When the JF-17 fighter was in development, many online communities were jumping with excitement trying to compare it with its possible arch rival India’s modern combatants Su-30MKI, Mig-29S, Mirage-2000H and the unbuilt Tejas. There were even claims (of which I read and believed) of it featuring western Radars and long range missiles, and that the Chinese where eventually going to order some due to its superior capabilities, but wanted to fill Pakistan’s orders first. However, this online reality seems far from the actual reality.
There are still several questions regarding this aircraft that still bother me and maybe some of the JF-17 fans out there can shed some light on the questions and we can then separate the wheat from the chaff without getting feather ruffled. I know that you JF-17 fans are vehement of your aircrafts prowess. Therefore let’s all take a deep breath and calmly go over the questions without attacks or national pride rearing its face. Good! Ready? Let’s start, shall we?
Number one: The KLJ-7 radar fitted to the JF-17 uses a mechanically-steered slotted array antenna and bears similarities with the various Russian radars imported in the 1990s. Granted the manufacturer claims that it can identify 40 targets, monitor up to 10 of them in track-while-scan (TWS) mode and simultaneously fire on two BVR targets. The detection range for targets with a radar cross-section of 3 square meters is stated to be ≥75 km (≥35 km in look-down mode). The EL/M-2032 (used by India and many other nations in upgrades) is recognized for it’s greatly enhances the Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground and Air-to-Sea capabilities. In the Air-to-Air modes, the radar enables long-range target detection and tracking for weapon delivery or automatic target acquisition in close combat engagements. Assuming an 80 cm antenna diameter the KLJ-7 can detect a radar cross section of 3 m2 Look-up: >75 km. The EL/M-2032 can fare around 120km +/-. It appears (at least on paper) that any chance of JF-17 maintaining BVR edge over its adversary’s front-line combatants, for the most part, is unlikely.
Number two: The aircraft does not have enough wing area to provide a low wing loading, thereby reducing the maneuverability of the aircraft. It has a Maximum G loading of only +8 g / -3 g as claimed by PAC, same G limit as the J-7, and the J-7 has a much lower wing loading (smaller aircraft) which makes it more maneuverable.
Number three: Its thrust to weight ratio is another negative point. When its rival, the Indian Air Force Tejas (of which is basically a short legged and smaller Mirage 2000), was overtly criticized having a low Thrust to Weight ratio, we should have compared it with JF-17 which has even less. The thrust to weight ratio is claimed to be 0.95 (based on thrust, which we will get to later). Whereas the Tejas is at 1.04 with the F414 engine. However the Tejas is short legged and will need to look for a landing field if it utilizes its afterburner.
Number four: the proudly claimed RD-93’s “Combat thrust with afterburner” is stated as 19,200lbf, while the whole defense community knows RD-93’s thrust is 18,300lbf and the only real thrust increase was achieved with its new re-designed Sea Wasp RD-33MK engines- which has been explicitly stated by Klimov. However, Klimov’s RD-33 series 3, whose other name is RD-93 with re-positioned Gear boxes, has a provision for emergency thrust, which Klimov says can produce 8700kgf (19,140lbf) in their officially released document. They further state that as “Take-off emergency mode”. So the mentioned thrust can only be used during take-off where the Air is denser, and also only during emergency situations since it would seriously lower the engine’s lifespan. This is a far cry from the “Combat thrust” claim. In any case, this brings the thrust to weight ratio number into question as well as the “on paper” close combat capabilities of JF-17.
Number five: the power plant that is still being utilized is the RD-93 which is neither of Chinese or Pakistani origin. So basically if you purchase the aircraft (in its current production version without the Chinese engine) you need to be in good relations with China and Russia.
Number six: The final disadvantage is JF-17’s speed. For a good interception, speed is an important criteria. However, the JF-17’s max speed is Mach 1.6 which is claimed by PAC. This indicates that JF-17 has higher air resistance. When compared, their J-7s (A better reverse engineered Mig-21) that has a higher speed of Mach 2+ with a lower thrust engine (granted it is a smaller aircraft). But the main question then becomes the majority of the fighters the JF-17 is going to face, all have speeds greater than the Thunder. Not good if it’s come back from a long range mission and being chased or if attacking an enemy and are trying to provide your missiles with a kinetic advantage.
I can understand that there is a great deal to be said for being self-sufficient in domestic defense, especially if you have had to face embargos on parts and aircraft. It can traumatizing on the military’s psyche. However, in the end, it’s all about defending ones homeland from the enemy, and not copyrights to produce domestic equipment.
I will now get back to bottling my Malbec