What's new

Is the Chinese JH-7 an Answer to the Pakistan Air Force’s Deep Strike Needs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 28, 2011
52,177
85
59,666
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
IMO ... I think we all need to come to terms with the reality that there is no new fighter coming.

The fiscal capacity doesn't support it.

Sure, the PAF can buy Erieye AEW&C, but it's $90 m a system, not $150-200 m per jet across a couple dozen units. And in the case of the JH-7A or J-10CE, though comparatively lower cost, is still a huge expense, and it may be too much for a bridge or stopgap solution. For it to pay-off, it needs to be a permanent solution, not a temporary one.

That aside, the PAF should take the responsible step of hard-coding the most cost-effective path to a NGFA.

I think the ideal would be entering a partnership with China on the J-35, though we'll need to convince them to let us into that program (with the desired offset and co-production benefits).

However, the benefit of joining the J-35 is that you leverage the PLAN's economies-of-scale to lower the cost as well as get a naval-ready fighter. I would get the PAF to totally double-down on the J-35 and seek a huge fleet of its own (180+) and, in turn, pivot AZM towards the development of advanced drones.
How do you see as J-10 C as replacement of MIRAGES ???
 

Beethoven

FULL MEMBER
Aug 25, 2015
679
0
775
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
IMO ... I think we all need to come to terms with the reality that there is no new fighter coming.

The fiscal capacity doesn't support it.

Sure, the PAF can buy Erieye AEW&C, but it's $90 m a system, not $150-200 m per jet across a couple dozen units. And in the case of the JH-7A or J-10CE, though comparatively lower cost, is still a huge expense, and it may be too much for a bridge or stopgap solution. For it to pay-off, it needs to be a permanent solution, not a temporary one.

That aside, the PAF should take the responsible step of hard-coding the most cost-effective path to a NGFA.

I think the ideal would be entering a partnership with China on the J-35, though we'll need to convince them to let us into that program (with the desired offset and co-production benefits).

However, the benefit of joining the J-35 is that you leverage the PLAN's economies-of-scale to lower the cost as well as get a naval-ready fighter. I would get the PAF to totally double-down on the J-35 and seek a huge fleet of its own (180+) and, in turn, pivot AZM towards the development of advanced drones.

As for the PN, unless we're talking about an aircraft carrier, I don't think it's worth it for it to maintain its own fighters. The PAF would likely have to maintain and operate those jets, so ultimately, it doesn't change much from simply allowing the PN to call-on the PAF.

But I do support the idea of an aircraft carrier, but 15-20 years down the line. It's a luxury for power-projection, and I do think we need to start showing that (esp. in the GCC and the Persian Gulf) so as to assert ourselves as a bigger power. However, we need an economy to sustain and earn that respect too.
Agreed....instead of going for an interm solution lets double down on FC31.since turkish ew has been doing well on the libyan and the syrian fronts integrate it onto the FC31 along with SOM J....a perfect strike package for the long term
 
Aug 19, 2012
9,467
127
18,960
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
IMO ... I think we all need to come to terms with the reality that there is no new fighter coming.

The fiscal capacity doesn't support it.

Sure, the PAF can buy Erieye AEW&C, but it's $90 m a system, not $150-200 m per jet across a couple dozen units. And in the case of the JH-7A or J-10CE, though comparatively lower cost, is still a huge expense, and it may be too much for a bridge or stopgap solution. For it to pay-off, it needs to be a permanent solution, not a temporary one.

That aside, the PAF should take the responsible step of hard-coding the most cost-effective path to a NGFA.

I think the ideal would be entering a partnership with China on the J-35, though we'll need to convince them to let us into that program (with the desired offset and co-production benefits).

However, the benefit of joining the J-35 is that you leverage the PLAN's economies-of-scale to lower the cost as well as get a naval-ready fighter. I would get the PAF to totally double-down on the J-35 and seek a huge fleet of its own (180+) and, in turn, pivot AZM towards the development of advanced drones.

As for the PN, unless we're talking about an aircraft carrier, I don't think it's worth it for it to maintain its own fighters. The PAF would likely have to maintain and operate those jets, so ultimately, it doesn't change much from simply allowing the PN to call-on the PAF.

But I do support the idea of an aircraft carrier, but 15-20 years down the line. It's a luxury for power-projection, and I do think we need to start showing that (esp. in the GCC and the Persian Gulf) so as to assert ourselves as a bigger power. However, we need an economy to sustain and earn that respect too.
We have had two senior members both claiming differently, hinting at possible arrival of two different J-xx series platform. This acquisition was justified on the basis that it's required to unlock certain capability on in house platforms.
Now if we look at it this way, put this J-xx series fighter into our PN doctrine or coastal watch doctrine it would make sense.

1) It will open a separate product line / project line, Weapon systems, avionics, software integration, all can be done & it will worth directing the resources towards this project. This system will come with it;s own set of loadout and integrating our ingeniously built system would worth it.

2) It will be a long range deep strike A/C in Heavier or Medium category, capable to serve as launching platform for multiple weapon systems / C.M with specific maritime strike role. Capable to truck the bombs & equally defend itself should the need arise & Return to Base.

3) This J-XX series platform will NOT be a stop gap platform like JH- 7 (@nascar 42 ). Infact it will serve us good for another 30 yrs to come.

4) Procurement of these J-xx series platform can be procured in enough numbers to ease off pressure from aging Mirages. and we will continue to use J-xx for a long term unlike JH-7 which will be out gunned in next 1 decade or less than that.

5) Most importantly it can allow TOT from J-XX to our JFT program
 
Last edited:

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,890
73
22,977
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
We have had two senior members both claiming differently, hinting at possible arrival of two J-xx series platforms. This acquisition was justified on the basis that it's required to unlock certain capability on in house platforms.
Now if we look at it this way, put this J-xx series fighter into our PN doctrine or coastal watch doctrine it would make sense.

1) It will open a separate product line / project line, Weapon systems, avionics, software integration, all can be done & it will worth directing the resources towards this project. This system will come with it;s own set of loadout and integrating our ingeniously built system would worth it.

2) It will be a long range deep strike A/C in Heavier or Medium category, capable to serve as launching platform for multiple weapon systems / C.M with specific maritime strike role. Capable to truck the bombs & equally defend itself should the need arise & Return to Base.

3) This J-XX series platform will NOT be a stop gap platform like JH- 7 (@nascar 42 ). Infact it will serve us good for another 30 yrs to come.

4) Procurement of these J-xx series platform can be procured in enough numbers to ease off pressure from aging Mirages. and we will continue to use J-xx for a long term unlike JH-7 which will be out gunned in next 1 decade or less than that.

5) Most importantly it can allow TOT from J-XX to our JFT program
The issue with fighters is that unless you achieve economies of scale, it'll get too costly to support long-term.

The fixed cost of the production, maintenance, integration, testing, etc facilities is a lot. It says something when even the US is only producing one NGFA (F-35) at a time.

So, for a NGFA to work for the PAF, it'll need to bet everything on that one fighter and produce it in large numbers. I think (esp. with the JF-17s serving) the starting point would be around 90 to replace the older F-16s by the 2040s, but as the JF-17s age, the numbers should go up to 180-270.

The future is to standardize on one manned platform with sufficient range and payload, and from there, add lots of advanced drones to support it. So, our indigenous development should steer towards drone tech, e.g. loyal wingmen, deep strike drones, decoys, EA/ECM drones, refueling drones etc.
 

The Raven

FULL MEMBER
Mar 31, 2020
544
5
1,231
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
We have had two senior members both claiming differently, hinting at possible arrival of two J-xx series platforms. This acquisition was justified on the basis that it's required to unlock certain capability on in house platforms.
Now if we look at it this way, put this J-xx series fighter into our PN doctrine or coastal watch doctrine it would make sense.

1) It will open a separate product line / project line, Weapon systems, avionics, software integration, all can be done & it will worth directing the resources towards this project. This system will come with it;s own set of loadout and integrating our ingeniously built system would worth it.

2) It will be a long range deep strike A/C in Heavier or Medium category, capable to serve as launching platform for multiple weapon systems / C.M with specific maritime strike role. Capable to truck the bombs & equally defend itself should the need arise & Return to Base.

3) This J-XX series platform will NOT be a stop gap platform like JH- 7 (@nascar 42 ). Infact it will serve us good for another 30 yrs to come.

4) Procurement of these J-xx series platform can be procured in enough numbers to ease off pressure from aging Mirages. and we will continue to use J-xx for a long term unlike JH-7 which will be out gunned in next 1 decade or less than that.

5) Most importantly it can allow TOT from J-XX to our JFT program
That would certainly make a lot more sense than the now defunct JH-7 design.

The issue with fighters is that unless you achieve economies of scale, it'll get too costly to support long-term.

The fixed cost of the production, maintenance, integration, testing, etc facilities is a lot. It says something when even the US is only producing one NGFA (F-35) at a time.

So, for a NGFA to work for the PAF, it'll need to bet everything on that one fighter and produce it in large numbers. I think (esp. with the JF-17s serving) the starting point would be around 90 to replace the older F-16s by the 2040s, but as the JF-17s age, the numbers should go up to 180-270.

The future is to standardize on one manned platform with sufficient range and payload, and from there, add lots of advanced drones to support it. So, our indigenous development should steer towards drone tech, e.g. loyal wingmen, deep strike drones, decoys, EA/ECM drones, refueling drones etc.
I don't think it would be an "NGFA" type, rather a 4.5 gen aircraft type. That could certainly work as it would fit in between the JF-17 and the Vipers, while work progresses on the actual NGFA under project AZM. Considering the number of Mirages and F-7 types due for replacement, it would work, as the considerable work being done to keep the Mirages and F-7s flying could be diverted to a J-xx type.
 
Aug 19, 2012
9,467
127
18,960
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The issue with fighters is that unless you achieve economies of scale, it'll get too costly to support long-term.

The fixed cost of the production, maintenance, integration, testing, etc facilities is a lot. It says something when even the US is only producing one NGFA (F-35) at a time.

So, for a NGFA to work for the PAF, it'll need to bet everything on that one fighter and produce it in large numbers. I think (esp. with the JF-17s serving) the starting point would be around 90 to replace the older F-16s by the 2040s, but as the JF-17s age, the numbers should go up to 180-270.

The future is to standardize on one manned platform with sufficient range and payload, and from there, add lots of advanced drones to support it. So, our indigenous development should steer towards drone tech, e.g. loyal wingmen, deep strike drones, decoys, EA/ECM drones, refueling drones etc.
Ofcourse, all these are valid points. but then all this discussion would fall into PAF's new doctrine & defining future needs. I do agree 100% with what you have always said on our future needs.

I wanted to stay as relevant as possible to our topic & discussion on Jh-7 procurement for PAF. Assuming that there is indeed a new fighter coming, how it would fit in our current doctrine.
 

RJV

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Mar 11, 2019
9
0
13
Country
Pakistan
Location
Qatar
Hi,

When a poster comments that a strike aircraft is old---technically and tactically he does not understand air combat and does not know much about the usage & utility of a strike aircraft---. It just becomes a knee jerk reaction---it is old---.

F16 is around 20 + years older than the JH7A and around 13 years older than the JH7---.

Mirages in Paf inventory are close to 30 + years older than the JH7A's and around 18 years older than the JH7's---.
Argument is invalid because PAF is stuck with Mirages. Given a choice, it would replace these as soon as possible. Is there any other air force using Mirage 3 or 5 ??

For F-16s, US has a vast history of wars and aircraft building. So even if it is 20 years older then JH-7, it is still advanced than JH-7. Simple visual cues such as how body is blended with wing, and the use of LERX in F-16. What was the first Chinese combat aircraft to use these features?? So if F-16 is older than JH-7 how does it became an argument for JH-7 usage ?

I think Royal Australian Air force is also having knee-jerk reaction by retiring strike platform F-111 and going with F/A-18s and F-35s !!!!

Hi,

Why are you not being honest with @RJV and tell him the truth---.

Nations fortunes are not built on experiments---this is not child play---. Why would one spend a dollar when a dime would do the same job---.

That poster is totally clueless as to how wars are fought---. Ours is a now problem and he is bring out a 10 billion dollar problem of building something fro scratch that is going to be worthless---.

Sirs---wars are fought with what was built 1020-30-40-50 years ago that you trained hard on it for 5 to 8 10-20-30-40-50 years to learn to use it to its best and not on something that maybe manufactured in the future---.
Ours is always a “now” problem for last 70 years. Will it stop us from planning? Somebody took the initiative for Al-Khalid, somebody started JF-17 program. Someone in this country decided to build nuclear capability. From HATF 1 (80 KM range) till now with Ababeel(MIRVs) do they stop to think about our war is NOW and no point in spending money on R&D? On improving tactical and strategic capabilities?

Following your logic, why bother with JH-7. Just induct retired A-5s. these would add even more years of experience to fight the war properly. In fact why stop at A-5, lets recall B-57s and F-86 Sabres. Imagine the years of experience and perfection we would get with these to fight the war.

So behind all this rhetoric the actual argument you bought is that what I suggested is a 10 billion dollar solution. Yes, it is expensive and risky to invest on a totally new platform but think about it long term. Once you have a capable airframe, it can serve for years to come with upgrades. F-16 or JF-17 are clear examples of this. A flanker sized platform with low RCS and internal bays would usually have the first shot capability in standoff with Flankers or Mig-29s (Most likely types to be encountered over sea). Our AEW and ASW assets would require air cover. JH-7A is not going to give that. We can choose J-11 or J-16s as a low risk option if new platform development is not feasible. But I think that in a J-11 vs MKI encounter, we might now have the advantage of first shot. Investing in a platform now would provide better ROI in years to come. We already did our first JV in form of JF-17. We can do another one. Nothing i mentioned in original post is export restricted or novel for Chinese aviation industry.
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,890
73
22,977
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Argument is invalid because PAF is stuck with Mirages. Given a choice, it would replace these as soon as possible. Is there any other air force using Mirage 3 or 5 ??

For F-16s, US has a vast history of wars and aircraft building. So even if it is 20 years older then JH-7, it is still advanced than JH-7. Simple visual cues such as how body is blended with wing, and the use of LERX in F-16. What was the first Chinese combat aircraft to use these features?? So if F-16 is older than JH-7 how does it became an argument for JH-7 usage ?

I think Royal Australian Air force is also having knee-jerk reaction by retiring strike platform F-111 and going with F/A-18s and F-35s !!!!



Ours is always a “now” problem for last 70 years. Will it stop us from planning? Somebody took the initiative for Al-Khalid, somebody started JF-17 program. Someone in this country decided to build nuclear capability. From HATF 1 (80 KM range) till now with Ababeel(MIRVs) do they stop to think about our war is NOW and no point in spending money on R&D? On improving tactical and strategic capabilities?

Following your logic, why bother with JH-7. Just induct retired A-5s. these would add even more years of experience to fight the war properly. In fact why stop at A-5, lets recall B-57s and F-86 Sabres. Imagine the years of experience and perfection we would get with these to fight the war.

So behind all this rhetoric the actual argument you bought is that what I suggested is a 10 billion dollar solution. Yes, it is expensive and risky to invest on a totally new platform but think about it long term. Once you have a capable airframe, it can serve for years to come with upgrades. F-16 or JF-17 are clear examples of this. A flanker sized platform with low RCS and internal bays would usually have the first shot capability in standoff with Flankers or Mig-29s (Most likely types to be encountered over sea). Our AEW and ASW assets would require air cover. JH-7A is not going to give that. We can choose J-11 or J-16s as a low risk option if new platform development is not feasible. But I think that in a J-11 vs MKI encounter, we might now have the advantage of first shot. Investing in a platform now would provide better ROI in years to come. We already did our first JV in form of JF-17. We can do another one. Nothing i mentioned in original post is export restricted or novel for Chinese aviation industry.
Speaking of current platforms, why not spend the money you would've on the JH-7 on mastering the JF-17's flight control technology so that you can integrate Ra'ad II, supersonic AShM, etc, to it? Once that's live, you don't have a need for JH-7A, just crank up the JF-17's output.
 

RJV

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Mar 11, 2019
9
0
13
Country
Pakistan
Location
Qatar
Speaking of current platforms, why not spend the money you would've on the JH-7 on mastering the JF-17's flight control technology so that you can integrate Ra'ad II, supersonic AShM, etc, to it? Once that's live, you don't have a need for JH-7A, just crank up the JF-17's output.
Well if its a choice just between JH-7 and JF-17, my vote is for sure is investing on JF-17.

But realistically how much can you put on JF-17 ?? This poor guy is already flying on RD-93. Its a good air-frame but how much more it can take? Existing platforms like Flankers or J-11,15,16 seems capable in terms of range and weapon load out but in flight they stick out like sore thumb due to heavy RCS.

So something around the size of flanker but with low RCS would be ideal for Pakistan for years to come.
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,890
73
22,977
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Well if its a choice just between JH-7 and JF-17, my vote is for sure is investing on JF-17.

But realistically how much can you put on JF-17 ?? This poor guy is already flying on RD-93. Its a good air-frame but how much more it can take? Existing platforms like Flankers or J-11,15,16 seems capable in terms of range and weapon load out but in flight they stick out like sore thumb due to heavy RCS.

So something around the size of flanker but with low RCS would be ideal for Pakistan for years to come.
The JF-17 can carry SOWs such as Ra'ad II for sure. The issue is on our end, i.e., only now it looks like we're building the capacity to integrate our choice of weapons and subsystems to the fighter. So, if we can solve that issue, we should be set until we get a proper NGFA online.

In terms of the latter, anything modeled on the FC-31/J-35 or TF-X would be fine.
 

Armchair

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 4, 2014
3,330
8
5,411
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Turkey
I beg to differ. Not every aircraft has to have an MRO facility. Pak first got the F-6 rebuild factory. Before that there was no MRO facility in Pak. Later the Mirage Rebuild Factory (MRF). Many countries of the world fly fighter and strike aircraft without having rebuild capabilities. If something breaks, you buy a spare from the supplier. If it needs to be rebuilt, you send it to the supplier.

This in fact, is how vast majority of countries deal with their fighter fleets. What is coming won't have MRO facilities in Pak for sure.
 

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
19,832
160
54,393
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
More than a decade MK I remember your discussions from the decade before this. Those were some good days.

You pioneered the whole concept of attacking India's coast with the JH-7. Pity the PAF / PN never listened.

@MastanKhan the "Mastan Khan JF-17" thread was renamed recently with your name removed. I was surprised to see that. Such a shame.

The aircraft itself would have been an interesting JF-17 version although of much less utility than the JH-7. Jh-7 basically is a strategic weapon in the Indo-Pak context. Something our tacticians never understood despite you banging your head on them for at least 15 odd years if not more.

Hi,

I have often wondered who you are---. The information and understanding that you have does not come from reading Jane's that was sold by the generals orderlies still wrapped in its plastic bag---.

And to top it off to understand what a gem of an aircraft the JH7 A is---is out of the ordinary---.

someone commented here that the australians gave away their F111 and got the F18's---well the poster did not realize that the dimension of the threat for the australians changed fo them to make the change---.

And for that very reason we got the mirages from australia---.

The real issue over here is the Suzuki Mehran mentality of most of the pakistani public---. When this car is the luxury family mover of a car---it is very difficult for the public to have a bigger vision---.

Oh by the way---a perfectly well flying condition JH7A to pakistan in two sqdrn strength was of zero cost---and upgraded one with modern electronics and an aesa radar and re-furbished aircraft $4 million to 8 million dollars a piece depending on the type of aesa or non aesa and the type of refurbishment it would need and that too was on soft loans.

A new JH7A was in the 20 mil dollars range plus aesa equipped radar.

Now just remember---95% of the weapons sued by the JH7A are already in use by the Paf---.

One day I am going to find out who you are---. I have not paid much attention towards it as of now but your casual non chalant style with an air of cockiness about the subject says that you are no ordinary Joe---.

About the dual personality comment the other day---I believe it was in 1989---I worked with a salesperson---I did not like him because of his personality because he was different than me but a good salesperson though or mayeb I felt insecure in front of him---.

Comes over to me and says---" you are struggling with customer---you need to stop being so stiff---in order for you to succeed in this business you need to learn to be a Chameleon and don't take your customers too seriously---and don't feel insulted by the rude comments---".

His helpful comment totally blew me away---that day I learnt not be be a pakistani of thought and mind and realized that there is always more than what meets the eye---. Demeanor is just a facade that we put in front of us.

That guy made me think yo stop on a dime in mid stride think assess and change direction while in the same step---without prejudice---. Oh wow---what a life changer that was---.

IMO ... I think we all need to come to terms with the reality that there is no new fighter coming.

The fiscal capacity doesn't support it.

Sure, the PAF can buy Erieye AEW&C, but it's $90 m a system, not $150-200 m per jet across a couple dozen units. And in the case of the JH-7A or J-10CE, though comparatively lower cost, is still a huge expense, and it may be too much for a bridge or stopgap solution. For it to pay-off, it needs to be a permanent solution, not a temporary one.

That aside, the PAF should take the responsible step of hard-coding the most cost-effective path to a NGFA.

I think the ideal would be entering a partnership with China on the J-35, though we'll need to convince them to let us into that program (with the desired offset and co-production benefits).

However, the benefit of joining the J-35 is that you leverage the PLAN's economies-of-scale to lower the cost as well as get a naval-ready fighter. I would get the PAF to totally double-down on the J-35 and seek a huge fleet of its own (180+) and, in turn, pivot AZM towards the development of advanced drones.

As for the PN, unless we're talking about an aircraft carrier, I don't think it's worth it for it to maintain its own fighters. The PAF would likely have to maintain and operate those jets, so ultimately, it doesn't change much from simply allowing the PN to call-on the PAF.

But I do support the idea of an aircraft carrier, but 15-20 years down the line. It's a luxury for power-projection, and I do think we need to start showing that (esp. in the GCC and the Persian Gulf) so as to assert ourselves as a bigger power. However, we need an economy to sustain and earn that respect too.
Hi,

Young man allow me to stir things up---a permanent solution is always of and in the frame of mind and not in the equipment itself ---.

You have to plan and adjust yourself to what you can get and what to make of its utility---.

You do that in every day of your life---if you don't then ask your parents or grand parents----about how they compromised in their life choices---to what they wanted and to what they settled for---.

Paf has always been of treasonous mindset & actions towards the Pak navy---it cannot be and should not be trusted anymore---.

Well if its a choice just between JH-7 and JF-17, my vote is for sure is investing on JF-17.

But realistically how much can you put on JF-17 ?? This poor guy is already flying on RD-93. Its a good air-frame but how much more it can take? Existing platforms like Flankers or J-11,15,16 seems capable in terms of range and weapon load out but in flight they stick out like sore thumb due to heavy RCS.

So something around the size of flanker but with low RCS would be ideal for Pakistan for years to come.
Hi,

Flankers cannot carry the load of the JH7A's---. In the chinese naval excercises---the JH7A's have outdone the flankers---.

Now why does china wants to replace the JH7A's with flankers---for the same reason the US congress wants to replace the A-10 warthog with the F-35's---.

China wants to show show off to its public its new toys and show them what heavy defence spending has produced for the public---.

If china pushes the JH7A's forward and showed its true colors and what it can do---there will be outcry in the public if the Jh7A can do tghis---then why do we need to spend so much on the flankers---.

Military weapons are not built for show and strut---they are built to operate in a certain arena during a certain time against a certain type of opposition to overwhelm the opponent---.
 

Joe Shearer

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 19, 2009
24,283
144
40,244
Country
India
Location
India
Hi,

I have often wondered who you are---. The information and understanding that you have does not come from reading Jane's that was sold by the generals orderlies still wrapped in its plastic bag---.

And to top it off to understand what a gem of an aircraft the JH7 A is---is out of the ordinary---.

someone commented here that the australians gave away their F111 and got the F18's---well the poster did not realize that the dimension of the threat for the australians changed fo them to make the change---.

And for that very reason we got the mirages from australia---.

The real issue over here is the Suzuki Mehran mentality of most of the pakistani public---. When this car is the luxury family mover of a car---it is very difficult for the public to have a bigger vision---.

Oh by the way---a perfectly well flying condition JH7A to pakistan in two sqdrn strength was of zero cost---and upgraded one with modern electronics and an aesa radar and re-furbished aircraft $4 million to 8 million dollars a piece depending on the type of aesa or non aesa and the type of refurbishment it would need and that too was on soft loans.

A new JH7A was in the 20 mil dollars range plus aesa equipped radar.

Now just remember---95% of the weapons sued by the JH7A are already in use by the Paf---.
One day I am going to find out who you are---. I have not paid much attention towards it as of now but your casual non chalant style with an air of cockiness about the subject says that you are no ordinary Joe---.
If you please, dear Sir, would you mind awfully changing the name in the bit above to Thomas, Richard or Harold?

About the dual personality comment the other day---I believe it was in 1989---I worked with a salesperson---I did not like him because of his personality because he was different than me but a good salesperson though or mayeb I felt insecure in front of him---.

Comes over to me and says---" you are struggling with customer---you need to stop being so stiff---in order for you to succeed in this business you need to learn to be a Chameleon and don't take your customers too seriously---and don't feel insulted by the rude comments---".

His helpful comment totally blew me away---that day I learnt not be be a pakistani of thought and mind and realized that there is always more than what meets the eye---. Demeanor is just a facade that we put in front of us.

That guy made me think yo stop on a dime in mid stride think assess and change direction while in the same step---without prejudice---. Oh wow---what a life changer that was---.



Hi,

Young man allow me to stir things up---a permanent solution is always of and in the frame of mind and not in the equipment itself ---.

You have to plan and adjust yourself to what you can get and what to make of its utility---.

You do that in every day of your life---if you don't then ask your parents or grand parents----about how they compromised in their life choices---to what they wanted and to what they settled for---.

Paf has always been of treasonous mindset & actions towards the Pak navy---it cannot be and should not be trusted anymore---.



Hi,

Flankers cannot carry the load of the JH7A's---. In the chinese naval excercises---the JH7A's have outdone the flankers---.

Now why does china wants to replace the JH7A's with flankers---for the same reason the US congress wants to replace the A-10 warthog with the F-35's---.

China wants to show show off to its public its new toys and show them what heavy defence spending has produced for the public---.

If china pushes the JH7A's forward and showed its true colors and what it can do---there will be outcry in the public if the Jh7A can do tghis---then why do we need to spend so much on the flankers---.

Military weapons are not built for show and strut---they are built to operate in a certain arena during a certain time against a certain type of opposition to overwhelm the opponent---.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom