black-hawk_101
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
- Messages
- 2,355
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
So any real news from PAF side for the T-50s as it can easily be assembled at PAC.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If interest is shown that means there is a requirement, the required performance and price is the only thing that might restrict it to be inducted (actual buying). UAE also evaluated the EFT but they are negotiating with the French for the Rafale because they found the later more attractive.What ever the reasons were but my point is that showing interest does not mean that we are actually buying them..
AoA
May be useful for FCU but financing and embargo fears would be major hurdles.
Regards
Hi,
But if the 2 seater JF 17 is under production---why would they need a two seater trainer---.
A beefed down trainer version of the JF 17 would be cheaper and more productive.
AoA
May be useful for FCU but financing and embargo fears would be major hurdles.
Regards
Hi,
But if the 2 seater JF 17 is under production---why would they need a two seater trainer---.
A beefed down trainer version of the JF 17 would be cheaper and more productive.
There are clearly two camps in the PAF. There is one that prefers using a two-seat JF-17 in FCU as well as OCU (if necessary).They are really making strange decisions.
if talk about operational costs,L-15 is the bestThere are clearly two camps in the PAF. There is one that prefers using a two-seat JF-17 in FCU as well as OCU (if necessary).
Another is averse to a two-seat JF-17, and I think it is worth exploring why this is the case.
I think the reluctance to have a two-seat JF-17 stems from two reasons: (1) it isn't needed for training and (2) the Block-I/II airframe is too short-legged for specialist roles where a two-seater is mighty useful (e.g. dedicated EW). In the eyes of this PAF faction, the in-development JF-17 is just a trainer, and for that sole purpose it isn't worth buying. Of course, I don't see why such a JF-17 wouldn't make for good use in normal missions, but I guess an argument can be made for prioritizing beefier general duty fighter squadrons over an OCU unit. I also suspect this faction would prefer a two-seater based on a larger and lighter airframe, enabling JF-17 to specialist roles such as dedicated EW, strike, etc.
But then this T-50 news. Honestly, I don't think it (or any discussion about LIFT) is being pushed by the anti two-seat JF-17 faction, nor the pro faction, but another group entirely. In fact, we shouldn't even look at this issue in terms of JF-17 but rather as the start of a long-term shift in the PAF doctrine.
Modern air forces are moving towards a two tier training regimen involving turboprops such as Tucano and Hurkus at the basic and intermediate level, and then a LIFT at the advanced and fighter conversion levels. Cue the PAF's reported interest in T-50 and Yak-130.
So the future training doctrine of PAF could very well be based on this layout: (1) A modern turboprop such as Hurkus or EMB-314 for basic and intermediate flight training. (2) A dedicated LIFT such as T-50, L-15 or Yak-130 for advanced and fighter conversion.
Now one might ask why a dedicated LIFT and not a two-seat JF-17, I think that has to do with operational costs. It is possible that the T-50 is just more affordable to operate, especially in terms of getting rookie pilots in the air more frequently. Remember, the JF-17 is still a full fledged fighter.
I have this feeling that T-50 is being forced on PAF. Korea has probably linked supply of naval ships with T-50. Given how badly Pakistan needs to improve its navy, PAF may have to accept some T-50s in the greater interest of the nation.