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

[airomerix]

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)

I dont blame you for not knowing about aircraft structures. The fact is, similarly to this funny report, you are ill-informed, and hence, the three words (read: lower fairing skin) have lead you to this conclusion that the report is legit and indeed JF-17 has structural challenges. Also. These couple of posts has exposed your ignorance or your propaganda. You'll have to choose one.

Now allow me to educate you.

Lower fairing skin is a very broad term. It's like someone is saying that the vehicle was undrivable due to a fracture in the lower chassis. Does it sound like a 'leaked report' to you? Besides, had it been anything other than some routine propaganda by Godi media, the report would have outlined the exact type of defect such as compression, torsion, bending or tension induced marks in lets say lower longerons at xyz point in the 'wing to body fairing' and so on. Focus on the specifics for a change.

So what you're quoting as 'innate' knowledge reflects your own lack of understanding of the subject or the esteem you hold PAF investigation reports at.

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.

I will not debate with you on the xyz number of flight hours and the structural life of the airframes due to the simple fact that you have your facts wrong. Now lets get educated on the basics.

First of all, this so called lower fairing skin (if i'm imagining this broad term correctly) is made of semi-monocoque structure (google if you dont know about it, i'm not your full time professor). However, the wings and rudders of both JF-17 Block 1 and 2 have composites with Block 2, Bravo featuring increased composites usage in other areas (classified) to reduce weight.

On the contrary to what you have said about structural failures, The ease of aluminum sheet metal repair has remained unchanged since the past 60 years or so. The machine tooling and associated processes have remained the same. On top of it, the technical expertise required to fix/repair an aluminum (as opposed to composites) is also minimal and less complex.

Let's say, in an event of a bird strike on the aluminum part, the technician will examine the dent and assess if it is on the stringer or rib, and will consult with that 60 year old manual. If the dent remains within tolerance, it will be left untreated as it poses no danger. If it remains outside tolerance, it is simply patched with another alumnimum sheet. Even damage on top of supporting structures are relatively inexpensively inspected by non-destructive inspection or testing (NDI/NDT) by the use of ultrasonic testing.

Final comment;

Some of your general comments about JF-17s cost-effectiveness vis a vis service life are correct. The reason is, JF-17 was made from the ground up with a modular concept. Like F-16, it has practically no such thing as service life. At the end of 4000 hrs, a simple upgrade (such as FALCON STAR for F-16) will increase its life to 8000 hrs, and so on.

Why do you think B-52s are still flying? Did they not reach their service life decades ago? The catch is, when an aircraft approaches its service life, the Air Force has to do a cost-benefit analysis of whether to discard it, or rebuild it. This is exactly where PAF wins. JF-17 is our home grown fighter. We have the option to discard its airframe at little or no significant costs and chew out a newer frame in less than 15 days if needed.

Lastly, some of the figures you have quoted about 'service life' actually belong to the type of aircraft engines and not aircraft structure per say. I will leave you the embarrassment of its correction. Go figure.

 

[Marker]

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.

The structural life of aircraft airframe is based on load bearing members only.

Cracks on Aircraft skins may develop due to many reasons and can be repaired or replaced during schedule maintenance. They do not call for grounding of fleet.

Normally initial batches of aircraft have lesser airframe life. The aircraft are thoroughly inspected during subsequent overhaul for structural anomalies. If anomalies are observed during these inspections, than a service life enhancement program is initiated to address the problem by redesigning those parts to strengthen the critical load bearing members and hence airframe life be extended.

Earlier blocks of F-16 were having airframe life of 6000 hrs, enhanced to 8000 hrs after major bulk head (SLEP} modification. By improving airframe structure of newer F-16s, its service life was further increased to 12000 hrs.

Airframe upgradation is an iterative process and depends on the type and location of anomalies found during the inspections of load bearing airframe structures of aging aircraft.

Indian media claim is based on false information and without any evidence. Grounding of 40% fleet is a big occurrence, it cannot be hidden from Pakistani and international independent media or international intelligentsia. None of them verified such incident.

