JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[The SC]

1. Wing loading is a very important factor. No need to split hair about whether wing surface area is 'only' one consideration. This just shows ignorance of engineering principles.

2. Engineering Factor is a routine methodology. Things are 'over-designed' for a purpose. For example for elevators the engineering factor is 10; meaning that an elevator cleared to carry 1000 Kg weight is designed to carry 10,000 kg. Similarly though JF-17 structure is designed to match its performance, the design limit would be significantly higher than the allowable max weight. 200% wing loading test just shows that the engineering factor is at least 2 in case of JF-17 wings. We can be confident that a higher thrust engine could certainly help carry higher weight.

3. If anyone recalls Dubai airshow demo of JF-17, towards the end the high angle of attack slow pass followed by a turn and steep climb shows that the aircraft is not under-powered as such. With a single RD-93 powering the aircraft, one can indirectly tell that the 'over-design' does not impact its performance in any apparent negative way.

4. As I observed earlier, if PAF thought that the aircraft had lesser range or too little loiter time, the last redesign could have lengthened the fuselage a little to improve fuel capacity. That did not happen and it clearly shows that there are no serious issues as such. JF-17 has had at least 2 redesigns (maybe 3) if I am not wrong. I do not think that the air-frame has any glaring deficiencies.

5. @VCheng , the day you can prove that the JF-17 airframe is 2nd generation will be the day I will take you seriously. You are wasting people's time by engaging in senseless discussions for the sole purpose of deflecting criticism of your statements. A couple of pages back I asked you to provide reference for your assertions ( JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5] | Page 272 ) just because you seemed to be pulling stuff from thin air. Your very inadequate reply only confirmed my suspicion. I decided not to embarrass you (whether you could possibly feel embarrassed is a valid question) and did not press the issue ( JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5] | Page 272 ). I would now very much like you to provide valid references for your questionable claims, which are:

a) "The initial planes had 4,000 lbs of internal fuel and the newer ones are closer to 5,000 lbs." Post #4065 made by you. My question about planes 'initial' and which planes 'newer' remains unanswered.

b) You seem to be implying that RD-93 is quite like old RD-33, ignoring obvious differences such as control over smokey trails, indicating better fuel usage and probably better fuel efficiency. (My post #4063 vs your post #4065)

c) Your assertion that "The construction techniques used for the JF-17 are a generation or two older than the ones used for the Gripen" (post #4101). It is well known that Gripen is fourth generation, by Western classification. So you are saying that JF-17 airframe is possibly 2nd generation. Saying such a thing takes some guts. You make it sound so casual. Let us see you just as casually substantiate your claim.

Is it its delta wing configuration and the canards that gives the Gripen its load capacity or is it the whole configuration design of the airplane, like its thin central body?

 

[The SC]

Vipers are not going to be delivered with all the items without USA saying yes. They will not do that. And why buying more if we already have 75 of those? You need something like SU35. Nothing less. It is the range and the load... Even J31 will not match that easily. And... If you really want to protect the coast/sea lanes you really really need it very very badly.

25 or so Norwegian F-16s would make it 100 Vipers for PAF, an optimum number.
SU-35 is seemingly awesome, it can also be purchased from China as an upgraded chinese SU-27/ J-11 with an AESA radar and integration of some western tech., it might just be more cost effective, and won't offer anyone to intervene in the deal or spare parts in a real conflict scenario.
This is also about the new Chinese engine, that will be generalized to other platforms like the JF-17, and might come with a license production in the near future.
J-11B

J-16

Or waiting for the J-20

 

[viper2020]

Hi,

Our BLK 52 F16 is far superior to any J10B that china has---. Right in your face kind aircraft would be like rafale, eurofighter, J11---. Remember---you got SU 30's on the other side---.

You ought to have something that your enemy is seriously concerned about---the french radar, electronic package and missile system being prepared for the JF 17 was big concern to the indains & see what they did to it---to cancel that deal---the indins decided to buy the french aircrft---that much was the concern the indians had with that joint venture---even though the indians had the option of buying the best american equipment.

Hi ,
Thanks for that. It seems that procurement of a more capable aircraft to dissuade a potential enemy is a "flung" approach, my humble understanding was that the JF-17's suitability is derived from the military doctrine of riposte, is it not? Where the F16 BLK 52 are the epitome in the force but the JF-17 is the main stay. To surmise , it seems that if the PAF consensus is to induct higher caliber aircraft with more aggressive weapons, then perhaps PAF / Military doctrine has been modified.?

As far as the Indians scuttling the deal, yes that seems to be a political decision to deny PAF use of French equipment, by procuring themselves, however as you correctly pointed out , the Indians had an opportunity cost to pay by foregoing to purchase US equipment , which shows how concerned they are with what PAF is up to.

 

[MastanKhan]

It is kind of contradiction intermino. We build small agile dogfighter yet we use it as BVR killer. But that is what now the tactics are. Try to stay out of the kill zone of the opponent. Be the first to act and hide asap. In that case you would be not surprised that block 2 will have the dual bvr launcher. Anyway, strange the delay towards end of the year of the production ready of the first two JF17. Is it because of RD93MA?

Hi,

That is what I had been telling you guys for so many years---and you guys lambasted me---maybe not you----.

I said---the days of the merge are going to be over with the coming of the F22---. That fighter solely created for taking out enemy aircraft with its long range BVR's---launching its missiles and then turning away---. There will be no merges or hardly any merges.

The high end fighter aircraft will fight from their position of strength---that is BVR---. Lock, Launch and turn away---. Why would they want to take an inferior stance by merging and equalling the game for an inferior enemy.

For that reason again---I stated---it would be cheaper for pakistan to invest into better long range missiles.

Now suddenly my little brother windjammer has it from a paf pilot---and it becomes 'sacred'---when this good old 'dad' was talking about it you guys were arguing with me---.

 

[Bratva]

I posted this in the other IAF V PAF thread, suffice to repeat it here as well.
I discussed in detail with a PAF Block-52 pioneer on the F-16 Vis MKI scenario. According to the PAF officer, a Group Captain, the MKI is a superb aircraft but it has it's advantages and disadvantages.... the main advantage being the fuel capacity hence it can loiter for longer periods. Those who argue that it can carry a dozen or so missiles, what good they be if it gets hit by even a single missile, one of it's main disadvantage is it's huge RCS, the officer disclosed that during an exercise with somewhat similar kind of aircraft belonging to a friendly air force, even the JF-17 detected it before it picked up the smaller aircraft, by that time the JFT had launched it's weapon and broken off. !!!!

MKI has reportedly 200-220 KM detection range for 5 m^2. For 3 M^2 would be 150-160 KM. JF-17 has 130 Km and 112 KM for 5 and 3 m^2. SD-10 A has 80- 100 KM range. It means we can' launch SD-10 A before 100 KM mark. Long before we launch SD-10 A, MKI would have launched it's missile and would be long gone.


A fully loaded MKI would be detected at most 120-130 KM range while a fully loaded JF-17 with a 3-4 M^2 would be detected at 150-160 KM. Do the maths who would fire a first short and who would be forced to disengage from the battle first.

Chinese SU- series are not as heavily upgraded as Indian SU- series. Hence the feel good stories would be little off the mark when discussing Indian SU and JF-17 scenario

 

[Munir]

@MastaKhan,
Well, during start of war in Vietnam they thought they needed big trucks (F4 Phantom) to carry lots of BVR and skipped guns and a2a wvr tactics... They paid for that. I think one does over estimate BVR. With the introduction of stealthier planes, links, AESA, ECM linked with DRFM you might wonder what happened. BVR does not guarantee kill but buys time. So you have to finish it off or bug out. Chaff flare where something of the past. Now we got lasers jamming the fuzes etc etc. So yes, BVR helps. But no, it helps in complex scenario with nations like Pakistan and India not that much. But all you can use is good so dual launchers is a must.

 

[Windjammer]

MKI has reportedly 200-220 KM detection range for 5 m^2. For 3 M^2 would be 150-160 KM. JF-17 has 130 Km and 112 KM for 5 and 3 m^2. SD-10 A has 80- 100 KM range. It means we can' launch SD-10 A before 100 KM mark. Long before we launch SD-10 A, MKI would have launched it's missile and would be long gone.


A fully loaded MKI would be detected at most 120-130 KM range while a fully loaded JF-17 with a 3-4 M^2 would be detected at 150-160 KM. Do the maths who would fire a first short and who would be forced to disengage from the battle first.

Chinese SU- series are not as heavily upgraded as Indian SU- series. Hence the feel good stories would be little off the mark when discussing Indian SU and JF-17 scenario

The JF-17 scenario was just given as an example where as the base of discussion was F-16 Vis MKI.....where the AMRAAM comes into play....besides it's not as if all battles will be fought by only the subject aircraft.....!!

 

[Munir]

MKI has reportedly 200-220 KM detection range for 5 m^2. For 3 M^2 would be 150-160 KM. JF-17 has 130 Km and 112 KM for 5 and 3 m^2. SD-10 A has 80- 100 KM range. It means we can' launch SD-10 A before 100 KM mark. Long before we launch SD-10 A, MKI would have launched it's missile and would be long gone.


A fully loaded MKI would be detected at most 120-130 KM range while a fully loaded JF-17 with a 3-4 M^2 would be detected at 150-160 KM. Do the maths who would fire a first short and who would be forced to disengage from the battle first.

Chinese SU- series are not as heavily upgraded as Indian SU- series. Hence the feel good stories would be little off the mark when discussing Indian SU and JF-17 scenario

Just provide me details in how the Indian SU are better upgraded... When exactly and how? The idea that Israeli avionics do the difference... I do not buy that. Based on what are makhi better?

 

[Bratva]

Just provide me details in how the Indian SU are better upgraded... When exactly and how? The idea that Israeli avionics do the difference... I do not buy that. Based on what are makhi better?

My post is about who would detect first and force other to disengage from the battle. Not about Israeli avionics.

