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

[Dazzler]

jf-17 for navy was a given, ever wonder why first blk 2 config had c-802AKs installed and now being tested with cm400 wreckers. its obvious that navy has zeroed on blk 2 as a mir replacement.

luti karbala me nabi ki nishani

ban this idiot please.

@Oscar

 

[Bratva]

jf-17 for navy was a given, ever wonder why first blk 2 config had c-802AKs installed and now being tested with cm400 wreckers. its obvious that navy has zeroed on blk 2 as a mir replacement.


@Oscar

Imho, priority of JF-17 would be low. Conventional and nuke Submarines And Naval babur programs would keep Navy busy until 2020. After that when resources freed up, JF-17 would be given attention.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Gentlemen,

India is working over a separate version of LCA for the navy and apparently, it is causing lots pain despite LCA for IAF is flying. What are the factors which are causing India this pain and how can Pakistan is doing without it and same PAF JF-17s are hoped and expected to perform Naval roles? Where are we different if we are - or - are we compromising somewhere?

Firstly, just to clarify the JF-17s ordered for the PN will be identical to the versions flown by the PAF, there won't be any modifications needed to be made to the JF-17 as it will be flying from shore bases so Pakistan won't need to face the "pain" of navalising the Thunder. It is true the ADA/HAL are having some difficulties in navalising the LCA for the IN who wants to fly it off their aircraft carriers which is primarily down to the need to strength the undercarriage but not add a huge amount of extra weight (the issues with this are obvious to see). This is compounded by the fact that not only is this India's first home grown fighter but there is now the added complexity of needing to modify it for carrier operations- something only a select few countries have ever done and India is on a very steep learning curve.

Like I said, as the JF-17s for the PN will be flying from shore bases there won't need to be such modifications and additional development/testing required so you won't encounter the same "pain".

 

[ghazi52]

All you Pakistani kids are trying to-----mootar whichun machian pharnian----trying to catch fish in piss----. My god----how helplessly desperate and deprived you guys are.

You are right.

 

[HRK]

it will be flying from shore bases so Pakistan won't need to face the "pain" of nasalising the Thunder. It is true the ADA/HAL are having some difficulties in navalising the LCA for the IN

An attempt of 'stealth trolling' ...

 

[Basel]

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.

No, it will not be a burden on PN if they go for JF-17s as all facilities can be provide by PAF which they already have and both forces have very good working relations, PAF Base Faisal & PN air station Mehran share land and faculties too. With strong wings now con-formal fuel tanks can be developed for JF-17s and PN can ask for more composites for their version to reduce weight and increase performance.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Firstly, just to clarify the JF-17s ordered for the PN will be identical to the versions flown by the PAF, there won't be any modifications needed to be made to the JF-17 as it will be flying from shore bases so Pakistan won't need to face the "pain" of nasalising the Thunder. It is true the ADA/HAL are having some difficulties in navalising the LCA for the IN who wants to fly it off their aircraft carriers which is primarily down to the need to strength the undercarriage but not add a huge amount of extra weight (the issues with this are obvious to see). This is compounded by the fact that not only is this India's first home grown fighter but there is now the added complexity of needing to modify it for carrier operations- something only a select few countries have ever done and India is on a very steep learning curve.

Like I said, as the JF-17s for the PN will be flying from shore bases there won't need to be such modifications and additional development/testing required so you won't encounter the same "pain".

a carrier based aircraft can not be created by modifying just like that.

An aircraft must be designed to with that target.

See, just think of the difference in thrust required land vs Carrier.

The fuselage of a carrier based AC, takes a lot more beating than land only.

 

[graphican]

We always discussed and learned that JF-17 will be performing against SU-30 because it will be aided by other resources including AWACS and would also make use of data-link from F-16s + and home ground benefits etc. That makes sense and fills the gaps making rational that JF-17s would stand and fight the MKIs effectively.

If Navy is going to maintain its own set of JF-17 squadrons, it would need these lateral resources from PAF to confront Indian attack on the shores. That means for the defensive part of equation for the Navy, we are not any different than before - but for the naval attack role, it is going to be a big boost.

 

[cranwerkhan]

Every one chill, we all know its not 5th generation, newspaper all over the world make mistakes. Nothing new here.

yes exactly.. they are just simple news reporter know nothing about defense hardware

You are not mangaitar or honai wali biwi of Pakistan. So don't worry about our survival.

Lolz good answer ..

 

[Abingdonboy]

a carrier based aircraft can not be created by modifying just like that.

An aircraft must be designed to with that target.

See, just think of the difference in thrust required land vs Carrier.

The fuselage of a carrier based AC, takes a lot more beating than land only.

Yes it is a lot of work as I have outlined, and it is not possible for all aircraft and all nations to do such work.

But it can be done- just look at the MiG-29K, Su-33K and N-LCA for examples.

An attempt of 'stealth trolling' ...

Damn auto correct on may Mac

 

[pkd]

No J-11B?

 

[MastanKhan]

a carrier based aircraft can not be created by modifying just like that.

An aircraft must be designed to with that target.

See, just think of the difference in thrust required land vs Carrier.

The fuselage of a carrier based AC, takes a lot more beating than land only.

Sir,

Please understand that it is india you are talking abut---if anyone can---it is india.

 

[kurup]

Sir,

Please understand that it is india you are talking abut---if anyone can---it is india.

MiG 29K , Su 33 , F35 .

 

[MastanKhan]

We always discussed and learned that JF-17 will be performing against SU-30 because it will be aided by other resources including AWACS and would also make use of data-link from F-16s + and home ground benefits etc. That makes sense and fills the gaps making rational that JF-17s would stand and fight the MKIs effectively.

If Navy is going to maintain its own set of JF-17 squadrons, it would need these lateral resources from PAF to confront Indian attack on the shores. That means for the defensive part of equation for the Navy, we are not any different than before - but for the naval attack role, it is going to be a big boost.

Hi,

Now reverse the positions----JF 17 and the assets you are talking about are owned by the Indians---you own the SU 30 and its supporting assets---make the comparison now---ARAZ---- OR please it is time that you stopped protecting the TRAITORS of Pakistan---PAF.

 

[Donatello]

Hi,

Now reverse the positions----JF 17 and the assets you are talking about are owned by the Indians---you own the SU 30 and its supporting assets---make the comparison now---ARAZ---- OR please it is time that you stopped the B S and stop protecting the TRAITORS of Pakistan---PAF.

Sir, that is a good analogy, but a little flawed. In order to reverse the comparison, you would need to reverse the resources available as well, and foreign relations. Russia vs West. Not a easy 2+2=? answer there.