Off topic question, BilalWe should continually upgrade the electronics and weapons suites, but we should try avoiding another long developmental period (which we had with the JF-17B and Block-III).
Basically, if there's a JF-17 Block-IV, it should basically be a Block-III/B with an upgraded AESA radar, avionics, etc. The risk of another big upgrade (Block 2 to Block 3) is that we'll divert resources away from actually sourcing a clean-sheet replacement for the JF-17s post-2040 (which isn't far -- only 19 years away).
The benefit of a clean-sheet design is that we can ensure our next mainstay fighter has everything it needs to take on future IAF and IN threats.
Israel hasn't used its entire airforce against Gaza, no airforce deploys its entire assets in one go, not even the USAF has 100% availability, let alone the indians.Israel has been striking 2x2 Gaza using PGMs, and has needed 150+ aircrafts, and you are advocating smaller airforce for a foe like India!
Not sure to be honest. The integration of a new Russian engine would require the input and involvement of their engineers in our project. We might be open to it, but as would Russia (which can have implications re: India) and, as importantly, the US (so we avoid any CAATSA-related issues).Off topic question, Bilal
Do you think Russia will ever release the AL-41F1 engines to power AZM project or the FC-31?
imo such an engine will altogether remove some of the issues related to the fc-31 and will allow Pakistan to produce its next generation fighter by 2030. Basically, a pakistan/China designed airframe, sharing many subsystem commonalities with TF-X powered by a new generation of Russian engines.
We don't have an official source saying they're of different sizes either. We can't prove a negative, so we go with the default (same size) until there's new evidence.Are members who claimed we didn't went for Gripen E/F route are sure that size of block 3 is same as block 2?
Atleast I failed find a single authentic source/ex veteran saying that block 2 & 3 are of same size.
We don't have much information available regarding this but its possible paf tried to do joint project with J10 and China refused as its their main 4th generation asset like the J20.Another way to look at it would have been to simply join the J-10 programme, instead of the developing the JF-17, and licence manufacture the J-10 in Pakistan. That would have allowed significant cost synergies with China in terms of service, support, and weapons, and streamline the airforce into essentially two 4.5 gen fighter types, the Viper variants and the J-10, with incremental blocks and upgrades, similar to the Viper.
It could be argued that the PAF couldn't operate two 4.5 gen platforms in sufficient numbers to replace the Mirages and F-7P/PGs, but consider the cost so far in developing and manufacturing the JF-17, it wouldn't have been that different in my view. In addition, you wouldn't need a like-for-like replacement of all the J-7s and Mirages, a smaller number of J-10s are more effective in terms of capability than a larger number of lower tech fighters, especially when you include force multipliers into the mix (datalink, AWACS, aerial refuelling, etc).
keyboard warriors will never except this fact but even today Chinese gain a lot from our experiences and expertise.No you don't. You've nitpicked a post to create an argument out of nothing. You guys couldn't write a software for a HUD unit for F7P back in the 80s. PAF engineers wrote it.
Create another thread on things you learned from us. It'll be interesting.
here is an idea(as ideas are cheap) what about ripping of the idea and design of F36 Kingsnake?? I mean if that design doesn't have Pakistan written all over it then i know naught.IMO ... for a 'JF-17 NG' to be a success, it would basically have to be a redesign of the JF-17.
The current JF-17 is a compromised solution by design so as to save costs (e.g., stable design, limited range and payload, etc). It's a semi-modern solution in that it delivers the right electronics and weapons, but for it carry next-generation needs, it'd need a lot of reworking.
This could basically be a project in the vein of the Tejas Mk2 and Gripen E/F.
IMO, a workable alternative is to call a moratorium on any further JF-17 design work, but instead, extend the production run to 250-300 using the JF-17B and Block-III combination. Let's freeze any further work and start saving money via economies-of-scale and a reduced development overhead.
In tandem, we can venture into a joint-project for a twin-engine NGFA (e.g., TFX) and, in parallel, start actual studies on an eventual JF-17 replacement. The cool thing about the TFX is that it presents us an opportunity to ride shotgun with the Turks and basically learn the fighter development process.
We can re-apply those learnings to our own indigenous single-engine NGFA (which we can slate for a 2040 or later timeframe by developing the inputs on our own, albeit slowly). If we co-invest in the inputs, we can also re-use some of the TFX stuff, e.g., TR Motor engines.
tbh I'm not sure what our actual bandwidth is...here is an idea(as ideas are cheap) what about ripping of the idea and design of F36 Kingsnake?? I mean if that design doesn't have Pakistan written all over it then i know naught.
Here’s one for spice. PShamim once mentioned an F16XL type evolution of JF17. I know it’s not happening or ever even came close to happening but then again it was PShamim so I would assume that the idea was at least toyed with.tbh I'm not sure what our actual bandwidth is...
The PAF says it's working on AZM, so we can assume that's one program that may or may not be collaborative with another country.
Anything besides that would have to be a separate project. I don't know if we have the resources to sustain 2 new fighter programs. If anything, a new JF-17 variant (as @Bilal. mentioned) could work in this context (i.e., a 0.5 project since the JF-17 is already in place.
Is that a serious statementThe question mark is for a 4.5th generation medium weight jet. We do have 18 f16 block 52s to deal with Rafael but its not enough.
Thanks. I don’t think engine purchases will trigger CAATSA sanctions. As I understand, it’s geared towards major defense purchases and not simply subsystems like engines, sensors etc.Not sure to be honest. The integration of a new Russian engine would require the input and involvement of their engineers in our project. We might be open to it, but as would Russia (which can have implications re: India) and, as importantly, the US (so we avoid any CAATSA-related issues).
We don't have an official source saying they're of different sizes either. We can't prove a negative, so we go with the default (same size) until there's new evidence.
Yep that's why I think them freezing the JF-17B and Block-III as-is, and then extending the production run, is possible. It's a good low-cost fighter, and future blocks would continue to have better electronics.Well despite all the rumors' about Blk-3 here, the reality is that PAF is extremely happy with Blk-3, and we will see these in large numbers. There might be another jet on the horizon simply because of its additional range and capabilities.
caatsa needs to be neutralized. trade cannot be allowed to be weapons. best to stop trading with the u.s. & europe, concentrate on increasing trade with China, fast east, Turkey, Russia, Central Asia, Middle East, Africa & South America. u.s. & e.u. & u.s. should be sent a clear message that trade with them will only happen on OUR terms. To do this, we need to weaponize our own economy on a war footing so that every one would want to trade with us.Thanks. I don’t engine purchases will trigger CAATSA sanctions. As I understand, it’s geared towards major defense purchases and not simply subsystems like engines, sensors etc.
Do you think the WS-15 & WS-19 will mature within the next 5-years for them to be contenders for the AZM project? @Deino
Why werent indian asking the same question from IAF in 2010?Is that a serious statement
Single engined F16 with mechanical scan radar like APG68 and standard 15 year old Amram c5 bvr
twin engined Rafale with REB2 AESA radar Specrea Ew suite Meteore and Scalp cruise missle capability
The only F16 that could take on Rafale is the F16/70
Why else do you think USA are looking at Kingsnake 4,75 gen fighters