JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

[Arsalan]

I think it was.

1. A-5 has two engines, JF-17 have one = cheaper.
2. PLAAF Q-5s can carry only 2 LGBs, JF-17 can carry 8
3. A-5 carrys 2,000kg of stores, JF-17 carries 3,800kg.
4. Being more modern the JF-17 will have more efficient and cheaper to runs systems.
5. JF-17 will have better sensors, both defensive and offensive.

This is what I could come up with in five minutes - I am sure a lot of ppl can add to the list.

bro this is a list to which even i can add some other points (may be not in five minutes though... )
however i dont take it wise to compare JF with A5 and then start clapping if it beats the A5 !! brother the A5 are real old platforms.
moreover the important thing is that why not wait for some more time if you can get some thing even better..
now do you really disagree that if the new batch can havdel the targetting PAD with another hardpoint and we can get eight LGB on four hardpoints plus may be a RAAD and still have space for air defence missiles it would have been much better then its already existing specs in CAS roles!

regards!

 

[Arsalan]

well my friend, Tempest here is what i am trying to say.
just consider two planes in cas duties. forget the A5z..
JF17 (current specs)
Seven hardpoints carrying:
Two fuel tanks,
Four LGB on two hardpoints using multiple racks.
One targetting POD
Two wing tip mounted missiles.

JF17 (most probable future blk II specs)
Eight hardpoints carrying
One targetting POD
Four LGB on two hardpoints
Four LGB on two other hardpoints or two SD10 missiles for long range air defence.(as required)
Two wing tip mounted missile for air defence.
One RAAD cruise missile under fuselage!
No need for fuel tanks with IRF probes in place!!!

now my frined what do you say?
Sir Fatman and TaimiKhan my friend, you also tend to differ with me on these point. guys i am not just arguing, these are just my thoughts and if you can change them for better, you wont find me rigid on these points!
what do you guys think??

the current specs of JF17 are good enough for Air defence roles. though it wont be as good as next blocks with better radars but still for me it would have been better to use them in A2A roles and wait for next block for A2G duties.
A5 being requiring retirement is not a good reason at all...
what do you people think??

regards!

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

buddy arsalan,
what i heard about this block-2 new version of thunder from an authentic source is,this will be the twin seater aircraft with increased hard points and new engine too.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

buddy arsalan,
what i heard about this block-2 new version of thunder from an authentic source is,this will be the twin seater aircraft with increased hard points and new engine too.

well did your authentic source named the new engine?

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

well did your authentic source named the new engine?

just new engine,no more no name n details...that source is in my friend list of FB.
wont tell u more.

 

[Kompromat]

lemme guess ... Eurojet engine

 

[Luftwaffe]

danger-zone...block 2 would be upgrades updates ..probably block 3 with new changes..

 

[Tiger Awan]

danger-zone...block 2 would be upgrades updates ..probably block 3 with new changes..

our defense forces are quite smart. They themselves create some "sources" that make opposite claims and do not tell the truth. Untill and unless blk II becomes an OPEN reality its just assumptions

 

[Luftwaffe]

Tiger Awan...at some point of time you will be upgrading these JF-17s you can name upgrades lolly wood 2000-10 as well I'm simply adding the block for the purpose of understanding..regardless upgrades will take place and in reality you cant deny it..

 

[Tempest II]

well my friend, Tempest here is what i am trying to say.
just consider two planes in cas duties. forget the A5z..
JF17 (current specs)
Seven hardpoints carrying:
Two fuel tanks,
Four LGB on two hardpoints using multiple racks.
One targetting POD
Two wing tip mounted missiles.

JF17 (most probable future blk II specs)
Eight hardpoints carrying
One targetting POD
Four LGB on two hardpoints
Four LGB on two other hardpoints or two SD10 missiles for long range air defence.(as required)
Two wing tip mounted missile for air defence.
One RAAD cruise missile under fuselage!
No need for fuel tanks with IRF probes in place!!!

now my frined what do you say?
Sir Fatman and TaimiKhan my friend, you also tend to differ with me on these point. guys i am not just arguing, these are just my thoughts and if you can change them for better, you wont find me rigid on these points!
what do you guys think??

the current specs of JF17 are good enough for Air defence roles. though it wont be as good as next blocks with better radars but still for me it would have been better to use them in A2A roles and wait for next block for A2G duties.
A5 being requiring retirement is not a good reason at all...
what do you people think??

regards!

Thanks for the discussion Sir and your many contributions to the forum. I always try to find time to read your posts.

I believe your original question was about the JF-17 in CAS. ...???

Your second scenario definately presents a better plane. However, technology and innovation takes time. PAF, when they started the JF-17 project, would have decided what they would consider acceptable for the Mk1 plane - they weighed the $$$ needed for the development, how much off-the-shelf technology they could get and how much they felt they could create/engineer on their own (i.e. PAC and CAC). By introducing the JF-17, the Block I, they can start testing (OPERATIONAL TESTING) the technologies onboard. This is very necessary and is another valve/stage of controlling risk. I would remind us that the EF-2000 and the F-22 were introduced with some sub-systems not fully developed or some missing altogether. It is necessary to accept and acknowledge that at some point, technology, even if/when it exists of-the-shelf, it needs to be absorbed gradually and even more so if/when it has to be developed.

 

[BATMAN]

well did your authentic source named the new engine?

Could be RD-93MK!!!

 

[razgriz19]

well my friend, Tempest here is what i am trying to say.
just consider two planes in cas duties. forget the A5z..
JF17 (current specs)
Seven hardpoints carrying:
Two fuel tanks,
Four LGB on two hardpoints using multiple racks.
One targetting POD
Two wing tip mounted missiles.

JF17 (most probable future blk II specs)
Eight hardpoints carrying
One targetting POD
Four LGB on two hardpoints
Four LGB on two other hardpoints or two SD10 missiles for long range air defence.(as required)
Two wing tip mounted missile for air defence.
One RAAD cruise missile under fuselage!
No need for fuel tanks with IRF probes in place!!!

now my frined what do you say?
Sir Fatman and TaimiKhan my friend, you also tend to differ with me on these point. guys i am not just arguing, these are just my thoughts and if you can change them for better, you wont find me rigid on these points!
what do you guys think??

the current specs of JF17 are good enough for Air defence roles. though it wont be as good as next blocks with better radars but still for me it would have been better to use them in A2A roles and wait for next block for A2G duties.
A5 being requiring retirement is not a good reason at all...
what do you people think??

regards!

u said for blk 2 it doesn't need fuel tanks because of IFR, rite. so tell me one thing, r u planning to refuel the plane in enemy territory?? because with that much payload it will run out of fuel before it could make it back!
even USAF f-16s carry fuel tanks while they're on the mission....
feel free to correct me.

 

[araz]

u said for blk 2 it doesn't need fuel tanks because of IFR, rite. so tell me one thing, r u planning to refuel the plane in enemy territory?? because with that much payload it will run out of fuel before it could make it back!
even USAF f-16s carry fuel tanks while they're on the mission....
feel free to correct me.

No one does that .You save your assets and refuel them well inside your own territory so they are not put in any danger.Mostly , as you use 1/3 of your fuel on take off, especially when fully loaded, you just refuel immediately, or shortly after take off.
Hope it helps.
Araz

 

[Kompromat]

i can understand the reason why thunders are not getting CFTs in blck II is because pakistan or china both do not have any experiance with CFT installation.

let the Block 52 come and then they will decide how and what to improve to match with Blck 52 and its CFTs.

thanks

 

[S.U.R.B.]

What will be the effect of G's after installing a CFT on a JF-17.....and the same applies to the F-16 blk52 that the PAF is getting,how it will effect their performance?keeping PLUS points asides what are the minuses in this case?