Pakistan Air Force | News & Discussions.

[Haris Ali2140]

Pakistan can invest gradually. Who says to invest 3 to 4 billion at one go. If government provide enough facility for our young generation they could help improve our image in aviation industry. But first we should build proper aviation universities.
I hope we would get something out of Project AZM.

With India building up next door we don't have the luxury of waiting.
We have projects going on which will help us in the long run like AZM. However somethings we have procure from abraod.

 

[ZedZeeshan]

J10 C seems equivalent to F16 Block 52.
PAF should consider it. However, PAF needs something to counter Indian Rafale fighter plane.

It is superior to Block 52... Having AESA radar

 

[Tamiyah]

With India building up next door we don't have the luxury of waiting.
We have projects going on which will help us in the long run like AZM. However somethings we have procure from abraod.

You're right but slow and steady wins the race.
We dont want to develop something like LCA Tejas.

 

[Haris Ali2140]

You're right but slow and steady wins the race.
We dont want to develop something like LCA Tejas.

Things we can produce we are producing them in-house. Things on which we can afford to do R&D we are doing it.

 

[Tamiyah]

Things we can produce we are producing them in-house. Things on which we can afford to do R&D we are doing it.

Yeah you know everything takes time.

 

[Cool_Soldier]

Don't you think that we should stop depending on China and develop something in-house..?

Definitely, we should develop. we are actually developing JF -17 Block 3 to counter Rafale threat and PAF is also working on 5th Generation plan.
But right now we are in urgent need of something to counter threat as IAF already received 3 Rafale fighter and will receive more soon. That's why PAF should get something in small number around 24 to tackle current situation and rest keep working by its own.

 

[GriffinsRule]

Definitely, we should develop. we are actually developing JF -17 Block 3 to counter Rafale threat and PAF is also working on 5th Generation plan.
But right now we are in urgent need of something to counter threat as IAF already received 3 Rafale fighter and will receive more soon. That's why PAF should get something in small number around 24 to tackle current situation and rest keep working by its own.

Order today and delivery of anything urgent would be 2-3 years from now. Soooo ... Block III is as fast as you will get.

 

[PakShaheen79]

Problem 1 : China does not use JF-17. It is a PAF specific fighter at least it started that way.
Problem 2: FC-20E is "Light Weight" fighter in Chinese categorization along with J-16 as medium and J-20 as heavy weight. It simply means, JF-17 is ultra-light weight by that categorization.

It will help China to pitch FC-20E more aggressively while JF-17 will be look like an ultra light fighter which it is not actually. It would be interesting to see how PAC comes up with Block-III marketing. In retrospective narrative, perhaps this is why PAF is reluctant to procure J-10C as it will simply means that PAF's own light weight fighter is not light weight ... hence it was forced to import it. This is quite a Pandora Box.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Problem 1 : China does not use JF-17. It is a PAF specific fighter at least it started that way.
Problem 2: FC-20E is "Light Weight" fighter in Chinese categorization along with J-16 as medium and J-20 as heavy weight. It simply means, JF-17 is ultra-light weight by that categorization.

It will help China to pitch FC-20E more aggressively while JF-17 will be look like an ultra light fighter which it is not actually. It would be interesting to see how PAC comes up with Block-III marketing. In retrospective narrative, perhaps this is why PAF is reluctant to procure J-10C as it will simply means that PAF's own light weight fighter is not light weight ... hence it was forced to import it. This is quite a Pandora Box.

Well, according to the 1999-2009 PAF history book, the FC-20 (J-10As) were meant for deep-strike. Let's say the money wasn't the issue, the PAF could've also walked away because the added payoff of the J-10A wasn't enough to justify the cost of a whole new fighter platform. Let's see how things pan out with the FC-20E/J-10C.

If there's a way to fit the Ra'ad/Ra'ad II and H2/H4 onto it, then if anything, the FC-20E becomes the contingency option in case the FGFA hits a snag (e.g., delays, complications, etc). But then again, it seems the Ra'ad is also a unique beast and that the Mirage might be the only platform viable for it. In other words, the Ra'ad itself may need a change, and in that case, it might just work from the JF-17, which again negates the need of the FC-20E.

@JamD

 

[JamD]

Well, according to the 1999-2009 PAF history book, the FC-20 (J-10As) were meant for deep-strike. Let's say the money wasn't the issue, the PAF could've also walked away because the added payoff of the J-10A wasn't enough to justify the cost of a whole new fighter platform. Let's see how things pan out with the FC-20E/J-10C.

If there's a way to fit the Ra'ad/Ra'ad II and H2/H4 onto it, then if anything, the FC-20E becomes the contingency option in case the FGFA hits a snag (e.g., delays, complications, etc). But then again, it seems the Ra'ad is also a unique beast and that the Mirage might be the only platform viable for it. In other words, the Ra'ad itself may need a change, and in that case, it might just work from the JF-17, which again negates the need of the FC-20E.

@JamD

It's really hard to say whether or not PAF would go for FC-20E even if FGFA hits delays (which it probably will). IMHO they will not under most circumstances because we're poor and we're kind of planning for other things. It does not come as a surprise to me the JF-17 block 3 was (at least partially) spec-d based on the threat from Rafales. This is the best we can do with our limited resources. I think PAF will "brave it out" with JF-17 block 3 or 4 even in the case FGFA is delayed.

Also, it is quite obvious that the Ra'ad and our Mirage fleet will retire at the same time. That time being when there is a new nuclear capable ALCM capable of being carried by JF-17 and a SOW in the class of H2/H4. Both seem to be areas of active development (with only little pieces of news sneaking out here and there). I think PAF is focused more on replacing Ra'ad and H2/H4 instead of Mirages if you know what I mean. I kind of agree with this plan of action given the circumstances because I see no reason why the the JF-17 cannot perform the strike role (given the right systems). Especially given some rumors of CFTs for the JF-17.

Problem 1 : China does not use JF-17. It is a PAF specific fighter at least it started that way.
Problem 2: FC-20E is "Light Weight" fighter in Chinese categorization along with J-16 as medium and J-20 as heavy weight. It simply means, JF-17 is ultra-light weight by that categorization.

It will help China to pitch FC-20E more aggressively while JF-17 will be look like an ultra light fighter which it is not actually. It would be interesting to see how PAC comes up with Block-III marketing. In retrospective narrative, perhaps this is why PAF is reluctant to procure J-10C as it will simply means that PAF's own light weight fighter is not light weight ... hence it was forced to import it. This is quite a Pandora Box.

I think it has a lot to do with China's size and Pakistan's size. We can do with a short-legged cheap jet that can do it all. The Chinese need bigger planes to cover more land mass and fly out to sea. They only flew J-7s out of compulsion and would much rather fly J-10s instead.

 

[khanasifm]

It's really hard to say whether or not PAF would go for FC-20E even if FGFA hits delays (which it probably will). IMHO they will not under most circumstances because we're poor and we're kind of planning for other things. It does not come as a surprise to me the JF-17 block 3 was (at least partially) spec-d based on the threat from Rafales. This is the best we can do with our limited resources. I think PAF will "brave it out" with JF-17 block 3 or 4 even in the case FGFA is delayed.

Also, it is quite obvious that the Ra'ad and our Mirage fleet will retire at the same time. That time being when there is a new nuclear capable ALCM capable of being carried by JF-17 and a SOW in the class of H2/H4. Both seem to be areas of active development (with only little pieces of news sneaking out here and there). I think PAF is focused more on replacing Ra'ad and H2/H4 instead of Mirages if you know what I mean. I kind of agree with this plan of action given the circumstances because I see no reason why the the JF-17 cannot perform the strike role (given the right systems). Especially given some rumors of CFTs for the JF-17.



I think it has a lot to do with China's size and Pakistan's size. We can do with a short-legged cheap jet that can do it all. The Chinese need bigger planes to cover more land mass and fly out to sea. They only flew J-7s out of compulsion and would much rather fly J-10s instead.

Per paf book 2014 in 1990s paf were to buy 150 and plaaf another 100 but due delays as paf was asking for western standards and avionics the program was delayed till 2000 and revived by going ahead with everything minus avionics then it does not mention anything about plaaf 100 jf -17

 

[JamD]

Per paf book 2014 in 1990s paf were to buy 150 and plaaf another 100 but due delays as paf was asking for western standards and avionics the program was delayed till 2000 and revived by going ahead with everything minus avionics then it does not mention anything about plaaf 100 jf -17

Doesn't it seem weird that an air force as big as China's would only go for 100 of a jet like JF-17. I think it was just a token order that they decided against. They could afford to make their "base fighter" the J-10. @messiach said there was no clause for China to acquire any JF-17s. God knows what the true story is.

 

[khanasifm]

Doesn't it seem weird that an air force as big as China's would only go for 100 of a jet like JF-17. I think it was just a token order that they decided against. They could afford to make their "base fighter" the J-10. @messiach said there was no clause for China to acquire any JF-17s. God knows what the true story is.

K-8 went same route it was paf and nanchang program and plaaf I think join way afterwards

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

It's really hard to say whether or not PAF would go for FC-20E even if FGFA hits delays (which it probably will). IMHO they will not under most circumstances because we're poor and we're kind of planning for other things. It does not come as a surprise to me the JF-17 block 3 was (at least partially) spec-d based on the threat from Rafales. This is the best we can do with our limited resources. I think PAF will "brave it out" with JF-17 block 3 or 4 even in the case FGFA is delayed.

Also, it is quite obvious that the Ra'ad and our Mirage fleet will retire at the same time. That time being when there is a new nuclear capable ALCM capable of being carried by JF-17 and a SOW in the class of H2/H4. Both seem to be areas of active development (with only little pieces of news sneaking out here and there). I think PAF is focused more on replacing Ra'ad and H2/H4 instead of Mirages if you know what I mean. I kind of agree with this plan of action given the circumstances because I see no reason why the the JF-17 cannot perform the strike role (given the right systems). Especially given some rumors of CFTs for the JF-17.



I think it has a lot to do with China's size and Pakistan's size. We can do with a short-legged cheap jet that can do it all. The Chinese need bigger planes to cover more land mass and fly out to sea. They only flew J-7s out of compulsion and would much rather fly J-10s instead.

I can agree with that. It would be interesting if as an intermediary between the Block 3 and FGFA, the Block 4 tries emulating the Gripen E/F and F-16C/D more closely. In other words, a slightly enlarged, lighter airframe with a new engine (based on the RD-93 of course).

In some cases, some parts of the FGFA -- e.g., engine (if Chinese), radar, avionics, etc -- come reach the JF-17 NG sooner. This way, you can rationalize a switch to a new variant since it'll have commonality with the future, albeit at the cost of breaking it with the past.

If the FGFA work takes place in Pakistan, the continued work on the JF-17 (and a 'JF-17 NG') can happen in China.

The constraint would be funding, but if the FGFA hits a snag, then slotting in a JF-17 NG could be an option -- instead of pouring money on an the FC-20E.

 

[hassan1]