araz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 9,291
- Reaction score
- 81
Bhai.It would require a redesign perhaps, possibly a new design, but it maybe worth a new design, considering the possibilities of a small fighter with that much thrust. A design like the FS2020 by SAAB. It could be an effective replacement for the JF-17, because with the Block 3 design we are reaching the limit of its design. The SAAB design could be a cost effective and highly capable replacement, because the original JF-17 has already gone through an overhaul, and may only have another 15-20 years left in the air frame. Now is the time to think of a workhorse replacement; with the technology developed a good way to share technology developed for Project AZM.
Actually, The SAAB design envisions a 170 kn engine, so we may not need to use the WS-19.
so while we are going for a twin WS-15 class design with Project AZM, we might as well go with a Single engine WS-15 design as a backbone fighter. It would be a mistake to build to small a fighter if our doctrine evolves to be more offensive.
We are a bhuki nangi nation. We do not have the capability to design a newer plane for the very simple reason.
A. Cost could well run into billions depending on the complexity of design.
B. Time factor. If we run a programme for the next decade what will you have that you cannot get with the J10?
C. Average work up period for an air plane could be any where between 10 to 15 years. We will end up having a redesigned JFT which already serves all its purposes at a cost of 2billion plus build up cost per unit.
D. You do not have the ancillary industries to build the alloys, etc locally. Setting up those industries will set you back 10s of billions of dollars thqt is if anyone will provide you with them in the first place.
Stick to what you have for the moment. You need to learn to walk before you fly. Jumping the gun leads to nasty accidents and can be costly.
A