JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

PAF JF 17 firing C 802 Antiship missile.

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Drones would not be able to keep up with the JF17's.

If the F15 is going to be the missile truck for the F-35-'s then Paf needs to re-consider the JH7A's for missile truck---.

 

[Imran Khan]

Hi,

Drones would not be able to keep up with the JF17's.

If the F15 is going to be the missile truck for the F-35-'s then Paf needs to re-consider the JH7A's for missile truck---.

its your very old desire sir as i remember years and years you want JH7A in PAF but it will remain desire

 

[Trango Towers]

Hi,

Drones would not be able to keep up with the JF17's.

If the F15 is going to be the missile truck for the F-35-'s then Paf needs to re-consider the JH7A's for missile truck---.

Drones don't need to keep up. They could be pre launched or used as secondary strike just as the primary fighters leave the theatre of operations.
Jh7A is a dinosaur

 

[MastanKhan]

its your very old desire sir as i remember years and years you want JH7A in PAF but it will remain desire

Hi,

Yessir---indeed---it gets into the could have had it---should have had it category---.

Looking at the Ukraine conflict---it gets obvious that one AShM per aircraft will not do the job against counter measures---.

Japan knew this 30 years ahead of time---for that reason it designed the bigger F-16 AKA F-2 qualified to carry a minimum of 2 AShM's each with 1000 Kg capacity.

Why 2 AShM's---because chance of hitting increases

Why a 1000 Kg minimum---because a heavier missile---once it hits will do lethal damage.

Meaning---if it hits---it must count---.

 

[Imran Khan]

Hi,

Yessir---indeed---it gets into the could have had it---should have had it category---.

Looking at the Ukraine conflict---it gets obvious that one AShM per aircraft will not do the job against counter measures---.

Japan knew this 30 years ahead of time---for that reason it designed the bigger F-16 AKA F-2 qualified to carry a minimum of 2 AShM's each with 1000 Kg capacity.

Why 2 AShM's---because chance of hitting increases

Why a 1000 Kg minimum---because a heavier missile---once it hits will do lethal damage.

Meaning---if it hits---it must count---.

J-10 may be the answer of PAF ?

 

[MastanKhan]

J-10 may be the answer of PAF ?

Hi,

It cannot carry that load---.

 

[alimobin memon]

This is great opportunity I raised this topic here because I believe this is cost effective. A jet powered drone carrying some bvrs should not be issue in near feature and cheaper to operate. No cockpit no ejecting seats. Only enough electronics to listen to wing commander and fire via tracking by jf17 or awacs is future solution for countries like Pakistan air force.

I Put great faith in this. But again I am not PAF and I have more faith on PAF on their decisions and record history.

 

[Imran Khan]

Hi,

It cannot carry that load---.

yes sir but still better then thunders and falcons . as you know country is broke already

 

[alimobin memon]

Hi,

Yessir---indeed---it gets into the could have had it---should have had it category---.

Looking at the Ukraine conflict---it gets obvious that one AShM per aircraft will not do the job against counter measures---.

Japan knew this 30 years ahead of time---for that reason it designed the bigger F-16 AKA F-2 qualified to carry a minimum of 2 AShM's each with 1000 Kg capacity.

Why 2 AShM's---because chance of hitting increases

Why a 1000 Kg minimum---because a heavier missile---once it hits will do lethal damage.

Meaning---if it hits---it must count---.

Pakistans hd1 if bought is 400kg warhead ashm. Plus, it can carry 2 c802 armour piercing warhead that have enough yield to penetrate any enemy ships currently fielded.

Japan f2 carry 500kg ashm. Not 1000kg.

Our enemy fielded ships dont have any special armour plating on critical areas of ships so a hit from enemy missile would be lethal to atleast keep it out of action for a while nor does our enemy have capability to repair them quickly.

 

[MastanKhan]

Pakistans hd1 if bought is 400kg warhead ashm. Plus, it can carry 2 c802 armour piercing warhead that have enough yield to penetrate any enemy ships currently fielded.

Japan f2 carry 500kg ashm. Not 1000kg.

Our enemy fielded ships dont have any special armour plating on critical areas of ships so a hit from enemy missile would be lethal to atleast keep it out of action for a while nor does our enemy have capability to repair them quickly.

Hi,

Indeed it does use the ASM - 2 which is a lighter missile ( 530 KG

ASM - 2

Type 93 air-to-ship missile - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

but the F-2 was designed to carry this missile. ( 940 kg )

ASM - 3

ASM-3 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Chinese Navy in Mind? Japan to Equip its Mitsubishi F-2 Fighters with Newly Developed ASM-3 Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles

Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has completed the development and testing of its ASM-3 supersonic anti-ship missile, a platform set to enter mass production from

militarywatchmagazine.com

While the F-2 is limited in its speed and range the ASM-3 missiles can strike targets 200km away and is estimated to strike at speeds of Mach 3. Japan has invested approximately 39 billion yen in research and development of new engines for the missiles - set to be the first of many new platforms to be developed as the country remilitarises. The missiles carry a 900kg payload.

Big big difference in the size of the 2 missiles---.

" Our enemy fielded ships dont have any special armour plating on critical areas of ships so a hit from enemy missile would be lethal to atleast keep it out of action for a while nor does our enemy have capability to repair them quickly"

I do not know what to make of your HIGHLIGHTED comment.

 

[alimobin memon]

Hi,

Indeed it does use the ASM - 2 which is a lighter missile ( 530 KG

ASM - 2

Type 93 air-to-ship missile - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

but the F-2 was designed to carry this missile. ( 940 kg )

ASM - 3

ASM-3 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Chinese Navy in Mind? Japan to Equip its Mitsubishi F-2 Fighters with Newly Developed ASM-3 Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles

Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has completed the development and testing of its ASM-3 supersonic anti-ship missile, a platform set to enter mass production from

militarywatchmagazine.com

While the F-2 is limited in its speed and range the ASM-3 missiles can strike targets 200km away and is estimated to strike at speeds of Mach 3. Japan has invested approximately 39 billion yen in research and development of new engines for the missiles - set to be the first of many new platforms to be developed as the country remilitarises. The missiles carry a 900kg payload.

Big big difference in the size of the 2 missiles---.

" Our enemy fielded ships dont have any special armour plating on critical areas of ships so a hit from enemy missile would be lethal to atleast keep it out of action for a while nor does our enemy have capability to repair them quickly"

I do not know what to make of your HIGHLIGHTED comment.

Sir, I meant that c802 poses adequate firepower to damage frigates or light destroyers of enemy. Pair of c802 carried by jf17 is good.

Neptune subsonic and 150kg warhead a pair destroyed moskva or damaged enough to sink it.

It also depends on warhead type. Around 150kg penetration warhead should be deadly.

While hd1A or cm400akg are also fielded.

1000kg is overkill unless there are class of ships that are way too big like burk 1 or 2 or 3 but our enemy threat is neighbour. Do they poses something like that hell no.

 

[MastanKhan]

Sir, I meant that c802 poses adequate firepower to damage frigates or light destroyers of enemy. Pair of c802 carried by jf17 is good.

Neptune subsonic and 150kg warhead a pair destroyed moskva or damaged enough to sink it.

It also depends on warhead type. Around 150kg penetration warhead should be deadly.

While hd1A or cm400akg are also fielded.

1000kg is overkill unless there are class of ships that are way too big like burk 1 or 2 or 3 but our enemy threat is neighbour. Do they poses something like that hell no.

Son,

Moskva is a very very bad example---.

Ukraine is proving time and over that counter measure work very well---. Anti missile---missile shield are very potent----other defensive weapons are proving extremely successful against incoming missiles---.

There is very little chance of one aircraft getting thru into the strike range of a ship---.

Do you think that you are smarter than the japanese---who re-designed and F-16 to make it an F-2 just for one and only one purpose---that a naval mission strike aircraft must carry 2 extremely heavy missiles---..

You kids with absolutely no experience at all really think that the japanese are that dumb and you kids are smarter than them---.

 

[ziaulislam]

Son,

Moskva is a very very bad example---.

Ukraine is proving time and over that counter measure work very well---. Anti missile---missile shield are very potent----other defensive weapons are proving extremely successful against incoming missiles---.

There is very little chance of one aircraft getting thru into the strike range of a ship---.

Do you think that you are smarter than the japanese---who re-designed and F-16 to make it an F-2 just for one and only one purpose---that a naval mission strike aircraft must carry 2 extremely heavy missiles---..

You kids with absolutely no experience at all really think that the japanese are that dumb and you kids are smarter than them---.

If anti missle are getting better then solution isn't carrying one big missle but multiple small ones that target key parts with goal of disabling the ship)forceful retreat rather then sinking it

Since light missiles are more likely to be carried in greater number and greater distance