So it is better for you to stop providing lay man logic about aircraft structure manufacturing process, inspection and failures.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

These Hindutva trolls are not only disseminating false information through their fake news channels, electronic news bulletin boards and various social media channels, they also infiltered into Wikipedia and changed number of information concerning Pakistan and JF1-17 and the lock those pages for further editing.

 

[Hamza913]

I dont blame you for not knowing about aircraft structures. The fact is, similarly to this funny report, you are ill-informed, and hence, the three words (read: lower fairing skin) have lead you to this conclusion that the report is legit and indeed JF-17 has structural challenges. Also. These couple of posts has exposed your ignorance or your propaganda. You'll have to choose one.

Now allow me to educate you.

Lower fairing skin is a very broad term. It's like someone is saying that the vehicle was undrivable due to a fracture in the lower chassis. Does it sound like a 'leaked report' to you? Besides, had it been anything other than some routine propaganda by Godi media, the report would have outlined the exact type of defect such as compression, torsion, bending or tension induced marks in lets say lower longerons at xyz point in the 'wing to body fairing' and so on. Focus on the specifics for a change.

So what you're quoting as 'innate' knowledge reflects your own lack of understanding of the subject or the esteem you hold PAF investigation reports at.



I will not debate with you on the xyz number of flight hours and the structural life of the airframes due to the simple fact that you have your facts wrong. Now lets get educated on the basics.

First of all, this so called lower fairing skin (if i'm imagining this broad term correctly) is made of semi-monocoque structure (google if you dont know about it, i'm not your full time professor). However, the wings and rudders of both JF-17 Block 1 and 2 have composites with Block 2, Bravo featuring increased composites usage in other areas (classified) to reduce weight.

On the contrary to what you have said about structural failures, The ease of aluminum sheet metal repair has remained unchanged since the past 60 years or so. The machine tooling and associated processes have remained the same. On top of it, the technical expertise required to fix/repair an aluminum (as opposed to composites) is also minimal and less complex.

Let's say, in an event of a bird strike on the aluminum part, the technician will examine the dent and assess if it is on the stringer or rib, and will consult with that 60 year old manual. If the dent remains within tolerance, it will be left untreated as it poses no danger. If it remains outside tolerance, it is simply patched with another alumnimum sheet. Even damage on top of supporting structures are relatively inexpensively inspected by non-destructive inspection or testing (NDI/NDT) by the use of ultrasonic testing.

Final comment;

Some of your general comments about JF-17s cost-effectiveness vis a vis service life are correct. The reason is, JF-17 was made from the ground up with a modular concept. Like F-16, it has practically no such thing as service life. At the end of 4000 hrs, a simple upgrade (such as FALCON STAR for F-16) will increase its life to 8000 hrs, and so on.

Why do you think B-52s are still flying? Did they not reach their service life decades ago? The catch is, when an aircraft approaches its service life, the Air Force has to do a cost-benefit analysis of whether to discard it, or rebuild it. This is exactly where PAF wins. JF-17 is our home grown fighter. We have the option to discard its airframe at little or no significant costs and chew out a newer frame in less than 15 days if needed.

Lastly, some of the figures you have quoted about 'service life' actually belong to the type of aircraft engines and not aircraft structure per say. I will leave you the embarrassment of its correction. Go figure.

I miss these sorts of high quality posts from PDF

 

[WarKa DaNG]

Another day, Another BS

 

[Ali_Baba]

Another day, more Indian bullshit. The JF17 programme has matured, and Block III will take it to new places. They are jealous that no one wants their composite queen, so they are hoping by spreading false propanganda about the JF17, they may illict interest in Tejas....

Silly strategy...

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Another day, more Indian bullshit. The JF17 programme has matured, and Block III will take it to new places. They are jealous that no one wants their composite queen, so they are hoping by spreading false propanganda about the JF17, they may illict interest in Tejas....

Silly strategy...

Forget about reality and the truth, what's more shocking is that the indians didn't claim it was 99% or 100% that were grounded.

Another day, Another BS

Another day, another sewage article from the world's biggest open sewer............

 

[Trailer23]

I dont blame you for not knowing about aircraft structures. The fact is, similarly to this funny report, you are ill-informed, and hence, the three words (read: lower fairing skin) have lead you to this conclusion that the report is legit and indeed JF-17 has structural challenges. Also. These couple of posts has exposed your ignorance or your propaganda. You'll have to choose one.

Now allow me to educate you.

Lower fairing skin is a very broad term. It's like someone is saying that the vehicle was undrivable due to a fracture in the lower chassis. Does it sound like a 'leaked report' to you? Besides, had it been anything other than some routine propaganda by Godi media, the report would have outlined the exact type of defect such as compression, torsion, bending or tension induced marks in lets say lower longerons at xyz point in the 'wing to body fairing' and so on. Focus on the specifics for a change.

So what you're quoting as 'innate' knowledge reflects your own lack of understanding of the subject or the esteem you hold PAF investigation reports at.



I will not debate with you on the xyz number of flight hours and the structural life of the airframes due to the simple fact that you have your facts wrong. Now lets get educated on the basics.

First of all, this so called lower fairing skin (if i'm imagining this broad term correctly) is made of semi-monocoque structure (google if you dont know about it, i'm not your full time professor). However, the wings and rudders of both JF-17 Block 1 and 2 have composites with Block 2, Bravo featuring increased composites usage in other areas (classified) to reduce weight.

On the contrary to what you have said about structural failures, The ease of aluminum sheet metal repair has remained unchanged since the past 60 years or so. The machine tooling and associated processes have remained the same. On top of it, the technical expertise required to fix/repair an aluminum (as opposed to composites) is also minimal and less complex.

Let's say, in an event of a bird strike on the aluminum part, the technician will examine the dent and assess if it is on the stringer or rib, and will consult with that 60 year old manual. If the dent remains within tolerance, it will be left untreated as it poses no danger. If it remains outside tolerance, it is simply patched with another alumnimum sheet. Even damage on top of supporting structures are relatively inexpensively inspected by non-destructive inspection or testing (NDI/NDT) by the use of ultrasonic testing.

Final comment;

Some of your general comments about JF-17s cost-effectiveness vis a vis service life are correct. The reason is, JF-17 was made from the ground up with a modular concept. Like F-16, it has practically no such thing as service life. At the end of 4000 hrs, a simple upgrade (such as FALCON STAR for F-16) will increase its life to 8000 hrs, and so on.

Why do you think B-52s are still flying? Did they not reach their service life decades ago? The catch is, when an aircraft approaches its service life, the Air Force has to do a cost-benefit analysis of whether to discard it, or rebuild it. This is exactly where PAF wins. JF-17 is our home grown fighter. We have the option to discard its airframe at little or no significant costs and chew out a newer frame in less than 15 days if needed.

Lastly, some of the figures you have quoted about 'service life' actually belong to the type of aircraft engines and not aircraft structure per say. I will leave you the embarrassment of its correction. Go figure.

[Bhai jaan, aap nay itni mahnat ke, par ees chamaar kay 20-hazar foot ke bulandi pay say sab guzar gaya]

I think the Indians have their broken down Air Force confused with ours. How many of their MiG-21's, MiG-29's & Jaguars are currently AOG 'cause of spares - is something one should truly look into.

It must be tough for our neighbors to get the daily dose as their main source seems a bit...occupied.

Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami being arrested for allegedly abetting the suicide of a 53-year-old interior designer in 2018, in Mumbai.

MAJ. GAURAV ARYA AB TAIRA KYA BANAY GA ?!!​

 

[Vapnope]

PAF is hiding the losses of 40% of Jf17 lost to Sindh police in karachi civil war

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

I dont blame you for not knowing about aircraft structures. The fact is, similarly to this funny report, you are ill-informed, and hence, the three words (read: lower fairing skin) have lead you to this conclusion that the report is legit and indeed JF-17 has structural challenges. Also. These couple of posts has exposed your ignorance or your propaganda. You'll have to choose one.

Now allow me to educate you.

Lower fairing skin is a very broad term. It's like someone is saying that the vehicle was undrivable due to a fracture in the lower chassis. Does it sound like a 'leaked report' to you? Besides, had it been anything other than some routine propaganda by Godi media, the report would have outlined the exact type of defect such as compression, torsion, bending or tension induced marks in lets say lower longerons at xyz point in the 'wing to body fairing' and so on. Focus on the specifics for a change.

So what you're quoting as 'innate' knowledge reflects your own lack of understanding of the subject or the esteem you hold PAF investigation reports at.



I will not debate with you on the xyz number of flight hours and the structural life of the airframes due to the simple fact that you have your facts wrong. Now lets get educated on the basics.

First of all, this so called lower fairing skin (if i'm imagining this broad term correctly) is made of semi-monocoque structure (google if you dont know about it, i'm not your full time professor). However, the wings and rudders of both JF-17 Block 1 and 2 have composites with Block 2, Bravo featuring increased composites usage in other areas (classified) to reduce weight.

On the contrary to what you have said about structural failures, The ease of aluminum sheet metal repair has remained unchanged since the past 60 years or so. The machine tooling and associated processes have remained the same. On top of it, the technical expertise required to fix/repair an aluminum (as opposed to composites) is also minimal and less complex.

Let's say, in an event of a bird strike on the aluminum part, the technician will examine the dent and assess if it is on the stringer or rib, and will consult with that 60 year old manual. If the dent remains within tolerance, it will be left untreated as it poses no danger. If it remains outside tolerance, it is simply patched with another alumnimum sheet. Even damage on top of supporting structures are relatively inexpensively inspected by non-destructive inspection or testing (NDI/NDT) by the use of ultrasonic testing.

Final comment;

Some of your general comments about JF-17s cost-effectiveness vis a vis service life are correct. The reason is, JF-17 was made from the ground up with a modular concept. Like F-16, it has practically no such thing as service life. At the end of 4000 hrs, a simple upgrade (such as FALCON STAR for F-16) will increase its life to 8000 hrs, and so on.

Why do you think B-52s are still flying? Did they not reach their service life decades ago? The catch is, when an aircraft approaches its service life, the Air Force has to do a cost-benefit analysis of whether to discard it, or rebuild it. This is exactly where PAF wins. JF-17 is our home grown fighter. We have the option to discard its airframe at little or no significant costs and chew out a newer frame in less than 15 days if needed.

Lastly, some of the figures you have quoted about 'service life' actually belong to the type of aircraft engines and not aircraft structure per say. I will leave you the embarrassment of its correction. Go figure.

La Jevap....

And, some Hindutva folks should go for El Vida.....

 

[GriffinsRule]

JF-17 production is really in serious trouble actually. PAC Kamra has not been getting the kits from Bronco, Trumpeter or Hasegawa. The situation is so dire that we might be forced to import completed diecast metal versions of the jet with shoddy quality.

 

[zn426]

JF-17 production is really in serious trouble actually. PAC Kamra has not been getting the kits from Bronco, Trumpeter or Hasegawa. The situation is so dire that we might be forced to import completed diecast metal versions of the jet with shoddy quality.

LOL. Well played on the model plane references.

 

[Deltadart]

Indian media strategy:

1) Pull content out of its rear end.
2) Cross posting on other media networks until it gains traction internationally.
3) Quote international media as reputable source.
4) Rinse and repeat for next piece of b.s.

You nailed it. Spreading misinformation, and perpetuating lies until it becomes acceptable as the truth is the indian goal.. The primary motivation behind all this is to demoralize the armed forces and the people of pakistan.

 

[Mujtaba hassan]

INDIANS only claimed 40% WOW why not 200%.They should say that whole PAF is grounded in fear of (RAW phail).What a way to fool their own so called JANTA.

 

[baqai]

so if i see 2 JF-17 flying in Karachi's sky that means that's like bloody 80% of our remaining fleet right there ... hawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww meri tu phaat gai soch kar ... yaar indian bhai log apart from our patriotism towards our respective countries aik common sense bhi cheez huti hai ... yani kai hadh hai chotia honay ki *facepalm*

 

[Vapnope]

PAF has decided to place an order of 36 tejas to HAL. This would be a stop gap measure before we induct 7th generation birds..