JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Chak Bamu]

It might be pertinent to note here that contrary to a lot of brouhaha, Pakistan can not afford Gen 4.5 planes. All the dreams of non-Chinese alternatives (EFT etc...) are just dreams. We must focus on JF-17 and prepare for 5th Gen alternative while focusing on economy. It would in fact be fiscally irresponsible to consider Western 4.5 Gen fighters.

JF-17 is the best alternative and if we make it potent enough to deter adventurism from across our borders, then that is enough for now.

 

[nomi007]

GOOD NEWS for all members
Reportedly, JF-17B conducted 1st low-speed taxi test today at CAC.

 

[ziaulislam]

It might be pertinent to note here that contrary to a lot of brouhaha, Pakistan can not afford Gen 4.5 planes. All the dreams of non-Chinese alternatives (EFT etc...) are just dreams. We must focus on JF-17 and prepare for 5th Gen alternative while focusing on economy. It would in fact be fiscally irresponsible to consider Western 4.5 Gen fighters.

JF-17 is the best alternative and if we make it potent enough to deter adventurism from across our borders, then that is enough for now.

But is fiscally responsible to buy expensive gunships and other equipment for army to face threats on Eastern front?

 

[monitor]

In aircraft design terms, there is no such thing as plug and play. Every component that you choose has to be integrated at some level. Main components like radar, ECM etc. require major work while some require only minor changes. Much of the JF-17 avionics are now being produced at Kamra, and this includes Weapons Mission Management Computer (WMMC), EMMC, ISR & Light Warning System (LWS), INS, SHUD, SMS & ILS with complete transfer of technology from CATIC. CATIC transferred this tech at high cost as they were not ready to part with it. Some of sub-systems are of western origin and are also co-produced at Kamra and this includes radio, RWR, radar altimeter etc. There are also some other Chinese (non-CATIC systems) that are being produced locally such as radar, IFF transponder, IFF interrogator etc. Some systems were designed and developed locally, such as complete production of Smart Heading & Reference System (SHARS) with the help of Navtech of Singapore. Avionics Activation Panel (AAP), Up Front Control Panel (UFCP), Audio Control Box (ACB), Backup Acquisition Computer (BAC) and Smart Multi-Functional Coloured Display (SMFCD) are also indigenously designed, developed and qualified. ´The Digital Video Recorder was designed locally as well by Strategic Task Group (STS) & there are also other locally developed sub-systems such as ACMI & Chaff and Flare Dispenser and R&S Radio from AWC on board.

Curtesy : Usman Sabbir@pakdef

 

[Chak Bamu]

But is fiscally responsible to buy expensive gunships and other equipment for army to face threats on Eastern front?

I am not sure what you mean sir. However, just to clarify - I was making a distinction between "must-have" capability and a "good-to-have" capability. In financially straitened circumstances, one should stick to "must-have" capability and determine which capacity would suffice. If fiscal space is seen to be available, there is nothing wrong with "good-to-have" capability.

I consider gunships as a must-have capability. How else would you deal with advancing armored columns making a thrust into a country's territory? But then how advanced and expensive an option can Pakistan afford? That is something for Army brass to think about in a frame-work of available budget.

On-topic: A fighter-bomber would both complement gunships and also provide them with protection from aerial threats. That is value of JF-17. It has high wing-loading, targeting pod, suitable munitions, & ability to deal with aerial threats. Somewhat lower (expected) loiter time would be compensated by quick turn-around time and high availability. Its a perfect fit.

 

[CriticalThought]

I am not sure what you mean sir. However, just to clarify - I was making a distinction between "must-have" capability and a "good-to-have" capability. In financially straitened circumstances, one should stick to "must-have" capability and determine which capacity would suffice. If fiscal space is seen to be available, there is nothing wrong with "good-to-have" capability.

I consider gunships as a must-have capability. How else would you deal with advancing armored columns making a thrust into a country's territory? But then how advanced and expensive an option can Pakistan afford? That is something for Army brass to think about in a frame-work of available budget.

On-topic: A fighter-bomber would both complement gunships and also provide them with protection from aerial threats. That is value of JF-17. It has high wing-loading, targeting pod, suitable munitions, & ability to deal with aerial threats. Somewhat lower (expected) loiter time would be compensated by quick turn-around time and high availability. Its a perfect fit.

Close air support (CAS) should be handed off to drones and gunships and AD to LOMADS so the grunts are basically self-sufficient. The airforce can then engage in air dominance and taking out enemy aircraft in the air or on the ground. The grunts should call air support only when the big boys need to be dropped or deep strikes inside enemy territory.

 

[fatman17]

There are many on this forum who think we can get everything from China on "loans", maybeso but these loans have to be repaid back. If we don't do that, the Chinese will not move forward on anything including CPEC, which is a 55B $ loan.

 

[Frankenstein9321]

Your source?? Anyhow thats great....i hope pics will be floating around soon...

GOOD NEWS for all members
Reportedly, JF-17B conducted 1st low-speed taxi test today at CAC.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

A quick turn around time is not good enough---a smaller load carrying capacity and a shorter loiter time is an issue.

The first strike is the ' oppurtune ' moment---that is where you need the heavy strike capability---that results in maximum damage.

It is the difference between a 10 lbs hammer and a 50 lbs hammer---.

If you read up on history of warfare---the first strike is always the most important on any target---that is when you ' may ' catch the enemy unaware or in a relaxed state.

The first strikes are designed to do massive damage and create panic in the enemy lines.

Panic creates indecision---and indecision result into flawed judgement---.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Hi,

A quick turn around time is not good enough---a smaller load carrying capacity and a shorter loiter time is an issue.

The first strike is the ' oppurtune ' moment---that is where you need the heavy strike capability---that results in maximum damage.

It is the difference between a 10 lbs hammer and a 50 lbs hammer---.

If you read up on history of warfare---the first strike is always the most important on any target---that is when you ' may ' catch the enemy unaware or in a relaxed state.

The first strikes are designed to do massive damage and create panic in the enemy lines.

Panic creates indecision---and indecision result into flawed judgement---.

well it has been observed in all Arab Isreal Air campaigns.
You know well about Operation Focus,had Israeils gone for defensive posture or tactics result would have been different,in battle field where every thing is flying in Mach numbers,results are also coming out at that rate.

 

[ziaulislam]

I am not sure what you mean sir. However, just to clarify - I was making a distinction between "must-have" capability and a "good-to-have" capability. In financially straitened circumstances, one should stick to "must-have" capability and determine which capacity would suffice. If fiscal space is seen to be available, there is nothing wrong with "good-to-have" capability.

I consider gunships as a must-have capability. How else would you deal with advancing armored columns making a thrust into a country's territory? But then how advanced and expensive an option can Pakistan afford? That is something for Army brass to think about in a frame-work of available budget.

On-topic: A fighter-bomber would both complement gunships and also provide them with protection from aerial threats. That is value of JF-17. It has high wing-loading, targeting pod, suitable munitions, & ability to deal with aerial threats. Somewhat lower (expected) loiter time would be compensated by quick turn-around time and high availability. Its a perfect fit.

so is ZULU a must to have capability when you do have Russians options and Z 10 as option? I dont know the answer

when it comes to Armour formation and use of gunships, i doubt zulu are going to last a single run from IAF. its will upto PAF equipped with cluster bombs or anti tank weapons. yes, if PAF and IAF go into stale mate (which is the topic at hand, it seem IAF is going to overwhelm PAF soon if we cant even afford beyond 150 thunders) than I guess ZULUs do come into the picture but I still believe weapons like portable fire and forget anti tank weapons and long range rocket are more important in areas which pak army lack

 

[Dazzler]

Your source?? Anyhow thats great....i hope pics will be floating around soon...

It's on Huitong's blog so it's as good as confirmed.

The latest rumor claimed that the JF-17B 01 prototype had its first taxiing test onApril 21, 2017.


http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/fighters-ii.html?m=1

 

[Frankenstein9321]

21st april was my birthday, Great present this....

 

[CriticalThought]

so is ZULU a must to have capability when you do have Russians options and Z 10 as option? I dont know the answer

when it comes to Armour formation and use of gunships, i doubt zulu are going to last a single run from IAF. its will upto PAF equipped with cluster bombs or anti tank weapons. yes, if PAF and IAF go into stale mate (which is the topic at hand, it seem IAF is going to overwhelm PAF soon if we cant even afford beyond 150 thunders) than I guess ZULUs do come into the picture but I still believe weapons like portable fire and forget anti tank weapons and long range rocket are more important in areas which pak army lack

The Zulus are good in multiple theatres, especially mountainous terrain where tanks fail. They will be crucial in Kashmir, and (it's a remote possibility) even Afghanistan.

well it has been observed in all Arab Isreal Air campaigns.
You know well about Operation Focus,had Israeils gone for defensive posture or tactics result would have been different,in battle field where every thing is flying in Mach numbers,results are also coming out at that rate.

The opening salvo of operation desert storm was low flying helis sent to destroy radar installation. The jets did not make an appearance before this was accomplished.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

so is ZULU a must to have capability when you do have Russians options and Z 10 as option? I dont know the answer

when it comes to Armour formation and use of gunships, i doubt zulu are going to last a single run from IAF. its will upto PAF equipped with cluster bombs or anti tank weapons. yes, if PAF and IAF go into stale mate (which is the topic at hand, it seem IAF is going to overwhelm PAF soon if we cant even afford beyond 150 thunders) than I guess ZULUs do come into the picture but I still believe weapons like portable fire and forget anti tank weapons and long range rocket are more important in areas which pak army lack

Dont forget the Zulus along with 1000 helfires are mostly being funded by CSF that Pakistan gets from USA for WOT. It replaces the similar type of cobras that PA loves and has decades of experience. So fiscally and technically very responsible decision.