I didn’t know about your previous posts, but Your current argument is also not true as you’re going to the opposite extreme, you’re counting all the roles JF-17 was never made to perform and then calling it a bad fighter, but you don’t look at the roles it can perform very well for a fraction of the cost of a similar fighter. You also forget that half of the enemy fleet will never see combat against Pakistan because they’ll be deployed to counter China. You forget that our F-16s were modernized. You forget that the PAF obviously realizes this and will get another, larger fighter to support then JF. You forget the enemies inability to use their aircraft properly. You forget all the advantages that come from having a local aircraft, no matter how “bad” it is.
Deep strikes are impossible on both india and Pakistan due to the AD and AF capabilities of both sides, you could not dream of striking Delhi or Islamabad with F35s let alone JF-17s. BTW…your “only an interceptor” carried our 3 strikes on 27th February without a single loss and 100% success.
PAF has always been smaller and less capable on paper, just like PA, but in every war we’re shown how that doesn’t matter as much as people think, and this is by no miracle of will, it’s because the numerical and technical advantage exists only on paper, once we get to an actual conflict there’s enough factors to cancel that out, but that’s another long winded discussion. Bottom line is, Things are a lot less bleak than your numbers will claim. which again can never tell the full story of an aircraft. And please stop looking at air shows to decide how agile an aircraft is, that is not a good indication of anything. Nor is your deduction of “weak engine” and “too low fuel capacity” a demerit to a light aircraft that doesn’t need as much of either as a larger aircraft… It’s fuel is limited by its size and role, which has steadily increased in new blocks (also A2A refueling) and engine is currently limited out of necessity (93MA and WS-13…)
I also completely disagree with the people who say the JF-17 is even close to a a Rafale or even an F-16 in capability, or the ones that still claim F7PGs or mirages are good aircraft, because they often try to make it sound like we’re using them by choice and not out of absolute necessity of being a poor country. They’re usually delusional patriots too. (Plus All of these reports from exercises are usually BS hyperbole, every Air Force claims their MiG-21s shot down F35s in every exercises, but I don’t think the French were trying to make us feel better after they “kicked the assess” of our mirages. More than likely they were not expecting such an old aircraft to do even as well as it did, even if it did nothing special)
A single JF-17 is NOT a better aircraft than a Rafale. But if you had an equal amount of money to spend then the JF-17 is Definitely better than a Rafale for PAF because 5:1 will always mean superiority. But JF-17 isn’t the only aircraft PAF does and will operate and the Rafale isn’t the only aircraft IAF does and will operate. PAF doesn’t need to be nearly as big and as capable to counter the IAF due to the dozens of external factors. And IAF is the only Air Force we need to worry about, so why should we worry about being better than some other Air Force?
I’m not a person who believes in nationalistic hyperbole about our military equipment, it’s good to call a spade a spade. But Pakistanis have a habit of going to the two extremes of something being the absolute best or the absolute worst. That’s why I ask you to be realistic. But we’re getting way off topic so it’s best to carry out this discussion elsewhere now.
On an unrelated note, Deltas are not an outdated design, the EF and Rafale are both delta-wing aircraft. So is the Thunder…granted not of the same types. He flew on F-16s, of course he found the mirage to be inferior, it’s an old aircraft.
, I'd just move on. Too much work to respond on minor things.
