JF-17 - Updates, News & Discussion

[Ak01]

Is this same jf-17 that had mockup irst?

which jf17 has a mockup irst?

 

[Ibbi32]

which jf17 has a mockup irst?

I seem to remember a couple years ago an image circulated of a jf-17B3 in china with what appeared to be an irst

 

[Ak01]

I seem to remember a couple years ago an image circulated of a jf-17B3 in china with what appeared to be an irst

that was probably the one with a camera pod.

was it wing mounted?

 

[Ibbi32]

that was probably the one with a camera pod.

was it wing mounted?

Nope mounted on the nose. It was in a still from an avic video in the background iirc. Cant seem to find it now will share if i do

 

[Ak01]

Nope mounted on the nose. It was in a still from an avic video in the background iirc. Cant seem to find it now will share if i do

@Deino any clues?

 

[Oscar]

no no, im saying we should have just credited the kill, regardless of whether it was ACTUALLY a J-10 or not. We did credit the JF-17 with abhi, but the truth came out. Im not suggesting that we should hold other assets back, but rather, if a J-10 does get a kill, just credit it to the jeff

The Chinese would have been a little soured - after all their product to push is the J-10 so they could come out a year later and say it was all J-10 in some airshow and now you’re embarrassed

 

[bravo_1]

Edited??

 

[Ak01]

View attachment 186020

Edited??

yes that one is fake. would be the worlds smallest IRST ball ever!

I think the JF-17 just doesnt have enough space for one. They take up tons of it!

 

[RAMPAGE]

@Deino any clues?

No such thing.

 

[side-winder]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[meh_analysis]

Utterly misleading.

The "cheap fighter" angle was an internal angle, pushed by the likes of Boyd and Sprey. It was "cheap" and "simple" RELATIVE to the F-15 at the time, which was not keen on the heavy missile carrier philosophy, instead, wanting a day vfr agile LWF. They got their way.

The export success coming down to it being "cheap" is just a lie, or a misunderstanding of the facts.

There were actual "Cheap" fighers marketed to export. The F20 was marketed as "80% of the capability, at half the cost", so if the F-16 was a success PURELY because of its "cheap fighter" angle, your argument collapses at the failure of the F-20 tigershark.

Heck, the F-20 was actually more capable too, a faster scramble time and actual BVR capability BEFORE the F-16 too. This, at the time, would have been top tier in priority for the PAF, when theyd be on alert for soviets approaching.

"“The F-20’s electronics had been updated to levels that in some ways were superior to the first batch of the F-16 delivered to Pakistan in 1982,” Abbas Mirza said looking at some of the pictures of himself sitting in its cockpit and reminiscing."

"In his report to the PAF, Abbas Mirza’s final conclusion was that the F-20 was designed to be inferior to the contemporary US jets that the US was adamant on selling to developing countries with meagre budgets and low-level threats. No country bought it. Not even the United States Air Force (USAF). “None of the air forces showed interest in the aircraft despite its hectic demo flight schedules across the world. There was no point acquiring these aircraft for PAF. This is what I recommended to air staff on my return to Pakistan,” Abbas Mirza added. The air staff agreed with his recommendations and shelved the F-20 procurement once for all.

Vastly superior to the Mirage III and Mirage V, and the F-6 and the A-5, a system very close to the F-16, perfect for the Indo-Pak scenario back then, the PAF decided not to settle for second best. Despite aggressive marketing campaigns, the Tigershark failed to obtain sales. By the end of the 1980s, the low-cost F-20 died its natural death."

So please, do not try to argue your point by fabricating history. The F-20 was FAR cheaper than the F-16, FAR more capable at the time too, but it was not selected. It was marketed as the Cheap fighter, yet it died a miserable death.

The F-16 OTOH was selected due to assured support (a big one that the JF-17 gets marked down for!!!!), industrial offsets, and a long term outlook, with evolving capabilities. NOT because it was Cheap. Otherwise we'd see F-20s and F-17's flying around the world now.

Misleading

Bruh. The F-20 had problems, a lot of problem. It was a direct evolution of a very good design, the F-5 but not a revolutionary design. It failed in multiple air superiority tasks against the F-16 and only proved more capable in interception. However PAF didn't need a instant interceptor, instead a fighter with quick enough scramble time and the air superiority capabilities to strike down intruders which would probably eat up the F-20(as it performs worst than the Mirage 2000/F-16 and couldn't intercept Mig-25P). Plus PAF didn't operate F-5, so the aircraft would be completely new design hence PAF shouldn't be the main contender for the reason why the F-20 failed as for them F-16 and F-20 were both new fighter. Of course a nation would buy the fighter, the host nation was banking on and not a another failed project. The F-20 had limited space, limited payloads and was like a second gen fighter cosplaying as a fourth gen as it was also less maneuverable than the F1-6. The F-16 was also far better than the F-20 in electronics and sensor department, with it having even more room for upgrades than the F-20 and also had one of the best multi-role radar at that time with potential for upgrades. The misconception comes from the fact that the F-20 had a better radar in air to air ability, just that. Basically F-20 was the limit and the F-16 was just the start, so nations would probably buy a fighter that could be just as capable as the next fighter that would come out in three decades with upgrades. The F-16 was also exported more heavily than anything the US produced before, apart from the F-86, in light fighter category and the reason why F-20 lost. One of the major reason was the cost, the average cost of the F-16 was around 18-22 million dollars with low operational costs. Ts was so cheap that many air forces that were developing their own light fighter, looked at this and threw their own program out for this due to the cost of the fighter. It was literally cheaper than Mirage 2000 in operational cost, so idk what you're on about. In fact the F-16 was better than the Mirage 2000, which was better than the F-20. It had nothing to give many nations, the only one gullible enough to buy them were oil monarchies or asian nations with small airforces. The F-16 was a integrated part of the US doctrine as the primary multi-role fighter, basically setting the gold standard for 4th gen fighters. Same is the case for JF-17, it is cheap like the F-16 used to be and is made for new generation fighter combat that modern air forces need. The JF-17 does not have strong EW capabilities nor radar, making it feel outdated in the modern combat however drones and external support makes it not feel useless, just like how the Grippen C was felt until it was enlarged. JF-17 is also only backed up by the size and internal work which is why PAF is working on a upgrade. Likely to be internal EW and better radar, much like Grippen E. Basically JF-17=Grippen but more chinafied. So it's export as a very light fighter is extraordinary, until you realize that it only takes over the niche for nations that operate Mig-21 and Mirages wanting upgrades/replacement for them on the cheap. Plus a fighter which could integrate into their modern air system, something the F-20 could never do as it was so npc in behavior that it didn't fit into any airforce niche.

 

[meh_analysis]

No cheaper wasn’t the reason that f16 was a success . Paf had the option to go for an even cheaper f20 tigershark but decided still to go with the f16 because of performance , AA and AG proven record from israel

Oh my god fam. Like it was cheap for that era and needs. The F-20 was not a good fighter, idk why people hype it so much. The F-5 was revolutionary, F-20 was just a upgrade of a third gen aircraft. It's like saying PAF ROSE Mirage or F-7PG was cheaper than the F-16, so why didn't they go for it? Basically I meant that it was cheap for the performance it was giving, which was a true 4th gen fighter.

 

[meh_analysis]

Yea but in BUM why didn’t the Jf17 get a single fire out ? They had the same AWACS support but j10s got six kills and jeffs got 0. Can someone answer this please ? There is a lot of talk here is that Jeff’s radar is weak but that is a non issue as j10 and Jeff radars were off anyway on May 3. The only thing I can think of is that once the roe changed that night that the Pakistani fighters had to gain rapid altitude that get max range out of pl15s so j10s put on full after burner and went up to 35k ft but Jeff could not keep up with j10s due to their underpowered engine so could not get a single launch. Again this is my hypothesis and if true then this shows that Jeff has a serious limitation in AA roles . Happy to be proven wrong if someone knows what really happened that night

Can not confirm this, maybe you're right in that the altitude and speed could be the reason why the J-10 scored. But then again the fight went on for around 30 minutes, if I'm not mistaken, which is enough time for the JF-17 to reach maximum altitude and speed to effectively use the Pl-15. So it might that the PAF giving more credits to the J-10C due to Chinese pressure or more likely that the JF-17 acted as a support fighter much like how USAF doctrine focuses on F-15/F-22 with a support of F-16/F-35. With the kill claims going to the engaging units.l or smth, idk I haven't studied the PAF doctrine in depth nor am I in the military to know of these details.

 

[rafale]

Can not confirm this, maybe you're right in that the altitude and speed could be the reason why the J-10 scored. But then again the fight went on for around 30 minutes, if I'm not mistaken, which is enough time for the JF-17 to reach maximum altitude and speed to effectively use the Pl-15. So it might that the PAF giving more credits to the J-10C due to Chinese pressure or more likely that the JF-17 acted as a support fighter much like how USAF doctrine focuses on F-15/F-22 with a support of F-16/F-35. With the kill claims going to the engaging units.l or smth, idk I haven't studied the PAF doctrine in depth nor am I in the military to know of these details.

3D airspace management is not that easy and straightforward.

You don't know what the actual situation in the air was. Maybe J-10s were already in the right position at the time, you don't know how long the enemy is within your grasp, you don't waste time to bring your other assets, if you have assured kill, you take it.

Like i said, PAF could have stomped IAF left and right if JF-17s got in, but probably didn't want any single own loss. With PAF factoring in own losses, IAF would have been 20 or 30 aircraft shot down. There was and still is nothing in IAF arsenal that can out range PL15. For them to get Meteors off the rail they would have been flying within JF-17s and HIMADs ranges. The arithmetic completely changes.

IAF didn't get a single MICA or METEOR off the rail. The reason is because they had absolutely zero idea what was happening and they probably didn't even have a lock. PL15s hit them like bolts from God.

 

[Fatman17]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies