JF-17 with YJ83K ASM -Naval role

[ziaulislam]

---

---

The first priority is not naval strike at this point in time but COIN. Therefore my guess would be a lot of time would be spent on integrating western and chinese munitions (Air to ground) and less on Air Launched AShM.

I can be wrong here but deep maritime strike option can only be exercised with an air-refuelable JFT specially when carrying a C80X missile. Therefore, integrating the air refueling probe system is the first step to equipping the JFT with maritime strike role in a meaninigful way. Otherwise the Mirages will do fine in thier current configuration.

if paf flies from karachi or masroor airbase it may only have to go a few 100 kms to face any blockade..
we are not expecting paf to fly till Calcutta or so..
about loitering time jf-17 can refeul quickly even on ground and have quick takeoff time..
anyway they will soon be integrated with air refueling
Jf-17 models have shown to carry 2sd-10s, 2WVR missles and 2 C-802.. this is a good combo for naval role.
adding these give a weight less than 2800 kg so i dont think so it will be an issue. the wing seems good enough to hold the weight

[Nishan_101]

I think its high time and we have the technology too as we have made H-2/H-4 along with Babur and Raad, so now we should also try to make a supersonic anti shipping cruise missile too with VLS for surface ships as well as for air launched too..... What do you think!!!

[regular]

I think its high time and we have the technology too as we have made H-2/H-4 along with Babur and Raad, so now we should also try to make a supersonic anti shipping cruise missile too with VLS for surface ships as well as for air launched too..... What do you think!!!

Yes ure quite right about this development. Especially the supersonic missiles are hard to be intercepted.....

[Aamir Hussain]

if paf flies from karachi or masroor airbase it may only have to go a few 100 kms to face any blockade..
we are not expecting paf to fly till Calcutta or so..
about loitering time jf-17 can refeul quickly even on ground and have quick takeoff time..
anyway they will soon be integrated with air refueling
Jf-17 models have shown to carry 2sd-10s, 2WVR missles and 2 C-802.. this is a good combo for naval role.
adding these give a weight less than 2800 kg so i dont think so it will be an issue. the wing seems good enough to hold the weight

Good points my friend. However, the answer lies in the land attack missile ranges.

This time around the naval blockade would be farther out into the sea on the surface and inner cordon partolled by higher number of Indian subs. Keeping in view the extended range of the surface or sub launched missles (180 KM plus), the need for sub hunting, in addition to surface attack and the possiblity of counter interdiction assets afloat with the Indian navy, the range and loiter time has to be governed by the need to provide aircover for sub hunting Orions/Atlantics, Interdiction at ranges beyond 180 KM min. or at the edge of JFT ranges.

Here, humbly, I submit without taking anything away from the JFT, that the a/c for maritime strike lacks range in its ADV or MS versions and in its hi-lo-hi or lo-lo-hi profile in interdiction or ADV role. It needs air refueling capabiltiy for maritime strike or Air superiority role when proviing cover for the sub hunting or long range strike role MPA's.

My 2c

[great01pk]

here i think quite differently and its not necessary that you agree to me

Instead of depending on other country's technology Pakistan must develop its own air to surface and surface missiles because china is off course our all weather tested friend but even then its equipment can not be a replacement of something MADE IN PAKISTAN. and moreover a pakistani aircraft suits best with PAKISTANI ARMs and AMMUNITION.

REGARDS

[Aamir Hussain]

Agreed with the overall concept but than failing to meet min. mission parameters versus "Made in Pakistan" is and should not be an option when one is living in a dangerous neighbourhood.

I think we should slowly move towards self reliance without letting go of the qualitative imperative -- that my friend is long term goal. But when we talk of say the next couple of years, things and options have to be viewd in different light.

[fatman17]

NO!
Agosta 90b carries exocet and agosta 70 are capable of carrying harpoon!

if the agosta 70 can fire the harpoon, then agosta 90b can do the same. plus the P3C's can fire the harpoon. atlantique can fire the exocet.

[fatman17]

does PAF have a 'lone-wolf' concept for maritime-strike missions!?

[Aamir Hussain]

They have tried this concept in a number of exercises in meritime strike role -using another a/c as a diversion. Rest is should remain speculation.

[Penguin]

Yes ure quite right about this development. Especially the supersonic missiles are hard to be intercepted.....

Not THAT hard ... the high speed reduced reaction time, mainly. So, if you expand the effective range of (very) low level detection capabilities and the range of the surface to air missile, you're essentially good. See e.g. ESSM versus VL Sea Sparrow, (Sea)RAM versus Phalanx, larger cal gun ciws (35mm, 76 mm) in place of smaller cal (20-30mm).

Plus signature reduction makes it more difficult for the incoming missile to get target lock in the final approach stage: supersonic missile might no suffer drawback of its own high speed as this cuts target acquisition time for a given radar/rf/ir sensors and/or requires use of a longer range means of target acquisition for the final stage.

