JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF

[wiseone2]

Very good article.

I think many people failed to realise that militaries strive to acquire assets that befits their military doctrine, primary area of Ops & budget. A large & global-oriented like the USAF may require substantially wide ranging capabilities, but AF like Partiskan & China does not, & need not go down that expensive route to satisfy our defensive needs. The JF-17 is a good & afforable, & most of all, custom-designed platform unique to Pakistan, it will continue to nuture to be a formidable asset for many years to come

if something is good and affordable for Pakistani air force why isn't it for the PLAAF ? The PLAAF operates hundreds of outdated J-7 fighter aircraft.

 

[abdulbarijan]

if something is good and affordable for Pakistani air force why isn't it for the PLAAF ? The PLAAF operates hundreds of outdated J-7 fighter aircraft.

Interesting point, maybe the ruskies can also explain why they didn't induct SU-30's up till 2011/12 while the aircraft was introduced in the 90's ... or maybe you can apply the same scale to the IAF ... but that would mean accepting that "LCA is crap" ... because to this day ... it isn't able to replace the Mig-21's which, most refer to as the flying coffin .. Ofcourse, I am not of that belief system, hence the quotation marks for sarcasm ...

The fact that PAF is replacing nearly 3 types of aircrafts i.e A-5 (completely replaced), F-7P/PG and the Mirages should serve as a good indication of the claims made regarding cost effectiveness and the platform in general ... if it doesn't ... good for us ... just because you choose to close your eyes like a pigeon ... doesn't mean the cat isn't there ...

Regarding PLAAF though ... Do you have any idea of the transformation PLAAF is planning ?? We've been hearing 8 years about MMRCA, and to this day we only keep hearing future dates as to when the deal is to be finalized ... while PLAAF and PLAN are producing /testing and inducting MMRCA contenders level air crafts in J-11's/J-15/J-10's etc. Will they choose a mix of J-10/JFT's or upgrade their current lower tier aircrafts remains to be seen .. Whatever the case maybe, the "choice" of an aircraft usually only shows how that jet is suitable to that customer's needs and how it fits its military doctrine ...

 

[SQ8]

Pay Better.

if something is good and affordable for Pakistani air force why isn't it for the PLAAF ? The PLAAF operates hundreds of outdated J-7 fighter aircraft.

The JF-17 is a small fighter designed to match what Pakistan wanted based on the right combination of performance and price. For China, that performance/price is different.

Do you wear the same pants as your bigger cousin? Or do you each have different requirements for pants because each of you have different waist sizes and length of legs. Does that mean that if you wear smaller pants you are a cheap guy?
Please use your head.

Because the PLAAF has three other aircraft available that meets its needs. The J-10 is to be the PLAAF' s light fighter. Just as the F-35 is to be the USAF's "Light" option. Not everyone has the same requirements for their airforces. Just because the IAF is stuffing itself with 6 different operational types does not mean that China will do the same, the USAF will do the same or Russia will do the same.

 

[Donatello]

Not to deviate too much. But what happened with the IAF was that due to the boom in airlines.. many Flt Lts and Sq Ldr level guys left to start their careers in airlines. See, the IAF paid for their training.. so not only did these people end up leaving the IAF high and dry due to funds but also in terms of manpower.

We also had some pilots leaving for airlines but due to the lesser boom in airlines and generally few destinations; the loss was much less.

Hmm, well i am not sure how much it cost IAF, but even in the days of PIA, many pilots were former Airforce officers. Not to mention that from 1959-65 the Head of PIA was Nur Khan, a former AM of the PAF himself.

The thing is, for airlines it is easy and quick to hire airforce pilots anywhere in the world, because they don't have to spend countless amount of time and money on giving basic flight lessons. Type rating is achieved very quickly.

Now, if IAF had a higher than normal desertion rate (we would need numbers for that comparison w.r.t PAF) then they should've simply made their contracts that way. You sign a contract for the service, so the armed force has time to recover the benefit from your time and training.

The solution is at their faces if they want to see it. The first is that the IAF needs to realize that even with an increased intake(at the risk of getting some ham fisted fellows) they will still at best get 1:1 ratio for pilot to airplane for the reasons you have already outlined. The best way is to create a program similar to the US ANG; essentially let some people who want to semi-retire do so on the basis that they come fly for the IAF on weekends or other times. the you get then is a pool of flyers that may not be that experienced but will still be well trained. So Wg Command Najmi who left for Kingfisher has to come and fly Mig-27's over the weeked.. keeping his hours current and making sure the newbies are current.

The ANG is setup differently, with states having a share in the overall USAF. India doesn't have AF that big to validate that plan. The problem with Wg Commander Najmi example is, that if he flies on the weekend for the AF, then he cannot meet his safe rest period criteria for his Airline hours. And airline pilots don't have weekends. Their roster is pretty random with respect to time and route, not structured like in the Air force.

A country like USA can afford part time pilots because aviation is very mature there, in fact beyond developed. Plenty of new pilots flying regional on 35k to 45k a year salaries......which accounting for the flight school costs and the fact that they fly with small regional airlines with no proper employee cover as the bigger airlines, their career is always a roller coaster ride.

 

[wiseone2]

Interesting point, maybe the ruskies can also explain why they didn't induct SU-30's up till 2011/12 while the aircraft was introduced in the 90's ... or maybe you can apply the same scale to the IAF ... but that would mean accepting that "LCA is crap" ... because to this day ... it isn't able to replace the Mig-21's which, most refer to as the flying coffin .. Ofcourse, I am not of that belief system, hence the quotation marks for sarcasm ...

The fact that PAF is replacing nearly 3 types of aircrafts i.e A-5 (completely replaced), F-7P/PG and the Mirages should serve as a good indication of the claims made regarding cost effectiveness and the platform in general ... if it doesn't ... good for us ... just because you choose to close your eyes like a pigeon ... doesn't mean the cat isn't there ...

Regarding PLAAF though ... Do you have any idea of the transformation PLAAF is planning ?? We've been hearing 8 years about MMRCA, and to this day we only keep hearing future dates as to when the deal is to be finalized ... while PLAAF and PLAN are producing /testing and inducting MMRCA contenders level air crafts in J-11's/J-15/J-10's etc. Will they choose a mix of J-10/JFT's or upgrade their current lower tier aircrafts remains to be seen .. Whatever the case maybe, the "choice" of an aircraft usually only shows how that jet is suitable to that customer's needs and how it fits its military doctrine ...

Russians are not inducting the Su-30 because they had severe budget problems from 1990 to 2002. They had other pressing needs. Plus they have lots of other advanced aircraft. The list of air forces queuing to induct the Su-30 variants is a long one. If you are implying the Su-30 is crappy aircraft it is not true. Plus the IAF Su-30 MKI is potent because of advanced sub-systems from India, Israel and France. Russians may not have similar sub-systems especially the ones from Israel.

You can tell anything about the J-11's/J-15/J-10's. No one outside of China knows about their true capabilities. They are unproven aircraft. They have 500-600 J-7 in the PLAAF which are 1960 era MiG-21 fighters. The J-7s are excellent for target practice should the F-22 come their way. It does not add up to export a capable aircraft to Pakistan without replacing those fighters. Unlike Russia China has the $$$ to expand production lines to meet the PLAAF demands.

The two logical explanations are:
First China cannot make a reliable jet engine for the JF-17. Russians might have refused to supply the RD-93 engines for the PLAAF. Second China wants to safeguard their aviation secrets. So they created the JF-17 which does not have some of best technologies available on J-10/J-11/J-15 etc. They do not want leaking their secrets to the West through Pakistan. (Spare me this BS that the J-10 was offered to the PAF. Bottom line the PAF does not operate the J-10. My apologies to offend anyone. I have heard it before)

I am not saying the JF-17 is junk. I do not think it is close to the fourth generation combat aircraft that it aspires to be. Replacing Mirage III/Mirage-V/J-7 is not a high bar. Those aircraft are 50 year old design. The average age of those aiircraft in the PAF is high

The LCA is not fully functional. That is why MiG-21s are still flying. The avionics upgrade by Israel makes the MiG-21 Bisons potent combat aircraft.

 

[Cyberian]

Can someone please confirm/clarify whether PAF has now retired all F-7Ps and replaced them with JF-17 Thunders?

 

[wiseone2]

The JF-17 is a small fighter designed to match what Pakistan wanted based on the right combination of performance and price. For China, that performance/price is different.

Do you wear the same pants as your bigger cousin? Or do you each have different requirements for pants because each of you have different waist sizes and length of legs. Does that mean that if you wear smaller pants you are a cheap guy?
Please use your head.

Because the PLAAF has three other aircraft available that meets its needs. The J-10 is to be the PLAAF' s light fighter. Just as the F-35 is to be the USAF's "Light" option. Not everyone has the same requirements for their airforces. Just because the IAF is stuffing itself with 6 different operational types does not mean that China will do the same, the USAF will do the same or Russia will do the same.

Simple question - If the JF-17 is the aircraft Pakistanis describe it to be why does not the PLAAF replace the hundreds of J-7s with JF-17 ? The J-7 is antiquated platform for PLAAF if they were to fight USA, Japan, Taiwan or South Korea. What is so different about JF-17 that China would not want to induct it ? Countries dp not make top notch combat aircraft and use it for export only. Those days are long gone. I realize it is hard to accept the JF-17 is 2nd rate platform. But all the evidence points to it.

There is a logical explanation for India. It is operating six different aircraft for political reasons. India does not want to be dependent upon any one country for spares.

Hi,

I will try to give a different version in reference to my background---automotive engineering---and automotive sales----. Engineering because different nations engineer their cars differently in size and function---sales----.

Because the need is a frame of mind---so people buy with a lots of emotion---like a single mother of a one month old baby in a car safety seat wanting to buy a 2 dr coupe---or a young single male buy a 4 door muscle car---or a young executive with 2 children does not want o be seen in the most functional vehicle---the minivan---but rather choses an SUV---thus breaking her wife's back when she lifts the baby seat higher up.

A nation in africa just recently purchased a few SU30's---for what----Japan a technically advanced nation---does not go for an F16---already established aircraft----they don't want it----but make their own slightly bigger.

Pakistan---an operator of F16's---combat experience----they chose to go for an aircraft slightly smaller aircraft----otoh---china---when they want to build their own---they find that an F16 size aircraft suits them best in the shape and form of a J10---and the country they get their design form--Israel is also a major operator of the F16's.

Even though china and pakistan have same kind of aircraft to replace---the F7 type----but they both face a different kind of enemy aircraft---.

This shows you clearly---that those people using the same equipment before---when get an option---they will go for totally different items.

Not all people leaving snow country end up in California----many end up in Arizona---many in Washington state or Oregon----or Nevada----but the thing similar in most of these cases was they all wanted to get out of snow country.

There is a major helicopter manufacturer----when the rotors turn---they go clockwise---then there is another large helicopter manufacturer---when the rotors turn---they go anti clockwise.

Comparing car with a high performance combat aircraft does not hold water. Post World War 2 only USA, France, Russia and maybe U.K. are the only countries that have built multiple iterations of combat aircraft and all the critical subsystems.

If the JF-17 is really the top notch platform I fail to see why the PLAAF won't induct it. It is not like China is proficient in the design of combat aircraft. The PLAAF was the biggest operator of vintage 1950s/1960s Russian aircraft. All the Chinese platforms to replace them J-10/J-11/J-15/J-20 etc. are under wraps. They have never seen combat and never been evaluated by a technically proficient neutral source. Only the Chinese know the true capabilities of those aircraft.

 

[MastanKhan]

Simple question - If the JF-17 is the aircraft Pakistanis describe it to be why does not the PLAAF replace the hundreds of J-7s with JF-17 ? The J-7 is antiquated platform for PLAAF if they were to fight USA, Japan, Taiwan or South Korea. What is so different about JF-17 that China would not want to induct it ? Countries dp not make top notch combat aircraft and use it for export only. Those days are long gone. I realize it is hard to accept the JF-17 is 2nd rate platform. But all the evidence points to it.

There is a logical explanation for India. It is operating six different aircraft for political reasons. India does not want to be dependent upon any one country for spares.



Comparing car with a high performance combat aircraft does not hold water. Post World War 2 only USA, France, Russia and maybe U.K. are the only countries that have built multiple iterations of combat aircraft and all the critical subsystems.

If the JF-17 is really the top notch platform I fail to see why the PLAAF won't induct it. It is not like China is proficient in the design of combat aircraft. The PLAAF was the biggest operator of vintage 1950s/1960s Russian aircraft. All the Chinese platforms to replace them J-10/J-11/J-15/J-20 etc. are under wraps. They have never seen combat and never been evaluated by a technically proficient neutral source. Only the Chinese know the true capabilities of those aircraft.

Hi,

You sound like a teenager---are you----.

As for combat---has the indian SU30 seen combat

 

[sathya]

Simple question - If the JF-17 is the aircraft Pakistanis describe it to be why does not the PLAAF replace the hundreds of J-7s with JF-17 ? The J-7 is antiquated platform for PLAAF if they were to fight USA, Japan, Taiwan or South Korea. What is so different about JF-17 that China would not want to induct it ? Countries dp not make top notch combat aircraft and use it for export only. Those days are long gone. I realize it is hard to accept the JF-17 is 2nd rate platform. But all the evidence points to it.

There is a logical explanation for India. It is operating six different aircraft for political reasons. India does not want to be dependent upon any one country for spares.



Comparing car with a high performance combat aircraft does not hold water. Post World War 2 only USA, France, Russia and maybe U.K. are the only countries that have built multiple iterations of combat aircraft and all the critical subsystems.

If the JF-17 is really the top notch platform I fail to see why the PLAAF won't induct it. It is not like China is proficient in the design of combat aircraft. The PLAAF was the biggest operator of vintage 1950s/1960s Russian aircraft. All the Chinese platforms to replace them J-10/J-11/J-15/J-20 etc. are under wraps. They have never seen combat and never been evaluated by a technically proficient neutral source. Only the Chinese know the true capabilities of those aircraft.

Oscar mentioned j 10 is the light pant for china that's going to replace j7 s

Chinese aviation have grown to level where they can design and sell it to customers without them having to use it.

Or they may have designed it already and shelved it because they started with more advanced suitable design. Like India can sell LCA mk1 design, after having mk2 design. if mk2 is so different from mk1, then you cannot question why we didn't induct mk1 ourselves.

 

[wiseone2]

Hi,

You sound like a teenager---are you----.

As for combat---has the indian SU30 seen combat

It is unproven in combat. It has seen plenty of training exercises on neutral soil against professional air forces

Oscar mentioned j 10 is the light pant for china that's going to replace j7 s

Chinese aviation have grown to level where they can design and sell it to customers without them having to use it.

Or they may have designed it already and shelved it because they started with more advanced suitable design. Like India can sell LCA mk1 design, after having mk2 design. if mk2 is so different from mk1, then you cannot question why we didn't induct mk1 ourselves.

you answered the question mk2 is superior the mk1 - JF-17 is inferior to the other aircraft the PLAAF have

 

[SQ8]

I
you answered the question mk2 is superior the mk1 - JF-17 is inferior to the other aircraft the PLAAF have

If this is the only reason you wanted to be here to listen to this and be happy... then yes. to many aircraft the PLAAF have the JF-17 is less capable.

Now that you have heard this, do not make the mistake of repeating this or wasting our time further in this thread. This is your last post in it.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Pay Better.

How much better is better?
Even payment will not work for a "dead-end charlie" or the guy who is likely to get time-scaled eventually.
It will be wiser to set up a realistic "exit-policy" and then a recruitment system that meshes into that exit-policy.
Moe SSC is one route, just as setting up a Reserve AF is another. The first being more in line with the IAF's ethos of existence. Is there a IAFVR? Is there even a INVR now? When WW2 broke out, the RIAF and the RIN drew heavily from VR ranks and then upscaled.

 

[MilSpec]

How much better is better?

better compensation than Air India or even a 100% hike in salaries. Additional funds for special mission aircrafts, trainer pilots, Naval Pilots etc, i guess

 

[abdulbarijan]

Russians are not inducting the Su-30 because they had severe budget problems from 1990 to 2002. They had other pressing needs. Plus they have lots of other advanced aircraft. The list of air forces queuing to induct the Su-30 variants is a long one. If you are implying the Su-30 is crappy aircraft it is not true. Plus the IAF Su-30 MKI is potent because of advanced sub-systems from India, Israel and France. Russians may not have similar sub-systems especially the ones from Israel.

You can tell anything about the J-11's/J-15/J-10's. No one outside of China knows about their true capabilities. They are unproven aircraft. They have 500-600 J-7 in the PLAAF which are 1960 era MiG-21 fighters. The J-7s are excellent for target practice should the F-22 come their way. It does not add up to export a capable aircraft to Pakistan without replacing those fighters. Unlike Russia China has the $$$ to expand production lines to meet the PLAAF demands.

The two logical explanations are:
First China cannot make a reliable jet engine for the JF-17. Russians might have refused to supply the RD-93 engines for the PLAAF. Second China wants to safeguard their aviation secrets. So they created the JF-17 which does not have some of best technologies available on J-10/J-11/J-15 etc. They do not want leaking their secrets to the West through Pakistan. (Spare me this BS that the J-10 was offered to the PAF. Bottom line the PAF does not operate the J-10. My apologies to offend anyone. I have heard it before)

I am not saying the JF-17 is junk. I do not think it is close to the fourth generation combat aircraft that it aspires to be. Replacing Mirage III/Mirage-V/J-7 is not a high bar. Those aircraft are 50 year old design. The average age of those aiircraft in the PAF is high

The LCA is not fully functional. That is why MiG-21s are still flying. The avionics upgrade by Israel makes the MiG-21 Bisons potent combat aircraft.

Wait a minute ... so Mig-21 for IAF is a highly potent aircraft because of avionics upgrades but J-7 (chinese version of the same aircraft, which has also been upgraded many times in P/PG/MG versions) is an aircraft of the 60's ... I just love the double standards here ...

Similarly, If PLAAF hasn't inducted the fighter jet, that means it's "not the 4th generation aircraft that it aspires to be" but when Russia inducts SU-30 in limited numbers nearly after two decades of its introduction its because of its economic conditions in the first decade and because of "pressing needs" for the other one ... I suppose you missed the part where I said ... that the choice of aircrafts reflects the military needs and the doctrine of the operator ... the point which you seem to agree in the case of Russia and SU-30 ... but not so much in the case of JFT and China ... and we all know the reason lies within the flags ... whether you like it or not ... I mean isn't that the most "logical explanation" ...

Without derailing the thread any further ... the title says it all, the JFT package is alot more suited towards countries like Pakistan, that cannot afford higher end aircrafts in numbers ... hence we've come to a solution which gives similar technology level at lower prices ... now such a package comes with its own share of costs and limitations ... which have been documented in the case of JFT as well ... be it smaller range and payload etc. and that is the reality that PAF knew beforehand ... it's not a "surprise" ... What actually is a surprise is the fact that the project is going so well and how effective it is .... no airforce would be willing to replace a potent fighter jet with a lesser potent platform ... and there is a reason why PAF is replacing 3 different platforms with just JFT ... that would be it's one hell of a potent aircraft that meets our needs at costs that we can afford ... we now have the turn key solution to our biggest problem ... i.e replacement of older aircrafts ... something the IAF hasn't been able to figure out to the point where its squadron strength is actually decreasing ...

Again like I said ... just because you choose to close your eyes like a pigeon ... does not mean that the cat aint there ...

 

[MastanKhan]

Wait a minute ... so Mig-21 for IAF is a highly potent aircraft because of avionics upgrades but J-7 (chinese version of the same aircraft, which has also been upgraded many times in P/PG/MG versions) is an aircraft of the 60's ... I just love the double standards here ...

Similarly, If PLAAF hasn't inducted the fighter jet, that means it's "not the 4th generation aircraft that it aspires to be" but when Russia inducts SU-30 in limited numbers nearly after two decades of its introduction its because of its economic conditions in the first decade and because of "pressing needs" for the other one ... I suppose you missed the part where I said ... that the choice of aircrafts reflects the military needs and the doctrine of the operator ... the point which you seem to agree in the case of Russia and SU-30 ... but not so much in the case of JFT and China ... and we all know the reason lies within the flags ... whether you like it or not ... I mean isn't that the most "logical explanation" ...

Without derailing the thread any further ... the title says it all, the JFT package is alot more suited towards countries like Pakistan, that cannot afford higher end aircrafts in numbers ... hence we've come to a solution which gives similar technology level at lower prices ... now such a package comes with its own share of costs and limitations ... which have been documented in the case of JFT as well ... be it smaller range and payload etc. and that is the reality that PAF knew beforehand ... it's not a "surprise" ... What actually is a surprise is the fact that the project is going so well and how effective it is .... no airforce would be willing to replace a potent fighter jet with a lesser potent platform ... and there is a reason why PAF is replacing 3 different platforms with just JFT ... that would be it's one hell of a potent aircraft that meets our needs at costs that we can afford ... we now have the turn key solution to our biggest problem ... i.e replacement of older aircrafts ... something the IAF hasn't been able to figure out to the point where its squadron strength is actually decreasing ...

Again like I said ... just because you choose to close your eyes like a pigeon ... does not mean that the cat aint there ...

Sir,

This is a 17 years old kid-----that we are talking to.