What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

CFT will add to the drag. Unless we get a more powerful engine i dont think CFT is an option
The problem with drag is common be it CFT or drop tanks. Issue is is PAF inducting a new engine or modifying the existing engine to produce higher thrust.
Drop tanks can be jettisoned whereas CFT can not so the real question should be what are the PAF engineers and higher management considering, Stealth with speed or just speed for JF-17
 
.
Any news about klj7a radar's tr module type i.e are they GaA based or GaN?

And block iiis engin same Rd 93?

And is there any news about its jhmcs if any?

is built in irst part of block iii package?


- 7A has just under 1100 TR modules, likely GaN as Chinese AESA tech is maturing fast.

- Possibly 93MA

- HMDS with pl-10 wvr is there

- IRST status still not known
 
.
SOURCE: CHINA DAILY MAIL
As the JF-17 is one of China’s “clean slate” designs, this bodes well for the reliability characteristics of the current generation of Chinese aircraft. However, the JF-17 still uses a Russian engine, and the Pakistan Air Force rejected offers to use Chinese engines in their JF-17s in 2015. Engines remain a critical weakness in the Chinese aerospace industry. The 2019 India-Pakistan border skirmish resulted in major shake-ups within the Indian Air Force (IAF). The most accepted narrative, that of a loss of an IAF MiG-21 Bison to no losses of the Pakistan Air Force bodes poorly for the IAF. But interestingly, according to a July interview, the skirmish marked one of the first “hot” use of Pakistan’s new Chinese JF-17 “Thunder” fighters. The JF-17 is a relatively new single-engine fighter, meant to compete against other light fighters like the F-16, Gripen, and MiG-29 for export contracts. As the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is the only large user, most solid information about the aircraft is from Chinese marketing documents. But the July interview gives one pilot’s opinion on how the JF-17 stacks up against most common adversaries, from Sukhois to F-16s. The extent of the JF-17’s “hot” usage following the border skirmish was in patrols near the border. In some incidents, the pilot said that during these patrols, he was getting radar lock-on Su-30MKIs at ranges in excess of 100 kilometers. However, this doesn’t mean that a JF-17 could kill with a missile at that range. The JF-17’s primary beyond-visual-range (BVR) armament is the PL-12 missile, which is still undergoing integration (as of February 2019). During the actual border air skirmish, PAF F-16s lobbed AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM missiles at similar ranges, which forced IAF aircraft to go defensive to dodge the missiles, but no kills were scored. As the PL-12 is said to have a similar range to the AMRAAM, it’s likely that its kinematic performance at range is similar, and it too wouldn’t be able to score a kill. But if the JF-17 allows the pilot to “lob” a missile at planes at such ranges, it still might be a step ahead of the IAF’s Su-30MKIs. According to an NDTV report, the Russian R-77 missiles cannot engage targets past 80 km. Despite the Su-30’s missile limitations, the JF-17 pilot said that the Su-30 was one of the most formidable threats the PAF faces. This is likely due to the strong engines and maneuvering capability of the Su-30, which allows it to recover energy quickly after maneuvering and makes it hard to shoot down in a within visual range (WVR) engagement. Interestingly, the pilot then goes onto state that he’s not that afraid of the Su-30 because he’s trained against F-16s with AMRAAMs, which he thinks is a far superior missile. The pilot also states that the MICA on the Mirage is also a significant threat. This suggests that the pilot probably thinks that the fight will be largely decided, or largely influenced by the BVR stage of the engagement and that the JF-17’s capabilities in that arena are competitive to the F-16 and Mirage. However, the pilot does say that the JF-17’s limited BVR loadout is its main weakness, as most models of the JF-17 can only carry four BVR missiles, compared to the Su-30MKI which can carry eight or more. The pilot also gives good marks to the JF-17 for reliability, flight characteristics, and maintenance. As the JF-17 is one of China’s “clean slate” designs, this bodes well for the reliability characteristics of the current generation of Chinese aircraft. However, the JF-17 still uses a Russian engine, and the PAF rejected offers to use Chinese engines in their JF-17s in 2015. Engines remain a critical weakness in the Chinese aerospace industry.


SD-10 has been in active service and employed for scramble since 2013.
 
.
69948069_2526119307445458_104970327859134464_n.jpg
69948069_2526119307445458_104970327859134464_n.jpg
 
.
SOURCE: CHINA DAILY MAIL
As the JF-17 is one of China’s “clean slate” designs, this bodes well for the reliability characteristics of the current generation of Chinese aircraft. However, the JF-17 still uses a Russian engine, and the Pakistan Air Force rejected offers to use Chinese engines in their JF-17s in 2015. Engines remain a critical weakness in the Chinese aerospace industry. The 2019 India-Pakistan border skirmish resulted in major shake-ups within the Indian Air Force (IAF). The most accepted narrative, that of a loss of an IAF MiG-21 Bison to no losses of the Pakistan Air Force bodes poorly for the IAF. But interestingly, according to a July interview, the skirmish marked one of the first “hot” use of Pakistan’s new Chinese JF-17 “Thunder” fighters. The JF-17 is a relatively new single-engine fighter, meant to compete against other light fighters like the F-16, Gripen, and MiG-29 for export contracts. As the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is the only large user, most solid information about the aircraft is from Chinese marketing documents. But the July interview gives one pilot’s opinion on how the JF-17 stacks up against most common adversaries, from Sukhois to F-16s. The extent of the JF-17’s “hot” usage following the border skirmish was in patrols near the border. In some incidents, the pilot said that during these patrols, he was getting radar lock-on Su-30MKIs at ranges in excess of 100 kilometers. However, this doesn’t mean that a JF-17 could kill with a missile at that range. The JF-17’s primary beyond-visual-range (BVR) armament is the PL-12 missile, which is still undergoing integration (as of February 2019). During the actual border air skirmish, PAF F-16s lobbed AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM missiles at similar ranges, which forced IAF aircraft to go defensive to dodge the missiles, but no kills were scored. As the PL-12 is said to have a similar range to the AMRAAM, it’s likely that its kinematic performance at range is similar, and it too wouldn’t be able to score a kill. But if the JF-17 allows the pilot to “lob” a missile at planes at such ranges, it still might be a step ahead of the IAF’s Su-30MKIs. According to an NDTV report, the Russian R-77 missiles cannot engage targets past 80 km. Despite the Su-30’s missile limitations, the JF-17 pilot said that the Su-30 was one of the most formidable threats the PAF faces. This is likely due to the strong engines and maneuvering capability of the Su-30, which allows it to recover energy quickly after maneuvering and makes it hard to shoot down in a within visual range (WVR) engagement. Interestingly, the pilot then goes onto state that he’s not that afraid of the Su-30 because he’s trained against F-16s with AMRAAMs, which he thinks is a far superior missile. The pilot also states that the MICA on the Mirage is also a significant threat. This suggests that the pilot probably thinks that the fight will be largely decided, or largely influenced by the BVR stage of the engagement and that the JF-17’s capabilities in that arena are competitive to the F-16 and Mirage. However, the pilot does say that the JF-17’s limited BVR loadout is its main weakness, as most models of the JF-17 can only carry four BVR missiles, compared to the Su-30MKI which can carry eight or more. The pilot also gives good marks to the JF-17 for reliability, flight characteristics, and maintenance. As the JF-17 is one of China’s “clean slate” designs, this bodes well for the reliability characteristics of the current generation of Chinese aircraft. However, the JF-17 still uses a Russian engine, and the PAF rejected offers to use Chinese engines in their JF-17s in 2015. Engines remain a critical weakness in the Chinese aerospace industry.
China daily mail is a media from Australia website. Nothing from China and zero credibility regards anything including JF-17 project since they have zero first hand info from China nor any state support credibility.
 
. .
It is known as calculated information control. A slip of the tongue online can have repercussions later.
Better to feign ignorance, or even if accurate information is released that gives a clearer insight into capabilities, the idea is to downplay it.

The same way the ex-PAF personnel claimed it was JF-17 that scored a kill initially to downplay the usage of the AMRAAM.
i doubt the wisdom of it because amraams were fired deep inside iok and they found at least one of them so
 
.
I am only posting what @fatman17 stated in another thread regarding JF-17 AESA / PL15... https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistan-air-force-news-discussions.8600/page-485#post-11744154
I've been able to confirm PAF interest in AESA/PL-15 integration for JF-17 Block-III. It will enable JF-17s to engage targets at extended BVR ranges, where the aircraft itself will not be visible on enemy's radar due to low RCS. We're talking 150+ km.

Due to the integration of AESA radar, the JF-17s will not only become resistant to enemy's jamming but will have on station jamming, EW capabilities of their own. This will be further enhanced by the integration of a modular plug & play EW pod, mounted on the chin hard point.
These are tweets of Shahid Reza

Sir though missile range is important but their is another question can PL-15 target Rafael after countering the defensive measures taken by the jet.
 
.
Sir though missile range is important but their is another question can PL-15 target Rafael after countering the defensive measures taken by the jet.
Bro that's a hypothetical question unless it's used against it
 
.
Sir though missile range is important but their is another question can PL-15 target Rafael after countering the defensive measures taken by the jet.
The Amraams hit their mark in high jamming so it is possible that PL-15 would also be as effective.
@fatman17 can you provide some more info in this regard.
 
.
The Amraams hit their mark in high jamming so it is possible that PL-15 would also be as effective.
@fatman17 can you provide some more info in this regard.

Sir my question was in context of superior defensive capabilities of Rafael as compared to existing jets of Indian Air force. In similar way as Indians were unable to lock on Pak F16s due to dense jamming and other defensive measures.

The Amraams hit their mark in high jamming so it is possible that PL-15 would also be as effective.
@fatman17 can you provide some more info in this regard.

Sir high jamming was on Pak side as no AWACS at time was available on Indian side moreover SU30s instead of coming for a fight preferred to remain away from conflict zone so PAF jets launched their AAMs from longer distances.
 
. . . .
In another thread read that PAF is working on new high speed fuel tank so that speed of JF-17 can be increased, just wondering if PAF would work on lines of Boeing to design not just drop tanks but something that can effectively increase stealthier JF-17 similar to the advanced super hornet F-18's Conformal Fuel Tank and Stealth Weapon Pod. No doubt PAF is going to be induction a new engine which would have a higher thrust to weight ratio as well as lower fuel consumption.
Yes, if they could do it with f-6's why not here?
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom