What's new

New fighter for PAF Doctrine?

Neurath

FULL MEMBER
Sep 19, 2020
416
1
670
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Why not wait for 2-3 years and go for FC-31 instead, a far better deal compared to the J10, that is, if we suppose that PAF actually is getting J10s?
Anybody here willing to answer?
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,226
64
19,340
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
I couldn't explain further or wouldn't acknowledge the official standing of my comments but for one point. I see Mid-Heavy in different aspects. Given the expected dual engines, NGF is truly going to be Heavy class. In mid weight category, I see J-10CE & Vipers but given the payload & role, these birds can compensate for Heavy category till NGF. My opinion or classification is driven by the payload & mission requirement like Mid to High. The 4.5++ can do the job till NGF. I cannot comment further onto what really happened back then or clearly they do so now. However, in my opinion, SU-35 wasn't denied but our requirements were different to mate several goodies. I can be wrong in above post. For the rest of the things like possible Mid to High class in East & West and whether EFT or anything else, we will have to wait for a while.
If the PAF acquires the J-10CE, then I think it would operate in combination with the NGFA, especially if the NGFA results in a heavyweight (MTOW: 32,000 kg+) design. For now, it appears that every force is planning to operate 4.5+ gen and NGFAs together.

If the PAF is following this path, then it'll be interesting to see what happens to the JF-17 in the long-term: Would we totally bifurcate the fleet between 'heavy' (NGFA) and 'medium' (J-10CE) aircraft, or develop another lightweight fighter (e.g., '6th-gen') to supplant the JF-17?
 

The Eagle

SENIOR MODERATOR
Oct 15, 2015
20,857
172
38,789
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
If the PAF acquires the J-10CE, then I think it would operate in combination with the NGFA, especially if the NGFA results in a heavyweight (MTOW: 32,000 kg+) design. For now, it appears that every force is planning to operate 4.5+ gen and NGFAs together.

If the PAF is following this path, then it'll be interesting to see what happens to the JF-17 in the long-term: Would we totally bifurcate the fleet between 'heavy' (NGFA) and 'medium' (J-10CE) aircraft, or develop another lightweight fighter (e.g., '6th-gen') to supplant the JF-17?
If I have to imagine future warfare and tactics/capabilities being deployed with smart yet more offensive approach; I have to pen down my imagination with an opinion like operating 4.5++ Gen beside NGFAs and the roles of the likes of fighters in class of Thunders will be taken over by AI/loyal wingman. May be I am dreaming but this how I dreamt for supplanting Thunder when served to the fullest. But that seems to be happening too far in future and that 6th Gen approach is matching perfectly. There will be always need of a workhorse like Thunder to save operational costs and this is where, I found ourselves investing with something on mind that the Fighter we need should be built with next 10 to 15 years tech advancement.
 

Scorpiooo

FULL MEMBER
Apr 22, 2020
345
0
478
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
If the PAF acquires the J-10CE, then I think it would operate in combination with the NGFA, especially if the NGFA results in a heavyweight (MTOW: 32,000 kg+) design. For now, it appears that every force is planning to operate 4.5+ gen and NGFAs together.

If the PAF is following this path, then it'll be interesting to see what happens to the JF-17 in the long-term: Would we totally bifurcate the fleet between 'heavy' (NGFA) and 'medium' (J-10CE) aircraft, or develop another lightweight fighter (e.g., '6th-gen') to supplant the JF-17?
IMO lightweight future will be taken by drones in PAF ... 5th gen drones along with JFT 4th and even 5th block
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,226
64
19,340
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
If I have to imagine future warfare and tactics/capabilities being deployed with smart yet more offensive approach; I have to pen down my imagination with an opinion like operating 4.5++ Gen beside NGFAs and the roles of the likes of fighters in class of Thunders will be taken over by AI/loyal wingman. May be I am dreaming but this how I dreamt for supplanting Thunder when served to the fullest. But that seems to be happening too far in future and that 6th Gen approach is matching perfectly. There will be always need of a workhorse like Thunder to save operational costs and this is where, I found ourselves investing with something on mind that the Fighter we need should be built with next 10 to 15 years tech advancement.
I see it a little differently.

I agree that AI-driven aircraft -- i.e., UTAS/loyal wingman and autonomous munitions -- will play a big role in future air deployments. The UTAS will accompany the NGFA in offensive operations in many areas: air-to-air support, decoy operations, forward ISR, stand-off ECM, etc.

However, I don't think that necessarily eliminates the JF-17 from the equation.

If we strip away the jargon, the JF-17 is, at its heart, a territorial defence fighter, and its low cost gives the end-user a lot of flexibility in using it. Basically, it's a reliable workhorse (as you said). I reckon it'll be cheaper than the UTAS set-up as well (for certain roles, like CAP).

If anything, we could end up in a situation where we take the expertise we develop from AZM to design a new lightweight fighter. It could simply be a relatively simple design, but with some new elements: i.e., relaxed stability with a composite-heavy airframe, supercruising engine (e.g., maybe the same powerplant of AZM) and ample space for AESA-based ECM and radar.
 

The Eagle

SENIOR MODERATOR
Oct 15, 2015
20,857
172
38,789
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I see it a little differently.

I agree that AI-driven aircraft -- i.e., UTAS/loyal wingman and autonomous munitions -- will play a big role in future air deployments. The UTAS will accompany the NGFA in offensive operations in many areas: air-to-air support, decoy operations, forward ISR, stand-off ECM, etc.

However, I don't think that necessarily eliminates the JF-17 from the equation.

If we strip away the jargon, the JF-17 is, at its heart, a territorial defence fighter, and its low cost gives the end-user a lot of flexibility in using it. Basically, it's a reliable workhorse (as you said). I reckon it'll be cheaper than the UTAS set-up as well (for certain roles, like CAP).

If anything, we could end up in a situation where we take the expertise we develop from AZM to design a new lightweight fighter. It could simply be a relatively simple design, but with some new elements: i.e., relaxed stability with a composite-heavy airframe, supercruising engine (e.g., maybe the same powerplant of AZM) and ample space for AESA-based ECM and radar.
Totally agreed and thank you for the disagreement which forced me to go through my post again and realized that I actually missed merely two words to explain similarly. However, without going into details; at-least there is something to think alike.

My intention was to say that the way we see different techs applied and makes it way to next like JF-17 Thunder blockwise, from Block-I to Block-II and most advance approach in regard to Block-III; will be paving a way for NGFA by validating tech for next Gen Air Craft. Similarly, when we are done with NGFA in service, readers may agree that cycle never stops; the tech being applied and matting with NGFA along with 4.5++ and Block-III being evolved to the limit will actually validate the same futuristic tech for 6th Gen.

As the cycle goes, a workhorse with AI & fruits from AZM technology buildup will and can give us a whole new fighter with more advance capability but in class of Thunder taking more duty burden. I repeat that Yes, we need a workhorse. Loyal wingman concept will be flying in top tier fighter ops for the roles & mission requirement. You explained it simply and pretty well though. In my opinion, a tier by tier modernization while keeping up with evolving tech for modern warfare tactics and requirements but with self reliance approach with the help of home grown solution.

By the way.....


and
The meeting took place hours after Russian Presidential Envoy for Afghanistan Ambassador Zamir Kabulov called on the army chief in Rawalpindi.
 

Pakistan Space Agency

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 22, 2019
3,811
-26
5,910
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Why doesn't Pakistan just go for another joint fighter project but this time in a medium-weight class?

It will save Pakistan from importing off-the-shelf fighter aircraft from China, the US, Europe or Russia and it'll be built specifically for Pakistani needs.

Chinese can design/build the fighter and put it in the air in just 4-5 years if Pakistan is serious just like they did with the JF-17 Thunder. Again, the block building approach can be applied to it.

Otherwise, wherever Pakistan imports it from, it's going to cost billions.

Pakistan will be working on three projects simultaneously, JF-17 Thunder (infrastructure is already there), the medium-weight class and the medium-to-heavy-weight Azm (work in progress). It will fulfil all of Pakistani fighter aircraft needs.

When you're so ambitious, other countries will want to join in.
 

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
8,138
67
13,184
Apologies in advance as I'm sure this isn't the thread for this discussion but couldn't stop myself from commenting. GHQ and PM can try to act pacifist as much they want but current Indian regime is going to force our hands in near future to act and if we aren't prepared then it would be a very bad news for us.
I understand that we cannot match them in buying spree but i don't think Pakistan should stay away from better weapons because a new race will start. In fact due to apparent disparity, we should be looking at the options that tilt balance in our favor instead of trying to match the capabilities.
I agree with your assessment from the Indian perspective. They will not listen to a pacifist view point and become bolder if you show them a weakness.
However I will contend an alternative point of view for you to consider. Modern day wars are fought on many fronts and one of them is the creation of a narrative. In that instance we are not pandering to the whims of the dhotis but changing the view of the/world which assumes us to be the aggressors. It is this war that we have constantly been losing especially since our covert and overt support of the Kashmiri cause. You will notice that that narrative has been lost totally and the focus is entirely on the Indian atrocities in Kashmir. No one in the last 2 years including the dhotis have gone crying to the world and their aunt about how Pakistan has been infiltrating terrorists into Kashmir. This will soon become and nightmare for the Xhotis on the nqrrative war front as has been seen by the US response as well as response from other western powers.
The othe point to consider is the dynamics of expenditures and their strain on both economies. 8billion for 36 planes is a huge price to pay and for at least 3-5 years the IAF is now hampered. Even when they go for follow on ordersthey are going for Rafale which is not going to be cheap to maintain amd 0perate. So the 80-100plane requirement will translate into a cost sink of 20 billion dollars. While not denying the class ofthe Rafale PAF solution s have been very modest yet telling in theirown way. We have acquired technology loosely in the ball park of what-IAF has acquired at a unit cost of 30 million so 50 units-of block 3 will cost-us 1.5 billion. Even if we were to look at a very inflated figure of 200 units the cost would not be more than6 billion. . We have therefore nullified the IAF advantage at 1/3rd the cost. This has now forced the IAF to induct the Tejas which will bring the same idea of waging war on a budget. However their offering will npt materialize till 2024 and squadron strength and training and operationalization will take many many years. For PAF it will be manageable to lose 100 JFTS if we can take down 40 Rafales as the replacement cost per unit will make replacement prohibitively expensive for IAF. Secondly during war times embargoes will be enforced as per international norms which will make replacement a lot harder for IAF Than PAF. As to Indian aggression we have responded in a manner where on the one hand we have inflicted harm, then exhibited our will to respond in case of any aggression in a manner it will become embarrassing for/the opposing side as well as maintained our narrative of being a peace loving nation.
So in short the game has been played but the captive audience is different to what you think. Pakistan has taken a page out of someone else's playbook and depicted a meek external view for the purpose of appearing weak while biding our time with timely inductions of critical technologies which will propel Pakistani forces to the next level without inviting too many inquisitive eyes.
A
 
Last edited:

TheDebSahab

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Nov 19, 2020
61
0
54
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The F16s we have that are capable of dominating the skies against IAF are the Blk 52+ ones. And we only have 18 of those. And we can't even use those for aggression. J10c is equally good if not better so it would provide numbers in air dominance and we'd be able to use them without any restrictions.
Other than AESA and super cruise, everything else is pretty much covered by Pakistan's F16 fleet.

It's also a redundant system, meant to perform the same duties that PAF's fleet of thunders and F-16s do.

It can maybe replace the mirages, but PAF wouldn't buy these fighters simply to replace its mirage fleet.

If PAF is going to buy a brand new platform, it doesn't make sense to buy anything less than a 5th gen.
 

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
8,138
67
13,184
I see it a little differently.

I agree that AI-driven aircraft -- i.e., UTAS/loyal wingman and autonomous munitions -- will play a big role in future air deployments. The UTAS will accompany the NGFA in offensive operations in many areas: air-to-air support, decoy operations, forward ISR, stand-off ECM, etc.

However, I don't think that necessarily eliminates the JF-17 from the equation.

If we strip away the jargon, the JF-17 is, at its heart, a territorial defence fighter, and its low cost gives the end-user a lot of flexibility in using it. Basically, it's a reliable workhorse (as you said). I reckon it'll be cheaper than the UTAS set-up as well (for certain roles, like CAP).

If anything, we could end up in a situation where we take the expertise we develop from AZM to design a new lightweight fighter. It could simply be a relatively simple design, but with some new elements: i.e., relaxed stability with a composite-heavy airframe, supercruising engine (e.g., maybe the same powerplant of AZM) and ample space for AESA-based ECM and radar.
The real bug bear is the E word. Engines for future fighters remain an enigma unless the Turks come up with a joint venture produce which is good.
A
 

TheDebSahab

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Nov 19, 2020
61
0
54
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The Delta Wing combined with the Thrust Vectoring provides WAY better maneuverability and WAY better turn rates.
It literally has canards ffs. The only thing it lags in is that it bleeds more energy.
Thrust vectoring is not an end all be all. Where the J-10C offers more hard points, due to its delta wing configuration, it is not as maneuverable as the F16s, precisely because the j10c are delta wing.

Super cruise is not needed, and aesa is nice to have, but they can be obtained for Pakistan's jf17 fleet.

The point being, j-10c does not solve any of the problems that PAF will face in the future, or even currently.

If PAF didn't have the thunders, the j10c would have been a perfect buy.
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,226
64
19,340
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
The real bug bear is the E word. Engines for future fighters remain an enigma unless the Turks come up with a joint venture produce which is good.
A
I agree. In addition to Turkey, investing in Ukraine's industry (like China is looking to do) could be an option too.

In fact, if the Chinese are going to try investing in Ukraine again, we should see if we can join in (maybe set-up a multi-national consortium). Basically, co-fund a new engine platform that we can manufacture locally.
 

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
8,138
67
13,184
I agree. In addition to Turkey, investing in Ukraine's industry (like China is looking to do) could be an option too.

In fact, if the Chinese are going to try investing in Ukraine again, we should see if we can join in (maybe set-up a multi-national consortium). Basically, co-fund a new engine platform that we can manufacture locally.
My question really is how practical is it to manufacture engines in Pakistan. Look at the setup cost and also our needs . I reckon 25 to 30 engines per year. Frankly the utility vs the cost is not in favour of an engine manufacturing setup. Believe me if China enters into a bargain with Ukraine there will be no benefit in it for Pakistan financially as the Chinese would want Pakistan to buy from them rather than give them the tech which is very hard earned.
A
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 3, Members: 0, Guests: 3)


Top Bottom