 

[Bratva]

The JF-17 scenario was just given as an example where as the base of discussion was F-16 Vis MKI.....where the AMRAAM comes into play....besides it's not as if all battles will be fought by only the subject aircraft.....!!

~70-80 F-16 Vs HMD capable HOBS missile integrated 240 MKI + Mirages + MIG-29. They had quantity as well as qualitative edge over us. @500 shared Israel VS American F-18 training exercise account in one thread. Where former was with HMD/HOBS while latter was without it. 92 percent of engagements were won by IAF. How long do you think F-16 can hold off against a HMD/HOBS capable fighter jet

 

[Munir]

My post is about who would detect first and force other to disengage from the battle. Not about Israeli avionics.

Is it? You consider plane A to be superior to...

 

[Bratva]

Is it? You consider plane A to be superior to...

Does Radar of Plane A is superior to Radar of Plane B ?

 

[Munir]

~70-80 F-16 Vs HMD capable HOBS missile integrated 240 MKI + Mirages + MIG-29. They had quantity as well as qualitative edge over us. @500 shared Israel VS American F-18 training exercise account in one thread. Where former was with HMD/HOBS while latter was without it. 92 percent of engagements were won by IAF. How long do you think F-16 can hold off against a HMD/HOBS capable fighter jet

I did not know that Israeli airforce can be compared with Indian airforce... It is like.. O we won against Israel with our pilots based in Egypt and Jordan so we will win Indians here... And 92 percent won by X by which parameters during dogfight and what kind of tactics?

Does Radar of Plane A is superior to Radar of Plane B ?

You tell me. You are the one starting with that.. Let me post that:

>>>>
MKI has reportedly 200-220 KM detection range for 5 m^2. For 3 M^2 would be 150-160 KM. JF-17 has 130 Km and 112 KM for 5 and 3 m^2. SD-10 A has 80- 100 KM range. It means we can' launch SD-10 A before 100 KM mark. Long before we launch SD-10 A, MKI would have launched it's missile and would be long gone.


A fully loaded MKI would be detected at most 120-130 KM range while a fully loaded JF-17 with a 3-4 M^2 would be detected at 150-160 KM. Do the maths who would fire a first short and who would be forced to disengage from the battle first.

Chinese SU- series are not as heavily upgraded as Indian SU- series. Hence the feel good stories would be little off the mark when discussing Indian SU and JF-17 scenario
>>>>

So tell me what is the fire range of the MKI BVR... How many seconds of reaction time on both sides... Is it a no escape zone... etc etc etc

So I do not think your story is accurate.

I did not know that Israeli airforce can be compared with Indian airforce... It is like.. O we won against Israel with our pilots based in Egypt and Jordan so we will win Indians here... And 92 percent won by X by which parameters during dogfight and what kind of tactics?



You tell me. You are the one starting with that.. Let me post that:

>>>>
MKI has reportedly 200-220 KM detection range for 5 m^2. For 3 M^2 would be 150-160 KM. JF-17 has 130 Km and 112 KM for 5 and 3 m^2. SD-10 A has 80- 100 KM range. It means we can' launch SD-10 A before 100 KM mark. Long before we launch SD-10 A, MKI would have launched it's missile and would be long gone.


A fully loaded MKI would be detected at most 120-130 KM range while a fully loaded JF-17 with a 3-4 M^2 would be detected at 150-160 KM. Do the maths who would fire a first short and who would be forced to disengage from the battle first.

Chinese SU- series are not as heavily upgraded as Indian SU- series. Hence the feel good stories would be little off the mark when discussing Indian SU and JF-17 scenario
>>>>

So tell me what is the fire range of the MKI BVR... What altitude (so it has certain BVR range)... What speed (so it can turn fast...)... How many seconds of reaction time on both sides... Is it a no escape zone... etc etc etc

So I do not think your story is accurate.

 

[Bratva]

So tell me what is the fire range of the MKI BVR... How many seconds of reaction time on both sides... Is it a no escape zone... etc etc etc

So I do not think your story is accurate.

Range of MKI BVR is 100-110 KM. In a head on engagement, MKI would fire towards JF-17 and would disengage. Reaction times, No escape zone is considered where someone is going for a definite kill. While the scenario here is deterring the opponent aircraft from coming near to IAF sortie. Giving them time to escape or do what they come from. A BVR truck providing distraction while letting other do the job

 

[Windjammer]

~70-80 F-16 Vs HMD capable HOBS missile integrated 240 MKI + Mirages + MIG-29. They had quantity as well as qualitative edge over us. @500 shared Israel VS American F-18 training exercise account in one thread. Where former was with HMD/HOBS while latter was without it. 92 percent of engagements were won by IAF. How long do you think F-16 can hold off against a HMD/HOBS capable fighter jet

You seem more convinced than the Indians, training although good as it is to hone skills but the objective difference is ..... boards don't hit back..... besides as @Munir said, Indians are no Israelis.... besides more than the arm chair generals, those at helm go quietly about their business without throwing their arms in the air or chest thumping.
The less said the better.