JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[araz]

Hi,

That is not true---the loss has been immense of time and oppurtunity and technology---. In time wise---at least 5 to 8 years of loss---in technology--instead if tier 1 A++ technology, electronics and A to A weapons---we settle for tier B+++ technology, weapons systems and missiles.

A totally unproven first time weapons systems ( chinese ).

A more detailed analysis of why you think that to be the case would be helpful. On what basis do you believe this to be a fact. I am really trying to understand why you say this as the word from PAF is more in conformity with what Oscar is saying. Maturity of articles in question I might be tempted into believing but there is no suggestion that the french tech has been battle tested like the americans. We know of the french deployment but not of the outcomes. Response would be appreciated.
Araz

 

[Najam Khan]

Hi,

That is not true---the loss has been immense of time and oppurtunity and technology---. In time wise---at least 5 to 8 years of loss---in technology--instead if tier 1 A++ technology, electronics and A to A weapons---we settle for tier B+++ technology, weapons systems and missiles.

A totally unproven first time weapons systems ( chinese ).

Tell you what, every new weapon system is unproven in real-world until it is put to use.
If every military thinks that the new weapon system is 'unproven' then no-country would buy new weapons and prefer the 'proven' systems only.

As you know, weapons undergo lot of testing (In vivo In vitro). Faulty/inconsistent components/modules and related avionics keeps on changing until it is configured. Simulated scenarios and virtual battle field environment help them clear the basic testing phase, they are not cleared until LIVE weapon drop on different altitude levels and different scenarios meets the mark.

 

[SQ8]

Hi,

That is not true---the loss has been immense of time and oppurtunity and technology---. In time wise---at least 5 to 8 years of loss---in technology--instead if tier 1 A++ technology, electronics and A to A weapons---we settle for tier B+++ technology, weapons systems and missiles.

A totally unproven first time weapons systems ( chinese ).

By that analogy, so is the Rafale +Mica combination and almost all of the Sukhoi fleets. But, in my view that analysis is incorrect because it seems to based on the opinion that Chinese systems are not tested at all and just fielded. A claim that suggests that weapons like the SD-10 have not been tested fired again and again to verify parameters in a very similar way to AIM-120 firings.
So I disagree; your view is based totally on inexperience with Chinese equipment and a general Americanized view of Chinese systems and goods. A lot has changed since the 70's and while there are definitely more kinks than a comparable western counterpart, you would have had to work with equipment and components from the Chinese to know it. How much time have you had with that to be definitive? Because I've had adequate time on both components and complete electronics in both Radar and Radio projects to tell you that they aren't lesser in capability than a comparable European system. Their Achilles heel has always been quality and reliability but for that you keep yourself in the QC loop. The result is that you end up with systems that work just as well as any European counterpart while costing you a third of the dough.

Moreover, you are further basing your assumption on the fact that everything that sits inside the JF-17 is Chinese whereas its more along the lines of 60% Chinese(less if you count the RD-93) and 40% elsewhere. Hence, the unproven because its Chinese does not apply here nor does the B+++ rating. A system is always unproven until it goes to war. However, if you are expecting F-16E like performance from a system that is essentially a modern day F-20.. then you should start sending more remittances or come back and enter politics. Because as such it boils down to finances and national "ethos" which as is painstakingly apparent has little interest in being anything

Hi,

That is not true---the loss has been immense of time and oppurtunity and technology---. In time wise---at least 5 to 8 years of loss---in technology--instead if tier 1 A++ technology, electronics and A to A weapons---we settle for tier B+++ technology, weapons systems and missiles.

A totally unproven first time weapons systems ( chinese ).

By that analogy, so is the Rafale +Mica combination and almost all of the Sukhoi fleets. But, in my view that analysis is incorrect because it seems to based on the opinion that Chinese systems are not tested at all and just fielded. A claim that suggests that weapons like the SD-10 have not been tested fired again and again to verify parameters in a very similar way to AIM-120 firings.
So I disagree; your view is based totally on inexperience with Chinese equipment and a general Americanized view of Chinese systems and goods. A lot has changed since the 70's and while there are definitely more kinks than a comparable western counterpart, you would have had to work with equipment and components from the Chinese to know it. How much time have you had with that to be definitive? Because I've had adequate time on both components and complete electronics in both Radar and Radio projects to tell you that they aren't lesser in capability than a comparable European system. Their Achilles heel has always been quality and reliability but for that you keep yourself in the QC loop. The result is that you end up with systems that work just as well as any European counterpart while costing you a third of the dough.

Moreover, you are further basing your assumption on the fact that everything that sits inside the JF-17 is Chinese whereas its more along the lines of 60% Chinese(less if you count the RD-93) and 40% elsewhere. Hence, the unproven because its Chinese does not apply here nor does the B+++ rating. A system is always unproven until it goes to war. However, if you are expecting F-16E like performance from a system that is essentially a modern day F-20.. then you should start sending more remittances or come back and enter politics. Because as such it boils down to finances and national "ethos" which as is painstakingly apparent has little interest in being anything

 

[DrSomnath999]

Maturity of articles in question I might be tempted into believing but there is no suggestion that the french tech has been battle tested like the americans. We know of the french deployment but not of the outcomes. Response would be appreciated.
Araz

HI

I really dont want to get into JF 17 matters but u mentioned about french unprovenity so i have to jump in

Why do u think that american weapon systems have the soveriign right of being termed battle proven? not the french For eg( Air to air missiles for instance)

fighting a mediocre adversary without proper knowledge of aerial warfare & that too have functionless Electronic warfare & self protection system to save them from american missiles u call those american systems proven Hmmm!!! may be ur indeed correct

Here is one simple example of french weapon system unproveness in battle

On 8 October 1996, 7 months after the escalation over Imia/Kardak a Greek Mirage 2000 fired an R550 Magic II and shot down a Turkish F-16D over the Aegean Sea.
Turkish F-16 jet crashes after Greek interception - Chicago Sun-Times | HighBeam Research

I wonder why are we wasting money on french systems

CHEERS

 

[araz]

Dr somnath999.
I think you got the wrong stick with which to whack me. The story is long and pertains to my friend Mastan khans long love affair with the french and their defence equipment and his unfounded disdain for everything Chinese. The point to prove was that the US and the Russians have had a long trail of use of equipment against each other via proxy wars. You have seen the Israelis use american hardware to fairly effective means. There has also been use of french hardware but not to that great extent. I dont normally get involved in dick measuring exercises but to trash the Chinese withoutappreciating the progress that they have made is not fitting for a senior member. This was the crux of my argument and the analagy was comparative vis a vis US hardware which has had the most exposure .
Araz
PS: NO ONE STOPS YOU FROM ANY DEBATE AND I WILL CERTAINLY VALUE ANY EFFECTIVE AND LOGICAL RESPONSE FROM ANY POSTER.SO WELCOME TO JFT THREAD FROM ME.

 

[DrSomnath999]

I think goh got the wronv sti k wigh which to whack me.

Excuse me!!
i understood a sh!t from that part .

The story is long and pertains to my friend Mastan khans long love affair with the french and thrir defence equipment and his unfounded disdain for everything Chinese. The point to prove was that the US and therussians have had a long trail oc use of equipment against each other via proxy wars. You have seen the Israelis use american hardware to fairly effective means. Theee has also been use of french harxqare but not to that great extent. I dont normally vlget involved in dick measuring exercises but to trash the Chinese withoutappreciating the progress that they have made is not fitting for a senior member. This was the crux of my argument and the analagy was comparative vis a vis US hardware which has had the most exposure .

Pardon me for my arrogance

But i do support Mastan bhai's views sometime , it is not becoz he is unnecessarily criticizing the chinese system but for it's rationale views .He is a well wisher of Pakistan air force ,he wants the best for his country like a true patriot & nationalistic guy
should be.

U for instance have no idea how upset & angry the indian officials were with the french when they decided to sell avionics & MICA missiles for the JF 17 to the PAF . If they hadnt vetoed the deal the french would have been the 1st to be eliminated from
MMRCA

MICA EM & IR combo is a very effective platform the PAF officials werent fools to have those systems on JF 17

Araz
PS: NO ONE STOPS YOU FROM ANY DEBATE AND I WILL CERTAINLY VALUE ANY EFFECTIVE AND LTD GICAL RESPONSE FROM ANY POSTER.SO WELCOME TO JFT THREAD FROM ME.

Thanks

but like i said earliear i dont want to get involve in JF 17 thread until & unless something legitimate intervention or opinion is required from my side

CHEERS

 

[MilSpec]

By that analogy, so is the Rafale +Mica combination and almost all of the Sukhoi fleets. But, in my view that analysis is incorrect because it seems to based on the opinion that Chinese systems are not tested at all and just fielded. A claim that suggests that weapons like the SD-10 have not been tested fired again and again to verify parameters in a very similar way to AIM-120 firings.
So I disagree; your view is based totally on inexperience with Chinese equipment and a general Americanized view of Chinese systems and goods. A lot has changed since the 70's and while there are definitely more kinks than a comparable western counterpart, you would have had to work with equipment and components from the Chinese to know it. How much time have you had with that to be definitive? Because I've had adequate time on both components and complete electronics in both Radar and Radio projects to tell you that they aren't lesser in capability than a comparable European system. Their Achilles heel has always been quality and reliability but for that you keep yourself in the QC loop. The result is that you end up with systems that work just as well as any European counterpart while costing you a third of the dough.

Moreover, you are further basing your assumption on the fact that everything that sits inside the JF-17 is Chinese whereas its more along the lines of 60% Chinese(less if you count the RD-93) and 40% elsewhere. Hence, the unproven because its Chinese does not apply here nor does the B+++ rating. A system is always unproven until it goes to war. However, if you are expecting F-16E like performance from a system that is essentially a modern day F-20.. then you should start sending more remittances or come back and enter politics. Because as such it boils down to finances and national "ethos" which as is painstakingly apparent has little interest in being anything



By that analogy, so is the Rafale +Mica combination and almost all of the Sukhoi fleets. But, in my view that analysis is incorrect because it seems to based on the opinion that Chinese systems are not tested at all and just fielded. A claim that suggests that weapons like the SD-10 have not been tested fired again and again to verify parameters in a very similar way to AIM-120 firings.
So I disagree; your view is based totally on inexperience with Chinese equipment and a general Americanized view of Chinese systems and goods. A lot has changed since the 70's and while there are definitely more kinks than a comparable western counterpart, you would have had to work with equipment and components from the Chinese to know it. How much time have you had with that to be definitive? Because I've had adequate time on both components and complete electronics in both Radar and Radio projects to tell you that they aren't lesser in capability than a comparable European system. Their Achilles heel has always been quality and reliability but for that you keep yourself in the QC loop. The result is that you end up with systems that work just as well as any European counterpart while costing you a third of the dough.

Moreover, you are further basing your assumption on the fact that everything that sits inside the JF-17 is Chinese whereas its more along the lines of 60% Chinese(less if you count the RD-93) and 40% elsewhere. Hence, the unproven because its Chinese does not apply here nor does the B+++ rating. A system is always unproven until it goes to war. However, if you are expecting F-16E like performance from a system that is essentially a modern day F-20.. then you should start sending more remittances or come back and enter politics. Because as such it boils down to finances and national "ethos" which as is painstakingly apparent has little interest in being anything

Most people here have no clue of what testing of aeronautical systems means.... PLAAF and PAF are not amateurs to induct systems without appropriate testing.... Even the product development cycle itself has extensive testing of every subsystem to the most minute details... I think this entire chinese untested hogwash needs to stop...

 

[PoKeMon]

Most people here have no clue of what testing of aeronautical systems means.... PLAAF and PAF are not amateurs to induct systems without appropriate testing.... Even the product development cycle itself has extensive testing of every subsystem to the most minute details... I think this entire chinese untested hogwash needs to stop...

I disagree.

First of all a system build upon a tested and credible platform, however not time tested, can be deemed more fit than a completely new design. For e.g F 22 can be safely expected to be better than J20 even though neither has seen any war because US has build its system on already time tested technology in F-16, 15 and 18.

Secondly I agree that new systems, chinese or whatever, goes through extensive testing but the test cases differs for those who never saw real war and those who saw them closely and knows the very tiny details of it. Chinese equipment lacks here because they dont have extensive war library to give them a holistic view of warfare. Its just a difference between theoretical and practical difference. They might be upto theoretical standards but there are high chances they miss the practical nuances.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Gentlemen---it is not my fault that I see something other than what you see. Let me re-phrase it this way---do you people lie about what you see and what you notice---! If you don't then why do you expect me to lie and be deceitful.

And even if some of you do for the sake of face saving---that is your problem---not mine.

As for PAF officers being extremely satisfied---I don't believe them---paf has lied to the pakistanis---they cannot be trusted---they have short changed the nation many a times.

The simple answer here is---your arch enemy created scenarios so that you could not get the french equipment---. Now remember that they did not care much when you were going for the grippens or the F16's----.

F 16 they had no control over---grippen was not worth the trouble---it was the rafale and its electronics and weapons package that they were after and the moment they dislodged you---they jumped on the wagon to make the deal after all the hoopla.

Now how important was the rafale deal to india---they snubbed the united states---the british and the swedes and to top it off the russians as well.

Use your brains guys---use your brains---.

Rafale had been the victim of bad rap---a pre programmed smear campaign by the british and the american defence industry.

As for pakistan---the second largest user of french fighter aircraft mirage 3/5---what other proof did the paf need---. Next the august submarines---the most advanced submarines in their class in the arena---not including european or u s or russian nuc subs. On top of that---the french augusta have been extremely reliable.

With the chinese systems---every item is new---nothing is time tested. Whereas the french equipment moved ahead in a timely progression keeping in line with the improving technology---the chinese are jumping into the arena from obsolete into the unknown---.

When your enemy has two of the best time tested and proven systems and you want to procure a hyped up system---whose only claim of fame is from the lab to the first aircraft that it can be installed on---there is not much to say. And to top it off---this was the only system left for paf to pursue---there was nothing else in the world that they could buy---.

 

[MastanKhan]

I disagree.

First of all a system build upon a tested and credible platform, however not time tested, can be deemed more fit than a completely new design. For e.g F 22 can be safely expected to be better than J20 even though neither has seen any war because US has build its system on already time tested technology in F-16, 15 and 18.

Secondly I agree that new systems, chinese or whatever, goes through extensive testing but the test cases differs for those who never saw real war and those who saw them closely and knows the very tiny details of it. Chinese equipment lacks here because they dont have extensive war library to give them a holistic view of warfare. Its just a difference between theoretical and practical difference. They might be upto theoretical standards but there are high chances they miss the practical nuances.

Hi,

F22 is a bad example-----please remember---with the americans---what you see may be 10--20 years old or in progression for the longest time. Any front line american weapons system is time tested and put thru its paces like it was thru real battle scenarios.

As for the chinese equipment---they have not had a chance to test them in any real battles---. For the americans---it is the cold war readiness---it is the gulf war---it is the vietnam war---it is the world wars---years and years of war games with all the known powers of the world---testing each and every item a thousands times over---.

And the most important thing of all---the western equipment is weather tested. Most of you won't understand it what it means----but the weather test is the most important test of any weapons system and equioment.

Any top notch top rated weapons system is also a time tested weapons system---. The weather---the changing temperatures---rain, snow sunshine cold heat freeze---freezing thawing roller coaster weather climate and temperature changes---which single chinese system falls in that category!

 

[Donatello]

@MastanKhan

On the topic of Chinese weapons, what better timing...

Just read this on New York Times. Interesting times we live in.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/world/asia/chinas-arms-industry-makes-global-inroads.html?hp&_r=0

 

[Alpha1]

Mr. Xu said that besides pricing, Chinese companies had another advantage: they do not “make demands over other governments’ status and internal policies.” He added:
“Our policy of noninterference applies here. Whoever is in the government, whoever has diplomatic status
with us, we can talk about arms sales with them.”
Chinese officials know that China’s encroachment on
Western-dominated military markets raises concerns. When
asked about the missile-defense sale to Turkey, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said,
“China’s military exports do no harm to peace, security and
stability,” and do not “interfere with the internal affairs of
recipient countries.”

Is this statement relevant in pakistan's case? If so, how?

 

[MilSpec]

I disagree.

First of all a system build upon a tested and credible platform, however not time tested, can be deemed more fit than a completely new design. For e.g F 22 can be safely expected to be better than J20 even though neither has seen any war because US has build its system on already time tested technology in F-16, 15 and 18.

Secondly I agree that new systems, chinese or whatever, goes through extensive testing but the test cases differs for those who never saw real war and those who saw them closely and knows the very tiny details of it. Chinese equipment lacks here because they dont have extensive war library to give them a holistic view of warfare. Its just a difference between theoretical and practical difference. They might be upto theoretical standards but there are high chances they miss the practical nuances.

Interesting.... First off I dont like to comment on specific capability to without knowing about it, the assumption here is chinese testing protocol is as competent as any others. When I say testing, I mean subsystems and the standards for there testing.... Chinese systems mostly are based off western and russian technology or sometimes some of which combines the best of both the worlds, the best example is KLJ7/10 radar, they are based off Zhuk emr system but is a step ahead in terms of resolution, noise cancelletion.

Now to your first point, that technolgy that is time tested on the f teen series will be a given for f22 has some flaws, because f22 doesn't share any common systems with the aforementioned jets, but I do get the essence of your posts. Combat experience that it is built upon does help, but it is not a game changer and thus every airforce around the world hold drills and exercises for combat system evaluations. going by the same argument, how is sweedish gripen any better, it has never seen any combat either...

I come back to testing, most modern combat aircrafts will go fatigue testing of entire wing structure for a million cycles in edge wise and flapwise configs, a mig 21 went through less than 1/3rd of it. Thus as the aircrafts structures, materials and technology evolves, the testing process keeps up with it.... and what the piers of these aircraft went through doesn't validate anything in todays world, where everything has become stronger faster and more smarter...

war library and holistic war database you refer to, in todays world is not something that really dictates anything. Todays war's are fought on basis of the technolgy, because those days have gone when technology had to keep up with combat, today combat has to keep up with technology. Today, you need to be one step ahead of your adversaries technology which you do not want to find in combat, you want to account for it and develop counters for it beforehand.

If anything I believe the limited deployment of chinese aircrafts make them enigmatic adversaries, their flight characteristics, their weaponry details are all speculative, that makes them very dangerous and calls for additional safeguards....

Hi,

F22 is a bad example-----please remember---with the americans---what you see may be 10--20 years old or in progression for the longest time. Any front line american weapons system is time tested and put thru its paces like it was thru real battle scenarios.

As for the chinese equipment---they have not had a chance to test them in any real battles---. For the americans---it is the cold war readiness---it is the gulf war---it is the vietnam war---it is the world wars---years and years of war games with all the known powers of the world---testing each and every item a thousands times over---.

And the most important thing of all---the western equipment is weather tested. Most of you won't understand it what it means----but the weather test is the most important test of any weapons system and equioment.

Any top notch top rated weapons system is also a time tested weapons system---. The weather---the changing temperatures---rain, snow sunshine cold heat freeze---freezing thawing roller coaster weather climate and temperature changes---which single chinese system falls in that category!

Do you think there are pass fail criterions for chinese weaponry?

How do they differ from american, french or russian standards of testing?

How does anyone deem one all aspect missile and the seeker better than the other without access to both of the original test reports?

what is A+ and B+ according to you and how did you determine these grades?

 

[MastanKhan]

Donatello,

Thank you for the link. Here is the most important issue---. Turkey has no active threat to face----pakistan can be in a full fledged war any second. The weapons that turkey desires are may not be the same that pakistan needs.

Your air force and your submarine fleet are the game changers in our scenario. As for HQ9---it is a formidable weapons system---I also want one for pakistan---. When you live in fear of war---for major weapons procurement---timing is everything.

Our problems with india that we are facing now are because of the same reason I have posted many a times---a stitch in time saves nine---if it to was the purchase of F16 blk 52's grippen or rafale---it should have been done by 2003 and procurement started by 2004-5---india would have been talking a different talk with a well strengthened pak air force.

The bottom line is that your major weapons system must have some effect on the enemy to bring it closer to making peace. JF 17 and its package don't do that---J11's would.

Pakistanis need to get away from this mentality of BLOODYING THE NOSE OF THE ENEMY---because this time the enemy will smash you to pieces and won't stop. It has prepared well---it has numbers behind its threat---. So untill and unless you can face it mano a mano and have resources to come out ahead---you are in deep trouble.

As for that article---it is a typical sensational piece---stirring up the congress and senate to do something for the u s defence industry.

 

[Informant]

MK is this old guy with idea fixated in his head. Nothing can change his opinions,not even actual PAF officials. Move on.