JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[The Eagle]

Sir sir why do you ban @LKJ86 then to ask irrelevant question on that thread, and thanks


Sir sir why do you ban @LKJ86 then to ask irrelevant question on that thread, and thanks

You have to worry about your conduct as I have gone through all the discussion. There is difference between regular violation and unintentional. No more off-topic posts here as well. My advise for you is to change your posting behaviour as you are mostly triggering off-topic discussion merely by answering every irrelevant post and then lingering on. Not every post is to be answered which doesn't relates to the topic in hand. Most of those questions are already discussed in depth though, few are too lazy to go through the relevant subject and find out.

side note: Please continue on topic in hand. No more off-topic posts. Let the issue be resolved by Mod and the member please.

Regards,

 

[aliyusuf]

Block 1's, II's and JF-17B's are not getting AESA.

Any reason why? When the LETRI LKF601E air cooled AESA radar is apparently a suitable match for AESA retro-fit on existing blocks?

 

[araz]

Any reason why? When the LETRI LKF601E air cooled AESA radar is apparently a suitable match for AESA retro-fit on existing blocks?

Do we really need a whole lot of expense in an era of network centricity. You can just have one or 2AESA Platforms per unit leasing the pack and the other platforms can take the lead from them and shoot based on directions given by the leading plane. This would allow a really efficient system of use of AESA and PD radars.
A

 

[aliyusuf]

Do we really need a whole lot of expense in an era of network centricity. You can just have one or 2AESA Platforms per unit leasing the pack and the other platforms can take the lead from them and shoot based on directions given by the leading plane. This would allow a really efficient system of use of AESA and PD radars.
A

You are right, that is, if the real combat scenarios work out picture perfect and always according to plan. There are so many things that could go wrong. And if Murphy's Law is anything to contend with, then the things that could go wrong will go wrong e.g. if the AESA Eyeball spearheads in a sector get splashed then the rest of the shooter team mates are relegated to their B-games.

In such cases better numbers and redundancy literally translates into better survivability and higher mission success rates.

My query is that why be stingy when a solution is already close at hand and the force multiplying effect will be considerable.

 

[araz]

You are right, that is, if the real combat scenarios work out picture perfect and always according to plan. There are so many things that could go wrong. And if Murphy's Law is anything to contend with, then the things that could go wrong will go wrong e.g. if the AESA Eyeball spearheads in a sector get splashed then the rest of the shooter team mates are relegated to their B-games.

In such cases better numbers and redundancy literally translates into better survivability and higher mission success rates.

My query is that why be stingy when a solution is already close at hand and the force multiplying effect will be considerable.

It is not being stingy. Generally PAF seems reasonably satisfied with the PD radars at hand. We so far have 120 planes. Replacing AESA Radars on all would be cost, time and effort prohibitive. Then there maybe testing required to change radars which will impact fleet availability.
I suspect in the late 20s when PAF has more time on hand it may try to do so with part of the fleet as an upgrade. But currently it seems it wants to soldier on. I know it does not sound ideal but 5 years of familiarity with AESAs and its comparative advantages over PD radars may yet change thinking within the PAF high ups.
A

 

[MastanKhan]

You are right, that is, if the real combat scenarios work out picture perfect and always according to plan. There are so many things that could go wrong. And if Murphy's Law is anything to contend with, then the things that could go wrong will go wrong e.g. if the AESA Eyeball spearheads in a sector get splashed then the rest of the shooter team mates are relegated to their B-games.

In such cases better numbers and redundancy literally translates into better survivability and higher mission success rates.

My query is that why be stingy when a solution is already close at hand and the force multiplying effect will be considerable.

Hi,

You are challenging pakistani mentality and mindset---not realizing that the pakistanis will create a problem and then compound on it---.

Our saving grace is that our enemy does the same---.

For a smaller force----to be effective and to be on the top of its game---each aircraft will have to be equipped similarly---. Older aircraft should be upgraded to new standards when they come in for re-furbishment---.

Murphy's law is effective under any situation---.

 

[MastanKhan]

You are right, that is, if the real combat scenarios work out picture perfect and always according to plan. There are so many things that could go wrong. And if Murphy's Law is anything to contend with, then the things that could go wrong will go wrong e.g. if the AESA Eyeball spearheads in a sector get splashed then the rest of the shooter team mates are relegated to their B-games.

In such cases better numbers and redundancy literally translates into better survivability and higher mission success rates.

My query is that why be stingy when a solution is already close at hand and the force multiplying effect will be considerable.

Hi,

To add to it---it is like saying" Sharpen some of your swords and leave the others dull " or " Get some of your horses ready for war and leave the others unprepared "---.

 

[aliyusuf]

Hi,

To add to it---it is like saying" Sharpen some of your swords and leave the others dull " or " Get some of your horses ready for war and leave the others unprepared "---.

