JF 17 is The Wrong Omnirole Aircraft For PAKISTAN

[ZooZoo]

Pakistani are Junooni and emotional... FC1 is a point defence fighter (based on MiG21 philosophy) with some added capability.. Pakistani see F22 in it...

The Tiny-miny fighters are used differently..
1. As filler
2. As point defense fighter
3. When Air-superiority fighter clear the sky, these baby come to show some strength...

Till enemy Air-Superiority fighter are in Blue sky, these kids must stay at home... Let F16s do the talk...

 

[abdulbarijan]

Pakistani are Junooni and emotional... FC1 is a point defence fighter (based on MiG21 philosophy) with some added capability.. Pakistani see F22 in it...

The Tiny-miny fighters are used differently..
1. As filler
2. As point defense fighter
3. When Air-superiority fighter clear the sky, these baby come to show some strength...

Till enemy Air-Superiority fighter are in Blue sky, these kids must stay at home... Let F16s do the talk...

Would you mind shedding some light on these issues ...

-What is the "Mig-21 philosophy" exactly ??

-If we we were to look for similar aircrafts --- Gripen C/D would definitely be in the conversation -- would Gripen C/D also qualify as a "tiny miny fighter" which is only fit for "point defense" and all the things you've said in your post ...do they also apply to the Gripen C/D?

 

[MastanKhan]

@MastanKhan
I just need to know JF-17 block I is B.V.R capable or not?

They all are.

Pakistani are Junooni and emotional... FC1 is a point defence fighter (based on MiG21 philosophy) with some added capability.. Pakistani see F22 in it...

The Tiny-miny fighters are used differently..
1. As filler
2. As point defense fighter
3. When Air-superiority fighter clear the sky, these baby come to show some strength...

Till enemy Air-Superiority fighter are in Blue sky, these kids must stay at home... Let F16s do the talk...

Hi,

The story is not like that anymore. With the invent of modern BVR missiles---and radars----pretty much all aircraft except for the stealth ones----are in the same boat of vulnerability as any other aircraft at BVR.

Pakistan has no plans of aggression against any country. The defense technology of Pakistan is developed with the intentions of developing minimum deterrence. JF-17 can facilitate Pakistan with a perfect tool of deterrence.

Hi,

That policy is based on cowardice and incompetence.

 

[Reverse Thinker]

For Pakistan Navy Strike Purpose J11D Or JH7 is good option which Pak Navy Lacks

For Penerating Air to Air Fight F16 Block 52, and Su35, J10B, F22,SU30 And Rafeal Good options and Pak Air force Have only one option of F16s no other supporter Instead of old Mirages III,IV & F7s and that are going to retired in near future while India you see many many options.

For Petroling & Army support with Stand off weapons and in defensive mode JF17 are good. Block III may it can make prove itself as fighting machine like F22,Su35 etc.

Best combination can be for 2015 to 2030 for all three fields F16Blocks + J11D Or Jh7 + Jf17 III with Easa Radar and J31.
In near future we are going to retire 3 types of fighters F7, Mirage,F5 but Replacing with only one option of JF 17 this is not fair in terms of defense at least we have to put same with 3 other types of fighters otherwise until 2025 we will be only one option of JF17 after F16s retirement if now we didn't invest in any other fighter types.

Pakistan should invest In futuristic Aircraft & and Air defense technologis like ( Stealth, Leaser, Robotec And Nanoo Technologies) with China Because in Future Current Technologies going to Expired.

 

[Reverse Thinker]

Just think we are very hardly going to defend ourselves from TTP it was only one Part of war with defensive strategy. From day Gen Raheel Shreef Put Offensive Strategy order do act first report later from that day we are going to win this war.
Just think when we will be in complete war with india how we can defend ourselves with defensive strategy. Today we cannot defend ourselves using defensive strategy. war could be win using aggressive and offensive punch in return to enemy imposed war. Same like F16 is offensive fighter and that's why its nightmare for them.

 

[Humble Analyst]

If days of missiles are over (working at Mach 2.5,3 or 4), how would a deep strike platform survive with much larger RCS and speed merely Mach1.2 (max) at sea level? Please explain...

In $ 20 million, you could build 40 - 60 anti-ship missiles......but $ 20 million ONLY buys you one plane and one shot.

If the plane it out, your 20 million dollars are gone into the deep water where the Sharks live. Out of the 40 missiles you fired, if TEN hit the target, you just caused the other Navy or Air-force potentially close to $ 500 million to a multi-billion dollar damage (depending upon what it is you hit),

Because that plane firing the missile will add a few hundred miles, because a missile can be taken as non conventional weapon hence retaliation by other side by non conventional weapon. Missile fired can self destruct but cannot come back. Now by your post whole world does not understand, having the best missile technology and still building planes?

 

[ziaulislam]

i think oscar has already posted all the info and discussion one needs onthis subject..
it comes down the word minimum deterrence..its almost impossibly difficult to induct the cheapest thunder in just 150 numbers, while some people are dreaming of other expensive plteforms

 

[MastanKhan]

Because that plane firing the missile will add a few hundred miles, because a missile can be taken as non conventional weapon hence retaliation by other side by non conventional weapon. Missile fired can self destruct but cannot come back. Now by your post whole world does not understand, having the best missile technology and still building planes?

hi,

Thank you for your post----the surface launch missile batteries are extremely vulnerable to enemy strikes----you launch a couple need then you need to run and hide somewhere else.

With the aircraft---you have much more control over how you are going to launch them. And specially---with the babur cruise missile---the benefit of extra range would be worth the amount of money spent.

Just imagine that the naval launch version of babur cruise missile that will have a range of a 1000 km----when launched from an aircraft would fly another 200--400 km farther. And then to top it off---when you can launch it as close that you ca get to the indian border---the farther the range would be----.

The surface launch cruise missiles have limitations----their radius is what it is---the flying aircraft can change that by the minute.

 

[Viper0011.]

Because that plane firing the missile will add a few hundred miles, because a missile can be taken as non conventional weapon hence retaliation by other side by non conventional weapon. Missile fired can self destruct but cannot come back. Now by your post whole world does not understand, having the best missile technology and still building planes?

OK.....its pretty obvious you have NO idea what you are writing about!!! You should ALWAYS pay attention to the topic before just typing gibberish. We are talking about a WAR, the MISSILES will be fired from the first second and probably 100's a day in the air, around the oceans and on the ground. This is ALL conventional. No body would know when a conventional missile would include a Flash light, meaning a threshold was reached. If that's the case, then there is no secrecy, the enemy should JUST watch out for missile number 55 as that's when the war shifts from conventional to Flash lights!!! And these assumptions your post outlines, make NO sense.

Back to the topic now. I am still maintaining my opinion that the JFT Block III would have the AESA (which would then be retro'd back to Block II and I also), the block III would have more hard-points and wings-span. So you could lift more heavy duty stuff. Having two (MAY be three?) missiles per plane with two BVR's is an option with a heavier power plant and more hard-points. So let the block III roll-out. You can turn it into however you like.

Another variant of the JFT can also be quickly designed if there is a need for the strike roles. The point that you guys are ALL ignoring is, what the PAF thinks of, in terms of a strategy per their threat perception, will actually happen. And from the little I know, the stance is that we NOW know, how to build a pretty effective car. There are some features we'd like to add to it. Now if we need to expand the chassis a little bit and put a V6 engine in it, instead of a V4, we should be able to, or use this tech, to make a mini-truck chassis in the future. So why go buy what you CAN build with the JFT tech, locally, cheaper and with all development and support inside your country?

You should INSTEAD buy what will get you an edge or equal capability to the SU-30's and Rafale's, and that isn't the JH-7A. That is the J-xx or SU-35, and later the J-31. The Chinese will export this out to Pakistan in the next couple of years. Just watch this.

They are really waiting on their heavier engines to come out and from the little I know, two engines are already being rolled out soon. So why not just get the real capability you need, vs. capability that you think you need, but you are not understanding the fact that you can fulfill it internally.

For the strike role and with the ability to defend itself deep inside enemy territory F-16, F-18, Mig -29, Su-30, and Mirage -2000 are about the best available 4th generation multirole aircrafts. 4.5Th generation consists of Rafael, Typhoon, F-15E, and F-16 block 60, F-18 Super Hornet, Su-35, Grippen and J-10/20.

Let us not forget that our perceived adversary (Indian Air Force) would have SU-30, Mirage -2000 & Mig-29 intercepting the bombers. Admittedly, Tornado GR4 can carry greater load at higher speeds for longer distance; however when intercepted by Su-30 & Mirage 2000-5; can a Tornado defend itself better than F-16 block 52? I would strongly disagree.

Jf-17 - 10 to12 squadrons, F-16 – 6 to 7 squadrons. Balance 2 -3 squadrons of Chinese J-31.

IMHO PAF planners are on the right track.

Great post and very valuable insight. Glad to see others think and preach exactly what I've been saying too. Can you have JH-7A or B or any strike platform and expect deep penetration and results facing 200+ SU-30's, combined over 100 Mig-29's (upgraded) and Mirages (upgraded also)....the answer is, your strike platform has little chance to get to the target, let alone come back home. So that leaves you using standoff munitions, vs. risking $ 20 - 45 million worth of a jet (depending upon which one you are using).

JFT may not be all the way there, but it is local, and has great potential to be further upgraded at a fraction of the cost, and be inducted in numbers. You can't beat the value it provides.

I agree on the numbers, JFT's block II and III standards (in the future, all of them will be upgraded), -16's (excellent jet, if more block 52 can be purchased, it can tackle SU-30 and Rafale) and J-31 (will give you most bang for the buck, the unseen can take out multiple intruding jets before showing up on sensors. AND now, if the money is available after all these, you could get something else such as a J-xx, FC-20, or even SU-30 if need be. The J-xx series will become available to Pakistan in the next 2-3 years.

 

[his5850]

yes it is going to fulfill PAF some needs JFT was never designed to compete with SU-30 it is light weight fighter it destined as replacement fighter for Mirage and F-7 with low cost production and low meatiness cost it is also worst case scenario aircraft as well if we do not have any thing we at least have JFT it is surplus fighter which mean it is designed to build in numbers
now my 2nd point we need a aircraft which can dog fight can achieve air superiority we can do three things

1st we can buy more F-16 but point if US turn it's back one again then what we going to do

2nd we can go for J-10B or J-11D which means adding a different aircraft which will have different weapons package and different maintenance parts means more cost

3rd option is build a bigger variant of block 3 aircraft (which will going to be 4+ fighter plane) with bigger wings more hard points more loading capacity better Avionics and better Engine or may two Engine variant tasked with air superiority

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

I think the posters are taking a few liberties on their own on my account----. The aircraft can be any heavy---any version of the J---be it the J11, or the 16 or the JH7B---which is based more on the TORNADO than the SU25.

The only reason the JH7b is being mentioned again and again is its COST---weight carrying capacity---its new aesa radar and its grower type capabilities.

I remember during the 1965 war---there was a big fear about the anti aircraft batteries----that if approached at a certain angle----it looked impossible to beat the flack during the strike missions----but then some in the planning came up with the formulae of how the strikes would be carried out and how the aircraft will approach the area of flack----.

You have to plough thru the enemy's electronic net and clear a path for your strikes to be successful. With the air to ground weapons reaching 100---200---300 miles----the enemy does not even need to come into our side to do the damage.

All our cities and bases are vulnerable to their strikes from far away---.

So---let me gie an example for a lay person to understand----because many are too clever.

Consider Pakistan to be a car a HONDA CITY for its comparable size----now consider India as a Cadillac Escalade-----.

You are the Defender of Pakistan---ie the Honda City and you have to destroy the Cadillac----. You are given a 5 Lbs hammer to destroy the Cadillac.

OTOH----the indian is given a 25 Lbs sledgehammer to destroy the Honda City----.

The only other handicap that you have is that you little baby is also riding with you in that Honda City----. Now justify your attack strategy----and share with me why would you do what you want to do and what will be the results.

 

[[Bregs]]

Hi,

I think the posters are taking a few liberties on their own on my account----. The aircraft can be any heavy---any version of the J---be it the J11, or the 16 or the JH7B---which is based more on the TORNADO than the SU25.

The only reason the JH7b is being mentioned again and again is its COST---weight carrying capacity---its new aesa radar and its grower type capabilities.

I remember during the 1965 war---there was a big fear about the anti aircraft batteries----that if approached at a certain angle----it looked impossible to beat the flack during the strike missions----but then some in the planning came up with the formulae of how the strikes would be carried out and how the aircraft will approach the area of flack----.

You have to plough thru the enemy's electronic net and clear a path for your strikes to be successful. With the air to ground weapons reaching 100---200---300 miles----the enemy does not even need to come into our side to do the damage.

All our cities and bases are vulnerable to their strikes from far away---.

So---let me gie an example for a lay person to understand----because many are too clever.

Consider Pakistan to be a car a HONDA CITY for its comparable size----now consider India as a Cadillac Escalade-----.

You are the Defender of Pakistan---ie the Honda City and you have to destroy the Cadillac----. You are given a 5 Lbs hammer to destroy the Cadillac.

OTOH----the indian is given a 25 Lbs sledgehammer to destroy the Honda City----.

The only other handicap that you have is that you little baby is also riding with you in that Honda City----. Now justify your attack strategy----and share with me why would you do what you want to do and what will be the results.

lol logic of car as an example is cute

 

[Humble Analyst]

OK.....its pretty obvious you have NO idea what you are writing about!!! You should ALWAYS pay attention to the topic before just typing gibberish. We are talking about a WAR, the MISSILES will be fired from the first second and probably 100's a day in the air, around the oceans and on the ground. This is ALL conventional. No body would know when a conventional missile would include a Flash light, meaning a threshold was reached. If that's the case, then there is no secrecy, the enemy should JUST watch out for missile number 55 as that's when the war shifts from conventional to Flash lights!!! And these assumptions your post outlines, make NO sense.

