JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[jupiter2007]

I think JF-17 can not be pitched against every AC in IAF inventory, especially Su-30 and Rafale. So an MRCA like J-10 is cry of the day.

JF-17 Block 3 with mix of western and Chinese gadgets should be able to handle both but we do need dedicated 4.5 generation fighter.

USA needs pakistan to bring peace in Afghanistan so it can not afford to isolate Us and in order to do that she will keep giving us nibbles, giving us used military hardware, used F-16s....etc.

Used F-16s most likely will come by the end of this years but they won’t be enough. Trump is not going to appprove any new F-16 for Pakistan so our choices are limited to J-16 or SU-35.

 

[imrankhan7250]

JF-17 Block 3 with mix of western and Chinese gadgets should be able to handle both but we do need dedicated 4.5 generation fighter.

USA needs pakistan to bring peace in Afghanistan so it can not afford to isolate Us and in order to do that she will keep giving us nibbles, giving us used military hardware, used F-16s....etc.

Used F-16s most likely will come by the end of this years but they won’t be enough. Trump is not going to appprove any new F-16 for Pakistan so our choices are limited to J-16 or SU-35.

Why you people are afraid of pitching JFT against SU30 MKI. JFT was indeed made to kill SU30MKI. Every expert some years ago name JFT as MKI killer.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I'm working with DEKA Ironwork Simulations for the JF-17 Module

What’s the payload for JF-17

 

[Shabi1]

When PAF designed the JF-17 they knew it might one day have to stand it's ground against SU-30s. Which is why they keep updating it's specs, and now with the Blk-3 they have Rafael to counter too. I do recall news articles that PAF requested capability change on the JF-17 to counter SU-30 when the 4th prototype was revealed.

AA combat has way too many variables to be like a video game. Technology has advanced but BVR weapon hit rates are questionable against ECM/countermeasure equipped maneuverable targets.

https://defenseissues.net/2013/04/27/usefulness-of-bvr-combat/
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

So a JF-17 might be the under dog but if it comes up against a SU-30 it will not be a easy kill for a SU-30 or Rafael where they merely press a button. A great deal of pilot skill and situational variables are involved.

Presence of data linked AWACs makes it more complicated for both sides as well.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-...down-SU-30-MKI-and-Rafale-in-case-of-conflict

https://quwa.org/2016/07/11/jf-17-ii-introducing-bvr-precision-strike-updated/
"
But the lack of new F-16s (or a modern fighter in lieu of it) was being felt, especially in the context of the Indian Air Force (IAF)’s modernization programs (centering on the Sukhoi Su-30MKI). Simply replacing the F-7s and Mirages was not going to be enough for the PAF, it needed something that not only offered a substantive improvement, but gave it a solution that was in line with the expectations of the day. The sense one gets from the 1990s and 2000s is that most of the PAF’s fighters did not and – for the most part – could not utilize the latest in combat technology. Even the Mirages, which could be equipped with some level of BVR and precision-guided strike capability, had a limit in terms of its longevity.

Put simply, whenever sanctions hit, the PAF had to depend on fighters that were a generation behind the ‘current.’ In the aftermath of the 1965 War, the PAF had to source F-6s from China, but like the rest of its contemporaries, it probably would have preferred grabbing the Northrop F-5 Tiger II. When it was supposed to have been receiving F-16s, the PAF had to deepen its dependence on F-7s and Mirage III/5s.

The JF-17 Thunder is a different story. It is a modern platform with the room to carry current as well as future subsystems. Yes, it is not a high-performance platform like the Dassault Rafale, but it is a platform capable of using most (if not potentially all) of the very same munitions and subsystems found on pricier alternatives. The only real bottleneck would be Pakistan’s financial capacities.
"

And to add to this SU-30MKI carries a NO11M PESA radar. It's detection range is 140km against a Mig-29 class fighter safe to assume for a JF-17 should be lesser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bars_radar
"N011M has a search range of 400 km and a tracking range of 200 km, with 60 km in the rear in the air-to-air mode. Detection range fighter type MIG-29 in area of review of over 300 sq. deg: - on towards course - up to 140 km; - in pursuit of - up to 60 km.[4] Up to 15 air targets can be tracked at once in track while scan mode with 4 of these engaged at once.[5]The N011M can use a number of short range and speed search modes and is capable of identifying the type and number of multiple targets."

Now coming to JF-17 detection ranges are KLJ-7V1 105km vs 5m2, KLJ-7V2 135km vs 5m2 and KLJ-7A 170km Vs 5m2. And since JF-17 is PAF's own fighter and it makes these KLJ radars locally more improvements will occur from manufacturers and they will be passed onto existing fleet without hindrances or international negotiations.
The reason why the huge comparative improvement is the KLJ-7A is AESA and AESAs can achieve the same performance as a PESA but with a much smaller size, lower power and cooling requirements, then compared with a PESA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLJ-7
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.blogspot.com/2018/03/jf-17-to-get-chinese-developed-aesa.html

So in terms of detection the JF-17 has done a lot of catching up and you pretty much get the idea it is being done with a particular opponent in mind.

 

[araz]

When PAF designed the JF-17 they knew it might one day have to stand it's ground against SU-30s. Which is why they keep updating it's specs, and now with the Blk-3 they have Rafael to counter too. I do recall news articles that PAF requested capability change on the JF-17 to counter SU-30 when the 4th prototype was revealed.

AA combat has way too many variables to be like a video game. Technology has advanced but BVR weapon hit rates are questionable against ECM/countermeasure equipped maneuverable targets.

https://defenseissues.net/2013/04/27/usefulness-of-bvr-combat/
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

So a JF-17 might be the under dog but if it comes up against a SU-30 it will not be a easy kill for a SU-30 or Rafael where they merely press a button. A great deal of pilot skill and situational variables are involved.

Presence of data linked AWACs makes it more complicated for both sides as well.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-...down-SU-30-MKI-and-Rafale-in-case-of-conflict

https://quwa.org/2016/07/11/jf-17-ii-introducing-bvr-precision-strike-updated/
"
But the lack of new F-16s (or a modern fighter in lieu of it) was being felt, especially in the context of the Indian Air Force (IAF)’s modernization programs (centering on the Sukhoi Su-30MKI). Simply replacing the F-7s and Mirages was not going to be enough for the PAF, it needed something that not only offered a substantive improvement, but gave it a solution that was in line with the expectations of the day. The sense one gets from the 1990s and 2000s is that most of the PAF’s fighters did not and – for the most part – could not utilize the latest in combat technology. Even the Mirages, which could be equipped with some level of BVR and precision-guided strike capability, had a limit in terms of its longevity.

Put simply, whenever sanctions hit, the PAF had to depend on fighters that were a generation behind the ‘current.’ In the aftermath of the 1965 War, the PAF had to source F-6s from China, but like the rest of its contemporaries, it probably would have preferred grabbing the Northrop F-5 Tiger II. When it was supposed to have been receiving F-16s, the PAF had to deepen its dependence on F-7s and Mirage III/5s.

The JF-17 Thunder is a different story. It is a modern platform with the room to carry current as well as future subsystems. Yes, it is not a high-performance platform like the Dassault Rafale, but it is a platform capable of using most (if not potentially all) of the very same munitions and subsystems found on pricier alternatives. The only real bottleneck would be Pakistan’s financial capacities.
"

And to add to this SU-30MKI carries a NO11M PESA radar. It's detection range is 140km against a Mig-29 class fighter safe to assume for a JF-17 should be lesser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bars_radar
"N011M has a search range of 400 km and a tracking range of 200 km, with 60 km in the rear in the air-to-air mode. Detection range fighter type MIG-29 in area of review of over 300 sq. deg: - on towards course - up to 140 km; - in pursuit of - up to 60 km.[4] Up to 15 air targets can be tracked at once in track while scan mode with 4 of these engaged at once.[5]The N011M can use a number of short range and speed search modes and is capable of identifying the type and number of multiple targets."

Now coming to JF-17 detection ranges are KLJ-7V1 105km vs 5m2, KLJ-7V2 135km vs 5m2 and KLJ-7A 170km Vs 5m2. And since JF-17 is PAF's own fighter and it makes these KLJ radars locally more improvements will occur from manufacturers and they will be passed onto existing fleet without hindrances or international negotiations.
The reason why the huge comparative improvement is the KLJ-7A is AESA and AESAs can achieve the same performance as a PESA but with a much smaller size, lower power and cooling requirements, then compared with a PESA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLJ-7
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.blogspot.com/2018/03/jf-17-to-get-chinese-developed-aesa.html

So in terms of detection the JF-17 has done a lot of catching up and you pretty much get the idea it is being done with a particular opponent in mind.

A good post. Thank you. With the advent of AESA PAF maybe able to track and attack multiple targets simultaneously. If this goes upto 4 we will need at least 4 BVRs plus 2 WVRs as a typical interception load. While the JFT can currently carry 2+2. The answer may lie in a DER which will allow 4 BVRs to be carried.
PAFs field of action will not require it to cross too far into the Indian border.
Now the role of the next fighter to counter the latest entries into the IAF repertoire may require out of the box thinking. Do we bite the bullet and induct the SU35 knowing fully the headache of dealing with the Russians or wait for a fifth generation fighter from the Chinese and tweek it to our requirements. There are pros and cons of both lines of thinking. However we cannot deny that there is a need for at least 2-3Squadrons of long range Multirole AC. Will it be 5th or late 4th generation needs to be seen.
A

 

[Shabi1]

A good post. Thank you. With the advent of AESA PAF maybe able to track and attack multiple targets simultaneously. If this goes upto 4 we will need at least 4 BVRs plus 2 WVRs as a typical interception load. While the JFT can currently carry 2+2. The answer may lie in a DER which will allow 4 BVRs to be carried.
PAFs field of action will not require it to cross too far into the Indian border.
Now the role of the next fighter to counter the latest entries into the IAF repertoire may require out of the box thinking. Do we bite the bullet and induct the SU35 knowing fully the headache of dealing with the Russians or wait for a fifth generation fighter from the Chinese and tweek it to our requirements. There are pros and cons of both lines of thinking. However we cannot deny that there is a need for at least 2-3Squadrons of long range Multirole AC. Will it be 5th or late 4th generation needs to be seen.
A

PAF already has multi shot BVR capability, AESA just gives the capability to do something more efficiently. And it's transceivers are capable of additional task so can replace some electronics/antennas for EW, data link and communication which would reduce weight and drag. For eg Gripen NG has less antennas compared with Gripen C.

Next big thing for PAF will be induction of High Off Bore Sight Missiles. A-Darter and PL-10. AIM-9X as well if ever released to Pakistan.

According to Wikipedia Pakistan and Bangladesh are both operators of PL-9C (F-7PG/BG) which can be slaved to a helmet mounted sight but have yet to see it mounted on a PAF fighter. PL-10 has the added advantage of having similar weight to the PL-5EII it will be replacing.

In replying to your question my personal opinion is although SU-35 addresses the shortcomings Russian jets had compared to western jets in maintenance it's better to skip the SU-35s and save up for something better (Project Azm/J-31/FC-31). Since by all accounts great effort is being made to keep Mirages airworthy till or through 2025 this seems to be the plan.

 

[Armchair]

Interesting discussion. I think MERs are needed given the low pk expected in real combat against the EW available on both sides. Perhaps BVR shots could have, in actual combat, as low as 0.3 pk.

If we make the analysis a bit more complex and assume that a second shot would have a higher pk (since the aircraft would have exhausted its speed and maneuver from the first shot) that would be even more interesting. Assuming its pk for the second shot goes up to 0.7, you'd basically 79% probabiliyt of destroying the target with two shots. meaning approximately you'd need two BVR shots against each aerial target to have an approximately 80-90% chance of destroying it.

This means that a JF-17 with 4 bvrs can essentially engage 2 incoming IAF fighters.

It would have an energy disadvantage against the MKI and Rafales but this is potentially compensated by the longer range of the SD-10As.

The only other disadvantage JF-17s would have would be EW on the Rafales and MKI being more powerful systems. The AESA would help countering this. Also, the low RCS of the JF-17, while not a meaningful measure for stealth, is effective as regards EW. That is, the smaller the RCS, the more effective defensive EW is for an aircraft.

Conversely, the bigger the RCS, the harder the EW on an aircraft has to work. This may be the main reason why the Rafale has significant investment in RCS reduction - it cannot hope to be invisible to radar like a 5th gen, but it can use its lower RCS to multiply the effectiveness of its EW.

The main reason to go for the Su-35 is because of the naval role. PN needs Su-35 to maintain air cover over its naval assets. JF-17s or F-16s simply don't have the legs for this kind of CAP. I am not quite sure the Azm can fit into that role with two thirsty RD-93 types. Unless you go for a pure delta dart design compensated with thrust vectoring.