You're absolutely spot on @MastanKhan Sahib.
The way forward should be, at the very least, to upgrade the existing block of the JFT's to the air cooled AESA whenever they are to be overhauled. This way the impact on the fleet readiness numbers won't be affected by additional delays.

 

[JohnWick]

You're absolutely spot on @MastanKhan Sahib.
The way forward should be, at the very least, to upgrade the existing block of the JFT's to the air cooled AESA whenever they are to be overhauled. This way the impact on the fleet readiness numbers won't be affected by additional delays.

AESA Radar.....
How much Tax money do you pay?

 

[MastanKhan]

You're absolutely spot on @MastanKhan Sahib.
The way forward should be, at the very least, to upgrade the existing block of the JFT's to the air cooled AESA whenever they are to be overhauled. This way the impact on the fleet readiness numbers won't be affected by additional delays.

Hi,

How about this---. All your new aircraft with AESA are based on one air base---because aircraft of same pedigree are placed at one location in the begining---.

Enemy strikes that air base and completely destroys the air base and all the aircraft on that base---so imagine all your aesa equipped first two sqdrn's are gone---.

What are you gonna do---GIVE THE FAMOUS PAKISTANI ANSWER---" Hamein Nahin Patta Thaa Keh Aeisa Ho Gaa---".

So what now---. Never underestimate your enemy and enemy's capabilities---.

 

[TheTallGuy]

@MastanKhan

Just want to know your opinion on "F-16C/D Block 52+" employment by PAF. for example as case study "Swift retort" why would we not use block 52s why use F16MLUs. 52+ were the most advance technologically to cope with MKIs and Mirage 2000Is.

this is relevant to your post above.

 

[MastanKhan]

@MastanKhan

Just want to know your opinion on "F-16C/D Block 52+" employment by PAF. for example as case study "Swift retort" why would we not use block 52s why use F16MLUs. 52+ were the most advance technologically to cope with MKIs and Mirage 2000Is.

this is relevant to your post above.

Hi,

If the Paf did not use the BLK 52's---then there was a clear message to the enemy---.

So the impression being given out by the Paf is that they have another group of air crafts with a higher tiered capabilities---.

I would not have suggested use of the F16's at all---just kept them in the back and let the JF17's lead the operation in all formats with the Mirages---.

Basically there was no need for the F16 to be in the front line---. The surprise factor and the JF17 with SD10 was more than capable to handle any situation thrown at Paf---.

That would have really really smashed the enemy's psyche---.

 

[Thorough Pro]

I am assuming what @TheTallGuy wanted to draw your attention to "all F-16 swords" are as sharp as the latest Block50/52, similarly all the JF-17 swords will be as sharp as the latest version (provided) it is technically possible.

Hi,

If the Paf did not use the BLK 52's---then there was a clear message to the enemy---.

So the impression being given out by the Paf is that they have another group of air crafts with a higher tiered capabilities---.

I would not have suggested use of the F16's at all---just kept them in the back and let the JF17's lead the operation in all formats with the Mirages---.

Basically there was no need for the F16 to be in the front line---. The surprise factor and the JF17 with SD10 was more than capable to handle any situation thrown at Paf---.

That would have really really smashed the enemy's psyche---.

 

[araz]

I am assuming what @TheTallGuy wanted to draw your attention to "all F-16 swords" are as sharp as the latest Block50/52, similarly all the JF-17 swords will be as sharp as the latest version (provided) it is technically possible.

I suspect what is being said is that the last word has not YET been said on the PD radars. From a financial perspective even at 5 million a pop you are looking at a 550million dollars bill for 110 AESA Radars. Add to that the 110 PD radars o e will chuck out at 2 million a pop making it a 220 million wasted. To futher give perspective the 16 ADF fighters are still going on their older PD radars and PAF has not changed those even for the sake of fleet conformity and we are talking about JUST 13 fighters. So how do repective members see this situation. We just do not have the mkney , the time and the effort to waste.
Just to give perspective to numbers 700 million got us 50 block 1 fighters. Even at 1 billion for the next 50 that is 70%of the fleet of a block of 50 fighters one can replace.
I rest my case. I think there is currently no reason to replace PD radars on ALL THE JFT fleet. We have resource constraints and at least another 100 legacy fighters to replace even after the next 50 block 3s have entered service.

 

[MastanKhan]

I am assuming what @TheTallGuy wanted to draw your attention to "all F-16 swords" are as sharp as the latest Block50/52, similarly all the JF-17 swords will be as sharp as the latest version (provided) it is technically possible.

Hi,

What I am getting is that the Paf holding back the BLK 52 is saying that our strongest and sharpest sword has yet to be used in action---and what Iam was saying is that regardless of our speculation of the JF17---the Paf knew what it could do---and tactically---they should have allowed it to take the lead in the air to air combat.

Its success would have created a " WTF " moment around the air forces of the world and that would have been the best sales pitch forever---. Any failure could have easily be blamed on developing stage of the aircraft----.