What's new

Featured Indians are at it again - 40% of Pakistan's frontline fighter jets docked for a variety of reasons

. . . .
First of all it's coming from Indian side only..so it look completely fake as we have seen Karachi civil war saga.Secondly it is not easy to hide that some of your aircraft are grounded..There is only one article about this issue while all other are actually coping the same article..Not even single neutral source has said anything....

Why would be it difficult to hide that 40 percent of 1 particular jet fighter is grounded in 2 airbases through out the country?

No one outside the base and many inside would not even know this .

I have been following defence news from around the world for more than 1.5 decades...yet I did not know ..that fighter aircrafts like ships use strakes for strengthening the airframe or the fact lower fairing skin of an aircraft is most susceptible to g- loads.(both of these mentioned in the OP). I am sure none of you did either.

This kind of innate knowledge about aircraft structural components is not possible for an average journalist to know.

Which lead me to believe this information was either gathered from some PAF internal report to Pakistani government ..or from someone who had direct access such a report.(eg a government clerk, who was paid off by this journalist)
 
.
Why would be it difficult to hide that 40 percent of 1 particular jet fighter is grounded in 2 airbases through out the country?

No one outside the base and many inside would not even know this .

I have been following defence news from around the world for more than 1.5 decades...yet I did not know ..that fighter aircrafts like ships use strakes for strengthening the airframe or the fact lower fairing skin of an aircraft is most susceptible to g- loads.(both of these mentioned in the OP). I am sure none of you did either.

This kind of innate knowledge about aircraft structural components is not possible for an average journalist to know.

Which lead me to believe this information was either gathered from some PAF internal report to Pakistani government ..or from someone who had direct access such a report.(eg a government clerk, who was paid off by this journalist)
DOESNT REALLY MATTER ..
even if the news is true, a remedy can easily be made and retrospectively fixed..

noone can truely predict how an aircraft will age, the lessons learned will obviously means that newer units will even have an extended life then rated 4000 hours

also this doesnt mean they cannot be immdetaely reactivated if needed

so innutshell, even if this news is true its pretty meaningless

you see similar news with typhoons, f22, f35 and su30 all the times
 
.
DOESNT REALLY MATTER ..
even if the news is true, a remedy can easily be made and retrospectively fixed..

noone can truely predict how an aircraft will age, the lessons learned will obviously means that newer units will even have an extended life then rated 4000 hours

also this doesnt mean they cannot be immdetaely reactivated if needed

so innutshell, even if this news is true its pretty meaningless

you see similar news with typhoons, f22, f35 and su30 all the times
Well if the news is true ..then it's worrisome news for PAF in regards to quality of materials used by Chinese for JF 17 construction.

A f 16 airframe has a structural life 8000 hours for 9g manouvers ..which can be increased to 12000 hours.

A Mirage 2000 airframe has a structural life 7500 hours.

A Tejas airframe has a structural life of 9000 hours due to large use of composite materials( 40 % of the aircraft is made of metal - silicon carbide matrix ..which makes it much lighter than Aluminum and and much stronger than it) and use of HUMS to measure airframe fatigue.

A Jf 17 airframe already has a low life span 4000 flying hours..due to all metal airframe.

Where as most JF 17 have not even completed 1000 hours of flying time and the airframes are already developing stress related cracks.. clearly some corners were cut in metallurgy to keep the costs low and production fast.

Structural failure is never an easy fix.. especially due to lack of Hull mounted sensors to measure airframe fatigue on Jf 17. Hence it will require a lot of close up inspections ..a long time being laid up..won't be cheap either...but most of all ..it does not bode well for the life span of the aircraft.
 
Last edited:
. . .
Well if the news is true ..then it's worrisome news for PAF in regards to quality of materials used by Chinese for JF 17 construction.

A f 16 airframe has a structural life 8000 hours for 9g manouvers ..which can be increased to 12000 hours.

A Mirage 2000 airframe has a structural life 7500 hours.

A Tejas airframe has a structural life of 9000 hours due to large use of composite materials( 40 % of the aircraft is made of metal - silicon carbide matrix ..which makes it much lighter than Aluminum and and much stronger than it) and use of HUMS to measure airframe fatigue.

A Jf 17 airframe already has a low life span 4000 flying hours..due to all metal airframe.

Where as most JF 17 have not even completed 1000 hours of flying time and the airframes are already developing stress related cracks.. clearly some corners were cut in metallurgy to keep the costs low and production fast.

Structural failure is never an easy fix.. especially due to lack of Hull mounted sensors to measure airframe fatigue on Jf 17. Hence it will require a lot of close up inspections ..a long time being laid up..won't be cheap either...but most of all ..it does not bode well for the life span of the aircraft.
You know I have seen biased people but indians take it to a whole new level, we need a new word for you guys. First the assumption of 1000 hours of most jf17 frames is probably taken out of your ***. Some JF17 went through an overhaul locally as they had completed their hours and if there had been any structural issues it would have come up on those planes.

Also indians should stop bragging about LCA Tejas. First it is barely inducted. Your 9000 hours is not tested either will find out in few year how well it does. And also stop bragging about composites as one of the reasons to use composites is to have less weight and its overall weight is not much lower than JF17 so perfect job there.

Since indians have tendency to mostly lie in their news update and considering it is only reported by indian fake news outlets I find it hard to believe one word of it.
 
. .
You know I have seen biased people but indians take it to a whole new level, we need a new word for you guys. First the assumption of 1000 hours of most jf17 frames is probably taken out of your ***. Some JF17 went through an overhaul locally as they had completed their hours and if there had been any structural issues it would have come up on those planes.

Also indians should stop bragging about LCA Tejas. First it is barely inducted. Your 9000 hours is not tested either will find out in few year how well it does. And also stop bragging about composites as one of the reasons to use composites is to have less weight and its overall weight is not much lower than JF17 so perfect job there.

Since indians have tendency to mostly lie in their news update and considering it is only reported by indian fake news outlets I find it hard to believe one word of it.

A fighter plane averages 150 - 200 hours a year.
That would mean 1000 flying hours are achieved in 5 - 7.5 year.

There are about 130 JF 17 with PAF .
First squadron of JF 17 was inducted in 2010.

That would make average age of a Pakistani JF 17 about 5 years. Even though I am ingnoring the fact that ..more and more Jf 17 have been inducted as the years progressed ..with initial production being low.

Pound for pound ..composites impart much more strength to the airframe ..than simple metal alloy. But they also make the aircraft very expensive.

40 % of Tejas body is made of composites ..that is higher than F 35 at 38 %. Plus it has Hull mounted sensors to measure airframe stress in real time and to change the parts which are undergoing higher stresses.
That is why Tejas airframe life span is predicted to be 9000 hours.
 
. . .
A fighter plane averages 150 - 200 hours a year.
That would mean 1000 flying hours are achieved in 5 - 7.5 year.

There are about 130 JF 17 with PAF .
First squadron of JF 17 was inducted in 2010.

That would make average age of a Pakistani JF 17 about 5 years. Even though I am ingnoring the fact that ..more and more Jf 17 have been inducted as the years progressed ..with initial production being low.

Pound for pound ..composites impart much more strength to the airframe ..than simple metal alloy. But they also make the aircraft very expensive.

40 % of Tejas body is made of composites ..that is higher than F 35 at 38 %. Plus it has Hull mounted sensors to measure airframe stress in real time and to change the parts which are undergoing higher stresses.
That is why Tejas airframe life span is predicted to be 9000 hours.

Not sure what you are trying to prove here .... your math skills ? As I mentioned earlier older JF17 went through an overhaul and if there were structural defects they would have found them there. Also don't forget the prototype version which went though a lot more hours of testing also with high g load.

40 % of Tejas body is made of composites ..that is higher than F 35 at 38 %.

Ok I accept your HAL Tejas is much better than an F35. I am sure Americans will ask for your expertise in their 6th gen plane. After almost 20 years of additional development since first flight Tejas is now capable of going to MARS and all it need is cow piss for fuel.

All hail to Tejas .... the composite Lord
 
.
Back
Top Bottom