Karakorum - 8 (K-8) | Jet Trainer Aircraft.

[SQ8]

PAC has been making these aircraft for decades now, if we need new aircraft for training, why cant we try to design our very own design? Starting from basic PROP trainer and then moving on to LIFT? With the experience of Mushak, Super Mushak, K8 and now JF-17, isn't there enough technical knowledge in-house to at least try that?

Why create a LIFT for a market of 30 jets max? Especially when the world market too is saturated with it.
Please, this is a characteristic of stupid nations to do stuff just for the heck of it and not only when they need to.

 

[Quwa]

For LIFT we will have JF-17B.

 

[MastanKhan]

PAC has been making these aircraft for decades now, if we need new aircraft for training, why cant we try to design our very own design? Starting from basic PROP trainer and then moving on to LIFT? With the experience of Mushak, Super Mushak, K8 and now JF-17, isn't there enough technical knowledge in-house to at least try that?

Hi,

That is where they missed the boat on the JF17 dual seater in the initial stages.

When your target and goal is to sell your single seater---the best route taken is thru the 2 seater combination of the same brand---.

Because now you would have a captive audience---. The instrumentation and design is the same as in the 2 seater to the single seater---so the ease of transition---the shape form and function are the same.

That would have been a big sales pitch----the pilots would also learn to fly independent sooner---and will be able to perform their duties much better on a faster learning curve. When you got into the single seater---you did not need to do anything different---all the switches and displays would be at the same location.

Now---as for the design---when it is selling---why to make any change to the design---. The infra structure is already setup for the servicing of the super Mushak---why bring something new---when there are orders that you have a hard time fulfilling and we already have the product.

Same thing is going to happen to the JF17 as well---. It had its set backs due to poor marketing and a lack of Lift---. But once the things get rolling---it would be hard to stop.

 

[fatman17]

I recently read somewhere that the airforce was planning to replace the K8 with a more modern trainer in 2010 but the plan was abandoned for various reasons and the K8 continues to soldier on.

 

[ziaulislam]

I recently read somewhere that the airforce was planning to replace the K8 with a more modern trainer in 2010 but the plan was abandoned for various reasons and the K8 continues to soldier on.

with what..k-8 is new addition brought in number just a decade ago..a quick replacement if they were thinking that

 

[Quwa]

I recently read somewhere that the airforce was planning to replace the K8 with a more modern trainer in 2010 but the plan was abandoned for various reasons and the K8 continues to soldier on.

There was hardly anything available in 2010. Nowadays however, the Turks are marketing the Hurkus turboprop trainer as a fighter trainer alternative to the T-37.

 

[Arsalan]

I recently read somewhere that the airforce was planning to replace the K8 with a more modern trainer in 2010 but the plan was abandoned for various reasons and the K8 continues to soldier on.

Sir in my view, like many other projects the K8 also faced the same problem, being stagnant and stationary.

With a base build in form of K8 we could and should have built on that and moved forward/ progressed to better platform. However the top brass just froze and the project was stagnant. No real developments were made keeping in mind the future and now we are in a position where instead of a K8 based home grown platform we are talking about changing to a new more modern plane. Each time we spend the heavy amount of money, energy and time rather then building on what we already have. Same thing have happened with many of our military projects. I hope this is not the case with JF17 (and i am not talking about JF17 future blocks but beyond JF17 project as well)

Regards!

 

[Paksanity]

I recently read somewhere that the airforce was planning to replace the K8 with a more modern trainer in 2010 but the plan was abandoned for various reasons and the K8 continues to soldier on.

Hurkus would be a good replacement for both T-37 and K-8. Especially if we can get partial local manufacturing and assembly. I sometimes feel Pakistan needs a LIFT of M-346/ Yak-130 class (non reheat engines, low maintenance cost) thus effectively cutting the training cycle to just three types; all of them budget friendly in terms of operating costs. It could be MFI-17 to Hurkus to M-346 (?) and straight to fighting units.

 

[fatman17]

Hurkus also being planned as a COIN aircraft

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Hurkus would be a good replacement for both T-37 and K-8. Especially if we can get partial local manufacturing and assembly. I sometimes feel Pakistan needs a LIFT of M-346/ Yak-130 class (non reheat engines, low maintenance cost) thus effectively cutting the training cycle to just three types; all of them budget friendly in terms of operating costs. It could be MFI-17 to Hurkus to M-346 (?) and straight to fighting units.

If Pakistan does select the Hurkus, it is not enough to go for local licensed production. If it is limited to just that, then we risk the same problem we have had with the K-8, which was stagnation (as rightly put by @Arsalan). We need to tie the local licensed production with commercial offsets, i.e. looping PAC into TAI's global supply chain. The two companies should also collaborate on marketing the Hurkus to third party markets; the larger the pool of users, the more work PAC will get in terms of sourcing specific spare parts.

 

[Arsalan]

If Pakistan does select the Hurkus, it is not enough to go for local licensed production. If it is limited to just that, then we risk the same problem we have had with the K-8, which was stagnation (as rightly put by @Arsalan). We need to tie the local licensed production with commercial offsets, i.e. looping PAC into TAI's global supply chain. The two companies should also collaborate on marketing the Hurkus to third party markets; the larger the pool of users, the more work PAC will get in terms of sourcing specific spare parts.

True!!
What is done is done and now if PAF and PAC have really lost interest in future K8s they may well decide to move to this Hurkus. However, i just hope and pray that lesson was learned and we wont face the same fate again where we will again be sitting here deciding for a replacement of Hurkus to be imported after some 10 15 years! That is actually stupid. Frankly if this is what we want then why waste those $$ on ToT and license production? Just go out there are buy something ready made for your needs. The ONLY reason for investing in ToT and in-house production, especially of such equipment (i say so because if it was a fighter plane an additional reason may be ensuring maintenance and parts supply in war time) is because we need to build our own industrial base to take on such projects in the future. With K8 we already have that so the best approach would have been to keep working on that or even to use those lessons learned and made a new platform for future needs. However, as in most cases, we seem the be decided on yet an other purchase and all that effort and input into K8 will be down the drain or say the truth or at least not properly taken advantage of to be polite!

Hurkus is an awesome plane and can be used in COIN as well. All i hope for is that this wont face the same fate and for once we make Hurkus and its local production a base for future procurement rather than sitting on the same table again and deciding what to buy next. One other MAIN aspect will be to get licensed manufacturer status and get our self in that supply chain to exploit export potential as well as try and get some private sector involved if possible. I pray that it is time we learn from mistakes and wrong decisions of the past and start building on what little we have.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

True!!
What is done is done and now if PAF and PAC have really lost interest in future K8s they may well decide to move to this Hurkus. However, i just hope and pray that lesson was learned and we wont face the same fate again where we will again be sitting here deciding for a replacement of Hurkus to be imported after some 10 15 years! That is actually stupid. Frankly if this is what we want then why waste those $$ on ToT and license production? Just go out there are buy something ready made for your needs. The ONLY reason for investing in ToT and in-house production, especially of such equipment (i say so because if it was a fighter plane an additional reason may be ensuring maintenance and parts supply in war time) is because we need to build our own industrial base to take on such projects in the future. With K8 we already have that so the best approach would have been to keep working on that or even to use those lessons learned and made a new platform for future needs. However, as in most cases, we seem the be decided on yet an other purchase and all that effort and input into K8 will be down the drain or say the truth or at least not properly taken advantage of to be polite!

Hurkus is an awesome plane and can be used in COIN as well. All i hope for is that this wont face the same fate and for once we make Hurkus and its local production a base for future procurement rather than sitting on the same table again and deciding what to buy next. One other MAIN aspect will be to get licensed manufacturer status and get our self in that supply chain to exploit export potential as well as try and get some private sector involved if possible. I pray that it is time we learn from mistakes and wrong decisions of the past and start building on what little we have.

As far as complete manufacturing goes, I'd just focus on the JF-17. For everything else, and I mean everything else - from the next-gen fighter, to helicopters, to potentially MALE UAVs and the Hurkus trainer - I would recommend complete MRO and partial local manufacturing of commonly worn parts. We essentially just need to ensure that we can operate our goods to end-of-life with as little dependence on foreign sources as possible. If we connect the spare parts manufacturing line to commercial offsets, we can also recoup a portion of the costs.

 

[Arsalan]

As far as complete manufacturing goes, I'd just focus on the JF-17. For everything else, and I mean everything else - from the next-gen fighter, to helicopters, to potentially MALE UAVs and the Hurkus trainer - I would recommend complete MRO and partial local manufacturing of commonly worn parts. We essentially just need to ensure that we can operate our goods to end-of-life with as little dependence on foreign sources as possible. If we connect the spare parts manufacturing line to commercial offsets, we can also recoup a portion of the costs.

True and agreed with. In fact, this is more out of necessity than by choice! We need to even further increase the rate of production of JF17 with it being the pet project. Also with exports in mind this is a must. Do not see those other systems being manufactured simultaneously unless some drastic up gradations are done (unlikely). However i just hope that whatever technical know how and information we get in form of, lets say, Hurkus, that is then worked upon for FUTURE projects and we do not end up debating and discussing what plane to BUY next. We need to use and apply the knowledge we have acquired during the ToT experiences to shape up platforms for future.

 

[araz]

True and agreed with. In fact, this is more out of necessity than by choice! We need to even further increase the rate of production of JF17 with it being the pet project. Also with exports in mind this is a must. Do not see those other systems being manufactured simultaneously unless some drastic up gradations are done (unlikely). However i just hope that whatever technical know how and information we get in form of, lets say, Hurkus, that is then worked upon for FUTURE projects and we do not end up debating and discussing what plane to BUY next. We need to use and apply the knowledge we have acquired during the ToT experiences to shape up platforms for future.

Thank you to the two of you for having participated in a good discussion. You have highlighted a few points which I need to comment on.
Firstly the rate of JFT production is going to go up to 24. This is in my view ideal and we should not increase it beyond that . As you know we have a responsibility towards our skilled staff. 24 planes will require the necessary skilled technicians to be trained and necessary jigs and stations developed for the process to progress accordingly. You dont want quality to slip as this could cause lives and your reputation which in a market which is dominated by some big giants could be the last nail in your coffin. The problem is continuing to employ the staff and keeping them productive. Now even if you have an order book for 100 fighters and a need to have 15 fighters added to your inventory you cannot overnight increase the production line to 50 fighters. However what can be done is a gradual increase of production to 30 fighters with 15 each going to order and inventory respectively. BUt when the orders die down then is the time when you start to lose big time. You dont have enough projects to transfer staff between them and thereby ensure employment and economy of scale. The problem as always is that downgrading an industry with loss of skilled labour is a huge drain on your effort and economy. Hence we need to keep to 24 JFTs for the year.
The induction of Hurkus is another issueworthy of discussion. Firstly for a need of 30 platforms we dont need to establish facilities so agreed that we wont need more than depot level maintenance and small part manufacturing. However if a more extended need is seen as in a joint venture and combined sale, limited parts manufacturing and perhaps licence manufacturing is the way ahead. However frankly with the market choked with multiple offerings from different vendors I dont see PAF going out on a limb to acquire manufacturing rights.
A

 

[Arsalan]

Thank you to the two of you for having participated in a good discussion. You have highlighted a few points which I need to comment on.
Firstly the rate of JFT production is going to go up to 24. This is in my view ideal and we should not increase it beyond that . As you know we have a responsibility towards our skilled staff. 24 planes will require the necessary skilled technicians to be trained and necessary jigs and stations developed for the process to progress accordingly. You dont want quality to slip as this could cause lives and your reputation which in a market which is dominated by some big giants could be the last nail in your coffin. The problem is continuing to employ the staff and keeping them productive. Now even if you have an order book for 100 fighters and a need to have 15 fighters added to your inventory you cannot overnight increase the production line to 50 fighters. However what can be done is a gradual increase of production to 30 fighters with 15 each going to order and inventory respectively. BUt when the orders die down then is the time when you start to lose big time. You dont have enough projects to transfer staff between them and thereby ensure employment and economy of scale. The problem as always is that downgrading an industry with loss of skilled labour is a huge drain on your effort and economy. Hence we need to keep to 24 JFTs for the year.
The induction of Hurkus is another issueworthy of discussion. Firstly for a need of 30 platforms we dont need to establish facilities so agreed that we wont need more than depot level maintenance and small part manufacturing. However if a more extended need is seen as in a joint venture and combined sale, limited parts manufacturing and perhaps license manufacturing is the way ahead. However frankly with the market choked with multiple offerings from different vendors I dont see PAF going out on a limb to acquire manufacturing rights.
A

Agreed with the rate of production for JF17. Even though i am not particularly pleased with that 24 per year figure (i would like it to be in region of 36 or so if we are serious about exports) but still i do understand the need of it and completely agree with it. A necessity more than a choice really. We sure don't have multiple projects running where we can transfer and share resources. I just hope we get there some time!

For Hurkus, again, i agree. There are SO many options available i am not sure how much PAC will be attracted in license production etc. All we need in manufacturing for some parts, that is, for THIS order/requirement. However any insight into the technology must not go to waste as in K8 and should be used whenever we need to look at some other platform for some other requirement in future. The parts production and technology insight will be helpful! IT SHOULD BE!