JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[majid mehmood]

Hi,

A good defense is a good offence-----. With this aircraft you are able to strike Mumbai and surrounding areas-----with Babur ALCM----you got all southern india at your finger tips----with AShM CM400---you can strike back at the enemy flotilla----with raad----you can choose smart targets----but this fight needs to go halfway down india.

You can have support aircraft to give them coverage up to certain extent------. But you are using standoff weapons over here----. But basically---you are sending your aircraft on first strike missions on a way way trip permit---.

JFT is not a work horse----it is a fill in type of aircraft for the type of enemy it is facing. It will be the work horse of many an air force-----where the nation is not facing 300 SU30's and 100 +++Mig 29's etc etc etc----.

The work horse of Pakistan is the F 16 and another heavy aircraft the paf might procure----.

If paf is naming JFT as a work horse-----then they do not understand what a work horse is----. JFT is a worker Bee-----.

Work horses are massive beasts in size----almost twice as big as the horses we have in Pakistan---and perform heavy tasks. So---to name the little Dinkle JFT as a work horse is incorrect.

The issue of expensive to maintain and expensive to operate is a mute issue by now---. If Pakistan wants to operate Gwadar port---it needs the protection of heavy aircraft----.

If the enemy strikes---you can also go down and strike deep at its core---. The enemy will destroy Karachi and Gwadar----we must be able to destroy Mumbai and poona amongst other cities-----but Mumbai is a must----and that cannot be done without the heavies----.

An aircraft like the JH7B would also be capable of launching every missile that is in the Chinese arsenal WVR---BVR whatever---PL5--SD10 A & B---PL15---what ever is coming---.

When I say a flying range of 2000-2500 miles---it s not straight one way---most of the trips are going to be 500---800 miles dog leg journey---launch their stuff from a distance and fly back----.

jh 7 was considered by paf but in the paf said it was under powered
according to some reports paf might buy jh 7b but it would be developed in 2017
although jh7b is awesome but combat radius is not good
some specs are
150 km aesa radar range
9000 kg payload
110 kn engine thrust with afterburners
mach 2 (possibilty)
1800km combat radius --- this is the thing which i dislike, jf 17 has 1350km combat radius
in the end i would consider this fighter as a heavy fighter with medium range
that why paf might procure su 35 which range is double than jft

 

[silent hawk]

Gentlemen,

Please talk about the battle scenario as to what the role of these aircraft would be against the enemy aircraft and how these aircraft would counter.

.

Pro-active operations / Cold Start Doctrine / Surgical Strike Capability

JF-17 replacing Mirage in
Strike Role
Maritime support
Point Defence
Interdiction
Close Support

JF-17 replacing F-7 in
Point Defence
Close Support

F-7 PG in
Point Defence
Close Support

F-16 for Air Superiority including
Escort
Sweep
Important CAPs

80 F-16 , 50 F-7 PG , 300 JF-17 should be sufficient.

Aircraft Qty taken from

List of aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of active Indian military aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Basel]

Hi,

Around 2000 miles to 2500 miles radius after it has been refueled----.My weapon of choice is the JH7B with aesa and all the rest of the goodies---specially the growler type package.

At around 25 million a pop---with 10000 KG load----mach 2 speed----air refuelling capability----aesa radar---it is as good or a better aircraft for deep strike missions than an SU35 or a J11D---which would run westward of 50 million a pop.

Plus it will use all the weaponery that the JF 17 has and more---ability to carry 2--4 ALCM's----ability to carry 2--4 Cm400AKG type AShM---.

Just imagine a Pakistani BVR truck---with a massive 1600 T/R modules aesa and 8---10 upcoming PL15 BVR missiles flying as escort for deep strike mission with growler capabilities as well and that only at around 25 million a pop----.

I don't know why you are advocating for JH-7 aircraft which even PN has rejected in any shape, they got bit annoyed when I asked about this aircraft, they said it has to many short comings and have no role in our inventory now or in future. They prefer J-11 or higher aircraft.

 

[MastanKhan]

I don't know why you are advocating for JH-7 aircraft which even PN has rejected in any shape, they got bit annoyed when I asked about this aircraft, they said it has to many short comings and have no role in our inventory now or in future. They prefer J-11 or higher aircraft.

Hi,

Really----so why is the Chinese navy putting their future betting on the JH7B against the U S navy strike missions----..

Isn't this the same air force that inducted the A5 fantans---with a strike radius of 180--250 miles and 3000 kg load---the same air force that had used mirage F1 available in the 90's---if they could not afford the mirage 2000's.

J11 is an air superiority air craft---Jh7B is a bomber---with bvr missile capability.

Talking about the role----this is an air force that is so confused that it is clueless what to get in the last 14 years---. It needed and air superiority platform and came out with a light weight fighter-----.

If the navy or the air force has rejected this aircraft---then which aircraft they have chosen to fill in the hole----.

I can understand that the JH7B is at the bottom of the list----specially for an air force that is run by fighter mafia----no bomber aircraft would have any value.

 

[Tempest II]

From the Dubai 2011 presentations below:

Internal fuel = (2,300/0.84) = 2,738l.

External fuel = 3,000l.

Total fuel = 5,738l.

Now, this will give 1,000km range in an A2G configuration.

If you loose both the 1,100l tanks, you get rid of 1,848kg, and add 1,600kg from the two missiles. You end up 248kg lighter.

You loose the 4 x 250kg bombs = 1,000kg. You add the 2 x 200kg SD-10s. This is 600kg lighter.

In total you are now 848kg lighter.

Back to the fuel: 5,738l = 1,000km radius.

2,200l less 5,738l means 3,538l = ((3,538/5,738)*1000km) = 617km with CM-400 AKG

I have ignored the weight differences and focused on fuel.

View attachment 264460

View attachment 264461

I have gone back to this discussion and researched a bit more on the weight differences and made an attempt to factor in the 848kg weight difference. I have looked around and the aircraft ranges are linear dependent on weight and/or fuel. That makes estimating somewhat easier. Example here:

I am estimating therefore that with the CM-400AKG, the FC-1 will have a combat radius of 801km.

 

[ssethii]

I have gone back to this discussion and researched a bit more on the weight differences and made an attempt to factor in the 848kg weight difference. I have looked around and the aircraft ranges are linear dependent on weight and/or fuel. That makes estimating somewhat easier. Example here:

View attachment 265113
I am estimating therefore that with the CM-400AKG, the FC-1 will have a combat radius of 801km.

View attachment 265123

What makes you assume that 30% decrease in load will give you 30% increase in range?

 

[Tempest II]

What makes you assume that 30% decrease in load will give you 30% increase in range?

The decrease in load is 23%. The decrease in range would be the same percentage if the graph was at 45 degrees.

The 23% decrease in payload, I calculated to give 30% increase in range.

 

[ssethii]

The decrease in load is 23%. The decrease in range would be the same percentage if the graph was at 45 degrees.

The 23% decrease in payload, I calculated to give 30% increase in range.

The question was, what makes you think the relation between payload and range is a linear function.

 

[Tempest II]

The question was, what makes you think the relation between payload and range is a linear function.

I have posted a Boeing graph as given by Boeing themselves. If you Google for "Aircraft Range vs payload", and select images you will get dozens graphs of graphs AND THEY ARE LINEAR.

 

[ConcealCarry]

Not an expert in this field but there are three variables to the equation Load, Range & Speed (time), linearity in weight and range would only be valid at a constant speed, if there is a change in speed due to any reason, range may be significantly affected.

I have gone back to this discussion and researched a bit more on the weight differences and made an attempt to factor in the 848kg weight difference. I have looked around and the aircraft ranges are linear dependent on weight and/or fuel. That makes estimating somewhat easier. Example here:

View attachment 265113
I am estimating therefore that with the CM-400AKG, the FC-1 will have a combat radius of 801km.

View attachment 265123

 

[Tempest II]

Not an expert in this field but there are three variables to the equation Load, Range & Speed (time), linearity in weight and range would only be valid at a constant speed, if there is a change in speed due to any reason, range may be significantly affected.

I think the relationship remains linear but the slope of the graph changes. I assume at lower altitude or sub-optimal speed, the graph get steeper, making the range shorter.

Similarly, in the Dubai presentations, they even give you the assumed flight profiles.

 

[Thunder.Storm]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=377229679114199

 

[Muhammad Omar]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=377229679114199

what this video has to do with JF-17 or PAF???

 

[OTTOMAN]

The decrease in load is 23%. The decrease in range would be the same percentage if the graph was at 45 degrees.

The 23% decrease in payload, I calculated to give 30% increase in range.

More fuel is consumed during takeoff, which also varies with climb rate.
Can you say about how much % is consumed of max loaded JFT, while takeoff?
I guesstimate it to be varying between 10% to 30% from low to highest possible climb rate.... considering max load takeoff.

 

[Thunder.Storm]

what this video has to do with JF-17 or PAF???

the video is about the air force and jf 17 is also related to air force so you think more and you will get it and by the way in this thread you will find many posts which is not related to jf-17 by any mean but they are here bcz there is no specific rules here about it.