araz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 9,291
- Reaction score
- 81
Mastan Khan.Hi,
JF 17 is the wrong air craft for the armed forces of Pakistan. Even though it has been inducted with a great fanfare and extremely positive results---this aircraft is a little too small aircraft to do the job right when facing the likes of IAF.
On its own merit---the JF 17---for its size has one of the best overall packages available in the industry---air to air---air to ground and air to sea---.
So---in order to have balance in its air arm---Pakistan will have to purchase multiple other platforms.
We have the F16's and possibly no more F 16's----.
We need a medium strike aircraft---with the likes of a JH7B with aesa---this aircraft is like the tornado---. This aircraft can carry 8-10 anti ship missiles and still can defend itself with BVR missiles as well. In the Growler mode, this aircraft take the potency to fight back the enemy to a new level.
Pakistan also need an air superiority type aircraft----like the J 10B----or the J 11---and then on top of that---Pakistan will be looking forward to a stealth type plane like the J 31.
Pakistan military is missing the strike capability of a Tornado type of aircraft in its arsenal---and for that---PAF has failed to deliver.
The procurement of fighter aircraft needs to be taken away from the Pakistan air force---a 3 member team formed with the decision to buy that is needed.
Basically---PAF CANNOT be TRUSTED to buy the right type of equipment---. Like in the case of Saab aircraft----. Paf wanted all saab aircraft and Musharraf put a stop to it and got 4 or 5 chinese variants to have diversity and lines open in case of sanctions from Sweden.
Musharraf's decision proved to ve correct----the Chinese aircraft are as potent or better than the Swedish.
In a similar manner---Musharraf made the deal to buy 36 J 10's---. He knew in his heart and he knew from his experience that the JF 17 as good as it is in its class with all the paraphernalia---is not the answer to the needs of Pakistan.
Pakistan needed a bigger and a more potent aircraft-----.
Now Paf may have thought otherwise----but if you ook at the history of Paf since 1971----it is mostly of failures---bad decisions---lack of understanding the level of threat---at times total ignorance of issues at hand---at times not sharing the level of imminent threat to the national assets-----.
Which basically leads it be acting more like a person who is acting like someone with least concern rather than one who has the best interest of the Pakistan.
I have a different take on the subject.
I would say that JFT is the right AC for PAF. HOWEVER it is not the ONLY platform that it needs. Allow me to elaborate.
When the JFT package was signed J10 was no where in sight. The accidents of J10 in 96 had taken the Chinese back to the drawing board and there was no time limit on how long it would take for the changes to be made and the AC ready for induction.
The J10 is larger and more expensive than the JFT. There are other drawbacks. I have read that of its 11 hardpoints only 6 are cqpable of carrying missiles and the rest are suitable for drop tanks and dumb bombs only. We have also heard from a lot of PAF pilots that in an air encounter you would not have a combo of more than 4 BVRs +2WVRs even on a heavy due to the effect of drag on the plane's performance. In any case the limit of simultaneous attack of J10 radar (if I remember correctly) for BVR AND WVR engagement is 6 targets as against 4 for JFT. THE price differential is at least 1.5 if not more. As such I could argue that with a dual rack you could get 4 BVRS on the JFT+ 2 WVRs. I dont know of any statistics of turnaround time for J10s, but turn around time for JFT is a couple of hours and therefore very small. So from the point of view of air to àir encounter J10 brings no advantage over JFT. The cost differential means that for less money you can get equal amount of armament up in the air and less platforms means more economical and quick and simple repair and turn around time.
I need not emphasise the importance of JFT for the aviation industry of Pakistan. As a platform the JFT has been kept simple with a risk averse approach with modularity and upgradability which exceeds J10 by PAF account ( no proof so take it or leave it). The hand me down approach of the Chinese aviation industries with regards to avionics and weapons systems means that the JFT has an 80-90% capability in avioincs and weapons as compared to J10. This ratio is likely to remain the same inspite of developments to J10.
The J10 would have been a difficult first plane to build for PAF and inspite of Chinese friendship I very much doubt whether they would have given us carte blanche powers of chop and change things as they have with JFT. The PAF on the other hand has brought in its vast experience of trialing and evaluating western platforms and made changes to the JFT Which the Chinese are in turn adopting on their planes. The western practices which are being inducted by PAF are being rapidly absorbed by the Chinese. This would not have happened with the J10 due to it being the top tier plane for PLAAF for a long time.
I think that the originator of hthe thread has been guilty of gross misreading of the situation facing the PAF. WE HAVE AN OBSOLESCENT FLEET with 300 fighters needing replacement by 2020. This would not be done on a one to one basis but operational requirements would demand a fleet of at least 300 planes. Our current fleet of the 16s could go upto 110 by that time but still at least 200 planes need replacing. At friendship prices of 40 million a pop the investment required would be 8 billion at least . 200fighters at 20-25 million is 5 billion which is much more doable. With local manufacturing off sets this will come down even more and the revenue will go locally to our industry.
The saleability of JFT is another factor. The projected sale of 500 units is a real possibility and the revenues from it would do wonders for the programme. This again would not have been possible with the J10.
We have talked at length about the loitering time. This is a distinct advantage of heavies. The range of j10 and JFT is almost comparable and loiter time is not vastly increased to merit the cost surge. HOWEVER THE DEBATE OF A HEAVY FIGHTER ESPECIALLY FOR NAVAL ROLE IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC ALTOGETHER.
I can assure the readers that the days of planes going on bombing missions dèep into enemy terrain have long since gone and these roĺes will be taken over by missiles. For cross border forays we do not have enough distance to merit a heavy weight fighter. One could also argue the utility of even that with the onset of standoff weapons.
Naval role apart I do not see any distinct and worthwhile advantage of the J 10 over JFT. We still have a fleet of 16s awhich are very capable and perhaps more so than J10s to perform the Hi lo combo. Financial pressures will demand austerity and I agree that we should actively be involved in J31 programme.
Araz
Last edited: