Czech Media : Pakistan shows interest in buying L-159

[mrrehan]

The L-159 is between the K-8 and JF-17.

For example, the L-159 uses an afterburning engine with a thrust-rating of 28.2 kN, while the K-8 uses a non-afterburning engine with 16 kN thrust. If one's going to acquire the L-159, it'd for the FCU/LIFT role after the K-8, which is currently being done with FT-7Ps. It'll depend greatly on how much cheaper the L-159 is compared to the JF-17 in terms of acquisition and operating cost, especially the latter.

This is empty speculation on my part, but other reasons why the PAF might be considering the L-159:

(1) reduced confidence in the F-7PG/FT-7PG for post-2020 usage, especially in the training roles. There have been some noticeable losses in recent years with that aircraft;

(2) a need for a slow ground-attack aircraft for COIN, the L-159's payload is more than double than that of the K-8. Another option is turboprop planes, but the PAF doesn't seem to like those for the ground-attack role.

(3) the JF-17 might not be cheap enough for the training role, esp. after PAC transitions to the Block-III. Instead of maintaining a fleet of trimmed down JF-17s which can't do much in war, the PAF may prefer dedicating all JF-17 induction and use to purely frontline units, leaving advanced training to a separate and non-critical platform.

(4) leveraging for other Czech equipment, e.g. passive ELINT sensors (i.e. VERA), CZ small arms (i.e. unrestricted licenses for third-party exports), etc.

Pakistan a country actively make three aircraft have a vast experience in rebuilding different and thinking of making 10-30 passenger aircraft. Plus we are making avionics for the aircraft. Going for L-159 is not understandable. If PAF thinks not viable to make a downgrade variant of JF-17 for LIFT purposes.

Why not upgrade K-8 to block II level, as I mention Avionics Production Factory (APF) can manage to produce this level of Avionics. Yes, we have to arrange the afterburner engine, which would be cheaper then buying a L-159. And to accommodate the power of new engine there might be some structural changes that would be need but we I don't think the brain at PAF cannot do.

Depending on the deep down ground-reality, only the 4th option "leveraging for other Czech equipment" is good way to go around to achieve objective but will be better in TOT is on the table, especially for the engine.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Pakistan a country actively make three aircraft have a vast experience in rebuilding different and thinking of making 10-30 passenger aircraft. Plus we are making avionics for the aircraft. Going for L-159 is not understandable. If PAF thinks not viable to make a downgrade variant of JF-17 for LIFT purposes.

Why not upgrade K-8 to block II level, as I mention Avionics Production Factory (APF) can manage to produce this level of Avionics. Yes, we have to arrange the afterburner engine, which would be cheaper then buying a L-159. And to accommodate the power of new engine there might be some structural changes that would be need but we I don't think the brain at PAF cannot do.

Depending on the deep down ground-reality, only the 4th option "leveraging for other Czech equipment" is good way to go around to achieve objective but will be better in TOT is on the table, especially for the engine.

It depends on whether re-opening R&D for a new K-8 variant is actually cheaper than acquiring the L-159 off-the-shelf. If China is uninterested in such a program, then it might not be feasible either. One might look to the L-39NG as an example of what's possible with the K-8, but the L-39NG focuses on weight reduction, avionics upgrade and resetting the airframe to zero hours. The L-39NG does not involve a higher output engine, but a more efficient engine. An upgraded and up-powered K-8 program would be similar to the Hawk 100-series, and that requires some scale (e.g. 100+ planes) to feasibly sustain, whereas the PAF's LIFT/FCU needs might not cross 24 planes.

The above image/statement is from his book and no 1 fcu is the LIFT for paf after which type conversion happens on f-7 at no 18 and no 22 for mirage and in rare cases no 19 and no 26 for f-16 and jf (straight from k-8)

https://twitter.com/x/status/866982417164378115

 

[khanasifm]

A good post. It highlights the difficulties faced by PAC. THE K8 is a joint production with PAF only having assembly rights. To what extent can we change it.?
Secondly a redesign will be a task occupying a team for a couple of years and the testing and validation of any changes would mean at least 100 million dollars in money and staff salaries. Do we have that much of redundent expertise to go for it?
The third issue is whether we actually have the capability to do it as to date all projects done by us have been joint ventures. If we involve the Chinese the cost will double and there will be very little motivation on the part of China as they will peddle J9/15 for your kind attention.
Fourth and lastly is the K8 actually upgradable or is the design at the limit of its development. You need to understand that PAF has had K8s for some time and has not updated them and one needs to ask why?
A

Read paf history 1999-2013 and you will know the details about program there was 18 % airframe built at PAC target was 20-25%

Bottomline from pac perspective paf did not order large number to replace t-37s and even ordered 39 so far were spread over 20 or so years which meant pac could not economically build more than 18 % at pac

Paf/pac is very open about their current capabilities, what can and cannot accomplish
Jf due to large number is a success story as far as % built at pac compared to k-8

Rest read official history, they do not claim big like some participants here on the forum

 

[niaz]

View attachment 440571

Not sure what is the source of these Rumours

I have a major problem with the article referred in this post. The article quotes top speed of FT-5 trainer at 300 Knots which equates to 345 mph or about 556 Km per hour.

FT-5 was the two seat version of Chinese J-5 which has max speed of 1, 048 Km per hour which is close to 650 mph or about 569 knots. Being a two seat version and hence slightly heavier, may be the top speed dropped to 550 knots. PAF received FT-5’s in 1975 and retired the aircraft in Jan 2012 after 36 years of sterling service. In my opinion there were two reasons.

Firstly, after 36 years, airframes had little or no service life left hence very expensive to maintain. Secondly, two seat version of a very competent fighter such as the Mig -17 does make it not a dedicated ‘Trainer’ aircraft. Whereas K-8 has been designed as a ‘Trainer’ from the beginning thus it incorporates most of what is required in a good Trainer aircraft.

Having done research in fluids dynamics; I am well aware that turbulence caused by the high speeds (Reynolds No. in excess of 50,000) results in very high drag co-efficient which would affect aircraft handling & stability. Most of the present day fighters are supersonic; therefore a good LIFT plane should be able to simulate handling at transonic & supersonic speeds. Hawk 100 can achieve 638 mph at altitude and break the sound barrier in dive. Hence a very good Trainer. Aermacchi M-346 is the same.

I therefore maintain that if one can somehow manage to increase K-8 speed to about 600 MPH in level flight. PAF won’t need to induct a new LIFT.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I have a major problem with the article referred in this post. The article quotes top speed of FT-5 trainer at 300 Knots which equates to 345 mph or about 556 Km per hour.

FT-5 was the two seat version of Chinese J-5 which has max speed of 1, 048 Km per hour which is close to 650 mph or about 569 knots. Being a two seat version and hence slightly heavier, may be the top speed dropped to 550 knots. PAF received FT-5’s in 1975 and retired the aircraft in Jan 2012 after 36 years of sterling service. In my opinion there were two reasons.

Firstly, after 36 years, airframes had little or no service life left hence very expensive to maintain. Secondly, two seat version of a very competent fighter such as the Mig -17 does make it not a dedicated ‘Trainer’ aircraft. Whereas K-8 has been designed as a ‘Trainer’ from the beginning thus it incorporates most of what is required in a good Trainer aircraft.

Having done research in fluids dynamics; I am well aware that turbulence caused by the high speeds (Reynolds No. in excess of 50,000) results in very high drag co-efficient which would affect aircraft handling & stability. Most of the present day fighters are supersonic; therefore a good LIFT plane should be able to simulate handling at transonic & supersonic speeds. Hawk 100 can achieve 638 mph at altitude and break the sound barrier in dive. Hence a very good Trainer. Aermacchi M-346 is the same.

I therefore maintain that if one can somehow manage to increase K-8 speed to about 600 MPH in level flight. PAF won’t need to induct a new LIFT.

The question is does the PAF have the fiscal bandwidth to re-open the K-8's design to integrate an up-powered engine. There is a cost overhead to development, and that will stick with each unit produced thereafter. Does the PAF have enough of a requirement to scale such an overhead?

(1) can Pakistan afford to undertake development and (2) would the cost of a K-8 LIFT actually be less than the L-159? There's also the issue of Hongdu, which had designed the K-8. Their LIFT is the L-15, can we expect them to help in developing a competitor to their newer project?

I do believe in carrying out a L-39NG-like SLEP on the K-8, so as to prevent the need for new intermediate jet trainers. However, this would comprise of some weight reduction, new avionics and possibly a new (but still 16 kN-class) turbofan engine with improved efficiency (reducing operating costs).

But when it comes to LIFT, I don't think the PAF has much of an option besides either acquiring off-the-shelf or partnering with someone else (to split the development overhead and guarantee more scale at launch).

 

[ziaulislam]

The question is does the PAF have the fiscal bandwidth to re-open the K-8's design to integrate an up-powered engine. There is a cost overhead to development, and that will stick with each unit produced thereafter. Does the PAF have enough of a requirement to scale such an overhead?

(1) can Pakistan afford to undertake development and (2) would the cost of a K-8 LIFT actually be less than the L-159? There's also the issue of Hongdu, which had designed the K-8. Their LIFT is the L-15, can we expect them to help in developing a competitor to their newer project?

I do believe in carrying out a L-39NG-like SLEP on the K-8, so as to prevent the need for new intermediate jet trainers. However, this would comprise of some weight reduction, new avionics and possibly a new (but still 16 kN-class) turbofan engine with improved efficiency (reducing operating costs).

But when it comes to LIFT, I don't think the PAF has much of an option besides either acquiring off-the-shelf or partnering with someone else (to split the development overhead and guarantee more scale at launch).

i think they should partner with turkey, seems to be the best option, especially if the focus is to develop indigenous capability
otherwise either get L 15 or see if Jf17B(albeit a water down version) can do that role

hawk is too expensive and t-50 has an American engine

 

[Maarkhoor]

I would ask him

On Facebook?

There are plenty of air marshal even field marshals on F.B.

 

[Zarvan]

On Facebook?

There are plenty of air marshal even field marshals on F.B.

Janab I have a close relative who is engineer in PAF also so I know who is PAF and who is not

 

[Raider 21]

i think they should partner with turkey, seems to be the best option, especially if the focus is to develop indigenous capability
otherwise either get L 15 or see if Jf17B(albeit a water down version) can do that role

hawk is too expensive and t-50 has an American engine

Hawk 100s are expensive.....but there are the Hawk 50/60 series that are significantly cheaper. Jordan acquired a few examples recently from the UAE.

 

[Maarkhoor]

Janab I have a close relative who is engineer in PAF also so I know who is PAF and who is not

Barcode check kiya? Lolss

Barcode check kiya? Lolss

My close relative recently retired as senior PAF officer and he even don't know the exact number of JF 17 operational.
These so called PAF mostly fake since as per rules only associated persons knows what is going on or they never tells classified things even after retirement.

Janab be careful I saw you quite often your so called inside news went wrong.

 

[Path-Finder]

Barcode check kiya? Lolss


My close relative recently retired as senior PAF officer and he even don't know the exact number of JF 17 operational.
These so called PAF mostly fake since as per rules only associated persons knows what is going on or they never tells classified things even after retirement.

Janab be careful I saw you quite often your so called inside news went wrong.

haha, they are not stupid to tell civilians their secrets.

 

[Zarvan]

Barcode check kiya? Lolss


My close relative recently retired as senior PAF officer and he even don't know the exact number of JF 17 operational.
These so called PAF mostly fake since as per rules only associated persons knows what is going on or they never tells classified things even after retirement.

Janab be careful I saw you quite often your so called inside news went wrong.

Janab if you have some delusion forces being super secretive and that too because you watch to many Hollywood films and Tv Series than that is your issue not ours. PAF is not that secretive I have friends who roam inside factories in Kamra like it's nothing. PAF is not that secretive @Path-Finder

 

[Path-Finder]

Janab if you have some delusion forces being super secretive and that too because you watch to many Hollywood films and Tv Series than that is your issue not ours. PAF is not that secretive I have friends who roam inside factories in Kamra like it's nothing. PAF is not that secretive @Path-Finder

Mufakkir-Darwaish If I told you one of relatives is a base commander in PAF and I asked him something after india made the deal to buy 36 Rafale and he told me that PAF is working on it and that is all he can say.

He is in active service and he is not allowed to share info.

But your relative my dear Hazrat can.

Janab if you have some delusion forces being super secretive and that too because you watch to many Hollywood films and Tv Series than that is your issue not ours. PAF is not that secretive I have friends who roam inside factories in Kamra like it's nothing. PAF is not that secretive @Path-Finder

another thing Hazrat I didn't want to share that I have relatives in services but your yahvian know no end.

 

[Zarvan]

Mufakkir-Darwaish If I told you one of relatives is a base commander in PAF and I asked him something after india made the deal to buy 36 Rafale and he told me that PAF is working on it and that is all he can say.

He is in active service and he is not allowed to share info.

But your relative my dear Hazrat can.



another thing Hazrat I didn't want to share that I have relatives in services but your yahvian know no end.

Relative is engineer at PAF who also worked on JF-17 but he is not my major source I have others who do it. But my point is PAF is not that secretive or any other organisation as some here assume it to be

 

[Path-Finder]

Relative is engineer at PAF who also worked on JF-17 but he is not my major source I have others who do it. But my point is PAF is not that secretive or any other organisation as some here assume it to be

Hazrat, Allah da wasta just stop!