JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Emmie]

after crash of jf 17, I don't think any country will buy the plane.

If that is the case then you guys have been looted... Dassault Rafale met accident not once not even twice but thrice.

Why don't you pass your expert views to authorities dealing this deal, may be they cancel it if are informed on time?

 

[Najam Khan]

Y dont we focus on naval version to counter strong indian navy, and also jf17 for air combat only, because we cant hit enemy with cruise missile which is cheaper than aircraft, safety for pilot
We desperately need plane to counter invaders like new aircrafts got power, speed, hights, load capacity
So we should arm our aircraft with maximum air to air missile to counter enemy air forces, missiles etc rather than having jack of all trade and master of none

Its better to push an aircraft to its extremes and understand its strong areas and limitations before putting up another similar design dedicated for Naval support. Take the example of Mirage-2000 evolution, its prototype flew in late 1978/early 1979, became operational in 1982. In late80s, its Mirage-2000N (Nuclear strike variant & replacement for Mirage-IV flew) and in early90s, Mirage 2000D (similar to Mirage-2000N but with better sensors and more weapons carrying capability) was introduced. French were exactly at the same place where we are today. Their Air Force was full of Mirage-III/Vs and Jaguars. The latter was their main concern.

The development of LCA's Naval version is a special case. Development of naval version without operating its Air Force variant in operational environment for minimum of 5 years is a big gamble. It might produce good results on paper...but not in the real world scenario. IMO HAL should have waited for Full Op Clearance before initiating this project.

 

[Bratva]

Najam Khan, Will you comment on JF-17 crash that it was not a bird strike but rather it was structural failure?

I have some serious reservations on JF-17 weapon integration. When there was Weapon and Avionic integration prototype, then why not all the weapons were tested and integrated on it rather they started actual integration when JF-17 achieved FOC and got inducted in PAF and 2-2.5 years has passed and still some weapons like Ra'ad has not been integrated on JF-17. What's taking them so long to integrate things?

P.S. Quoting my friend....."JF-17 Prototype 3 mango dayny key liye rakha howa tha? "

 

[Pak123]

The development of LCA's Naval version is a special case. Development of naval version without operating its Air Force variant in operational environment for minimum of 5 years is a big gamble. It might produce good results on paper...but not in the real world scenario. IMO HAL should have waited for Full Op Clearance before initiating this project.

Even the American's never operated the F-18's as an air-force version in the first place or did I not understood the context of your argument ?

 

[Last Hope]

Najam Khan, Will you comment on JF-17 crash that it was not a bird strike but rather it was structural failure?

The JF-17 crash was due to a FOD, a bird.

I have some serious reservations on JF-17 weapon integration. When there was Weapon and Avionic integration prototype, then why not all the weapons were tested and integrated on it rather they started actual integration when JF-17 achieved FOC and got inducted in PAF and 2-2.5 years has passed and still some weapons like Ra'ad has not been integrated on JF-17. What's taking them so long to integrate things?

Even if Ra'ad is integrated, we wouldn't know it for long. This is how PAF and PA works, they hide their projects and achievements.

 

[Najam Khan]

Najam Khan, Will you comment on JF-17 crash that it was not a bird strike but rather it was structural failure?

Based on the available information i think bird strike may have been a cause. The aircraft completed some laps before going down.

 

[Najam Khan]

I have some serious reservations on JF-17 weapon integration. When there was Weapon and Avionic integration prototype, then why not all the weapons were tested and integrated on it rather they started actual integration when JF-17 achieved FOC and got inducted in PAF and 2-2.5 years has passed and still some weapons like Ra'ad has not been integrated on JF-17. What's taking them so long to integrate things?

The news came late in the media. Basic things have already been sorted out. The Full Op Clearance was subjected to some other related equipment purchase...i can't comment on that.

As far as Raad's/H-2 integration is concerned, it may never be announced. If we can develop them then we can integrate them too

 

[Bratva]

The news came late in the media. Basic things have already been sorted out. The Full Op Clearance was subjected to some other related equipment purchase...i can't comment on that.

