What's new

First Block 2 JF-17s under construction in Pakistan

My friend I did read your posts and your respect is always maintained we may not agree but let's look at it realistically without prejudice...we are debating I am presenting my point of view from perspective of IAF having unrestricted Funds their Air Force is 3-4 times bigger their FOREX is also in world's top 7 they have Major allies friends that would sell them almost anything either Russians or US. In limited time period IAF can deploy modern Aircrafts 3:1 that is enough again the point is to over whelm opposition that is something IAF has learned effectively from US. What I am trying to say is PAF will use F-16s and JF-17s against IAF inventory whatever is deployed for verity of missions it all comes down to how effective and the way to employ PAF's strategies/tactics and how IAF would counter it with much potent larger Fleet relatively. However I disagree that F-16s are only to counter Flankers and later Rafales and JF-17s are to counter older fleets of IAF forgetting Fulcrums. As far as bankruptcy is concerned PAF would be first one to be concerned about themselves.

@fatman17 the debate is will JF-17 counter IAF Flankers or not my point of view is yes PAF has no other option except for F-16s and JF-17s to be deployed against IAF as a realistic approach however my friend may disagree.
See, that's the thing. I just don't agree with that. The JF-17 isn't heavy, nor advanced enough to counter the flankers, even if the PAF tried. They'd just be sent out to their deaths, nothing more. The only effective anti-flanker fleet that PAF has is the F-16s.

Tactics are all fine and well, but when the enemy can detect you before you even know they're even there, no amount of maneuvering will save you.

This is why the PAF is still buying F-16s, the Flankers are just too advanced, same thing with the Rafales.

As for the Fulcrums, the JF-17 can deter it, but it currently won't stand much of a chance in the long term.

With advanced fighters such as the flankers and, perhaps soon, the Rafales, India no longer has to rely on the zerg-rush strategy to overwhelm enemy forces with sheer numbers. Also, I don't know why you added the US, as they don't rely on mainly using numbers to fight their wars, they rely on tech and logistics to do so.
 
.
lol thanks for your conclusion ... so you wanted to say with better weapon package avionics radar Ew suites MKI can't compete with JF -17. . bcz of lower RCS ...
You still dont get it do you. BETTER is not a simple muscle measurement in case of advance systems like Fighter jets. Su30MKI is better plane then JFT but it is by no means INVINCIBLE or UNTOUCHABLE. MKI can operate as a mini AWACS can Fire more variety of missiles have longer range and Payload. but IT CAN BE SHOT DOWN BY JFT. JFT is armed ENOUGH to take down any 4 and 4.5 gen fighter. Plus if you dont mind bro in an air to air combat, RCS is the most significant issue. Whatever your plane is loaded with, Your will be at great disadvantage if you are detected by the enemy plane first. And if a modern Missile is fired at you then your BETTER Avionics Jammers or Maneuverability will not save your plane.
Its not a Raptor.
BTW the amount of glorious Nationalism fed to you about MKI by Indian Nationalist will not let you swallow this fact easily

I dont mean to compare MKI VS JFT here. Just stated a simple fact and an erroneous assumption that many people try to sell. Apart from that there is no comparison between JFT and MKI of course no argument on that. MKI is better bird amoung the two.

Thread was supposed to discuss JFT Block two and it is spilling with Flanker better then JFT Flanker will kick JFT Flanker will kill JFt Flanker Flanker Flanker Bla Bla Bla. Mods can you do something about it?
 
.
See, that's the thing. I just don't agree with that. The JF-17 isn't heavy, nor advanced enough to counter the flankers, even if the PAF tried. They'd just be sent out to their deaths, nothing more. The only effective anti-flanker fleet that PAF has is the F-16s.

Tactics are all fine and well, but when the enemy can detect you before you even know they're even there, no amount of maneuvering will save you.

This is why the PAF is still buying F-16s, the Flankers are just too advanced, same thing with the Rafales.

As for the Fulcrums, the JF-17 can deter it, but it currently won't stand much of a chance in the long term.

With advanced fighters such as the flankers and, perhaps soon, the Rafales, India no longer has to rely on the zerg-rush strategy to overwhelm enemy forces with sheer numbers. Also, I don't know why you added the US, as they don't rely on mainly using numbers to fight their wars, they rely on tech and logistics to do so.
So Heavy Fighters are better ones? More Heavy RCS Means more drag and earlier Detection
What do you mean by Advance enough? JFT Got BVR Capability Got Quality WVR Missiles Got Good Radar Small RCS, Data Link Awacs Support. What else do you need to lock and shoot a fighter jet down?
What makes an F16 better against MKI that JFT doesnt. They are separate independent systems. We got F16 Infrastructure installed already so we will benefit from more F16s in terms of Training and Maintainence Cost instead of acquiring a new system.
And where do you get your point that Flanker can Detect JHT before Vice Versa. JFT RCS is 3 times lesser then Su30 MKI. I don't want to discuss the whole radar detection discussion here. Kindly Visit the Relevant thread on Radar Detection Ranges and RCS, You will be clarified.

JFT is a Fine System that will serve us well. Interceptor, Ground Attack, Anti Ship, Strike Role.It does it all and it is still maturing. Don't Worry.
And Please Read Technical Details properly instead of Reading Self Righteous Indian Chest Thumping Articles before you create any such opinion
 
.
So Heavy Fighters are better ones? More Heavy RCS Means more drag and earlier Detection
What do you mean by Advance enough? JFT Got BVR Capability Got Quality WVR Missiles Got Good Radar Small RCS, Data Link Awacs Support. What else do you need to lock and shoot a fighter jet down?
What makes an F16 better against MKI that JFT doesnt. They are separate independent systems. We got F16 Infrastructure installed already so we will benefit from more F16s in terms of Training and Maintainence Cost instead of acquiring a new system.
And where do you get your point that Flanker can Detect JHT before Vice Versa. JFT RCS is 3 times lesser then Su30 MKI. I don't want to discuss the whole radar detection discussion here. Kindly Visit the Relevant thread on Radar Detection Ranges and RCS, You will be clarified.

JFT is a Fine System that will serve us well. Interceptor, Ground Attack, Anti Ship, Strike Role.It does it all and it is still maturing. Don't Worry.
And Please Read Technical Details properly instead of Reading Self Righteous Indian Chest Thumping Articles before you create any such opinion
I have to face palm at this post, the ridiculous assumptions it's based on...I'm baffled.

By the way, I have visited relevant threads, that's where most of my opinion comes from.

Every single one of your points has already been discussed in those threads, so I think you should visit them before recommending other do so.
 
.
So Heavy Fighters are better ones? More Heavy RCS Means more drag and earlier Detection
What do you mean by Advance enough? JFT Got BVR Capability Got Quality WVR Missiles Got Good Radar Small RCS, Data Link Awacs Support. What else do you need to lock and shoot a fighter jet down?
What makes an F16 better against MKI that JFT doesnt. They are separate independent systems. We got F16 Infrastructure installed already so we will benefit from more F16s in terms of Training and Maintainence Cost instead of acquiring a new system.
And where do you get your point that Flanker can Detect JHT before Vice Versa. JFT RCS is 3 times lesser then Su30 MKI. I don't want to discuss the whole radar detection discussion here. Kindly Visit the Relevant thread on Radar Detection Ranges and RCS, You will be clarified.

JFT is a Fine System that will serve us well. Interceptor, Ground Attack, Anti Ship, Strike Role.It does it all and it is still maturing. Don't Worry.
And Please Read Technical Details properly instead of Reading Self Righteous Indian Chest Thumping Articles before you create any such opinion
if you compare your post with mine.. you will understand who is chest thumping. . Every jet with low RCS and which have radar and which can fly can't become a F -16... If we conclude according to your posts.. F 16 blk 15 and blk 60 both should be equal. .. Each and every aspect is important. . detecting, lock on , shoot down are different. . you can't shoot down every jet which you tracked through you radar.. We wouldn't field huge no of MKI if it can be shot down easily because of its RCS. ..
 
.
So Heavy Fighters are better ones? More Heavy RCS Means more drag and earlier Detection
What do you mean by Advance enough? JFT Got BVR Capability Got Quality WVR Missiles Got Good Radar Small RCS, Data Link Awacs Support. What else do you need to lock and shoot a fighter jet down?
What makes an F16 better against MKI that JFT doesnt. They are separate independent systems. We got F16 Infrastructure installed already so we will benefit from more F16s in terms of Training and Maintainence Cost instead of acquiring a new system.
And where do you get your point that Flanker can Detect JHT before Vice Versa. JFT RCS is 3 times lesser then Su30 MKI. I don't want to discuss the whole radar detection discussion here. Kindly Visit the Relevant thread on Radar Detection Ranges and RCS, You will be clarified.

JFT is a Fine System that will serve us well. Interceptor, Ground Attack, Anti Ship, Strike Role.It does it all and it is still maturing. Don't Worry.
And Please Read Technical Details properly instead of Reading Self Righteous Indian Chest Thumping Articles before you create any such opinion


agreed bro ... :)
you gave a good answer to Indian ....
SU30 Mki is better then JF-17 .... but size always matter ... SU30 MKi is more bigger then our PAK fighter jets and we can detect Su30 Mki easily from JF-17 thunder and not only detect infect we can shut down Su 30Mki ... don't forget Pakistan air force fighter abilities,
JFT RCS is 3 times lesser then SU 30 Mki ... and rest work will be done from our fighters :) ... PAF zindabad ...

JFT is the best jet and after block 3 or 4 JFT will be monster jet and real thread for 4.5 or 4.75 fighter jets.
 
.
See, that's the thing. I just don't agree with that. The JF-17 isn't heavy, nor advanced enough to counter the flankers, even if the PAF tried. They'd just be sent out to their deaths, nothing more. The only effective anti-flanker fleet that PAF has is the F-16s.

Tactics are all fine and well, but when the enemy can detect you before you even know they're even there, no amount of maneuvering will save you.

This is why the PAF is still buying F-16s, the Flankers are just too advanced, same thing with the Rafales.

As for the Fulcrums, the JF-17 can deter it, but it currently won't stand much of a chance in the long term.

With advanced fighters such as the flankers and, perhaps soon, the Rafales, India no longer has to rely on the zerg-rush strategy to overwhelm enemy forces with sheer numbers. Also, I don't know why you added the US, as they don't rely on mainly using numbers to fight their wars, they rely on tech and logistics to do so.

I disagree with the "heavy" or "light" assertion in this argument. Aircraft need not be light or heavy to be a threat... the ACEVAL/AIMVAL evaluations showed that light aircraft will continue to remain a pertinent threat as long as an effective level of situation awareness is maintained.
This mentality of JF-17 vs x or F-16 vs x has to be ditched in the context of modern aerial warfare. Its never a singular system engaging but an entire network in these times that ensures that pilots get the best picture possible. Whether the enemy detects you first or not, what is important is whether you know he is there via other offboard sensors such as AEW and radar coverage. Once that information is there, what matters is your tactics in avoiding their weapons engagement envelope and ensuring that yours achieves its envelope first.

The question is less of which aircraft will match what..since the radar systems on the JF-17 are comparable to the newer APG-68 in terms of air to air capability, hence if you are expecting the JF-17 to fail at deterrence.. so will the F-16.
Yes,the IAF is now moving to a thoroughly modern force and the days of zerg rush are over. Even then they relied on very smart tactics of embedded escorts and decoy attack profiles. Yet, at the same time it still has to face a force that is also being equipped for modern warfare. The PAF has little chance of survival and the days of yesterlore of having favourable kill ratios are long gone.
Today the IAF is clearly poised to perhaps end up be in the top 5 most advanced aerial warfare units in the world. But there is still a long way to go for this. The MKI as potent a fighter it is, is not the juggernaut it is made out to be by either side's fanboys. More so than the PAF, the IAF is aware of its limitations.. people think the thrust vectoring and advanced aerodynamics make it an excellent dogfighter..but that is essentially only so when the fighter is not fully loaded with fuel and weapons, fill it up and hang only air to air weapons off it..and its handling will rival that of the F-4(but that is not how its deployed operationally). Its advantage are its fantastic avionics, which in the end still depend on interlinking with others and data fusion from off board sensors to be effective.
It is the driving force behind the IAF's need to go net centric which allows it to fully exploit the MKI's considerable abilities.

That also ends up being the same imperative for the PAF, its network is undergoing upgrades so that it can fully exploit the assets under its disposal. It is not whether the JF-17 will not be able to match the MKI or not, but whether the combination of assets deployed within that battlespace will be able to deter the IAF from meeting its objectives.

What matters is the ability to prevent the enemy from meetings its objectives from day-1. This will mean losses especially to the defending side.

However, this scenario focuses a lot more on the idea of total war. Considering the completely vague nature of the nuclear threshold within Pakistan's doctrine, any major conflict is off the table for good. What is possible are surgical strikes and counter strikes that lead to a cool down. There the idea of overwhelming numbers or otherwise does not rest with one side, but rather those that are able to get their assets to the battlespace on time quicker. With Both air forces having air bases literally minutes of flight time from each other.. it is easily possible that the IAF may be facing an equal or larger PAF force in its offensive operations.
 
. .
An aesa radar and higher thrust for JFT will do for any inferiority vs mki.Mki has greater speed but what you need in dog fights is not the speed,its the acceleration.
 
.
An aesa radar and higher thrust for JFT will do for any inferiority vs mki.Mki has greater speed but what you need in dog fights is not the speed,its the acceleration.
what are you trying to say???
 
. .
KSA AND UAE have so many resources that don't care for indigenous weaponry. That is why China-with a larger economy than both KSA AND UAE - is a better choice :)
 
.
I disagree with the "heavy" or "light" assertion in this argument. Aircraft need not be light or heavy to be a threat... the ACEVAL/AIMVAL evaluations showed that light aircraft will continue to remain a pertinent threat as long as an effective level of situation awareness is maintained.
This mentality of JF-17 vs x or F-16 vs x has to be ditched in the context of modern aerial warfare. Its never a singular system engaging but an entire network in these times that ensures that pilots get the best picture possible. Whether the enemy detects you first or not, what is important is whether you know he is there via other offboard sensors such as AEW and radar coverage. Once that information is there, what matters is your tactics in avoiding their weapons engagement envelope and ensuring that yours achieves its envelope first.

The question is less of which aircraft will match what..since the radar systems on the JF-17 are comparable to the newer APG-68 in terms of air to air capability, hence if you are expecting the JF-17 to fail at deterrence.. so will the F-16.
Yes,the IAF is now moving to a thoroughly modern force and the days of zerg rush are over. Even then they relied on very smart tactics of embedded escorts and decoy attack profiles. Yet, at the same time it still has to face a force that is also being equipped for modern warfare. The PAF has little chance of survival and the days of yesterlore of having favourable kill ratios are long gone.
Today the IAF is clearly poised to perhaps end up be in the top 5 most advanced aerial warfare units in the world. But there is still a long way to go for this. The MKI as potent a fighter it is, is not the juggernaut it is made out to be by either side's fanboys. More so than the PAF, the IAF is aware of its limitations.. people think the thrust vectoring and advanced aerodynamics make it an excellent dogfighter..but that is essentially only so when the fighter is not fully loaded with fuel and weapons, fill it up and hang only air to air weapons off it..and its handling will rival that of the F-4(but that is not how its deployed operationally). Its advantage are its fantastic avionics, which in the end still depend on interlinking with others and data fusion from off board sensors to be effective.
It is the driving force behind the IAF's need to go net centric which allows it to fully exploit the MKI's considerable abilities.

That also ends up being the same imperative for the PAF, its network is undergoing upgrades so that it can fully exploit the assets under its disposal. It is not whether the JF-17 will not be able to match the MKI or not, but whether the combination of assets deployed within that battlespace will be able to deter the IAF from meeting its objectives.

What matters is the ability to prevent the enemy from meetings its objectives from day-1. This will mean losses especially to the defending side.

However, this scenario focuses a lot more on the idea of total war. Considering the completely vague nature of the nuclear threshold within Pakistan's doctrine, any major conflict is off the table for good. What is possible are surgical strikes and counter strikes that lead to a cool down. There the idea of overwhelming numbers or otherwise does not rest with one side, but rather those that are able to get their assets to the battlespace on time quicker. With Both air forces having air bases literally minutes of flight time from each other.. it is easily possible that the IAF may be facing an equal or larger PAF force in its offensive operations.
Okay, but what my original argument revolved around what the JF-17 was designed for.
 
.
Naah... not agree.... here u need to check in indian defence form... more people trolling.... but no issue... All is well:D

Because it is INDIAN DEFENCE FORUM.

Indians with Internet = Trolls.

New IITs => Internet Indian Trolls

Facebook pages, Twitter, Maria Sharapova etc everywhere the story is same.
 
.
Okay, but what my original argument revolved around what the JF-17 was designed for.

It was designed around the core concept of "cost effectiveness". Every decision since then has been based on that idea.
By low tech the JF-17 does not imply its impotent. The idea was to get 80% of the avionics capabilities of the F-16. That is exactly what the focus has been on achieving.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom