Turkey to Provide 34 T-37 Aircraft Free of Cost to Pakistan

[GriffinsRule]

K-8 and T-37 are redundant aircraft. I read somewhere that students actually preferred the K-8 to the T-37 where the instructor is not sitting watching their every move as it put undue pressure on the cadets. Its akin to your boss standing behind your chair watching you work.

 

[Haris Ali2140]

K-8 and T-37 are redundant aircraft. I read somewhere that students actually preferred the K-8 to the T-37 where the instructor is not sitting watching their every move as it put undue pressure on the cadets. Its akin to your boss standing behind your chair watching you work.

Why don't we plan an upgrade for K-8??? Can it be a substitute for LIFT???

 

[GriffinsRule]

Why don't we plan an upgrade for K-8??? Can it be a substitute for LIFT???

Not entirely no, else PAF would have already gone with that route. Upgrading displays and some avionics akin to what PAC Kamra has done with the Mushshak is not enough to turn an intermediate jet trainer into a lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT).

There are some things that set the two categories apart and it comes down to the operator on which ones they would emphasize more than others. For eg. PAF's ex-chief has been on record stating that they were looking for an appropriate LIFT trainer but one without an AB engine (to keep costs down). But to understand why PAF or any other professional air force REQUIRES a LIFT platform is due to the complexity of 4+ generation aircraft.

LIFT aircraft in the market include KAI T-50, Alenia Aermacchi M-346/Yak-130/Hongdu L-15 (same family of trainers), Boeing/Saab T-7A, and to some extent the Hawk Mk128.

Some of the characteristics of LIFT aircraft include:
- Radar: High end PD or AESA radar (Aircraft missing these compensate by using ACMI pods as well as radar emulation pods or embedded systems that simulates different radar emissions and other characteristics of friendly or enemy aircraft for training)
- Advanced Modular Avionics: What this means is not just having some fancy LCDs and calling it a day. The avionics in all LIFT aircraft are designed around open architecture that allows them to simulate the avionics of advanced jet, most importantly information and battle management systems.
- FBW & HOTAS: All LIFT trainers are FBW in order to be able to effectively mimic the flight performance of various aircraft an air force operates. This ties in with the modular avionics as well.
- Maneuverabilty: This also ties in with FBW systems as all LIFT aircraft have high G tolerances, and need to be able to achieve high angles of attack


The most important of all these factors is the advanced modular avionics structure. All these aircraft come with some sort of an embedded training system that allows the aircraft to emulate different radars, weapons, targeting pods, EW systems and finally having data link capabilities.

K-8 has none of these characteristics and even if PAF was able to source a fully digital cockpit in an attempt to upgrade some of the avionics, it still fails to meet every other critical feature that makes a LIFT set apart from an intermediate or advanced jet trainer.

Secondly, Pakistan does not have in-house capability to develop any of these systems in house and given that we are just starting to go down the road with the Air University etc, I don't foresee acquiring the capacity to develop a worthy system of the complexity required for another 20+ years. Hence it will need to outsource these jets. In this regard, we can not even go back to Hongdu to bring K-8 up to this standard as it will most likely be both technically and financially unfeasible, not to mention that have already gone the route of developing the L-15 with the help of the Russians instead of updating J/K-8. You can also see a similar situation with the US T-X program where both Textron and Northrop Grumman/BAE withdrew from the competition as their trainers could not meet the requirements and they would have needed a completely new clean sheet design.

So basically, K-8 in any form can not substitute for a LIFT.

 

[Marker]

Not entirely no, else PAF would have already gone with that route. Upgrading displays and some avionics akin to what PAC Kamra has done with the Mushshak is not enough to turn an intermediate jet trainer into a lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT).

There are some things that set the two categories apart and it comes down to the operator on which ones they would emphasize more than others. For eg. PAF's ex-chief has been on record stating that they were looking for an appropriate LIFT trainer but one without an AB engine (to keep costs down). But to understand why PAF or any other professional air force REQUIRES a LIFT platform is due to the complexity of 4+ generation aircraft.

LIFT aircraft in the market include KAI T-50, Alenia Aermacchi M-346/Yak-130/Hongdu L-15 (same family of trainers), Boeing/Saab T-7A, and to some extent the Hawk Mk128.

Some of the characteristics of LIFT aircraft include:
- Radar: High end PD or AESA radar (Aircraft missing these compensate by using ACMI pods as well as radar emulation pods or embedded systems that simulates different radar emissions and other characteristics of friendly or enemy aircraft for training)
- Advanced Modular Avionics: What this means is not just having some fancy LCDs and calling it a day. The avionics in all LIFT aircraft are designed around open architecture that allows them to simulate the avionics of advanced jet, most importantly information and battle management systems.
- FBW & HOTAS: All LIFT trainers are FBW in order to be able to effectively mimic the flight performance of various aircraft an air force operates. This ties in with the modular avionics as well.
- Maneuverabilty: This also ties in with FBW systems as all LIFT aircraft have high G tolerances, and need to be able to achieve high angles of attack


The most important of all these factors is the advanced modular avionics structure. All these aircraft come with some sort of an embedded training system that allows the aircraft to emulate different radars, weapons, targeting pods, EW systems and finally having data link capabilities.

K-8 has none of these characteristics and even if PAF was able to source a fully digital cockpit in an attempt to upgrade some of the avionics, it still fails to meet every other critical feature that makes a LIFT set apart from an intermediate or advanced jet trainer.

Secondly, Pakistan does not have in-house capability to develop any of these systems in house and given that we are just starting to go down the road with the Air University etc, I don't foresee acquiring the capacity to develop a worthy system of the complexity required for another 20+ years. Hence it will need to outsource these jets. In this regard, we can not even go back to Hongdu to bring K-8 up to this standard as it will most likely be both technically and financially unfeasible, not to mention that have already gone the route of developing the L-15 with the help of the Russians instead of updating J/K-8. You can also see a similar situation with the US T-X program where both Textron and Northrop Grumman/BAE withdrew from the competition as their trainers could not meet the requirements and they would have needed a completely new clean sheet design.

So basically, K-8 in any form can not substitute for a LIFT.

PAF is having F-16s and JF-17s as 4+ gen fighter jets. Both jet aircraft have B version which are being used as fighter conversion.

Whereas other modern Air Forces hold variety of 4+ gen Fighter aircraft.

Hence immediate requirement of an advance LIFT do not exist.

K-8P was configured to replace FT-5 as fighter jet trainer and K-8 was to overlap T-37 as basic jet trainer.

Though PAF is currently window shopping the LIFT market, but procuring expensive LIFT is not a viable solution due to scarcity of financial resources.

Instead PAF should seek a joint venture with various friendly countries to upgrade K-8Ps as jet fighter trainer IAW the current needs.

 

[GriffinsRule]

PAF is having F-16s and JF-17s as 4+ gen fighter jets. Both jet aircraft have B version which are being used as fighter conversion.

Whereas other modern Air Forces hold variety of 4+ gen Fighter aircraft.

Hence immediate requirement of an advance LIFT do not exist.

K-8P was configured to replace FT-5 as fighter jet trainer and K-8 was to overlap T-37 as basic jet trainer.

Though PAF is currently window shopping the LIFT market, but procuring expensive LIFT is not a viable solution due to scarcity of financial resources.

Instead PAF should seek a joint venture with various friendly countries to upgrade K-8Ps as jet fighter trainer IAW the current needs.

On the contrary, having a LIFT aircraft does benefit when an AF is operating 4+ gen aircraft. K-8/FT-5s are fine for 3rd gen aircraft, which is what PAF was a 100% when these aircraft were inducted. Those times have changed and the training requirements along with them.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

PAF is having F-16s and JF-17s as 4+ gen fighter jets. Both jet aircraft have B version which are being used as fighter conversion.

Whereas other modern Air Forces hold variety of 4+ gen Fighter aircraft.

Hence immediate requirement of an advance LIFT do not exist.

K-8P was configured to replace FT-5 as fighter jet trainer and K-8 was to overlap T-37 as basic jet trainer.

Though PAF is currently window shopping the LIFT market, but procuring expensive LIFT is not a viable solution due to scarcity of financial resources.

Instead PAF should seek a joint venture with various friendly countries to upgrade K-8Ps as jet fighter trainer IAW the current needs.

The LIFT is more than simply a step between FCU (K-8) and OCU (F-16B/JF-17B). I made that mistake as well, but really, the LIFT is meant to take on the role the F-7P and F-7PG are currently serving in giving new pilots experience.

So, it's two-fold:

1. Get a simple platform for young pilots to gain experience on before F-16/JF-17.

2. Get experience with BVR, PGB, AShW, TDL, SOW, etc before OCU.

If it had only been (2), the PAF would've been fine (and indeed, it was) with using the JF-17B in that role. But it found that the eventual loss of the F-7P/F-7PG will actually leave a gap, and the PAF isn't willing to use front-line fighters (which are costlier for it than other major air forces) to serve that role.

The biggest hint for what I'm saying is the fact that the PAF asked for afterburning engine(s) for the LIFT. So, that automatically disqualified the smaller options -- i.e., M-346, L-159, etc, and left only one real option.

The L-15B with AI-322F turbofan engines. I bet the PAF will basically ask for the L-15B, but with an AESA radar, SD-10, KG600, etc. It'll be pricey, but -- and this is key -- not as pricey as the JF-17B/Block-III or F-16.

 

[Armchair]

The LIFT is more than simply a step between FCU (K-8) and OCU (F-16B/JF-17B). I made that mistake as well, but really, the LIFT is meant to take on the role the F-7P and F-7PG are currently serving in giving new pilots experience.

So, it's two-fold:

1. Get a simple platform for young pilots to gain experience on before F-16/JF-17.

2. Get experience with BVR, PGB, AShW, TDL, SOW, etc before OCU.

If it had only been (2), the PAF would've been fine (and indeed, it was) with using the JF-17B in that role. But it found that the eventual loss of the F-7P/F-7PG will actually leave a gap, and the PAF isn't willing to use front-line fighters (which are costlier for it than other major air forces) to serve that role.

The biggest hint for what I'm saying is the fact that the PAF asked for afterburning engine(s) for the LIFT. So, that automatically disqualified the smaller options -- i.e., M-346, L-159, etc, and left only one real option.

The L-15B with AI-322F turbofan engines. I bet the PAF will basically ask for the L-15B, but with an AESA radar, SD-10, KG600, etc. It'll be pricey, but -- and this is key -- not as pricey as the JF-17B/Block-III or F-16.

There may be an additional angle to this, in addition to the excellent points made by yourself and @GriffinsRule . Pilots require flight hours. Modern LIFT trainers are able to mimic the flight controls of fighters. This allows pilots to keep a portion of their flight hours with a LIFT significantly saving on fighter flying costs per hour (CPHF) and on using up the airframe flight hours of an expensive front line fighter.

When combined with good simulators, this would allow an air force to maintain a front line fighter fleet at minimal cost and minimal wear and tear.

This is crucial to keep the F-16s going for as long as possible. It is also crucial to keep JF-17s going and to lower their operational costs (JF-17s apparently cost more to operate per hour than F-16s, mainly due to the lower quality engine).

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

There may be an additional angle to this, in addition to the excellent points made by yourself and @GriffinsRule . Pilots require flight hours. Modern LIFT trainers are able to mimic the flight controls of fighters. This allows pilots to keep a portion of their flight hours with a LIFT significantly saving on fighter flying costs per hour (CPHF) and on using up the airframe flight hours of an expensive front line fighter.

When combined with good simulators, this would allow an air force to maintain a front line fighter fleet at minimal cost and minimal wear and tear.

This is crucial to keep the F-16s going for as long as possible. It is also crucial to keep JF-17s going and to lower their operational costs (JF-17s apparently cost more to operate per hour than F-16s, mainly due to the lower quality engine).

You're 100% right.

The PAF actually started sending rookie pilots to the ex-RJAF F-16 ADFs in 2015, and experienced a lot of value from it. You had this fighter that was cheap to acquire, but it really helped with the development of young pilots before they were ready to move towards the F-16 or JF-17 OCU units. I imagine the PAF preferred buying more used F-16A/Bs, even with limited hours, so as to grow this process.

However, we can surmise that the US blocked 3rd-party sales, even from willing air forces (e.g., Portugal, Italy, Jordan, etc). So, what option's left?

Well, a low-cost ITAR-free LIFT with an afterburning engine. There's only one option that fits the bill: the L-15B. You have the economies-of-scale earned from PLAAF and PLAN orders, and the OEM's willingness to customize it with a new engine.

Moreover, its weaponized -- so the PAF can use it for remnant CT/COIN ops as well (without stressing the F-16/JF-17).

I think at the end of ACM Sohail Aman's time, the economics of the 'ideal' LIFT had become feasible, and now the PAF is planning to buy a decent number through the long-term.

I'm 95% sure it'll be the L-15B, but through incremental batches over a 10-15 year period, totaling 32 to 54 aircraft split across LIFT units for rookies and a DACT unit at CCS. There's a hint towards DACT (afterburner engine with air-intercept radar and data-link).

 

[Armchair]

You're 100% right.

The PAF actually started sending rookie pilots to the ex-RJAF F-16 ADFs in 2015, and experienced a lot of value from it. You had this fighter that was cheap to acquire, but it really helped with the development of young pilots before they were ready to move towards the F-16 or JF-17 OCU units. I imagine the PAF preferred buying more used F-16A/Bs, even with limited hours, so as to grow this process.

However, we can surmise that the US blocked 3rd-party sales, even from willing air forces (e.g., Portugal, Italy, Jordan, etc). So, what option's left?

Well, a low-cost ITAR-free LIFT with an afterburning engine. There's only one option that fits the bill: the L-15B. You have the economies-of-scale earned from PLAAF and PLAN orders, and the OEM's willingness to customize it with a new engine.

Moreover, its weaponized -- so the PAF can use it for remnant CT/COIN ops as well (without stressing the F-16/JF-17).

I think at the end of ACM Sohail Aman's time, the economics of the 'ideal' LIFT had become feasible, and now the PAF is planning to buy a decent number through the long-term.

I'm 95% sure it'll be the L-15B, but through incremental batches over a 10-15 year period, totaling 32 to 54 aircraft split across LIFT units for rookies and a DACT unit at CCS.

Here is one place I have no cheap, second hand options

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Here is one place I have no cheap, second hand options

Well, you would if US warms up a little. If used F-16A/Bs can come through from the Europeans, then the PAF will shelve the LIFT requirement for sure, IMHO.

 

[Armchair]

Well, you would if US warms up a little. If used F-16A/Bs can come through from the Europeans, then the PAF will shelve the LIFT requirement for sure, IMHO.

CPFH for using F-16s like that would be significantly higher. Even though the F-16 has the lowest CPFH of any front line fighter in the world.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

CPFH for using F-16s like that would be significantly higher. Even though the F-16 has the lowest CPFH of any front line fighter in the world.

Yep, but the low upfront cost of used airframes would temporarily offset it.

 

[Nilgiri]

The LIFT is more than simply a step between FCU (K-8) and OCU (F-16B/JF-17B). I made that mistake as well, but really, the LIFT is meant to take on the role the F-7P and F-7PG are currently serving in giving new pilots experience.

So, it's two-fold:

1. Get a simple platform for young pilots to gain experience on before F-16/JF-17.

2. Get experience with BVR, PGB, AShW, TDL, SOW, etc before OCU.

If it had only been (2), the PAF would've been fine (and indeed, it was) with using the JF-17B in that role. But it found that the eventual loss of the F-7P/F-7PG will actually leave a gap, and the PAF isn't willing to use front-line fighters (which are costlier for it than other major air forces) to serve that role.

The biggest hint for what I'm saying is the fact that the PAF asked for afterburning engine(s) for the LIFT. So, that automatically disqualified the smaller options -- i.e., M-346, L-159, etc, and left only one real option.

The L-15B with AI-322F turbofan engines. I bet the PAF will basically ask for the L-15B, but with an AESA radar, SD-10, KG600, etc. It'll be pricey, but -- and this is key -- not as pricey as the JF-17B/Block-III or F-16.

Excellent post and thanks for clearing this up.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Excellent post and thanks for clearing this up.

Not sure why folks get caught up with the F-16 Block-72+ or Su-35 wishlists, this is the stuff that's actually interesting. For one, it's real (i.e., the PAF CAS said it), and second, it makes for a more specific, targeted discussion.

 

[Nilgiri]

Not sure why folks get caught up with the F-16 Block-72+ or Su-35 wishlists, this is the stuff that's actually interesting. For one, it's real (i.e., the PAF CAS said it), and second, it makes for a more specific, targeted discussion.

Nitty gritty important stuff (connecting/networking stuff well in a development sense and having that in good working order) in general has less "star appeal" compared to final end use stuff....esp for most laypeople that itemise "brochure" things rather than interest in the bigger picture etc.

Similarly people appreciate the view from the highest reaches of a tower/building, but they don't care as much about what got that stuff there in the larger engineering sense.

Years ago here, I ran into similar issue when I brought up importance of C4I in a military rather than focusing too much on the end-weapon/asset as be-all end-all (esp for acquisition strategy).....again it didnt quite gain much appreciation for most members in the discussion.

It just depends how much people want to look into things to understand all the moving cogs behind a system.

@PanzerKiel @Signalian @Joe Shearer @Vergennes