JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[StormBreaker]

and for ground attack ???

But isn’t it just an ASh CM ? Ohh, i get it, well... Terrain is a mere word these days. Lock is the main play

 

[razgriz19]

This is definitely the first time I've seen a picture of Mirage with the so called H2/H4

The reason why H-2/4 SOW can't be used by JF-17. Not Enough ground clearance for JF-17 to carry it on its center line HP. @hassan1 shared a very rare pic of H-2/4 today

 

[khanasifm]

This is definitely the first time I've seen a picture of Mirage with the so called H2/H4

So aim-9p version still with paf , aim9p4 is all aspect version while previous aim-9p1-3 are rear aspect only

Question is did paf upgrade aim-9p to p4 which requires changing if seeker ?

Mostly aircraft with no airborne radar carry aim-9p while airborne radar aircraft f-7 mirage 3 with grifo and f-16 carry aim-9L OR M MIKE

 

[HRK]

I don't think after making two variants of REK, RA'AD-I and II cruise missiles and H-2 and H-4 in house production it will be difficult for AWC to design new powered or glide SOW for JF-17.

It seems the main issue of RA'ÁD missiles are related to its air frame which in my opinion are

- Related to wide horizontal stabilisers at its rear section near exhaust
- Pop-out air intake at the bottom

So to make the RA'AD missile compatible with JF-17 redesign of these sections of air frame should do the job and in this case it is not like that we have to invent such solutions which were never think or used before, we have examples of

- X-type cross stabilisers against Horizontal stabiliser and
- Side Air intakes to turbojet engine

Examples of X-type cross stabilisers

- Examples of Side Air intake

other than this we should keep in mind that there is option of GB-6A cruise missile which is a version of GB-6 glide dispenser from China exist which if required can be used as stopgap solution ....

 

[PakFactor]

I don't think after making two variants of REK, RA'AD-I and II cruise missiles and H-2 and H-4 in house production it will be difficult for AWC to design new powered or glide SOW for JF-17.

It seems the main issue of RA'ÁD missiles are related to its air frame which in my opinion are

- Related to wide horizontal stabilisers at its rear section near exhaust
- Pop-out air intake at the bottom

So to make the RA'AD missile compatible with JF-17 redesign of these sections of air frame should do the job and in this case it is not like that we have to invent such solutions which were never think or used before, we have examples of

- X-type cross stabilisers against Horizontal stabiliser and
- Side Air intakes to turbojet engine

Examples of X-type cross stabilisers
View attachment 591574
View attachment 591575
View attachment 591578

- Examples of Side Air intake
View attachment 591576
View attachment 591577

other than this we should keep in mind that there is option of GB-6A cruise missile which is a version of GB-6 glide dispenser from China exist which if required can be used as stopgap solution ....
View attachment 591572

The Turks developed their own SOW can’t we just have them modify it to integrate into our jets with sources codes and stuff.

 

[HRK]

The Turks developed their own SOW can’t we just have them modify it to integrate into our jets with sources codes and stuff.

- Would it be available in strategic role ....?? In my opinion it would not be available in this role

- Why buy a new system when our own homegrown system works just fine, it just need little bit of adaption as per the requirements for the integration to the platform other than Mirage jets ....

As far as Turkish SOM missile is concern, it could be a useful addition to our F-16 fleet which lack any long range strike weapon package as no such weapon is released for our F-16 fleet by USA, therefore there is a possibility that USA would veto SOM integration with PAF F-16 fleet, otherwise it would be a welcome addition

 

[araz]

- Would it be available in strategic role ....?? In my opinion it would not be available in this role

- Why buy a new system when our own homegrown system works just fine, it just need little bit of adaption as per the requirements for the integration to the platform other than Mirage jets ....

As far as Turkish SOM missile is concern, it could be a useful addition to our F-16 fleet which lack any long range strike weapon package as no such weapon is released for our F-16 fleet by USA, therefore there is a possibility that USA would veto SOM integration with PAF F-16 fleet, otherwise it would be a welcome addition

All new integrations would require OEM express permission before integration. Itt would be denied or if approved would be done by them costing money to us.
A

 

[Haris Ali2140]

All new integrations would require OEM express permission before integration. Itt would be denied or if approved would be done by them costing money to us.
A

Do we also need approval in case of mirages???

 

[krash]

Yes that is correct in terms of H4; however you assume that targets are known when using Al-tariq or Umbani. To be able to switch targets once in flight or deviation is where H4 still stands out not to mention multi-mode capabilities.

Very true. Providing video evidence of shoving a bomb up your enemy's behind is another.

However, one would imagine that in today's day and age one would not need to keep following the released ordinance to continue providing input. It defeats the purpose of an SOW, at least somewhat. Needing a different aircraft altogether to provide guidance is also something I did not understand. Are the limitations born out of a limited satellite communications capability or is it the weapon itself?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the GBU-15, for example, the pilot releases the bomb, turns the aircraft around towards safety, puts it in autopilot and then guides the weapon to the target all by himself. I understand that the difference in respective ranges does skew the comparison by a bit, I just wanted to give an example of how it should be.

 

[ziaulislam]

Do we also need approval in case of mirages???

I dont think so..it basically only a skeleton with all avionics being license built by pakistan

 

[denel]

Very true. Providing video evidence of shoving a bomb up your enemy's behind is another.

However, one would imagine that in today's day and age one would not need to keep following the released ordinance to continue providing input. It defeats the purpose of an SOW, at least somewhat. Needing a different aircraft altogether to provide guidance is also something I did not understand. Are the limitations born out of a limited satellite communications capability or is it the weapon itself?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the GBU-15, for example, the pilot releases the bomb, turns the aircraft around towards safety, puts it in autopilot and then guides the weapon to the target all by himself. I understand that the difference in respective ranges does skew the comparison by a bit, I just wanted to give an example of how it should be.

H4 can do what you described with gbu-15, it is also able to use multiple gps and still have guidance as a backup. In a high ew environment, gps signals can be jammed; guidance is literally ECM proof with multiple protocols/error recovery.

 

[denel]

Do we also need approval in case of mirages???

Absolutely NO. You own it and you do what you please.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Very true. Providing video evidence of shoving a bomb up your enemy's behind is another.

However, one would imagine that in today's day and age one would not need to keep following the released ordinance to continue providing input. It defeats the purpose of an SOW, at least somewhat. Needing a different aircraft altogether to provide guidance is also something I did not understand. Are the limitations born out of a limited satellite communications capability or is it the weapon itself?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the GBU-15, for example, the pilot releases the bomb, turns the aircraft around towards safety, puts it in autopilot and then guides the weapon to the target all by himself. I understand that the difference in respective ranges does skew the comparison by a bit, I just wanted to give an example of how it should be.

My understanding is that one would need speed & altitude to max H-4's range. This way the launching aircraft can stay within own airspace. But guidance can be provided at a radar-evading low altitude. So, using two aircraft is the safer option.

 

[khanasifm]

All details and schedule of block 3 and B model

AVIC has thrown its weight in favour or LKF radar ?? Not sure if it matter to paf as it’s doing it’s own Eval

 

[PakFactor]

All new integrations would require OEM express permission before integration. Itt would be denied or if approved would be done by them costing money to us.
A

That is Ridiculous after purchasing these platforms we need permission to integrate weapon systems limits our load kit what can and can’t be don’t.