JF-17 - Updates, News & Discussion

[ghazi52]

The STRATCOM Bureau
Three Pakistani JF-17s (two JF-17As and a JF-17B) from the ‘Black Spiders’ and ‘Sharp Shooters’ squadrons of the Pakistan Air Force over Islamabad as they prepare to fly past the Prime Minister’s House

 

[FarhanSiddiqui]

Less JF-17 junk and more J-10C.

Looks like some people just prefer new fighters and ignore the important role of JF-17. I guess when J-35 delivery starts they may start calling the J-10 as junk too.

 

[RAJPUT]

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

No idea how credible source is.

Some random poster on here runs this account. This stupid theory was being discussed here just yesterday. Who here runs this channel? Come clean.

 

[Quwa]

The thing is, a naval air wing's only real role is anti shipping, the PAF would oversee any a2a ops and for the most part any naval anti shipping.

The reason i say block 1's probably suffice is because they arent doing a whole lot other than acting as a launching platform. The concern ive got with the AF doing anti shipping is the potential for friendly fire. We have had instances where weve destroyed our own ships after misidentifying, so it wouldnt be too bad of a solution to have a dedicated 'light' anti ship wing to take over some work from the sultans and be dedicated purely to this mission.

Really, im not sure whether even JF-17s are the perfect solution for this role, but we dont really have any alternatives. Its Mirages or JF-17s, the reason why i also say having it be a dedicated Naval air wing allows the navy to customise their aircraft as needed. Some radars may suffer in performance over water for example, this way, the navy can customise, perfectly to their requirements. For example, the navy could approach oems like leonardo and request them to provide a variant of seaspray that can be flat mounted in the nose. This would give superior A2S performance at the cost of A2A performance but CAN still be used for A2A work, this way now the navy has a very capable, dedicated ASuW specialist aircraft, equipped with nothing but anti shippers or even torpedos to carry out these roles, while air to air coverage is provided by the PAF.

Just imagine a strike package of numerous JF-17B's equipped with 4 Light ASM's like Rasoob, saturating their ships

Though, as usual, money will be the issue.

IMO... They should also look at using the Block-1s as CAS aircraft for combined arms maneuvers with the Army.

Start by swapping out the KLJ-7 with a small, low-cost AESA radar (IIRC there was a Chinese option that apparently didn't require any modifications) and, maybe, integrate a targeting pod that can cue with an the HMD/S.

From there, configure the various locally-made air-to-ground missiles (AGM), LD-10 ARM, and the NORINCO GB6 (Chinese JSOW). They could even go a step further and load the GB6 with top-attack-capable loitering munitions so that we have something comparable to the CBU-105.

These beater JF-17s can basically provide top-cover to the Army against the IAF's Jaguars and, in turn, provide some long-range anti-armour capability.

As for the PN, they should make the case for J-35Es, i.e., the actual carrier-borne version. Sure, they won't have a carrier, but the fighter otherwise is designed for operations at sea (likely with salt erosion-proofing, etc).

I think there's a solid case for the PN to have its own proper fighter wing and, in turn, be responsible for coastal and maritime air operations. China and, for a time, even Germany maintained dedicated naval fighter wings from land with a clear demarcation between in-land and sea operations.

The PN surface fleet is going to keep growing, and in 15-20 years, the PN will likely have one of the world's biggest green water fleets. They've got the best awareness of what's happening within and over the ocean, so it makes little sense (bar lack of capacity) to deny them full control over their aerospace domain.

 

[Bentley777]

IMO... They should also look at using the Block-1s as CAS aircraft for combined arms maneuvers with the Army.

Start by swapping out the KLJ-7 with a small, low-cost AESA radar (IIRC there was a Chinese option that apparently didn't require any modifications) and, maybe, integrate a targeting pod that can cue with an the HMD/S.

From there, configure the various locally-made air-to-ground missiles (AGM), LD-10 ARM, and the NORINCO GB6 (Chinese JSOW). They could even go a step further and load the GB6 with top-attack-capable loitering munitions so that we have something comparable to the CBU-105.

These beater JF-17s can basically provide top-cover to the Army against the IAF's Jaguars and, in turn, provide some long-range anti-armour capability.

As for the PN, they should make the case for J-35Es, i.e., the actual carrier-borne version. Sure, they won't have a carrier, but the fighter otherwise is designed for operations at sea (likely with salt erosion-proofing, etc).

I think there's a solid case for the PN to have its own proper fighter wing and, in turn, be responsible for coastal and maritime air operations. China and, for a time, even Germany maintained dedicated naval fighter wings from land with a clear demarcation between in-land and sea operations.

The PN surface fleet is going to keep growing, and in 15-20 years, the PN will likely have one of the world's biggest green water fleets. They've got the best awareness of what's happening within and over the ocean, so it makes little sense (bar lack of capacity) to deny them full control over their aerospace domain.

After 15 - 20 years Still green water navy . When will they learn the strategic importance of sea. Focus on navy PAF is good.

 

[Gripen9]

Mirages are a bad example to use.

This was done out of necessity. There was no alternative BUT to keep the mirages in service. They would have retired them straight away had they had a choice.

The reason this does not apply to JF-17s is simple. Is it worth it?
Is it worth taking what is already quite a cheap airframe, which would need significant modification and investment to bring up to scratch and doing all of this? A block 1 upcycle would literally involve gutting the airframe of most of the critical and expensive components. New avionics, new electronics, new sensors, new engines, new fuel lines, re enforcement of structures and also replacement of panels.

Looking at all of this, what is actually left? Some scrap metal and wiring looms? Even down to the aircraft lighting is all new, there is no point in saving those airframes. Lets pretend they're even 10% of the cost of the aircraft, theres not much point in keeping those around since youll have to deal with fatigue issues and all, when replacing literally every component on the aircraft, may as well save the headache and buy new frames too. Bare in mind also, no AAR on Block 1's.

I was responding to your "they are EOL". We have the capability of keeping them airborne and in airworthy condition for a long time. Like I said, if we have the $$$ for new airframes like J-10s, I would rather do a vanilla overhaul (airframe and engine rebuild) and keep at blk 1 and sell to Nigeria. Nigeria doesn't need an air superiority fighter. All they need is ability to lob dumb/REK bombs on BokoHaram and train with basic BVR tech to develop tactics.

 

[air marshal]

 

[Gripen9]

The thing is, a naval air wing's only real role is anti shipping, the PAF would oversee any a2a ops and for the most part any naval anti shipping.

The reason i say block 1's probably suffice is because they arent doing a whole lot other than acting as a launching platform. The concern ive got with the AF doing anti shipping is the potential for friendly fire. We have had instances where weve destroyed our own ships after misidentifying, so it wouldnt be too bad of a solution to have a dedicated 'light' anti ship wing to take over some work from the sultans and be dedicated purely to this mission.

Really, im not sure whether even JF-17s are the perfect solution for this role, but we dont really have any alternatives. Its Mirages or JF-17s, the reason why i also say having it be a dedicated Naval air wing allows the navy to customise their aircraft as needed. Some radars may suffer in performance over water for example, this way, the navy can customise, perfectly to their requirements. For example, the navy could approach oems like leonardo and request them to provide a variant of seaspray that can be flat mounted in the nose. This would give superior A2S performance at the cost of A2A performance but CAN still be used for A2A work, this way now the navy has a very capable, dedicated ASuW specialist aircraft, equipped with nothing but anti shippers or even torpedos to carry out these roles, while air to air coverage is provided by the PAF.

Just imagine a strike package of numerous JF-17B's equipped with 4 Light ASM's like Rasoob, saturating their ships

Though, as usual, money will be the issue.

Ideally for maritime strikes you would need longer endurance aircraft. Something like J-16 (i know not a chance).

 

[Oscar]

I was responding to your "they are EOL". We have the capability of keeping them airborne and in airworthy condition for a long time. Like I said, if we have the $$$ for new airframes like J-10s, I would rather do a vanilla overhaul (airframe and engine rebuild) and keep at blk 1 and sell to Nigeria. Nigeria doesn't need an air superiority fighter. All they need is ability to lob dumb/REK bombs on BokoHaram and train with basic BVR tech to develop tactics.

Simple measure will be -

${The Block-1 airframes - the amount you need to replace in terms of cost - what you can keep but will need to refresh in terms of cost} divided by / time left in airframe after this

Vs

Brand new block-3 lite ${basic airframe(which has higher tolerances than compared to new block-1 airframe) cost + all optional avionics add ons which can be block-2 level} / time left in airframe after.

Then you think of selling that math to someone else.

Even if you “give” them away - there is still the airframe support cycle you will have to provide and bring them to a baseline “cleaned up” state.

Nothing is free.

Block-1s have a great future - start delegating them for OCU currency builders - fam flights and pushing out the F-7PGs.

You will exhaust the airframe - then salvage what you can from wiring and other aspects to use somewhere else.

 

[blueboy7862]

Looks like some people just prefer new fighters and ignore the important role of JF-17. I guess when J-35 delivery starts they may start calling the J-10 as junk too.

Sorry to say, it is our national mentality.

 

[ghazi52]

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

 

[Tank131]

The thing is, a naval air wing's only real role is anti shipping, the PAF would oversee any a2a ops and for the most part any naval anti shipping.

The reason i say block 1's probably suffice is because they arent doing a whole lot other than acting as a launching platform. The concern ive got with the AF doing anti shipping is the potential for friendly fire. We have had instances where weve destroyed our own ships after misidentifying, so it wouldnt be too bad of a solution to have a dedicated 'light' anti ship wing to take over some work from the sultans and be dedicated purely to this mission.

Really, im not sure whether even JF-17s are the perfect solution for this role, but we dont really have any alternatives. Its Mirages or JF-17s, the reason why i also say having it be a dedicated Naval air wing allows the navy to customise their aircraft as needed. Some radars may suffer in performance over water for example, this way, the navy can customise, perfectly to their requirements. For example, the navy could approach oems like leonardo and request them to provide a variant of seaspray that can be flat mounted in the nose. This would give superior A2S performance at the cost of A2A performance but CAN still be used for A2A work, this way now the navy has a very capable, dedicated ASuW specialist aircraft, equipped with nothing but anti shippers or even torpedos to carry out these roles, while air to air coverage is provided by the PAF.

Just imagine a strike package of numerous JF-17B's equipped with 4 Light ASM's like Rasoob, saturating their ships

Though, as usual, money will be the issue.

So I slightly disagree with the roles of any fighter for Naval roles. The anti-shipping roles honestly will be far better carried out by assets such as Orion and Sea Sultan than JF-17 given their greater radar capacity and payloads, but the biggest benefit of a dedicated air unit for the navy is the air cover they can provide for surface ships. Secondly JF-17b you suggest are blk 2 if i recall. But i think if the blk1 airframes are going to be used in this role, going with an MLU for them along the lines of what @Quwa suggested refit them with LKF601E (the alternate Chinese radar that was proposed for block 3 and was said to be able to be refit into Blk 1 and 2) and put them through a SLEP style program to improve airframe life and. The issue is it may be more cost effective to get new fighters but may not be more time effective. Meaning as long as the upgrade is less than a blk 3 new, maybe its worth doing because it keeps 50 airframes. In active service while PAF is trying to replace Mirages.

IMO... They should also look at using the Block-1s as CAS aircraft for combined arms maneuvers with the Army.

Start by swapping out the KLJ-7 with a small, low-cost AESA radar (IIRC there was a Chinese option that apparently didn't require any modifications) and, maybe, integrate a targeting pod that can cue with an the HMD/S.

From there, configure the various locally-made air-to-ground missiles (AGM), LD-10 ARM, and the NORINCO GB6 (Chinese JSOW). They could even go a step further and load the GB6 with top-attack-capable loitering munitions so that we have something comparable to the CBU-105.

These beater JF-17s can basically provide top-cover to the Army against the IAF's Jaguars and, in turn, provide some long-range anti-armour capability.

As for the PN, they should make the case for J-35Es, i.e., the actual carrier-borne version. Sure, they won't have a carrier, but the fighter otherwise is designed for operations at sea (likely with salt erosion-proofing, etc).

I think there's a solid case for the PN to have its own proper fighter wing and, in turn, be responsible for coastal and maritime air operations. China and, for a time, even Germany maintained dedicated naval fighter wings from land with a clear demarcation between in-land and sea operations.

The PN surface fleet is going to keep growing, and in 15-20 years, the PN will likely have one of the world's biggest green water fleets. They've got the best awareness of what's happening within and over the ocean, so it makes little sense (bar lack of capacity) to deny them full control over their aerospace domain.

Again i think the JF-17 may not be best for these roles anymore. These are best served fighting jets like the jaguars you mentioned rather than dropping ordinance. Those rolls better served by ucavs and suicide drones which would be more cost effect i think.

 

[ghazi52]

Pakistan Air Force JF-17 Thunder thundering over National Stadium Karachi.

 

[SiliconBit (silicon0000)]

Pakistan Air Force’s JF-17 Block III Stuns the Skies, Proves Its Might at Spears of Victory 2025!

Pakistan Air Force's JF-17 Block III Stuns the Skies, Proves Its Might at Spears of Victory 2025! - Defence Security Asia

In a bold display of air power, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) unleashed its cutting-edge JF-17 Block III fighter jets into the skies of Spears of Victory 2025, a high-stakes multinational air exercise hosted by the Royal Saudi Air Force’s Air Warfare Center.

defencesecurityasia.com

 

[ghazi52]

Over Karachi