JF 17 is The Wrong Omnirole Aircraft For PAKISTAN

[araz]

Hi,

JF 17 is the wrong air craft for the armed forces of Pakistan. Even though it has been inducted with a great fanfare and extremely positive results---this aircraft is a little too small aircraft to do the job right when facing the likes of IAF.

On its own merit---the JF 17---for its size has one of the best overall packages available in the industry---air to air---air to ground and air to sea---.

So---in order to have balance in its air arm---Pakistan will have to purchase multiple other platforms.

We have the F16's and possibly no more F 16's----.

We need a medium strike aircraft---with the likes of a JH7B with aesa---this aircraft is like the tornado---. This aircraft can carry 8-10 anti ship missiles and still can defend itself with BVR missiles as well. In the Growler mode, this aircraft take the potency to fight back the enemy to a new level.

Pakistan also need an air superiority type aircraft----like the J 10B----or the J 11---and then on top of that---Pakistan will be looking forward to a stealth type plane like the J 31.

Pakistan military is missing the strike capability of a Tornado type of aircraft in its arsenal---and for that---PAF has failed to deliver.

The procurement of fighter aircraft needs to be taken away from the Pakistan air force---a 3 member team formed with the decision to buy that is needed.

Basically---PAF CANNOT be TRUSTED to buy the right type of equipment---. Like in the case of Saab aircraft----. Paf wanted all saab aircraft and Musharraf put a stop to it and got 4 or 5 chinese variants to have diversity and lines open in case of sanctions from Sweden.

Musharraf's decision proved to ve correct----the Chinese aircraft are as potent or better than the Swedish.

In a similar manner---Musharraf made the deal to buy 36 J 10's---. He knew in his heart and he knew from his experience that the JF 17 as good as it is in its class with all the paraphernalia---is not the answer to the needs of Pakistan.

Pakistan needed a bigger and a more potent aircraft-----.

Now Paf may have thought otherwise----but if you ook at the history of Paf since 1971----it is mostly of failures---bad decisions---lack of understanding the level of threat---at times total ignorance of issues at hand---at times not sharing the level of imminent threat to the national assets-----.

Which basically leads it be acting more like a person who is acting like someone with least concern rather than one who has the best interest of the Pakistan.

Mastan Khan.
I have a different take on the subject.
I would say that JFT is the right AC for PAF. HOWEVER it is not the ONLY platform that it needs. Allow me to elaborate.
When the JFT package was signed J10 was no where in sight. The accidents of J10 in 96 had taken the Chinese back to the drawing board and there was no time limit on how long it would take for the changes to be made and the AC ready for induction.
The J10 is larger and more expensive than the JFT. There are other drawbacks. I have read that of its 11 hardpoints only 6 are cqpable of carrying missiles and the rest are suitable for drop tanks and dumb bombs only. We have also heard from a lot of PAF pilots that in an air encounter you would not have a combo of more than 4 BVRs +2WVRs even on a heavy due to the effect of drag on the plane's performance. In any case the limit of simultaneous attack of J10 radar (if I remember correctly) for BVR AND WVR engagement is 6 targets as against 4 for JFT. THE price differential is at least 1.5 if not more. As such I could argue that with a dual rack you could get 4 BVRS on the JFT+ 2 WVRs. I dont know of any statistics of turnaround time for J10s, but turn around time for JFT is a couple of hours and therefore very small. So from the point of view of air to àir encounter J10 brings no advantage over JFT. The cost differential means that for less money you can get equal amount of armament up in the air and less platforms means more economical and quick and simple repair and turn around time.
I need not emphasise the importance of JFT for the aviation industry of Pakistan. As a platform the JFT has been kept simple with a risk averse approach with modularity and upgradability which exceeds J10 by PAF account ( no proof so take it or leave it). The hand me down approach of the Chinese aviation industries with regards to avionics and weapons systems means that the JFT has an 80-90% capability in avioincs and weapons as compared to J10. This ratio is likely to remain the same inspite of developments to J10.
The J10 would have been a difficult first plane to build for PAF and inspite of Chinese friendship I very much doubt whether they would have given us carte blanche powers of chop and change things as they have with JFT. The PAF on the other hand has brought in its vast experience of trialing and evaluating western platforms and made changes to the JFT Which the Chinese are in turn adopting on their planes. The western practices which are being inducted by PAF are being rapidly absorbed by the Chinese. This would not have happened with the J10 due to it being the top tier plane for PLAAF for a long time.
I think that the originator of hthe thread has been guilty of gross misreading of the situation facing the PAF. WE HAVE AN OBSOLESCENT FLEET with 300 fighters needing replacement by 2020. This would not be done on a one to one basis but operational requirements would demand a fleet of at least 300 planes. Our current fleet of the 16s could go upto 110 by that time but still at least 200 planes need replacing. At friendship prices of 40 million a pop the investment required would be 8 billion at least . 200fighters at 20-25 million is 5 billion which is much more doable. With local manufacturing off sets this will come down even more and the revenue will go locally to our industry.
The saleability of JFT is another factor. The projected sale of 500 units is a real possibility and the revenues from it would do wonders for the programme. This again would not have been possible with the J10.
We have talked at length about the loitering time. This is a distinct advantage of heavies. The range of j10 and JFT is almost comparable and loiter time is not vastly increased to merit the cost surge. HOWEVER THE DEBATE OF A HEAVY FIGHTER ESPECIALLY FOR NAVAL ROLE IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC ALTOGETHER.
I can assure the readers that the days of planes going on bombing missions dèep into enemy terrain have long since gone and these roĺes will be taken over by missiles. For cross border forays we do not have enough distance to merit a heavy weight fighter. One could also argue the utility of even that with the onset of standoff weapons.
Naval role apart I do not see any distinct and worthwhile advantage of the J 10 over JFT. We still have a fleet of 16s awhich are very capable and perhaps more so than J10s to perform the Hi lo combo. Financial pressures will demand austerity and I agree that we should actively be involved in J31 programme.
Araz

 

[Bossman]

Hi,

JF 17 is the wrong air craft for the armed forces of Pakistan. Even though it has been inducted with a great fanfare and extremely positive results---this aircraft is a little too small aircraft to do the job right when facing the likes of IAF.

On its own merit---the JF 17---for its size has one of the best overall packages available in the industry---air to air---air to ground and air to sea---.

So---in order to have balance in its air arm---Pakistan will have to purchase multiple other platforms.

We have the F16's and possibly no more F 16's----.

We need a medium strike aircraft---with the likes of a JH7B with aesa---this aircraft is like the tornado---. This aircraft can carry 8-10 anti ship missiles and still can defend itself with BVR missiles as well. In the Growler mode, this aircraft take the potency to fight back the enemy to a new level.

Pakistan also need an air superiority type aircraft----like the J 10B----or the J 11---and then on top of that---Pakistan will be looking forward to a stealth type plane like the J 31.

Pakistan military is missing the strike capability of a Tornado type of aircraft in its arsenal---and for that---PAF has failed to deliver.

The procurement of fighter aircraft needs to be taken away from the Pakistan air force---a 3 member team formed with the decision to buy that is needed.

Basically---PAF CANNOT be TRUSTED to buy the right type of equipment---. Like in the case of Saab aircraft----. Paf wanted all saab aircraft and Musharraf put a stop to it and got 4 or 5 chinese variants to have diversity and lines open in case of sanctions from Sweden.

Musharraf's decision proved to ve correct----the Chinese aircraft are as potent or better than the Swedish.

In a similar manner---Musharraf made the deal to buy 36 J 10's---. He knew in his heart and he knew from his experience that the JF 17 as good as it is in its class with all the paraphernalia---is not the answer to the needs of Pakistan.

Pakistan needed a bigger and a more potent aircraft-----.

Now Paf may have thought otherwise----but if you ook at the history of Paf since 1971----it is mostly of failures---bad decisions---lack of understanding the level of threat---at times total ignorance of issues at hand---at times not sharing the level of imminent threat to the national assets-----.

Which basically leads it be acting more like a person who is acting like someone with least concern rather than one who has the best interest of the Pakistan.

PAF did evaluate the JH-7 and found to be a dog. Even the Chinese are not inducting them anymore. Who are you trying to impress, the 13 year old kids who frequent this forum?

 

[M.SAAD]

JF17s soon with AESA radar will be enough for PAF to defend the mother land. Cheap,easily available with respectable configuration makes JF17 a perfect back bone of PAF.

Regarding PAF, well if they had been that incompetent, as per the topic starter, IAF would had carried out numerous surgical strikes inside Pakistan but they didn't despite of tremendous 'hindu' wish in India.

JF17 is a light combat fighter dude, I don't know how it'd fare in a aerial combat against the big guys..


If JF-17 is the backbone of our airforce, then we have a lot to worry about, seriously .

Don't think we' can take on superior equipped IAF with JF-17's and F-16, currently .

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

JF17 is a light combat fighter dude, I don't know how it'd fare in a aerial combat against the big guys..


If JF-17 is the backbone of our airforce, then we have a lot to worry about, seriously .

Don't think we' can take on superior equipped IAF with JF-17's and F-16, currently .

We have F16s to take on superior planes of IAF. JF17s will replace our aging fleet of F7s and Mirages. Advanced JF17s like block 3 can be a good defensive fighter plane as well.

 

[JonAsad]

Well in one sense Mastan is right- we need a dedicated bomber - and to strike deep we need a heavy twin engine jet-

India is not the only enemy we gona have in future-

We have F16s to take on superior planes of IAF. JF17s will replace our aging fleet of F7s and Mirages. Advanced JF17s like block 3 can be a good defensive fighter plane as well.

Can you tell me about the range of mirages compared to jf-17 and the load difference between them?-

 

[Bossman]

Well in one sense Mastan is right- we need a dedicated bomber - and to strike deep we need a heavy twin engine jet-

This I agree with but it is in addition to the JF17. Two squadrons of SU 34 Platypus should be enough.

 

[HRK]

I can assure the readers that the days of planes going on bombing missions dèep into enemy terrain have long since gone and these roĺes will be taken over by missiles. For cross border forays we do not have enough distance to merit a heavy weight fighter. One could also argue the utility of even that with the onset of standoff weapons.
Araz

I agree with all of your post but with all due respect would like to take the liberty to differ with this quoted part ....

I believe Fighter Jets will remain preferable options for certain large scale targets as compare to Ballistic or Cruise missiles with conventional warheads ....

 

[abdulbarijan]

Hi,

JF 17 is the wrong air craft for the armed forces of Pakistan. Even though it has been inducted with a great fanfare and extremely positive results---this aircraft is a little too small aircraft to do the job right when facing the likes of IAF.

On its own merit---the JF 17---for its size has one of the best overall packages available in the industry---air to air---air to ground and air to sea---.

So---in order to have balance in its air arm---Pakistan will have to purchase multiple other platforms.

We have the F16's and possibly no more F 16's----.

We need a medium strike aircraft---with the likes of a JH7B with aesa---this aircraft is like the tornado---. This aircraft can carry 8-10 anti ship missiles and still can defend itself with BVR missiles as well. In the Growler mode, this aircraft take the potency to fight back the enemy to a new level.

Pakistan also need an air superiority type aircraft----like the J 10B----or the J 11---and then on top of that---Pakistan will be looking forward to a stealth type plane like the J 31.

Pakistan military is missing the strike capability of a Tornado type of aircraft in its arsenal---and for that---PAF has failed to deliver.

The procurement of fighter aircraft needs to be taken away from the Pakistan air force---a 3 member team formed with the decision to buy that is needed.

Basically---PAF CANNOT be TRUSTED to buy the right type of equipment---. Like in the case of Saab aircraft----. Paf wanted all saab aircraft and Musharraf put a stop to it and got 4 or 5 chinese variants to have diversity and lines open in case of sanctions from Sweden.

Musharraf's decision proved to ve correct----the Chinese aircraft are as potent or better than the Swedish.

In a similar manner---Musharraf made the deal to buy 36 J 10's---. He knew in his heart and he knew from his experience that the JF 17 as good as it is in its class with all the paraphernalia---is not the answer to the needs of Pakistan.

Pakistan needed a bigger and a more potent aircraft-----.

Now Paf may have thought otherwise----but if you ook at the history of Paf since 1971----it is mostly of failures---bad decisions---lack of understanding the level of threat---at times total ignorance of issues at hand---at times not sharing the level of imminent threat to the national assets-----.

Which basically leads it be acting more like a person who is acting like a traitor than one who has the best interest of the Pakistan.

I would disagree ... with the title and the title alone i.e "JFT is the wrong aircraft for Pakistan" -- because that isn't simply true -- cost effectiveness + less strings to deal with + a good all around fighter for it's weight class make JF-17 the ideal fighter for PAF --

In my opinion the problem doesn't lie with the platform i.e JFT -- but with the sheer number of opportunities PAF has missed -- That includes Mirage 2000, additional F-16's and the J-10.. Now one can argue different conditions prevalent at the time could have caused such and such decision to be made -- but then again we did genuinely miss out on the Mirages, even if a case can be build for the J-10's ..

The problem we face now is that -- we cant go out and open up a project worth 8-9 Billion dollars getting two new platforms in numbers that many of us here advocate ... and lets face it the procurement over the next 5 years will determine our shape vis a vis IAF -- thankfully the IAF is alot worse when it comes to handling procurement projects so we have a little room to breath .. Today, we face over 350 odd 4th generation aircrafts from the IAF side with 125 odd 4th generation fighters on our side a ratio of roughly 2.8 : 1 -- which is okay-ish for PAF -- and when you consider in the maintenance and force multipliers in a defensive doctrine -- we can conclude that PAF does have enough capability to not only defend PAF skies -- but to give the IAF a bloody nose in the process ...

But it's not the same thing as -- " You come anywhere near my airspace -- and I will seriously F*CK you UP!" --

I think this is the right time to strike the decisive blow and cut down the numerical and technological disparity that IAF has traditionally enjoyed against the PAF ... Our economy is recovering and while we cannot go out and get execute a MMRCA type of project -- what we can do is convince the US to let more nations who plan on retiring their F-16's -- sell those pieces at low prices ... while making a similar MLU deal with the US which I think back then was around 1+ billion dollars while acquiring 3 squadrons of used F-16's (roughly 40/45 odd jets) -- we would be having a fleet of 120 F-16's @ blk 50 level .. I wouldn't wanna go with the complexity of adding an air superiority fighter like the J-10 because even 2 odd squadrons of J-10 B would be VERY costly -- and then we'd need time and training to finally put them in to use -- with the F-16's -- its more like plug & play kind of thing .. With ISIS coming in to Afghanistan it seems more likely the US would still want to keep check on such an organization and stay in Afghanistan as the ANA has repeatedly shown its lack of ability to cope with the Taliban threat much less ISIS -- and the peace talks as it seems have not ended in a way that many wanted them to ...

Secondly, with the MMRCA practically going down the drain -- and rumors of the french willing to renegotiate the deal for JFT, its time that Pakistan gives the Indians a taste of their own medicine and negotiates a new deal with the french for the upgrades of the JF-17 -- we already have Selex willing to give us an AESA and with weapons like MICA and EW suites based on SPECTRA, the kind PAF was negotiating for in the previous deal -- a "western JFT" will not only be a formidable foe for anything it goes up against -- but also will increase the prospects of exports as customers who prefer a western version of the JFT could peruse that --- As it stands now with the new weaponry coming out of China the likes of new versions of SD-10, 5th generation WVR missiles -- A darter from S.Africa/Brazil --- the thunder is only going to get much more venomous ..

Lastly, the navy should chip in for the acquisition of a platform like JH-7B as it will also serve the navy -- with the CPEC and such Chinese interests -- It shouldn't be that hard to purchase something like 3 squadrons cost effectively ..

If we play our cards well, we do have the potential to cause a considerable shift in the current balance of air power, where we can use our air power as a deterrent similar to how we use our missiles and nukes as powerful deterrents ...

 

[Hulk]

and Mr. Mastan pleases of share with the rest of the forum your qualifications to make such statements. What is your link with the PAF or military aviation for that matter? I think at one time in your life your aspired to join the PAF but could not cut it. Instead you moved to the US. What has been your career for the last 35 or years? PAF did evaluate the JH-7 and found to be a dog. Even the Chinese are not inducting them anymore. Who are you trying to impress, the 13 year old kids who frequent this forum?

Don't waste time on this forum unless you are 13 year old or have an IQ of 70.

You could argue your point politely. Very unhappy that internet makes people rude.

 

[graphican]

JF-17s were never meant to be better than F-16s nor our offensive,defensive doctrine asks for it - but definitely need to beef up our front-line fighters strength or perhaps induct a second platform. A twin engine SU-35 or J-11D could do that.

 

[MastanKhan]

and Mr. Mastan pleases of share with the rest of the forum your qualifications to make such statements. What is your link with the PAF or military aviation for that matter? I think at one time in your life your aspired to join the PAF but could not cut it. Instead you moved to the US. What has been your career for the last 35 or years? PAF did evaluate the JH-7 and found to be a dog. Even the Chinese are not inducting them anymore. Who are you trying to impress, the 13 year old kids who frequent this forum?

Don't waste time on this forum unless you are 13 year old or have an IQ of 70.

Sir,

You are absolutely your brilliant self as always. Coming from a family of doctors---the first choice would have been to become a doctor---but engineering was most likely---. Never had any interest in joining the air force----.

Anyway---it is good to see you alive and kicking----.

Absolutely Bang on !
They Should Procure things According to the Intensity level of Threat !
You have made a Point which I am trying to make from Quite Sometime !

Hi,

" ACCORDING TO THE INTENSITY LEVEL OF THE THREAT "

Just in one sentence----you have put the gist of the whole article in one line.

 

[leftfordead]

I agree with all of your post but with all due respect would like to take the liberty to differ with this quoted part ....

View attachment 247236


View attachment 247238

I believe Fighter Jets will remain preferable options for certain large scale targets as compare to Ballistic or Cruise missiles with conventional warheads ....

Dont you think when Enemy is right next to you and almost all its strategic bases are within the Range of your CM's , than why risking of sending the Birds in their Territory , Today the Planes are more Valnaurable in enemy Airspace , as they are hunted by SAM's and AWACS .... helped by the Air force itself ... I am not against the heavies in the PAF but certainely if you ask me to attack any Position within 700-1000 KM deep inside the Enemy i would rather choose to make 100's of CM's .





regards from Rockstar08

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

As usual---I have stuck my head up to my neck in the hornets nest----is that anything new---.

I understand that the JF 17 is the pet project of almost many of you guys---but this aircraft simply does not match the intensity of threat being faced as a frontline fighter aircraft.

Now---as a complimentary and associate aircraft----it is a great asset---and in numbers of around 300---350 it will provide massive support and compliment to the main strike force.

The J 31 is too far away----and there is a big gap between what we have on our top tier as compared to the enemy's top tier.

There are no ifs and buts about it that Pakistan needs the heavies----not too many of them----but at least 2 sqdrn's for its naval strike missions and something for air superiority.

What does a JF 17 carry---a chicken sh-it two anti ship missiles----we need something that can carry 8 to ten of them ---.

We are facing an enemy two to three times our size---and all we have is daggers against their sword.

 

[HRK]

Dont you think when Enemy is right next to you and almost all its strategic bases are within the Range of your CM's , than why risking of sending the Birds in their Territory , Today the Planes are more Valnaurable in enemy Airspace , as they are hunted by SAM's and AWACS .... helped by the Air force itself ... I am not against the heavies in the PAF but certainely if you ask me to attack any Position within 700-1000 KM deep inside the Enemy i would rather choose to make 100's of CM's .

that might be an off-topic discussion .... therefore would not go into the detail .... but would like to raise one or two points .....

A ballistic or cruise missiles with 500 KG conventional warhead is equivalent to a single 1000 lbs dumb bomb so as their destruction power.... for a large area of 9000 x 900 feet runway & adjacent facility 170 M-9 type (let say Shaheen-I) missile with unitary warhead are required ... now what is the cost of Shaheen missiles .... ?? plz compare it with the lethality radius of that type of missile with unitary warhead ... what should be the cost effective option ...??

now consider another scenario ...

these are the roughly sketch area of Indian IBG movements to create a desire thrust into Pakistani territory ..... would we just start firing our missiles at these IBGs or would 'first' like to use aircraft to halt or slowdown their movement ...

so the simple point is Missiles are suitable for deep targets but targets at near borders will be struck with aircraft ....

 

[leftfordead]

that might be an off-topic discussion .... therefore would not go into the detail .... but would like to raise one or two points .....

A ballistic or cruise missiles with 500 KG conventional warhead is equivalent to a single 1000 lbs dumb bomb so as their destruction power.... for a large area of 9000 x 900 feet runway & adjacent facility 170 M-9 type (let say Shaheen-I) missile with unitary warhead are required ... now what is the cost of Shaheen missiles .... ?? plz compare it with the lethality radius of that type of missile with unitary warhead ... what should be the cost effective option ...??

now consider another scenario ...
View attachment 247240

these are the roughly sketch area of Indian IBG movements to create a desire thrust into Pakistani territory ..... would we just start firing our missiles at these IBGs or would 'first' like to use aircraft to halt or slowdown their movement ...

so the simple point is Missiles are suitable for deep targets but targets at near borders will be struck with aircraft ....

you are right in both your points ..
but my point was to attack their Assets like Radars , Hangers and stuff ...i don't know much about warfare , so i can not say in case of War what would be priority Targets for Our Air force .. but best bet is that it depends on what kind of Strategy enemy is adopted , in case of thrust from Multiple direction , i agree we need Heavy bombers that can drop some Guided and other sort of Bombs on enemy Tank Columns to slow them down ..