As far as Raad's/H-2 integration is concerned, it may never be announced. If we can develop them then we can integrate them too

First JF-17 (SPB) came in Pakistan in 2008. SD-10 Integrated in 2010. C-802 integrated in 2011. Some PGM integrated in late 2010-2011. No news of WMD-7 integrated in Pakistani Version. no HMD/S for JF-17 and these two things are basic necessity for JF-17. Fixed IFR gonna increase RCS. Due to current RD-93 we can not have IRST/AESA. So i'm not gonna put IRST/AESA in basic necessity list of JF-17 rather it would be compliment for JF-17

And the Weapon and Avionic Prototype was built in 2005 and still after 5-6 years we had issues in integrating some weapons, which means there was error in original planning due to which these things were not sorted out earlier.So these kind of discrepancies create reservations in mind.

 

[Najam Khan]

First JF-17 (SPB) came in Pakistan in 2008. SD-10 Integrated in 2010. C-802 integrated in 2011. Some PGM integrated in late 2010-2011. No news of WMD-7 integrated in Pakistani Version. no HMD/S for JF-17 and these two things are basic necessity for JF-17. Fixed IFR gonna increase RCS. Due to current RD-93 we can not have IRST/AESA. So i'm not gonna put IRST/AESA in basic necessity list of JF-17 rather it would be compliment for JF-17

And the Weapon and Avionic Prototype was built in 2005 and still after 5-6 years we had issues in integrating some weapons, which means there was error in original planning due to which these things were not sorted out earlier.So these kind of discrepancies create reservations in mind.

Timely replcement of aging fleet is the need of the hour. At this time, increasing the array of weapons in JF-17's arsenal isnt the primary objective. What PAF need from Jf-17 at this point and till 2015 is.

1. A good dofighter with BVR carrying capibilty.
2. Good Range
3. Good strike package ( which will work in both surface and Naval support).
4. Easy maintenace and possibly low cost of repair.

The IRST/AESA/JSOW/ALCM capabilites are no doubt basic nescessities of the modern day combat. But to achieve them, we have to follow a step-by-step bottom up approach. Our adversary speaks too much and achieve 1/10th of that in that desired timeline...we on the other hand achieve 60% of the set milestones..but with no or little chest pumping!

 

[Bratva]

Timely replcement of aging fleet is the need of the hour. At this time, increasing the array of weapons in JF-17's arsenal isnt the primary objective. What PAF need from Jf-17 at this point and till 2015 is.

1. A good dofighter with BVR carrying capibilty.
2. Good Range
3. Good strike package ( which will work in both surface and Naval support).
4. Easy maintenace and possibly low cost of repair.

The IRST/AESA/JSOW/ALCM capabilites are no doubt basic nescessities of the modern day combat. But to achieve them, we have to follow a step-by-step bottom up approach. Our adversary speaks too much and achieve 1/10th of that in that desired timeline...we on the other hand achieve 60% of the set milestones..but with no or little chest pumping!

Your argument is totally valid from this point and up to future but question still remains, A multi role fighter which was designed to be BVR capable from inception got it's BVR capability in 2010 despite having PT-3 and being inducted in PAF in 2008.

What happen between 2005-2009 which didnt allow PAF or CAC to attach basic weaponry to JF-17!!!

 

[Last Hope]

Your argument is totally valid from this point and up to future but question still remains, A multi role fighter which was designed to be BVR capable from inception got it's BVR capability in 2010 despite having PT-3 and being inducted in PAF in 2008.

What happen between 2005-2009 which didnt allow PAF or CAC to attach basic weaponry to JF-17!!!

For some who have ever studied economics (I did the basics), every product has a maturity stage once it is in market. The product is improved more and more after the experience, response, reaction and feedback from users/consumers.

The first squadron, 12 JF-17s were basically for Air-to-Ground role, to be used in the war against militancy.
It was probably the aging A-5s that needed JF-17 to replace them quickly, and as the A2G role was perfected out, they were replaced.

Look at the timeline of F-16. They started out over 4 decades ago and it took them this while to reach the level of legendary 4th generation fighter. JF-17 is just a new fighter which would get mature by the experience of pilots, technicians and engineers.

 

[niaz]

Its better to push an aircraft to its extremes and understand its strong areas and limitations before putting up another similar design dedicated for Naval support. Take the example of Mirage-2000 evolution, its prototype flew in late 1978/early 1979, became operational in 1982. In late80s, its Mirage-2000N (Nuclear strike variant & replacement for Mirage-IV flew) and in early90s, Mirage 2000D (similar to Mirage-2000N but with better sensors and more weapons carrying capability) was introduced. French were exactly at the same place where we are today. Their Air Force was full of Mirage-III/Vs and Jaguars. The latter was their main concern.

The development of LCA's Naval version is a special case. Development of naval version without operating its Air Force variant in operational environment for minimum of 5 years is a big gamble. It might produce good results on paper...but not in the real world scenario. IMO HAL should have waited for Full Op Clearance before initiating this project.

For the record, there have been many aircrafts ab initio designed for Navy.

For example A-4 Skyhawk was designed primarily for the US Navy to replace A-1 Skyraider. This was also adopted by the Marine Corps but never by the US Airforce. The same is true for the A-6 Intruder.

A-7 Corsair was replacement for A-4 in the US Navy but later adopted by the US Airforce. F-14 was also developed expressly for the US Navy.

In Europe both the Etendard and Super Etendard were designed for French Naval carrier borne operations. Buccaneer was in response to the Royal Navy requirement and only adopted by the RAF six years later in 1968.

 

[untitled]

.....

For example A-4 Skyhawk was designed primarily for the US Navy to replace A-1 Skyraider. This was also adopted by the Marine Corps but never by the US Airforce. The same is true for the A-6 Intruder.

A-7 Corsair was replacement for A-4 in the US Navy but later adopted by the US Airforce. F-14 was also developed expressly for the US Navy.

....

S was the F-4 Phantom. It was built for the American Navy. The American Air Force had to let the air out of their pride when they inducted the F-4

 

[abdulbarijan]

Its not a troll, Its bitter pill we must take. "Last Hope" gave an example of F16 evolution, he told that F16 evolved over year, but he forgot that F16 was best (in its class) from the day it roll out from LM.

Where as in next 5 year your FC1 and our LCA will not reach the level of Grippen.

Having said that I agree that both projects have give good knowhow to there respective country and both are equally capable of neutralize threats.

Well depends what you take as class...Last I heard Indian members over different forums like BR or IDF were still going on about how LCA was a 4.5 generation jet and JF-17 was a 3rd generation....

But lets take a different approach ...
You simply take in to account the technological and performance side of an aircraft as something which defines its "class"
However take in to account one of the two biggest reasons this project was made in the first place

-Low cost
-Less or no dependence on the west

Now take in to account the things JF-17 offers for a cost of 15-20 m
-Multi role capability
-BVR capability
-A good WVR platform which in PAF hands defeated the F-16 A/B's
-Avionics wise comparable to the later blocks of F-16's (40/42/50/52)
-State of the art EW suite

and above all ..no restrictions...nothing like that....

So most respectfully Sir the conclusion of all this or my POV is simply this

"If you take in to account the things this jet provides you...it is indeed the best jet available in the market for its given cost"

 

[Black Widow]

Well depends what you take as class...Last I heard Indian members over different forums like BR or IDF were still going on about how LCA was a 4.5 generation jet and JF-17 was a 3rd generation....

But lets take a different approach ...
You simply take in to account the technological and performance side of an aircraft as something which defines its "class"
However take in to account one of the two biggest reasons this project was made in the first place

-Low cost
-Less or no dependence on the west

Now take in to account the things JF-17 offers for a cost of 15-20 m
-Multi role capability
-BVR capability
-A good WVR platform which in PAF hands defeated the F-16 A/B's
-Avionics wise comparable to the later blocks of F-16's (40/42/50/52)
-State of the art EW suite

and above all ..no restrictions...nothing like that....

So most respectfully Sir the conclusion of all this or my POV is simply this

"If you take in to account the things this jet provides you...it is indeed the best jet available in the market for its given cost"

There is nothing in your post which I can't agree with. I am not some one from BR or IDF, I am active in PDF. I hardly bother what other think.


and more over both machines are 4th generation and engineers are planning to make it 4.5 gen. So there must not be confusion over it. I am not sure whether engineers can make it 4.5 gen or not. I can just wait and watch