Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hi,
We all discussed about the JF 17 being a ground strike aircraft for many a years after the air force stated its capabilities and me amongst many was aghast at the lack of bvr capability----the bvr capability came in later----but as the aircraft went into production and integration it was touted for ground strike missions.
Readers must understand the issue here---this aircraft has been offered for sale----which means that it is capable for all aspects of air warfare and ground strike missions---it has been on sale for a few years---which means that most aspects of its operational capabilities have been achieved----so what is missing.
Hi,
You saying combat use tag is not important and something about finances--------these are extremely strange comments----all defence equipment sellers want to display the potency of their weapons against real targets----and nothing beats the deal when the opponent does not shoot back---.
As for 'living on a hype'----the proof is in the pudding---the picture is in front of everyone to see----.
PAF has been accused of bad marketing for this aircraft---you can try to protect this organization as much as you want to----but as for what they are capable of doing----their failures are bigger than their successes---.
Most of the strikes against TTP are mostly conducted with support of comms coming from electronics currently configured on US origin fleet. Its not the 'combat-use-tag-on-JF17' that matters more than use of whats more required (both in terms of clearing weapons stores and associated finances related to operating cost of F-16s). Mirages have been back-bone of strike element of PAF since 1967, and it has not flown more than 25% of total combat missions.
Lastly regarding weapons configurations; JF-17 has been tested and cleared for dumb bombs back in 2010. LGBs and the electronics pods are being tested (but not completed yet). If the aircraft was so 'living-in-hype' as you put it we had not seen 50 aircraft delivered and performing daily flights.
hope in 2nd phase paf will also change engine nozzles
My friend you have become cynical; either you are completely ignorant about the theme of these COIN operations or you have stopped reading and analysing. You misread my post, especially the area where I mentioned the reasons why JF-17 is not the best option for these operations. Here is what I wrote earlier.
Hi,
You saying combat use tag is not important and something about finances--------these are extremely strange comments----all defence equipment sellers want to display the potency of their weapons against real targets----and nothing beats the deal when the opponent does not shoot back---.
As for 'living on a hype'----the proof is in the pudding---the picture is in front of everyone to see----.
PAF has been accused of bad marketing for this aircraft---you can try to protect this organization as much as you want to----but as for what they are capable of doing----their failures are bigger than their successes---.
My friend you have become cynical; either you are completely ignorant about the theme of these COIN operations or you have stopped reading and analysing. You misread my post, especially the area where I mentioned the reasons why JF-17 is not the best option for these operations. Here is what I wrote earlier.
Most of the strikes against TTP are conducted with support of comms coming from electronics currently configured on US origin fleet. Its not the 'combat-use-tag-on-JF17' that matters more than use of whats more required (both in terms of clearing weapons stores and associated finances related to operating cost of F-16s).
Now let me enlighten you regarding some facts..
The operation needs are more important then getting 'combat-tag' on JF-17. There are either fixed targets (high/low value) or moving high/low value targets. With current cleared weapons on JF-17 its favourable for fixed targets. These targets are mostly training centers, hideouts, weapons dump/stores etc; these are very
small in number; most of them have already been nuteralised. TTP don't have much left now.
Now comes the moving (HV/LV) target; As I already put this; F-16 and other a/c those are mapped onto link16/related electronics are favourable for these roles.
Getting intel and hitting target in time boxed environment has been the game changer in most of the cases. There was a Mullah (name I can't share) was missed in two occasions merely by few minutes; his meeting point and his buddies were wiped from face of the earth but luckily that bastard lived at both occasions. He was later
killed during a strike while he was on his way to native village few months later. Such missed opportunities are not acceptable; because whenever a scumbag is left its the ground forces that face its consequences.
Employing JF-17 is not necessary for PAF, more mature and networked systems are in place. If getting a combat tag was a need, US should have employed F-35s in Libya (if not Iraq and Afghanistan), the state-of-power of NATO targets in Libya were not much different than TTP.
Secondly, regarding JF-17 exports (I won't go in details of countries whose pilots have flown the simulator and recommended this a/c) following are my questions;
Is PAF requirement for Mirage/F-7 replacement fulfilled or say achieved till 80% targeted numbers?
Where is the infrastructure or production of export orders? Is PAC able to deliver both JF-17 to PAF and FC-1 for exports?
Lastly were the finances for JF-17 project agreed by PPP and PML Govt transferred? You cannot continuously produce these aircraft continuously on loans. The major chunk of finances on this project is still being burdened on Chinese.
Now in light of these above questions please enlighten me how 'PAF's failures are bigger than their successes'? What knowledge you have that I'm not aware of?
@MastanKhanSir,
You are going around in circles----trying to wing it left and right----. When you have a new aircraft that has been inducted into the air force----it has to be used for operations---regardless of it being coin operation or " currency ".
It is a silly explanation that all the strike missions were F16 specific---technically that is not possible---that shows a lack of flexibility of the system.
U S does not need to use any new aircrafts to make sales----it already has proven systems----pakistan otoh has no such foundations. Your examples are getting from bad too worst.
Munir,
Thank you for your post----. Likewise----you are one poster who does not automatically jump into the ' PROTECT PAF ' at all cost mode---but listens to the conversation.
I know that I had asked or made the statement as to why there were no ground strikes performed by the JF 17's which were grandly touted for ground strike missions---.
Now, if the JF 17 is a dedicated SD10A carrying card member---then why did the paf not come up with the thought of performing a few ground strike missions by this aircraft to keep the opponents guessing----deceit and deception is the job of fighting forces.
You have conveniently ignored the fact that JF-17 is not being inducted as a supplement but rather as replacement for the likes of F-7 and Mirages...... it's naive to assume that all of India's missions will be carried out by MKI.....since that's allegedly your best platform.If Push comes to Shove
And PAF needs to complete a mission be it a strike mission or AIR SUPERIORITY in a one OFF ENGAGEMENT against india,
THEY WILL SEND THE BEST MOST TRUSTED PLATFORM.
The formidable F16/52.
That will remain the way until JF17 hits a decade of use and block version 3