araz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 9,291
- Reaction score
- 81
ASAK.
I thought I might put my input into the debate before enthusiasm takes over pragmatism as it invariably does with all such debates. Our younger brothers always want the best for the PAF and so it should be. However it should be a realistic ask.
If you look at the direction the PAF has set itself since it started off with theThunders, it would become very obvious what is
on its mind.
Firstly, irrespective of how much you criticize the PAF regarding the size of JFT, there were obvious complications in its partnership with the Chinese. With concomitant development of J 10 its premier fighter, the Chinese would never have run 2 parallel competing programmes. So it would have either been a case of abandoning the JFT and jumping on the rather risky bandwagon of J10 as a product when the Chinese had built enough for their own use. Your problemz with this approach would never have been resolved and you would have remained a buyer of products.
So PAF went with a smaller fighter ala Gripen and designed it along conventional means for ease of integration and learning.
Block 1 done PAF started off adding bells and whistles to block 2 like better software, and IFR. However, very interestingly PAF did not go for increasing hardpoints which had been invisaged in the original design instead working with 7HPs. One has to wonder why!
With that stage done and extended to62 fighters signifying a certain satisfaction with the design parameters, PAF went for Bs and now to Block 3.
I will leave the Block 2Bs aside as it is a different debate.
With Block 3 we are looking at 1-3 HPs(various open sources talk of increasing Hardpoints.) But more importantly we are lookkng at hardware upgrades in AESA radar, IFF, various other software updates. There maybe efforts to increase internal fuel and weapons carrying ability. With IFR as standard loitering time can go up to the Max. of 3hours. PAFhas not gone for OBOG so relying on O2 in a cylinder.
I think the emphasis has always been on a simple uncomplicated fighter with good turn around time and ability to function off temporary surfaces.
PAF has made no effort to force the US to give it something in return for its services towards the Afghan conflict resolution and I think it points to its satisfaction with what it has in its hands. I think purely from a technical reason it would be impossible to run a small or medium weight fighter programme side by side at this point in time. So it will have to be either ---or. NOT BOTH. Financially as well as technically PAF cannot take away workforce from Azm or JFT programme to dedicate to another fighter. Even if by some miracle we manage to do so, how many units will we have to produce for financial viability of the project----- 100-200 units.What is the time frame involved in this venture . We can barely manage 1 squadron conversion to JFT A year. How are we going to manage 2.
The only sane option should it come our way is more 16s due to available manpower and trained personnel but other than that, any new project will come at the expense of either the JFT or Azm.
One might ask then why the upgradation of the Mirages. The answer remains the same as for 16s.
Personally I only see Azm coming out as our next in house produced platform. Whether we buy Xor Y remains a mute point due to our dire finances.
Regards
A
I thought I might put my input into the debate before enthusiasm takes over pragmatism as it invariably does with all such debates. Our younger brothers always want the best for the PAF and so it should be. However it should be a realistic ask.
If you look at the direction the PAF has set itself since it started off with theThunders, it would become very obvious what is
on its mind.
Firstly, irrespective of how much you criticize the PAF regarding the size of JFT, there were obvious complications in its partnership with the Chinese. With concomitant development of J 10 its premier fighter, the Chinese would never have run 2 parallel competing programmes. So it would have either been a case of abandoning the JFT and jumping on the rather risky bandwagon of J10 as a product when the Chinese had built enough for their own use. Your problemz with this approach would never have been resolved and you would have remained a buyer of products.
So PAF went with a smaller fighter ala Gripen and designed it along conventional means for ease of integration and learning.
Block 1 done PAF started off adding bells and whistles to block 2 like better software, and IFR. However, very interestingly PAF did not go for increasing hardpoints which had been invisaged in the original design instead working with 7HPs. One has to wonder why!
With that stage done and extended to62 fighters signifying a certain satisfaction with the design parameters, PAF went for Bs and now to Block 3.
I will leave the Block 2Bs aside as it is a different debate.
With Block 3 we are looking at 1-3 HPs(various open sources talk of increasing Hardpoints.) But more importantly we are lookkng at hardware upgrades in AESA radar, IFF, various other software updates. There maybe efforts to increase internal fuel and weapons carrying ability. With IFR as standard loitering time can go up to the Max. of 3hours. PAFhas not gone for OBOG so relying on O2 in a cylinder.
I think the emphasis has always been on a simple uncomplicated fighter with good turn around time and ability to function off temporary surfaces.
PAF has made no effort to force the US to give it something in return for its services towards the Afghan conflict resolution and I think it points to its satisfaction with what it has in its hands. I think purely from a technical reason it would be impossible to run a small or medium weight fighter programme side by side at this point in time. So it will have to be either ---or. NOT BOTH. Financially as well as technically PAF cannot take away workforce from Azm or JFT programme to dedicate to another fighter. Even if by some miracle we manage to do so, how many units will we have to produce for financial viability of the project----- 100-200 units.What is the time frame involved in this venture . We can barely manage 1 squadron conversion to JFT A year. How are we going to manage 2.
The only sane option should it come our way is more 16s due to available manpower and trained personnel but other than that, any new project will come at the expense of either the JFT or Azm.
One might ask then why the upgradation of the Mirages. The answer remains the same as for 16s.
Personally I only see Azm coming out as our next in house produced platform. Whether we buy Xor Y remains a mute point due to our dire finances.
Regards
A
Last edited: