JF-17 - Updates, News & Discussion

Rationalist said:
I gave a cost-effective solution to the bomb-truck problem here:

Rational Philosopher

Thread 'A stop gap solution for PAF in absence of large payload bomb truck platforms?'

Since most of Pakistan's combat fleet consists of low payload light jets, compared to heavy twin-engine aircraft like the Su-30, J-16, or F-15, during wartime we could struggle to deliver a sufficiently large amount of ordinance due to this, is it feasible to use modified cargo aircraft to dump stand-off munitions in large numbers at a distance?

For example a modified C-130 or Y-9 platform packed with long-range cruise missiles, REKs, loitering munitions, EW payloads, etc.

I was thinking of it and came across the USAF with a similar concept called the 'Rapid Dragon'

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


Essentially a cargo aircraft flying at safe distances similar to an AEWAC while dumping long-range cruise missiles from the backdoor. Can perhaps go closer with top cover. Can't say it's a perfect solution but worth analysing by the planners in the know.
Click to expand...

Pakistan has already done this in i think 65 or 71 war with c130.
 
Rationalist said:
I gave a cost-effective solution to the bomb-truck problem here:

Rational Philosopher

Thread 'A stop gap solution for PAF in absence of large payload bomb truck platforms?'

Since most of Pakistan's combat fleet consists of low payload light jets, compared to heavy twin-engine aircraft like the Su-30, J-16, or F-15, during wartime we could struggle to deliver a sufficiently large amount of ordinance due to this, is it feasible to use modified cargo aircraft to dump stand-off munitions in large numbers at a distance?

For example a modified C-130 or Y-9 platform packed with long-range cruise missiles, REKs, loitering munitions, EW payloads, etc.

I was thinking of it and came across the USAF with a similar concept called the 'Rapid Dragon'

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


Essentially a cargo aircraft flying at safe distances similar to an AEWAC while dumping long-range cruise missiles from the backdoor. Can perhaps go closer with top cover. Can't say it's a perfect solution but worth analysing by the planners in the know.
Click to expand...


Pakistan already don't have enough transport planes , best to not use these are bombers

The bomber role just need a new platform
Pakistan will just have to see if few Bombers can be attained from China

Even China has not enough bombers they are flying older bombers

So options might be limited for Bomber role
 
Last edited:
Scorpio said:
If any country can afford J10C then they definitely go for J10C instead JF17 block 3 ...

If we see cost in both of them not have much difference ..

The JF-17 Block 3 is significantly more affordable than the J-10C, with unit costs ranging from $30-40 million compared to the J-10C's $40-70 million. While the J-10C offers superior performance and advanced features, the JF-17 Block 3 provides a cost-effective multirole platform with strong export potential.

Cost Breakdown:
  • JF-17 Block 3:
    Estimated at $30-40 million per unit, the JF-17 Block 3 is designed to be a cost-effective solution, particularly for nations seeking a multirole fighter without the high price tag of Western-built aircraft.

  • J-10C:
    The J-10C is estimated to cost between $40 and $70 million per unit. It offers a higher level of performance and advanced technology, including an AESA radar and stealth features, making it suitable for nations prioritizing advanced capabilities.
Click to expand...
If im not wrong the stealth feature is dsi intake ? Then jf17 has it.

If its composite? The jf17 blk 3 has them.

Irst is usp for j10c.

Its clear that the j10c has better range. However, j10c overall has high cost then jf17 and provides better performance but not so enough to consider it over jf17 with large numbers. Its not indian style narrative where quantity with poor quality over quality. Rather in jf17 case quantity with good quality.

In exercises it has done good job against j10, f16 then why so much criticism from some members is beyond my understanding.

High price tag of western built aircraft ? I want to answer this in a way that is important to understand. Westerns are greedy and they charge double the amount for the quality that other non westerns provide. Do you think the exact same jf17 would cost same if it was western aircraft ? Never.
 
AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:
Pakistan already don't have enough transport planes , best to not use these are bombers

The bomber role just need a new platform
Click to expand...
Pakistan is very thin country geographically. Even if we buy su34 or j15 or 16 whatever it is, its not adequate. Once the war is on we wont have enough time to many sorties, missile attacks continously with drone attacks separately will make it difficult. In indo pak case, pakistan will initially be in full throttle with airforce and then navy and army.

After first few days of sorties. Then its all nuclear when bases are damaged enough and pakistan cannot do air sorties.

These heavy fighters wont do much. India and pak do not have much to offer but limited systems that can be targetted by our current fleet.

Now with guided mrls, cruise missiles it is not adequate to heavily invest on heavy fighters. Su34 is doing good but not a wonderous job in ukraine.

If buying heavy fighter is necessary than do for naval attack role. Where swarms of ashms are required to do a reasonable damage with 4 to 6 ashm per heavy fighter instead of 2 as in case of jf17.
 
Scorpio said:
If any country can afford J10C then they definitely go for J10C instead JF17 block 3 ...

If we see cost in both of them not have much difference ..

The JF-17 Block 3 is significantly more affordable than the J-10C, with unit costs ranging from $30-40 million compared to the J-10C's $40-70 million. While the J-10C offers superior performance and advanced features, the JF-17 Block 3 provides a cost-effective multirole platform with strong export potential.

Cost Breakdown:
  • JF-17 Block 3:
    Estimated at $30-40 million per unit, the JF-17 Block 3 is designed to be a cost-effective solution, particularly for nations seeking a multirole fighter without the high price tag of Western-built aircraft.

  • J-10C:
    The J-10C is estimated to cost between $40 and $70 million per unit. It offers a higher level of performance and advanced technology, including an AESA radar and stealth features, making it suitable for nations prioritizing advanced capabilities.
Click to expand...

Let's take a deep dive: We know Pakistan's cost is around $30 mil per unit for the block III. Weapon and Radar wise (capability with PL-15 and GaN AESA), the J-10C competitor with similar capability will NOT be the $ 40 Million one. That will take you to near $ 60-70 million.

For smaller nations, or budget nations, that $ 30 million difference, meaning you could acquire a JF-17 in 50-60% of a J-10C's price.
That's A LOT of difference, near 40-50%. So JF-17 proven better cost wise.

Next, since Pakistan doesn't have strings to attack to the jet, it's no strings attached with near 80-90% Rafale / F-16 block 70 capability weapon and avionics wise. That's second case.

Lastly, if one places a large enough order and wants depot level maintenance or even assembly, like there was a time Egypt was discussing it. That can happen also. Unmatched use case so far.

NONE of the above options will occur for J-10C!! Please keep the above in mind, its flexibility to buy and maintain even with low budget. Now we go to operational effectiveness.

JF-17 is unbeatable at being a workhorse jet for ANY air force. If you don't have an India-Pakistan or Israel-Egypt / Iran like situation and you are an African or Central Russian state, JF-17 may be just what you need. If you have a war like issues with someone, you acquire a superior platform also, but keep the JF-17 for daily CAP's and workhorse capability matching what F-16 block 70 and Rafale give you with BVR + AESA. Same capability, less than half the cost.
 
Psyko70 said:
You need to understand pakistan airforce doctrine. I believe its based on light to medium fighter concept.

Apart from payload and speed. Avionics and radar are most important component and jf17 is good in it. Mig 33 never had that leverage evem mig 35 lacks the quality in avionics and radar section that jf17 now possess.

What we need is j16 like fighter for strike role. For aa role and light weight ground attacks, jf17 in our theatre is doing adequate job. Plus, firing 2 raad or glide bombs with precision is not bad role.

I replied to your, "russian junk" statement. Which is too extreme.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anywhere RUSSIAN JUNK in this thread bro? and give the $$$ to Russians they will come with extremely good designs and better Avionics/radars

I'm not saying Russian junk but @RajaBaja said it in previous page
 
NGAD IS THE BEST said:
I didn't say anywhere RUSSIAN JUNK in this thread bro? and give the $$$ to Russians they will come with extremely good designs and better Avionics/radars

I'm not saying Russian junk but @RajaBaja said it in previous page
Click to expand...
I apologize I could read all messages. Please accept my sincere apologies brother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 3 more.
    • Total: 28 (members: 7, guests: 21)

    Pakistan Defence Latest

    Country Watch Latest

    Latest Posts

    Share this page

    Back
    Top