JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Esc8781]

If Pakistan ever go into war the JF-17 can be mass produced.

 

[VCheng]

Not in this manner.. the cost effectivness being referred to out there is to be able to achive the most in the limited budget available to the PAF.
sure.. the F-35 and the F-22 are also supposed to be cost effective..but are they really?
Those jets were designed to push the boundaries.. the JF-17 was designed to match existing ones as frugally as possible.
different.

Actually, almost all airframe programs start out that way. Whether they achieve that or not, is quite another matter.

Very few exceptions start out with a blank check.

 

[Secur]

correction to secur
2 SQDS today
And less than 40 planes delivered in 3 years IS NOT a rapid rate of delivery for JFT
PAF has 400 fighters and 300 of those are F7 & mirages & A5...

Yeah , I mistook the " third squadron being raised " in PAF's press release with already raised ...

However you need a correction too ...

The A-5's have already been phased out ... And PAF doesn't need to replace all the aircrafts you mentioned with JFT ... The FC-20 or J 10 will be coming to fill the role too ...

 

[Secur]

India needs its badleY TO REPLACE 125 MIG21 bison

But jaguars re being retained not phased out BUT upgraded nearly 100 of them.

India needs to replace Mig -21 for obvious reasons but cant find a replacement , so the up gradation to Bison standards , but how is it different for Jaguars if I apply the same logic ? They have lived their operational life too , the airframe is aging ... In my opinion , it is not wise to operate so many different aircraft of different kinds - maintenance issues , logistic problems etc ... Why IAF is upgrading Jaguars is beyond me ! Is it just to fill the numbers and keep the strength of the squadrons to sanctioned numbers - 39 the last time I heard ?

 

[Luftwaffe]

India needs to replace Mig -21 for obvious reasons but cant find a replacement , so the up gradation to Bison standards , but how is it different for Jaguars if I apply the same logic ? They have lived their operational life too , the airframe is aging ... In my opinion , it is not wise to operate so many different aircraft of different kinds - maintenance issues , logistic problems etc ... Why IAF is upgrading Jaguars is beyond me ! Is it just to fill the numbers and keep the strength of the squadrons to sanctioned numbers - 39 the last time I heard ?

Strictly not iaf Thread but Jaguars are well maintained with 40 Airframes as good as 12-14 Years old. Perhaps the later ones wouldbe kept just as our "F-7PG and ROSE Mirages" and older ones wouldbe replaced with additional Rafale and those 48 additional Sukhoi ordered. Let them deal with maintenance nightmare that'll affect their operational pit stop.

 

[rockstarIN]

Actually mate , they need it badly ... Those good old Jaguars and Mig-21 need to be replaced immediately hence the frustration on the constant extension of deadline on LCA Tejas ... Remember , a domestic product is relatively low cost , less hassle and easier to field in large numbers than a foreign aircraft ... You can get an idea by looking at MMRCA deal , took more than 7 years and it hasn't been signed yet ... Agreed , you have replacement to some extent but they aren't enough ... You always have to keep PLAAF in mind ...

Not a topic of JFT but you are just seeing the scenario of 4-5years only where you see only Mig-21 are aging out and LCA getting delayed.

If you see the larger perspective, things have changed since gulf wars at all around the air force world.

Earlier IAF consists of 250+ light weight interceptors, 50+ each high end middle level fighters (Mig-29 + M2k) and other strike air crafts. Since now we got Su-30s in 250+, MRCAs 100+ apart from the 50+ each Mig 29s & M2ks. Equations changed now. In fact LCAs required only as a secondary fighter for limited interception(+tactic combinations of high end heavy and low rcs low end) and most importantly CAS missions where we cant loose Rafales against AAA fire.

Thats what Osar is saying about JFTs, you can't afford to send F-16s to CAS and loose it to manpads.

We can stop this debate here, may open a different thread for this debate.

 

[fatman17]

