What's new

Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

.
Cost effective? They had after F16a/b nothing new... Just added some F16c/d but bought lots of second hand Mirages, cheap F7's and now busy with fourth gen fighterjet that costs 1/3 of what opponents cost... Who needs learning about cost effective?

But they didn't buy those F-16s on mass, only about 18 which is enough for 1 squadron. Again, the point still remains, the JF-17 is meant to be a cost effective fighter to replace Pakistan's aging Mirages that are too expensive to maintain, and it's F-7s...ditto.

great point munir & 100% true

That depends on what you're agreeing with.
 
.
It is good for PAF to get trained on block52 level. They bought minimum of 18 and upgraded all. Bought some second hand. That is the usual way for many nations. Surely they could have skipped new ones but that means you have only old frames with still some engine limitations. You cannot do it cheaper. And yes, you have to pay big time for these new ones and the many new weapon systems.

The mirage have a role that cannot be replaced. They are expensive to maintain but we upgraded them even without help of Dassault. If you already know the plane inside out, have full maintenance knowledge, the infrastructure and you can buy some cheap spare/spareparts then it is a cost effective solution.

F7's are point defence fighters. Good for a2a WVR but I would not do much more with them.

So the JF17 is a very efficient and good project in quality and quantity aspects. There is no better option.
 
.
SU 35 is not suitable for PAF, not because of Cost but because of logistics and strategy, we will be dependent of Russia as well as USA and china. instead PAF should focus long terms objectives.
1. keep JF17 going on with upgrades.
2. secure funds for J 31/20 or F 16s/ F 15SE
3. Put an intensive effort for inhouse production of Aesa Radars + Air to Air missiles.
4. stay calm in times when IAF is out of Shoping spree. PAF will gets its turn too sooner than many expect.
 
.
It is good for PAF to get trained on block52 level. They bought minimum of 18 and upgraded all. Bought some second hand. That is the usual way for many nations. Surely they could have skipped new ones but that means you have only old frames with still some engine limitations. You cannot do it cheaper. And yes, you have to pay big time for these new ones and the many new weapon systems.

The mirage have a role that cannot be replaced. They are expensive to maintain but we upgraded them even without help of Dassault. If you already know the plane inside out, have full maintenance knowledge, the infrastructure and you can buy some cheap spare/spareparts then it is a cost effective solution.

F7's are point defence fighters. Good for a2a WVR but I would not do much more with them.

So the JF17 is a very efficient and good project in quality and quantity aspects. There is no better option.


Munir Saheb,

Upgraded Mirage III/V might be potent, but with two fuel tanks taking up 2/5 Hard Points, Mirage is no longer effective at Interdiction with just 3 hardpoints for weapons, of which 2 probably go to self defense Air to Air missiles.

JF-17 increases that to 7, but the ideal configuration would be to have at least 9 hard points.
 
.
@Donatello: Nuke is only using up only one station. And now with IFR you can add range. The Mirages are very potent when it come to attacking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
It is good for PAF to get trained on block52 level. They bought minimum of 18 and upgraded all. Bought some second hand. That is the usual way for many nations. Surely they could have skipped new ones but that means you have only old frames with still some engine limitations. You cannot do it cheaper. And yes, you have to pay big time for these new ones and the many new weapon systems.

The mirage have a role that cannot be replaced. They are expensive to maintain but we upgraded them even without help of Dassault. If you already know the plane inside out, have full maintenance knowledge, the infrastructure and you can buy some cheap spare/spareparts then it is a cost effective solution.

F7's are point defence fighters. Good for a2a WVR but I would not do much more with them.

So the JF17 is a very efficient and good project in quality and quantity aspects. There is no better option.

Munir Bhai,

(i) Many a posters have said before that were the JF-17's prospected upgrades go accordingly to plan, the PAF might even skip the J-10B as an option & think of going for the Chinese singled engined 5th Generation J-31 when it matures !

(ii) Also if one were to draw up a comparative between the (a) the JF-17 vs the F-16 & (b) the J-10B vs the F-16 , to which F-16 Blocks would both (a) & (b) be equivalent to ?

Thank You, much obliged ! :)
 
.
Munir Bhai,

(i) Many a posters have said before that were the JF-17's prospected upgrades go accordingly to plan, the PAF might even skip the J-10B as an option & think of going for the Chinese singled engined 5th Generation J-31 when it matures !

(ii) Also if one were to draw up a comparative between the (a) the JF-17 vs the F-16 & (b) the J-10B vs the F-16 , to which F-16 Blocks would both (a) & (b) be equivalent to ?

Thank You, much obliged ! :)

(i) 10 years or later, the fourth generation jets won't have much relevance since your opponent is going to field at least 4++ generation fighters. No matter how much you upgrade JF-17 or J-10, I don't think it can come into category of stealth where RCS claim is confirmed to be 0.0001 or -40dBsm(F-22). Therefore, all our endeavors should be towards fielding a 5th generation jet as I am one of the guys who thinks quality should always be given priority to quantity. Moreover, Jf-17 seriously needs an engine upgrade.

(ii) JF-17 Blk2 would be equivalent to F-16 Blk 52 since it does not have AESA. When JF-17 gets one, it would surpass Blk52. If J-10B has all what wiki states, it is already better than F-16 Blk52. Anyways, the experts can correct me if I am wrong though. :cheers:
 
.
@Donatello: Nuke is only using up only one station. And now with IFR you can add range. The Mirages are very potent when it come to attacking.


Sirjee,

With due respect, one shouldn't plan a fleet based on the fact that one nuke is enough so one hardpoint is enough. How many times have nukes actually been flown?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Sirjee,

With due respect, one shouldn't plan a fleet based on the fact that one nuke is enough so one hardpoint is enough. How many times have nukes actually been flown?

munir is right - the only known config. for nukes is 1 / aircraft. F-16 or Mirage V
 
.
Table 1. Pakistan’s nuclear forces, 2011

Type......Range.......... Year.......... Payload....
aircraft...(kilometers)... Introduced. (kilograms)
F-16A/B. 1,600........... 1998......... 1 bomb
Mirage V. 2,100............1998......... 1 bomb
 
.
Nuclear-capable aircraft

Pakistan probably assigns its F-16A/B aircraft to the nuclear role, although some Mirage Vs could also have a nuclear mission. The F-16A/Bs were supplied by the United States between 1983 and 1987, and the units with the nuclear mission probably include Squadrons 9 and 11 at Sargodha AirBase, which is located 160km (100 miles) northwest of Lahore. Pakistan's F-16A/Bs, which have a range of 1,600km (extendable when equipped with drop tanks), most likely carry a single bomb on the centerline pylon.

the F-16C/D's have now replaced the Mirage V's
 
.
Nuclear-capable aircraft

Pakistan probably assigns its F-16A/B aircraft to the nuclear role, although some Mirage Vs could also have a nuclear mission. The F-16A/Bs were supplied by the United States between 1983 and 1987, and the units with the nuclear mission probably include Squadrons 9 and 11 at Sargodha AirBase, which is located 160km (100 miles) northwest of Lahore. Pakistan's F-16A/Bs, which have a range of 1,600km (extendable when equipped with drop tanks), most likely carry a single bomb on the centerline pylon.

the F-16C/D's have now replaced the Mirage V's

Hey but wouldn't we need their source codes or something to integrate the nuclear weapons onto them ? :what:

I would imagine our F-16s aren't equipped to fire Ra'ad or Babur or any of our Pakistani or Chinese origin missiles & I don't think the Americans would have supplied us anything that we could put a nuclear warhead on !

Or are you talking about a Strategic Nuke ala Hiroshima style - An unguided bomb dropped from above ? :what:
 
.
Hey but wouldn't we need their source codes or something to integrate the nuclear weapons onto them ? :what:

I would imagine our F-16s aren't equipped to fire Ra'ad or Babur or any of our Pakistani or Chinese origin missiles & I don't think the Americans would have supplied us anything that we could put a nuclear warhead on !

Or are you talking about a Strategic Nuke ala Hiroshima style - An unguided bomb dropped from above ? :what:

the 'toss' method it is called - i think...
 
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom