JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Beast]

I am speaking from a purely personal point of view. I am no expert, I am sure the PAF knows what its doing. I was just stating my opinion, which is often what many of us less informed members do. I have actually gone through all the jf-17 threads in detail and they are filled with speculation which is highly interesting but not yet backed up by actual jf-17 performance in international exercises or evaluations by anyone outside of Pakistan or CHina...I am sure such a day will come soon, but it is not yet upon us. Please do not question my understanding of english, I do have an understanding of what a parameter is. A little respect goes a long way in furthering discussion.

Please be informed that jf-17 is design to be an export plane. If PAF air chief exaggerate and boast about it's capabilities. It can be easily expose by test pilot of interested countries and become an embarrassment. As a Pakistani, you shall not doubt it. Jf-17 is as good as it descript. Flown like F-16 but with a better handling, it's capabilities is 80 to 86percent as good as Blk 52 but cost $15 million dollars. It's radar is as good as RC-400.

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

Please be informed that jf-17 is design to be an export plane. If PAF air chief exaggerate and boast about it's capabilities. It can be easily expose by test pilot of interested countries and become an embarrassment. As a Pakistani, you shall not doubt it. Jf-17 is as good as it descript. Flown like F-16 but with a better handling, it's capabilities is 80 to 86percent as good as Blk 52 but cost $15 million dollars. It's radar is as good as RC-400.

very well said best, if COAF of PAKISTAN AIR FORCE is claiming some thing than surely it holds water.

 

[Beast]

we need to be optimistic about jf-17...........
jf-17 is classic fighter and has great potential for meeting our future needs.
2nd we have defensive policy and jf-17 is fully capable to defend our airs...............................for offensive strike if ever required we surely are going to use our missiles.............

Yes, this is a true Pakistani words. Have faith in yr country product and faith on China avionics. KJL-7 is as good as RC-400 or better.

 

[SQ8]

Comparing the Fulcrum to the JF may not be haram either..
Since in the USSR mix.. the fulcrum was designed to be the light component of the VVS.
However...
If you do wish to compare anyway..
lets do it with the current upgrade of the standard Mig-29.. the UPG or the Mig-29SMT.(only using published data.. not what I know as well).

Lets start with takeoff weight
the Mig-29SMT has a takeoff weight of 21000kg..included is the 4500kg payload limit. thats 22% of its max MTOW.
The JF-17 by contrast has a limit of 12500 kg..with a payload of about 3500kg.. thats 28% of its MTOW.
So the Jf-17 lifts more for its size compared to the Mig-29SMT.

The Mig-29SMT.. with its ferry tanks makes it to around 3,500km..thats two tanks of 1,500 liters each..internal fuel 5,700 liters..a total of 8,240 liters..or equivalent to 7300 kg of Jp4... thats a fuel fraction of about 35% of the MTOW.(other stores may be carried in lieu of fuel tanks to get to MTOW)
.combat radius is 1,550km(internal fuel only).. with 8 AAM's for a loaded weight of around 14000 kg in which internal fuel makes again about 35% of the total weight.

The JF-17 with three tanks manages a ferry range(based on the farnborough trip) of 2900km..carrying 2800 liters internally..and three 800 liter tanks.. thats 5200 liters..or 4400kg of jp4. a fuel fraction of 35% as well of the MTOW.(other stores may be carried in lieu of fuel tanks to get to MTOW)
No actual figures exist for the combat radius of the Jf-17.. but lets assume 900km with 6 AAM's at 9100kg for posterity's sake... in this case the internal fuel load makes up about 26% of the combat weight.

So for 35% of its weight in fuel.. the Mig-29 is able to fly 3500km.. further than the Jf at its equivalent percentage of weight.
Using a little basic math..(probably not very accurate).. The Mig-29 should use around 83 % of its fuel to fly 2900 km..
since it has about 7300kg of jp4 in the ferry mode.. thats.. 7212 liters of fuel...
compared to the JF..which uses 5200 liters to make the same journey.. but that is to be expected with a greater size.

The Mig carries a greater payload for a greater combat radius..but with a higher fuel fraction.
since a combat mission can taken as a round trip..
then the Mig is able to fly 775km to a target and back on internal fuel using 7.4L/km(very basic and rough estimate).
The JF is able to fly 450km to a target and back on internal fuel using 6.2L/km.

So the Jf-17 is pretty efficient pound for pound on fuel.. but that isnt exactly a metric for combat performance.

Lets switch to airframe.
The original Mig-29A was stressed to +12/-9g.
The Fatback fuel tank on the S and UPG..limits this to +/- 9g.
The JF-17 is stressed to 9g as well.

Both the Mig-29 and Su-27 are excellent in the slow speed turn regime.. thats below 450KCAS..
However.. most modern dogfights in the past since 1991.. have ever occurred in that bracket.
above 450 KCAS.. their turn rates compared to the F-16 and F-15 fall of..
The JF has been designed from the outset to match the F-16 in a turn..which it reportedly does.
Taking that into account.. and assuming that the JF is matching the F-16 in turn performance
The following taken from a simulation can be taken as a comparison of the JF vs the Mig-29 turn performance.

Its a pretty close match.. with the MIg winning out at lower speeds and altitudes in sustained rate..
The instantaneous rate of the Mig-29 is higher than the F-16... so it gets to point its nose first.


Lets move to avionics.

The UPG upgrade ordered by the IAF will use the Zhuk-ME.. with a range of 120km for a 5m2 RCS target. The upgrade will also include a new computer, 4 MFD's..and an external active jammer.

The Jf-17 uses the KJL-7 whihc has a look down range of 85km for a 5m2 target.. an internal active jammer..and a modular computer.

The Mig-29 sees the JF-17 first.. and has more time to sort out targets.. for its average launch range for the R-77 at 70km.
The JF will still pick up the Mig-29 on its RWR.. and know its being hunted.. but wil only find out a few minutes later.. using its weapon also at its assumed launch range of 70km.
The Mig-29 wont always carry a jammer.. bu the center line hardpoint can be permanently assigned one.

Who gets the kill.. The JF-17 has an active datalink and so does the Mig-29..
it will come down to the pilots but the advantage of knowing what to hit first goes to the mig-29.

For short range systems.. both jets can count on high agility missiles with high Pk's combined with HMS.. what standard short range AAM will the JF use.. is currently between two systems.. both with ranges equal or greater than the R-74 expected to be used by the Mig-29UPG.
Which means that both jets wont last very long in a close fight with each other..
So its an equal score in sustained WVR combat for them both...with the Mig-29 having the edge of first shot.

Lets move to capability:
The JF-17 from its inception is designed to be equally adept at A2A and A2g..
The Mig-29 UPG adds the ability to do air to ground using precision weapons..with a greater payload..
The Mig wins out.

What about the cost..
The JF-17 costs around 17 million including all expenses paid.
The Mig-29 cost about 32 million(14 million in 1985 dollars) to the IAF when they first bought it.. all expenses included.. add the 900million upgrade to SMT.. thats 13 million per plane.. it comes to about 45 million dollars spent per jet in total.

For that price.. you get about 2 Jf-17's.. with a little spice on top... and almost matching the capabilities of the Mig-29SMT..
for 37% of the price.. its the reason the Russians gave the worrisome statement about it being a direct competitor.
Since most nations that need that capability.. would rather not pay that much.

 

[Silk]

Comparing the Fulcrum to the JF may not be haram either..
Since in the USSR mix.. the fulcrum was designed to be the light component of the VVS.
However...
If you do wish to compare anyway..
lets do it with the current upgrade of the standard Mig-29.. the UPG or the Mig-29SMT.(only using published data.. not what I know as well).

Lets start with takeoff weight
the Mig-29SMT has a takeoff weight of 21000kg..included is the 4500kg payload limit. thats 22% of its max MTOW.
The JF-17 by contrast has a limit of 12500 kg..with a payload of about 3500kg.. thats 28% of its MTOW.
So the Jf-17 lifts more for its size compared to the Mig-29SMT.

The Mig-29SMT.. with its ferry tanks makes it to around 3,500km..thats two tanks of 1,500 liters each..internal fuel 5,700 liters..a total of 8,240 liters..or equivalent to 7300 kg of Jp4... thats a fuel fraction of about 35% of the MTOW.(other stores may be carried in lieu of fuel tanks to get to MTOW)
.combat radius is 1,550km(internal fuel only).. with 8 AAM's for a loaded weight of around 14000 kg in which internal fuel makes again about 35% of the total weight.

The JF-17 with three tanks manages a ferry range(based on the farnborough trip) of 2900km..carrying 2800 liters internally..and three 800 liter tanks.. thats 5200 liters..or 4400kg of jp4. a fuel fraction of 35% as well of the MTOW.(other stores may be carried in lieu of fuel tanks to get to MTOW)
No actual figures exist for the combat radius of the Jf-17.. but lets assume 900km with 6 AAM's at 9100kg for posterity's sake... in this case the internal fuel load makes up about 26% of the combat weight.

So for 35% of its weight in fuel.. the Mig-29 is able to fly 3500km.. further than the Jf at its equivalent percentage of weight.
Using a little basic math..(probably not very accurate).. The Mig-29 should use around 83 % of its fuel to fly 2900 km..
since it has about 7300kg of jp4 in the ferry mode.. thats.. 7212 liters of fuel...
compared to the JF..which uses 5200 liters to make the same journey.. but that is to be expected with a greater size.

The Mig carries a greater payload for a greater combat radius..but with a higher fuel fraction.
since a combat mission can taken as a round trip..
then the Mig is able to fly 775km to a target and back on internal fuel using 7.4L/km(very basic and rough estimate).
The JF is able to fly 450km to a target and back on internal fuel using 6.2L/km.

So the Jf-17 is pretty efficient pound for pound on fuel.. but that isnt exactly a metric for combat performance.

Lets switch to airframe.
The original Mig-29A was stressed to +12/-9g.
The Fatback fuel tank on the S and UPG..limits this to +/- 9g.
The JF-17 is stressed to 9g as well.

Both the Mig-29 and Su-27 are excellent in the slow speed turn regime.. thats below 450KCAS..
However.. most modern dogfights in the past since 1991.. have ever occurred in that bracket.
above 450 KCAS.. their turn rates compared to the F-16 and F-15 fall of..
The JF has been designed from the outset to match the F-16 in a turn..which it reportedly does.
Taking that into account.. and assuming that the JF is matching the F-16 in turn performance
The following taken from a simulation can be taken as a comparison of the JF vs the Mig-29 turn performance.

Its a pretty close match.. with the MIg winning out at lower speeds and altitudes in sustained rate..
The instantaneous rate of the Mig-29 is higher than the F-16... so it gets to point its nose first.


Lets move to avionics.

The UPG upgrade ordered by the IAF will use the Zhuk-ME.. with a range of 120km for a 5m2 RCS target. The upgrade will also include a new computer, 4 MFD's..and an external active jammer.

The Jf-17 uses the KJL-7 whihc has a look down range of 85km for a 5m2 target.. an internal active jammer..and a modular computer.

The Mig-29 sees the JF-17 first.. and has more time to sort out targets.. for its average launch range for the R-77 at 70km.
The JF will still pick up the Mig-29 on its RWR.. and know its being hunted.. but wil only find out a few minutes later.. using its weapon also at its assumed launch range of 70km.
The Mig-29 wont always carry a jammer.. bu the center line hardpoint can be permanently assigned one.

Who gets the kill.. The JF-17 has an active datalink and so does the Mig-29..
it will come down to the pilots but the advantage of knowing what to hit first goes to the mig-29.

For short range systems.. both jets can count on high agility missiles with high Pk's combined with HMS.. what standard short range AAM will the JF use.. is currently between two systems.. both with ranges equal or greater than the R-74 expected to be used by the Mig-29UPG.
Which means that both jets wont last very long in a close fight with each other..
So its an equal score in sustained WVR combat for them both...with the Mig-29 having the edge of first shot.

Lets move to capability:
The JF-17 from its inception is designed to be equally adept at A2A and A2g..
The Mig-29 UPG adds the ability to do air to ground using precision weapons..with a greater payload..
The Mig wins out.

What about the cost..
The JF-17 costs around 17 million including all expenses paid.
The Mig-29 cost about 32 million(14 million in 1985 dollars) to the IAF when they first bought it.. all expenses included.. add the 900million upgrade to SMT.. thats 13 million per plane.. it comes to about 45 million dollars spent per jet in total.

For that price.. you get about 2 Jf-17's.. with a little spice on top... and almost matching the capabilities of the Mig-29SMT..
for 37% of the price.. its the reason the Russians gave the worrisome statement about it being a direct competitor.
Since most nations that need that capability.. would rather not pay that much.

You have several mistakes in your approach.

Let me only take one. Radar of Mig sees earlier the JF17. Well, in a high density sam, fround radars, awacs, multiple CAP's you only move to ha ceterus paribus environment with only the two planes. Good. If the Mig29 sees JF17 (skip ECM, ECCM, decoys) then the JF17 sees Mig29 at the same time. And seing does not mean tracking. Much slower and less accurate. Does it see one or 3 planes? Is the CAP covered with low flying (in mountainous area) other fighters? Then you conclude that it takes minutes for JF17 to see the same radar picture. I doubt that. Is the mig a 5m2 and JF17 a 5m2 target? I think you will be surprised to hear the real RCS. So you actually may say that JF17 sees it earlier. With the borders pretty clear you have not much chance that it comes from behind. Here you have a much smaller with hidden engine against an huge dual engined double sided wing structure with lots of RCS unfriendly design... And how fast does these planes fly to eachother if they need few minutes to cope the distance of 35 km? Say the both fly 1000 km/h. That is 2000 km/h together. I doubt they will fly slow cause they need speed (kinetic energy). And is the launching distance that much important? They could launch without lock. Maybe you should add that the ECM of JF17 is highly optimized for anything the Indians can launch? You still have MAWS. Maybe the BVR are not 100% hit. So, comparing is nice but there are more then a few basic things to include. We can finish any combat with saying, the pilot makes the difference. Look if the flying brick Phantom could kill Mig21 or Mig17 then why making so much noise about superb instant turn rates.

 

[F86 Saber]

Comparing the Fulcrum to the JF may not be haram either..
Since in the USSR mix.. the fulcrum was designed to be the light component of the VVS.
However...
If you do wish to compare anyway..
lets do it with the current upgrade of the standard Mig-29.. the UPG or the Mig-29SMT.(only using published data.. not what I know as well).

Lets start with takeoff weight
the Mig-29SMT has a takeoff weight of 21000kg..included is the 4500kg payload limit. thats 22% of its max MTOW.
The JF-17 by contrast has a limit of 12500 kg..with a payload of about 3500kg.. thats 28% of its MTOW.
So the Jf-17 lifts more for its size compared to the Mig-29SMT.

The Mig-29SMT.. with its ferry tanks makes it to around 3,500km..thats two tanks of 1,500 liters each..internal fuel 5,700 liters..a total of 8,240 liters..or equivalent to 7300 kg of Jp4... thats a fuel fraction of about 35% of the MTOW.(other stores may be carried in lieu of fuel tanks to get to MTOW)
.combat radius is 1,550km(internal fuel only).. with 8 AAM's for a loaded weight of around 14000 kg in which internal fuel makes again about 35% of the total weight.

The JF-17 with three tanks manages a ferry range(based on the farnborough trip) of 2900km..carrying 2800 liters internally..and three 800 liter tanks.. thats 5200 liters..or 4400kg of jp4. a fuel fraction of 35% as well of the MTOW.(other stores may be carried in lieu of fuel tanks to get to MTOW)
No actual figures exist for the combat radius of the Jf-17.. but lets assume 900km with 6 AAM's at 9100kg for posterity's sake... in this case the internal fuel load makes up about 26% of the combat weight.

So for 35% of its weight in fuel.. the Mig-29 is able to fly 3500km.. further than the Jf at its equivalent percentage of weight.
Using a little basic math..(probably not very accurate).. The Mig-29 should use around 83 % of its fuel to fly 2900 km..
since it has about 7300kg of jp4 in the ferry mode.. thats.. 7212 liters of fuel...
compared to the JF..which uses 5200 liters to make the same journey.. but that is to be expected with a greater size.

The Mig carries a greater payload for a greater combat radius..but with a higher fuel fraction.
since a combat mission can taken as a round trip..
then the Mig is able to fly 775km to a target and back on internal fuel using 7.4L/km(very basic and rough estimate).
The JF is able to fly 450km to a target and back on internal fuel using 6.2L/km.

So the Jf-17 is pretty efficient pound for pound on fuel.. but that isnt exactly a metric for combat performance.

Lets switch to airframe.
The original Mig-29A was stressed to +12/-9g.
The Fatback fuel tank on the S and UPG..limits this to +/- 9g.
The JF-17 is stressed to 9g as well.

Both the Mig-29 and Su-27 are excellent in the slow speed turn regime.. thats below 450KCAS..
However.. most modern dogfights in the past since 1991.. have ever occurred in that bracket.
above 450 KCAS.. their turn rates compared to the F-16 and F-15 fall of..
The JF has been designed from the outset to match the F-16 in a turn..which it reportedly does.
Taking that into account.. and assuming that the JF is matching the F-16 in turn performance
The following taken from a simulation can be taken as a comparison of the JF vs the Mig-29 turn performance.

Its a pretty close match.. with the MIg winning out at lower speeds and altitudes in sustained rate..
The instantaneous rate of the Mig-29 is higher than the F-16... so it gets to point its nose first.


Lets move to avionics.

The UPG upgrade ordered by the IAF will use the Zhuk-ME.. with a range of 120km for a 5m2 RCS target. The upgrade will also include a new computer, 4 MFD's..and an external active jammer.

The Jf-17 uses the KJL-7 whihc has a look down range of 85km for a 5m2 target.. an internal active jammer..and a modular computer.

The Mig-29 sees the JF-17 first.. and has more time to sort out targets.. for its average launch range for the R-77 at 70km.
The JF will still pick up the Mig-29 on its RWR.. and know its being hunted.. but wil only find out a few minutes later.. using its weapon also at its assumed launch range of 70km.
The Mig-29 wont always carry a jammer.. bu the center line hardpoint can be permanently assigned one.

Who gets the kill.. The JF-17 has an active datalink and so does the Mig-29..
it will come down to the pilots but the advantage of knowing what to hit first goes to the mig-29.

For short range systems.. both jets can count on high agility missiles with high Pk's combined with HMS.. what standard short range AAM will the JF use.. is currently between two systems.. both with ranges equal or greater than the R-74 expected to be used by the Mig-29UPG.
Which means that both jets wont last very long in a close fight with each other..
So its an equal score in sustained WVR combat for them both...with the Mig-29 having the edge of first shot.

Lets move to capability:
The JF-17 from its inception is designed to be equally adept at A2A and A2g..
The Mig-29 UPG adds the ability to do air to ground using precision weapons..with a greater payload..
The Mig wins out.

What about the cost..
The JF-17 costs around 17 million including all expenses paid.
The Mig-29 cost about 32 million(14 million in 1985 dollars) to the IAF when they first bought it.. all expenses included.. add the 900million upgrade to SMT.. thats 13 million per plane.. it comes to about 45 million dollars spent per jet in total.

For that price.. you get about 2 Jf-17's.. with a little spice on top... and almost matching the capabilities of the Mig-29SMT..
for 37% of the price.. its the reason the Russians gave the worrisome statement about it being a direct competitor.
Since most nations that need that capability.. would rather not pay that much.

Sir one thing i would like to add is that MIG29 is a Double Engine Aircraft hence has high maintainance cost.....

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Please don't published foolish opinions beasts
Ignorant arrogance
Correctly display the national flag

Return to Australia ！！

I agree.. this “Beast” chap. sounds Not so Chinese doesn’t he???
just because one guy said that Pak China relationship is not all one sided, he explodes by threatening to reconsider its position with Pakistan and go for Bangladesh that it doesn’t even have direct border with. After getting a response (unfortunately) he further blows away his cover while he lambastes JF-17 (a Chinese aircraft) and blames PAF for stall in J-10B deal. Haha they are being inducted in 2015 whether or not he likes it and they are designated as FC-20. J-10B is going ahead for Chinese Air force regardless.

Pfpilot and A Muqeet Khan fell victim to his flame posts but you got him well done

 

[SQ8]

You have several mistakes in your approach.

Let me only take one. Radar of Mig sees earlier the JF17. Well, in a high density sam, fround radars, awacs, multiple CAP's you only move to ha ceterus paribus environment with only the two planes. Good. If the Mig29 sees JF17 (skip ECM, ECCM, decoys) then the JF17 sees Mig29 at the same time. And seing does not mean tracking. Much slower and less accurate. Does it see one or 3 planes? Is the CAP covered with low flying (in mountainous area) other fighters? Then you conclude that it takes minutes for JF17 to see the same radar picture. I doubt that. Is the mig a 5m2 and JF17 a 5m2 target? I think you will be surprised to hear the real RCS. So you actually may say that JF17 sees it earlier. With the borders pretty clear you have not much chance that it comes from behind. Here you have a much smaller with hidden engine against an huge dual engined double sided wing structure with lots of RCS unfriendly design... And how fast does these planes fly to eachother if they need few minutes to cope the distance of 35 km? Say the both fly 1000 km/h. That is 2000 km/h together. I doubt they will fly slow cause they need speed (kinetic energy). And is the launching distance that much important? They could launch without lock. Maybe you should add that the ECM of JF17 is highly optimized for anything the Indians can launch? You still have MAWS. Maybe the BVR are not 100% hit. So, comparing is nice but there are more then a few basic things to include. We can finish any combat with saying, the pilot makes the difference. Look if the flying brick Phantom could kill Mig21 or Mig17 then why making so much noise about superb instant turn rates.

I agree.. Like I stated.. I was making rough guesstimates..wanted to give more time.. could not do so because of a lot of work load in the office.
Also.. I did not take into account our theatre.. I just went with a clear sky, flat land...and nobody else there except the two jets.
I was hoping however.. for corrections/ additions like yours.. thanks.

I did "degrade" the numbers I know of the JF for a simple reason.. they are not published...something that will lead to a lot of "disputes" if you get the idea.I have stated that in the start.

However.. as to why the F-4 was able to shoot down the Mig-21.. it was tactics and training.. they knew the weaknesses of the jets after having flown them.."Have donut".. program..

The idea was with this post.. To get people started.. in a civilized.. and professional manner..
not simply by copy pasting from sites.

 

[Luftwaffe]

And there mr. Beast is thousands of miles away from PAC and has no privileges to enter PAC or CAC.

 

[Dazzler]

After reading the above discussions i find difficult to hide the JFT RCS i came to know, but let me just say for now, it is the most difficult aircraft to spot on the radar in PAF inventory at the moment and this includes the blk 52 too! No exaggeration here, plain facts.....

 

[SQ8]

After reading the above discussions i find difficult to hide the JFT RCS i came to know, but let me just say for now, it is the most difficult aircraft to spot on the radar in PAF inventory at the moment and this includes the blk 52 too! No exaggeration here, plain facts.....

sssh.. lest you trigger a protest from the opposing side about "published" facts

To add to that..
If not for the radar.. and the ability to use SNIPER pods..
The JF is ahead of the other jets in sensor fusion.

 

[rockstarIN]

Comparing the Fulcrum to the JF may not be haram either..
S
The Mig carries a greater payload for a greater combat radius..but with a higher fuel fraction.
since a combat mission can taken as a round trip..
then the Mig is able to fly 775km to a target and back on internal fuel using 7.4L/km(very basic and rough estimate).
The JF is able to fly 450km to a target and back on internal fuel using 6.2L/km.

So the Jf-17 is pretty efficient pound for pound on fuel.. but that isnt exactly a metric for combat performance.
Since most nations that need that capability.. would rather not pay that much
.

A quick question, If the ferry range of JFT is 2900 Kg, the combat radius is only 900 Km?

Second,

# The F-16 Fighting Falcon's combat radius is 550 km (340 mi) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 450 kg (1,000 lb) bombs.
# The F/A-18 Hornet has a combat radius of 537 km (330 mi) on a hi-lo-lo-hi mission.

JFT have 900 Km radius is quite high isn't it?

 

[S-A-B-E-R->]

After reading the above discussions i find difficult to hide the JFT RCS i came to know, but let me just say for now, it is the most difficult aircraft to spot on the radar in PAF inventory at the moment and this includes the blk 52 too! No exaggeration here, plain facts.....

well that is one thing i have been saying for years .just look at the designe and any engenear ll agree with ur statement..

 

[Desert Fox]

I am disappointed by some of the response of fellow Pakistani. Probably they been fed with too much India, Russia and western news. Jf-17 is definitely as good as what yr air marshal claim to be 80 to 86 percent as good as f-16 blk52. If f-16 can evenly match mig-29, there is no doubt jf-17 can equally match it. I am surprised some of you all think jf-17 can be inferior to mig-29. I doubt PAF will accept something inferior to F-16A to replace it's fleet. Remember PAF pilot claim jf-17 handling is so good that they don't want to go back to their F-16. As for avoinics, PAF air marshal claim kjl-7 is as good as RC-400. Then how can it be inferior to early mig-29a Zhuk radar? Russian offer the latest su-35BM with Aesa radar and China don't even bother to look at it's offer. how can you all doubt the quality of china avionics as inferior to Russia? Remember you all pay only $15 million for one a piece. To able to get such capabilities, you shall count yrself lucky. China already produce the world fastest computer in the world and j-10b aesa has already flown on the testbed. If PAF can offer more money, definitely better things you will get.

I am also disappoint by some fellow member who accuse china sabotage PAF plan to install western parts on jf-17. It's very ungrateful to make this kind of comment. Without china, PAF don't even has a new platform to install the so call western parts. And the plane will never kept under $15million.

most Pakistanis are thankful to China for their assistance in helping Pakistan make its very own fighter jet, it might not be as capable as a su-30 mki or the latest mig-29's india is getting but it will be sufficient to protect our airspace and along with the BLK 52's/MLU's, FC-20's (InshaAllah), Il-78 aerial tankers, and our AWACs we will be able to deny IAF air superiority InshaAllah!

However there is nothing wrong with being pessimistic.

 

[SQ8]

A quick question, If the ferry range of JFT is 2900 Kg, the combat radius is only 900 Km?

Second,



JFT have 900 Km radius is quite high isn't it?

Ferry range is 2900 km...
as per the published data here.. Id give it closer to 2500km..

The combat radius I got off another site...If you ask me without a centerline tank.. its closer to <=450km on a similar hi-lo-hi mission.
On a combat CAP.. staying at 20000ft.. it probably might reach upto 500km..fuel consumption decreases with altitude
the figure for the mig will have to be adjusted as well.. russian manufacturers tend to give the best figures..
laden with ordnance...the Mig-29 will probably manage 1000km...


The figures for the F-16 and F-18 are based on probable actual combat missions.. and are the most accurate assumptions of range..
To give you a really accurate idea.. Id have to go into specific fuel consumption..although here we are at an advantage since the engines are the same.