how a slow down of the chinese economy may effect the PLAAF


In the air force, there are programs that must go on like J-20, Y-20, KJ-2000 (or some future variants of it) and Y-8 special missions aircraft. They will receive proper funding for the foreseeable future. There are ongoing programs like J-10 and flankers series that may see cut in funding resulting in early termination of some variants and shelving of some variants. For example, J-10B has been stuck in the test stage for seemingly a long time and looks to finally be ready for induction. If J-20 becomes successful early, PLAAF may choose to shelve future "semi-stealthy" variants of J-10 to save on development cost and continue to produce J-10B while upgrading J-10A with more advanced electronics and weaponry. In the case of the flanker series, PLAAF may terminate J-11B project early due to its bad performances in the recent red flag/blue flag aerial exercises at Dingxin. The J-16 project could also be cut if SAC continues to have problem actually developing new flanker variants to serve PLAAF. And SAC's 5th generation project may loose PLAAF funding if SAC continues to struggle. There are also many UAV and UCAV projects that are under way in China as we've seen in the recent Zhuhai air shows. Many of these projects are privately funded or for export purposes, but we know PLAAF also has requirements of different types of UAVs and UCAVs. PLAAF may delay the purchase of some of the UAVs while going with more mature and less advanced designs. Of course, these are just my personal speculation and the success of many programs depend not only on their performance but also on the political connection of the people involved in the projects. On top of these core PLAAF projects, there are also the less essential ones that may not get chosen or delayed. JF-17 has long been talked about as a project that may provide the lo-end of China's fighter force and I've long advocated PLAAF purchase a variant of it. However, if PLAAF is in a cash crunch and deems JF-17 to be too expensive, it may continue to purchase J-8IIs or cut some of the regiments and restart J-10A production to lower the logistical cost of having another type of fighter jet in service. In the area of advanced jet trainer, PLAAF may completely give up on purchasing the more expensive L-15 project and only purchase the less advanced JJ-9 project. Future variants of JH-7 will probably be left on the drawing board while JH-7A replaces all remaining Q-5 regiments as the workhorse attacking aircraft of PLAAF. Future bomber projects will get pushed back even more while XAC continues to churn out newer variants of the 50s era H-6 bombers. The Y-9 project will probably get enough funding by then to already be in service, but the speculated jet engine powered version of medium transport will probably be abandoned.

CNAP

 

[SQ8]

Oscar
I would love to have a chat with you that would hopefully educate me on the nuances or consequences of PAF using this strategy. If you want we can have this on PM as well lest the topic gets distracted.

My question is that all through the history, India has enjoyed numerically superior forces compared to Pakistan. However it has never been able to utilize those superior numbers in her favour.
The reasons are:
1. IAF employed a ridiculously large number of types of and subtypes of aircraft. All these aircrafts of previous years required a very heavy maintenance approach and consequently, each airbase of India was geared to only a couple or maybe 3 types effectively.

That meant that different aircrafts had different staging points and could not use other bases half as effectively and efficiently that they could. So you had some coming from Agra who could only be used and repaired and turned around from Agra, some from Rajasthan, etc, etc.

2. India had very bad logistics network. Spares for one type of aircraft available only at one base and hard and very timeconsuming to move to another.

3. India's and Pakistan's geography provide each a different set of advantages and disadvantages. Pakistan can owing to very small width, mobilize and bring to battle its forces very very quickly whereas IAF OTOH had to bring it from central India.

4. Pakistan's communication infrastructure was much better than anything IAF could field.

5. The gap between the number of qualitative fighters which have an advantage of PAF's force was always low or negative.

Now, in today's and in the next 10 years scenario:
India has made some changes. These are:
1. It is a declared policy now that all bases are being made to cater to all types of fighters in IAF inventory. This is still work in progress. That means all spares, dedicated weapons, etc will be stocked at each base.

2. IAF's communication infra is far better than it used to be. Pakistan's is stil further ahead. But i'll come to this point again.

3. IAF is reducing the number of aircrafts it had. Relatively less types, though still more than ideal.

4. Fighters today in IAF are less maintenance intensive than before and the newer ones coming in like Rafale and FGFA are based on american philosophy. Their technological superiority allows for much more than was possible for older gen planes.

5. The number of planes that IAF has which are technologically equivalent at the very least and mostly superior to PAF is today very high.

Now, i understand that in terms of mobilization and all, PAF would still be better. But my point is that it doesnt matter if PAF stays ahead as it has always stayed ahead in that. Today it would hurt PAF if the IAF were to lessen that gap of yesteryears even if the PAF stays ahead. This is kind of like the awacs example. Even though iaf might field a better one it doesn't make a difference as paf will also have one to fill their needs. Reverse this in fighter scenario. Paf maybe better in mobilizing but as long as iaf is also able to do it enough to field an advantage in numbers that could not be used before.


Secondly, the quantitative and qualitative advantage enjoyed by IAF fighters is unparalelled in Indo-Pak history. For example if i were to just compare the 4th generation fighters of IAF and PAF, the ratio is very lopsided.
And unlike previous years, the bulk of IAF's fleet are technologically superior to PAF's best fighters. This scenario is unprecedented.

Now, does building low cost fighters make sense assuming that even if they justify their cost and shoot down IAF planes disproportionately, the loss of even one of PAF's top fighter - F-16 would mean a significant reduction in PAF's capability.

Thus while having more number of technologically equivalent aircraft (not superior) like F-16 will give more offensive options. From the numbers and technology stacked, it appears PAF will hardly be able to go offensive.