Back to the topic now. I am still maintaining my opinion that the JFT Block III would have the AESA (which would then be retro'd back to Block II and I also), the block III would have more hard-points and wings-span. So you could lift more heavy duty stuff. Having two (MAY be three?) missiles per plane with two BVR's is an option with a heavier power plant and more hard-points. So let the block III roll-out. You can turn it into however you like.

Another variant of the JFT can also be quickly designed if there is a need for the strike roles. The point that you guys are ALL ignoring is, what the PAF thinks of, in terms of a strategy per their threat perception, will actually happen. And from the little I know, the stance is that we NOW know, how to build a pretty effective car. There are some features we'd like to add to it. Now if we need to expand the chassis a little bit and put a V6 engine in it, instead of a V4, we should be able to, or use this tech, to make a mini-truck chassis in the future. So why go buy what you CAN build with the JFT tech, locally, cheaper and with all development and support inside your country?

You should INSTEAD buy what will get you an edge or equal capability to the SU-30's and Rafale's, and that isn't the JH-7A. That is the J-xx or SU-35, and later the J-31. The Chinese will export this out to Pakistan in the next couple of years. Just watch this.

They are really waiting on their heavier engines to come out and from the little I know, two engines are already being rolled out soon. So why not just get the real capability you need, vs. capability that you think you need, but you are not understanding the fact that you can fulfill it internally.




Great post and very valuable insight. Glad to see others think and preach exactly what I've been saying too. Can you have JH-7A or B or any strike platform and expect deep penetration and results facing 200+ SU-30's, combined over 100 Mig-29's (upgraded) and Mirages (upgraded also)....the answer is, your strike platform has little chance to get to the target, let alone come back home. So that leaves you using standoff munitions, vs. risking $ 20 - 45 million worth of a jet (depending upon which one you are using).

JFT may not be all the way there, but it is local, and has great potential to be further upgraded at a fraction of the cost, and be inducted in numbers. You can't beat the value it provides.

I agree on the numbers, JFT's block II and III standards (in the future, all of them will be upgraded), -16's (excellent jet, if more block 52 can be purchased, it can tackle SU-30 and Rafale) and J-31 (will give you most bang for the buck, the unseen can take out multiple intruding jets before showing up on sensors. AND now, if the money is available after all these, you could get something else such as a J-xx, FC-20, or even SU-30 if need be. The J-xx series will become available to Pakistan in the next 2-3 years.

Most certainly you have only studied Gulf wars, imagine a war between two nuclear nations, deep strike missiles may be used but most probably will not be used indiscriminately as you have suggested unless rogues are handling the show. Even wars are fought with cool heads, mostly hot heads are not at the helm of affairs.
Since you asked me to pay attention to topic, my question is to you what is the topicJF17 vs another plane or use of missiles? Block 52 can tackle SU30 and Rafale by using larger number of planes and flying more sorties otherwise it appears that both planes have some advantage over F16. Su 30 has one disadvantage i.e. turnaround time is more than f16 but is a superior plane otherwise and Rafale has a short history but specs are superior. Now how men handle and what tactics are used it is a different story.

If days of missiles are over (working at Mach 2.5,3 or 4), how would a deep strike platform survive with much larger RCS and speed merely Mach1.2 (max) at sea level? Please explain...

In $ 20 million, you could build 40 - 60 anti-ship missiles......but $ 20 million ONLY buys you one plane and one shot.

If the plane it out, your 20 million dollars are gone into the deep water where the Sharks live. Out of the 40 missiles you fired, if TEN hit the target, you just caused the other Navy or Air-force potentially close to $ 500 million to a multi-billion dollar damage (depending upon what it is you hit),

Where I said the days of missiles are over. Before we jump to missiles we need an air superiority plane. Planes can come back, missiles cannot be reused. Both have their utility.

 

[Zarvan]

This Beauty can also be considered for a Strike Aircarft considering PAF . Cost is relatively low. Offers Great Capability + Payload + Hardpoints + PESA Radar + HMDs + EW ! Anything you want !
Good Choice for PAF/PN both.
#SU-34

View attachment 247506

For bombing role for striking deep inside enemy territory SU-34 or up coming JH-7 B will be best but they can be considered only after either we get J-10 B or SU-35 in large numbers than if we want we can go for these.

 

[Humble Analyst]

JF 17 is not the answer to all questions. We do need another platform for air superiority. Can we afford a new platform or when can we have it is a different story. In the mean time we have to understand our limitations and develop tactics and strategies to overcome the disadvantages we are facing due to lack of funding and are unable to acquire any plane which can counter Su30 and Rafael easily. For now JF 17 is a blessing as we will be relying on quantity instead of quality for sometime to come so hope to increase production.