JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 3]

[AVIAN]

Don't agree, Kargil was also a limited conflict and the only reason why PAF didn't pose their fighters was the lack of BVR capabilities.
Now with BVR capable F16s, they would use them of course too and there will be 1 on 1 of PAF and IAF fighters again, but that doesn't mean it would end up in a full fleged war.
I think and hope that both sides a smart enough to never let it come to a full fleged war, but smaller conflicts are possible as our past often showed.

Lack of BVR never brought PAF to standstill rather it was its reasonable approch of not getting into a war to open several front.

 

[atlantis_cn]

Building an Airforce with modern jet will not going to put opponent on defensive or to agree to your conditions rather it will only going to intensify major arm race which will become much more then a liability then an assets.

These words has anything to do with my point?

 

[AVIAN]

These words has anything to do with my point?

Yes, since no single fighter jet becomes a long terms investment as a part of the fighter diplomacy and answering the question of affordibility.

 

[deckingraj]

Don't agree, Kargil was also a limited conflict and the only reason why PAF didn't pose their fighters was the lack of BVR capabilities.
Now with BVR capable F16s, they would use them of course too and there will be 1 on 1 of PAF and IAF fighters again, but that doesn't mean it would end up in a full fleged war.
I think and hope that both sides a smart enough to never let it come to a full fleged war, but smaller conflicts are possible as our past often showed.

I disagree...In fact if we go by various articles quoting PAF officials it was made clear to GOP that

a) PAF lacks BVR capability and thus uneven with IAF capabilities
b) Any intervention by PAF would surely be matched by response from IAF and then there would be no point of return...

I agree with Sabre that any conflict where Air Forces will meet would be a full-fledge war...Now you may want to call it Cold-Start and thus limit the area of conflict and hope International Pressure would keep it short but one thing is sure the war would on all fronts....

 

[fatman17]

Wrong mate. IAF wanted more of the M2000's. Infact the current MRCA program was infact not meant to be what it is now-IAF wanted more M2000's exclusively. However, till the time MoD got around to talking with France, the lines were being shut. It was due to this that the global tender was released.

The main intention initially was to buy 126 more M2K's.


IAF has been very VERY happy with M2K's. India tried to buy the Qatar M2K's, but the price we quoted was too low.

IAF has also been very happy with their maintenance. I suppose it can be argued that compared to M2K's, all other aircrafts have even worse maintenance issues( except maybe the Su now as its built here) therefore IAF is happy. But happy IAF has been nonetheless.




In light of the number and quality of aircrafts IAF is fielding against PAF, i doubt 36 planes would have made much of a difference. Had they been 36 planes which were better than any other plane IAF fielded(like Rafale), it would have been different. But M2000's are no longer the best planes in the subcontinent.

better read up the circumstances and history regarding the M2K in IAF

 

[fatman17]

extract on the PLAAF

"In early 2007, the PLAAF began to fuse sufficient numbers of fourth generation multirole fighters plus AWACS aircraft and SAM systems to pose a real challenge to Taiwan's air arm as well as any US or Japanese combat aircraft that might conceivably come to Taiwan's aid in the event of conflict. China's Su-30MKK, J-11 and J-10 fighters combine new beyond visual range (BVR) and helmet-sighted AAMs to present capabilities equivalent to, or, in some cases, superior to those of US and Japanese warplanes. Furthermore, the PLAAF is now producing competing families of laser- and satellite-guided precision munitions (PGMs) to add to its considerable inventory of Russian PGMs"

 

[fatman17]

extract for the PLAAF

"While it is assumed that the PLAAF will continue its commitment to lightweight fighters for some time to come, it is not yet clear that it will select the CAC FC-1 Xiaolong to provide a multi-role replacement for the J-7. While cost considerations could prompt renewed PLA interest in continued procurement of the J-7, the purchase of 100 Klimov RD-93 engines in mid-2005 (coupled with reports indicating this could grow to 500), it appears that the newer FC-1 may in fact be the PLA's choice. By late 2005, in response to problems detected after flight testing commenced in August 2003, the FC-1 design was modified to include diverter-less supersonic intakes, new wing leading-edge extensions and a new vertical stabiliser housing for combat electronics. These improvements increased maximum speed to M 1.8 and increased range to 1,800 km. Also, a recently redesigned cockpit makes use of larger multi-function displays and a new HUD."

 

[fatman17]

extract from PLAAF

"In December 2003, Chengdu produced the first twin-seat J-10 prototype. This version is being developed into a dedicated attack variant and was being marketed in Southeast Asia in early 2007. Chengdu officials call the twin-seat training version the J-10S and note that even more advanced versions of the J-10 are now in development. Russian and Chinese sources have also disclosed that one advanced version will incorporate a thrust-vectoring nozzle for an uprated AL-31FN engine and, perhaps, a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. The first of what maybe many gradual spiral upgrades for the J-10 emerged in early 2009. Dubbed the "J-10B," it features a more efficient redesigned diverterless air intake, along with an electronic warfare pod atop the vertical stabiliser - both inspired by the FC-1, plus wing-mounted defensive system pods, a new IRST mounted below the windscreen, and what appears to be a new electronically scanned array radar. The model does not appear to use the new WS-10A engine or a thrust-vectored version of the AL-31F. Some reports indicate this J-10 development is intended to meet a Pakistan Air Force requirement.

 

[IceCold]

I disagree...In fact if we go by various articles quoting PAF officials it was made clear to GOP that

a) PAF lacks BVR capability and thus uneven with IAF capabilities
b) Any intervention by PAF would surely be matched by response from IAF and then there would be no point of return...

I agree with Sabre that any conflict where Air Forces will meet would be a full-fledge war...Now you may want to call it Cold-Start and thus limit the area of conflict and hope International Pressure would keep it short but one thing is sure the war would on all fronts....

The reason PAF was not involved was because India was using its airforce on its side of the border and any intervention by the PAF would have resulted in a full scale war. So i agree with the highlighted part of your post but not other wise because as soon as your jet violated our airspace they were shot down.

 

[Tempest II]

extract for the PLAAF

"While it is assumed that the PLAAF will continue its commitment to lightweight fighters for some time to come, it is not yet clear that it will select the CAC FC-1 Xiaolong to provide a multi-role replacement for the J-7. While cost considerations could prompt renewed PLA interest in continued procurement of the J-7, the purchase of 100 Klimov RD-93 engines in mid-2005 (coupled with reports indicating this could grow to 500), it appears that the newer FC-1 may in fact be the PLA's choice. By late 2005, in response to problems detected after flight testing commenced in August 2003, the FC-1 design was modified to include diverter-less supersonic intakes, new wing leading-edge extensions and a new vertical stabiliser housing for combat electronics. These improvements increased maximum speed to M 1.8 and increased range to 1,800 km. Also, a recently redesigned cockpit makes use of larger multi-function displays and a new HUD."

Thanks Fatman for these extracts. Where are you getting them from?

 

[TaimiKhan]

Thanks Fatman for these extracts. Where are you getting them from?

Most probably Jane's

 

[notorious_eagle]

Don't agree, Kargil was also a limited conflict and the only reason why PAF didn't pose their fighters was the lack of BVR capabilities.

This is pure fallacy which has been debunked many times on this forum. The reason why PAF didnt engage the IAF is because all the combat took place on Indian territory and not Pakistani. Heck even the Pakistani Army was not fully mobilised, not a single division was taking part in combat. If PAF would have engaged the IAF and God forbid if the enemy plane would have crashed on Indian soil, the conflict would have blown into a full scale war. So we all should be thankfull that cool heads prevailed and neither side engaged each other.

You are putting too much emphasis on BVR Capabilites, maybe your forgetting but PAF has been practising Anti BVR Tactics since the Afghan War when the Soviets introduced the MIG 29's. Just ask the Turks how good our Anti BVR maneuvers are, their superior F16's couldnt get a lock on our planes. A pilot has a better chance of getting a kill in WVR, also BVR isnt really needed when your enemy is right next door.

Now with BVR capable F16s, they would use them of course too and there will be 1 on 1 of PAF and IAF fighters again, but that doesn't mean it would end up in a full fleged war.

It simply depends on the circumstances, but there is a very high probability that a small skirmish will lead to a full scale war. I can assure you that Post Mumbai if the F16 would have shot down the MKI over Kashmir and the wreckage fallen on the Indian side, the conflict would certinely have blown to a full scale war.

I think and hope that both sides a smart enough to never let it come to a full fleged war, but smaller conflicts are possible as our past often showed .

This is what exactly the Indian plan looks like, a quick thrust and humiliate the enemy before things get out of hand.

 

[k7x]

What is the current rate of thunder production in PAC and in china. Is there any plan for China to Ramp up its production?

 

[k7x]

In the middle of price tags like $50,60 70 & 100 millions for fighter jets, if any one can get a good fighter for $15 then it is good bargain. Pakistan is lucky to have such a good strategic partner.

I believe pure Chinese JF17 with Chinese avionics and engine would be around that price.

I am not sure how many countries can afford 5th gen crafts with price tag of 100 to 200Million . may be china would come up with one similar to jf17.


Can jf17 carry weapon over the wing like Jaguar. this can increase the hard points without redesigning the wing.

 

[Luftwaffe]

good one simply if ever PAF has enough money and rafale is offered tell them only french airforce/navy uses it so unless its not exported like Mirage 3/5 we won't buy it. Nice way to put in. on one side praises for M3/5 a thread is open and on the other had haterd negativity for M-2000 hyprocrites.