JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[White and Green with M/S]

It does the job vs the M3 which have been refurbished no less than 5times; it is a miracle they have not broken apart like straws. Either ways, jh7 serves a very useful purpose.

The theatre of war is changing rapidly as has been shown by recent NKG areana with use of drones that can evade most of these high ticket AA systems. But that was still close proximity; further out units like JH7 could be used as drone carriers too

If we have the capability to do anti ship missions with JFT /Mirages/F-16 then who needs ONE MISSION SPECIFIC JH-7,, Next obvious Choice for PAF will be J-10C not your ONE MISSION SPECIFIC JH-7

 

[Neurath]

2 JF-17 Thunders armed and ready for takeoff at Skardu Airport/Airbase.
Taken from PAF MV "Mera Junoon"
Personally love this due to the beautiful scenery the birds are standing with.

 

[denel]

If we have the capability to do anti ship missions with JFT /Mirages/F-16 then who needs ONE MISSION SPECIFIC JH-7,, Next obvious Choice for PAF will be J-10C not your ONE MISSION SPECIFIC JH-7

I guess you still dont get the difference between strategic and tactical. They are different.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

I guess you still dont get the difference between strategic and tactical. They are different.

can you explain me what is strategic and tactical?? if J-10C has same capability or better capability as compare to JH-7 in almost all fields, so why we need JH

 

[mshan44]

 

[Xone]

can you explain me what is strategic and tactical?? if J-10C has same capability or better capability as compare to JH-7 in almost all fields, so why we need JH

JH-7 is a missile truck specially designed for a low flight in sea missions with less fuel consumption.
Whereas J-10C is a multi-rule fighter like JF with little better parameters in speed, Radar, and load-carrying more hungry in fuel consumption.
this is a summary comparison of the two.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

JH-7 is a missile truck specially designed for a low flight in sea missions with less fuel consumption.
Whereas J-10C is a multi-rule fighter like JF with little better parameters in speed, Radar, and load-carrying more hungry in fuel consumption.
this is a summary comparison of the two.

And what about air interception of JH if will attack Indian carrier battle group, than it become venerable (less maneuverable than J-10C/JFT) and how do you know that RD-93/WS-10/AL-31FN have a more fuel consumption as compare to WS-9, which based on old R&R design of (50s)

 

[SQ8]

Guys, could you all please stay on topic?

For these endless "JH-7A is the only way to PAF's survival" discussions we already have separate threads.

Thank you.

Reminds me of that Australian commentator.. Kopp something .. who wrote tirades upon tirades on the F-35 after his unrealistic F-111 upgrade what rejected.

At least he brought up some technical loghorrea to stand on ..here its just plain repetitive using payload and range to try and support a flawed idea rather than enlighten it based on merit.

 

[Xone]

And what about air interception of JH if will attack Indian carrier battle group, than it become venerable (less maneuverable than J-10C/JFT) and how do you know that RD-93/WS-10/AL-31FN have a more fuel consumption as compare to WS-9, which based on old R&R design of (50s)

JH-7 is less vulnerable due to low sea-skimming characteristics. I can carry more missiles than any other fighter. So it has a lot more in stock when others have nothing left once misfired the target. Yeah, it is less agile compared to others. but it is rapidly diminishing its relevance in the BVR first look first shot era. Our star JF-17 is 1.6 Mac while as should have been more than Mac 3.5

 

[CriticalThought]

Reminds me of that Australian commentator.. Kopp something .. who wrote tirades upon tirades on the F-35 after his unrealistic F-111 upgrade what rejected.

At least he brought up some technical loghorrea to stand on ..here its just plain repetitive using payload and range to try and support a flawed idea rather than enlighten it based on merit.

A very appropriate comparison. Time passes, technology gets old, we need to move forward. Except where it makes sense to upgrade, such as the B-52 fleet in USAF, or the Mirage fleet in PAF. In a manner, China may end up doing the same with JH-7s. It makes sense when you are already operating something in numbers and the entire MRO and infrastructure chain is already in place.

A much more rewarding direction for PAF is to look at very high payload transport aircrafts that can be configured as strategic bombers, accompanied by long-legged twin engine escorts.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

JH-7 is less vulnerable due to low sea-skimming characteristics. I can carry more missiles than any other fighter. So it has a lot more in stock when others have nothing left once misfired the target. Yeah, it is less agile compared to others. but it is rapidly diminishing its relevance in the BVR first look first shot era. Our star JF-17 is 1.6 Mac while as should have been more than Mac 3.5

and how about air interception by IN M-29K from Indian AC and IAF MKI, and there will be Indian AWACS so low level sea-skimming characteristic will nullifies, and F-35 also has a top speed of Mach 1.6, speed doesn't matter much ,accelerations T/W ratio, wing loading and L/D ratio etc etc matter most, and only 2 jets were reach above MACH 3 these were SR-71 (spy plane) and Mig-25 (interceptor) and you lose agility and maneuverability if you go fast above Mach-2.5

 

[The Raven]

I guess you still dont get the difference between strategic and tactical. They are different.

The PAF is a tactical airforce, not strategic, much like its main opponent. For the sub-continent theatre, given the distances involved for major targets, there's no need for a strategic strike platform, cruise missiles and stand off weapons suffice.

 

[araz]

If we have the capability to do anti ship missions with JFT /Mirages/F-16 then who needs ONE MISSION SPECIFIC JH-7,, Next obvious Choice for PAF will be J-10C not your ONE MISSION SPECIFIC JH-7

We do not have the capability of launching anti ship missiles from our F16s. As to the JH7 debate it is a discontinued plane and there is no chance PAF will go for it. One can see the argument in favor of it, but the role as has been envisaged, is not a viable one.
A

 

[The Eagle]

We have a separate thread for JH-7 discussion and most members are well aware of the same. Permanent thread bans shall be issued to the violators, from now on.

Regards,

 

[MastanKhan]

You may be right, however PAF would have been more dependent on western weapon systems. Moreover, M2K would not be free, whereas early F-16s were part of USAID.

F-16 induction brought number of revolutionary changes in PAF operations, strategies and training.

Furthermore F-16 also brought US Pressler amendment and subsequent spare and F-16 sale embargo.

This embargo gave a push to PAF commanders to seriously consider working on indigenous project - manufacturing of own fighter jet. JF-17 is the result of this motivation, and of course with Chinese help.

Hi

But nothing stopped them from buying the mirage rather putting a down payment on the fly even though Ll their welsishers warned them of coming sanctions