Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
JF-17B, two-seater.
What is this trainer, Tech demonstrator for ground attack aircraft, EW fighter?
What is this trainer, Tech demonstrator for ground attack aircraft, EW fighter?
JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
- Thread starter johnqh
- Start date
A two seat variant open up possibilities for use as a dedicated SEAD & Strike platform.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
It’s too small to make an effective SEAD wild weasel.
Sure, you can hang 3 EW pods on a JF17, with a pair of ARMs and a pair of short range AAMs for self defence, but its range is going to be poor with no drop tanks and so much payload.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Perhaps, but is it enough to operate SEAD say on Pakistan's rival India with that 2 seat variant?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Technically, yes. But their time on station is going to be limited.
Although they could potentially get around that by operating in teams, with one JF17 carrying the pods while others carry the ARMs. That should allow them all to also carry tanks to give them more useful range.
EW and strike is where the J10 could have been a better fit, but even the J10 is a bit on the light side for such missions to be honest, especially SEAD and EW.
JH7As and J16s are far better suited, but it’s understandable the PAF would find the JH7As too pure a striker, while the J16 isn’t for sale.
Also, since the PLAAF have both the JH7A and J16/MKK in numbers, it does not feel the same need to develop the J10’s multirole capacities.
The J10 could do strike, but I don’t think the PLAAF would have been willing to accept too much penalty on the J10’s air to air credentials to make them better strikers, so while the PAF would have preferred to get the J10 for strike, EW and SEAD etc, but unless they were willing to pay for that development work, they probably would have only gotten derivatives of the PLAAF’s air superiority focused J10s. That is probably a big part of why the PAF went with more F16s over getting the J10 in the end. They felt the JF17 already had AA covered, and wanted a heavier bird with more of an AG focus.
timepass
Brigadier
I remember, people use to say 054As wont be for sale....right????
So hold your horses.... IMO, its on PAF if they want J16 or suited them....
Need to correct the facts here.... PAF have signed a deal of 2 Sqdns of FC-20s (J10), but later PAF put the order on hold due to the following:
- IAF acquisition of MMRCA (Which was later finalized with Rafale)
- Constant developments, J10A to J10B to J10C & now under development of J10D.
- PAF is very much interested in J10Ds with CFTs & other new goodies which enable PAF to face MKIs & Rafale along with F16 BLK 52...
Indeed sounds logical, but once seen in the context of PAF acquisition of MAR-1 HARM and availability of Air to Air Refueling probes in late Blk II models and B variants, idea of a SEAD team seems logical, where SEAD package will be refueled in air and both HARM carrier and Jammer have enough fuel to make it back to tanker for refueling before reaching their base.
If J 10D makes it to PAF, things in terms of range will definitely ease up.
Type 054A is entirely Chinese. J-16 is still developed out of a family of Russian products. China probably promised Russia their flanker derivatives will not be sold so as to not tread onto what Russia considers its market. China has not intention of taking flanker income away from Russia except for its own patronage. As indicated many times before, China always maintained to Russia that it had every intention of domesticating the flanker with or without (mostly without) Russian agreement and assistance. Su-35 was likely superior to the J-11D project so they still purchased it for a variety of reasons but the main aim was to domesticate this platform so they could build as many as they wished in as many variants as they could come up with, all using Chinese avionics, electronics, and weapons. Now even the engines (has been WS10 variants for close to a decade now). Therefore selling J-16 to Pakistan is not the same as selling Type 054A.
Type 054A is no longer produced and its replacement is being built right now. It's still a capable enough platform and the assembly is still operating for Pakistan who can benefit from the scaled production. Win win for everyone. 054A can meet IN frigates and most of their destroyers on an even footing. This family of frigate has gone through three main modifications in total so its basically time for a new one for the latest Chinese electronics and technologies to keep up with and counter USN and JMSDF developments. Using 054 to say J-16 could be for sale if Pakistan would like to purchase is nonsensical.
J-10 and JF-17 are so similar in role, it makes very little sense to buy (maybe build as well) and support both. J-10 may have been considered at one point but the rumours about Pak buying J-10 were mostly drawn out of the initial stages of considering the J-10. Pakistan is far from wealthy, over-spending on military is a HUGE drain on a nation's economy when they do not design and/or manufacture the products. The few gains J-10s will add is just not worth the costs. J-10D is vaporware. I don't understand why many Pakistani posters think it is a real project. It may be but they really wouldn't know. If it is tailor made for PAF to meet Rafale, we must remember that Rafale in IAF is still vaporware. Nothing about it is solid yet. MKI has been operating for about a decade. Granted it's building up in numebrs but why buy J-10D now to meet that threat if more numbers of existing PAF fighters should meet the MKI threat if the past is anything to go by? None of these speculations make sense and are built out of thin air. CFTs on J-10s don't help PAF at all. Again another pointless thing... just a paper improvement that doesn't give any benefit. Pakistan is not a huge country. J-10s in numbers should be able to cover the entire country. As soon as you guys take off, you basically nearly meet IAF in WVR combat. What use are CFTs that weigh you down and restrict performance?
