What's new

JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF

But, I am looking at the threat perception. In the absence of proper numerical advantage with the IAF, or heavier platforms, the JFT needs a couple of things, higher internal fuel storage so it can get more loiter time. Then, you need a better Radar with multi-target lock and fire capability. And more hard points can then be used to install more BVR missiles. Currently in a standard configuration, I've seen the JFT with three fuel tanks and 2 BVR's and 2 WVR's. With two more hard points, you could add two more BVR's.
.
Regards,
So what u are saying is , that these modification are needed.
1)Better / bigger radar
2)More hard points
3)More fuel capacity
4)(which means)much more powerfull engine to support extra power usage, drag&load.
5)(which means) serious air frame modifications

Basically a new jet
Souldnt we just go for su35 :p
 
The aircraft on itself is of no use if it has no weapons to fight with, what you gain with more weapons is greater fighting capability, and no one jettisons his missiles in case of encounters, they go out to seek encounters and fire them (missiles) not jettison them.


Thank you for your post. My argument stemmed around the presence of increased hardpoints when you already have a multirack ejector giving you the 4 BVRs and 2 WVRs. This would be in keeping with the current doctrine of PAF. We need to ask @gambit whether USAF specifically carries more than 4 BVRs on a sortie or not. I strongly suspect the answer is No. So what do you gain by excessively loading your platform with stock that you may well have to jettison in case of an encounter. It is this pojnt which does not make sense to me.
A
 
Last edited:
Or you can just get SAM 300/400

How many SAM batteries? Can you get 150 or 200 SAM batteries equal to the JFT's numbers, so you don't have to enhance the JFT's? SAM batteries are only good initially within an Indo-Pak scenario, after a day or so, as the strikes start to do deep inside each other's territories, HARM missiles like the M1 and other in Indo-Pak arsenals will take out SAMs.

Plus India uses Israel's satellite system which are very advanced, just like Pakistan uses the Chinese Satellite Belt as the Chinese refer to it. So both sides will know SAM batteries' coordinates and you could program the coordinates into your cruise or conventional missiles and they can take out these SAM batteries.

Even moving so many trucks won't get you a whole lot. If a SAM battery consists of say 5 or 6 vehicles, taking out 1 or 2, will leave it useless. For example, say SAMs were fired and the battery started to move, but an Indian platform was provided target coordinates and it launched some anti-radiation missiles. The technology has matured to a degree that unless you shut down the entire SAM system, it'll still lock onto a radiation signals emitting from the platform, and on multiple frequencies, including the Radio waves emitting from standard communication devices, not a part of the SAM system per say, but being initiated from the same GPS coordinates. So quick move doesn't buy a whole lot now a days. Now hitting just one component like the Fire Control radar, or the missile truck and something else, will leave the rest of the system useless.

Second thing, how long can you keep a SAM system shut down? If you've got them shut down for an hour and the monitoring systems detect is, guess what? There will be an immediate attack on key installations as the SAM was determined to be down or jammed. Which is a pre-requisite of a larger air attack in today's modern warfare. And if it does come back up quickly, its not too far from the original target, so then again it'll be taken out.

The moral of this scenario is, SAM systems can't replace the force-multiplier effect of jets like the JFT or the -16. So we go back to my previous point of adding more loiter time and BVR's with a multi-target lock-on radar.
 
How many SAM batteries? Can you get 150 or 200 SAM batteries equal to the JFT's numbers, so you don't have to enhance the JFT's? SAM batteries are only good initially within an Indo-Pak scenario, after a day or so, as the strikes start to do deep inside each other's territories, HARM missiles like the M1 and other in Indo-Pak arsenals will take out SAMs.

Plus India uses Israel's satellite system which are very advanced, just like Pakistan uses the Chinese Satellite Belt as the Chinese refer to it. So both sides will know SAM batteries' coordinates and you could program the coordinates into your cruise or conventional missiles and they can take out these SAM batteries.

Even moving so many trucks won't get you a whole lot. If a SAM battery consists of say 5 or 6 vehicles, taking out 1 or 2, will leave it useless. For example, say SAMs were fired and the battery started to move, but an Indian platform was provided target coordinates and it launched some anti-radiation missiles. The technology has matured to a degree that unless you shut down the entire SAM system, it'll still lock onto a radiation signals emitting from the platform, and on multiple frequencies, including the Radio waves emitting from standard communication devices, not a part of the SAM system per say, but being initiated from the same GPS coordinates. So quick move doesn't buy a whole lot now a days. Now hitting just one component like the Fire Control radar, or the missile truck and something else, will leave the rest of the system useless.

Second thing, how long can you keep a SAM system shut down? If you've got them shut down for an hour and the monitoring systems detect is, guess what? There will be an immediate attack on key installations as the SAM was determined to be down or jammed. Which is a pre-requisite of a larger air attack in today's modern warfare. And if it does come back up quickly, its not too far from the original target, so then again it'll be taken out.

The moral of this scenario is, SAM systems can't replace the force-multiplier effect of jets like the JFT or the -16. So we go back to my previous point of adding more loiter time and BVR's with a multi-target lock-on radar.
I didn't say lets just get SAMs.

But we shouldn't fear that su will destroy our jf. Jf + SAMs will do a good job together.
 
Why in your opinion is there a need for more hardpoints? I think it is a more worthy topic for discussion. Iam all for a chin mounted hardpoint designated for a POD. However with the news of twin ejectors for BVRs do we really need extra hardpoints. As per printed data PAF initially tried the JFT with 9 hardpoints but following test decided to stick with 7. Was it just a case of the engine not having enough thrust or something else.
@Oscar,@ Bossman ,and @gambit input would be appreciated. What are the relative advantages and drawbacks in having additional hardpoints vs twin enector racks.
Regards
A
The more hardpoints you have, the more racks you can carry.

Hardpoint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In aeronautics, the term station is used to refer to a point of carriage on the frame of an aircraft.
There are considerations. If the station is designed specifically for missiles, like wing tips, then you are limited to what you can carry at that station -- missiles. But underwing or fuselage stations can be designed to be more flexible. You can carry a single missile per station, depending on the missile's size, or you can carry multiple smaller missiles/bombs on one rack on one station.

We have seen this pix before...

f-111c_raaf_all_wings_stations.jpg


When I was on the F-111, in theory, we could fly with the two outer most stations, looking left to right, that would be stations 1 and 8. But in practice, if stations 1 and 8 are used, as in having a pylon installed, then the F-111 cannot sweep its wings. That is simply because at that area of the wing there is not enough space to have wing sweep compensator mechanisms. That mechanism keep the pylon straight into the airstream as the wing sweep -- fore/aft.

All aircrafts have structural limits on how many stations can be designed and even limits on what could be attached to which station. For the F-16, we carry only sensor pods, no ordnance, on inlet stations.

For propulsion, it is not drag but weight. So if my airframe can have X amount of stations, but I do not have sufficient propulsion to carry the maximum theoretical load, that does not mean I should not design in that X amount of stations. I could have a more powerful engine later, so design in those X amount of stations anyway.
 
The more hardpoints you have, the more racks you can carry.

Hardpoint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are considerations. If the station is designed specifically for missiles, like wing tips, then you are limited to what you can carry at that station -- missiles. But underwing or fuselage stations can be designed to be more flexible. You can carry a single missile per station, depending on the missile's size, or you can carry multiple smaller missiles/bombs on one rack on one station.

We have seen this pix before...

View attachment 260475

When I was on the F-111, in theory, we could fly with the two outer most stations, looking left to right, that would be stations 1 and 8. But in practice, if stations 1 and 8 are used, as in having a pylon installed, then the F-111 cannot sweep its wings. That is simply because at that area of the wing there is not enough space to have wing sweep compensator mechanisms. That mechanism keep the pylon straight into the airstream as the wing sweep -- fore/aft.

All aircrafts have structural limits on how many stations can be designed and even limits on what could be attached to which station. For the F-16, we carry only sensor pods, no ordnance, on inlet stations.

For propulsion, it is not drag but weight. So if my airframe can have X amount of stations, but I do not have sufficient propulsion to carry the maximum theoretical load, that does not mean I should not design in that X amount of stations. I could have a more powerful engine later, so design in those X amount of stations anyway.
Thanks for your input. What I really wanted to ask is in an air to air encounter what is a typical loadout of say an F16 and an F 15/18. The only reason for asking this question is in relation to the need for more hardpoints. My contention is that if you have a dual ejector rack you could potentially have 4 BVR +2WVRs on a typical A2A encounter and this would be what most ACs would be carrying in any case. So do you see any advantage in carrying for instance 6 AMRAAMS instead of 4 and what are the chances of an Airman actually using all 6 AMRAAMS effectively in an encounter. Obviously please shàreonly that which you are comfortable sharing on an open forum.
 
Last edited:
Sir, please do something for JF17 block III in actual with agressive strategy india is going to produce F16 block 60 in india as obama offer modi f16 assembly line in india. and now modi is on the road of arms race with full spectrum.

Comments.Comments.
 
Sir, please do something for JF17 block III in actual with agressive strategy india is going to produce F16 block 60 in india as obama offer modi f16 assembly line in india. and now modi is on the road of arms race with full spectrum.

Comments.Comments.

I've always maintained it and I still do (I knew where IAF might go in the near future due to US and others offering assembly), that the JFT Block III has to be a different plane, has to have a more powerful engine, AESA, more missile / weapons loading hard points (9 minimum) and advanced avionics. What would make more sense (if Pakistan can afford it), would be to borrow from the J-31 tech and make a mini JFT Block III out of it (stealth wise). But keep the J-31 also on the procurement list.

The Stealthy JFT block III alone would create a massive force multiplier effect for the entire IAF as of today. What can't be seen till its too late, can't really be taken out. But, you could fire on others and take them out.

So what u are saying is , that these modification are needed.
1)Better / bigger radar
2)More hard points
3)More fuel capacity
4)(which means)much more powerfull engine to support extra power usage, drag&load.
5)(which means) serious air frame modifications

Basically a new jet
Souldnt we just go for su35 :p

Not really a new jet, you went too far. Some sort of an MLU type of an upgrade. The JFT's engine was supposed to be a Chinese one and that reportedly has a much better thrust and doesn't require any air-frame modifications. So it needs to be put in quicker. The other part is Radar upgrade and multi-ejector racks. That would do for now and will compensate for the gap fairly well. There isn't a need for a redesign, unless we are talking Block III. Then I think its a must!
 
Better to talk with russia on assembly line of SU 35s, and keep continue with JF programe and J31programe with advance electronic countermeasure and futuristic weapons integration on these fighters to deal india with three fronts as our three types of fighters going to retired in near future, f16s, mirages, f7s, our only one option remains and that is of jf 17s after 2020 to 2025 so we can't survive with one option as at that time our enemy will be able to produce three four different types of fighters from russian tech as well as from american tech as they are going and investing too much and with agressive strategy.
 
Hi,

It is very difficult for them to understand the significance of 8-10-12 BVR's----. Till yesterday these same Pakistanis were arguing tooth and nail that the primary battles will be fought WVR---. It took them years to change their minds to understand that the game has changed.

These same guys were arguing that it would take about a year to integrate the JF 17---now it s close to 8 years or what----and still no end in sight.

Even Boeing or Northrop announced a 16 BVR version for the F15 SE----a few days ago. An article yesterday on yahoo.com talked about the concern about the new PL15 of the Chinese air force---and again it was concerned that the F22 carries only 6 BVR's---whereas the J 11 would be carrying 12---PL15.

With its ability to lock onto a stealth target---a range possibly longer than the AIM120D----or the same range----it creates issues for the opponent.

An aircraft with 2 BVR's is going to launch them and then scoot---it has to land and refuel---and that is where it becomes vulnerable.

So---there are two problems here amongst the many---2 BVR's and short legged----. And even if can get refueled in the air----it cannot re-load missiles in the air.

That is why I have been saying---Pakistan needs a heavy strike aircraft with long legs---a naval version---that can reach out to the heart of MUMBAI and below areas----. Put your strength where the enemy is weak or where the odds are even.

Because none of those arguments have any professional basis.

See, when you say you harped on those tunes.. what you forget to mention is that so did others. WVR will still matter, but not to the extent that the proponents of TVC and manoeuvrability think. Its simply down to the fact that newer missiles are just going to kill you regardless.

As for the PL-15, who goes to Yahoo for information on air combat? I would go to Yahoo for Kim Kardashian if I wanted to but would never buy a thing it says on aerial warfare. The PL-15 is an impressive speculation, but to think that it would have any difference when facing the F-22 is sheer ignorance. The basics of wave theory will turn their heads on how something that cannot be detected, whose radar is difficult to detect; has anything to fear from even a 1000km missile.

You cant see the F-22. If you cant see it, you can have a ICBM that can shoot down aircraft and still be hapless against it. 20 J-11s can carry 200 PL-15s and they still will only see the F-22 when it comes within the range where their radars can generate a strong enough return from it. Considering it has the RCS close to a mosquito at some angles.. I highly doubt that any of your "fears" are placed in technical grounding. How does one lock onto a stealth target, the phrase itself is self contradictory @gambit ?

Sure, they make good Yahoo stories. But none of them will fly in the room full of professionals.

The whole idea of aerial combat is that it is NEVER the same in any theatre. Just like you cant say someone with combat experience in Afghanistan will fare excellent in the dense Jungles of the Amazon. Each theatre, each environment down the effects of weather conditions and terrain make for different doctrines and tactics. The tactics that work for the Eurofighter in its North Sea interceptions will not work for it when deployed at Al Udied against the Iranians. They will have to change, they will have to be adapted. Ive already posted the different air combat limitations that apply for the India-Pakistan scenario. Have yet to see any reply that gives me tactical or strategic reasons that go against it. Nada.


And that is where the whole issue comes in, preaching on hollow ideals. On hollow knowledge and providing hollow arguments. That can be torn to shreds by anyone with the slightest of knowledge. This is not what should be set as an example to the new generation. They should be encouraged to come up with more than just what they think. Their thoughts need to be formed on reading and understanding. Not just assuming that because I am very good at making a egg sandwich, it qualifies me to tell you exactly how to make a ten course meal with Foie grass and Souffle.
The day this Pakistani mentality of thinking we know everything disappears, is the day we will progress to an actual power and not some half baked stumbling joke.

The sad bit is that you keep mentioning engineering and design and all of the "I've got knowledge" but seem to have forgotten all you preached on it and the very "shoot from the hip" ideas that you eschewed.. that you would say in 2008.. you are doing now. You were sensei because you encouraged research, encouraged reading more.. from different places, from various sources.. and then coming up with an opinion that was backed up by readily available references and knowledge.

Now, you are doing exactly what all other idiots do on the many talk shows we see littering our TV networks.

Better to talk with russia on assembly line of SU 35s, and keep continue with JF programe and J31programe with advance electronic countermeasure and futuristic weapons integration on these fighters to deal india with three fronts as our three types of fighters going to retired in near future, f16s, mirages, f7s, our only one option remains and that is of jf 17s after 2020 to 2025 so we can't survive with one option as at that time our enemy will be able to produce three four different types of fighters from russian tech as well as from american tech as they are going and investing too much and with agressive strategy.

How much will be a assembly line for the Su-35?
 
How much will be a assembly line for the Su-35?

$ 19 dollars, 99 cents, plus tax!!! :enjoy: :omghaha:. Sorry, the conversation was getting so heated that I thought I'd throw in a tension breaker!!

Back to the topic, yes, please, someone tell us how much will the assembly line for SU-35's cost?
 
@Oscar

I surrender-----to the winner---that is you---I gift you with Pork Chops. I give her hand to you---. She comes visits me every day---but me being an old man---cannot do much---you being a young stud and winner can help meet her psychological needs---she really needs a shoulder to cry on---and you can also share her with @araz as well.

Look at the beautiful face

View attachment 260602

And here is a nice profile photo of her


View attachment 260603

Looks like you need a MOCA or an MMSE or better yet a frontal assessment battery.
Standards on moderation in this forum are going down it seems.
 
You cant see the F-22. If you cant see it, you can have a ICBM that can shoot down aircraft and still be hapless against it. 20 J-11s can carry 200 PL-15s and they still will only see the F-22 when it comes within the range where their radars can generate a strong enough return from it. Considering it has the RCS close to a mosquito at some angles.. I highly doubt that any of your "fears" are placed in technical grounding. How does one lock onto a stealth target, the phrase itself is self contradictory @gambit ?
The phrasing is problematic.

I have said in the past that in radar detection, nothing is invisible. The word 'stealth' is used to describe a target that is extremely difficult for most, and even impossible for some, radar systems to see. Those systems for which the word 'impossible' is applicable are so technically inadequate, as in old designs, that 'impossible' is the best descriptor for them. The target's signals are there. For those old systems, there is nothing to be done for them.

