JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[SQ8]

Sir, with today's ever advancing technology, there aren't much "tactics" left. Its all Situational Awareness and Electronic CM's and EMJ. So the number of missiles a jet can carry with an AESA radar does matter as dedicated beams can steer various missiles.

Soon, in the next 3-5 years, having 6-8 BVR missiles minimum, wouldl become a standard AA configuration for even the smaller 4th gen jets upgraded with an AESA and MERs. Just watch how it plays out.

The USAF is even testing B1 types of an aircraft for a missile truck role, to support a few F-22's or F-35's from way behind where. Imagine that over 50 AMRAAM D's chasing after 30 SU-30's or J-11's, guided by like 4 F-22's and fired by 1 B1 Lancer.

Theoretically, you could take out over 100 interceptors in less then an hour and by only using one squadron of F-22's! Thanks

With ever advancing technology, the accuracy of missiles is also improving. So while arsenal aircraft sound very tempting, they also show up on radar much sooner than smaller aircraft. To top it off, regardless of AESA or not.. more shooters from different angles are always better than one shooter with lots of missiles.

That is what the PAF has endeavoured to do, and that is what it has achieved with the JF-17. It already enjoys a healthy advantage in pilot to airframe ratio over the IAF and it looks to remain so despite the IAF's well intention-ed efforts.

 

[Maxpane]

Any option to increase hardpoints in jf 17 ? just asking

One more question , with ws 13 can speed of aircraft reach to mach 2 ?

 

[DJ_Viper]

With ever advancing technology, the accuracy of missiles is also improving. So while arsenal aircraft sound very tempting, they also show up on radar much sooner than smaller aircraft. To top it off, regardless of AESA or not.. more shooters from different angles are always better than one shooter with lots of missiles.

That is what the PAF has endeavoured to do, and that is what it has achieved with the JF-17. It already enjoys a healthy advantage in pilot to airframe ratio over the IAF and it looks to remain so despite the IAF's well intention-ed efforts.

Alright man, I guess I've hit some ego there. There seems to be a lot of that on this forum. You think the USAF is dumb to try this out and try to incorporate this into their ops planning for the future . I guess I am done with this argument, as otherwise, this would trigger that endless loop argument that I witness on here day and night. Thanks

 

[araz]

Any option to increase hardpoints in jf 17 ? just asking

One more question , with ws 13 can speed of aircraft reach to mach 2 ?

If you look at a typical war load out it will be 1 centre line tank +2 WVRs +4 BVRs. JFT will achieve that with a DER which is in the offing so why do we want to increase the hardpoints. I would have thought a chin or inlet mounted pylon for a POD will be added but what do we achieve by spending the money to add the hardpoints. The real benefit would be in EW suite and radars which is what is being done.
A

 

[Ultima Thule]

One more question , with ws 13 can speed of aircraft reach to mach 2 ?

it can't reach Mach 2 because of DSI intake but near it

 

[Maxpane]

If you look at a typical war load out it will be 1 centre line tank +2 WVRs +4 BVRs. JFT will achieve that with a DER which is in the offing so why do we want to increase the hardpoints. I would have thought a chin or inlet mounted pylon for a POD will be added but what do we achieve by spending the money to add the hardpoints. The real benefit would be in EW suite and radars which is what is being done.
A

Okay sir g . thanks for sgaring information

it can't reach Mach 2 because of DSI intake but near it

hmm Okay sir g.

One more question . how can jf 17 stand againgst su 30 mki ? i dnt have aviation knowledge . am just asking for knowledge .

 

[OTTOMAN]

PAC should consider refining DSI design.
It has never been touched ever since PT04.

 

[AFlover]

4.5 Gen aircrafts like Rafale, EF, SU35 etc have 11 to 13 hard points.

This is F-18 carrying 8 Aim-120 and 2 Aim-9. Thats a great use of dual racks.
View attachment 359888
Such a setup could increase JF-17 SD-10 payload.

Probably Mid air refuelling is just one way to keep JF-17 in air for a long time. Addition of CFT would have been great but then take off weight would also need to be considered.



Excellent point. I second your stance.

Thanks for explanations brother

 

[Signalian]

Alright man, I guess I've hit some ego there. There seems to be a lot of that on this forum. You think the USAF is dumb to try this out and try to incorporate this into their ops planning for the future . I guess I am done with this argument, as otherwise, this would trigger that endless loop argument that I witness on here day and night. Thanks

Was recently thinking about the same thing (highlighted) . A major reason why i also leave the convo in airforce section and venture off to a different thread. Giving pictorial proofs and logical engineering standing makes no difference also.

 

[messiach]

Design specifications were frozen in 2000-01. DER or CFT were not entertained but with Mil-Std-1760+ architecture these can be introduced as the need arise.

 

[Ultima Thule]

hmm Okay sir g.

One more question . how can jf 17 stand againgst su 30 mki ? i dnt have aviation knowledge . am just asking for knowledge .

its 50 50, you have to look at the capabilities of both jets, Su-30MKI is a big and heavy jet which mean it has a better radar, avionics, ECM and ESM but has a bigger RCS "RADAR CROSS SECTION" of 15 square meter where as JF-17 is a light weight jet and less RCS than Su-30MKI of 1.2 square meter.
Su-30MKI Radar range is 300 Km, but it has to come 150 Km or so to detect JF-17 because of JF-17 small RCS, where as JF-17 can detect Su-30MKI early within its radar range because of Su-30MKI's big RCS.
that somehow help you bro its basically a rough comparasion

 

[MastanKhan]

PAC should consider refining DSI design.
It has never been touched ever since PT04.

Hi,

That design won't change---it's utility has achieved the maximus---thus it will stay as such---.

There are a few thing in an airframe design that stay 'frozen' and DSI is one of those.

Design specifications were frozen in 2000-01. DER or CFT were not entertained but with Mil-Std-1760+ architecture these can be introduced as the need arise.

Hi,

I think that was an intelligent choice---. The first choice of a great design is that is simple and extremely functional.

Its minimum threshold was to exceed the maximum performance of the mirage 3 / 5 and the F7 PG's---which it has already achieved---.

Please correct me on this---I think that it is too small of an aircraft---or the wing design is as such that the CFT may not be feasible.

 

[The SC]

just look at vixen...it includes top mounted irst too....same way it would be good if klj7a comes up with this

Take a look at both, KLJ-7A has enough room to integrate an IRST on its top

 

[Maxpane]

its 50 50, you have to look at the capabilities of both jets, Su-30MKI is a big and heavy jet which mean it has a better radar, avionics, ECM and ESM but has a bigger RCS "RADAR CROSS SECTION" of 15 square meter where as JF-17 is a light weight jet and less RCS than Su-30MKI of 1.2 square meter.
Su-30MKI Radar range is 300 Km, but it has to come 150 Km or so to detect JF-17 because of JF-17 small RCS, where as JF-17 can detect Su-30MKI early within its radar range because of Su-30MKI's big RCS.
that somehow help you bro its basically a rough comparasion

okay thanks

 

[WarFariX]

Take a look at both, KLJ-7A has enough room to integrate an IRST on its top

Yep but dont know y PAF isnt go8ng for nose IRST....it still wants to mount irst externally below nose hp