What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

No the gun is not for dogfight.
Thunder needs to keep some distance with enemy aircrafts for successful air engagement. At distance its missiles are more effective than F-16.
But at close quarters, its effectively unarmed for air combat as gun pointing downward and missiles don't work at very sort ranges.
That's why it needs F-16 on the team for handling that exact situation.
Remember Surprise day?
That's why F-16 were in the air.
Thunders were in the attack party and long range air engagement.
But having gun for dogfight is important. If you are out missiles you can have something to defend otherwise you just run away from battlefield.

Since that is case pakistan should make drones that carry missiles but are in command of firing missiles but guided by jf17 radar. So, this will give them more time in battle.
 
. .
Is there an official source that claims the gun is inclined 8 degrees downwards for ground attack? As far as I can see, this is only mentioned in YouTube DCS videos.
Its not in real. Thats why im saying what is point of calling it similar to f16
 
.
But having gun for dogfight is important. If you are out missiles you can have something to defend otherwise you just run away from battlefield.

Since that is case pakistan should make drones that carry missiles but are in command of firing missiles but guided by jf17 radar. So, this will give them more time in battle.
Remember, the Thunder was designed in an era when militaries around the world started to think that dogfight is a thing of the past.
Few other aircrafts were also designed around that concept, but later on a gun was added.
 
.
.,.,
PAF JF-17 Block 2 vs the Block 3

etdjkvcwkaume4w-1.jpg
 
. .
The gun issue will come back to bite the PAF in the as$ soon or later.
AC will always merge as throughout history for every weapon their has been a counter. Which ultimately renders that weapon useless....wt has remained though is the gun.
N if ur gun don't work in a2a configuration then uve had it
 
Last edited:
.
The gun issue will come back to bite the PAF in the as$ soon or later.
AC will always merge as throughout history for every weapon their has been a counter. Which ultimately renders that weapon useless....wt has remained though has been the gun.
N if ur gun don't work then uve had it
So it is true the gun issue is real ?
 
.
Remember, the Thunder was designed in an era when militaries around the world started to think that dogfight is a thing of the past.
Few other aircrafts were also designed around that concept, but later on a gun was added.

Complete garbage. It was the US in the 1960/70s who thought that they could get away without having a gun and rely on AAMs. The early model F-4 Phantoms did not have an internal gun, and Vietnam quickly led to the USAF realising that was a mistake, as early block Sparrow Fox-1s were terrible. The JF-17 was always designed with an internal gun.
 
.
Complete garbage. It was the US in the 1960/70s who thought that they could get away without having a gun and rely on AAMs. The early model F-4 Phantoms did not have an internal gun, and Vietnam quickly led to the USAF realising that was a mistake, as early block Sparrow Fox-1s were terrible. The JF-17 was always designed with an internal gun.
Thank GOD some sensible comment. Recently PDF is like Pakistani Jets are flawed, tanks are flawed we have nothing etc.

Complete garbage. It was the US in the 1960/70s who thought that they could get away without having a gun and rely on AAMs. The early model F-4 Phantoms did not have an internal gun, and Vietnam quickly led to the USAF realising that was a mistake, as early block Sparrow Fox-1s were terrible. The JF-17 was always designed with an internal gun.
Designing a jet with internal gun than angling it wrong is funny to me. I dont believe this stated by others here.
 
. .
Complete garbage. It was the US in the 1960/70s who thought that they could get away without having a gun and rely on AAMs. The early model F-4 Phantoms did not have an internal gun, and Vietnam quickly led to the USAF realising that was a mistake, as early block Sparrow Fox-1s were terrible. The JF-17 was always designed with an internal gun.
Garbage or not but the concept of no gun fight in the air had effected design choices of many aircrafts, being used today.

Likewise, thunder can do Fuk -all with gun when pitted against highly maneuverable aircrafts such as SU-30 , Which are very difficult to take on the crosshair and keep there for gun fire.
 
. .
Complete garbage. It was the US in the 1960/70s who thought that they could get away without having a gun and rely on AAMs. The early model F-4 Phantoms did not have an internal gun, and Vietnam quickly led to the USAF realising that was a mistake, as early block Sparrow Fox-1s were terrible. The JF-17 was always designed with an internal gun.
Hi,

So how many aircraft did the F-4 shhotdown with the gun---?

How many aircraft were shot down with a gun in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's---any idea---?
 
.
Whether it is used often now or not. Its important to have one. Can be used against ground, survelliance drone in close ranges.

Suddenly this angle issue in gun from game dcs comes and everyone is like no we dont need gun. That is absurd.

Even kf21, j31, rafale, ef2000, j10, f16, f15 have it then should jf17.

Hi,

So how many aircraft did the F-4 shhotdown with the gun---?

How many aircraft were shot down with a gun in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's---any idea---?

Bro I dont want to argue with you. You are computer yourself. But, here are aerial victories for f4 from vietnam alone.

Screenshot_20230427_080552_Chrome.jpg


Screenshot_20230427_080557_Chrome.jpg



Screenshot_20230427_080602_Chrome.jpg



17 victories, although sidewinder have more.
 
Last edited:
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom