PAF's JF-16 Fighter Jet

[Ultima Thule]

Hi,

Dale brown wrote about the upgrade of the B52 bomber some 25 years ago in one of his works of fiction---.

And in the year 2017---the B52 pops up with the same upgrades and functions and launch parameters that he had listed in his fiction novel---.

If you read up on the lives of the retd american flyers---you will find thatevery one of them wanted to fly the F4--F16---F15---F14---F18 and nobody volunteered for the F111---B52's---B1's---B2's---the A6's---the A10----type of aircraft---. They considered them worthless like the PAF pilots do---.

But someone had to fly the american machines---and they did---and did a great job---.

So---please don't believe in the Paf's version that the JH7 is no good---. In its low flight role---it is better than the SU35's and even SU 34's---.

the only aircraft better is the F111 in that category---.

And that is the aircraft that pakistan needs for strike roles over the ocean---.

you're absolutely right sir, i am sorry for my harsh word for you @MastanKhan sir in another thread , @GumNaam and @jupiter2007 are not understaning they all want J-16 which is based on also Su-27/30 which were also 40+ year old design @MastanKhan

 

[MastanKhan]

Please don’t compare American B52 bombers to Chinese JH-7A/B 3rd gen design. If we want a heavier bomber/fighter, we will need to invest in a new platform or newer fighter which can be further upgraded, for example J-16, SU-35, SU-57/T-50, J-31 and J-20, etc.

Here is a Photoshop picture of Chinese bomber, it’s a A-50 & JF-17 combo.

Hi,

Please---have the ability to understand it in the context it is mentioned in. Thank you.

you're absolutely right sir, i am sorry for my harsh word for you @MastanKhan sir in another thread , @GumNaam and @jupiter2007 are not understaning they all want J-16 which is based on also Su-27/30 which were also 40+ year old design @MastanKhan

Hi,

I don't care about the harsh words---don't mean nothing to me---.

The most important thing is that in anger one is still able to look beyond the differences.

@gambit wrote about the utility of the F111 a few days ago---. The JH7 is built on the same design parameter except for the swing wing configuration---.

 

[GriffinsRule]

How many countries are still flying JH-7, F-111, Su-24, Jaguars or Tornado? Better still, ask the question that how many countries are buying new uni-role aircraft of this nature? When was the last fighter for a role like that developed? Its easy enough to gather empirical evidence of an outdated concept being passed over by most every country in the world now. The air forces still operating these legacy aircraft are doing so for fiscal reasons only as no one retires prematurely aircraft with life still left in them (unless downsizing) or are countries that can't afford to buy replacement due to geo-political issues (like Syria, Iran). Yet you guys want Pakistan to spend its meager resources on an obsolete POS and have it stuck with for the next 30 years? Wow @MastanKhan ... you don't miss any chance to bash the short-sighted PAF while showing such lousy foresight.
So JF-17 is short-legged? Fine, then buy a larger multirole aircraft like the Su-27 series, F-15, or EF Typhoon/Rafale. But realistically speaking, even mid-sized jets like the M2000, F-16, Mig-29s etc have more than enough range in the context of Pakistan vs India. If you just want endurance for CAPs or patrols, well similar sized jets can manage just fine with A-A refueling.
It doesn't mean you buy an outdated airplane just because it can carry enough fuel but is a dud otherwise. And giving B-52 as an example is not just applicable in the context of a fighter, it shows how little time you have actually spent thinking about this or are trying to mislead on purpose.
And this range issue is being brought up so much, as if the short range (comparatively) of the JF-17 is somehow PAF's Achilles heel. For the targets and bases that will be of most detriment for Pakistan, they are all located close enough for the border that even F-86s were able to make it there and back.
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Defence-Map-of-India.jpg
With today's advantage of having longer range precision weaponry, I don't see how anyone can imagine "deep strikes" by PAF in any scenario beyond IAF forward operating bases and airfields close to the border. Unless you envision thinking of sending them on one-way suicide missions without top cover of course in a heavily monitored and well defended air space...
The only context I can see PAF operating aircraft with longer legs than afforded by F-16s is in the maritime role and in that too, A-A refueling can play a crucial role to compensate for patrols. Otherwise buy a twin-engine aircraft like the Su-35/F-15C/Typhoon that is capable for longer patrols, maritime strikes, and every other role PAF uses its other multirole aircraft and call it a day.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Please don’t compare American B52 bombers to Chinese JH-7A/B 3rd gen design. If we want a heavier bomber/fighter, we will need to invest in a new platform or newer fighter which can be further upgraded, for example J-16, SU-35, SU-57/T-50, J-31 and J-20, etc.

Here is a Photoshop picture of Chinese bomber, it’s a A-50 & JF-17 combo.

Try to understand we just gives an example to you, it about usage design doesn't matter whether old or new,Where are the $$$$ if we want to buy your above mention jets, JH-7A is within our reach it easy to maintain ,upgraded if PAF wants with AESA, latest avionics and other subsystems, it has a formidable payloads 9000 KG,look Germany still using Tornado's which was 60s design, Italy was retired F-104 in early 2004 which was 50s design, J-16 and Su-35 is expensive jet 60+ million $ and based on Su-27/30 which is 40+ old design, and rest 5th gen design you mention like Su-57,J-20 and FC-31 are the super expensive jets, think logically and use the common sense @jupiter2007

 

[jupiter2007]

Try to understand we just gives an example to you, it about usage design doesn't matter whether old or new,Where are the $$$$ if we want to buy your above mention jets, JH-7A is within our reach it easy to maintain ,upgraded if PAF wants with AESA, latest avionics and other subsystems, it has a formidable payloads 9000 KG,look Germany still using Tornado's which was 60s design, Italy was retired F-104 in early 2004 which was 50s design, J-16 and Su-35 is expensive jet 60+ million $ and based on Su-27/30 which is 40+ old design, and rest 5th gen design you mention like Su-57,J-20 and FC-31 are the super expensive jets, think logically and use the common sense @jupiter2007

2) How many countries are using Su-27/Su-30/Su-35? How many aircraft were produce and how many still in service than compare that to JH-7. Compare the performance of both.
2) PAF has rejected it.
3) PAF has rejected it.
4) If you care so much, go and fight with PAF planners.

 

[Ultima Thule]

2) How many countries are using Su-27/Su-30/Su-35? How many aircraft were produce and how many still in service than compare that to JH-7. Compare the performance of both.
2) PAF has rejected it.
3) PAF has rejected it.
4) If you care so much, go and fight with PAF planners.

Basic point is it is cheaper then your above mention jets, but it has a one drawback it is not a true multirole fighter jet which PAF love, a tell me when PAF rejected JH-7 please provide the prove for your claim @jupiter2007

 

[MastanKhan]

How many countries are still flying JH-7, F-111, Su-24, Jaguars or Tornado? Better still, ask the question that how many countries are buying new uni-role aircraft of this nature? When was the last fighter for a role like that developed? Its easy enough to gather empirical evidence of an outdated concept being passed over by most every country in the world now. The air forces still operating these legacy aircraft are doing so for fiscal reasons only as no one retires prematurely aircraft with life still left in them (unless downsizing) or are countries that can't afford to buy replacement due to geo-political issues (like Syria, Iran). Yet you guys want Pakistan to spend its meager resources on an obsolete POS and have it stuck with for the next 30 years? Wow @MastanKhan ... you don't miss any chance to bash the short-sighted PAF while showing such lousy foresight.
So JF-17 is short-legged? Fine, then buy a larger multirole aircraft like the Su-27 series, F-15, or EF Typhoon/Rafale. But realistically speaking, even mid-sized jets like the M2000, F-16, Mig-29s etc have more than enough range in the context of Pakistan vs India. If you just want endurance for CAPs or patrols, well similar sized jets can manage just fine with A-A refueling.
It doesn't mean you buy an outdated airplane just because it can carry enough fuel but is a dud otherwise. And giving B-52 as an example is not just applicable in the context of a fighter, it shows how little time you have actually spent thinking about this or are trying to mislead on purpose.
And this range issue is being brought up so much, as if the short range (comparatively) of the JF-17 is somehow PAF's Achilles heel. For the targets and bases that will be of most detriment for Pakistan, they are all located close enough for the border that even F-86s were able to make it there and back.
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Defence-Map-of-India.jpg
With today's advantage of having longer range precision weaponry, I don't see how anyone can imagine "deep strikes" by PAF in any scenario beyond IAF forward operating bases and airfields close to the border. Unless you envision thinking of sending them on one-way suicide missions without top cover of course in a heavily monitored and well defended air space...
The only context I can see PAF operating aircraft with longer legs than afforded by F-16s is in the maritime role and in that too, A-A refueling can play a crucial role to compensate for patrols. Otherwise buy a twin-engine aircraft like the Su-35/F-15C/Typhoon that is capable for longer patrols, maritime strikes, and every other role PAF uses its other multirole aircraft and call it a day.

Hi,

How many countries flying Mirage 3?

 

[jupiter2007]

Basic point is it is cheaper then your above mention jets, but it has a one drawback it is not a true multirole fighter jet which PAF love, a tell me when PAF rejected JH-7 please provide the prove for your claim @jupiter2007

It was rejected twice, go back and check the thread from 2011.

Hi,

How many countries flying Mirage 3?

Question you should be asking is how many countries had Mirage 3?

 

[Ultima Thule]

It was rejected twice, go back and check the thread from 2011.



Question you should be asking is how many countries had Mirage 3?

prove give me the prove @jupiter2007

 

[MastanKhan]

Basic point is it is cheaper then your above mention jets, but it has a one drawback it is not a true multirole fighter jet which PAF love, a tell me when PAF rejected JH-7 please provide the prove for your claim @jupiter2007

Hi,

People don't understand it and the Paf does not want to believe in it---the most weakest link of the enemy power would be at its flanks---and the flank is water---.

For a war over water---you primary aircraft needs to carry two heavy anti ship missiles of a 1000 Kg category minimum---. Jf17 is too small for that---also it does not have the nap of the earth / sea flight capability---.

The JH7A can fly nap of the earth / sea due to its wing design---. It is designed to fly low---.

The JF17 cannot do that over longer distances---and neither would it be fuel efficient---.

If the Paf can refurbish 60's manufactured Mirage 3'/5's---it can easily maintain and manage 80's production of the JH7A's---.

 

[Readerdefence]

prove give me the prove @jupiter2007

Hi my friend let it for for the sake of argument don’t bang your head on the wall every time
You post it looks you are running out of your suggestions which I’m not saying you are
So better to write a reply or leave it just a humble suggestion
Thank you

 

[jupiter2007]

prove give me the prove @jupiter2007

If you need a prove you can ask someone from PAF procurement or Defense Attaché at Pakistani Embassy in China.

I can give you a rough timeline of events.
China offered FBC but Pakistan declined that offer. China again offered improved FBC/JH-7 and Pakistan again decline that offer. China offered J-10, Pakistan request improved version. China offered J-10C for 65 millions each but PAF decided against J-10C in favor of JF-17 block3.

 

[Dreamer.]

The J-10C should not have been rejected. But I suppose if finances force to choose between it and the JFT Blk-3 then PAF is hardly to blame but the GoP.

 

[araz]

If you need a prove you can ask someone from PAF procurement or Defense Attaché at Pakistani Embassy in China.

I can give you a rough timeline of events.
China offered FBC but Pakistan declined that offer. China again offered improved FBC/JH-7 and Pakistan again decline that offer. China offered J-10, Pakistan request improved version. China offered J-10C for 65 millions each but PAF decided against J-10C in favor of JF-17 block3.

Agreed. PAF did not feel that J10 gave them any advantage over JFT. Range was not an issue but there were other issues, engines being a major one. PAF did not feel comfortable with AL31 FN due to reservations from the Red bear and stories of flame outs. The WS10 was not mature enough and there were reliability issues. Interestingly we now hear J10 will be discontinued in favour of J11/16 series. IF TRUE it is indeed vindicationof PAF stance over the issue.
It would also have affected the JFT sales due to tge bad vibes coming out as a result of the sale.
A

 

[MastanKhan]

If you need a prove you can ask someone from PAF procurement or Defense Attaché at Pakistani Embassy in China.

I can give you a rough timeline of events.
China offered FBC but Pakistan declined that offer. China again offered improved FBC/JH-7 and Pakistan again decline that offer. China offered J-10, Pakistan request improved version. China offered J-10C for 65 millions each but PAF decided against J-10C in favor of JF-17 block3.

Hi,

And the same Paf got the A5's---with 150 miles strike radius---with 2 lousy under powered engines---that aircraft could barely fly with 3500 lbs of load---.