My thoughts are a little hazy and hard to put down. Would appreciate if you could kind of go beyond the words!

Lets keep the first four out.. since there are varying accounts of it that would disagree and actually bust that myth of technological superiority or communications network.

Starting with 5, Currently.. the IAF is already a decade ahead in its fleet when compared to most PAF fighters save the F-16 fleet and JF-17..and this will translate into a numerical increase in terms of the number of effective multirole platforms the IAF will have by the decades end.
By contrast.. once the F-16 upgrade is complete.. the PAF too will have a fighter that has survivability in a strike role with good self defence capabilities.. although inferior to the Rafale.
In the JF-17.. the PAF will have an air Defence asset capable of engaging most IAF fighters on an even level ON ITS OWN TURF.
The C4I capabilities of both nations are fairly at par at this stage w.r.t their operational environments.

So what will matter in the end will be the IAF's sortie generation rate vs the PAF's..and the effectiveness of Pakistans Air Defence network since currently it lacks any actual potent Sam coverage for its defined areas.

The question is not of quantity.. but rather of fielding that quantity.. and the IAF has finally caught up in that regard..
and apparently.. is the only AF that is applying lessons effectively.

 

[Contrarian]

Lets keep the first four out.. since there are varying accounts of it that would disagree and actually bust that myth of technological superiority or communications network.

Starting with 5, Currently.. the IAF is already a decade ahead in its fleet when compared to most PAF fighters save the F-16 fleet and JF-17..and this will translate into a numerical increase in terms of the number of effective multirole platforms the IAF will have by the decades end.
By contrast.. once the F-16 upgrade is complete.. the PAF too will have a fighter that has survivability in a strike role with good self defence capabilities.. although inferior to the Rafale.
In the JF-17.. the PAF will have an air Defence asset capable of engaging most IAF fighters on an even level ON ITS OWN TURF.
The C4I capabilities of both nations are fairly at par at this stage w.r.t their operational environments.

Fair enough. My point wrt this was that for the first time, bulk if IAF's fleet will be superior to the bulk of PAF's fleet. In earlier days, bulk of both PAF and IAF"s fleets were fairly equivalent. This IMO is new.

So what will matter in the end will be the IAF's sortie generation rate vs the PAF's..and the effectiveness of Pakistans Air Defence network since currently it lacks any actual potent Sam coverage for its defined areas.

The question is not of quantity.. but rather of fielding that quantity.. and the IAF has finally caught up in that regard..
and apparently.. is the only AF that is applying lessons effectively.

You stated it in 4 lines better than i could in 2 paragraphs! My post was geared towards this only. That IAF though always enjoyed numerical superiority, it could never exploit it as it should have because it could never field that quantity. What has changed that could allow IAF to do this and how does it affect the overall war strategy for both nations?

 

[ziaulislam]

Fair enough. My point wrt this was that for the first time, bulk if IAF's fleet will be superior to the bulk of PAF's fleet. In earlier days, bulk of both PAF and IAF"s fleets were fairly equivalent. This IMO is new.



You stated it in 4 lines better than i could in 2 paragraphs! My post was geared towards this only. That IAF though always enjoyed numerical superiority, it could never exploit it as it should have because it could never field that quantity. What has changed that could allow IAF to do this and how does it affect the overall war strategy for both nations?

you have a perception that pakistan na d india were equal in previous war in quality and only different in quantity ..
its pretty obvious that you are wrong..IAF even operated a generation ahead aircrfts in 71 and 65
only thing that has really changed that Electronic warfare and BVRs have become so important that the pilot factor has gone down, giving IAF the ultimate edge

secondly its true that IAF didnt had the infrastructure to respond quickly in 65 and 71 and were hit by PAF aggressive surprise attacks, but even today it would be difficult for IAF to mobilize all of its assets

in nutshell the whole aerial warfare has changed giving more advance airforces ultimate edge our less advance air forces

 

[SQ8]

What has changed that could allow IAF to do this and how does it affect the overall war strategy for both nations?

Infrastructure, Infrastructure.. Infrastructure!

Your point about the IAF building up the logistics base.. and more importantly..The IAF having more bases to field its assets.. and improving on sortie rate.
BTW.. just in case anybody wants to know..
A sortie is when the aircraft takes off and comes back in.. It is not considered a mission until it is actually with some objectives and meets them... a failed mission is still a sortie.

If one looks simply at the statistics of the 65 and 71 wars.. Both Air forces managed only marginal sortie rates and effectiveness.
By contrast.. in 71.. the IAF had flown a staggering number of sorties.. and managed faster turn around rates(as did the PAF..again.. against all known myths).
the lessons of 65 were applied.
Currently... the IAF is making up for its lost decade in terms of man-power in the 90's(thanks to the surge in Indian Commercial Airlines which proved more lucrative) . Training assets , recruiting process.. has changed effectively.
More over.. the IAF pilot of old has been replaced by a new breed coming up on computers and technology.

The same is happening on the other side of the border, these new pilots are very tech aware. The tactics are also very current...
So to assume either will be superior is folly for both... What matters now is how well these tactics can be translated onto their equipment.
Quite simply.. an Unaware Su-30 pilot will find himself brought down by an aware JF-17 pilot who knows how to use all the tools at his disposal. Similarly.. A F-16 pilot on its own turf with AEW support can still be taken out by an aware Rafale pilot that knows what to do.

The difference will come not in A2A combat.. but rather the effectiveness of the strike assets.. which the IAF has clearly a LOT more of. Since shooting aircraft down is a tedious task when compared to simply blowing them on the ground.

 

[Viper0011.]

Infrastructure, Infrastructure.. Infrastructure!
The difference will come not in A2A combat.. but rather the effectiveness of the strike assets.. which the IAF has clearly a LOT more of. Since shooting aircraft down is a tedious task when compared to simply blowing them on the ground.

Actually, take an example of Israel here. A VERY small country with no matching quantity to its neighbors, limited space to defend and fewer bases.....BUT, can the neighbors with mass flow of all kinds of planes penetrate Israel that easily (conventional)?

Yes, the Infrastructure plays a role. BUT in today's world, the electronics play a MUCH bigger role. In the scenario of PAF vs. IAF, it'll be up to the level of the electronics. The fighters will not be seeing each other a lot. So if Pakistan can create a two tier air defense network with long range SAMS, with human and electronics based network for information gathering and processing, combined with cruise missiles, standoff missiles, etc;....the end game (conventionally) is still that JFT may have an old engine but an effective radar and BVR missile will put it on par with Rafale or anything else. When two people are putting a lock onto each other and firing BVR missiles...with the exception of defensive equipment and some maneuvers....how many features of Rafale can one potentially use?
Its like a bullet flying to a person and he has limited time to react to save his life as the bullet may be very accurately pointed to the target.......for those few seconds, everything else becomes secondary.
If JFT was to get into WVR, then it'll be a low end dog fight, good old tactics, planes maneuvering, experienced pilots and good off bore short range AAM's may be. Than it's anyone's guess. At those sub-sonic speeds within WVR it's hard to predict who'll win as a pilot's experience counts as much as a capable highly maneuverable jet!
But India has learned her lessons and today, it's looking strong for Pakistan to say the least. With Chinese having 4 parallel Stealth programs, it seems as the Chinese are going to create their next generation planes all stealth so India won't be a match to that anymore.
Situation IMO is like Pakistan to India (in terms of numbers, capability, hi tech), would be similar as India vs. China. With China having a larger area to defend, a LOT more quantity of jets, BVR's and everything else. So we'll see.

 

[fatman17]

this JFT thread has gone haywire! its a free for all now.

 

[SQ8]

Actually, take an example of Israel here. A VERY small country with no matching quantity to its neighbors, limited space to defend and fewer bases.....BUT, can the neighbors with mass flow of all kinds of planes penetrate Israel that easily (conventional)?

Yes, the Infrastructure plays a role. BUT in today's world, the electronics play a MUCH bigger role. In the scenario of PAF vs. IAF, it'll be up to the level of the electronics. The fighters will not be seeing each other a lot. So if Pakistan can create a two tier air defense network with long range SAMS, with human and electronics based network for information gathering and processing, combined with cruise missiles, standoff missiles, etc;....

The sophisticated SAM system is what Pakistan lacks.. its C4I system its pretty up to standard and with the introduction of the Chinese AEW systems.. its coverage will be unparalleled compared to previous times.
Israels advantage is not just that it has a sophisticated electronics system.. it has mastery over the electronic spectrum compared to all its neighbours. So even today with its neighbours possessing 4th gen system.. they will still be fairly blind when going up against Israeli aircraft which are still ahead in sophistication, and when the time arises..Israeli aircraft will be able to penetrate their neighbours ADGE and take out their assets where they are vulnerable. That situation does not mirror here, at this point.. India will have the electronic upper hand along with that on quantity. The chinese 5th gens are an unknown factor at this time..
So it will still come down to the ability of putting the number of assets at the right time.

Lets discuss this in another thread.. since it will take it completely awry from the main topic of the thread which is the JF-17.

 

[Last Hope]

this JFT thread has gone haywire! its a free for all now.

The reason many routine posters of this thread are vanished and not to be see.

To post something on the topic, the third squadron is to be raised by mid-September to mid-October. It can happen anytime soon.

As for Block 2, it has no major upgrades, as the public were expecting. It shall be out by first quarter of 2013.