JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

[Muradk]

Hard to find a picture from that angle. But this is what I came up with. It sure looks quite identical to the JF-17. The Chinese are well known for their design thefts. Perhaps they combined the IAR-95 with some indigenous R&D for the final product? The point is, the IAR-95 never reached its production phase and is classified as an abandoned project. JF-17 Thunder on the other hand is a successful project and would definitely become a strong contender in the future in terms of reliability, cost-effectiveness and mass production.

That JF-17 photo in Jamals house is a PS the fighter in F-16 , I know it because he is my neighbor.

 

[Arsalan]

That JF-17 photo in Jamals house is a PS the fighter in F-16 , I know it because he is my neighbor.

thanks for clearing it,
however the one that we used to figure out the differences in design of both these planes was an original model of JF17 so i guess we have got it right there,,

regards!

 

[defendpakistan]

May ALLAH give the Pakistani Army and its leadership the "courage" to "invest" in proper technology.
JF-17 Thunder is an achievement for Pakistan and many others have stated that Pakistan will gain the technical know how about modern fighter jets and INSHAHALLAH will build on this knowledge.
We have to keep in mind that building something that has "already" been built is simply "ok", we need the "WOW" factor by researching and developing what others "DO NOT" have. There is no limit to the technical advancements, but we need to start investing into the bright minds of our country and learn from the 10th century Muslims who are the pioneers of modern technology.
We can only go so far by duplicating an existing technology.

 

[niaz]

But the debate continues on how competent a fighter it actually is. The main argument by the detractors being that if it isn't as good as any of the Euro-canards, it isn't competent enough.
----
[/IMG]

In an ideal world, with no financial constraints and free availability of any aircraft that PAF desires, you would have every right to question the competency of JF-17.

However, in real world compromises have to be made and one is forced to make a choice based on quantity required with quality one can afford. Finally, let us be clear, JF-17 may not be competent enough compared to state of the art fighters, nevertheless it is hell of a lot more modern than what it is going to replace.

 

[Sapper]

In an ideal world, with no financial constraints and free availability of any aircraft that PAF desires, you would have every right to question the competency of JF-17.

I think you are VERY wrong in this assumption ... Tell me of another sub-20-million-USD fighter that comes even close to the specs of JF-17.

Do keep in mind that we will be needing 200~250 planes just to keep the numerical strength we need because of our geo-political scenario. So if we have a budget of 5-billion-USD budget we can procure 250 JF-17s ... not to mention that some part of those 5-billion-USD will be injected into our own economy (due to subcontractors and employee salaries).

Comparable aircraft to JF-17 are
(prices are estimated, so please dont crucify me if they are wrong)
F16 C/D --- 50~60 million+
Mirage 2000 --- 45 million +
Saab JAS39 --- 40~61 million
Mig-29 (basic) --- 40 million +
Mig-35 --- 50 million +

I am pretty sure JF-17 can only match 80~90% performance of these platforms ... but it beats them hands down in price, thus numerical inferiority is GUARANTEED if we go for any one of the above mentioned aircrafts instead of JF-17.

Regards,
Sapper

 

[hj786]

I think you are VERY wrong in this assumption ... Tell me of another sub-20-million-USD fighter that comes even close to the specs of JF-17.

Please note that Niaz said "in an ideal world, with no financial constraints". Niaz and I agree with you that JF-17 is the only option which allows the PAF to maintain some numerical strength.

 

[Sapper]

Please note that Niaz said "in an ideal world, with no financial constraints". Niaz and I agree with you that JF-17 is the only option which allows the PAF to maintain some numerical strength.

Dont get me wrong ... I understand your point ...
but consider this

In infantry, there are normal soldiers, and then there are super soldiers with advanced weapons, advanced armour, and advanced training, i.e. commandoes. The existence of commandoes mean that a superior soldier is POSSIBLE, but not all of the infantry is converted to commandoes.

Your hypothesis will suggest that there should be no soldiers ... all should be commandoes ???
In air force's terms ... there should only be F22s and B2Bs...
and NOTHING ELSE

seems unnatural ... even in an ideal world.

Regards,
Sapper

 

[gambit]

Dont get me wrong ... I understand your point ...
but consider this

In infantry, there are normal soldiers, and then there are super soldiers with advanced weapons, advanced armour, and advanced training, i.e. commandoes. The existence of commandoes mean that a superior soldier is POSSIBLE, but not all of the infantry is converted to commandoes.

Your hypothesis will suggest that there should be no soldiers ... all should be commandoes ???
In air force's terms ... there should only be F22s and B2Bs...
and NOTHING ELSE

seems unnatural ... even in an ideal world.

Regards,
Sapper

Bad analogy. A 'soldier' is an already made human being and no amount of money is going to improve his body and mind if neither is capable of being improved. Whereas, if money is no object, then indeed there should be nothing but B-2s and F-22s because both can be created at will.

Ever heard of the phrase 'Jack of all trades. Master of none.'?

Because there are financial constraints, the goal for any air force should be to find or built an aircraft that is the typical 'jack-of-all-trades' but with higher the competency in each trade. The US Navy did it with the F-18E/F Super Hornet. This aircraft is 'master of none' but with whatever it is tasked to do, from fleet defense to air refuel to ECM, it does it to high standards. We can say that it is a master at being a 'jack-of-all-trades'.

Even for US with our defense budget, multi-role fighters are still desirable as we can shift individual units to different missions as we see fit, so for a country with no global power projection ambition and with limited budget, a multi-role platform should be prime consideration. The next issue is that there are many multi-role fighters out there. Many 'jack of all trades' competing for your money and all of them have different performance levels. The military affair is not a benign racing contest. It is a fight and the loser may lose more than face. He may lose his existence. Is that what you are willing to bet on a less capable 'jack of all trades' than your potential enemy's?

 

[PAFAce]

Is that what you are willing to bet on a less capable 'jack of all trades' than your potential enemy's?

Yes, but there's something to be said about having your own "jack of all trades" aircraft versus one made by someone else. Also, the "jack" will provide at least some capability in "all trades", versus much less capability without it. It may be a less capable "jack" today, but you can develop its capabilities to suit exactly what you need 5, 10 and even 20 years down the road. We traded less capability today for more indigenous capability and flexibility over the next few decades. That was the trade-off we've put our money on.

The Americans could have gone for the Tornado IDS as their primary Air Force interdiction/ground attack aircraft, but they chose to spend billions on the F-15 Strike Eagle vs F-16XL program. They went for indigenous capability in the future over imported capability immediately. This is not exactly the same as our case, I admit, but it is in the same ball-park.

 

[gambit]

Yes, but there's something to be said about having your own "jack of all trades" aircraft versus one made by someone else. Also, the "jack" will provide at least some capability in "all trades", versus much less capability without it. It may be a less capable "jack" today, but you can develop its capabilities to suit exactly what you need 5, 10 and even 20 years down the road. We traded less capability today for more indigenous capability and flexibility over the next few decades. That was the trade-off we've put our money on.

The Americans could have gone for the Tornado IDS as their primary Air Force interdiction/ground attack aircraft, but they chose to spend billions on the F-15 Strike Eagle vs F-16XL program. They went for indigenous capability in the future over imported capability immediately. This is not exactly the same as our case, I admit, but it is in the same ball-park.

Ultimately, an indigenous program of anything, from toaster ovens to jet fighters, is the better option over dependency on external sources, which often comes with conditions, political or technical, that could make a leash out of the product to be around the neck of the importer.

The F-15's modifications into a multi-role platform like the Tornado was a wise choice for US. The F-15's airframe proved to be rugged and amenable to structural changes. Was that intentional? I tend to think more unintentional based on my own personal experience in aviation. No one in the original F-111 program expected that airframe to be a capable dedicated ECM platform. Same for the current F-16 platform with its many variants. Same for the F-4. On the other hand, no amount of technical talent can turn the F-104 into a ground attack platform. The F-14 'Bombcat' was quietly considered to be a let-down, technical and otherwise, just a millimeter shy of failure. US aviation engineers tend to think towards generalists over specialists until there is a clear directive for the industry to develop a highly specialized design based upon a specific need. The F-104 and the A-12 were answers to the demand 'We need to get there ASAP.' What to do when we get 'there' is another issue. For the A-12, what 'to do' became taking pictures and the platform became a dedicated recon aircraft unmatched to this day -- SR-71.

The F-16 is a proven multi-role airframe over time and in actual combat, the Chinese version is not. Pakistan can take the parallel paths of buying a certain amount of very capable multi-role fighters like the US F-16 and allotting some money to develop an indigenous program. This is an issue of immediate needs versus long time goals and how to budget for them. It takes at least two years to train a candidate to become a competent pilot. Two years for a new US President to have a full grasp of the enormity and depth of his office. In international affairs, five years ahead qualified as 'immediate'. Peace may continue or war could break out inside that five years. Human fickleness and a learning curve explained why many countries have their economic policies based upon this 4-5 years time span. To build could turn out to be a wrong decision as less money was allotted to buy an established aircraft to meet unexpected international challenges.

 

[SBD-3]

Ultimately, an indigenous program of anything, from toaster ovens to jet fighters, is the better option over dependency on external sources, which often comes with conditions, political or technical, that could make a leash out of the product to be around the neck of the importer.

The F-15's modifications into a multi-role platform like the Tornado was a wise choice for US. The F-15's airframe proved to be rugged and amenable to structural changes. Was that intentional? I tend to think more unintentional based on my own personal experience in aviation. No one in the original F-111 program expected that airframe to be a capable dedicated ECM platform. Same for the current F-16 platform with its many variants. Same for the F-4. On the other hand, no amount of technical talent can turn the F-104 into a ground attack platform. The F-14 'Bombcat' was quietly considered to be a let-down, technical and otherwise, just a millimeter shy of failure. US aviation engineers tend to think towards generalists over specialists until there is a clear directive for the industry to develop a highly specialized design based upon a specific need. The F-104 and the A-12 were answers to the demand 'We need to get there ASAP.' What to do when we get 'there' is another issue. For the A-12, what 'to do' became taking pictures and the platform became a dedicated recon aircraft unmatched to this day -- SR-71.

The F-16 is a proven multi-role airframe over time and in actual combat, the Chinese version is not. Pakistan can take the parallel paths of buying a certain amount of very capable multi-role fighters like the US F-16 and allotting some money to develop an indigenous program. This is an issue of immediate needs versus long time goals and how to budget for them. It takes at least two years to train a candidate to become a competent pilot. Two years for a new US President to have a full grasp of the enormity and depth of his office. In international affairs, five years ahead qualified as 'immediate'. Peace may continue or war could break out inside that five years. Human fickleness and a learning curve explained why many countries have their economic policies based upon this 4-5 years time span. To build could turn out to be a wrong decision as less money was allotted to buy an established aircraft to meet unexpected international challenges.

I agree. just a share of thought, Why didn't USN developed Tomcat? reading about it I came to now its variable wing geometry it could assume both conventional and delta wing like geometry even though not exact delta wind but some how if its design would be modified with say canards it could be a very competent fighter capable of both Super Sonic and Sub Sonic as well. I would like to have your views on this

 

[fatman17]

one needs to discuss the role the JF-17 is going to play with the PAF plans. its not going to be a deep-strike a/c. that capability will eventually provided by the FC-20 in the next 3-5 years.
i see the JF-17 has a platform with improving capabilities from the current block-1 a/c (50 a/c). the induction of a western power-plant, avionics and weapons will enhance its basic role of point defence and CAS/ interdiction. ofcourse this will increase the price-tag from the current est. of 15m to more like 25-30m for later models.

 

[gambit]

I think you are VERY wrong in this assumption ... Tell me of another sub-20-million-USD fighter that comes even close to the specs of JF-17.

Do keep in mind that we will be needing 200~250 planes just to keep the numerical strength we need because of our geo-political scenario. So if we have a budget of 5-billion-USD budget we can procure 250 JF-17s ... not to mention that some part of those 5-billion-USD will be injected into our own economy (due to subcontractors and employee salaries).

Comparable aircraft to JF-17 are
(prices are estimated, so please dont crucify me if they are wrong)
F16 C/D --- 50~60 million+
Mirage 2000 --- 45 million +
Saab JAS39 --- 40~61 million
Mig-29 (basic) --- 40 million +
Mig-35 --- 50 million +

I am pretty sure JF-17 can only match 80~90% performance of these platforms ... but it beats them hands down in price, thus numerical inferiority is GUARANTEED if we go for any one of the above mentioned aircrafts instead of JF-17.

As I mentioned that it takes approximately two years to train a candidate to become a competent pilot, from my 10yrs in the USAF, it also takes two years to train someone to be competent at whatever system he is responsible for on an aircraft, even a generalist role like a crew chief, it also require two years of decreasing supervision until full independence. During the Cold War, NATO was numerically inferior to the Warsaw Pact, even in nuclear forces. We made up for it with our superior technology. After the Soviets collapsed, testimonies from the former Soviet satellites also hinted that this two years time span is an appropriate training time. I have trained foreign nationals on avionics maintenance on the F-16 and I can say with confidence that this time span is reasonable and applicable for most aircrafts out there.

As you admitted that the JF-17 is at best %90 as capable as Western fighters, now ask yourself which version of the Pakistani Air Force is the more capable one after that two years time span to train pilots and ground crews, the version using Western fighters or the version flying the aircraft that is %90 as capable? Who is Pakistan's closest potential enemy? What are his air force's capabilities? Pakistan may enjoy numerical superiority with the JF-17 but how much of that can and actually is offsetted by superior technology from this potential enemy? Superior technology often forces the user to develop superior support organizations. Look at your own personal computer for a closer to home example of this. This in turn raises the sophistication bar for the entire force. Numerical superiority is indeed a compelling argument, but it should not run roughshod other factors outside of Pakistan's controls that may sway the decision making process into buying versus building.

Let us take a radical example of a fight between a Sopwith Camel and a P-51D Mustang. Who will prevail, the pilot with one year of training in the Mustang or the pilot with one year of training in the Camel? I am not saying that the JF-17 is that distant from any of the Western fighters listed as that between the Camel and Mustang. The point of that mental exercise is to establish some kind of a baseline of differences for a rational discussion that would have us move this sliding scale of performances, from combat radius to weapons load, of the JF-17 closer to any of the Western fighters listed. The closer the JF-17 approaches any of the Western fighters, the more compelling the argument become for Pakistan to build over purchase.

Finally...Past armed conflicts, like the Vietnam War for example, have shown that the force that is technologically inferior but numerically superior can prevail only if that force is willing to be sacrificial in its tactics and that they must be sustainable. Can the Pakistani force of 200-something JF-17s withstand losses against a technologically superior enemy over weeks or possibly months in an armed conflict? I am not saying that Pakistan would be foolishly sacrificial. I am saying that in an armed conflict against a technologically superior enemy that Pakistan has a numerical lead, the question become: Is that lead sufficient where losses will not cause Pakistan to abandon planned operations to achieve certain goals? If that question is uncomfortable or unanswerable, then perhaps Pakistan would be better off purchasing Western fighters that is technologically par with this potential enemy and come up with other tactics that best exploit their capabilities.

 

[MZUBAIR]

As I mentioned that it takes approximately two years to train a candidate to become a competent pilot, from my 10yrs in the USAF, it also takes two years to train someone to be competent at whatever system he is responsible for on an aircraft, even a generalist role like a crew chief, it also require two years of decreasing supervision until full independence. During the Cold War, NATO was numerically inferior to the Warsaw Pact, even in nuclear forces. We made up for it with our superior technology. After the Soviets collapsed, testimonies from the former Soviet satellites also hinted that this two years time span is an appropriate training time. I have trained foreign nationals on avionics maintenance on the F-16 and I can say with confidence that this time span is reasonable and applicable for most aircrafts out there.

As you admitted that the JF-17 is at best %90 as capable as Western fighters, now ask yourself which version of the Pakistani Air Force is the more capable one after that two years time span to train pilots and ground crews, the version using Western fighters or the version flying the aircraft that is %90 as capable? Who is Pakistan's closest potential enemy? What are his air force's capabilities? Pakistan may enjoy numerical superiority with the JF-17 but how much of that can and actually is offsetted by superior technology from this potential enemy? Superior technology often forces the user to develop superior support organizations. Look at your own personal computer for a closer to home example of this. This in turn raises the sophistication bar for the entire force. Numerical superiority is indeed a compelling argument, but it should not run roughshod other factors outside of Pakistan's controls that may sway the decision making process into buying versus building.

Let us take a radical example of a fight between a Sopwith Camel and a P-51D Mustang. Who will prevail, the pilot with one year of training in the Mustang or the pilot with one year of training in the Camel? I am not saying that the JF-17 is that distant from any of the Western fighters listed as that between the Camel and Mustang. The point of that mental exercise is to establish some kind of a baseline of differences for a rational discussion that would have us move this sliding scale of performances, from combat radius to weapons load, of the JF-17 closer to any of the Western fighters listed. The closer the JF-17 approaches any of the Western fighters, the more compelling the argument become for Pakistan to build over purchase.

Finally...Past armed conflicts, like the Vietnam War for example, have shown that the force that is technologically inferior but numerically superior can prevail only if that force is willing to be sacrificial in its tactics and that they must be sustainable. Can the Pakistani force of 200-something JF-17s withstand losses against a technologically superior enemy over weeks or possibly months in an armed conflict? I am not saying that Pakistan would be foolishly sacrificial. I am saying that in an armed conflict against a technologically superior enemy that Pakistan has a numerical lead, the question become: Is that lead sufficient where losses will not cause Pakistan to abandon planned operations to achieve certain goals? If that question is uncomfortable or unanswerable, then perhaps Pakistan would be better off purchasing Western fighters that is technologically par with this potential enemy and come up with other tactics that best exploit their capabilities.

I agree on some of your comments but not all. The quality benchmark of JF-17 is F-16, and its ongoing project.

JF-17 is 100% capable to use western avoinics and those which are used in F-16 (A/B/C/D). So u can not say that JF-17 is complete China product. Also mentioning that JF-17 is using Russian engine.

JF-17 early development is to replace old F-7 (China) and Mirage 5(France). But future developments are focused on more advance radars and batter engine.

May be you havent heard that PAF is seriously considering western engine for JF-17 next version, ofcourse it might ask for minor modifications in airframe but that can be done. USA did that for F-16 or F-15, F-18, even Russia did that for Mig 29.

Yes, I agree that Pakistan can't compete with the latest developments of western countries but atleast Pakistan always work to counter Inida, for that Pakistan either develop equips locally, or take help from china or they purchase from western market.

If you look the strength of IAF, no doubt its superior then PAF in quanity and quality and thats worried part for PAF.

As I said 250 (before 2015)+ JF-17 are to replace old PAF fleet F7, Mirage etc.

Till 2015, I dont see any new things in IAF and 250+ JF-17 would surely be capable to counter 100 Jaguar, 40 Mirage, 60 Mig 29.

Besides JF-17, PAF having 45 F-16, and by 2011-12 PAF would get + F-16 (If USA remain sencior) and 36 J-10B (equlant to F-16Block 52).

Looking IAF Su 30 MKI, Yes IAF have edge for that PAF must buy western jet atleast 50+.

Yes Pakistan is lacking in quantity (which ever remained since 1948 war) and some quality. But its not that poor as you showed in your post.

 

[gambit]

I agree on some of your comments but not all.

Your disagreement is minor. My point, more like a cautionary note, is that since Pakistan is at an important technological stop on the road, Pakistan should neither build nor buy but take the middle road and do some of both. It is irrelevant whether the aircraft is %100 Chinese or Pakistani. Assuming Pakistan achieve performance parity of the JF-17 to the late model F-16. Can Pakistani aviation produce the aircraft with as little dependency on external sources as possible? How quickly can this be ramped up on a small scale while Pakistan purchases established aircrafts for immediate needs? How long can this ramp be sustained? Can Pakistan come up with a production rate, derived from this small scale ramp into a larger ramp, that would push Pakistan from dependency to complete independence? Without this crucial metric -- the production rate -- Pakistani aviation will continue to be in limbo status.

---------- Post added at 02:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 AM ----------

I agree. just a share of thought, Why didn't USN developed Tomcat? reading about it I came to now its variable wing geometry it could assume both conventional and delta wing like geometry even though not exact delta wind but some how if its design would be modified with say canards it could be a very competent fighter capable of both Super Sonic and Sub Sonic as well. I would like to have your views on this

The F-14 is very much like the SR-71 in that it is a specialist airframe -- interceptor. Its duty as fleet defense is only a natural extension of its interceptor role. My opinion is that there are too many factors coming together at the wrong time to allow US to forcibly evolve the F-14, from the basic airframe as it is, to budget, to changes in naval doctrines, to age...etc...etc...