Pakistan Navy planning to buy 30 JF-17 Thunder Block-II.

[Basel]

JF-17s will be game changer if they can get targeting data (to launch their weapons to full range) from 3rd party like P-3s, F-22Ps, UAVs etc.

 

[rockstar08]

i think we can buy flankers from China , but after 2016 ... in short run Jfs can fill the gap

 

[osama zafar]

Why? PN is not a blue water navy. We dont need to project our power abroad. The navy should focus on nuclear subs for now.

They will get the 30 Thunders it will be better if we have a AC and the thunders on them

 

[S.U.R.B.]

They will get the 30 Thunders it will be better if we have a AC and the thunders on them

Please don't mind it.

But will it be like that \/\/\/. We can glue as many JFT's on it as possible.In this case the affordability will not pose as a bigger problem.

A carrier alone can't do much even if you have a dozen of stealth fighter jets like F-35s stationed on it.You always require a battle group.
Carrier battle group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rank]

here is my Striking fleet... also have B52, Super Hornet, Drone and F16... pix will upload later... PN should contact me

 

[Abingdonboy]

Air to Air refuelling is the most cost effective solution.

Why is buddy-buddy refuelling not being looked at?

 

[Abingdonboy]

Short ranged and therefore not the best aircraft for maritime ops, but still I suppose it's better than nothing, and should be better than the old mirages presently doing the role. JF-17s cannot move with a naval task force or provide air cover to the fleet (owing to lack of a carrier), but they can still carry out strikes on call from the shore, to short distances in the sea. So if an enemy ship/sub is located near Pakistan's coast, or there is a naval blockade being enforced by the enemy that needs to be broken, they could play a role. In short, defensive actions against an enemy navy near Pak.

However, I would question the wisdom of the navy operating them. The navy would then have to raise pilots, maintainance depots, spares, etc. It would be simpler for the air force to raise a squadron or two for maritime strike roles, just as I believe there is a mirage squadron presently, and three Jaguar-IM squadrons in the IAF. The knowledge base already exists in the PAF to operate JF-17s. And the maritime ones will not be a different version, but will just carry weapons for maritime strike. I mean, it won't be modified for carrier ops or some such drastic modification.

It doesn't make sense to dig into the already paltry naval budget for this purpose.

Agreed, it doesn't seem to make much sense at all to give shore based fighters to the Navy. The standard practice for navies operating aviation assets is they operate the ones that will serve on their surface vessels (MPAs and UAVs being the one exception of course) otherwise why give them to the Navy? As you have pointed out, in the Indian context the IAF is tasked with operating the shore based maritime strike aircraft like the Jaguar IMs and also have other squadrons (like No 30 "Rhinos) and air craft proficient in maritime missions.

Why duplicate capabilities? The PN is either going to have to set up their own training program for Thunder pilots in parallel to the PAF or, more likely, simply have their pilots go through the same training establishments as their counterparts in the PAF- which raises the question again why the PN needs such birds. Same goes for maintenance and logistics- the PN is either going to have to get it from the PAF or duplicate their efforts for such a small number of a/c. It would be one thing if these JF-17s were capable of operating from a PN aircraft carrier but obviously that is not going to be the purpose of these birds. Additionally if they were under PAF control it would add flexibility to the PAF as a whole- they could make use of these extra birds where they needed them whether that be in the maritime domain or over land.


No doubt having Jf-17s tasked with maritime missions is a major boost to Pakistan, not ideal but definitely a step up.

 

[SQ8]

Why is buddy-buddy refuelling not being looked at?

Cobham was asked at some point on the idea of buddy packs but essentially the fuel amount carried plus that on the "refueller" itself simply was too little to be feasible. With the presence of the Il-78s(and more being scoured for.. at least 4 more are being looked around for purchase).. that is just not needed.

 

[Kompromat]

Cobham was asked at some point on the idea of buddy packs but essentially the fuel amount carried plus that on the "refueller" itself simply was too little to be feasible. With the presence of the Il-78s(and more being scoured for.. at least 4 more are being looked around for purchase).. that is just not needed.

Bhai, just out of curiosity. What if we could lease out Liaoning when PLAN no longer needs it for training. Hypothetically, would it be possible to deploy a Naval variant of JF-17 on it ?

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

Agreed, it doesn't seem to make much sense at all to give shore based fighters to the Navy. The standard practice for navies operating aviation assets is they operate the ones that will serve on their surface vessels (MPAs and UAVs being the one exception of course) otherwise why give them to the Navy? As you have pointed out, in the Indian context the IAF is tasked with operating the shore based maritime strike aircraft like the Jaguar IMs and also have other squadrons (like No 30 "Rhinos) and air craft proficient in maritime missions.

Why duplicate capabilities? The PN is either going to have to set up their own training program for Thunder pilots in parallel to the PAF or, more likely, simply have their pilots go through the same training establishments as their counterparts in the PAF- which raises the question again why the PN needs such birds. Same goes for maintenance and logistics- the PN is either going to have to get it from the PAF or duplicate their efforts for such a small number of a/c. It would be one thing if these JF-17s were capable of operating from a PN aircraft carrier but obviously that is not going to be the purpose of these birds. Additionally if they were under PAF control it would add flexibility to the PAF as a whole- they could make use of these extra birds where they needed them whether that be in the maritime domain or over land.


No doubt having Jf-17s tasked with maritime missions is a major boost to Pakistan, not ideal but definitely a step up.

Actually it makes sense to give jf17 to navy as that will make navy independent of paf.also paf will have reduced work load and they will not have to look after navy or seas.they can then concentrate better on IAF

 

[Pak_Sher]

PN Air Arm was lacking for a long time and this is a step in the right direction. These aircraft will serve as the arms for peace and keep the Indian Navy at bay.

(Credit: Horus)

Nobody can rule out the usefulness of JF-17 loaded with a pair C-802A (AK or AKG), C803 or with CM400AKG in naval role, the only shortcoming is its RANGE which could be taken care with IFR as pointed by @Oscar in his post.

So in my humble opinion, it's an ideal platform with a shore base 'light weight coastal defence fighter' role, but for me the more important question is the ability of Pakistan Navy to Operate and maintain the Naval Air Defense wing of fighter jets.

The PN has maintained the French Mirage V for decades and Pakistan also has the support infrastructure in place to maintain the JF-17s. PAF already have 50+ in service.

 

[Donatello]

Agreed, it doesn't seem to make much sense at all to give shore based fighters to the Navy. The standard practice for navies operating aviation assets is they operate the ones that will serve on their surface vessels (MPAs and UAVs being the one exception of course) otherwise why give them to the Navy? As you have pointed out, in the Indian context the IAF is tasked with operating the shore based maritime strike aircraft like the Jaguar IMs and also have other squadrons (like No 30 "Rhinos) and air craft proficient in maritime missions.

Why duplicate capabilities? The PN is either going to have to set up their own training program for Thunder pilots in parallel to the PAF or, more likely, simply have their pilots go through the same training establishments as their counterparts in the PAF- which raises the question again why the PN needs such birds. Same goes for maintenance and logistics- the PN is either going to have to get it from the PAF or duplicate their efforts for such a small number of a/c. It would be one thing if these JF-17s were capable of operating from a PN aircraft carrier but obviously that is not going to be the purpose of these birds. Additionally if they were under PAF control it would add flexibility to the PAF as a whole- they could make use of these extra birds where they needed them whether that be in the maritime domain or over land.


No doubt having Jf-17s tasked with maritime missions is a major boost to Pakistan, not ideal but definitely a step up.

i won't get into much of the hogwash you posted, but Pakistan has no desire to launch operations into enemy waters, other than maybe submarines (which the Swedish sub hunting has shown how difficult it can be to locate a submerged vessel, even though they had all the high tech gear) What Pakistan needs is sea denial capability, and that is why the pile up of C802/Exocet/Harpoons/CM400AKGs has taken place. If dedicated JF-17s come in, then PAF will have to train the pilots, but Navy can put them to use on it's own strategy. We need a plane that has a combat radius of 300+km, some loiter time (for bogeys) and is able to carry stand off weapons. Since all or most of the missiles offer 200+km stand off capability and the fact that some of them can be updated mid course, we are looking at strike force that can strike and engage surface combatants at 500+km. We need to protect our EEZ, that's it.

Addition of more AIP submarines will make sure that IN in the regional waters is kept busy.

 

[farhan_9909]

don't you know how GOP manipulates data to show a rosy picture ?

Check our neutral source's yourself

 

[HRK]

The PN has maintained the French Mirage V for decades and Pakistan also has the support infrastructure in place to maintain the JF-17s. PAF already have 50+ in service.

Mirage-V are under the command of PAF not under PN, and for me its an interesting move because we know that its PAF which maintain the 'supportive infrastructure' for JF-17 so JF-17 under PAF command for naval role make more sense as per the existing arrangements and past experience & we also know that JF-17 jets was intended to replace Mirage jets under PAF

'If' PN is acquiring these jets separately from PAF, then it indicates

• Additional order of JF-17 (150-250 for PAF & ~ 50 for PN)
• Timeframe of JF-17 induction in PN would be b/w 2015-2020.
  
• The 'Independent Aerial Defense' for PN will require separate supportive infrastructure in 'SOUTH' as currently all PAF supportive & maintenance infrastructure of JF-17 is at the 'NORTH' of the country (though at initial stages PAF infracture could be utilized)
• Decrease of maritime defense responsibilities of PAF, but then what would be the 'new role' of PAF in maritime defense.
• Which further means the early retirement of the Mirage-V jets
• I believe maritime squadron of Mirages Jets are ROSE upgraded, so would PAF use these Mirage Jets for other than a maritime role or not.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Bhai, just out of curiosity. What if we could lease out Liaoning when PLAN no longer needs it for training. Hypothetically, would it be possible to deploy a Naval variant of JF-17 on it ?

It would take a hell of a lot of work (strengthening of the under carriage, perhaps redesigns to the nose and such and fitting a tail hook) and testing, the Chinese aren't interested in this variant so the PN would have to fund the development of such a variant and it is doubtful they could afford to do so. On top of that the PN's budget would be depleted entirely if they opted to operate a CBG and it would take most of the PN's fleet to protect the ACC.

i won't get into much of the hogwash you posted, but Pakistan has no desire to launch operations into enemy waters, other than maybe submarines (which the Swedish sub hunting has shown how difficult it can be to locate a submerged vessel, even though they had all the high tech gear) What Pakistan needs is sea denial capability, and that is why the pile up of C802/Exocet/Harpoons/CM400AKGs has taken place. If dedicated JF-17s come in, then PAF will have to train the pilots, but Navy can put them to use on it's own strategy. We need a plane that has a combat radius of 300+km, some loiter time (for bogeys) and is able to carry stand off weapons. Since all or most of the missiles offer 200+km stand off capability and the fact that some of them can be updated mid course, we are looking at strike force that can strike and engage surface combatants at 500+km. We need to protect our EEZ, that's it.

Did I question the need to give the Thunder a maritime role? No, I am questioning the need to give this operational, training, logistical and maintenance burden on an already under funded force.