We all know by now that effective detection range of any target is highly dependent upon the receiver's sophistication, so that mean a target's RCS and its effective detection range varies from radar to radar.

If you have 100 identical radars in 100 identical fighters, you will have 100 identical level of difficulty (or ease) of detection of any target. If fighter number 1 can detect the Goodyear blimp at 200 km, fighters number 2 to 100 will have the same result.

Now spread out those 100 or 1000 fighters over several countries and air forces and you will have many air forces around the world having the same level of ease of detecting the Goodyear blimp at 10 or 100 or 200 km distance.

When the word 'stealth' is used to describe target X, it is to describe the INITIAL impression that X will be difficult to detect for MOST systems out there. It means that if I claim that I can detect X, in order to separate myself from my competitors, I must say something about X that will at least imply that my competitors are some ways inadequate to mine, and the best way to do that is point out that X is ALREADY difficult for them. Then to describe mine, I will continue to use the word 'stealth', as in "I can detect 'stealthy' targets."

I am saying that X is 'stealth' for them, but not for me. It is very much a sales pitch.

Basic radar detection will have EVERYONE detect X at 10 km distance, but how would mentioning that make my product more attractive ? It does not.

But how can I prove that I can detect X at a much greater distance than everyone else ? I cannot simply because I do not have access to their products to make any credible technical comparison to mine. Worse yet, what if I do have access to their products and it turned out theirs are better than mine ?

Laboratory conditions are not merely useful but necessary in the development of anything, whether it is a new tire tread design or a new jet fighter. But laboratory conditions are controlled environment with incremental releases of factors that are not under the authority of the experimenter. First you test the new tire under dry conditions, then you add water, then loose gravel, and so on. You do not know when the driver will encounter wet or non-paved roads, correct ?

Does anyone have the F-22 in his possession to start ? The real F-22 under the command of a pilot with instructions to do everything in his power to evade detection is the ultimate uncontrolled and unpredictable factor.

So whenever I read, on this forum or anywhere else, that so-and-so country claimed to be able to detect the F-22, then the claimant gleefully use what happened to one F-117 in Yugoslavia as example, I just move on.

Thanks for your input. What I really wanted to ask is in an air to air encounter what is a typical loadout of say an F16 and an F 15/18. The only reason for asking this question is in relation to the need for more hardpoints. My contention is that if you have a dual ejector rack you could potentially have 4 BVR +2WVRs on a typical A2A encounter and this would be what most ACs would be carrying in any case. So do you see any advantage in carrying for instance 6 AMRAAMS instead of 4 and what are the chances of an Airman actually using all 6 AMRAAMS effectively in an encounter. Obviously please shàreonly that which you are comfortable sharing on an open forum.
Your loadout will depends on your mission, even if your sortie is air-air, as much as we can assign any level of 'typical-ness' to it.

For example, if you are doing intercepts and you are required to VISUALLY ascertain targets, then most likely any encounter you have will be WVR. A BVR missile will have different flight and fusing conditions than something short range like an IR guided AIM-9. On the other hand, if your intercepts are under war time conditions, meaning your targets are already assured as hostiles, or will be so assured from a third party assist like an AWACS, then more BVR type missiles would better.

More hardpoints will give you greater flexibility no matter what.

A multiple ejector rack (MER), whether for bombs or missiles, does come with a caution...

"A-4 Weapons Racks" | A-4 Skyhawk Association
The sequence for weapons released off of a TER are 1. Aft Center, 2. Forward Center, 3. Aft Left, 4. Forward Left, 5. Aft Right, and 6. Forward Right.
Unlike the movies, there are specific and unique release sequences, depending on designs. For an MER, the general consensus is that the munition that is lowest is dispensed first.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/JDAM_GBU30_MER.jpg

If you fire and the missile, or bomb, become 'hung', then you have a serious problem on your hand. Yes, your weapons system overall should be sophisticated enough to auto-select for you the next available munition, but every pilot is always afraid that if one munition became 'hung' on a rack, others maybe as well. In a way, it is better to have one 'hung' munition on a hardpoint than on a rack.
 
@gambit what is USAF designation of MER used on board Fighters,once i saw an image in which a F-15 was carrying 4 BVR's on single Hard point using a MER.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom