Capabilities of PAF Dassault MIRAGE-III/V.

[Yasser76]

exactly most of F7 were purchased in 90s which mean their air frame is quite new. Should be used as trainer

I think this is PAF plan, use these for advanced training/DACT etc. In which case we only need 2 Sqds max

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

I think this is PAF plan, use these for advanced training/DACT etc. In which case we only need 2 Sqds max

Why were were purchasing F7s when thier were other good fighters

 

[araz]

Why were were purchasing F7s when thier were other good fighters

This was the bleek 90s when nothing was available to us. We tried to get the M2Ks but that did not work out so we had very little options available.
A

exactly most of F7 were purchased in 90s which mean their air frame is quite new. Should be used as trainer

The air frames do not have any life left in them. Secondly the plane itself is very short legged and maintenance hungry, so I JFT would be able to 2 what 2-3 F7ps would have done.We are therefore better off with retiring these planes and filling the ranks up with JFTs.
A

 

[ziaulislam]

chines still flying F7 in large numbers (388), why we are in a hurry to replace them ??????

China numbers are all speculation ..

exactly most of F7 were purchased in 90s which mean their air frame is quite new. Should be used as trainer

Wrong
F7 airframe was rated for 2000hrs(15-20 yrs)
So by that standard they are old.
Unless they are rebuilt
F16 has 8000hrs and jf17 4000hrs

 

[khanasifm]

exactly most of F7 were purchased in 90s which mean their air frame is quite new. Should be used as trainer

With 2400-2600 hours total life they are gone,paf is keeping them alive by self declared life enhancement package which is not supported by OEM per paf history but max ~200 hours more per airframe app with 60-80 airframe you get 16k hours so perhaps another 3-x years ??

Mirages fuselage has 8000 hours life and wings ~2400 after which paf is opening them and replacing all critical structure so rebuilding them per last Afm article

No Comparison

 

[PakFactor]

With 2400-2600 hours total life they are gone,paf is keeping them alive by self declared life enhancement package which is not supported by OEM per paf history but max ~200 hours more per airframe app with 60-80 airframe you get 16k hours so perhaps another 3-x years ??

Mirages fuselage has 8000 hours life and wings ~2400 after which paf is opening them and replacing all critical structure so rebuilding them per last Afm article

No Comparison

All credit due to our engineers at PAF with limits resources to keep our birds flying shows potential and resolve.

 

[Yasser76]

All credit due to our engineers at PAF with limits resources to keep our birds flying shows potential and resolve.

PAF done amazing job with Mirage 3/5, and safety record for such a large fleet of old planes speaks for itself. Maybe it is time to take out old ROSE avionics and upgrade these birds again with AESA and new EW suite?

 

[princefaisal]

PAF done amazing job with Mirage 3/5, and safety record for such a large fleet of old planes speaks for itself. Maybe it is time to take out old ROSE avionics and upgrade these birds again with AESA and new EW suite?

Leonardo Aesa radar and EW suite will be better for ROSE Mirages.

 

[aliyusuf]

Leonardo Aesa radar and EW suite will be better for ROSE Mirages.

Also much costlier than the Chinese alternatives. I would think that local development of the JF-17 Block-III AESA (with Chinese assistance) is a step that could open a lot of opportunities for us.

 

[untitled]

The Atlas Cheetah variant is an example which might give us a plane possibly with 7 hardpoints a decent PD Radar and the RD93 engine.

Won't it be more feasible if we in any future JF17 version go the way of the F16XL? The delta-wings should give more range and hardpoints to this "JF17NG" and also give near Mirage 3/5 performance.

 

[araz]

Won't it be more feasible if we in any future JF17 version go the way of the F16XL? The delta-wings should give more range and hardpoints to this "JF17NG" and also give near Mirage 3 the performance.

A wing change on the JFT would tentamount to 3-4 years of research and testing and 3 years to build. It would also send a wrong message to our potential buyers and you do not want to confuse the small number of buyers that you have wriggled away from thew big two. Plus at 16 planes a year and a replacement need exceeding 150 fighters the time lag would be too much. Lastly it would divert resources and man power away from Project Azm which is the last thing we want to do.
The research for Atlas Cheetah is done and if Denel is to be believed the Jigs are already in place with the SA team. As such time nad money input would be halved. We can have commonality of avionics in the platform and other savings due to commmonality. However, the crunch question is whether the effort is worth the gain from Time money and capabilities it brings forward. This was why IAsked the question from @Bilal Khan 777 but he has probabaly not seen the post.
A

 

[Umar Nazir]

time to design a Bomber version of JF-17 which can replace Mirage fighter

 

[untitled]

A wing change on the JFT would tentamount to 3-4 years of research and testing and 3 years to build

If past experience is any indicator then this is roughly the time it will take for all the deliveries of the Block III for PAF and foreign orders (if any) to complete. If this idea (delta-wing JF-17) is to proceed and is indeed feasible then work on it must start as soon as the Block III enters production unless PAF has already made up her mind that Azm will be the sole replacement for the Mirage 3/5

It would also send a wrong message to our potential buyers and you do not want to confuse the small number of buyers that you have wriggled away from thew big two

Plus at 16 planes a year and a replacement need exceeding 150 fighters the time lag would be too much

The only problem I see for this for any potential customer is the increase in price. Otherwise I don't see any future non-PAF operator complaining about the extra range and payload. Infact this can actually work for us if aggressively market the Block III. We can say to any potential buyer of the Block III that this is the time to place an order since there are possibly significant changes coming in future JF-17 blocks that my increase the price and delivery times. And additionally we can always keep churning out Block IIIs until this design change is finalised.

Since the primary task of this version of JF17 will be to give Mirage 3/5 like performance with a newer airframe and as said by @Bilal Khan 777 we already have plans to operate the Mirages till 2030. Agree that we have extensive experience with the Mirage III/V but shouldn't we replace this aircraft with a jet that shares a common eco-system with our very own JF-17? After all was this not the original goal of the JF-17 project to replace all our non-F16 fighters and isn't the JF-17 supposed to out-serve any Mirage 3/5 we already have in service? Apart from the R&D and time, I see a lot of savings right here, since PAF will only be operating F-16s, JF-17 variants and the future Azm.

The research for Atlas Cheetah is done and if Denel is to be believed the Jigs are already in place with the SA team. As such time nad money input would be halved. We can have commonality of avionics in the platform and other savings due to commmonality

If feasible I am all for it but the only downside I see in this is that rather than retiring them, we will be keeping this additional Mirage platform, which in an ideal world we should have retired long ago, soldiering on for the foreseeable future since we have decided to invest in this route

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

A wing change on the JFT would tentamount to 3-4 years of research and testing and 3 years to build. It would also send a wrong message to our potential buyers and you do not want to confuse the small number of buyers that you have wriggled away from thew big two. Plus at 16 planes a year and a replacement need exceeding 150 fighters the time lag would be too much. Lastly it would divert resources and man power away from Project Azm which is the last thing we want to do.
The research for Atlas Cheetah is done and if Denel is to be believed the Jigs are already in place with the SA team. As such time nad money input would be halved. We can have commonality of avionics in the platform and other savings due to commmonality. However, the crunch question is whether the effort is worth the gain from Time money and capabilities it brings forward. This was why IAsked the question from @Bilal Khan 777 but he has probabaly not seen the post.
A

Agreed. IMO, instead of trying to change fundamental aspects of the JF-17's design (like making it delta-wing), we should try adapting the air-to-ground weapons around the JF-17. So, look at a lighter weight and compact ALCMs, a JSOW-like solution, SDB-like solution, a 1,000 to 1,200-kg supersonic cruising missile, etc. This way, we can use the JF-17 as-is, but still employ it as a more than serviceable SOW asset.

If there's one change to the JF-17 I would like us to consider, it'd be adding CFTs so that we can free-up the pylons under the wing for munitions. Beyond that, look at rebuilding the PAF's Mirage III/5 fleet and, potentially, leveraging the Cheetah infrastructure to upgrade them.

 

[CHI RULES]

Any news about Mirrage Horus delivery?