JF17 will be equal to F16 after upgrades

[Bilal Khan 777]

What rubbish. JF-17 is a good aircraft but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

If JF-17 will equal F-16 after upgrades, why is the government buying more 16s as we speak?

Excellent observation. As I have also said before, JF17 is designed / selected / configured for separate roles and task. These comparisons are not objective.

 

[Path-Finder]

Lets end the debate, the minister meant to say is JF-17 will be on par in capabilities with F16. (full stop)

 

[thrilainmanila]

the F-16 will always have better range and payload, the JF-17 will go on to have better avionics, if the JF-17 can have the PL15 incorporated then it would be more lethal in air to air combat.

 

[Dark Eradicator Warlock]

Assalam o Alaikum

Since we dont have KC135 for refuelling. Our JF 17 will be flying and guarding our airspace when our F 16 would be refuelling on the ground.
So that is a big edge we have with JF 17 in war like scenario or during red alerts.

 

[Viper0011.]

the F-16 will always have better range and payload, the JF-17 will go on to have better avionics, if the JF-17 can have the PL15 incorporated then it would be more lethal in air to air combat.

The JFT will have an AESA and more range and payload (payload has already been increased in block II) and more will come. As a Chinese platform with their advance avionics, PL-15 and later versions will be used by the JFT. Its like F-16 can fire many versions of AMRAAM, as long as the radar supports the max range of the missile.

Since we dont have KC135 for refuelling. Our JF 17 will be flying and guarding our airspace when our F 16 would be refuelling on the ground..

The PAF has been discussing with the US to acquire a tanker platform for the F-16's. With CFT's, your block 52's have extended range so the loiter time increases significantly. But a solution will come to Pakistan before 2018 for sure.

 

[Dark Eradicator Warlock]

The JFT will have an AESA and more range and payload (payload has already been increased in block II) and more will come. As a Chinese platform with their advance avionics, PL-15 and later versions will be used by the JFT. Its like F-16 can fire many versions of AMRAAM, as long as the radar supports the max range of the missile.



The PAF has been discussing with the US to acquire a tanker platform for the F-16's. With CFT's, your block 52's have extended range so the loiter time increases significantly. But a solution will come to Pakistan before 2018 for sure.

I thank you for replying to my fist post ( Being considered by a senior member )

Since we already have Ilyushin tanker which can be used with thunders and mirages, is it feasible to have two tanker flying at the same time and putting our fighters to defend these soft targets

Also not forgetting all the drama for F16s why to choose another sanction prone platform

 

[Viper0011.]

I thank you for replying to my fist post ( Being considered by a senior member )

Since we already have Ilyushin tanker which can be used with thunders and mirages, is it feasible to have two tanker flying at the same time and putting our fighters to defend these soft targets

Also not forgetting all the drama for F16s why to choose another sanction prone platform

1) You are welcome.

2) You can have ten tankers if your war doctrine, area and war theater call for it. The US forces flew thousands of missions a day in Iraq and other places. There were obviously more than one tanker refueling these.

3) Sanctions don't just come from the heaven up above, there are reasons for them. But, at the current pace, a civilian government in Pakistan, eradicating terrorism and bringing in a modern and tolerant environment will avoid future sanctions. I think the US has never put sanctions on a democratic country, that's how the US works. Military fatigues sitting in a Civilian executive's chair are one of the easiest way to trigger sanctions (outside of nuke tests which was the reason for sanctions on both Pakistan and India).

 

[Dark Eradicator Warlock]

1) You are welcome.

2) You can have ten tankers if your war doctrine, area and war theater call for it. The US forces flew thousands of missions a day in Iraq and other places. There were obviously more than one tanker refueling these.

3) Sanctions don't just come from the heaven up above, there are reasons for them. But, at the current pace, a civilian government in Pakistan, eradicating terrorism and bringing in a modern and tolerant environment will avoid future sanctions. I think the US has never put sanctions on a democratic country, that's how the US works. Military fatigues sitting in a Civilian executive's chair are one of the easiest way to trigger sanctions (outside of nuke tests which was the reason for sanctions on both Pakistan and India).

I was also thinking the other day that since we already did the nuclear tests their are no more solid reasons to put sanctions.
Even then seeing all the pathetic resistance and comments from US and India i dont think It would be encouraged to acquire in PAF. On the other hand, seeing the quantity and the quality of our F16 fleet it is a must.

 

[tarrar]

JF17 is not going to be as good as F16 but JF17 ill be like a little brother of F16.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

But a solution will come to Pakistan before 2018 for sure.

PAF was thinking to upgrade one of their C-130's for this role... Or it would be a new platform?

 

[Viper0011.]

PAF was thinking to upgrade one of their C-130's for this role... Or it would be a new platform?

My understanding is, that PAF wants to use dual platform. So they are wanting two or three C-130's to be modified for Drogue refueling. But the US also has older KC-130's available that can be bought at very attractive rates. Additionally, Pakistan was also looking into smaller Boeing platforms which can be converted into tankers. That way, you might acquire a tanker squadron for like 4-6 pieces, but at a much reduced cost compared to the KC-130 type of a larger solution. I guess we'll find out shortly here in the next year as to which one was selected.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

My understanding is, that PAF wants to use dual platform. So they are wanting two or three C-130's to be modified for Drogue refueling. But the US also has older KC-130's available that can be bought at very attractive rates. Additionally, Pakistan was also looking into smaller Boeing platforms which can be converted into tankers. That way, you might acquire a tanker squadron for like 4-6 pieces, but at a much reduced cost compared to the KC-130 type of a larger solution. I guess we'll find out shortly here in the next year as to which one was selected.

Old KC-130's are modeled on H series?

PAF may be looking for B-737 that can be converted as economically viable.
4-6 K-46A would not be economical as B-767 aircraft is not being operated in Pakistan.

 

[Aasimkhan]

Look who is

1) You are welcome.

2) You can have ten tankers if your war doctrine, area and war theater call for it. The US forces flew thousands of missions a day in Iraq and other places. There were obviously more than one tanker refueling these.

3) Sanctions don't just come from the heaven up above, there are reasons for them. But, at the current pace, a civilian government in Pakistan, eradicating terrorism and bringing in a modern and tolerant environment will avoid future sanctions. I think the US has never put sanctions on a democratic country, that's how the US works. Military fatigues sitting in a Civilian executive's chair are one of the easiest way to trigger sanctions (outside of nuke tests which was the reason for sanctions on both Pakistan and India).

Look who's talking. US works best with dictators. They are easy to bribe, intimidate, coerced, enticed blah blah

 

[My-Analogous]

Firstly, Pakistan isn't really paying much from its own pocket for the F-16s. The money is coming through past and future FMF and nothing else, local funds are going towards JF-17 and other programs.

Second, the JF-17 Block-III would possess a number of technological capabilities that will put it ahead of the PAF's Block-52+/MLU in some key respects. For example, the AESA radar would give the JF-17 enhanced resistence to EW, and HMD/S with HOBS AAM isn't something our F-16s would have (unless we get AIM-9X). It might not fully compete in terms of range and payload, but in terms of core technology, there's no reason why it couldn't be as good if not better than the F-16 Block-52+.

If in 2017 we achieving 2005 Technology then i must say we are in right direction. We were nothing 30 year back and we achieved our target on fast track

 

[Basel]

the F-16 will always have better range and payload, the JF-17 will go on to have better avionics, if the JF-17 can have the PL15 incorporated then it would be more lethal in air to air combat.

It will eventually get PL-21D sino meteor which will be better then PL-15.