Let us present numbers rather than making unsupported claims. I still maintain that even the F-16ADF can intercept and deliver ordnance better than the JF-17 in its present form of development with a weak engine, poor internal fuel capacity and cobbled up electronics, as yet unproven. Therefore, getting these 13 planes is a good decision, and only goes to show just how the claims of JF-17 superiority are just that - claims.
1. Fuel Capacity / Range: You need to keep things in perspective. What is the average width of Pakistan? Is JF-17 meant for / supposed to attack targets deep inside enemy territory? What roles could stand-off weapons play? You still think that Range matters? Think about the acronym 'ADF' - you still think range matters as much as you say it does in the context that you are implying?
2. Weak Engine: The adjective 'weak' is relative to the air-frame in which it is installed. You probably mean to say that TWR of JF-17 is less than F-16. You are focusing on 'weak' engine and claiming that JF-17 is at a serious disadvantage in climb performance. Do you have any figures / benchmarks to show that a yawning gap exists and that it actually matters practically in presence of AWACS, Ground-based Radar network, etc...?
Are you concerned that an F-16 might turn on a JF-17? Does IAF fly F-16? If a bunch of JF-17s are sent to intercept an incoming sortie, how could their climb performance be a decided disadvantage? Suppose a party of JF-17 are on a CAS mission, how would their climb performance doom them? Does having a high wing-loading mean something here?
While you have not said this, let me also address TWR as it relates to WVR combat. Yes TWR matters, and yet JF-17 reportedly conserves its energy better than an F-16 in a turn. That is an advantage bestowed by its air-frame design. Do you think that designers were stupid when they knew that F-16 was something of a benchmark, and that JF-17 was likely to encounter flankers, etc...?
3. Speed: First, no one actually knows the max speed of JF-17. It is expected to be less than Mach 2. But achieving top speed requires careful planning for optimum performance at a certain altitude. Exigencies of warfare are likely to dictate that nobody gets the leisure to attain top speed and make it actually count. Mirage is a Mach 2+ fighter. How many PAF pilots have actually taken it to Mach 2+? Throwing numbers around does not make an argument in itself.
4. Every fighter had 'cobbled up' electronics until they proved themselves. Please suggest ways and means of demonstrating that such electronics pass or fail a certain threshold test. Can you say with any confidence that you can give a definitive answer? How can claims be turned into facts? Can you say? Should PAF go hunting some planes for you to know that claims are true and that performance is up to mark? F-16 has kills in its record - good. Now should someone start a war to see whether or not JF-17 is as good as claimed? If PAF says that JF-17 has met and surpassed expectations, a cynic like you would not buy this statement. Is that JF-17's fault?
5. You fail to appreciate the role of JF-17, the scope of its operation, and the compromises that were necessary for its design. You just want to compare it with F-16 and declare a victor based on your whims. Read Munir's explanation again if you do not get it.