 

[Armchair-General]

Interesting discussion. I think MERs are needed given the low pk expected in real combat against the EW available on both sides. Perhaps BVR shots could have, in actual combat, as low as 0.3 pk.

If we make the analysis a bit more complex and assume that a second shot would have a higher pk (since the aircraft would have exhausted its speed and maneuver from the first shot) that would be even more interesting. Assuming its pk for the second shot goes up to 0.7, you'd basically 79% probabiliyt of destroying the target with two shots. meaning approximately you'd need two BVR shots against each aerial target to have an approximately 80-90% chance of destroying it.

This means that a JF-17 with 4 bvrs can essentially engage 2 incoming IAF fighters.

It would have an energy disadvantage against the MKI and Rafales but this is potentially compensated by the longer range of the SD-10As.

The only other disadvantage JF-17s would have would be EW on the Rafales and MKI being more powerful systems. The AESA would help countering this. Also, the low RCS of the JF-17, while not a meaningful measure for stealth, is effective as regards EW. That is, the smaller the RCS, the more effective defensive EW is for an aircraft.

Conversely, the bigger the RCS, the harder the EW on an aircraft has to work. This may be the main reason why the Rafale has significant investment in RCS reduction - it cannot hope to be invisible to radar like a 5th gen, but it can use its lower RCS to multiply the effectiveness of its EW.

The main reason to go for the Su-35 is because of the naval role. PN needs Su-35 to maintain air cover over its naval assets. JF-17s or F-16s simply don't have the legs for this kind of CAP. I am not quite sure the Azm can fit into that role with two thirsty RD-93 types. Unless you go for a pure delta dart design compensated with thrust vectoring.

The Russians are designing a new engine RD93MA specifically for the Thunder. It should have improved fuel consumption and thrust.

 

[Armchair]

May not be good enough to give the Azm the legs needed for the naval role PN needs. The Su-35 would be ideal, except for the munitions, or lack thereof.

 

[BATMAN]

When PAF designed the JF-17 they knew it might one day have to stand it's ground against SU-30s. Which is why they keep updating it's specs, and now with the Blk-3 they have Rafael to counter too. I do recall news articles that PAF requested capability change on the JF-17 to counter SU-30 when the 4th prototype was revealed.

AA combat has way too many variables to be like a video game. Technology has advanced but BVR weapon hit rates are questionable against ECM/countermeasure equipped maneuverable targets.

https://defenseissues.net/2013/04/27/usefulness-of-bvr-combat/
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

So a JF-17 might be the under dog but if it comes up against a SU-30 it will not be a easy kill for a SU-30 or Rafael where they merely press a button. A great deal of pilot skill and situational variables are involved.

Presence of data linked AWACs makes it more complicated for both sides as well.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-...down-SU-30-MKI-and-Rafale-in-case-of-conflict

https://quwa.org/2016/07/11/jf-17-ii-introducing-bvr-precision-strike-updated/
"
But the lack of new F-16s (or a modern fighter in lieu of it) was being felt, especially in the context of the Indian Air Force (IAF)’s modernization programs (centering on the Sukhoi Su-30MKI). Simply replacing the F-7s and Mirages was not going to be enough for the PAF, it needed something that not only offered a substantive improvement, but gave it a solution that was in line with the expectations of the day. The sense one gets from the 1990s and 2000s is that most of the PAF’s fighters did not and – for the most part – could not utilize the latest in combat technology. Even the Mirages, which could be equipped with some level of BVR and precision-guided strike capability, had a limit in terms of its longevity.

Put simply, whenever sanctions hit, the PAF had to depend on fighters that were a generation behind the ‘current.’ In the aftermath of the 1965 War, the PAF had to source F-6s from China, but like the rest of its contemporaries, it probably would have preferred grabbing the Northrop F-5 Tiger II. When it was supposed to have been receiving F-16s, the PAF had to deepen its dependence on F-7s and Mirage III/5s.

The JF-17 Thunder is a different story. It is a modern platform with the room to carry current as well as future subsystems. Yes, it is not a high-performance platform like the Dassault Rafale, but it is a platform capable of using most (if not potentially all) of the very same munitions and subsystems found on pricier alternatives. The only real bottleneck would be Pakistan’s financial capacities.
"

And to add to this SU-30MKI carries a NO11M PESA radar. It's detection range is 140km against a Mig-29 class fighter safe to assume for a JF-17 should be lesser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bars_radar
"N011M has a search range of 400 km and a tracking range of 200 km, with 60 km in the rear in the air-to-air mode. Detection range fighter type MIG-29 in area of review of over 300 sq. deg: - on towards course - up to 140 km; - in pursuit of - up to 60 km.[4] Up to 15 air targets can be tracked at once in track while scan mode with 4 of these engaged at once.[5]The N011M can use a number of short range and speed search modes and is capable of identifying the type and number of multiple targets."

Now coming to JF-17 detection ranges are KLJ-7V1 105km vs 5m2, KLJ-7V2 135km vs 5m2 and KLJ-7A 170km Vs 5m2. And since JF-17 is PAF's own fighter and it makes these KLJ radars locally more improvements will occur from manufacturers and they will be passed onto existing fleet without hindrances or international negotiations.
The reason why the huge comparative improvement is the KLJ-7A is AESA and AESAs can achieve the same performance as a PESA but with a much smaller size, lower power and cooling requirements, then compared with a PESA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLJ-7
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.blogspot.com/2018/03/jf-17-to-get-chinese-developed-aesa.html

So in terms of detection the JF-17 has done a lot of catching up and you pretty much get the idea it is being done with a particular opponent in mind.

Actually, India is slowly moving away from the mentality of winning air war simply with press of button.
Though, Indian Airforce was quite stubborn, until they face the reality in US red flag.
Today India want small sized jets, they want nothing less than F-16 and F-35... US senators are in process of finding legal loop holes to pass US tech. to India, which is even banned for export.
IAF is in process of scraping its BVR missiles R73 of Russian origin. They are going to replace it either with French Meteor or something new with US help.
Indian govt./agencies are planning to cut budget of Indian navy in order to revolutionize IAF completely.
The only practical way to achieve this is to have production line of F-16 in India or some local version of F-16 branded as ram krishna murti.
It's like writing on the wall.

 

[Ultima Thule]

IAF is in process of scraping its BVR missiles R73 of Russian origin.

R-73 is not BVRAAM but a SRAAM (SHORT RANGE AIR TO AIR MISSILE) SIR @BATMAN

 

[BATMAN]

R-73 is not BVRAAM but a SRAAM (SHORT RANGE AIR TO AIR MISSILE) SIR @BATMAN

So it's R77 than!
i don't remember by heart.
Thanks for correction.

 

[Ultima Thule]

So it's R77 than! i don't remember by heart.

YEAH RIGHT ON THE SPOT SIR @BATMAN BUT THEY ARE NOT SCRAPPING IT BUT USING AS BACKUP FOR METEOR, DERBY, DERBY ER AND ALSO I'M TEELIN YA THAT METEOR IS NOT FRENCH PRODUCT BUT JOINT EU COLLABORATIONS @BATMAN SIR

 

[Shabi1]

Actually, India is slowly moving away from the mentality of winning air war simply with press of button.
Though, Indian Airforce was quite stubborn, until they face the reality in US red flag.
Today India want small sized jets, they want nothing less than F-16 and F-35... US senators are in process of finding legal loop holes to pass US tech. to India, which is even banned for export.
IAF is in process of scraping its BVR missiles R73 of Russian origin. They are going to replace it either with French Meteor or something new with US help.
Indian govt./agencies are planning to cut budget of Indian navy in order to revolutionize IAF completely.
The only practical way to achieve this is to have production line of F-16 in India or some local version of F-16 branded as ram krishna murti.
It's like writing on the wall.

Actually the irony if it all is the JF-17 is actually what India needed in it's inventory.

In fact if the Block-3 had been made by some country other than Pakistan/China it meets their requirements in their latest tender and addresses their budgetary constraints.

 

[Ultima Thule]

May not be good enough to give the Azm the legs needed for the naval role PN needs. The Su-35 would be ideal, except for the munitions, or lack thereof.

why you think that FC-31/J-31 have similar kind of engine WS-13/RD-93, that enough for maritime role, in my personal opinion project AZM will be medium weight class fighter jet, look at the world most top maritime jets they all have medium thrust engine f-18- rafale, mig-29 to ef2000 @Armchair