JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 1]

[su-47]

There is no need for one type of aircraft to have 3 different BVRAAMs. I think PAF will end up choosing only one or at the most two.

 

[IceCold]

There is no need for one type of aircraft to have 3 different BVRAAMs. I think PAF will end up choosing only one or at the most two.

I agree and i think the amraam and the SD-10 will be the ones chosen for this purpose. However there could be one possibility that if the americans dont allow the armraam to be fitted on the JF-17s perhaps pakistan can consider the option of french mica.

 

[blain2]

However there could be one possibility that if the americans dont allow the armraam to be fitted on the JF-17s perhaps pakistan can consider the option of french mica.

I think this is a known variable. Americans will NOT allow AMRAAM to be integrated on the JF-17 thus PAF is looking at the MICA. Overall PAF will operate 3 BVRAAMs if the MICA deal goes through. Otherwise SD-10 would be the only option available on the JF-17.

 

[khanz]

nice article hopefully one day we can start making our own missiles but jf-17 is a milestone baby steps first

 

[BATMAN]

I think this is a known variable. Americans will NOT allow AMRAAM to be integrated on the JF-17 thus PAF is looking at the MICA. Overall PAF will operate 3 BVRAAMs if the MICA deal goes through. Otherwise SD-10 would be the only option available on the JF-17.

Why Americans would not allow? We should not assume without asking?
Yes, they may very well refuse than next day when they ask our President for some thing he will have some thing to negotiate!
US should not risk the lives of 160 million people by tilting the strategic balance.
Pakistan has done so much for US that Americans cannot do the same for them self.

 

[blain2]

Why Americans would not allow? We should not assume without asking?
Yes, they may very well refuse than next day when they ask our President for some thing he will have some thing to negotiate!
US should not risk the lives of 160 million people by tilting the strategic balance.
Pakistan has done so much for US that Americans cannot do the same for them self.

Its not about Pakistan. Americans would not allow it as AMRAAM integration on the JF-17 would mean Chinese collaboration and I doubt that Americans would want Chinese inspecting and integrating this missile upclose on a Chinese aircraft. As far as I am concerned, I would like MICA, AIM-120 and SD-10 all to be in the PAF inventory. You just never know with the US (sanctions etc.). If needed, PAF F-16s could also use MICAs (some integration work would be required but its doable).

 

[Quwa]

I think this is a known variable. Americans will NOT allow AMRAAM to be integrated on the JF-17 thus PAF is looking at the MICA. Overall PAF will operate 3 BVRAAMs if the MICA deal goes through. Otherwise SD-10 would be the only option available on the JF-17.

I wonder if PAF will seek any transfer in seeker, guidance, rocket & missile airframe technology...or buy some MBDA assistance for possible Pakistani projects? It would do wonders for Pakistan's local initiatives in a lot of areas ranging from air-to-air missiles, right down to SAMs.

 

[Joodi]

There is no need for one type of aircraft to have 3 different BVRAAMs. I think PAF will end up choosing only one or at the most two.

It is not just for JF-17, BVR capability will be made available on other fighters, which PAF is planning to procure, so it is not out of question that pakistan maintain 3 different inventories of BVR-AAM for its fighter jets.

available options for PAF are:
chinese BVR-AAM
french and european BVR-AAM
South africian BVR-AAM
amercian AAM

Lets see, what PAF opts for its fighter jets along with chinese and french AAM.(It has now become clear that french radar and weaponary will be there for JF-17, it is now just a matter of time).
as for amercian weaponary for JF-17 just wait and see

 

[su-47]

i think chinese BVRAAMs are best bet for pak. if USA decides to put sanctions on pak for some reason or another, the chances are that French, European, American and South African BVRAAMs would have their plugs pulled. the chinese are the only ones who wont respect US sanctions.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

MICA is by far the best option for JF-17 since at this time the first batches won't be having a Fire Control Radar of Range more than 100Km like RC-400 (nearly 80km+ engagement range).

MICA is a option that eliminates requirement of WVRAAM since its range is from < 500 m, to up to 80 km ....The MICA is the first multi-target multi-mission air-to-air missile capable of interception missions beyond visual range and close up dogfight combat.


Mica, mica missile, air to air missile, air missile system - MBDA

 

[mxiong]

By the time the second batch (after the first 50) of JF-17 is going to be built, I think China can offer a ramjet LRAAM better than MBDA Meteor.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

By the time the second batch (after the first 50) of JF-17 is going to be built, I think China can offer a ramjet LRAAM better than MBDA Meteor.

Its not only LRAAM... what we require for JF-17.

Right now with 7 hard points... if you have a Package of 4 MICA and 2 SD-10, with FLIR POD.... Its the best you can get out of JF-17 with RC-400 on board.

MICA serves for WVRAAM and BVR missile and SD-10 is only BVR with a range of >80Kms.

Engagement with RC-400 is only 80km to 100Km.

 

[JK!]

By the time the second batch (after the first 50) of JF-17 is going to be built, I think China can offer a ramjet LRAAM better than MBDA Meteor.

I like the idea of LRAAMs like meteor.

At speeds of Mach 4+ its basically a Flanker Killer.

 

[solid snake]

Don't know what they are saying, but interesting clip of Thunder from Chinese CCTV.

1TkDrbhvYg0[/media] - JF-17 Thunder for Pakistan - PAF Falcons

 

[Joodi]

Yes MICA can be employed for both WVR and BVR engagments, but this is not usual practice.
i would like to know y? can any one please explain.

Usually separate missiles are used for WVR and BVR engagments even if any missile can serve both
the purposes, a friend of mine in PAF told me it is so firstly due to cost and secondly
bcoz a BVR-AAM is alomst twice as heavier as compared to a WVR-AAM, so in order to utilize
all the available hardpoints in a fighter jet without exceeding the maximum weapon payload limit of a fighter jet.
Is this true?