Why don't we use JF-17 to bomb TTP in N.Waziristan.

[Shabi1]

First of all PAF F-16s have the sniper targeting pod, they are super accurate and minimize collateral damage. We bought the F-16s and JDAMS from the US on the promise that they will be used against TTP and not India centric.

So its sort of a PR stunt. We are using F-16s and will need more of them to keep bombing the TTP. PA funded the Jordanian F-16s for PAF so PAF can spare F-16s for CAS.

Secondly if Pakistan requests to buy weapons from coalition support funds or reimbursement it is owed by NATO, US prefers to be it from one of its own suppliers so coalition funds will only replenish US munitions. They will not fund JF-17 weapons or spares.

Its actually a show of change of seriousness on dealing with the Taliban and a good thing, as Pakistan is actually using some of its best assets on them. The ground troops battling them are among Pakistan's most elite and well equipped units. Plus UAVs are being pressed in action for real time surveillance.

The Thunder range issue is being blown way out of proportions based on a news article opinion. Please read the specs of the jet.

The Block-1 fleet is still going through updates, PAF would rather keep them close to main bases for delivering the changes.

 

[ares]

So should I remind you, according to your compatriot, if a Mig 21 has combat radius of 300 Kms in clean configuration, your Tejas would be but a little better on internal fuel.

Yes Tejas is similarly short legged, one of the reason, Indians went for MRCA..and one of main reason why Gripen was not chosen for MRCA.

Now here is difference b/w Tejas and JF-17,

Tejas despite being smaller and lighter that JF-17 has a larger Max Take off Weight, i.e it can carry more internal fuel(2500 Kg Vs 2300 Kg ), can carry more external stores (4200 Kg Vs 3600 Kg) and has more hard points (8 vs 7).

Giving it a little more flexibility than JF-17( mind you not a whole lot more) to carry out multirole missions but still it wont be tje preferred bomber of IAF.

 

[nomi007]

F16 SniperPod!

the thruth is " jf-17 is operational and tejas is just testing "
now stop crying

 

[notsuperstitious]

the thruth is " jf-17 is operational and tejas is just testing "
now stop crying

Operational and testing have different meanings in different countries.

 

[nomi007]

Operational and testing have different meanings in different countries.

in india operational means"testing from 30 years"

 

[notsuperstitious]

in india operational means"testing from 30 years"

10 out of 10 for stupidity. I was merely pointing out the different development models. But I know nerves are raw on JF 17 threads. Bye.

 

[Windjammer]

Here's some raw footage of PAF's bombing campaign in Waziristan, a keen eye can pick out all front line aircraft in PAF inventory involved in the action.

 

[rockstarIN]

the thruth is " jf-17 is operational and tejas is just testing "
now stop crying

As per my observation so far, as on today..both are same 'in operational matters'

Both is officially cleared for short range A2A missiles and dumb bombs, testing is going on for BVR & other LGBs.( LGB/guided munitions are integrated/successfully tested in LCA where as the gun yet to be tested. JFT has guns already so far I know.

 

[atlantis_cn]

Yes Tejas is similarly short legged, one of the reason, Indians went for MRCA..and one of main reason why Gripen was not chosen for MRCA.

Now here is difference b/w Tejas and JF-17,

Tejas despite being smaller and lighter that JF-17 has a larger Max Take off Weight, i.e it can carry more internal fuel(2500 Kg Vs 2300 Kg ), can carry more external stores (4200 Kg Vs 3600 Kg) and has more hard points (8 vs 7).

Giving it a little more flexibility than JF-17( mind you not a whole lot more) to carry out multirole missions but still it wont be tje preferred bomber of IAF.

Are you crazy? What are you talking about? Mind you no one is discussing MRCA here... We are talking about a light fighter for a medium size country like Pakistan.

And Mig-21 has a combat radius of only 300km??? Go to check your data again!

 

[ares]

Are you crazy? What are you talking about? Mind you no one is discussing MRCA here... We are talking about a light fighter for a medium size country like Pakistan.

And Mig-21 has a combat radius of only 300km??? Go to check your data again!

No, I am not crazy, your inability to grasp causality and logic, does not make others crazy.

My point being JF-17 /LCA/Mig 21 are not a suitable bomb trucks, that too for long range missions.

An average sortie of a Mig 21 lasts only 45 mins...same as JF-17.

One of the most common jet fighters of history,over 10,000 MIG 21's of various types have been built. First seen in 1956 in blurred airshow photographs the MIG 21 emerged from the shadows in 1962 when India announced that they were buying the MIG 21. The west wrongly assumed that the plane had been rejected by its own country if it was being offered for sale so quickly.

​

A delta wing but having separate tail fins which increase air combat ability the MIG 21 is a classic design surviving far beyond its original role and in over 40 countries throughout the world. Early variants had cannon which were deleted on later versions to make room for more avionics, only to have gun pods fitted later.. Many countries produced their own versions some for export as in the case of India and China with its Xian F-7M which has many improvements including twin 30mm cannon and improved nose structure. Never very outstanding in acceratation the MIG 21 has been popular due to its cheap and frequently modified design and its agility, apart from the Lockheed C-130 it is probably the most popular military aircraft of all time. Maximum speed (clean); 1,385mph (2230km/h) Combat radius; 230 miles (330km) Weapon load; various AAM or rockets and bombs typically x4 Air to Air missiles or one missile and four 551lb (250Kg) bombs. a 23mm gun pod is also frequently carried

MIG-21 'Fishbed'

 

[FunkyGen]

Here's some raw footage of PAF's bombing campaign in Waziristan, a keen eye can pick out all front line aircraft in PAF inventory involved in the action.

What does your keen eye say Sir?
Mine ain't good enough.... maybe you can differ juts by the sound, you're a professional....

 

[Windjammer]

What does your keen eye say Sir?
Mine ain't good enough.... maybe you can differ juts by the sound, you're a professional....

No im no sound specialist but if you freeze and enhance, you will find that there's even an F-7 in the footage.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Does that mean the PAF has little or no confidence in their JF-17s? This would have been the ideal opportunity to test them.

One of the roles of the Thunder is ground attack / close air support. So I wonder why it's not being used for close support of troops in NW?

This indeed is intriguing.

PAF has been using JF17 for bombing runs since 2009

 

[Informant]

No im no sound specialist but if you freeze and enhance, you will find that there's even an F-7 in the footage.

Beware of this user WJ.

 

[Chak Bamu]

An average sortie of a Mig 21 lasts only 45 mins...same as JF-17.

Clever wording there.

Average sortie time for JF-17 is indeed that much, but that says nothing about its range.

I've noticed a few discrepancies in your posts that you are using to prop your POV that has nothing to do with the thread title.

1. You are using fuel figures and then mixing litres and Kilograms. 3300 litres comes to about 2650 Kg, that you ignored to convert in an earlier post.

2. Specs for JF-17 are out-dated. It was supposed to have 2300 Kg fuel capacity, but one can not be very certain as to how much fuel it can really carry. Most people quote figures from PAC Kamra website, and it is well-known that those figures are not accurate at all and have not been updated ever since they were posted.

3. You are comparing aircraft powered by Turbojet engines to an aircraft powered by a Turbofan engine. You have ignored the huge difference in consumption between the two types of engine. We can not say if the current RD-93 has the same consumption as the legacy RD-33, but still the difference between RD-33 and ATAR-09C is more than 30% (0.77 lb/(lb.ft).hr vs. 1.01 lb/(lb.ft).hr).

You have also ignored the great difference in the respective TWR of two engine types, which is for example, about 4 for ATAR-09C vs. about 8 for RD-33 (not current RD-93). TWR difference is almost 100%. I need not point out the great difference in performance that means.

4. PAF got designed an aircraft that would go beyond what PAF wanted it to replace.

Why so facetious my friend? Why say that JF-17 has short legs? How could you ever be in a position to make such an unfounded assertion? Do you wish to be taken seriously?