What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why should we be bothered by the export og MiG 29 in international markets? Pakistan is the one which should be worried about the export of JF 17. As it involves money.

brother whether you guys are concerned with export of Mig or not, i dont really know. what i know if that you are really bothered, rather hurt by news of JF competing in export market.
anyhing good comming our ways will be hard to digest.

however, please go throught the post once again,
the point was that if the Russian, that manufaturers, consider the JF17 on par with there Mig 29. you have picked the point that intrests you that the Russians have blocked the engines sale but you dint care of is that the Russian take JF17 capable enough to beat Mig29 in export market. i can be the trolling will continue claiming the bird to be only as good as WW-I bi-planes:hitwall:

regards!
 
.
IDEAS 2008 - Pakistan Defence Gallery
Do look at it, especially the external payload i.e: 4600Kg that's amazing man its similar may be to the F-16 A/B Block-15 in our inventory.

A typo error, if you minus the TOGW 9,100KG weight which includes the fuel plus 2-wing tip missiles from Max-Take Off Weight of 12,700Kg, you get 3,600KG, which is the max external payload capacity. The 4,600KG is a typo error.
 
.
brother whether you guys are concerned with export of Mig or not, i dont really know. what i know if that you are really bothered, rather hurt by news of JF competing in export market.
anyhing good comming our ways will be hard to digest.

however, please go throught the post once again,
the point was that if the Russian, that manufaturers, consider the JF17 on par with there Mig 29. you have picked the point that intrests you that the Russians have blocked the engines sale but you dint care of is that the Russian take JF17 capable enough to beat Mig29 in export market. i can be the trolling will continue claiming the bird to be only as good as WW-I bi-planes:hitwall:

regards!

Well you need to read the news quote again....it might help you understand.
 
.
What is the problem with you guys ?? Why can't you keep the thread as per JF-17, why bringing in off topic nonsense ???

Keep the other F-16s, Kargil etc etc nonsense to other threads, enough BS for this thread, last 3-4 pages have changed the whole direction of this thread.

Enough, anymore off topic posts, they will get deleted and if members continue with that, suspensions will follow.
 
.
Anathema leaving aside the usual i have two questions for you related to JF-17 since my original reply to Dr.SIM was about JF-17 and that Pakistan can fix engine related issues in Pakistan and then of course you jumped in
My Questions are
1) What do you know about the cooperation between China and Pakistan over the JF-17 project?
and
2) what are those critical errors for which Pakistan will have to send engines outside Pakistan to be resolved?
 
.
Buddy i think he has asked you questions quite a few times...Obviously he will answer but let me help here...


Anathema leaving aside the usual i have two questions for you related to JF-17 since my original reply to Dr.SIM was about JF-17 and that Pakistan can fix engine related issues in Pakistan and then of course you jumped in
My Questions are
1) What do you know about the cooperation between China and Pakistan over the JF-17 project?
and
2) what are those critical errors for which Pakistan will have to send engines outside Pakistan to be resolved?

1) I don't think he knows or any common person will know...Unless and until you have contacts with policy makers in PAF or people having contact with them i am sure even you would not know....With this assumption that even you don't know lets use common practices all around the world to conclude...shall we???

Around the globe no matter how good relations are between countries they do not share sensitive technologies with other nations....It simply don't make sense and is bad business....Even if it is a JV you will not get hands to sensitive technologies....Let me give you an example

Russia and India are in a JV for FGFA....Does that mean after 2015 India will have know-how about each and every technology that our scientists will go ahead and create a 5 generation plane on our own??? Heck NO...A Big No...we have to invest in R&D and knowledge gain from JV would be a complement to existing work...not the vice-versa....

Other example would be Brahmos...Another JV.....Had they shared everything with us we could have inducted similar CM with longer range and stop all our other programs...Don't you think so???

In short all you will get is knowhow to fix minor defects and know how to assemble items in your own facilities...If there are any issues that needs any sort of design change or anything then you are dependent on the source country and there should be no doubt about it.....

2) I think he has replied on this for quite some time..seems like you are not convinced...How about if i spin the argument and ask what kind of problems do you think a Jet Engine can suffer???

Let me give you a clue...In case you have some respect for HAL and other related Indian Avionics Industry you will see that MKI are pretty similar to JF-17 China-Pak venture...We assemble MKI's in India however this one would be an interesting news...

IAF plane crash: Russian team in Jaisalmer to probe - Jaipur - City - The Times of India

See we had to depend on the source country to find out the exact reason for crash...leave aside fixing any complex issue....Now please see if you would like to ponder over your arguments again....

P.S : I did not see Taimi's message...Anyways in case you have more things to share lets do on IM and keep this thread clean....
 
.
Raj you took the trouble to reply to a post that was not directed towards you. My problem with such debates is that they never come to a conclusive end rather bad mouth. Same happened with anathema. I knew where the argument would lead, yet i made the bad decision of carrying it own although being here long enough i should have known better.
Coming to your post i see alot of inconsistencies in your post like for example you like to compare an MKI which has no Indian contribution to it other then that India have started assembling it at home with a joint venture such as JF-17 with an effective Pakistani contribution since the development of the project started, from designing to the actual testing. But for now i will leave the argument for another day as i see no further reason to drag the subject of what PAC is capable off and what our Indian friends here think.
Hope you understand

Best regards.
 
.
If there is anything prominent on this page its Taimi's message in red, wonder how can any one miss it :whistle:
 
.
Raj you took the trouble to reply to a post that was not directed towards you. My problem with such debates is that they never come to a conclusive end rather bad mouth. Same happened with anathema. I knew where the argument would lead, yet i made the bad decision of carrying it own although being here long enough i should have known better.
Coming to your post i see alot of inconsistencies in your post like for example you like to compare an MKI which has no Indian contribution to it other then that India have started assembling it at home with a joint venture such as JF-17 with an effective Pakistani contribution since the development of the project started, from designing to the actual testing. But for now i will leave the argument for another day as i see no further reason to drag the subject of what PAC is capable off and what our Indian friends here think.
Hope you understand

Best regards.

IceCold -- I think MKI might not be appropriate example. In betn MKI has lot of indian contribution -- but its OT.

Take for instance Eurofighter -- Even though its a consortium , for example technologies manufactured by Thales would be solely IP of Thales and the nation of origin, other countries just assemble it. Eurofighter programme is possibly the best possible example of co-operation between nations.
Another example F35 - Even though Americans are actively taking inputs from UK, still none of the technology is being released to UK or any of the partnering nations.
There can be other examples also but this is what comes to mind immediately.
This is how Business works. In lieu of how this stuff works around the world , it would be sensible to say that Pakistani and Chinese relation ship with regards to JF 17 is no different unless you have some tangible proof to show that it is not the case here.

Finally apologies for the showdown.

Thanks.
 
.
Ice Cold thanks for the reply buddy...I was just trying to help you guys conclude...Because i see logic in Anathema post and so is true in your case...


Raj you took the trouble to reply to a post that was not directed towards you. My problem with such debates is that they never come to a conclusive end rather bad mouth. Same happened with anathema. I knew where the argument would lead, yet i made the bad decision of carrying it own although being here long enough i should have known better.

I understand your concern...I have given you my reason for intervention....I know him and i know you as well...that's the benefit of being a senior member :)...


Coming to your post i see alot of inconsistencies in your post like for example you like to compare an MKI which has no Indian contribution to it other then that India have started assembling it at home with a joint venture such as JF-17 with an effective Pakistani contribution since the development of the project started, from designing to the actual testing. But for now i will leave the argument for another day as i see no further reason to drag the subject of what PAC is capable off and what our Indian friends here think.
Hope you understand

Best regards.

Yup i do understand....However there was lot of discussion on the contribution of Pak in design and development of JF-17...There can be no denial that Pak contributed in its development however it was not as significant as a layman would think....The way i compare is MKI was a program which IAF liked and we got the know-how to assemble it....JF-17 was a program in which PAF had a say on how the fighter will look like from Day 1...That is where your engineers must have contributed with Chinese help....Now talking about technology contribution and exchange then my dear friend remember we both belong to a country who are newbies in fighter jet programs...and yes it is a fact JV or no JV, no country will share sensitive technologies with any nation....Anathema has quoted example like F-35 program..I have given you examples like FGFA...Brahmos...All these are JV and sensitive technologies were/will not be shared....


You may not agree but India with Tejas in hand is definitely ahead in terms of technologyy know how is concerned....Still we need the source country for any mischief in MKI's....I would be highly surprised if Pak is going to be different....Anyways my intentions are not to demean PAC...in fact no one can...With limited budget you have done amazing things....so it doesn't matter somebody agrees or not...fact will remain fact....

P.S : Anathema has requested, so am I..In case you have some information then please do share...We both will love to get corrected....Right now we both are under this impression that countries do not share sensitive technologies with each other even though it is a JV where both parties operated from scratch...
 
.
i love my country and love paf 2.the paf do good job 2 made jf 17 and i m waiting for paf 2 make its own engin and advance avoinics for his 4th r 5th generation fighter
 
.
This is how Business works. In lieu of how this stuff works around the world , it would be sensible to say that Pakistani and Chinese relation ship with regards to JF 17 is no different unless you have some tangible proof to show that it is not the case here.

P.S : Anathema has requested, so am I..In case you have some information then please do share...We both will love to get corrected....Right now we both are under this impression that countries do not share sensitive technologies with each other even though it is a JV where both parties operated from scratch...

anathema and raj let me see what i can do in this regard. The way PAF operates, the information available publically to us civilians is very rare and very less. There are however members like Nabil who do have the 1st hand info on JF-17, if not i will for now rest my cast in agreement.

regards
 
Last edited:
.
Anathema & deckingraj,

Gentlemen---thankyou very much for some very interesting discussions on this topic.

Pakistan and india work differently on weapons systems manufacturing JV's and weapons procurement. Whereas in the JV's---india wants to manufacture some part of a specific electronic system to call it own---pakistan on the other hand starts with being an integral part of manufacturing the core technology or the core of the building process---. So---at the end of the day, pak may not have a single item that has its name stamped on it---but it has earned the integral knowhow of the manufacturing process---that is the frame---and the electronics package---.

On the other hand my indian colleagues have explained how india works. They talk about the development of the LCA and I say that is fine---but it won't make any difference for the JF 17 to face it with its coming bvr package. The advancement at this stage will not make any difference between the two.

But that is how the two countries operate---we work very differently---it is to our ying to your yang----like a day to a night---and at the end of the day---with our lesser resources---you will find us right close to you---not counting the su 30---itis due tot he fact that we take a much shorter time in getting what we need----at least I believe on some of the items.

Now as far as rebuilding the RD 93---I very much doubt it---I have not read anywhere of Rd 93 rebuild plant---pakistan would have to be certified by the rosonob--- to overhaul the system. It will happen in due time----but right now most of it will be done by the chinese.
 
Last edited:
.
The Joint Fighter-17 (JF-17) Thunder, or Fighter China-1 (FC-1) Fierce Dragon (in China), is a single-seat multirole fighter aircraft co-developed by Pakistan and China.



The JF-17 is designed to further meet the tactical and strategic needs of the Pakistani Air Force with a minimal reliance on imports from other countries.

In addition, the requirement was for the aircraft to have sufficient space for future upgrades and/or equipment specified by export buyers. The JF-17 is considered to be in the "high-tech class" of fighter aircraft.



The JF-17 is being built by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAC)and Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC). Initial reports claimed that the aircraft was based on the design of the MiG-33, a proposed single-engined version of the MiG-29, which was rejected by the Soviet Air Force.

However, the FC-1/JF-17 is instead derived from the "Super Seven" project, not the Project 33 (not to be confused with the MiG-33) or the failed Chengdu J-9. Indications are that MiG assisted the program by contributing their light fighter design as well as providing additional design & development assistance.
The project is expected to cost about $500 million (USD), divided equally between China and Pakistan, while each individual aircraft is expected to have a fly-away cost of $15-20 million. The project became known as JF-17 in Pakistan and FC-1 in China.

Pakistan has announced that it will procure 150 but, numbers can easily go up to 200. The JF-17 will replace the MiG-21-derived Chengdu F-7. Other countries which have expressed interest in purchasing the JF-17 are Egypt, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Burma, Zimbabwe, Morocco and Algeria.


The first prototype was rolled out on 31 May 2003, conducted its first taxi trials on 1 July, and made its first flight on 24 August of the same year.


The prototype 03 made its first flight in April 2004. On April 28 2006, the prototype 04 made its first flight with fully operational avionics.


The JF-17 Thunder combat jet is a multi-role fighter-bomber and is capable of carrying multiple air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. The fighter jet is equipped with advanced electronics and weapons systems. The ability to undertake short take-offs and landings is also incorporated in the aircraft.



Not to mention the most visible change, the DSI (divergent supersonic intake).

Initially, Pakistan wanted to use the Italian Grifo-S7 radar.


However, the Chinese offer had some key advantages over the Italian one, such as compatibility with Chinese weapon systems.

Radar has multiple modes, such as A2A (both BVR & close), air-to-ground, air-to-sea, etc., with strong anti-interference capacity.


It has all the standard electronic warfare systems, such as radar warning, missile approach warning, etc.

All weapon systems are designed to be compatible with both Western systems (ie. supporting MIL-STD-1760 data bus) and Russian systems (and Chinese systems also).



At present, its standard missiles are the PL-9C for WVR combat and SD-10 BVRAAM for BVR combat. However, it also supports the AIM-9L/M Sidewinder, AIM-7F Sparrow. It is reported that Pakistan Air Fo


rce JF-17s will also be able to use South African air-to-air and air-to-surface munitions such as T-Darter (BVRAAM), A-Darter (WVRAAM), DPGM (Precision Guided Bomb), as well as Raptor-I and Raptor II long-range glide bombs.

My Aviation Links: JF-17 Thunder

regards!
 
.
Hi,

PAF loves to play games---and when it falls down on its face---it has a thousand and one excuses---it is always somebody else to take the blame----it is always someone else who is at fault---it is always someone else who is not playing by the rules.
MastanKhan. How are you brother. Not that it will matter i will try and allay your anxiety to the best of my capability. Tell me one organization that has not made one bad decision and then blamed it on others/circumstances, EVER!!!

