JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Deino]

...
pl-15E will be the bvr, while pl-10E will fulfill the off boresight wvr role. I am told by no less than two sources.

Same was mentioned in the media and PAF secured air to air missiles of unknown origin last year.

Lets see..

I fully agree with you that both the PL-15E and PL-10E are a most likely given fact, but so far nothing is confirmed and - again as You wrote adding to my post - a twin-launcher for the PL-15 was not even seen on any PLAAF Flanker and is IMO impossible for the JF-17, which was not even seen with a twin launcher for the smaller PL-15.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

View attachment 611098

First pic of "246". Thanks. Wish, I could see the full serial number showing the year. Assumption is, it is 17-246.

 

[LKJ86]

Hold on mate, no dual racks for bigger, heavier pl-15.

PL-15 is not so bigger and heavier than PL-12.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Hold on mate, no dual racks for bigger, heavier pl-15. Blk 3 will just carry four of those on one pylon each. HMDS will be in the production models.

Selection of KLJ-7A AESA by default means the blk 3 will have Chinese origin bvr, wvr and some inhouse weapons/ sensors/ avionics in it.



pl-15E will be the bvr, while pl-10E will fulfill the off boresight wvr role. I am told by no less than two sources.

Same was mentioned in the media and PAF secured air to air missiles of unknown origin last year.

Lets see..

Sir you mean Thunder blk 3 can carry 4 Pl 15s with 3 Fuel Tanks(one on centerline and 2 under each wing)?

PL-15 is not so bigger and heavier than PL-12.
View attachment 611917

What is the missile above PL 15?

Selection of KLJ-7A AESA by default means the blk 3 will have Chinese origin bvr, wvr and some inhouse weapons/ sensors/ avionics in it.

Do you know what is the range of KLJ7A to lock?
@Deino @LKJ86

 

[Shah_Deu]

• I dont think 2 PL-15s combined would be heavier than a C-802 (~800kg). For reference a PL-12 is ~180kg.

• Inferring from the lengths shared above, the weight of a PL-15 should still be much less than the total load the hardpoints can carry.

• The diameter of the PL-15 apparently seems to be less than 2x the dia of a PL-12. IMHO a dual rack could easily be a possiblity for PL-15.

• Just because a PLAAF flanker doesnt employ a dual rack is a bad logic to go by since Flankers have no dearth of hardpoints for a dual rack to be considered.

 

[Deino]

Sir you mean Thunder blk 3 can carry 4 Pl 15s with 3 Fuel Tanks(one on centerline and 2 under each wing)?

No, 4 wing pylons with one PL.15 each and at best a centreline FT.

What is the missile above PL 15?

The alleged PL-17 (? via Huitong ?) ULR-AAM.

Do you know what is the range of KLJ7A to lock?
@Deino @LKJ86

Nope, not me, but maybe @Quwa ?

 

[LKJ86]

so far we haven't seen any confirmed PL-15 on any JF-17 and even less a double rack, not even on a J-11B or J-16

a twin-launcher for the PL-15 was not even seen on any PLAAF Flanker and is IMO impossible for the JF-17

J-11B or J-16 doesn't need a twin-launcher.
But J-10 and JF-17 need it sometimes.

 

[Deino]

• I dont think 2 PL-15s combined would be heavier than a C-802 (~800kg). For reference a PL-12 is ~180kg.

• Inferring from the lengths shared above, the weight of a PL-15 should still be much less than the total load the hardpoints can carry.

• The diameter of the PL-15 also seems to be less than 2x the dia of the PL-10. IMHO a dual rack could easily be a possiblity for PL-15.

• Just because a PLAAF flanker doesnt employ a dual rack is a bad logic to go by since Flankers have no dearth of hardpoints for a dual rack to be considered.

Yes, maybe, eventually.. but so far we haven't seen either a PL-12-dual rack nor a PL-15 itself on a JF-17 nor a dual-rack for PL-15s in any way, so why should it be??

Only since we haven't seen little green men on Mars, does not mean they are there!

All these post are IMO too much wish-full thinking.

J-11B or J-16 doesn't need a twin-launcher.
But J-10 and JF-17 need it sometimes.
View attachment 611918 View attachment 611919

Agreed, but so far we haven't seen a real twin-launcher on any JF-17 and in fact none for the PL-15 ...

 

[Dazzler]

Yes, maybe, eventually.. but so far we haven't seen either a PL-12-dual rack nor a PL-15 itself on a JF-17 nor a dual-rack for PL-15s in any way, so why should it be??

Only since we haven't seen little green men on Mars, does not mean they are there!

All these post are IMO too much wish-full thinking.




Agreed, but so far we haven't seen a real twin-launcher on any JF-17 and in fact none for the PL-15 ...

SD-10As have smaller shelf life compared to the AMRAAM, hence we dont see thunders carrying them on twin rails. Nevertheless, SD-10A is a lethal asset. The capability is there and will be exploited when needed.

 

[LKJ86]

so far we haven't seen a real twin-launcher on any JF-17 and in fact none for the PL-15 ...

Just depend on the need.

 

[Shah_Deu]

Yes, maybe, eventually.. but so far we haven't seen either a PL-12-dual rack nor a PL-15 itself on a JF-17 nor a dual-rack for PL-15s in any way, so why should it be??

Only since we haven't seen little green men on Mars, does not mean they are there!

All these post are IMO too much wish-full thinking.

Agreed, but so far we haven't seen a real twin-launcher on any JF-17 and in fact none for the PL-15 ...

Yes you are right, although we havent seen a dual rack employing PL-15s, not having seen something doesnt rule out its possibility at all especially in the domain of design and development which itself is innovative and evolves with time.

Going by the publically available data to make inferences is called statistics. And thinking about green men on Mars is at best called a conspiracy theory. You just equated statistics with a conspiracy theory! wow! The whole world of science would come to a halt if we keep justifying the possibility of something by the absense of green men on Mars!

 

[Dazzler]

Sir you mean Thunder blk 3 can carry 4 Pl 15s with 3 Fuel Tanks(one on centerline and 2 under each wing)?


What is the missile above PL 15?


Do you know what is the range of KLJ7A to lock?
@Deino @LKJ86

Original version had these specs.

It is said that later versions can detect 5m2 target over 220km away. Tracking range is classified.

 

[HRK]

2016 Chinese Airshow

this mean the version shown in 2016 had >150 KM range to 5m/sq target

 

[Irfan Baloch]

A clear marketing pitch for more Rafale by creating doubts against F-21, it has nothing in favour of PAF JF-17 or F-16 fleet.

I just want to make a point about hardware options for the Jf-17 we are pretty much stuck with mainly Chinese technology and hope its at par or close to the the west as much possible.

Tianman square incident really hurt Chinese access to Western technology and permanent hostility which indirectly affected Pakistan as well. West is systematically denying the technology access to Pakistan and the only small avenue left is Turkey due to its NATO membership but that too is in jeopardy due to the politics in the middle east and the purchase of Russian missile defense eventually resulting in the removal from F35 program.

 

[LKJ86]

Tianman square incident really hurt Chinese access to Western technology

And then China develops its own independent military industrial system, otherwise China would be another "India".

China should really thank the sanctions from the west.