JF-17 - Updates, News & Discussion

[Oscar]

It's destabilize the jet at that altitude and not able to reach such altitude in timely manner to target the satellite

I have doubts that you are an engineer lol, who doesn't know basic physics

I know you but at max altitude no fighter jets can abble to go with any significant payloads

And DO YOU HAVE A COMPREHENSION ISSUE

F15 IS A HEAVY FIGHTER WITH TWO HIGH THRUST CLASS ENGINES WHEREAS JF-17 IS A LIGHT FIGHTER WITH SINGLE LOW END MEDIUM THRUST CLASS ENGINE AND CAN'T HAVE ENOUGH POWER TO GO HIGH WITH 18 FEET AND 3,000+ LBS MISSILES LOL

I don’t think the issue is “destabilizing” the jet - but whether the engine can push the airplane with the amount of lift it’s wings will be generating at that altitude.

Interestingly the JF-17 has a lower wing loading than the F-15 based on wing area but the F-15 gets a lifting body effect as well.

However, the overall total lift from the F-15 is much higher so it needs less speed to get up to and sustain flight with that load up there - 250kts vs 350kts for the JF-17 while taking less time.

So it’s not that it’s not doable but that the Jf-17 will be operating at the edge of its safe envelope while the F-15 is optimized(in a sense) for that environment because remember the F-15 was going to intercept the Mig-25 as part of its design parameters.

 

[FuturePAF]

Will the original JF-17s need a new engine after 20 years of use, or will they just rebuild their current engines?

If a 100 kn WS-13E becomes available, will it be worth the cost to swap from the 84.4 kn RD-93? Cost versus an 18.4% increase in thrust.

 

[SaadH]

Well, what true options other than a few Su-35 from Russia and that old F-5-based something do they really have?

Su-35 to Iran will never be approved by Putin's zionist bosses. Only viable option for iranian are Chinese. However, iranian doctrine favors missiles over manned assets.

 

[Khansaheeb]

I don’t think the issue is “destabilizing” the jet - but whether the engine can push the airplane with the amount of lift it’s wings will be generating at that altitude.

Interestingly the JF-17 has a lower wing loading than the F-15 based on wing area but the F-15 gets a lifting body effect as well.

However, the overall total lift from the F-15 is much higher so it needs less speed to get up to and sustain flight with that load up there - 250kts vs 350kts for the JF-17 while taking less time.

So it’s not that it’s not doable but that the Jf-17 will be operating at the edge of its safe envelope while the F-15 is optimized(in a sense) for that environment because remember the F-15 was going to intercept the Mig-25 as part of its design parameters.

So yes, it possible for the JF17 to carry an anti-satellite missile to a height and launch it, if the information below is correct. Brothers in PAF should be able to verify and start another project! If the plane is stripped of all surplus ammunitions and surplus weight it will smoothly take the anti-Satellite missile to a height of 50000 feet, much higher than the F15 but may take a little longer to get there.

According to chatgpt:-

The JF-17 Thunder is capable of carrying its full payload of 7,900–8,100 pounds (around 3,600–3,700 kg) of weapons and external stores to considerable altitudes. However, the maximum altitude the aircraft can reach while fully loaded depends on several factors, such as weight configuration, mission type, and fuel load.

Key Performance Figures:​

• Maximum Service Ceiling: The JF-17 Thunder has a maximum service ceiling of around 55,500 feet (16,916 meters). This is the highest altitude the aircraft can theoretically fly under optimal conditions (with a lighter load).
• Operational Altitude with Full Ordinance:
  • When fully loaded with weapons and external stores, the aircraft's operational ceiling will be lower than its maximum service ceiling. Typically, with a full combat load, the JF-17 can operate at altitudes of around 35,000 to 40,000 feet (10,600 to 12,200 meters).
  • This range is suitable for most combat and mission profiles, as higher altitudes are typically reserved for fuel-efficient cruising or reconnaissance, while combat missions often occur at lower altitudes where air-to-ground and air-to-air engagements take place.

Factors Influencing Maximum Altitude with Ordinance:​

1. Weight of External Payload: The heavier the payload (bombs, missiles, and fuel tanks), the more limited the aircraft's ability to maintain high altitudes. With maximum fuel and weapons load, it will perform optimally at medium altitudes (30,000–40,000 feet).
2. Drag and Maneuverability: External stores such as bombs and missiles create aerodynamic drag, which affects the aircraft’s ability to climb and maintain high altitudes, particularly during combat maneuvers.
3. Engine Performance: The Klimov RD-93 turbofan engine (used in the JF-17) is capable of delivering sufficient thrust to carry a full payload to higher altitudes, but at maximum load, it operates more efficiently at lower altitudes due to the increased weight and drag.
4. Mission Type: For air-to-ground missions (with heavier bomb loads), the JF-17 typically flies at lower altitudes (10,000 to 30,000 feet) to engage ground targets. In contrast, air-to-air missions might involve higher-altitude flight profiles, but still not close to the absolute service ceiling with a full load.

Summary:​

• Maximum Altitude with Full Ordinance: The JF-17 can typically operate at 35,000 to 40,000 feet with a full payload of bombs, missiles, and fuel.
• Service Ceiling: Its maximum service ceiling is 55,500 feet, though this is unlikely to be reached with a full combat load.

In real combat missions, the exact altitude will depend on the mission profile and loadout, but the JF-17 is designed to effectively carry its ordinance at operational altitudes in the range of 30,000 to 40,000 feet.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

All of you are missing the most important consideration.

Can the JF17 carry that heavy a missile on its centerline pylon---.

 

[Oscar]

So yes, it possible for the JF17 to carry an anti-satellite missile to a height and launch it, if the information below is correct. Brothers in PAF should be able to verify and start another project! If the plane is stripped of all surplus ammunitions and surplus weight it will smoothly take the anti-Satellite missile to a height of 50000 feet, much higher than the F15 but may take a little longer to get there.

According to chatgpt:-

The JF-17 Thunder is capable of carrying its full payload of 7,900–8,100 pounds (around 3,600–3,700 kg) of weapons and external stores to considerable altitudes. However, the maximum altitude the aircraft can reach while fully loaded depends on several factors, such as weight configuration, mission type, and fuel load.

Key Performance Figures:​

• Maximum Service Ceiling: The JF-17 Thunder has a maximum service ceiling of around 55,500 feet (16,916 meters). This is the highest altitude the aircraft can theoretically fly under optimal conditions (with a lighter load).
• Operational Altitude with Full Ordinance:
  • When fully loaded with weapons and external stores, the aircraft's operational ceiling will be lower than its maximum service ceiling. Typically, with a full combat load, the JF-17 can operate at altitudes of around 35,000 to 40,000 feet (10,600 to 12,200 meters).
  • This range is suitable for most combat and mission profiles, as higher altitudes are typically reserved for fuel-efficient cruising or reconnaissance, while combat missions often occur at lower altitudes where air-to-ground and air-to-air engagements take place.

Factors Influencing Maximum Altitude with Ordinance:​

1. Weight of External Payload: The heavier the payload (bombs, missiles, and fuel tanks), the more limited the aircraft's ability to maintain high altitudes. With maximum fuel and weapons load, it will perform optimally at medium altitudes (30,000–40,000 feet).
2. Drag and Maneuverability: External stores such as bombs and missiles create aerodynamic drag, which affects the aircraft’s ability to climb and maintain high altitudes, particularly during combat maneuvers.
3. Engine Performance: The Klimov RD-93 turbofan engine (used in the JF-17) is capable of delivering sufficient thrust to carry a full payload to higher altitudes, but at maximum load, it operates more efficiently at lower altitudes due to the increased weight and drag.
4. Mission Type: For air-to-ground missions (with heavier bomb loads), the JF-17 typically flies at lower altitudes (10,000 to 30,000 feet) to engage ground targets. In contrast, air-to-air missions might involve higher-altitude flight profiles, but still not close to the absolute service ceiling with a full load.

Summary:​

• Maximum Altitude with Full Ordinance: The JF-17 can typically operate at 35,000 to 40,000 feet with a full payload of bombs, missiles, and fuel.
• Service Ceiling: Its maximum service ceiling is 55,500 feet, though this is unlikely to be reached with a full combat load.

In real combat missions, the exact altitude will depend on the mission profile and loadout, but the JF-17 is designed to effectively carry its ordinance at operational altitudes in the range of 30,000 to 40,000 feet.

Still not an optimum configuration -
And the main thing is what @MastanKhan has pointed out to you.

The main assumption you are absolutely ignoring is the capacity of ANY of the Pylons on the JF-17 - not JUST in terms of weight but also volume.

It’s simply NOT possible for it to carry a weapon of that weight NOR size on ANY pylon.

 

[Khansaheeb]

Why JF17? J10C would be a better option anyday. (If it's feasible)

why not? Why should J10-C be the only option? But good point perhaps J10c would be better for the job.

guess the JF17 with a little structural modifications, avionics, and aerodynamic performance could do the job but then maybe it may end up like the J10C. If JF17 is not up the job then the next gen plane should be ! PAF has a new requirement.

 

[Cookie Monster]

@Irfan Usmani 1977 @Khansaheeb guys stop fighting. I don’t think developing an ASAT would be too difficult for Pakistan…
…if JF17 can’t accomplish it…then Pakistan might be able to request China to allow for integration with J10.

But u guys r missing the main issue…which is the use of ASAT and its repercussions. The difficult part is that creating all that debris in space puts the other satellites at risk…including Pakistan’s own, friendly nations, neutral nations…basically any other satellite would then be potentially at risk of collision with the resulting debris…
…so obviously other nations would not be too happy with such an outcome…including allied nations or nations that would otherwise be neutral.

 

[Khansaheeb]

@Irfan Usmani 1977 @Khansaheeb guys stop fighting. I don’t think developing an ASAT would be too difficult for Pakistan…
…if JF17 can’t accomplish it…then Pakistan might be able to request China to allow for integration with J10.

But u guys r missing the main issue…which is the use of ASAT and its repercussions. The difficult part is that creating all that debris in space puts the other satellites at risk…including Pakistan’s own, friendly nations, neutral nations…basically any other satellite would then be potentially at risk of collision with the resulting debris…
…so obviously other nations would not be too happy with such an outcome…including allied nations or nations that would otherwise be neutral.

Well we have a choice of ending up like Gaza or worrying about other people's satellites.

 

[HRK]

thanks - and this shows there are small differences between FC-1 and JF17 variants of the Thunder platform need to be aware of. If it is labelled as FC-1, then it is more of a pure chinese variant, if it is JF17 then the baseline is the Pakistani variant with its western components.

Yes both are different variants, their difference mainly appears in communication & data links and RADAR system.

We know that RUBY (JF-17 of Myanmar Air force) use a different Radar than KLJ-7 Pulse Doppler Radar.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Well we have a choice of ending up like Gaza or worrying about other people's satellites.

There are other ways of ensuring it. The best way would be…to grow the economy where u can get out of the insane amount of loans(so a large majority of the government’s money isn’t spent on loan payments).
Once the economy allows for Pakistan to have 3 nuclear subs
…here we are assuming one heading out to patrol, one coming back from patrolling, and one undergoing maintenance/repairs/etc. This way at least one nuclear sub would be out at sea…hidden…ALWAYS.

It would also need other technologies to be developed(which shouldn’t be hard for Pakistan considering where it is already at with those technologies). This would be further development of MIRV and development of ICBMs(which can then be used to develop SLBMs).

This would ensure…that either Pakistan doesn’t end up like Gaza…or if an adversary tries to turn it into Gaza…that adversary would cease to exist.

Developing ASAT is less scary for a foe…and more a headache. The possibility of being wiped off the face of the earth is the true deterrent.

This is not to mention other benefits of developing ICBM and MIRV even in absence of subs. It just gives u more range and more survivability to punch through enemy defenses.

 

[Khansaheeb]

There are other ways of ensuring it. The best way would be…to grow the economy where u can get out of the insane amount of loans(so a large majority of the government’s money isn’t spent on loan payments).
Once the economy allows for Pakistan to have 3 nuclear subs
…here we are assuming one heading out to patrol, one coming back from patrolling, and one undergoing maintenance/repairs/etc. This way at least one nuclear sub would be out at sea…hidden…ALWAYS.

It would also need other technologies to be developed(which shouldn’t be hard for Pakistan considering where it is already at with those technologies). This would be further development of MIRV and development of ICBMs(which can then be used to develop SLBMs).

This would ensure…that either Pakistan doesn’t end up like Gaza…or if an adversary tries to turn it into Gaza…that adversary would cease to exist.

Developing ASAT is less scary for a foe…and more a headache. The possibility of being wiped off the face of the earth is the true deterrent.

This is not to mention other benefits of developing ICBM and MIRV even in absence of subs. It just gives u more range and more survivability to punch through enemy defenses.

Knocking out both civilian and military satellites would seriously affect the enemy's operations. It would affect their missile guidance, their intelligence gathering and both civilian and military communication. Simultaneously knocking out submarine and terrestrial links would complete the disruption. It would be more than a serious headache as it would certainly disrupt their operations. These should be preliminary actions before a total strike to break the back of the enemy. Pakistan improving its economy is like a dog chasing the tail, until the corrupts are eliminated no progress is going to be made. Only solution I can see for change if Pakistan army creates an economic task force to work with the civilian administration to steer the country in the right direction. But before then the corrupts need to be removed.

 

[Musings]

Knocking out both civilian and military satellites would seriously affect the enemy's operations. It would affect their missile guidance, their intelligence gathering and both civilian and military communication. Simultaneously knocking out submarine and terrestrial links would complete the disruption. It would be more than a serious headache as it would certainly disrupt their operations. These should be preliminary actions before a total strike to break the back of the enemy. Pakistan improving its economy is like a dog chasing the tail, until the corrupts are eliminated no progress is going to be made. Only solution I can see for change if Pakistan army creates an economic task force to work with the civilian administration to steer the country in the right direction. But before then the corrupts need to be removed.

Bro
Pull it back to topic please

 

[Ali_Baba]

Su-35 to Iran will never be approved by Putin's zionist bosses. Only viable option for iranian are Chinese. However, iranian doctrine favors missiles over manned assets.

Every single doctrine that does not favour air power has proven to fail over the many decades of war that we have seen.

 

[krash]

Not made at PAC. Provided directly from China. This is what's my point.

China does not produce half of the aircraft and has no final assembly line for it. JF-17s of Myanmar, designated 'Ruby', under construction at Kamra: