalink (realtime) and put the advnatage with us.

SD-10A is said to have a range of close to 100km, can only get better for SD-10B.
PL-21 could be an option for the future. AIM-120C-5 with F-16 and an AWACS is enough to deal with MKI.

not to mention further RCS reduction on future variants of Chinese birds....

IMHO you are underestimating PAF's ability to deal with MKI, or over estimating MKI's reach.

regards,

 

[SBD-3]

Hmmm. It also depends upon the role and the nature of the aerial warfare and the time span of it . Nothing can be solely judged when you have such integrated style of warfare. None of the aircraft can be declared good or bad on the basis of standing analysis. You have to first see the roles of the the aircraft or the possibility of them facing each other in what role. If one says jf-17 to be effective in an offensive role than i would definitely say that jf-17 will easily be handicapped due to its short range and weapon carrying ability , Once you enter the enemy airspace for offence the first and foremost priority of one is to drop as much weapons as one possibly can to create a havoc for that you definitely need something that can carry more payload and have better range . But for a defending aircraft jf-17 is a good match where it has to remain in its own air-space while getting help form un-countable assets

For an MKI pilot in Pakistani airspace it not only has to deal with jf-17 but many other assets like AWACS and SAMs that itself puts a psychological pressure on the pilot because he knows that he can easily be hit without he been realizing it and that psychological pressure always makes an ant look like an elephant and that is what make you suffer most of the times in a battle field. , what it has to do is effecting the performance of the offensive in a negative manner .

Also in warfare scenario a rational IAF with current inventory will not put its MKIs against PAF or atleast not many of them(thats what i meant by time span, MRCA hasn't arrived yet) because of the fact that they can't afford to give China an open back door to sneak in . So there will be a two war front scenario ,not necessarily be physically but surely psychologically

Here you need to compare these aircrafts and not on standing mode

Mani I would rather call it a misinformation or an undue influence of Indian members that JFT is a short legged platform. PAF's operational foucus should be to paralyze the IAF FOBs and possible interceptions. Deep strikes are not necessarily a need. Secondly SoW capability gives PAF much more strategic room while implementing its strategic doctrine. When you can launch a Raa'd from 300-350 KM away rather than dropping conventional ammunition over the bases. IAF can afford to keep long range fighters deep inside India but even it Pakistan wants, it simply doesnt have this liberty as against India. Thus PAF's historic bet has been an limited offensive punch and air superiority in bordering Areas to ensure IA does not get help from IAF while PAF is able to even things up with large numbers of IA by offering its air support. This is what JFT is envisaged for 1)Immobilize IAF FoBs 2)Ensure Air support for PA 3) Wild Wiesel hunter for clearing the way for possible relatively "Deeper" (Not necessarily Deep) air strikes on strategic targets. The deep strikes should logically be the task of PA strategic command and PN's SSGKs. JFT is expected to ensure that things go smooth in bordering area.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

BVR is an advantage, but has never been a game changer unless you have the performance of F-22ish systems to enhance its Kill probability

thats what the Serbian pilots were banking on while flying their Mig-29s, all of their planes that were shot down were from NATO BVR kills. the Mig-29 were hoping that the BVRs will miss them and they will get the chance in WVR but sadly for them that didnt happen. the kills were attributed to F-15s and F-16s of USAF and Dutch Airforces.
I read somewhere that F/A18s also scored BVR kills but now I cant find the link for that.
given from above BVR indeed was game changer and Serbians never flew their planes and saw them trashed on the ground from NATO bombings

 

[Mani2020]

Mani I would rather call it a misinformation or an undue influence of Indian members that JFT is a short legged platform. PAF's operational foucus should be to paralyze the IAF FOBs and possible interceptions. Deep strikes are not necessarily a need. Secondly SoW capability gives PAF much more strategic room while implementing its strategic doctrine. When you can launch a Raa'd from 300-350 KM away rather than dropping conventional ammunition over the bases. IAF can afford to keep long range fighters deep inside India but even it Pakistan wants, it simply doesnt have this liberty as against India. Thus PAF's historic bet has been an limited offensive punch and air superiority in bordering Areas to ensure IA does not get help from IAF while PAF is able to even things up with large numbers of IA by offering its air support. This is what JFT is envisaged for 1)Immobilize IAF FoBs 2)Ensure Air support for PA 3) Wild Wiesel hunter for clearing the way for possible relatively "Deeper" (Not necessarily Deep) air strikes on strategic targets. The deep strikes should logically be the task of PA strategic command and PN's SSGKs. JFT is expected to ensure that things go smooth in bordering area.

Husnain what they mostly do is , they directly compare jf-17 with mki, as mki has quite a bit of range for a fighter aircraft so that comparison makes them to take jf-17 as a short legged fighter , they have to come up with the sense that both are of different leagues , one is design for deep strikes and penetration the other one is for other way round . Why not compare jf-17 with the other fighters of IAF and let the comparison with mki left for fc-20 ,

 

[SBD-3]

thats what the Serbian pilots were banking on while flying their Mig-29s, all of their planes that were shot down were from NATO BVR kills. the Mig-29 were hoping that the BVRs will miss them and they will get the chance in WVR but sadly for them that didnt happen. the kills were attributed to F-15s and F-16s of USAF and Dutch Airforces.
I read somewhere that F/A18s also scored BVR kills but now I cant find the link for that.
given from above BRV indeed was game changer and Serbians never flew their planes and saw them trashed on the ground from NATO bombings

Sir, AFAIK, Serbs had Approximately 5 Fulcurms in "flyable" (Meant they could fly, and hopefully intercept) conditions while the rest were irrepairable, these 5 Migs were dispersed around Serbia (2 at Nis AB ,2 at Batajnica, 1 at Ponikve AB)
AF leadership did make a mistake by ordering the pilots to use high level interceptions rather than low level sneak attacks.On first date of NATO attack 3 out of these five flucrums were lost
1-Maj. Dragan Ilic damaged by AIM-120 shot from Dutch Falcon or Serbian SA-6 SAM.The radar failed.
2-Maj. Ilijo Arizanov, shot down by an USAF F-15C.both the radio and SPO-15 malfunctioned.
3-Maj. Nebojsa Nikolic, had a small life in the air, short down immediately after getting airborne,both the radar and the SN-29 missile guidance systems were inoperative and SPO-15 also did not function properly.
4-Maj. Ljubisa Kulacin, kept evading incoming shots with malfunctioning systems. Diverted to another safe airfield
5-Maj. Predrag Milutinovic,Immediately after take-off his radar failed and even the electrical generator malfunctioned. The last acquisition of his RWR was ground based launch not A2A.
as you can see all of these pilots experienced immense problems with weapons and navigational systems on their aircraft, just imagine these pilots desperately busy dealing with both internal systems problems as well as external threats.
Subsequent stories of Flucrums also suffered several malfunctions. I think that gives a fair hint why these birds proved to be "easy targets"
it is said that the malfunctioning problem grew to an extent that Pilots of 127th squadron refused to fly their planes and their Air Chief Col.Gen.Ljubisa Velickovic test-flew a MiG-29 in order to see with his own eyes if the aircraft was permanently malfuncioning

 

[Mani2020]

thats what the Serbian pilots were banking on while flying their Mig-29s, all of their planes that were shot down were from NATO BVR kills. the Mig-29 were hoping that the BVRs will miss them and they will get the chance in WVR but sadly for them that didnt happen. the kills were attributed to F-15s and F-16s of USAF and Dutch Airforces.
I read somewhere that F/A18s also scored BVR kills but now I cant find the link for that.
given from above BRV indeed was game changer and Serbians never flew their planes and saw them trashed on the ground from NATO bombings

While i agree with you that BVR has a great impact in the game but still i will also go with the point that in the case of serbia there were no ECM or AWACS included , so the bvr has a better chance as they were not resisted by the heavy EW environment and i doubt whether the serbian mig-29s got any kind of sophisticated jammers . Also few mig-29 would have been an easy lunch for the NATO. In this case neither india is NATO nor Pakistan is serbia, though i still consider bvr a very important factor but it will have far less impact in case of Pak-india aerial warfare under dense electronic conditions