JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Bratva]

IMO ... the SD-10 not being operational with the JF-17 would be strange. Not once in my interaction with PAC/PAF officials or in the interactions of others with said officials since at least 2015 has anyone, anywhere come up with the SD-10s not being operational. There are some disappointing details to be sure, but this isn't one of them.

Care to elaborate ?

 

[MastanKhan]

Yours is a better style for discussion.
Well, hasty patchwork has been done in KLJ v2, full results awaited. KLJ-AESA still a year away, or more. KLJ-7v1 no meaningful capability to support SD-10, though it constitutes bulk of our Thunder force. Eventually, it would come through, Insha Allah. I meant to state the present: here and now. What if something flares up now?
As of videos, recent Astra firing from a Sukhoi is a clear video showing a very clean motor ignition and flawless separation. Very neat exhaust plume and low smoke content. It shows at least *** end of this weapon is good. By no means Astra-Sukhoi combo assumed fit for op duty.

Hi,

You stirred up the hornests nest---now---better stay here and enjoy the greetings for awhile---.

I have been doing it for over a decade now---.

Stay strong---.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Care to elaborate ?

No mention for IRST since AC. Mahmud's interview in 2015.

 

[MastanKhan]

Than tell me why you insisted your crap that SD-10 is not operational with JF-17 I'M JUSt ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE A PROVE THAT SD-10 ISN'T OPERATIONAL WITH JF-17, or know better than the senior members of PDF if you have no prove go somewhere else to b
@rk, you're reported for your claim without a prove/evidance @CombatSurgeon

Hi,

You should not get upset at posters whose posts you do not agree with---.

You have to learn to listen to what the poster is saying---and not what you want to hear---.

Getting mad at the messenger is not a good thing---.

Ok, guys. I'm finished and beseech your forgiveness, you mighty know-it-all lords! Plz, pardon me for pointing out something nobody wanted to hear.
I wish you all the best with your ideals, dreams and egos. All the best with Thunders taking on the Flankers being guided by non-existing AESA radars on ZDK-03s, our own Stealth fighters flying in 10 years and smacking the shit outta Su-57s in no time, single-mode Spada-2000 taking on advanced generation EW suites on adversary jets.
By the way, judging by the jingoism inherent here and elsewhere in our country and current trends in the region, it might be F-7s, Mirages and Thunders taking on the Raptors, Lightnings and Bones very soon!

Hi,

Don't go away---just take the heat and enjoy your stay---.

Most of these pakistani 'jingos' don't have any clue what you commented about the SPADA.

There is no substitute over a tested and proven system.

 

[Thorough Pro]

@Dazzler @Bilal Khan 777 @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @MastanKhan @Windjammer @Bratva @araz

I thought of him as a false flagger troll first, but then the technique he used is very effective in information gathering. Please be aware of whats happening in the international politics especially in the background of some recent statements or am I looking too deep into it?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

@Dazzler @Bilal Khan 777 @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @MastanKhan @Windjammer @Bratva @araz

I thought of him as a false flagger troll first, but then the technique he used is very effective in information gathering. Please be aware of whats happening in the international politics especially in the background of some recent statements or am I looking too deep into it?

meh, tbh ... him confirming the SD-10's FOC status (which would be the outcome of denying it and then prying us all to confirm otherwise) isn't valuable info. The IAF has every means at its disposal to deal with it (e.g. EW/ECM, its own BVR, etc) minus the seeker and cutting the supplier (China). It's when people start spilling info that isn't in the public domain where things get sketchy, like basically stating the PAF doesn't actually have the SD-10 in FOC! If that info is real and he is a service official stating it, then I'd be worried if I were the PAF.

 

[MastanKhan]

If that info is real and he is a service official stating it, then I'd be worried if I were the PAF.

Hi,

Many a serving officers are fed up with some of the deceits of the Paf---. Many want to speak up and talk about the lies that have been told to the public.

Since 9/11---the history of the Paf is full of bigger lies than ever regarding efforts of procuring the right aircraft---.

The thing about this board is---it cannot take anything negative about the program---. Everything has to be right and perfect to satisfy young pakistani kids---.

Otherwise---you face their wrath---.

I have cutback on saying anything negative about the JF17---because it has led to nowhere---so what difference does it make if I praise the aircraft or call it below par---.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Hi,

Many a serving officers are fed up with some of the deceits of the Paf---.

The thing about this board is---it cannot take anything negative about the program---. Everything has to be right and perfect to satisfy young pakistani kids---.

Otherwise---you face their wrath---.

I don't think it was the negative info. It was the fact that this specific negative info went against what most here thought was fact. Think about it: the PAF said the SD-10 was active. There is footage of the JF-17 with the SD-10. And then someone comes online and says all of that operational activity doesn't mean the SD-10 is operational.

Of course you'll draw widespread ire, especially if you tie your proof on the matter to basically, "I am serving, so I know." That's a completely unfair approach to people here and I don't think it should be applauded - it comes of as hubris if anything, which is a concern if it's an actual officer revealing otherwise unknown national security info.

 

[MastanKhan]

I don't think it was the negative info. It was the fact that this specific negative info went against what most here thought was fact. Think about it: the PAF said the SD-10 was active. There is footage of the JF-17 with the SD-10. And then someone comes online and says all of that operational activity doesn't mean the SD-10 is operational. Of course you'll draw widespread ire, especially if you tie your proof on the matter to basically, "I am serving, so I know." That's a completely unfair approach to people here and I don't think it should be applauded.

Hi,

Look at it this way---it is an active missile---but the question being raised is---" are there issues "---.

I mean to say---there has to be a reality check for the young pakistani fans---. JF17 is a small aircraft--it has its limitations---.

2nd---every young pakistani fool comes on this board and talks about the 5th gen aircraft like they can build it dime a dozen at their dad's engineering works and Dr A Q Khan will come riding on a white horse wearing this shining armor to save them once again---.

I told you 12 years ago---INTEGRATION---of new weapons system is a killer---and for a first time aircraft---EW system and a BVR missile---the recipe of disaster is 3 times higher than normal---.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Hi,

Look at it this way---it is an active missile---but the question being raised is---" are there issues "---.

I mean to say---there has to be a reality check for the young pakistani fans---. JF17 is a small aircraft--it has its limitations---.

2nd---every young pakistani fool comes on this board and talks about the 5th gen aircraft like they can build it dime a dozen at their dad's engineering works and Dr A Q Khan will come riding on a white horse wearing this shining armor to save them once again---.

I told you 12 years ago---INTEGRATION---of new weapons system is a killer---and for a first time aircraft---EW system and a BVR missile---the recipe of disaster is 3 times higher than normal---.

You're presenting a well reasoned argument, the other guy was trying to establish a fact. The latter requires hard proof, otherwise, it should always be prefaced with "in my opinion."

 

[MastanKhan]

You're presenting a well reasoned argument, the other guy was trying to establish a fact. The latter requires hard proof, otherwise, it should always be prefaced with "in my opinion."

Hi,

And proof is something that cannot be had for things like these---.

Then you have to fall back on engineering equations---. That is what it all comes down to---. You look at the historic precedence of brand new systems built by those with minimal experience in the field---joining technologies from different geographies---is not a recipe for success.

When seasoned players are taking 10-15-20 years for build and integration---how come the rules change for a newbie---.

 

[StuartA]

Hi. PL-10 and A-Darter have not been operationalized yet. Next stage would be whether we are offered.
And I wouldn't comment here upon JF-17's BVR fiasco still plaguing the operational squadrons!

Do you even know PL-10 and SD-10 are two totally different thing? SD-10 is actually PL-12 which is operational in China more than a decade ago.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Hi,

And proof is something that cannot be had for things like these---.

Then you have to fall back on engineering equations---. That is what it all comes down to---. You look at the historic precedence of brand new systems built by those with minimal experience in the field---joining technologies from different geographies---is not a recipe for success.

When seasoned players are taking 10-15-20 years for build and integration---how come the rules change for a newbie---.

This is a great argument, again, but the guy wasn't arguing a point, he was trying to establish a fact.

He said the JF-17 was not FOC as a matter of fact. If it had been a "I don't think the PAF operationalized SD-10 with the JF-17 because X,Y and Z" - then completely fair. Great.

However, when you have footage of the SD-10 apparently being used operationally with the JF-17 and then claiming it is non-operational as a matter of fact, you're going to have to show proof. If you can't, then you should be wise enough to preface what can only be accepted as an opinion as just that, an opinion. Nothing wrong with having an opinion as long as it's well reasoned. But it shouldn't be conflated as fact.

Moreover, one shouldn't tilt themselves to a viewpoint or perspective simply because it agrees with their prior notions - that's confirmation bias (an incredibly common intellectual disease in the Subcontinent, sadly).

Imagine if someone came here also claiming to be a serving PAF guy and started saying, "the JF-17 HMD/S has been secured. PAF is doing an amazing job..." I'm sure you'd hate it if PAF fanbois took that guy as gospel. Well, it works the other way around as well, i.e. with people skeptical of the PAF embracing other skeptics because he or she is skeptic. The only arbiter in this case is fact, and fact requires proof.

 

[StuartA]

This is a great argument, again, but the guy wasn't arguing a point, he was trying to establish a fact.

He said the JF-17 was not FOC as a matter of fact. If it had been a "I don't think the PAF operationalized SD-10 with the JF-17 because X,Y and Z" - then completely fair. Great.

However, when you have footage of the SD-10 apparently being used operationally with the JF-17 and then claiming it is non-operational as a matter of fact, you're going to have to show proof. If you can't, then you should be wise enough to preface what can only be accepted as an opinion as just that, an opinion. Nothing wrong with having an opinion as long as it's well reasoned. But it shouldn't be conflated as fact.

Moreover, one shouldn't tilt themselves to a viewpoint or perspective simply because it agrees with their prior notions - that's confirmation bias (an incredibly common intellectual disease in the Subcontinent, sadly).

Imagine if someone came here also claiming to be a serving PAF guy and started saying, "the JF-17 HMD/S has been secured. PAF is doing an amazing job..." I'm sure you'd hate it if PAF fanbois took that guy as gospel. Well, it works the other way around as well, i.e. with people skeptical of the PAF embracing other skeptics because he or she is skeptic. The only arbiter in this case is fact, and fact requires proof.

No need to talk sense into him. There are tons of evidences and he refuses to accept all of them.
I just want to point out one thing: PAF has received 475 pieces of SD-10 from 2010 to 2016; 660 pieces of PL-5E from 2009 to 2016. Can you imagine that those missiles are still not operational?

 

[StuartA]

No need to talk sense into him. There are tons of evidences and he refuses to accept all of them.
I just want to point out one thing: PAF has received 475 pieces of SD-10 from 2010 to 2016; 660 pieces of PL-5E from 2009 to 2016. Can you imagine that those missiles are still not operational?

China started to design PL-12 in 1997 and finished all the testing work by the end of 2005. The missile has been seen to be equiped by J8, JH-7, J10, J11, J15 and JF-17 since then. PAF made its order on SD-10 in 2006 (800 in total) and get the first delivery in 2010 which clearly means SD-10 is operational on JF-17 at least before 2010. Those are the facts and please, for some members, do not use your imagination to mess up with facts.