JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[Sulman Badshah]

Are they similar to hell fire ?

yes but longer in range and more penetration ..
.
brimstone 1 12km , 20km ,
brimstone 2 40km and 60 km versions

they are highly accurate and and have supersonic speed

 

[Donatello]

MBDA Brimstone kind off missile .. It will be a nightmare for tanks in multiple racks

View attachment 153645 View attachment 153646

We'll need to get them integrated on JF-17......would be costly. I think PAF will stay with Chinese all out solutions for JF-17.

 

[Tempest II]

I need to see the details on the information board please. Please help!

 

[nomi007]

Are they similar to hell fire ?

more lethal than hell fire
modify from hell fire

 

[Sulman Badshah]

We'll need to get them integrated on JF-17......would be costly. I think PAF will stay with Chinese all out solutions for JF-17.

Yes a new cost effective missile should be integrated ... brimstone will be costly

the contender i see is CM 502 KG ... But it will need to improve its warhead to give it more puch

 

[nomi007]

A JF-17 photo with ailerons and flaperons labeled

 

[Donatello]

Yes a new cost effective missile should be integrated ... brimstone will be costly

the contender i see is CM 502 KG ... But it will need to improve its warhead to give it more puch View attachment 153705

Using JF-17 for delivering such missile would be a waste. You use strike aircraft for inflicting maximum losses on the enemy. In that regard, you would need heavy missiles, long range, large warhead etc.

 

[SQ8]

Using JF-17 for delivering such missile would be a waste. You use strike aircraft for inflicting maximum losses on the enemy. In that regard, you would need heavy missiles, long range, large warhead etc.

Yes and No. Yes because you might need the power to take out high value battlefield targets quickly(which is why the Brimstone is there on the Tornado and the Hellfire arms many light attack jets).. but No because the Air Defence around an Indian battlegroup may be too hostile for such close in strikes.. and off course.. one by one attacks.

What is needed is a weapon by which multiple targets can be attacked at once. India has that in the CBU-105. Whose significance is lost upon most here in its deadly ability to essentially guarantee the devastation an entire Pakistani column from 25000ft and 20 km away.. well beyond the ranges of the only air defence missile kept by our short sighted brass.. the Anza.

Currently on the Mig-27 can carry that weapon but it will soon be operational with the MKIs and with a Future MMRCA(if and when it comes in). There is NOTHING comparable in Pakistan arsenal and the very nice exersize demonstrations we see of F-7's strafing or mirages bombing right over the target popping out a few flares now and then are a stark difference from what will happen in a shooting conflict.. where chances are that except the F-16s..and some Mirage...most of Pakistani Close air support will be shot down before it even reaches the troops.

 

[Donatello]

Yes and No. Yes because you might need the power to take out high value battlefield targets quickly(which is why the Brimstone is there on the Tornado and the Hellfire arms many light attack jets).. but No because the Air Defence around an Indian battlegroup may be too hostile for such close in strikes.. and off course.. one by one attacks.

What is needed is a weapon by which multiple targets can be attacked at once. India has that in the CBU-105. Whose significance is lost upon most here in its deadly ability to essentially guarantee the devastation an entire Pakistani column from 25000ft and 20 km away.. well beyond the ranges of the only air defence missile kept by our short sighted brass.. the Anza.

Currently on the Mig-27 can carry that weapon but it will soon be operational with the MKIs and with a Future MMRCA(if and when it comes in). There is NOTHING comparable in Pakistan arsenal and the very nice exersize demonstrations we see of F-7's strafing or mirages bombing right over the target popping out a few flares now and then are a stark difference from what will happen in a shooting conflict.. where chances are that except the F-16s..and some Mirage...most of Pakistani Close air support will be shot down before it even reaches the troops.

I know the exercises are plain stupid and out dated. However, what i mean is , JF-17 is a much more expensive asset to be used for such a light weight weapon. If we get the GB-6 (as revealed at Zhuhai) we can have a CBU-105 type of our own. Bomblets are key to destroying the enemy armor/troop formations. If we can get a weapon that is akin to glid weapons, but disperses many bomblets from 30-60 km away and decent height, then yes, JF-17 is good enough to be used.

 

[Sulman Badshah]

Using JF-17 for delivering such missile would be a waste. You use strike aircraft for inflicting maximum losses on the enemy. In that regard, you would need heavy missiles, long range, large warhead etc.

Agree that bigger multipurpose missile needed on multi racks .... will make JF17 a hell of a ground attacker

 

[Donatello]

A JF-17 photo with ailerons and flaperons labeled
View attachment 153707

I'm afraid that is labelled incorrectly.
The blue region encompasses flaps and ailerons towards the wingtips. Both are movable flight surfaces.
The green region encompasses the leading edge slats.

 

[narcon]

http://www.textronsystems.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/product-info/sfw_brochure-small.pdf

 

[SQ8]

I know the exercises are plain stupid and out dated. However, what i mean is , JF-17 is a much more expensive asset to be used for such a light weight weapon. If we get the GB-6 (as revealed at Zhuhai) we can have a CBU-105 type of our own. Bomblets are key to destroying the enemy armor/troop formations. If we can get a weapon that is akin to glid weapons, but disperses many bomblets from 30-60 km away and decent height, then yes, JF-17 is good enough to be used.

Well, Close air support is where the most losses are expected by any commander against a well equipped army. It is the reason that during the height of the cold war.. very survivable aircraft(A-10) or stand off weapons were developed to thwart the threat of Soviet battlefield Air Defence. In addition, weapons like the ATACMS with the ability to disperse the "Brilliant Anti-Tank weapon"
were conceived.

More importantly, that is also when ideas like "checkmate" came into being by the likes of John Warden came into being. Essentially bypassing the idea that the Soviet advance should be checked by the costly implementation of direct close air support and more so by attacking key C3I and logistic sites.
However, strategies like that cannot work as well in the scenario of India and Pakistan and specifically the new IBG ideas that India has.. or can they? It just depends, the IBG concept that India has also puts a lot of pressure on rapid logistics.. if they can be targeted.. Pakistan can well afford to lose some ten or hundred square kilometres in return for having the Indians run out of supplies and left vulnerable. But that is all off topic.. and more importantly.. to hollow to debate with depth.

Coming back to what weapon is best suited to allow the JF-17 to carry out effective close air support sorties.. the ideal mix is both guided and unguided. Unguided for lowering morale.. guided for actual strikes that stop the advance.
The Chinese SDB equipped with a MMW radar or IR seeker could/should give the ability for a single JF-17 to attack 8 tanks from a safe distance and kill 6 or 7 of them. So a flight of 4 could kill 24-28. While it seems minuscule in terms of the thousand of tanks that India has.. it will still not be fielding all of them. And even for a formation of 100 tanks.. the sudden loss of 24 tanks to leave them panicked and stunned for a while.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Currently on the Mig-27 can carry that weapon but it will soon be operational with the MKIs and with a Future MMRCA(if and when it comes in). .

@Oscar; the CBU has been first integrated on the Jaguar (it was the perfect fit) then later on the Mig-27. The rest will follow later, maybe on Tejas Mk.2 as well.

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar; the CBU has been first integrated on the Jaguar (it was the perfect fit) then later on the Mig-27. The rest will follow later, maybe on Tejas Mk.2 as well.

As I said, Pakistan has no weapon that is equivalent of it which is the actual need of the hour.