JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF

[Sipahi]

Read of the month ... Excellent Sir @Oscar.

Read of the month ... Excellent Sir @Oscar.

 

[SQ8]

disappointed in you @Horus, you should have let @Ocsar post this, so he can get the positives ratings.


anyhow, @Oscar ,it was beautifully written and i look forward to read more of your work.

Neither of us believe in ratings. The message is more important to convey.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Neither of us believe in ratings. The message is more important to convey.

spoken like a true gentleman. anyhow please dont forget to tag me if and or when you post more of your work.

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar thanks man for such a nice piece of reading on PAF doctrine.
As you mentioned sweds sir, and reason behind Gripen i would like to put forward my Question.


In Gripen NG model SAAB has moved landing Gear into wings,thus increasing 40% internal fuel volume and giving Aircraft more time on statio

I was thinking sir can we make same arrangement for JFT.It will increase internal fuel volume.save hard points and will make it more capable for Navel role.

Considering we have ownership of the JFT it is quite likely that such changes can be done. But that all depends on how much growth we want out of the aircraft. There is a serious requirement to increase its internal fuel quantity and to achieve that the gears could go into the wings.
However, that would mean strengthening the wings and wing box which would add weight. Weight that would need to be shaved off by introducing composites.

Each of these would increase the cost, and hence take away from the "cost effectiveness" which is the driving point within the program.

 

[Blue Marlin]

@Oscar , i have a question for you.

the whole paf doctrine is sort of loosely based around a defensive doctrine. when do you think when the Pakistan airforce will change this doctrine to a hybrid of defensive and offensive and what platform will be used to suit this doctrine?

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar , i have a question for you.

the whole paf doctrine is sort of loosely based around a defensive doctrine. when do you think when the Pakistan airforce will change this doctrine to a hybrid of defensive and offensive and what platform will be used to suit this doctrine?

As I tried to infer in the article. The term defensive here is not per se referring to defensive.
Take the Israeli Air Force (IDF/AF), As such their task is to defend Israel but they carry out offensive operations regularly to ensure that Israel is not threatened. Their Defence lies in a good offensive capability. The same goes for the PAF.
However, Israel has multiple neighbours that threaten it and whose key critical targets that threaten Israel immediately lie both within and further out from Israel. Take Iran for e.g. Israel has to fly all the way over multiple "less than friendly" territories to get to Iran. Hence, it has the need for long range heavy assets that can fly all the way to Iran, fight their way through without any support and return in some shape.

By contrast, Pakistan has one main enemy that threatens it in a similar manner to Israel's various ones. If we look at the map
Scramble

We will see that most of India's major air bases are fairly close to the border(Just as Pakistan's are) and as such are not that far away in terms of flight time.Out of all these bases, the ones that really matter to the PAF are those closest to the border as those are the ones capable of generating strikes the fastest and providing the least in response time for our Air Defence to pick up. Which makes the F-16s fairly suitable to carry out operations against the deepest bases and even the JF-17s can pitch in against the closer ones.

The deeper bases do also need assets that can attack them, but the effectiveness of India's Air Defence system and the sheer distance means that even a heavy aircraft going to strike them is going on a one way mission. Those targets are handled best by cruise missile strikes or by simply keeping air defence coverage good enough to make their impact the least.

So when I say defensive, I do not mean that the PAF will operate only in Pakistani skies; but rather that that object is to ensure that India is unable to inflict damage on Pakistan and/or capture territory by carrying out both offensive and defensive operations against and inside India to that its ability to achieve its objectives is deterred.

 

[nadeemkhan110]

i just wanna ask.. is SU-35 better for PAF? What exactly can be its biggest disadvantage besides integration to C4IS.
I heard about op orchard.. Isrealis jammed Syrian air defense. Tehy can probably jam also US made weapons (used by pak) when necessary..And india cna be given that tech too by Isreral.. So w'd it eb beter having russian, chinese and our own avionics, radars etc so all cannot be blind in any case of aggression ??
Is russian su-35 pak deal real?
1. Is it to lure in indians
2. Or they can really give to pak as Russia-china close ties. (100+ billion $) deal for oil pipeline between 2 countries.
3. Is it the punishment to india for not choosing Su-35 over western fighters.
4. Or its not teh Soviet Union but a russia. Now its not a "2 Block" game anymore.

agree and Inshallah we will get su-35 soon

 

[Blue Marlin]

As I tried to infer in the article. The term defensive here is not per se referring to defensive.
Take the Israeli Air Force (IDF/AF), As such their task is to defend Israel but they carry out offensive operations regularly to ensure that Israel is not threatened. Their Defence lies in a good offensive capability. The same goes for the PAF.
However, Israel has multiple neighbours that threaten it and whose key critical targets that threaten Israel immediately lie both within and further out from Israel. Take Iran for e.g. Israel has to fly all the way over multiple "less than friendly" territories to get to Iran. Hence, it has the need for long range heavy assets that can fly all the way to Iran, fight their way through without any support and return in some shape.

By contrast, Pakistan has one main enemy that threatens it in a similar manner to Israel's various ones. If we look at the map
Scramble

We will see that most of India's major air bases are fairly close to the border(Just as Pakistan's are) and as such are not that far away in terms of flight time.Out of all these bases, the ones that really matter to the PAF are those closest to the border as those are the ones capable of generating strikes the fastest and providing the least in response time for our Air Defence to pick up. Which makes the F-16s fairly suitable to carry out operations against the deepest bases and even the JF-17s can pitch in against the closer ones.

The deeper bases do also need assets that can attack them, but the effectiveness of India's Air Defence system and the sheer distance means that even a heavy aircraft going to strike them is going on a one way mission. Those targets are handled best by cruise missile strikes or by simply keeping air defence coverage good enough to make their impact the least.

So when I say defensive, I do not mean that the PAF will operate only in Pakistani skies; but rather that that object is to ensure that India is unable to inflict damage on Pakistan and/or capture territory by carrying out both offensive and defensive operations against and inside India to that its ability to achieve its objectives is deterred.

ok, now i see.you elaborated it now so i get it , i would assume your asked the same question i just asked you.
it is not a surprise that you compare Israel to Pakistan as they are both similar as you pointed out.

when you referenced the f16, being able to conduct strikes against indian bases i dont think you considered the distance from pakistani airforce bases to indian bases and i would assume they wont fly straight to the target they would have to come in at unprecedented way. wont these factors will affect the f16's ability to conduct the mission.

the jf-17 in my opinion is more of a fighter that doesnt do to deep in to the adversaries borders. it's range does hold it back and its fuels tanks replace what could be sd-10a's. the f16 and the mirage 5f rose 2-3 are pakistan only strike fighter. but its not exactly the best role for the jet. which is where the hunt for a new strike fighter comes in and there are supposedly eyes on the su-35, which i doubt.

 

[nadeemkhan110]

ok, now i see.you elaborated it now so i get it , i would assume your asked the same question i just asked you.
it is not a surprise that you compare Israel to Pakistan as they are both similar as you pointed out.

when you referenced the f16, being able to conduct strikes against indian bases i dont think you considered the distance from pakistani airforce bases to indian bases and i would assume they wont fly straight to the target they would have to come in at unprecedented way. wont these factors will affect the f16's ability to conduct the mission.

the jf-17 in my opinion is more of a fighter that doesnt do to deep in to the adversaries borders. it's range does hold it back and its fuels tanks replace what could be sd-10a's. the f16 and the mirage 5f rose 2-3 are pakistan only strike fighter. but its not exactly the best role for the jet. which is where the hunt for a new strike fighter comes in and there are supposedly eyes on the su-35, which i doubt.

I don't understand about attachments

 

[Blue Marlin]

I don't understand about attachments

there are Pakistani and indian bases there are meant to represent the distance between indian and Pakistani bases

 

[Mughal-Prince]

Neither of us believe in ratings. The message is more important to convey.

Well said Oscar .
On the other note Express News ko daikha na kiya haal hua un-ka rating kay chakker main .
By the way you can call it a strike back it's not Karma and I was waiting for that to be happen from the beginning of Axact scandle . It was Due .

 

[PakShaheen79]

Hi,

I read this article and re-read and read it again---for a total of 6 times.

So---after 4 days on the thread----it has barely filled up the first page of the thread with its response----.

Basically meaning----it is a worthless article---. To me---it looks like the poster @Oscar is responding to my threads critical of the PAF and now trying to justify in a lovey dovey article how wonderful this decision is.

This article has absolutely no focus---it rambles on and on---and goes on wild tangents from here to there on a whim.

I feel bad for @Oscar for an extremely poor response to his thread---so I will give it some life----. I mean to say that look at the effort he has put into these useless 10 pages that he has put into---so there should be some reward for the time he has invasted----.

As fort me---I have all the time in the world right now---I am on temporary disability.

To the readers:----

In the world's mega industrial complexes----no air forces produces its own fighter aircraft----and if it made any sense at all---all the big airlines would be building passenger aircraft----and shipping companies building ships and rail road companies building engines and railroad cars----. But it does not happen---.

What if you made a mistake after all this investment and rarara---what if you found out that those who initially designed and invested into this aircraft totally screwed up----you found out that this aircraft---the end product did not meet the PRIMARY need for the defense of the country.

So---what do you do then---if you are the U S---someone will leak the information to the public and there will be retribution---but if your are Pakistan---no one will leak the information----everyone will try real hard to save the face of the glorious airforce----so that no shame may come to their name and integrity and a feel of " all is well " will be spread around by article like these.

The poster also give the example of Sweden in his article----if he would have done some research-----he would have found out that Sweden has not been in a war for 201 years now----.

So---it maybe a wonderful weapons producer---but it is clueless to what it needs are against an opponent like Russian air force----.

Sweden is all about SAAB and VOLVO automobile mentality----wonderful vehicles for many a years---but for a very small minority---. They have been pushed aside by large and brash and more powerful brutish vehicles to the extent that the swedes had to sell their factories to others to operate.

These following lines are quoted from the wiki article about Sweden:--

" In the early 19th century Finland and the remaining territories outside the Scandinavian Peninsula were lost. After its last war in 1814, Sweden entered into a personal union with Norway which lasted until 1905. Since 1814, Sweden has been at peace, adopting a non-aligned foreign policy in peacetime and neutrality in wartime. Sweden was neutral in World War I. Post-war prosperity provided the foundations for the social welfare policies characteristic of modern Sweden. Sweden created a successful model of democratic socialism. Sweden remained neutral during World War II, avoiding the fate of occupied Norway. Sweden was one of the first non-participants of World War II to join the United Nations (in 1946) ".

Sweden is also being pragmatic---it really does not need and air force---because uncle Sam and associates will be coming on the run in the blink of an eye with all their arsenal of heavies.

So---giving the example of Sweden and its mindset about a small aircraft was basically thoughtless by the poster and failing to dig deeper into the why factor.

I would not want to waste the readers time much more-----but remember---in the 1965 and 1971 wars where we succeeded----our fighter aircraft were bigger---and had superior weaponery---and we had a dedicated BOMBER fleet.

The enemy had inferior aircraft and inferior weaponery-----. So---now the enemy has superior aircraft---superior weaponery---excellent training----and fires lit in their hearts and souls to seek revenge from the paf----and the poster wants to make the readers believe that the inferior aircraft of paf will overcome the superior aircraft of the enemy.

Mathematically---this is impossible. Readers must be honest in their hearts and souls---JF17 is a wonderful aircraft----it is a unique aircraft---there is no other single engine aircraft currently in production with a total weapons package like this aircraft. But this is not the aircraft to counter the enemy.

1. The article is about JF-17 but it doesn't mean that this is the only AC in PAF.
2.China still has lots of inferior aircraft than Japan, US, India, South Korea .... But, can any of these nation can threaten China. No... Because War is a complex proposition involving much more than mere armed forces.
3.Yes, Pakistan do need heavy MR fighters, but that doesn't mean that the entire PAF must comprises on these. If Flankers, say, makes top tear of PAF along with Block52's .... which AC do you think would take the role of point defense, close air support, coast line defense etc?
4.I am unable to understand why you brought Swedish politics in this discussion where a reference to Swedish fighter was made just for comparison of payload of aircraft.
5. In 65 and 71, no multirole fighter was there in the world or at least in this part of the world. But now things have changed.... The world has changed .... and so is modern air power.

PS: I have read your article about PAF as well which you mentioned here but I found that more devoid of any logic or depth.... Thanks.

 

[SQ8]

Hi,

I read this article and re-read and read it again---for a total of 6 times.

So---after 4 days on the thread----it has barely filled up the first page of the thread with its response----.

Basically meaning----it is a worthless article---. To me---it looks like the poster @Oscar is responding to my threads critical of the PAF and now trying to justify in a lovey dovey article how wonderful this decision is.

This article has absolutely no focus---it rambles on and on---and goes on wild tangents from here to there on a whim.

I feel bad for @Oscar for an extremely poor response to his thread---so I will give it some life----. I mean to say that look at the effort he has put into these useless 10 pages that he has put into---so there should be some reward for the time he has invasted----.

As fort me---I have all the time in the world right now---I am on temporary disability.

To the readers:----

In the world's mega industrial complexes----no air forces produces its own fighter aircraft----and if it made any sense at all---all the big airlines would be building passenger aircraft----and shipping companies building ships and rail road companies building engines and railroad cars----. But it does not happen---.

What if you made a mistake after all this investment and rarara---what if you found out that those who initially designed and invested into this aircraft totally screwed up----you found out that this aircraft---the end product did not meet the PRIMARY need for the defense of the country.

So---what do you do then---if you are the U S---someone will leak the information to the public and there will be retribution---but if your are Pakistan---no one will leak the information----everyone will try real hard to save the face of the glorious airforce----so that no shame may come to their name and integrity and a feel of " all is well " will be spread around by article like these.

The poster also give the example of Sweden in his article----if he would have done some research-----he would have found out that Sweden has not been in a war for 201 years now----.

So---it maybe a wonderful weapons producer---but it is clueless to what it needs are against an opponent like Russian air force----.

Sweden is all about SAAB and VOLVO automobile mentality----wonderful vehicles for many a years---but for a very small minority---. They have been pushed aside by large and brash and more powerful brutish vehicles to the extent that the swedes had to sell their factories to others to operate.

These following lines are quoted from the wiki article about Sweden:--

" In the early 19th century Finland and the remaining territories outside the Scandinavian Peninsula were lost. After its last war in 1814, Sweden entered into a personal union with Norway which lasted until 1905. Since 1814, Sweden has been at peace, adopting a non-aligned foreign policy in peacetime and neutrality in wartime. Sweden was neutral in World War I. Post-war prosperity provided the foundations for the social welfare policies characteristic of modern Sweden. Sweden created a successful model of democratic socialism. Sweden remained neutral during World War II, avoiding the fate of occupied Norway. Sweden was one of the first non-participants of World War II to join the United Nations (in 1946) ".

Sweden is also being pragmatic---it really does not need and air force---because uncle Sam and associates will be coming on the run in the blink of an eye with all their arsenal of heavies.

So---giving the example of Sweden and its mindset about a small aircraft was basically thoughtless by the poster and failing to dig deeper into the why factor.

I would not want to waste the readers time much more-----but remember---in the 1965 and 1971 wars where we succeeded----our fighter aircraft were bigger---and had superior weaponery---and we had a dedicated BOMBER fleet.

The enemy had inferior aircraft and inferior weaponery-----. So---now the enemy has superior aircraft---superior weaponery---excellent training----and fires lit in their hearts and souls to seek revenge from the paf----and the poster wants to make the readers believe that the inferior aircraft of paf will overcome the superior aircraft of the enemy.

Mathematically---this is impossible. Readers must be honest in their hearts and souls---JF17 is a wonderful aircraft----it is a unique aircraft---there is no other single engine aircraft currently in production with a total weapons package like this aircraft. But this is not the aircraft to counter the enemy.

Sigh, Hate to to do this:

The red part is essentially nothing more than baseless personal opinion( of which you have plenty of as does any newbie troll so its not even worth answering.
FYI, this was actually a post to in your usual worthless threads my car salesman friend. We just decided to make it an article.

As for the swedes, Please stop trying to bring your career selling auto-mobiles into some sort of relevance to air warfare and combat. The fact that you keep referring to Saab and Volvo is clear example of it.

The low quality of your supposed knowledge is your resorting to Wikipedia(the trashiest source possible, wow so you know how to use Google old man) about Sweden and thinking that posting its formation had anything to do with how its neutrality was enforced by its strong defensive policy. As to how throughout the Cold War Sweden was poised to work with NATO in case the Russians attacked from the north on their own or in coordination with other Scandinavian nations.
How about you read a few books or ever refer to them in your article once in a while(if you have ever done so).

Lets go to the bigger crap about our "superior" aircraft.

The F-86 first flew in 47, the Hunter almost a decade later..it was a faster aircraft with better climb and excellent transonic handling. The Gnat, small, fast and more agile than the F-86. So no MK, as usual.. your buddha baba rant is going nowhere.

The F-104. Straight line interceptor that turned within the same circle as a bomber and with a mediocre radar that could not see much except for within a small perfect bracket. Against the Mig-21, an inferior aircraft.

The only equivalence is with the Canberra and B-57.

Lets go 71.

The PAF has 18 Mirages, which are somewhat superior in their payload capacity to the Mig-21 FL that India operates. Everything else the Indians have is superior . The Mig-21s to the F-6, the Hunters and Gnats to the F-86. The Marut to the B-57.
Would you like me to post exact performance specs to embarrass you more than I already aim to ? So that all can see that you have nothing except nonsense and whatever you can join up from the disconnected bits and pieces you might have gone through on this forum itself(most of which you dont seem to recall coherently). Maybe you should look up M.M Alam's own account on the Hunter... or perhaps you think yourself with your ZERO experience in anything remotely military or even related to anything that flies or fights better than him.

Have you developed anything in your career? Like something that went into the military? Or even a car? Sure does not look like it.

So again, on with your ranting nonsense old fellow. Let people who actually read, actually study like me do the talking, and you stick to taking your leave due to hernia and relaxing with a cigar and sing Kumbaya. instead of typing up whatever useless garbage comes to your head in some attempt to stay relevant in the forum in the hope for praises for yourself from the other ill informed.

But that is for people who read, not people who spent all their lives turning on CNN once in a while and thinking that somehow because of their time being exposed to mere pabulum in life makes them qualified to speak on topics they have no clue about.

 

[araz]

Considering we have ownership of the JFT it is quite likely that such changes can be done. But that all depends on how much growth we want out of the aircraft. There is a serious requirement to increase its internal fuel quantity and to achieve that the gears could go into the wings.
However, that would mean strengthening the wings and wing box which would add weight. Weight that would need to be shaved off by introducing composites.

Each of these would increase the cost, and hence take away from the "cost effectiveness" which is the driving point within the program.

Just to add to this our immediate need is to replace our legacy fighters and as much as possible we would not want to delay this by implementing changes. Once the need is covered and if the money is there Iam sure the boys will have a go.

 

[PakShaheen79]

Hi,

Let the addressee address the barb----. ( re: your PS )---.

Your comparison about china is bwithout merit----you have stopped thinking----. China is desperately trying to build up its air force---. It is so concerned about its safety that it is sh-itting bricks. It only wishes that it had a magic wand to propel it 20 years forward without blinking an eye so that it could have the right weapons to force its superiority in the region.

Your example is in a poor taste and lack of knowledge----. It is because of the collective threats of these nations that china is extremely concerned---so concerned that after rejecting Pakistan in 2011-----it is ready to do a mega investment to keep its FLANK open thru Gwadar----and just to keep Gwadar operating under duress---you need heavies----for air superiority and deep strikes---even if other issues are not considered.

You are so innocent son----the reason Swedish background was brought in because the background of a nation reflects on its weaponry----.

That is why you see the indian air force equipped the way it is---and in between Pakistan air force has lost its direction.

In 65--71---regardless of what role fighters there were----Pakistan air force had superior weaponry than the enemy's---.

And who told you that China is so worry about its safety. Now, the usage of this word implies as if adversaries (US and Allies) are breathing on the neck of China. If we see the rapid growth of Chinese military and particularly their maritime war machine, it is other way around. It is the US who is more desperate to enhance its alliance with inclusion of India along with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Australia. China is building artificial islands in open sea which by US alliance is called 'international waters' ... But what all these nations, which according to you pose a combined threat to China, can do in this regard? Nothing! .... No one fight with its bank and no one knows it better than the US. I believe it is Uncle Sam and Co who is looking for a magic wand to push Indian progress upwards to challenge China both in military as well as economic sense. Because that is the only play which the US is left with. This is why a special cell in Pentagon has been created for India to accelerate mutual military to military contracts. (Transformation of global economic and mil power from West to east is a reality and the US knows this as well

No one is denying the needs of heavies .... that's the main point. But that does not mean JFT is a waste as you try so hard to imply.

By your logic.... Since Sweden is at peace since last 2 centuries .... it shouldn't have made any weapon system at all. But clearly their history and ambitions points in different directions.

Again seeing the glass half empty .... to me, PAF was not left with any other choice but to venture into aerospace industry with whatever help it can get from international vendors. This discourse was a risky and lengthy one. But luckily, unlike IAF, it didn't try to reinvent the wheel but relied on whatever tech. was accessible and went for a JV with its most trusted partner. Patience paid off and now, not only PAF has its own designed fighter but invaluable know how of building a modern lightweight fighter. It is only logical to think that with right kind of political commitment, what will be the next logical step.... So, no sir... PAF didn't lose its direction it just took a route which was bound to take longer time before it manifested in form of JFT.