[fjavaid]

they're probably testing how the aircraft behaves with these missiles
thats why they're just using dummy i guess

Well not completely dummies ......this testing was not live missile fire test...this was to validate the missile iterface with a/c weapon management system along with other parameters checking .....such test are usually done before live firing...or before weapon certification....

[Super Falcon]

with CIWS system mounted on ships it is hard to hit ships sir with this C 802

[regular]

Not THAT hard ... the high speed reduced reaction time, mainly. So, if you expand the effective range of (very) low level detection capabilities and the range of the surface to air missile, you're essentially good. See e.g. ESSM versus VL Sea Sparrow, (Sea)RAM versus Phalanx, larger cal gun ciws (35mm, 76 mm) in place of smaller cal (20-30mm).

Plus signature reduction makes it more difficult for the incoming missile to get target lock in the final approach stage: supersonic missile might no suffer drawback of its own high speed as this cuts target acquisition time for a given radar/rf/ir sensors and/or requires use of a longer range means of target acquisition for the final stage.

Has this been experimentally proven that the supersonics were intercepted by the CIWS on ships with success and what is the success rate of their interception.......????........

[Penguin]

Has this been experimentally proven that the supersonics were intercepted by the CIWS on ships with success and what is the success rate of their interception.......????........

Both Goalkeeper and Phalanx have succesfully engaged supersonic targets IIRC, but the problem is not that they can't get the incoming missile. The problem is that the debirs from the destroyed missile will still impact and damage the ship. T'hat's why you have to extend the engagement envelope. ESSM has been tested likewise againast supersonic targets. Even the 'old' Sea Sparrow could engaged supersonic target (any jet flying Mach 1+ is a supersonic target). Point is at which height (which is more of a radar problem) and out to what distance (in view of reaction time and incoming debris)

Remember, RN's Sea Wolf during Flaklands was could already intercept incoming 4.5" gun shells ..... these have a muzzle velocity of 850-900 mps = mach 2.5-2.6.

Phalanx CIWS: The Last Defense, On Ship and Ashore
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities...s01_055726.pdf
UNITED STATES - RAM INTERCEPTS SUPERSONIC TARGET - Jane's International Defence Review
Raytheon Evolved SEASPARROW Missile intercepts supersonic target

Talos missiles were successfully converted to MQM-8 Vandal supersonic target drones. These are being replaced by GQM-163 Coyote SSST.
http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/app21.pdf
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...efenses-03155/

Goalkeeper:
"Reaction time against a Mach 2 sea-skimming missile from automatic detection to IFF interrogation, 90 degree tracker slew, tracker elevation, X-band lock-on and computer run-in is claimed to be about 5.5 seconds with the engagement starting at 1,500m and ending with a kill by 300m. "
http://kitsune.addr.com/LCF/goalkeeper.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkee...ite_note-rnn-0

Phalanx:
"The Block 1 (1988) upgrade offered various improvements in radar, ammunition, rate of fire, increasing engagement elevation to +70 degrees, and computing. These improvements were intended to increase the system's capability against emerging Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles. Block 1A introduced a new computer system to counter more maneuverable targets.
...
Utilising the armament of the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, and based on the mounting and targeting systems of the Phalanx, SeaRAM was developed in response to concerns about the performance of gun-based systems against modern, super-sonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles. Designed as a companion self-defense system to Phalanx,[31] the SeaRAM is equipped with an 11 cell RAM launcher, and provides defense at a longer range. Due to the common mounting, SeaRAM inherits the relatively easy installation characteristics of its gun-based sibling, with Raytheon stating that "[SeaRAM] fits the exact shipboard installation footprint of the Phalanx, uses the same power and requires minimal shipboard modification"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

[ziaulislam]

---

---

Good points my friend. However, the answer lies in the land attack missile ranges.

This time around the naval blockade would be farther out into the sea on the surface and inner cordon partolled by higher number of Indian subs. Keeping in view the extended range of the surface or sub launched missles (180 KM plus), the need for sub hunting, in addition to surface attack and the possiblity of counter interdiction assets afloat with the Indian navy, the range and loiter time has to be governed by the need to provide aircover for sub hunting Orions/Atlantics, Interdiction at ranges beyond 180 KM min. or at the edge of JFT ranges.

Here, humbly, I submit without taking anything away from the JFT, that the a/c for maritime strike lacks range in its ADV or MS versions and in its hi-lo-hi or lo-lo-hi profile in interdiction or ADV role. It needs air refueling capabiltiy for maritime strike or Air superiority role when proviing cover for the sub hunting or long range strike role MPA's.

My 2c

pick up the map you would see that our geographicla location is such that blockage more than 600 km form cost will not matter ...
jf-17 without drop tanks have a range of 2700 km with 1100liters drop tank ( and 2 c-802,2sd-10s ,2 WVR)the range can be extended to 4000 km or 4 hours.
this much more than enough keeping in mind that weapons have stand off range of 200km plus..

jf-17 was built keeping multirole in mind. it was built for PAF. and PAF precisely knew our requirements.