JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

[MastanKhan]

Sir,
will you please expose/explain the difficulties of this road.?
Regards

Hi,

The difficulties are right in front of us. Electronics issues---weapons issues---no bvr's---engine issues---did I miss something.

At every step people are saying that china will do this---chinese will provide with this system---when we get to that waypoint---the system is not ready---we get to the next waypoint---the system cannot do the job for weapons integration for what we thought it would---the engine is supposedly becoming an issue as well.

If you put in the KLJ 10 radar---you don't have enough space---you have to redesign the nose---if you redesign the nose---you change the center of gravity---you have another engine coming up because you think that rd 93 is not reliable---now you have to re-design the frame.

Mughaljee---I appreciate you asking this question---the answer has been in my posts all the time.

Think about it now---wouldn't it had been easier to kill Bin Laden and zawaheri and his cohorts on the slopes of tora bora on our side by our millitary---killed all the miscreants at one time---even if the u s of a had not sold millitary hardware to us---the europeans were easy game.

It all goes back to pak army not doing what it was supposed to do years ago.

You know the punjabi saying---sau littar wi khaiy tey sau gandey wi khay----that is what pak and pak army is going through---.

2002 was an open season for us---we could have easily gone the french route or gone the grippen way---if we had to go the F 16 route ultimately, then why not force the issue on the americans when they demanded all the bases from us. The world was at our feet at that time----we are paying the price for our lackadaisical approach today.

After all this hoopla---who is our most reliable high tech supplier---can you believe it---for the upteenth time---THE US OF A.

Who is going to give us the most high tech bvr's--THE US OF A---.

Mughaljee---if you decide to kiss ar-se----then at least put your lips down and suck it so hard and don't let it go---.

We did a half ar-se job with war against terrorism---we have done a half ar-se job with this JF 17 and what not.

So how do I explain the difficulties---maybe you should explain these difficulties and let me be the observer.

 

[MastanKhan]

china told russia we might purchase 1000 RD93 if they could increase the thrust ,it's a huge cake ,they refused it anyway because of the potential conflict of interests(maybe india also interfered with this deal）,russian had bargaining chips to say no only because WS-13 is still under development,they knew we didn't have other choices . we can't be sure they are still willing to sell it once they win the contract of MRCA .russia and other countries can always persuade india to export engine to pakistan if china can supply same product,how can this be tougher for the paf,it's not conducive to export JF-17 to other countries as long as it can only equip 93

Hi,

Sir---I understand what you are saying. What my grudge with the equipment is that the paf neede a true bvr system---we had planes available to us from sweden and france in 2002---if we had played our hand properly---the planes were also available from u s of a in 2002---.

I am crying about our screw ups----the screw ups of the paf---we should have had the first batch of true bvr fighter interceptors in 2003-4 and here we are in 2010 and none in sight except for the blk 52 F 16's. The current batch of JF 17 a dud---.

 

[Aslan]

Hi,

Sir---I understand what you are saying. What my grudge with the equipment is that the paf neede a true bvr system---we had planes available to us from sweden and france in 2002---if we had played our hand properly---the planes were also available from u s of a in 2002---.

I am crying about our screw ups----the screw ups of the paf---we should have had the first batch of true bvr fighter interceptors in 2003-4 and here we are in 2010 and none in sight except for the blk 52 F 16's. The current batch of JF 17 a dud---.

Well sir as much as want my self to believe that many of your comments are emotionally charged. And some times you go over board with the criticism. My mind forces me to look at it otherwise. As there is always smoke when there is fire. As much as PAF did a good job in inducting an aircraft with local production, they should have had less issues popping up every other day. More and more it looks like that some one didnt do its home work properly. Well I hope that they fix their mistakes, and start taking steps in the right direction. Thank you for your critical analysis, even though I dont completely agree with all of your points. Still a healthy critic is always a well wisher. And so are you sir.

 

[fatman17]

fatman@@

one question
the 14 inducted in feb 2010 are totally made in Kamra?
and does the 14 include the 8 batches we recieved frm china?

i heared that only 4 are manufactureed in kamra in 8 months(frm july 2009 to feb 2010)

thanx in advance

8 manufactured at kamra so far - 8 original from china for a total of 16 operational a/c.

 

[Aslan]

8 manufactured at kamra so far - 8 original from china for a total of 16 operational a/c.

Sir correct me if I am wrong but are all of the current inductees for ground support only. Or are there going to be inductions on A2A roles in the first batch.

 

[aimarraul]

Hi,

Sir---I understand what you are saying. What my grudge with the equipment is that the paf neede a true bvr system---we had planes available to us from sweden and france in 2002---if we had played our hand properly---the planes were also available from u s of a in 2002---.

I am crying about our screw ups----the screw ups of the paf---we should have had the first batch of true bvr fighter interceptors in 2003-4 and here we are in 2010 and none in sight except for the blk 52 F 16's. The current batch of JF 17 a dud---.

you are too pessimistic,friend.i hope it's because of your limited knowledge about JF-17,JF 17 is a 4th gen jet with good upgrade potential,bvr is one of the important targets being considered when PAF desided to invest money in JF-17 in the later 90' ,JF-17 already have this capability, i can understand why some people feel disappointed about JF-17 ,it connects to early Super-7 program.but if you ever compare these two fighter carefully ,you would know that the changes in JF-17 correspond to "an redesign jet".the forebody strake,the DSI,these techs deserve better words than dud.early batches of JF-17 is to replace A-5 and F-7 as the second-line fighter,PAF wants to know how pilots response to JF-17 and see if there is any part needs to improve.at same time,they can seek western avionics, radar and engine,also china will try her best to catch up and provide PAF multi choices.of course, things can go another way as you wish,pakistan got some JAS-39 or Rafale in 2004( they are all very very good jets), and this forum would be more harmonious as some indians here wouldn't boast their invincible mki all the time,but what's point of that,there is no dominant 4th gen jet in this world.in the war time ,it's the indigenous jet ensure your savty and force the enemy back to table,that's most important value of JF-17,you don't need to concern how much $ in your hands or if western countries are willing to sell ,if it's necessary,you can make JF-17 as many as you want .stick to indigenous weaponry,no matter how rough the road is,it's the best UPS.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Sir correct me if I am wrong but are all of the current inductees for ground support only. Or are there going to be inductions on A2A roles in the first batch.

Yaar, they all are BVR capable. The are multi role.

The reason they are said to be for ground support role is, becoz they have replaced a Sqd which was ground support specific, the A-5s were ground attack aircraft in 26th Sqd of the 36th tactical wing, A-5s are not for dog fights. So that is why we say the first batch would be for ground attack role as they have replaced the A-5s, but in reality they are multi-role and can take the role of interceptors or dog fighting role.

Tactical Wing aircraft are to attack troops and military equipment in the battle zone.

It can fire and support BVR missiles if need arises.

 

[Aslan]

Yaar, they all are BVR capable. The are multi role.

The reason they are said to be for ground support role is, becoz they have replaced a Sqd which was ground support specific, the A-5s were ground attack aircraft in 26th Sqd of the 36th tactical wing, A-5s are not for dog fights. So that is why we say the first batch would be for ground attack role as they have replaced the A-5s, but in reality they are multi-role and can take the role of interceptors or dog fighting role.

Tactical Wing aircraft are to attack troops and military equipment in the battle zone.

It can fire and support BVR missiles if need arises.

Thank you khan saab I remember some one telling me that they are for A2G role, but didnt mention the other stuff. Thanks for the info.

 

[sancho]

I am crying about our screw ups----the screw ups of the paf---we should have had the first batch of true bvr fighter interceptors in 2003-4 and here we are in 2010 and none in sight except for the blk 52 F 16's. The current batch of JF 17 a dud---.

If the first JFs really have no BVR capability, I could understand your disappointment and worry about PAF lacking that capability. On the other hand would say they still made the right move with the Chinese co-development (although I still say J10 would have been the better choice), because it is important to have a sanction prove alternative to the F16s. Although the JFs might not be the alternative now, in the longer term with full 4. gen capabilities and more over in numbers, they will be.
Don't you think that would be worth some delays?

 

[Sanchez]

you are too pessimistic,friend.i hope it's because of your limited knowledge about JF-17,JF 17 is a 4th gen jet with good upgrade potential,bvr is one of the important targets being considered when PAF desided to invest money in JF-17 in the later 90' ,JF-17 already have this capability, i can understand why some people feel disappointed about JF-17 ,it connects to early Super-7 program.but if you ever compare these two fighter carefully ,you would know that the changes in JF-17 correspond to "an redesign jet".the forebody strake,the DSI,these techs deserve better words than dud.early batches of JF-17 is to replace A-5 and F-7 as the second-line fighter,PAF wants to know how pilots response to JF-17 and see if there is any part needs to improve.at same time,they can seek western avionics, radar and engine,also china will try her best to catch up and provide PAF multi choices.of course, things can go another way as you wish,pakistan got some JAS-39 or Rafale in 2004( they are all very very good jets), and this forum would be more harmonious as some indians here wouldn't boast their invincible mki all the time,but what's point of that,there is no dominant 4th gen jet in this world.in the war time ,it's the indigenous jet ensure your savty and force the enemy back to table,that's most important value of JF-17,you don't need to concern how much $ in your hands or if western countries are willing to sell ,if it's necessary,you can make JF-17 as many as you want .stick to indigenous weaponry,no matter how rough the road is,it's the best UPS.

Wow, that's a good essay!

 

[TaimiKhan]

Thank you khan saab I remember some one telling me that they are for A2G role, but didnt mention the other stuff. Thanks for the info.

Yeah there is a lot of ambiguity. But simple fact is that they are replacing A-5s, so people assumed that it is gonna be doing ground attack role only.

Problem is PAF had set the first 50 with Chinese avionics to be used for ground attack role, as they don;t want to induct another BVR missile, the Chinese PL-12, as if it had gotten a western radar then AIM-120s would have been bought further or even may be European ones.

PAF is kind of shy inducting something which is very new in Chinese service, as we have ourselves made a BVR and we may have helped the Chinese in perfecting their SD-10s also, as pshamim sir had disclosed that we had tested our own BVR missile with 120KM range after it was modified and improved by our own after we got the tech from the SAs, the Darter series and we did gave some tech to Chinese also which they used in improving their own PL-12s. As per recent info, PL-12 has a newer model named PL-12G, which has improved range of about 100+KM and with a new seeker compared to the older Russian designed seeker used on the PL-12s or SD-10As as we know.

So PAF might even be thinking to use their own BVR missile on the JF-17s, which they can easily integrate with the JF-17.

End result is, that there is lot of confusion as PAF never releases its info and what we get is mostly rumors based on people who have access to some inside knowledge.

But underestimating JF-17 is not good.

here read this post: http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/28713-h2-h4-aam-agm-2.html#post409647

& this one too: http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/28713-h2-h4-aam-agm-3.html#post410343

And reading whole thread would further add to your info.

 

[Aslan]

Yeah there is a lot of ambiguity. But simple fact is that they are replacing A-5s, so people assumed that it is gonna be doing ground attack role only.

Problem is PAF had set the first 50 with Chinese avionics to be used for ground attack role, as they don;t want to induct another BVR missile, the Chinese PL-12, as if it had gotten a western radar then AIM-120s would have been bought further or even may be European ones.

PAF is kind of shy inducting something which is very new in Chinese service, as we have ourselves made a BVR and we may have helped the Chinese in perfecting their SD-10s also, as pshamim sir had disclosed that we had tested our own BVR missile with 120KM range after it was modified and improved by our own after we got the tech from the SAs, the Darter series and we did gave some tech to Chinese also which they used in improving their own PL-12s. As per recent info, PL-12 has a newer model named PL-12G, which has improved range of about 100+KM and with a new seeker compared to the older Russian designed seeker used on the PL-12s or SD-10As as we know.

So PAF might even be thinking to use their own BVR missile on the JF-17s, which they can easily integrate with the JF-17.

End result is, that there is lot of confusion as PAF never releases its info and what we get is mostly rumors based on people who have access to some inside knowledge.

But underestimating JF-17 is not good.

here read this post: http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/28713-h2-h4-aam-agm-2.html#post409647

& this one too: http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/28713-h2-h4-aam-agm-3.html#post410343

And reading whole thread would further add to your info.

Thank you again sir ji. It is a complete surprise to me that we had our own or I mean still have our own BVR that has a 120 KM range, so when people here claim that we can only fire on an AC with in 75 Km range does that mean it is limited due to the limited range of the radar. Sorry for an off topic Question.

 

[IceCold]

Yeah there is a lot of ambiguity. But simple fact is that they are replacing A-5s, so people assumed that it is gonna be doing ground attack role only.

Problem is PAF had set the first 50 with Chinese avionics to be used for ground attack role, as they don;t want to induct another BVR missile, the Chinese PL-12, as if it had gotten a western radar then AIM-120s would have been bought further or even may be European ones.

PAF is kind of shy inducting something which is very new in Chinese service, as we have ourselves made a BVR and we may have helped the Chinese in perfecting their SD-10s also, as pshamim sir had disclosed that we had tested our own BVR missile with 120KM range after it was modified and improved by our own after we got the tech from the SAs, the Darter series and we did gave some tech to Chinese also which they used in improving their own PL-12s. As per recent info, PL-12 has a newer model named PL-12G, which has improved range of about 100+KM and with a new seeker compared to the older Russian designed seeker used on the PL-12s or SD-10As as we know.

So PAF might even be thinking to use their own BVR missile on the JF-17s, which they can easily integrate with the JF-17.

End result is, that there is lot of confusion as PAF never releases its info and what we get is mostly rumors based on people who have access to some inside knowledge.

But underestimating JF-17 is not good.

here read this post: http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/28713-h2-h4-aam-agm-2.html#post409647

& this one too: http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/28713-h2-h4-aam-agm-3.html#post410343

And reading whole thread would further add to your info.

Taimi i have a question can the APG-68 v9 be installed onto the JF-17 nose cone? This is just a question for now we forget whether americans will allow it or not.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Thank you again sir ji. It is a complete surprise to me that we had our own or I mean still have our own BVR that has a 120 KM range, so when people here claim that we can only fire on an AC with in 75 Km range does that mean it is limited due to the limited range of the radar. Sorry for an off topic Question.

Yeah, its a surprise to a lot of people. I was one of them also

Yups, mostly it is due to the radar range but if the missile has active radar seeker, then after reaching near the target its own radar acquires the target and goes after it.

But radar range is very important, as the more range it has, the more early it can detect the target and from farther away it can launch its missile, the radar will guide the missile to a certain distance from there the missile's own radar takes over and goes after the target.

 

[hataf]

you are too pessimistic,friend.i hope it's because of your limited knowledge about JF-17,JF 17 is a 4th gen jet with good upgrade potential,bvr is one of the important targets being considered when PAF desided to invest money in JF-17 in the later 90' ,JF-17 already have this capability, i can understand why some people feel disappointed about JF-17 ,it connects to early Super-7 program.but if you ever compare these two fighter carefully ,you would know that the changes in JF-17 correspond to "an redesign jet".the forebody strake,the DSI,these techs deserve better words than dud.early batches of JF-17 is to replace A-5 and F-7 as the second-line fighter,PAF wants to know how pilots response to JF-17 and see if there is any part needs to improve.at same time,they can seek western avionics, radar and engine,also china will try her best to catch up and provide PAF multi choices.of course, things can go another way as you wish,pakistan got some JAS-39 or Rafale in 2004( they are all very very good jets), and this forum would be more harmonious as some indians here wouldn't boast their invincible mki all the time,but what's point of that,there is no dominant 4th gen jet in this world.in the war time ,it's the indigenous jet ensure your savty and force the enemy back to table,that's most important value of JF-17,you don't need to concern how much $ in your hands or if western countries are willing to sell ,if it's necessary,you can make JF-17 as many as you want .stick to indigenous weaponry,no matter how rough the road is,it's the best UPS.

post worth million thanks