JF-17 at Kamra Airbase

[BATMAN]

Batman,
I am surprised by some of your views. Maybe you can clarify a few points in there

I have already explained what my point is but you guys are shooting left and right but not aiming the at the red zone.

- Why do you think Gripen would have "helped improve the quality" of JF-17. What exactly would have improved by getting the Gripen that is lacking now? and how would getting a gripen improve it? considering we fly F-16s, even the latest blk 60version (for UAE) to have enough hands on experience.

Hands on experience and improving quality are different issues and I’m not discussing hands on experience but exposure which lead to learning. For design a comprehensive exposure is basic element and this is where the difference lies in JF-17 success and LCA failure. More exposure is even better.
Where as we are going into manufacturing phase there is lot to learn in quality and process etc. in addition to design issues.
Lot of geniun process (air warfare, design and engineering) know how is behind Gripen design as is behind F-16 but swedes lead in netcentric approach. i.e. using erieye in tendom with a/c. I believe, we could have exploited the erieye better with Gripen and perhaps complete package have been bit cheaper.

- Why do you think JF-17 should go the Delta path? If we wanted a plane with a delta wing, we have have gone with it in the first place. The Chinese had experience with J10 so it would even have been easier.

We are buying FC20 so we need delta wing for basic high altitude attack roles and super cruise reason but lets consider two possibilities one FC-20 and otheGripen inspired JF-17....what is better for us a 25 million dollar self designed/built canard delta JF-17 or 40 million dollar FC-20? Later comes with different engine, complete new design, electronics etc. in earlier case future development may have supplimented both, which in later case is not possible.
In case of going for FC-20 it should have been complete Chinese….all what they need is littile more time to get even to that western stuff which we are fusing in it today…… too much for the idea of ''sanction proof''

- FC-20 is part of a hi-low mix. It is there to supplement the light weight workhorse, the JF-17. If we wanted JF-17 to be a medium weight fighter, we would have easily put that in the requirement or maybe just try to become partners in the J10 program in the first place.

I agree PAF requirement is a light weight fighter and this is why they built JF-17… as so and neither i'm subsituting it with Gripen and vice versa. I'm saying…. in parallel with the development of light weight JF-17 we should have re-engineered a heavier canard delta wing JF-17 for the required supplement and than we should have decided if we needed FC-20 or not. in such approach aquisition of Gripen may have put us in comfortable seat with lot of hidden advantages.

Finally, you missed the point that inducting a new plane requires lots of efforts and finances. Even the blk 52, of which we already operate the F-16 for decades, needs training, maintenance facility, etc that is costing us. How do you justify such associated cost with just one squadron of a plane that comes with the same strings as a F-16 and is probably lower in capability?

Sure, we need finances for every thing and me suggesting Gripen instead of FC-20 is not out of proportion or neither have i mentioned any technical limitations of FC-20.
One thing i will say for certain that PAF have to allocate much more huma resource to finally have FC-20 as compare to what we may have needed to have Gripen.
If we require efforts for F-16 blk xx we should have stop pursuing it from long. I think this is the hidden advantage with F-16…….that we have the essential training and infrastructure but again this is not the discussion and i love F-16 and love to see more of them but the discussion here is aquiring Gripen in begining of 2000 and following approach of PAF in reference to FC-20 and perhaps more.

 

[BATMAN]

We can get 3 JF17s for the price of a single Grippen. In economic terms JF17s would be force multipliers with a peace of mind reliable sources for parts delievery and no sanctions bullsh!t to deal with.

Now do you think a single equipped Grippen can deliever the same results or 3 equipped JF17s in battlefield?

It's a no-brainer, really!!

As Taimikhan said, Give it a few more years, i'd say 3 more, and we'd be on par with the modern grippen or even more.

Have you read what i said? I'm not comparing JF-17 with any thing.
To answer the bold line..... we can't fly 60 JF-17 instead of 20 Gripen for an attack role.

 

[mean_bird]

I have already explained what my point is but you guys are shooting left and right but not aiming the at the red zone.

Hands on experience and improving quality are different issues and I’m not discussing hands on experience but exposure which lead to learning. For design a comprehensive exposure is basic element and this is where the difference lies in JF-17 success and LCA failure. More exposure is even better.
Where as we are going into manufacturing phase there is lot to learn in quality and process etc. in addition to design issues.
Lot of geniun process (air warfare, design and engineering) know how is behind Gripen design as is behind F-16 but swedes lead in netcentric approach. i.e. using erieye in tendom with a/c. I believe, we could have exploited the erieye better with Gripen and perhaps complete package have been bit cheaper.

If I understand right, you are saying that having experience on different aircraft would help us learn more and thus help us come up with better requirement for Jf-17. Did I get it right or thats not what you are saying?

If I did, then my point is no..you cannot possibly be looking at one squadron from here and one from there to gain experience. Airforces need a limited number of aircrafts types to gain expertise and help keep them in the air. No airforce has unlimited resources and manpower to start going for just one squadrons of different planes.

We are buying FC20 so we need delta wing for basic high altitude attack roles and super cruise reason but lets consider two possibilities one FC-20 and otheGripen inspired JF-17....what is better for us a 25 million dollar self designed/built canard delta JF-17 or 40 million dollar FC-20? Later comes with different engine, complete new design, electronics etc. in earlier case future development may have supplimented both, which in later case is not possible.
In case of going for FC-20 it should have been complete Chinese….all what they need is littile more time to get even to that western stuff which we are fusing in it today…… too much for the idea of ''sanction proof''

You didnt answer my question. Why do you need a gripen to get inspiration for a delta if that is what you want? China has enough experience on delta if we wanted JF-17 to go that way. PAF has flown delta winged aircrafts too.

FC-20 is there to fulfill medium weight requirement and as an alternate to F-16. China does not have a non-delta wing medium weight fighter so its not a choice of going delta wing but thats the only available plane. Gripen cannot fulfill that and neither does JF-17 so considering $25 million JF-17, supposedly Gripen inspired, to $40million FC-20 is making no sense to me.

I agree PAF requirement is a light weight fighter and this is why they built JF-17… as so and neither i'm subsituting it with Gripen and vice versa. I'm saying…. in parallel with the development of light weight JF-17 we should have re-engineered a heavier canard delta wing JF-17 for the required supplement and than we should have decided if we needed FC-20 or not. in such approach aquisition of Gripen may have put us in comfortable seat with lot of hidden advantages.

That would mean developing two different planes simultaneously. Not sure that is a smart idea considering we arent even showing any industrial interest in manufacturing or just assembling the FC-20. And here you are talking about going for two planes altogether.

Does it make sense to "re-engineer" a new heavy canard delta when the FC-20 is the same? Its like re-inventing the wheel when your numbers won't justify its cost. And why would China partner with us to make two planes? considering we do not have the infrastructure to make one ourselves and not to talk about bearing the full development costs too.

Sure, we need finances for every thing and me suggesting Gripen instead of FC-20 is not out of proportion or neither have i mentioned any technical limitations of FC-20.
One thing i will say for certain that PAF have to allocate much more huma resource to finally have FC-20 as compare to what we may have needed to have Gripen.
If we require efforts for F-16 blk xx we should have stop pursuing it from long. I think this is the hidden advantage with F-16…….that we have the essential training and infrastructure but again this is not the discussion and i love F-16 and love to see more of them but the discussion here is aquiring Gripen in begining of 2000 and following approach of PAF in reference to FC-20 and perhaps more.

Firstly, in the beginning of 2000 pakistan was still under sanctions so gripen was out of question. Secondly, as I stated above Gripen is NOT an alternate to FC-20. Thirdly, Gripen comes with double the sanction risk as a F-16 since it involves sanctions from atleast two sources.

I respect your opinions and see your patriotism in having a plane but frankly, I do not consider it a smart option.

 

[BATMAN]

If I understand right, you are saying that having experience on different aircraft would help us learn more and thus help us come up with better requirement for Jf-17. Did I get it right or thats not what you are saying?

Why not... if we have Gripen in our inventory, than we may already knew the results without going through a design development process and we will be in better position to decide to go down the lane or not? and perhpas little more in techonology....

If I did, then my point is no..you cannot possibly be looking at one squadron from here and one from there to gain experience. Airforces need a limited number of aircrafts types to gain expertise and help keep them in the air. No airforce has unlimited resources and manpower to start going for just one squadrons of different planes.

How many F-16 do we have?
i'm not suggesting to have different squarden of each various a/c.
I'm saying if we would have bought Gripen than we may not need to buy FC-20 an dGripen would have been a better alternate from 2000 till 2020 and by than J10B would have been matured.
In the process we may have learned more and who knows we may not need FC20 at all and just one air fram JF-17 one light weight and other medium weight. our own equivalent of FC20.

To keep Gripen in air and learn to fly it...may not have been an issue for PAF........ we have professional and experienced airforce and this is how we are going to apply with all new a/c but this is again not the debate.

You didnt answer my question. Why do you need a gripen to get inspiration for a delta if that is what you want? China has enough experience on delta if we wanted JF-17 to go that way. PAF has flown delta winged aircrafts too.
FC-20 is there to fulfill medium weight requirement and as an alternate to F-16. China does not have a non-delta wing medium weight fighter so its not a choice of going delta wing but thats the only available plane. Gripen cannot fulfill that and neither does JF-17 so considering $25 million JF-17, supposedly Gripen inspired, to $40million FC-20 is making no sense to me.

I'm not sure what you tried to say and why you fail to grasp my point.
I believe JF-17 as a replacement for F-16 and see FC-20 as a replacement of mirrage roles. yes F-16 as long we have will keep performing multirole task but it is best in interceptor role.
I feel more comfortable if PAF put its energies on JF-17 instead of building FC-20....e.g. look at J10B it may have been impossible for it to evolve without any inputs of practical experience of PAF on western aircrafts.
for future beyond 2020 a JF-17 version with tail less delta could have fulfil our needs much better than what we can with FC20. this is why i estinmated on such JF-17 costing us perhaps 25-30 million. instead of 40-45 million spent on FC20! possibly offsetting the intial cost spent on Gripen.

That would mean developing two different planes simultaneously. Not sure that is a smart idea considering we arent even showing any industrial interest in manufacturing or just assembling the FC-20. And here you are talking about going for two planes altogether.

No... not two different plat form instead two version of same platform same as F-16 XL!
My point is moving in direction of two dedicated role airframes rather than developing JF-17 more to a multi role and still buying having foreign made FC20.

Does it make sense to "re-engineer" a new heavy canard delta when the FC-20 is the same? Its like re-inventing the wheel when your numbers won't justify its cost. And why would China partner with us to make two planes? Considering we do not have the infrastructure to make one ourselves and not to talk about bearing the full development costs too.

We have not engineered the canards of J10! it is comming from Lavi and similarly our canards could have been inspiration from Gripen.
Why we need China to partner us in what we may know from Gripen?
we build a new a/c with new name and 100% ownership. we just need new production line.....
Ok this is still hypothesis but main point is with one squarden of Gripen we could wait more for FC20 to develop in a complete Chinese package together with AWACS instead of asking for major alterations in avionics to suit today's requirement.

Firstly, in the beginning of 2000 pakistan was still under sanctions so gripen was out of question. Secondly, as I stated above Gripen is NOT an alternate to FC-20. Thirdly, Gripen comes with double the sanction risk as a F-16 since it involves sanctions from atleast two sources.
I respect your opinions and see your patriotism in having a plane but frankly, I do not consider it a smart option.

If not 2000 than 2001 even better we may have got Gripen NG with super cruise....sanctions only come from US and other are forced to follow and possiby what more sanctions?..... nuclear test are over and forget about more sanctions in new world US role is clearly tainted as an expansionist and if F-16 kept flying despite sanctions when it was back bone than Gripen may have survived in presence of JF-17.

 

[mshoaib61]

 

[air marshal]

JF-17 front shot from Alan Warnes book

Picture courtesy: Usman Sh.

 

[TaimiKhan]

JF-17 front shot from Alan Warnes book

Picture courtesy: Usman Sh.

Its a beautiful aircraft, especially from this front angle.

 

[xuxu1457]

Ok,one step after another,the PAKA did well,and has your own tank fight and missile

 

[mean_bird]

I'm not sure what you tried to say and why you fail to grasp my point.
I believe JF-17 as a replacement for F-16 and see FC-20 as a replacement of mirrage roles. yes F-16 as long we have will keep performing multirole task but it is best in interceptor role.
I feel more comfortable if PAF put its energies on JF-17 instead of building FC-20....

Well in this case, I think you got it wrong. The gripen was being considered as an alternative to developing JF-17 and not as a hi-end fighter. A gripen is not an alternative to a hi-end, medium weight fighter that can carry more load, have more hardpoints, bigger radar, ECM, etc because of bigger engine. There is only so much that a light weight fighter can do.

Also PAF/PAC is not going to manufacture FC-20 so its energies are not being put to it.

We have not engineered the canards of J10! it is comming from Lavi and similarly our canards could have been inspiration from Gripen.
Why we need China to partner us in what we may know from Gripen?
we build a new a/c with new name and 100% ownership. we just need new production line.....

You are making building planes sound easy and cheap. You first need blueprints, wind tunnel testing data, CAD/CAM designs, a matured industry, an experienced workforce and lots of finances to be be able to build your own plane even this way. Buying the gripen would provide non of that or we would have been making F-16s with "100% ownership" by now.

It doesn't work that way sir!

If not 2000 than 2001 even better we may have got Gripen NG with super cruise....sanctions only come from US and other are forced to follow and possiby what more sanctions?..... nuclear test are over and forget about more sanctions in new world US role is clearly tainted as an expansionist and if F-16 kept flying despite sanctions when it was back bone than Gripen may have survived in presence of JF-17.

By the time sanctions were lifted, design had been freezed and first prototype was near flying. Even if we go by your logic of gaining exposure from gripen, just gaining anything from it would take a decade or so of flying it.

NG is a demonstrator that flew in 2008. How are you buying it in 2001 to design a plane that already exists? Also unless either India rejects the plane or pakistan orders in similar quantity, its unlikely to be on offer.

For some reason, you seem to think delta are superior and JF-17 should have had delta wings. I do not agree with that. You should listen to ACM tanvir's interview to Dawn TV where he clearly says gripen doesn't meet PAF requirement as it isnt a multi-role fighter.

 

[owais.usmani]

 

[Dazzler]

Guys

From the looks, the radar does not appear to be the KLJ-7, but the RC-400!

have they upgraded it already?

KLJ-7

RC-400

http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0/93/238/f8757190-2891-454d-b69f-5e27a9a2c4df.pdf?LangType=2057

 

[Dazzler]

found it through google

RC- 400

 

[Dazzler]

We signed MoU with M/S Sagem of France in 2006 for co-development of various aircraft avionics and related sensors. As per the contract, we have the right on both hardware and software so that we can make it as per our own requirements. I presume they must have installed a lot of co-produced stuff on jf-17 by now.

 

[Tempest II]

Anymore information please on where that photo was taken? ... ... It looks like a model at an exibition.

 

[Dazzler]

An interesting read over all

http://www.riazhaq.com/2009/03/pakistans-growing-defense-industry.html