JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Viper0011.]

I can understand the reasons for the news blackout and agree with them.

PS: I just bought the Ninja, hence the avatar.

Here she is:

Nice ride!! I had the Yamaha R1 (Raven). Be careful. These things can kill people when driven supersonic . There is no HUD or avionics guiding you, trust me on that (speaking from experience)

 

[graphican]

^^ The best way to know would be to bring 100 of these advanced and high-priced jets against 100 Thunders in one on one and varying groups scenarios. My theory is that if Thunder costs 20 millions and Typhoon costs 90millions, Typhoon should be 4.5 times of thunder in performance with 4.5 times better kill ratio to justify its price. But even when it is justifying its price, it is not proving better but is only equaling its effectiveness to its price viz a viz thunder to its price. In order to prove better, it would need to have some 6-7 times better kill ratio or performance parameters to prove cost-effectiveness advantage. But is this the case in reality? I think not.

BUT - There are few things which a low-price jet may never be able to perform, like conducting operations beyond a certain range or carry weapons load beyond certain limits. These are the scenarios where expensive and high priced aircraft seem to make sense. BUT - at the same time, you have disadvantages like operational expense, maintenance cost, risk of loosing more value in one shot etc.

With this in view, the most important aspect of having an expensive aircraft or not is the purpose for which you are looking to use it. If you are looking to defend a territory within 1200KM range using WVR and BVR missiles, you don't have a reason to keep 90millions dollars aircraft for that. This is what Pakistan originally intended when it had conceived the idea of 20 million dollars aircraft and this is where thunder proves more effective (cost to performance ratio) viz a viz Typhoon or Rafale, the 90million dollars aircraft.

 

[Cy-27]

Graph, USAF has done a number of tests on this very topic, and while I will not discuss specifics, in almost every instance it comes down to the skill of a person behind the stick. (And weapons payload.)
Again, this doesn't mean I would volunteer to fight against an inept pilot in a F-22A while flying a J-6 armed with an ancient version of Sidewinder.
But given relative technical parity, as well as weapon parity - I will always bet on the better pilot.

 

[SQ8]

Actually, ALL frontline military aircraft are designed with those goals in mind. ALL of them.

This idea that you mentioned dawned a long time ago.

Not in this manner.. the cost effectivness being referred to out there is to be able to achive the most in the limited budget available to the PAF.
sure.. the F-35 and the F-22 are also supposed to be cost effective..but are they really?
Those jets were designed to push the boundaries.. the JF-17 was designed to match existing ones as frugally as possible.
different.

 

[SQ8]

Even with its current radar and sensors I would not want to be facing a squadron of professionally flown, data-linked JF-17s armed with (big emphasis here!) proper BVR and ASRAAM missiles. Particularly with effective AEW cover.
I am not a psychologist, so I am not qualified to speak on the psychological effects of having a small number of Gen 4.5-5 fighters. In fact, you're probably correct, but this comes at expense of either significant additional funding, or cutbacks to the planned purchase of Thunders.
My basic question remains the same: Ignoring all other factors already outlined, does a Typhoon/Gripen NG/Rafale armed with a mix of AIM-120Cs and AIM-9Xs justify its price differential over a similarly armed JF-17 in a defensive CAP scenario?
Don't misunderstand me, advanced sensor payloads and stealth are the future, and I think you will see more and more RCS- reducing features being added to all combat birds, including the JF-17.

^^ The best way to know would be to bring 100 of these advanced and high-priced jets against 100 Thunders in one on one and varying groups scenarios. My theory is that if Thunder costs 20 millions and Typhoon costs 90millions, Typhoon should be 4.5 times of thunder in performance with 4.5 times better kill ratio to justify its price. But even when it is justifying its price, it is not proving better but is only equaling its effectiveness to its price viz a viz thunder to its price. In order to prove better, it would need to have some 6-7 times better kill ratio or performance parameters to prove cost-effectiveness advantage. But is this the case in reality? I think not.

BUT - There are few things which a low-price jet may never be able to perform, like conducting operations beyond a certain range or carry weapons load beyond certain limits. These are the scenarios where expensive and high priced aircraft seem to make sense. BUT - at the same time, you have disadvantages like operational expense, maintenance cost, risk of loosing more value in one shot etc.

With this in view, the most important aspect of having an expensive aircraft or not is the purpose for which you are looking to use it. If you are looking to defend a territory within 1200KM range using WVR and BVR missiles, you don't have a reason to keep 90millions dollars aircraft for that. This is what Pakistan originally intended when it had conceived the idea of 20 million dollars aircraft and this is where thunder proves more effective (cost to performance ratio) viz a viz Typhoon or Rafale, the 90million dollars aircraft.

This is what I have been referring to when I say cost effectiveness. Losing a Thunder to air combat means you lost an effective Air defence fighter with secondary CAS capability.
Losing a EuroCanard means you lost an effective Air defence/strike/CAS expensive platform along with its extensive potential.

Similarly.. Losing a Thunder to ground fire from an advancing tank column would be an acceptable loss if it helped slow it down or stall it. Losing a eurocanard to the same would be painful...and although the Eurocanard may be more survivable in that scenario.. it would be a waste.

A thunder cannot survive in a dense ECM environment with heavy Air defence assets without compromising on its striking ability.
But the F-16 Block-52 and AM/BM's can...which is why the Thunder will act as the Air defence workhorse.. absorbing enemy hits.. while the F-16's take the upper cuts and nerve points of the enemy.

The PAF is infact.. looking to avoid losing its higher value assets in the F-16's while making sure that its air space stays fairly well defended.

 

[Contrarian]

Oscar
I would love to have a chat with you that would hopefully educate me on the nuances or consequences of PAF using this strategy. If you want we can have this on PM as well lest the topic gets distracted.

My question is that all through the history, India has enjoyed numerically superior forces compared to Pakistan. However it has never been able to utilize those superior numbers in her favour.
The reasons are:
1. IAF employed a ridiculously large number of types of and subtypes of aircraft. All these aircrafts of previous years required a very heavy maintenance approach and consequently, each airbase of India was geared to only a couple or maybe 3 types effectively.

That meant that different aircrafts had different staging points and could not use other bases half as effectively and efficiently that they could. So you had some coming from Agra who could only be used and repaired and turned around from Agra, some from Rajasthan, etc, etc.

2. India had very bad logistics network. Spares for one type of aircraft available only at one base and hard and very timeconsuming to move to another.

3. India's and Pakistan's geography provide each a different set of advantages and disadvantages. Pakistan can owing to very small width, mobilize and bring to battle its forces very very quickly whereas IAF OTOH had to bring it from central India.

4. Pakistan's communication infrastructure was much better than anything IAF could field.

5. The gap between the number of qualitative fighters which have an advantage of PAF's force was always low or negative.

Now, in today's and in the next 10 years scenario:
India has made some changes. These are:
1. It is a declared policy now that all bases are being made to cater to all types of fighters in IAF inventory. This is still work in progress. That means all spares, dedicated weapons, etc will be stocked at each base.

2. IAF's communication infra is far better than it used to be. Pakistan's is stil further ahead. But i'll come to this point again.

3. IAF is reducing the number of aircrafts it had. Relatively less types, though still more than ideal.

4. Fighters today in IAF are less maintenance intensive than before and the newer ones coming in like Rafale and FGFA are based on american philosophy. Their technological superiority allows for much more than was possible for older gen planes.

5. The number of planes that IAF has which are technologically equivalent at the very least and mostly superior to PAF is today very high.

Now, i understand that in terms of mobilization and all, PAF would still be better. But my point is that it doesnt matter if PAF stays ahead as it has always stayed ahead in that. Today it would hurt PAF if the IAF were to lessen that gap of yesteryears even if the PAF stays ahead. This is kind of like the awacs example. Even though iaf might field a better one it doesn't make a difference as paf will also have one to fill their needs. Reverse this in fighter scenario. Paf maybe better in mobilizing but as long as iaf is also able to do it enough to field an advantage in numbers that could not be used before.


Secondly, the quantitative and qualitative advantage enjoyed by IAF fighters is unparalelled in Indo-Pak history. For example if i were to just compare the 4th generation fighters of IAF and PAF, the ratio is very lopsided.
And unlike previous years, the bulk of IAF's fleet are technologically superior to PAF's best fighters. This scenario is unprecedented.

Now, does building low cost fighters make sense assuming that even if they justify their cost and shoot down IAF planes disproportionately, the loss of even one of PAF's top fighter - F-16 would mean a significant reduction in PAF's capability.

Thus while having more number of technologically equivalent aircraft (not superior) like F-16 will give more offensive options. From the numbers and technology stacked, it appears PAF will hardly be able to go offensive.

My thoughts are a little hazy and hard to put down. Would appreciate if you could kind of go beyond the words!

 

[graphican]

Oscar
3. IAF is reducing the number of aircrafts it had. Relatively less types, though still more than ideal.

I don't have data to argue other points but this point doesn't seem true. India is still keeping every aircraft which probably it had used in previous battles (expect those ones who had lived their life out). I still find India is more ambition concentric than strategy concentric. You are upgrading Jaguars and Biasons plus almost every old aircraft for some sake.

Having spares and maintenance equipment at all the station is still very risky and practically inefficient. How many spare engines would India like to keep on each airbase for each aircraft type? How about technicians, training, equipment, maintenance, different maintenance timing, quality of service staff and list goes on. Its not just about spending more resources, it is about managing 10 times large infrastructure and expecting it would be sold, reliable and dependable at each and every level and for each and every type. I find it too ambitious and rather an unwise strategy.

 

[Contrarian]

That's why I said in coming 10 years mate.
Su
Mig 29
Mirage 2005
Rafale
These will be the main fighters. Jags and all other migs be phased out slowly. Lca and fgfa not in enough numbers to count.

 

[ziaulislam]

That's why I said in coming 10 years mate.
Su
Mig 29
Mirage 2005
Rafale
These will be the main fighters. Jags and all other migs be phased out slowly. Lca and fgfa not in enough numbers to count.

well i am surprised..i dont know but how can u think 250 FGFA and near 100 LCA number to be to little to count...by 2025 when bison and mig27 will be out india would defiently have atleast 100 lcas and a Significant FGFA in their arsenal...jaugers may even last beyound 2025 according to IAF..(surprisingly!)

 

[rockstarIN]

Oscar
I would love to have a chat with you that would hopefully educate me on the nuances or consequences of PAF using this strategy. If you want we can have this on PM as well lest the topic gets distracted.

My question is that all through the history, India has enjoyed numerically superior forces compared to Pakistan. However it has never been able to utilize those superior numbers in her favour.
The reasons are:
1. IAF employed a ridiculously large number of types of and subtypes of aircraft. All these aircrafts of previous years required a very heavy maintenance approach and consequently, each airbase of India was geared to only a couple or maybe 3 types effectively.

That meant that different aircrafts had different staging points and could not use other bases half as effectively and efficiently that they could. So you had some coming from Agra who could only be used and repaired and turned around from Agra, some from Rajasthan, etc, etc.

2. India had very bad logistics network. Spares for one type of aircraft available only at one base and hard and very timeconsuming to move to another.

3. India's and Pakistan's geography provide each a different set of advantages and disadvantages. Pakistan can owing to very small width, mobilize and bring to battle its forces very very quickly whereas IAF OTOH had to bring it from central India.

4. Pakistan's communication infrastructure was much better than anything IAF could field.

5. The gap between the number of qualitative fighters which have an advantage of PAF's force was always low or negative.

Now, in today's and in the next 10 years scenario:
India has made some changes. These are:
1. It is a declared policy now that all bases are being made to cater to all types of fighters in IAF inventory. This is still work in progress. That means all spares, dedicated weapons, etc will be stocked at each base.

2. IAF's communication infra is far better than it used to be. Pakistan's is stil further ahead. But i'll come to this point again.

3. IAF is reducing the number of aircrafts it had. Relatively less types, though still more than ideal.

4. Fighters today in IAF are less maintenance intensive than before and the newer ones coming in like Rafale and FGFA are based on american philosophy. Their technological superiority allows for much more than was possible for older gen planes.

5. The number of planes that IAF has which are technologically equivalent at the very least and mostly superior to PAF is today very high.

Now, i understand that in terms of mobilization and all, PAF would still be better. But my point is that it doesnt matter if PAF stays ahead as it has always stayed ahead in that. Today it would hurt PAF if the IAF were to lessen that gap of yesteryears even if the PAF stays ahead. This is kind of like the awacs example. Even though iaf might field a better one it doesn't make a difference as paf will also have one to fill their needs. Reverse this in fighter scenario. Paf maybe better in mobilizing but as long as iaf is also able to do it enough to field an advantage in numbers that could not be used before.


Secondly, the quantitative and qualitative advantage enjoyed by IAF fighters is unparalelled in Indo-Pak history. For example if i were to just compare the 4th generation fighters of IAF and PAF, the ratio is very lopsided.
And unlike previous years, the bulk of IAF's fleet are technologically superior to PAF's best fighters. This scenario is unprecedented.

Now, does building low cost fighters make sense assuming that even if they justify their cost and shoot down IAF planes disproportionately, the loss of even one of PAF's top fighter - F-16 would mean a significant reduction in PAF's capability.

Thus while having more number of technologically equivalent aircraft (not superior) like F-16 will give more offensive options. From the numbers and technology stacked, it appears PAF will hardly be able to go offensive.

My thoughts are a little hazy and hard to put down. Would appreciate if you could kind of go beyond the words!

If you think from their perspective, like below...

They have old A-5s, Mirages & F-7s which are 3rd generations need replacement.

Unlike IAF who even doesnt want LCAs, they can't replace it with SU-30s & Rafales immediately. They are just replacing the same with BVR capable MRCAs.

Their higher end will be F-16s and J-10s. But they can't have the same in numbers. They would be very happy if they are capable of replacing those jets with J-10s.

 

[ziaulislam]

iaf has always operated a generation ahead aircrfts than PAF had (mig21 vs sabers!)
today i think with 150+ su 30 mki india may have qualitiative edge but its not unparallel in history

IAF has always have a clear cut advanatge in numbers and quality as it has today..the only difference could be that pilot factor has gone down with advent of modern techn..

 

[Secur]

Unlike IAF who even doesnt want LCAs, they can't replace it with SU-30s & Rafales immediately. They are just replacing the same with BVR capable MRCAs.

Actually mate , they need it badly ... Those good old Jaguars and Mig-21 need to be replaced immediately hence the frustration on the constant extension of deadline on LCA Tejas ... Remember , a domestic product is relatively low cost , less hassle and easier to field in large numbers than a foreign aircraft ... You can get an idea by looking at MMRCA deal , took more than 7 years and it hasn't been signed yet ... Agreed , you have replacement to some extent but they aren't enough ... You always have to keep PLAAF in mind ...

 

[Secur]

They have old A-5s, Mirages & F-7s which are 3rd generations need replacement.

Yeah , but aren't they been phased out at a rapid rate with JF 17 ? We have raised 3 squadrons and are moving forward with second block ...

 

[Storm Force]

correction to secur

2 SQDS today

And less than 40 planes delivered in 3 years IS NOT a rapid rate of delivery for JFT

PAF has 400 fighters and 300 of those are F7 & mirages & A5...

I AGREE with your comment re LCA partly only


India needs its badleY TO REPLACE 125 MIG21 bison

But jaguars re being retained not phased out BUT upgraded nearly 100 of them.

mig27 WILL BE PHASED with rafale mmrca

SU30MKI is IAF long range air dominance to meet the PLAAF formidable threat so 300 will procured...

I think overall IAF needs LCA less than PAF needed JFT only because IAF has SU30MKI programme growing really strong. and MMRCA BUT LCA does have a vital role to play

 

[Emmie]

correction to secur

2 SQDS today

And less than 40 planes delivered in 3 years IS NOT a rapid rate of delivery for JFT

PAF has 400 fighters and 300 of those are F7 & mirages & A5...

I AGREE with your comment re LCA partly only


India needs its badleY TO REPLACE 125 MIG21 bison

But jaguars re being retained not phased out BUT upgraded nearly 100 of them.

mig27 WILL BE PHASED with rafale mmrca

SU30MKI is IAF long range air dominance to meet the PLAAF formidable threat so 300 will procured...

I think overall IAF needs LCA less than PAF needed JFT only because IAF has SU30MKI programme growing really strong. and MMRCA BUT LCA does have a vital role to play

Mr. Storm Force, over again wrong arguments on a wrong thread.

I don't want to start a thread within a thread so would love to refrain from replying your post, however would encourage you to update yourself with PAF birds. A5 are long gone and 60+ falcons got overlooked.