JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

[mean_bird]

qsaark sahib,

I think you are overlooking the obvious. JF-17 was a JV and and any additional demand from PAF would mean an extra contract with revised dev. charges. IRF is not something beyond PAF's capability for it to seek Chinese help in it. Either way, with tankers (at that time) IFR wasn't considered an emergency.

A lot of time is taken just on familiarity, development and testing before the real thing is fitted in a plane. These aren't easy plug-and-play devices.

@BB
Vixen 1000 has more than one owner. It would be hard to get for another fighter given they have their own interests. Either way, even if we are pursuing it, it would be for the FC-20 and that too if China cannot provide an alternative.

 

[qsaark]

I think you are overlooking the obvious. JF-17 was a JV and and any additional demand from PAF would mean an extra contract with revised dev. charges. IRF is not something beyond PAF's capability for it to seek Chinese help in it. Either way, with tankers (at that time) IFR wasn't considered an emergency.

I do not think that I am overlooking the obvious. The JF was still the joint venture when the major redesign of the air-intakes and other features took place; A revision in the developmental charges is nothing new nor abnormal for such projects. Hence, the most probable reason would be that at that time, IFR and tankers were not considered seriously for one or several reasons. Now that we are already in the process of inducting the tankers, I would rather do experimentation with IFR on the evolving JF-17 test-beds instead of trying it on the flying relics called Mirage. This is my opinion and anybody is free to disagree.

A lot of time is taken just on familiarity, development and testing before the real thing is fitted in a plane. These aren't easy plug-and-play devices.

Thanks for letting me know that these are not easy plug-and-play devices; I fully concur, that is why I am arguing that these features should have been considered from the very beginning. JF-17 was not a project incepted in the late 60s or mid 70s; it took off will into the early to mid 90s and at that time, it was pretty much clear that what features would be essential for a multirole fighter that was/is hoped to serve well into 2020-2025.

 

[qsaark]

Can we get them on Thunders ?

If the wings were designed to bear that much load, than yes.

 

[notorious_eagle]

I do not think that I am overlooking the obvious. The JF was still the joint venture when the major redesign of the air-intakes and other features took place; A revision in the developmental charges is nothing new nor abnormal for such projects. Hence, the most probable reason would be that at that time, IFR and tankers were not considered seriously for one or several reasons. Now that we are already in the process of inducting the tankers, I would rather do experimentation with IFR on the evolving JF-17 test-beds instead of trying it on the flying relics called Mirage. This is my opinion and anybody is free to disagree.

Sir the only reason why Mirage V was given the first priority is because PAF wanted to improve its range. Mirage V are excellent Strike Aircrafts, much better than our F16's but the only thing they lacked was range. With IFR, we significantly enhance their range meaning they can carry Long Range Strike Missions. JF17's are more designed to perform air superiority roles, not strike missions and that is why Mirage V were given the first priority. They still have a lot of life left in their airframes, i dont think they will be retired before 2025.

 

[PAFAce]

Sir the only reason why Mirage V was given the first priority is because PAF wanted to improve its range. Mirage V are excellent Strike Aircrafts, much better than our F16's but the only thing they lacked was range..

Also, once the JF-17s are inducted in good numbers, our Mirages will likely adopt dedicated Close Air Support/Battlefield Interdiction roles for Ground and Naval forces. Increased loiter time would be greatly beneficial in these roles, especially when coupled with inputs from the AWACs. Hence, I agree, the Mirages can still be used further.

However, I also thought that A-5 Fantans would be updated for dedicated CAS/BI roles to take some pressure off the Air Superiority/Air Defence F-16s and JF-17s, and that didn't happen. So you never know, maybe the PAF has finally decided to retire the Mirages once and for all as well (like they are for the A-5). I hope they fly the A-5s and Mirages one last time in the Pakistan Day Parade (whenever the next one happens).

 

[Kompromat]

If the wings were designed to bear that much load, than yes.

And who is going to answer this Question ?

Sir Muradk

 

[TaimiKhan]

Can someone explain these Multiple Ejector racks ??????

View attachment 5795429dae9f336aa6c27e2d7a58c877.jpg


Can we get them on Thunders ?


Thanks

Hope you seen this pic, and yups JF-17s can have multi rack capability, and with different weapon and fuel tank configuration it can hold bombs on the multi rack under the wings.

 

[VelocuR]

Please see white multi-racking in this very old picture.

 

[SBD-3]

Sir the only reason why Mirage V was given the first priority is because PAF wanted to improve its range. Mirage V are excellent Strike Aircrafts, much better than our F16's but the only thing they lacked was range. With IFR, we significantly enhance their range meaning they can carry Long Range Strike Missions. JF17's are more designed to perform air superiority roles, not strike missions and that is why Mirage V were given the first priority. They still have a lot of life left in their airframes, i dont think they will be retired before 2025.

another realistic reason would be that there was no other choice for PAF at that time....thunder is in its early stages....PAF would have tested its A2G in WoT.....which would add a lot of value to the new comer.....It will take time.....IMO at least a decade for thunder to get any considerable experience in battle field...which would help in its improvements....Mirages....I guess we ll be giving them a farewell in later part of this decade as even though upgraded....they are obviously not at par with what our adversry will field going forward....keeping them in service will also increase the burden on PAF....I think PAF would at most, be interested in housing 4 types of Fighters.....JF/Viper/FC-20/(possible new).....furthermore, regarding their Naval use, we must keep in mind that IN will be housing Mig-29Ks going forward....I think FC-20 would be an excellent Choice for Navy....(keeping aside J-11B which would serve multiple purposes)

 

[Tempest II]

This was published by PAC and I think the load-outs are impressive. I would not ask for more in A2G payload. All I would love to see is a dual pylon for the SD-10s so it carries 2 x PL-9s, 4 x SD-10s and still have 3 external fuel tanks.

Take the 8 X Mk-82s (250kg) = 2,000
Add centre fuel tank (800 l) = 670kg
2 x PL-9s = 115kg x 2 = 230
You already have 3,000kg.
Now add the weight of the 2 PL-9 pylons, the 4 x Mk-82 pylons, the centre tank pylon and the tank itself you will probably exceed the 700kg left to make the maximum 3,700kg max external attachments.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Another thing regarding the IFR probe, if you guys remember in the IDEAS 08 I believe a refueling probe picture came to surface behind which it was said it if for the JF-17. So it means PAF already had plans for the IFR capability for JF-17s but not from first batch.

 

[Tempest II]

Another thing regarding the IFR probe, if you guys remember in the IDEAS 08 I believe a refueling probe picture came to surface behind which it was said it if for the JF-17. So it means PAF already had plans for the IFR capability for JF-17s but not from first batch.

You are correct!

 

[M.Ali Nasir]

Please see white multi-racking in this very old picture.

you are rite

 

[M.Ali Nasir]

This was published by PAC and I think the load-outs are impressive. I would not ask for more in A2G payload. All I would love to see is a dual pylon for the SD-10s so it carries 2 x PL-9s, 4 x SD-10s and still have 3 external fuel tanks.

Take the 8 X Mk-82s (250kg) = 2,000
Add centre fuel tank (800 l) = 670kg
2 x PL-9s = 115kg x 2 = 230
You already have 3,000kg.
Now add the weight of the 2 PL-9 pylons, the 4 x Mk-82 pylons, the centre tank pylon and the tank itself you will probably exceed the 700kg left to make the maximum 3,700kg max external attachments.

WOW yar its really great info.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Another thing regarding the IFR probe, if you guys remember in the IDEAS 08 I believe a refueling probe picture came to surface behind which it was said it if for the JF-17. So it means PAF already had plans for the IFR capability for JF-17s but not from first batch.

Rather it was shown in 2006 IDEAS event, 4 years back, so it means the IFR objective was even there at the time of prototype testing or from day one when the 1st prototype took to the air, but first JF-17 was to be inducted, made to fly and then incorporate it with it.