JF 17 is a wonderful plane----but who needs it today----when the primary need of the hour is BVR and BVR equipped planes alone.
Paf has apeared at a loss when it comes to thinking and reacting on its feet in time. It is always a day late and pound short---.
It is entirely relevant to PAF, a small efficient platform, that contrary to your assertions is BVR capable(See nabils post on the forum) in a theatre where response times and distances are small, and cheap to maintain and develop in house, by our local technicians. What more do you want.Have you not seen what PAF is currently operating? Now tell me how is thunder not an improvement and therefore relevant

When you go take and exam----and you have studied for it---it is always reccomended that the first answer that comes to the mind is the right answer. Everything after that is the mind playing tricks.
You would know this better as i have not taken any exams at all!! :lol::D You will however remember that not every question has a simple and straight forward answer. The calibre of your answer depends on the logic that you present to support it, and not on what is written in the books alone.

Same thing----when we initially agreed that JF 17 was not what was needed---we were absolutely correct---what PAF did after that was trying to cover its mistake---and the deception that it had created amonsgt the pakistanis to justify the purchase begins to get into the realm of CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.
All the explanations that they have come out are no more than coverups for their blunders and poor analysis in trying to coax the civilians into believing that PAF is on the right track.
By your logic name me one high official who has deplored the thunder as a bad move. Again even if there is an opinion, what matters is the logic behind it. To give you and example, the A10 was considered an ugly and unuseable plane with USAF thinking of retiring it. heck they even offered it to us and even we refused it. Along came Gulf war and USA found a use for it and Lo and behold, they cant have enough of them even though the supply line has shut down long ago!! So it transpires that every piece of equipment has a use provided you can justify it. We were useing F7Ps/PGs, and M3/5s of sixties/seventies era, because we had no choice.So we kept upgrading them to suit our needs;. Keeping these planes in mind alone, the Thunder makes a lot of sense to me.

And we the civilians---we cannot be condemning our flyers all the time and have to follow suite---we have been screwed one more time by our very own---it is not a surprise anymore---we are used to it by now---so---take it easy and enjoy---.
It really surprises me of the mindset of my countrymen----the enemy is adding up on the BVR capable planes by 100's and what do we have----we only have 4 of them only and only 4----and those 4's can only be used in a defencive strike mode----read all the statements of the ACM---nowhere it mentions about offencive BVR strike of blk 52'2 across border.
I would differ with you on the first part of your statement in the light of what I have already said. As to BVR capability, your knowledge regarding PAF is now outdated. From my sources and also seeing nabil,s post, issues of KLJ7 mating with SD10 have been resolved. Do you honestly think we are so stupid as to send 2 planes all the way to Farnborough which are not BVR capable!! There were other issues behind the scene as well, which I amnot going to discuss here, but the point is if someone is dreaming about JF17 not being BVR capable, they ought to wake up and smell the coffee!! There are going to be other BVR missiles that will be mated to it as well.


All the spin---all the statements are going round and round in defending our resources by every means possible---that is what the U S is also agreeing to---they have allowed us to use these birds in a defencive mode against any incoming strikes----but we cannot use the bvr's against any offencive strikes that we make across the border on our own. That is what my interpretation is.

Aray marey Bhai, The logic of aggressive use of platforms is simple. HEAVEN forbid!!!! if there is a war in the Indo Pak Theatre,it will be short and bloody. There will be no chance of having any faith in the other party not useing Nukes, for the first party to hold back. In those scenarios, having or not having Bl52s is irrelevant .if sanity prevails and we have a skirmish, how long will it last___days, a week at the most!!USA will sanction you , but in those circumstances, any equpment that your adversary buys from the US will also be sanctioned. If you have enough spares, you will be able to sustain those sanctions during the war period.
The other thing to remember is the PAF logic of having deterrence! This my friend means you will only be useing you r planes for defensive purposes in your own terrain.I think all offensive strikes will be carried out by long distance stand off weapons and missiles!!In all such wars you need to have a balance of 1:3 to hold your own. This has been proven again and again. Even if you take the fight to the enemy you will encroach on to their land and make a stand from there. Short of believing in the hoccus poccus of kill switches, how do you reckon US is going to stop us?

Now---coming back to the JF 17 again---it would of a tremendous asset to the airforce---but when I am asking for a .50 calibre rifle---you are justifying me by handing me over a .308---that is not acceptable and must not be justified.

ILLOGICAL !! you have not given grounds on which you consider JF17 to be .308 rather than 0.50 rifle.What criteria are you useing? taking pot shots without reason and logic is like blowing against a sand storm.I await your reply.
Araz
 
Last edited:
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom