JF-17 - Updates, News & Discussion

[Metal 0-1]

EA-6B Prowlers were US Navy dedicated E/W platforms.

Here's a detailed comparison of the engine thrust between the EA-6B Prowler and the JF-17 (with RD-93MA engine):

---

EA-6B Prowler​

• 
  
• Engines: 2 × Pratt & Whitney J52-P-408A turbojets
• 
  
• Thrust per engine: ~10,400 lbf (46.3 kN)
• 
  
• Total thrust (combined): ~20,800 lbf (92.6 kN)

The EA-6B Prowler is an older, subsonic electronic warfare aircraft used by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. It was designed more for endurance and payload than raw thrust or speed.

---

JF-17 Thunder (Block 3)​

• 
  
• Engine: 1 × Klimov RD-93MA turbofan (an upgraded version of the RD-93)
• 
  
• Thrust (dry): ~11,000 lbf (49 kN)
• 
  
• Thrust (with afterburner): ~22,000–22,450 lbf (98–100 kN)

The RD-93MA is a modernized Russian turbofan designed for lightweight fighter aircraft like the JF-17. It offers much higher thrust than the Prowler’s engines, especially with afterburner.

---

Comparison Summary​

Feature	EA-6B Prowler	JF-17 (RD-93MA)
Total Thrust	~20,800 lbf (combined)	~22,000 lbf (afterburner)
Thrust-to-weight	Low	High (enables supersonic flight)
Engine Type	Low-bypass turbojet	Low-bypass afterburning turbofan
Speed	Subsonic (~0.9 Mach)	Supersonic (>1.6 Mach)

---

Conclusion:​

• 
  
• The JF-17's RD-93MA engine produces more thrust than the combined output of the EA-6B Prowler's two engines, especially with afterburner.

 

[airhead]

And you're denying everything of JF-17 capabilities, First you're denying that block-3 has no PL-15 carrying capability and now you having a doubts that block-3 can't shott down enemy jets can't do SEAD/DEAD missions, who are you that, and want to confirming these capabilities of JF-17 you're 4 year old child lol

Dude all I asked the members if they can share any pic with jf17s airborn with 4 pl15s. That is all I asked. And to this day, none including you has produced this picture

 

[NGAD IS THE BEST]

Dude all I asked the members if they can share any pic with jf17s airborn with 4 pl15s. That is all I asked. And to this day, none including you has produced this picture

Why you need that proof, block-3 AESA range has enough range to fire PL-15E,and PAC and CAC are stupid that in every sir shows PAC/CAC are presenting PL-15E as main BVR for block-3, you're nobody to anybody would give the proof lol, are you toddler of some kind?

 

[Toxic]

Why you need that proof, block-3 AESA range has enough range to fire PL-15E,and PAC and CAC are stupid that in every sir shows PAC/CAC are presenting PL-15E as main BVR for block-3, you're nobody to anybody would give the proof lol, are you toddler of some kind?

These guys won't accept the pictures of their downed jets but want us to produce a picture of the JF-17 flying with 4 PL-15 to "believe" it can carry them

 

[airhead]

Why you need that proof, block-3 AESA range has enough range to fire PL-15E,and PAC and CAC are stupid that in every sir shows PAC/CAC are presenting PL-15E as main BVR for block-3, you're nobody to anybody would give the proof lol, are you toddler of some kind?

again...a pic please

 

[NGAD IS THE BEST]

again...a pic please

You're nobody, last year most of members have doubts that PL-15 has not been integrated to block -3 but pictures emerges that block-3 carrying 2 PL-15 while airborne, keep living in delusion man

I'm sorry to say dude

YOUR MENTAL DIABILITY HAS NO CURE

 

[NGAD IS THE BEST]

again...a pic please

BY THAT LOGIC JF-17 HAVE CAPABLITY OF FLYING WITH MUCH HEAVIER (910 KG) 2 CM-400AKJ BUT NOT ABLE TO FLYING WITH MUCH LESS HEAVIER 4 PL-15 (230-250 KG) LOL

 

[Toxic]

BY THAT LOGIC JF-17 HAVE CAPABLITY OF FLYING WITH MUCH HEAVIER (910 KG) 2 CM-400AKJ BUT NOT ABLE TO FLYING WITH MUCH LESS HEAVIER 4 PL-15 (230-250 KG) LOL

Man you would have better luck explaining that to a brick wall.

 

[Michael]

Given that CAC won’t be producing thunders and in worst case scenario, Kamra gets hit, Wouldn’t that basically be a terrible thing for our Thunders? Maintenance, production etc

This could explain the sudden focus (away from thunders) for the time being, J-10s, possibly V upgrades for F-16s and J-35s, until and unless an alternate production line could be established, ideally on foreign lands (GCC/China nearing our borders). PAF must invest in a secondary production/maintenance facility NOT IN PAKISTAN.

1, CAC If they were to rebuild a JF-17 production line, it would be done very easily and quickly. It wouldn't be anything terribly difficult.

2, Pakistan's JF-17 production line is not just a Pakistani asset, it has a lot of Chinese assets in it and probably some Chinese engineers. If India really wants to bomb this place, he needs to seriously consider the consequences of doing so. I don't think they have been stupid enough to do that.

Or alternatively get the limited SU-35s that China operates.

China purchased only 24 Su-35s, and due to their small number, they were not upgraded (only data communication modifications were made), and they remained in largely pristine condition.

The Su-35's avionics are so outdated that they are no longer part of the PLAAF's combat duty fighters. Now, they are mainly used for adversarial training with other PLAAF domestic fighters, as well as occasional coordinated training activities with Russia.

or we request china to make a J-10D version for us? 8-10 J-10D will be enough

The J-10C had an experimental E/W variant, but PLAAF did not end up procuring it.PLAAF procured a number of external E/W pods for the standard J-10C.
The PAF can negotiate the procurement with the relevant agencies if interested.
BTW. Regardless of the type of E/W asset, it is very expensive.

 

[Faceless]

EA-6B Prowlers were US Navy dedicated E/W platforms.

Here's a detailed comparison of the engine thrust between the EA-6B Prowler and the JF-17 (with RD-93MA engine):

---

EA-6B Prowler​

• 
  
• Engines: 2 × Pratt & Whitney J52-P-408A turbojets
• 
  
• Thrust per engine: ~10,400 lbf (46.3 kN)
• 
  
• Total thrust (combined): ~20,800 lbf (92.6 kN)

The EA-6B Prowler is an older, subsonic electronic warfare aircraft used by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. It was designed more for endurance and payload than raw thrust or speed.

---

JF-17 Thunder (Block 3)​

• 
  
• Engine: 1 × Klimov RD-93MA turbofan (an upgraded version of the RD-93)
• 
  
• Thrust (dry): ~11,000 lbf (49 kN)
• 
  
• Thrust (with afterburner): ~22,000–22,450 lbf (98–100 kN)

The RD-93MA is a modernized Russian turbofan designed for lightweight fighter aircraft like the JF-17. It offers much higher thrust than the Prowler’s engines, especially with afterburner.

---

Comparison Summary​

Feature	EA-6B Prowler	JF-17 (RD-93MA)
Total Thrust	~20,800 lbf (combined)	~22,000 lbf (afterburner)
Thrust-to-weight	Low	High (enables supersonic flight)
Engine Type	Low-bypass turbojet	Low-bypass afterburning turbofan
Speed	Subsonic (~0.9 Mach)	Supersonic (>1.6 Mach)

---

Conclusion:​

• 
  
• The JF-17's RD-93MA engine produces more thrust than the combined output of the EA-6B Prowler's two engines, especially with afterburner.View attachment 133483View attachment 133482

This is so beyond retarded that I don't even feel like responding

 

[Metal 0-1]

This is so beyond retarded that I don't even feel like responding

Yet you did respond

 

[Faceless]

Yet you did respond

Couldn't help it after see such amusing idiocy

 

[Awan68]

If Trump decides kiss Asim Munir on his forehead and offer F-16V Block 70s, I would say that would be a phenomenal deal right there for Pakistan and a big force multiplier for PAF because F-16 with its advance blocks is still a very capable fighter in the world.

Lets hope the F 16's dont come at the cost of J 35's.

 

[Scorpio]

Lets hope the F 16's dont come at the cost of J 35's.

Both will separate deals , PAF will not compromise .. hopefully

 

[Scorpio]

PAF need dedicated E/W variant , but should be based on JF17 Bravo or J10C as we operate both of them

Induction of any new plateform will be costly in purchase and maintenance.. specially when we need them in limited numbers