Re: the F-7P/PGs and Mirages, we still rely on the OEM for critical inputs.IMO this would not bring any thing new to PAF. Because the 40% that is imported for the JF-17 consist of engine and associated systems.
Just a thought that PAF has been rebuilding the Mirage III and V's for the past 30 years so we must have a similar project too with F-7's and JF-17.
If you are saying that PAF lacks this capability then how did PAF rebuild the SAAB 2000 without any hep from the Original Manufacturer who had declared it as write off ?
For example, the SLEP we've done on the Mirage III/5s came thanks to aerostructures (e.g., wings) from other airframes. As for the Saab 2000 repairs, it was a mix of local inputs (e.g., cabling work) and, again, using aerostructures from written-off or surplus airframes from other places.
We don't have jigs for any of these aircraft to suddenly go and manufacture their parts -- so the parts are obviously coming from other sources. That said, we learned a lot about how each of these airframes work, especially the Saab 2000. The PAF took the initiative to figure that aircraft out and design its repair order independently of the OEM. However, even with an in-house 'design' we still needed to import inputs.
Once you develop the capacity to undertake design, development, and manufacturing, you can move onto exactly that next step. If we had taken the J-10 path with the goal of a local sustainment (where we design a repair or upgrade, produce its inputs, and implement it independently), we could potentially have built the infrastructure to design our own fighter.The Israeli's were able to steal the research and designs of the Mirage III and V to produce the Nesher and KFIR. No one was able to enforce any paneities for this.
What IF PAF decided to manufacture with new composites and modified variant of the Mirage III or V similar to what the Iranians are doing continuously with the F-5 and AH-1 Cobra helicopters.
Install the RD33 engine to this aircraft, production research and manpower cost would be low as we already have trained man power for the Mirages. Composites and the design modifications would lower the RCS of these aircraft. You have a cost effective solution also the older frames of mirage can be retrofitted by these composites and PAF would have increased the production capabilities on a scale not seen so far in Pakistan.
It could start off as an experimental platform using whatever we find off-the-shelf (e.g., RD-93 engines, or Grifo radars, etc). We use the experimental to learn flight control tech, more about airframe design, etc, and then move onto a proper next-gen platform.
Don't confuse the South Africa of today with the South Africa of the 1980s. The South Africa of the 1980s designed and implemented a total upgrade of the Mirage III/5 -- i.e., Cheetah. It then designed and built a heavyweight attack helicopter (Rooivalk). It also developed the Raptor-I and Raptor-II SOWs -- i.e., the H-2 and H-4 we use in the PAF today -- and may have helped us with our cruise missile program. Towards the end of the Apartheid-era, they were developing their own fighter -- Carver.Brother what have South Africa produced? They procured JAS39's and those too are mostly grounded.
Though their defence industry waned, their R&D base is still strong, e.g., CSIR. We can learn a lot.
This idea, "J-10 do not bring any thing new to what JF-17 has brought" is not the PAF's stance, it is the view of individual -- and now retired -- PAF officers. The PAF's stance comes from the CAS.This statement of yours contradicts PAF stance J-10 do not bring any thing new to what JF-17 has brought.
Moreover you tend to say that JF-17 project has not provided PAF to build indigenous fighter aircraft.
I know you did not intend this but it surely points to this.
If PAF needs something new then, ask Turkey as they have the experience of producing composite structures for the F-35 fuse that with what the Chinese RAM on JF-17 design. This Aircraft would not be 100% stealth but 4.8 gen.
In 2007, ACM Tanvir Mahmood Ahmad said the PAF wants a "Plus One" fighter to complement the F-16 and JF-17, and that they selected the FC-20 (aka J-10A).
In 2017, ACM Sohail Aman said the PAF needs another fighter, and it has Chinese and Russian options. In 2016, the PAF told IHS Jane's that it wanted 30-40 new aircraft, and that the Su-35 and J-10 were options.
In 2020, ACM Mujahid Anwar Khan said if the situation calls for it, the PAF would acquire another fighter type. When there literally is no other type available to the PAF, he was clearly talking about the J-10CE.
Secondly, don't confuse the expertise to manufacture a fighter -- which we gained from the JF-17 -- with the expertise to design and develop one. These are two totally different concepts.
Yes, with the JF-17, the PAF learned a lot about the process of manufacturing fighters -- e.g., supply chain controls, acquiring jigs (and maybe even designing and building jigs), quality controls, etc.
However, design and development moves into actually creating inputs, such as flight control systems, or composite materials, or electronics such as radar and avionics, and so on.
The PAF didn't learn much about these areas through the JF-17. The proof is in the pudding. You need to invest billions of dollars into these areas over at least 10-15 years to see results -- there's no record of the investment or output.
The PAF itself was happy with this because the goal was to get enough fighters to beat on India. As @SQ8 had said several times on the forum, "it doesn't matter where it comes from, as long as it strikes who we need it to strike" (or along those lines). On this basis, the JF-17 is adequate -- as is al-Khalid, Shaheen, etc.
However, don't confuse that benefit with the benefit of R&D.
The latter is a whole other ballgame, and it's not one Pakistan's been playing (aside from the nuclear program, which was a huge exception because we built a lot of expertise and capacity before developing our weapons).
The issue isn't twin-engine. Rather, the issue is that the PAF never operated a fighter with a MTOW north of 30,000 kg (which -- bar the F-35 -- are all twinsies). IMHO, the design goal of AZM is exactly such a fighter, i.e., a long-range attack and maritime ops-capable warbird.Many thanks for this. I've previously cursorily read about both A-5 and F-6, but somehow never realized they were twin engine aircrafts!
Nevertheless, we don't have recent operational experience, and certainly not with any modern twin engine jets. Both the A-5 and F-6 were 50s/60s designs which makes them 3rd gen.