What's new

Pakistan Navy planning to buy 30 JF-17 Thunder Block-II.

. . . . .
I have doubts over the Jf-17's usefulness for a Naval role ! :unsure:

Maybe @Oscar @Bratva and @fatman17 can shed some more light on this but isn't the Jf-17 a bit under-ranged for a Naval platform ?

No idea for a procurement confirmation. But the level of testing being carried out by the JF-17 for naval weapons shows that some potential was thought about. Question is, the JF-17 being generally short legged.. will only just cover the EEZ and any loitering time for providing air cover for the fleet will be shaky.. so is it a plus from the current condition? Yes..
Is it the ideal airframe? NO.

Also, if the news is correct.. clever move by the PAF to dump this procurement bit on the Navy Budget..
 
. .
Maybe for coastal defense ?
To prevent IN from establishing air supremacy on the coastline to pave way for an amphibious assault ?

30 Jf 17, however modest, will create complications for IN at the very least.
 
.
No idea for a procurement confirmation. But the level of testing being carried out by the JF-17 for naval weapons shows that some potential was thought about. Question is, the JF-17 being generally short legged.. will only just cover the EEZ and any loitering time for providing air cover for the fleet will be shaky.. so is it a plus from the current condition? Yes..
Is it the ideal airframe? NO.

Also, if the news is correct.. clever move by the PAF to dump this procurement bit on the Navy Budget..

Of the top of your head what do you think could be the possible ways to glean out a bit more range out of the Jf-17 apart from external fuel tanks ?

Do you think a more fuel efficient version of the RD-93 could be looked at ?

Or perhaps the Jf-17s for a Naval Role can be built with more composite material to lower the net-body-weight of the platform ?
 
.
They have FOREX worth 300 billion, and Pakistan mere 8..
Thats the difference..

Is that going to be forever...???

We have been in War for the past 12 years and that is about to be wrapped up...Please spend your 300 billion on Poors so that they can enjoy their daily business in privacy and have a shelter on their heads..No need to worry about us..
 
.
I have doubts over the Jf-17's usefulness for a Naval role ! :unsure:

Maybe @Oscar @Bratva and @fatman17 can shed some more light on this but isn't the Jf-17 a bit under-ranged for a Naval platform ?

depends on config - 2 drop tanks + 1 C802 or AKG400 with CAP by other JF-17s or F-16s could be an interesting prospect.
 
.
its a good idea
this will ensure that PAF doesnot need to suport the navy

Even Indian Navy is looking to acquire some 40-60 next gen fighters apart from the 45 Mig29K we are inducting

this will reduce the burden on our Sukhoi fleet , 2 sqds of which are currently assigned for Naval support
 
.
Of the top of your head what do you think could be the possible ways to glean out a bit more range out of the Jf-17 apart from external fuel tanks ?

Do you think a more fuel efficient version of the RD-93 could be looked at ?

Or perhaps the Jf-17s for a Naval Role can be built with more composite material to lower the net-body-weight of the platform ?

Air to Air refuelling is the most cost effective solution.
 
.
No idea for a procurement confirmation. But the level of testing being carried out by the JF-17 for naval weapons shows that some potential was thought about. Question is, the JF-17 being generally short legged.. will only just cover the EEZ and any loitering time for providing air cover for the fleet will be shaky.. so is it a plus from the current condition? Yes..
Is it the ideal airframe? NO.

Also, if the news is correct.. clever move by the PAF to dump this procurement bit on the Navy Budget..

Isn't it about time that Navy built up it's own air support?

Also, the limited range can be offset by stand off weapons, which themselves have a good range of 180km +
 
.
No idea for a procurement confirmation. But the level of testing being carried out by the JF-17 for naval weapons shows that some potential was thought about. Question is, the JF-17 being generally short legged.. will only just cover the EEZ and any loitering time for providing air cover for the fleet will be shaky.. so is it a plus from the current condition? Yes..
Is it the ideal airframe? NO.

Also, if the news is correct.. clever move by the PAF to dump this procurement bit on the Navy Budget..

Short ranged and therefore not the best aircraft for maritime ops, but still I suppose it's better than nothing, and should be better than the old mirages presently doing the role. JF-17s cannot move with a naval task force or provide air cover to the fleet (owing to lack of a carrier), but they can still carry out strikes on call from the shore, to short distances in the sea. So if an enemy ship/sub is located near Pakistan's coast, or there is a naval blockade being enforced by the enemy that needs to be broken, they could play a role. In short, defensive actions against an enemy navy near Pak.

However, I would question the wisdom of the navy operating them. The navy would then have to raise pilots, maintainance depots, spares, etc. It would be simpler for the air force to raise a squadron or two for maritime strike roles, just as I believe there is a mirage squadron presently, and three Jaguar-IM squadrons in the IAF. The knowledge base already exists in the PAF to operate JF-17s. And the maritime ones will not be a different version, but will just carry weapons for maritime strike. I mean, it won't be modified for carrier ops or some such drastic modification.

It doesn't make sense to dig into the already paltry naval budget for this purpose.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom