PAC launches updated website: New info for JF-17

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Enough of comparing theThunder with the lca - one is operational and the other is not, which puts the Thunder ahead. End of comparison.

Once the lca is fully operational in its final configuration, we can have 1 comparison thread.

 

[Trisonics]

Well I think us Indians need to lay off from this thread. We (Indians) do appreciate the JF-17 but I think the mention of LCA is rather silly ..since its not even a fully inducted plane as yet. Comparison to LCA is not going to get you potential customers neither will it make LCA any worse..if at all it makes the LCA a lot more potent since its already being compared to an aircraft seeing acting service in the PAF. Very unprofessional writing, probably made for consumption of local fan boys rather than potential customers.

 

[AMCA]

Enough of comparing theThunder with the lca - one is operational and the other is not, which puts the Thunder ahead. End of comparison.

Once the lca is fully operational in its final configuration, we can have 1 comparison thread.

your own PAC guys started the comparison..... Why blame us

 

[SBD-3]

What is that LCA dosent provide?? Does Your JF-17 give the advantage of OBOGS,is your JF-17 CSS comparable as that of the Tejas whose MDC and ETL functions with a velocity of detonation of 6000 m/s ensuring that the cutting action of the Canopy occurs in less than 5 m sec from the time of initiation...

And what is that JF-17 has that LCA dosent??

1-OBOGS is an auxiliary function FYI it is an alternative to Liquid Oxi system which is not a key performance Indicator
2- JFT uses the industry proven Martin Backer Zero/Zero Ejection seats (like LCA and essentially similar models) and this too is not a key performance indicator, on a funny note, the way they are emphasizing this, seems like they expect a lot off shot downs

 

[AMCA]

1-OBOGS is an auxiliary function FYI it is an alternative to Liquid Oxi system which is not a key performance Indicator
2- JFT uses the industry proven Martin Backer Zero/Zero Ejection seats (like LCA and essentially similar models) and this too is not a key performance indicator, on a funny note, the way they are emphasizing this, seems like they expect a lot off shot downs

Oh so you come to say JF-17 has not be installed with any of the above mentioned safety and endurance features Just because it is immortal in the battle field... , I like your lame argument .... And LCA does not use Martin Baker Ejection seats but ARDE ejection seats,Ejection usually takes 14 seconds but with the new ARDE system, it would take a pilot just 20 milliseconds to eject from the aircraft...And while JF-17 can only provide Oxygen supply for three hours,LCA can give it for Unlimited flying hours

And Please let me know the additional features JF-17 provides over LCA

 

[rcrmj]

LCA's unit cost is $30million, with indian's low labour cost how it came to that price?!! the only explaination is they bought parts and equipment directly from foregin countries.

in comparison JF-17 costs $17million, they could do it even cheaper if wasnt for the rassian engine!

 

[AMCA]

LCA's unit cost is $30million, with indian's low labour cost how it came to that price?!! the only explaination is they bought parts and equipment directly from foregin countries.

in comparison JF-17 costs $17million, they could do it even cheaper if wasnt for the rassian engine!

Buying and fixing it costs less, While if you have invested on R&D Price goes up.... India had to develop various infrastructures to build this Aircraft, where from do you think the manufacturer can make profit if its not priced that high, and more over its reasonable for an Aircraft with better safety and endurance features than the contemporary... And answer me which part do you think India has bought other than the Engine??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nah! what is surprising is the mention of an Indian aircraft yet to be fully inducted when JFT is often debated to be better than the MIG-29 and would evolve to be better than the Griffen as well.

It isn't surprising really. The website is likely for enthusiasts, Pakistanis primarily, and most Pakistanis would relate more to a comparison with the lca. I don't think professional air forces would be checking out websites for stats on fighter jet purchases, nor would they be making their procurement decisions merely on website/brochure claims.

As a potential buyer, I still don't understand Pak's as the brain or a contributor. If I needed spares for the engine do I contact Pak?..but you guys don't have the kind of relations with Russia that inspires any confidence..so Its CHINA that I need to contact..Ok so how long before I can get spares or does China hold tons of spares for engines?

Why not Russia directly? The Russians have to approve the engine transfers in any case.

Ok now I need a trainer version? Can PAK help? err no ..CHINA again

If you are willing to pay the R/D costs then why not Pakistan?

I need a different set of weapons? Can PAK help..err no CHINA again and again.

Same as above.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

your own PAC guys started the comparison..... Why blame us

Well technically the pac is correct for the reason I mentioned, so no point in arguing over a comparison until the lca is fully operational in its final configuration.

 

[AMCA]

Well technically the pac is correct for the reason I mentioned, so no point in arguing over a comparison until the lca is fully operational in its final configuration.

Well it was normal. or quite obvious of us to reply in the same fashion..And I agree to your point, a comparison is only possible after the operationalisation Of LCA Squadron although its Inducted into the Airforce

 

[Mani2020]

the G rate has reduced form original 8.5G to 8g

 

[SBD-3]

Oh so you come to say JF-17 has not be installed with any of the above mentioned safety and endurance features Just because it is immortal in the battle field... , I like your lame argument .... And LCA does not use Martin Baker Ejection seats but ARDE ejection seats,Ejection usually takes 14 seconds but with the new ARDE system, it would take a pilot just 20 milliseconds to eject from the aircraft...And while JF-17 can only provide Oxygen supply for three hours,LCA can give it for Unlimited flying hours

And Please let me know the additional features JF-17 provides over LCA

1- Here is from official martin baker site

ADA Tejas Ejector Seats - Mk.16 IN16G zero/zero ejection seats
Aermacchi M-346 Master Ejector Seats - Mk.16 IT-16D zero/zero ejection seat
BAE Systems Hawk Ejector Seats
Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet Ejector Seats - SJU-5/6 NACES zero/zero ejection seat
Chengdu FC-1/JF-17 Thunder Ejector Seats - Ml.16 PK16LF zero/zero ejection seats (JF-17)
Martin Baker Aircraft Co. Ltd. - U.K.

furthermore your favorite "research" destination i.e. thakkipedia also states

Although two-seat variants of the LCA are planned, the examples built to date are crewed by a single pilot on a Martin-Baker zero-zero ejection seat. The British Martin-Baker ejection seat is planned to be replaced with a locally-developed alternative.[68] To improve pilot safety during ejection, the Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE), Pune, India created a new line-charged canopy severance system, which has been certified by Martin-Baker.

Now tell me wise guy, for how long an Aircraft is to stay in air? Flying aircraft in real world is not like that of a computer game where you can keep flying it for the whole day. 3 Hours is a hell lot of time when considered JFT's mission requirements It merely takes thirty to 40 minutes to complete a CAS mission and return for rearming or debriefing especially when seen in near Indo Pak Boarder. I dont know why DRDO has keen to spend extra money when it could achieve the object by not spending that much. OBGS does not give you any tactical advantage as its not a missile or engine or an avionics and sensor suit which would aid pilots situational awareness of lethality of the platform. Now i dont wonder why LCA costs increased. As regards to safety Pilot is breathing the same O2 in LOS as in OBGS and will have very good chance to get out of the AC thanks to 0-0 seats. Okey for a moment assume that both have same capabilities While IAF bleeds 32 Mio USD PAF only have tp spend around 10 odd USD. essentially at least double the powerpack in contrast to LCA.

 

[Kinetic]

Cost effectiveness:
It means it will provide the required support with less resource requirements for much longer time, freeing up the time, material and men to spend it on other vital tasks both during war and peace.
(read more about German Vs Russian designs specially in context to the nightmare job of servicing Panzers vs. T33s and T34s). result was that the Russian weapons spent less time in the repair and maintenance shop and more in the field.

Quality is always have an edge over cost effectiveness whoever can afford it. In quality products the servicing and maintenance is always less. A single high end fighter is better then five low end fighters. One F-35 is 2/3 times costlier than F-16 but it can effectively neutralist many F-16 at a time.

Early availability:
That’s the very essence of running a campaign. No matter how good a system or platform maybe. If its not available in time of need its good as nothing. Early availability of a platform means the commander has the flexibility and choice to deploy it. Its an open secret that both countries only have a flight time of more or less 6 minutes to invade each other’s airspace. Now someone tell me does that leave any room for such a luxury to wait for our aircraft to arrive some time later?
back in 71 we were promised that the 6th or 7th American fleet will come and save East Pakistan from falling. Till today it hasn’t made it to the shores of Bangladesh. No matter how awesome that fleet was, the fact remains that it never in time when it mattered.

Early availability has nothing to do with aircraft's capability.

Supportability
Since PAF doctrine is mainly based on Multi role jets so it very much makes sense that the proposed aircraft fulfils that role and JF-17 thankfully does it with impressive results. It is not only a very capable force multiplier of our latest additions of Block 52 F-16s but it has the flexibility to also replace both Mirage and A-5s in the air strike role. So on one hand it will be supporting both air force & army against the aerial threat its ground attack role means it will support our artillery and armour in destroying the enemy in either offensive or defensive role.

So in short all these above elements are very much part and parcel of managing an air force. The resources are always limited and so it the time and the military is always trained religiously to adapt, improvise and respond to a changing situation. Specially war itself is a fluid concept. The chest board is not fixed, the roles are dictated by one who takes the initiative and deploys what is available “NOW”. That’s where the flexibility of support comes into play.

You didn't tell how JF-17 has supportability edge over LCA? Every country's own fighter has supportability edge over foreign systems. India produces almost everything of MKI ie the radar as well as the engine doesn't it mean that it has supportability edge over JF-17?

Why Reference LCA?
I think Pakistan would compare its first aircraft with the first Indian aircraft for reference and comparison. Patriotism & rivalry aside, any such comparison by either side works both ways and only helps to either raise the bar even further or adjust where there is deficiency. I think Americans do the same when they compare the Russian & European jets against theirs.

All the best

LCA is not the first Indian aircraft and I don't think any Indian govt website will do that.

 

[Manticore]

Quality is always have an edge over cost effectiveness whoever can afford it. In quality products the servicing and maintenance is always less. A single high end fighter is better then five low end fighters. One F-35 is 2/3 times costlier than F-16 but it can effectively neutralist many F-16 at a time.

servicing and maintenance is less for jf17 -- so by your definition, jf17 is a good quality fighter.
we are saying jf17 is cost effective and take on most of the 4/4.5 gen fighters -- with or without our force multiplyers --taking on 5th gen fighters is not its job-- by your definition then, all 4/4.5 gen fighters are not cost effective in doing there assigned job

Early availability has nothing to do with aircraft's capability.

ofcourse it does , granted , the specification are reached in the targeted timespan --i.e if f16a was built in 2010 rather than in 1970s

You didn't tell how JF-17 has supportability edge over LCA?

it means paf has source codes, plus ability of upgrading it-- which would be a problem if every subsystem had come from different countries!

LCA is not the first Indian aircraft and I don't think any Indian govt website will do that.

what mr baloch meant was ''first 4th gen indian fighter' not the copy of hunters

 

[luckyyy]

LCA's unit cost is $30million, with indian's low labour cost how it came to that price?!! the only explaination is they bought parts and equipment directly from foregin countries.

in comparison JF-17 costs $17million, they could do it even cheaper if wasnt for the rassian engine!

this is because JF-17 is a 3rd generation fighter aircraft ( as claimed by the PAC website too) and LCA is 4th generation fighter aircraft...