JF-17A/B 's cockpit (pictures)

[All-Green]

If you have the feeling that we experience the slightest bit of worry witnessing your nation procure JF-17s and swiftly induct them, then you're gravely mistaken.

JF-17 is nothing but a cheap alternative to modern day fighters, a wanna be in the F-16 league. You're merely trying to satisfy yourself that your APC is a Battle tank and even fantasizing battle scenarios about it.

Now since the French avionics are on hold, everyone seems to be praising the Chinese avionics ..The forum members seem to know more about technology and Chinese capability than PAF itself, which is why it made the mistake of approaching the French for avionics.

I have come to realize that this is just a support system used to satisfy your insecurities.

JF-17 is credible enough to be inducted by PAF, it is a modern design and fully capable of fulfilling its role as a fighter jet in today's environment.
Cheap only due to competitive pricing offered by current manufacturers as opposed to huge profit margin of the current aviation market leaders.
Low price is not a bad thing if the product is sound.

The initial news was the PAF shall not induct the JF-17 with below par systems, if it was inducted with Chinese avionics then i am sure there was a certain degree of confidence associated with the available Chinese systems meeting PAF needs.

The western avionics package is still an option, can be exercised with Italy if not France, the point is that this plane can be fitted with a lot of avionics and weapon systems manufactured by countries other than China, that gives a lot of flexibility to meet intended customer needs.

The electronic warfare and countermeasure capability of this plane is supposed to be very good, however this falls in the realm of unconfirmed specs.
On the other hand we do have certain confirmed features.
The modern Glass cockpit, LERX, BVR capability makes the JF-17 a modern fighter design...certainly not a wannabe.

There is a disparity between IAF and PAF nowadays.
IAF already has a host of modern fighters so it has the technological edge, PAF will be upgraded a lot in next 5 years and replace its F-7s, A-5s with JF-17s, which is an entirely different class of airplane.

Certainly not something the IAF planners can ignore, however if they are not worried then good for them...and us as well.

 

[Avatar]

JF-17 is credible enough to be inducted by PAF, it is a modern design and fully capable of fulfilling its role as a fighter jet in today's environment.
Cheap only due to competitive pricing offered by current manufacturers as opposed to huge profit margin of the current aviation market leaders.
Low price is not a bad thing if the product is sound.

The initial news was the PAF shall not induct the JF-17 with below par systems, if it was inducted with Chinese avionics then i am sure there was a certain degree of confidence associated with the available Chinese systems meeting PAF needs.

The western avionics package is still an option, can be exercised with Italy if not France, the point is that this plane can be fitted with a lot of avionics and weapon systems manufactured by countries other than China, that gives a lot of flexibility to meet intended customer needs.

The electronic warfare and countermeasure capability of this plane is supposed to be very good, however this falls in the realm of unconfirmed specs.
On the other hand we do have certain confirmed features.
The modern Glass cockpit, LERX, BVR capability makes the JF-17 a modern fighter design...certainly not a wannabe.

There is a disparity between IAF and PAF nowadays.
IAF already has a host of modern fighters so it has the technological edge, PAF will be upgraded a lot in next 5 years and replace its F-7s, A-5s with JF-17s, which is an entirely different class of airplane.

Certainly not something the IAF planners can ignore, however if they are not worried then good for them...and us as well.

Thanks for the elaborate reply.

First, the F-16 is a time tested instrument of combat that has been constantly innovated for decades. It is one of the best products of US technology.

Secondly, no matter how many features the JF-17 has, it has NOT been battle tested. All we have seen are a few air shows, a few videos and a few fancy fly past's with the JF-17 painted green in all it's magnificence. We have no idea about the actual performance and reliability.

If we see earlier discussions about JF-17, it was frequently quoted that China will provide the platform while other components such as avionics will be provided from west, certainly because they have better offerings.

Every time you come across a likely Indo-Pak scenario discussion on the internets, somehow you always come across the sentence along the lines of "We will just send a couple of F-16's and JF-17s to handle it" ..or "We will just use a little nuclear tipped missile" ..These are highly immature responses but unfortunately they are most of what is in supply. Pakistani's must accept that although JF-17 is much better than what it is replacing, it is not what they make it to be.

Like that video where the Indian Journalist/Pilot tried the JF-17 simulator and claimed that it was something the Pakistani's might want to rethink ..however the Pakistani who posted it wrote "Look at the Indian guys expression, look how scared he is" ..This is nothing but blind faith and patriotism blinding people. Even if JF-17 was that good, the journalist would have said something like "This is an excellent work of Chinese engineering, and the Indian Air Force might want to think about it."

The disparity between IAF and PAF will always remain for the cruel fact that India is 4 times bigger and 7 times more populated than Pakistan. LCA, MRCA, and the Mirage upgrades shall be inducted in good numbers by the time PAF has fully inducted JF-17.

 

[TechLahore]

Secondly, no matter how many features the JF-17 has, it has NOT been battle tested. All we have seen are a few air shows, a few videos and a few fancy fly past's with the JF-17 painted green in all it's magnificence. We have no idea about the actual performance and reliability.

The JF-17 is currently in use in COIN operations and is conducting precision strikes and A2G campaigns. All mission parameters are being validated. The first type the JF-17 is replacing is the A-5 Fantan, which was a CAS platform. The current set of missions will go a long way in validating and proving the JF-17 as a battle-tested, reliable performer for the PAF.

As for A2A, the JF-17 was employed in a fairly elaborate and long-running PAF exercise.

Finally, I will remind you that the MKI, Rafale, Typhoon, F-22 etc. are also not "battle tested". The Rafales were only briefly deployed to Afghanistan for COIN ops. The JF-17s have probably been tested under those conditions to a greater degree.

Like that video where the Indian Journalist/Pilot tried the JF-17 simulator and claimed that it was something the Pakistani's might want to rethink ..however the Pakistani who posted it wrote "Look at

Yes, the former IAF pilot was obviously giving us his 100% honest and impartial feedback. Give us all a break!! We'll take this johnnie's advice the day you accept a PAF pilot's "feedback" on how to run your air force.

The disparity between IAF and PAF will always remain for the cruel fact that India is 4 times bigger and 7 times more populated than Pakistan. LCA, MRCA, and the Mirage upgrades shall be inducted in good numbers by the time PAF has fully inducted JF-17.

It doesn't matter. The IAF has always had numeric superiority. The goal is not for the PAF to be a bigger air force, but to equip itself to deny the enemy all his goals.

 

[Avatar]

The JF-17 is currently in use in COIN operations and is conducting precision strikes and A2G campaigns. All mission parameters are being validated. The first type the JF-17 is replacing is the A-5 Fantan, which was a CAS platform. The current set of missions will go a long way in validating and proving the JF-17 as a battle-tested, reliable performer for the PAF.

I am sure that JF-17 can very well do what the A-5 does or even better than the A-5. These missions can be compared with training runs bombing dummy targets. I would not go deep into that.

As for A2A, the JF-17 was employed in a fairly elaborate and long-running PAF exercise.

Here you claim that the PAF exercise will test the JF-17's A2A capability. This means that your overall assumption is that a multi role fighter needs to participate in COIN operations and/or an A2A exercise to prove that it is battle tested, and a reliable performer for it's Air Force.

Finally, I will remind you that the MKI, Rafale, Typhoon, F-22 etc. are also not "battle tested". The Rafales were only briefly deployed to Afghanistan for COIN ops. The JF-17s have probably been tested under those conditions to a greater degree.

Sir, I could not help but notice as you contradict yourself, saying that MKI is not "battle tested" despite having participated in several war games and most recently the 9 hour endurance run of the diaper fame, where dummy targets on a remote Island were successfully bombed. From general observation, it very well meets your parameters for "battle testing".

Similarly, Typhoon, Rafael, and Raptor have also had similar endeavors.

Yes, the former IAF pilot was obviously giving us his 100% honest and impartial feedback. Give us all a break!! We'll take this johnnie's advice the day you accept a PAF pilot's "feedback" on how to run your air force.

I was not aware that he is a former IAF pilot. It would suit us more to declare the JF-17 as a potent adversary which would actually speed up the MRCA. Something like what the Americans do when they want more F-22s.

It doesn't matter. The IAF has always had numeric superiority. The goal is not for the PAF to be a bigger air force, but to equip itself to deny the enemy all his goals.

I wish PAF the best of luck.

 

[Frankenstein]

Read post #12 and you will see who derailed it... and which BLUDDY did it

Your talking but this:

india feels the might

He didn't hurt your feelings did he, India feels the might what so big or abusive in it, trust me i experience worst then this from your side so chill

 

[Iron_Eagle_17]

I am sure that JF-17 can very well do what the A-5 does or even better than the A-5. These missions can be compared with training runs bombing dummy targets. I would not go deep into that.

Ever been to a bombing range before???
There is a massive 200% difference in practicing bombing at a bombing range and bombing the so called dummy targets in a well populated area. For once you know that any error on your part could end the lives of innocent people.
At least our piolts can use a so called cheap and outdated aircraft for precision bombing.
Indian Air Force 'bombs' Rajasthan village? - The Times of India
This link might open your eyes to the dificulty your pilots face in identifying targets in some of the worlds best fighter aircrafts.That to on bombing dummy targets and I too would not go deep into that.

Here you claim that the PAF exercise will test the JF-17's A2A capability. This means that your overall assumption is that a multi role fighter needs to participate in COIN operations and/or an A2A exercise to prove that it is battle tested, and a reliable performer for it's Air Force.


Woha sometimes I am left speechless at the immaturity......
If you will not test a platform in all possible scenarios how the hell will you know is its a reliable performer or not.

Sir, I could not help but notice as you contradict yourself, saying that MKI is not "battle tested" despite having participated in several war games and most recently the 9 hour endurance run of the diaper fame, where dummy targets on a remote Island were successfully bombed. From general observation, it very well meets your parameters for "battle testing".

Similarly, Typhoon, Rafael, and Raptor have also had similar endeavors.

Sorry mate but war games are war games as in bombing runs on dummy targets is a bombing run on a dummy targets. In any war games you simulate to near realistic situations. Whereas thats not meant the platforms are battle proven aka....
We for a fact know that JF-17 can be used for precision bombing runs in a war as it was inducted during a war and used in the war hence battle proven.MKI not.

 

[Machoman]

From Chinese aircraft cockpits 's development, we can see the future design for JF-17A/B, or FC-20 B/C.
china is developing its cockpits for next generation aircraft, hopefully, they can be used to JF-17 which is still been improved now in fact.


1---future cockpit (style 1)
2---FBC-1(JH-7)'s cockpit
3---future cockpit (style 2)
4---future cockpit (style 2)
5---FC-20A 's cockpit (we still don't know what FC-20B 's cockpit looks like)

Agar itnay sare screen dekhay gay to plane koon chalay ga bhai? lol

 

[TechLahore]

I am sure that JF-17 can very well do what the A-5 does or even better than the A-5. These missions can be compared with training runs bombing dummy targets. I would not go deep into that.

Obviously the JF-17 vastly outperforms the A-5. It's not the aircraft that's being compared, it's the role.

If you think that supporting a real army fighting a real enemy in a real COIN operation where you don't control all the parameters is like "bombing dummy targets" then we should agree to disagree and go our separate ways. Not much I can do to help you.

Here you claim that the PAF exercise will test the JF-17's A2A capability. This means that your overall assumption is that a multi role fighter needs to participate in COIN operations and/or an A2A exercise to prove that it is battle tested, and a reliable performer for it's Air Force.

No, the point is that the JF-17 has had more exposure to real military scenarios than the MKI has. I thought your original criticism was that the JF-17 hadn't been battle tested at all. My response was that it has at least been deployed in a real COIN operation, which you can't say for the MKI. So by your original logic, the MKI isn't battle tested and hence shouldn't be trusted either?

Sir, I could not help but notice as you contradict yourself, saying that MKI is not "battle tested" despite having participated in several war games and most recently the 9 hour endurance run of the diaper fame, where dummy targets on a remote Island were successfully bombed. From general observation, it very well meets your parameters for "battle testing".

I am not contradicting myself, but perhaps you failed to understand the argument. That's ok.

Dummy targets don't shoot real anti-aircraft bullets at you, diapers or no diapers. The JF-17 has been deployed in a theater where the foreign funded terrorists are known to have rockets, various types of anti-aircraft guns and SA-7 as well as potentially some unaccounted-for stingers from the Soviet era.

Similarly, Typhoon, Rafael, and Raptor have also had similar endeavors.

Did you not read my post? I said that the Rafale had been deployed briefly in Afghanistan in a similar COIN operation. If that's battle testing, then so is what the JF-17 is undergoing presently.

 

[Indian Su30 MKI]

Good pictures.Good news for PAF and all the Pakistani brothers here.

 

[Windjammer]

@ Avatar, I am sure you will agree that the terminology of "battle tested and proven" is different to an element being regarded as airworthy.
When participating in a battle like the JF-17, you face an opposition which in this case perhaps is not worthy but they do fire real bullets and RPGs in your direction and the apprehension of a live rounds hitting something sensitive is always paramount, however as for the "9 hour endurance run of the diaper fame", relates to the saying from "Enter the Dragon", boards don't hit back, more over these exercises are in the same substance as say, a Jumbo Jet takes off from London Heathrow and some twelve hours later touches down smack on time in Australia.

 

[Avatar]

Obviously the JF-17 vastly outperforms the A-5. It's not the aircraft that's being compared, it's the role.

If you think that supporting a real army fighting a real enemy in a real COIN operation where you don't control all the parameters is like "bombing dummy targets" then we should agree to disagree and go our separate ways. Not much I can do to help you.



No, the point is that the JF-17 has had more exposure to real military scenarios than the MKI has. I thought your original criticism was that the JF-17 hadn't been battle tested at all. My response was that it has at least been deployed in a real COIN operation, which you can't say for the MKI. So by your original logic, the MKI isn't battle tested and hence shouldn't be trusted either?



I am not contradicting myself, but perhaps you failed to understand the argument. That's ok.

Dummy targets don't shoot real anti-aircraft bullets at you, diapers or no diapers. The JF-17 has been deployed in a theater where the foreign funded terrorists are known to have rockets, various types of anti-aircraft guns and SA-7 as well as potentially some unaccounted-for stingers from the Soviet era.




Did you not read my post? I said that the Rafale had been deployed briefly in Afghanistan in a similar COIN operation. If that's battle testing, then so is what the JF-17 is undergoing presently.

..It's about fighting a real war. It doesn't take much to bomb insurgents, even a nice WWII plane could do that. The insurgents have other priorities over air defense and at most they might shoot down low flying helicopters.

Your army is perhaps the one getting more experience from the operations, because the conditions for it are almost as severe as they might be in a different war.

What I meant by battle testing was a real/simulated A2A engagement in different scenarios, something which all the mentioned fighters have
participated in. Also the mentioned fighters have a longer history and variants of Su-30 are used around the world by different AF's, including China.

Anyways, I'm happy if you're happy. Just letting you know I don't feel the "might".

 

[Avatar]

@ Avatar, I am sure you will agree that the terminology of "battle tested and proven" is different to an element being regarded as airworthy.
When participating in a battle like the JF-17, you face an opposition which in this case perhaps is not worthy but they do fire real bullets and RPGs in your direction and the apprehension of a live rounds hitting something sensitive is always paramount, however as for the "9 hour endurance run of the diaper fame", relates to the saying from "Enter the Dragon", boards don't hit back, more over these exercises are in the same substance as say, a Jumbo Jet takes off from London Heathrow and some twelve hours later touches down smack on time in Australia.

Flying a jumbo jet is different from flying a fighter jet, which is something I hope you can conceive.

If you really fight insurgents who can shoot down fighter planes with AK-47s then you should try recruiting them for your army, because as far as I know terrorists are more worried about ground forces creeping up on them than trying to secure the skies.

 

[Windjammer]

Flying a jumbo jet is different from flying a fighter jet, which is something I hope you can conceive.

If you really fight insurgents who can shoot down fighter planes with AK-47s then you should try recruiting them for your army, because as far as I know terrorists are more worried about ground forces creeping up on them than trying to secure the skies.

Now you are being frivolous, agreed in a fighter aircraft, you can't exactly get up to go to the bathroom or stretch your legs, but you need to comprehend and absorb the fact that this endurance flying has been taking place since the WW2.

Since you are oblivious to the reality on the ground, albeit i can't recall an aircraft but several NATO Choppers have been brought down by these insurgents, who i can assure you are armed with little more than just the AK-47, and there is always the possibility of them receiving more capability from their masters. In any case a Pakistan ground observer did prove back in 1971 that it's possible to shoot down a jet fighter with an assault rifle.

 

[Avatar]

Now you are being frivolous, agreed in a fighter aircraft, you can't exactly get up to go to the bathroom or stretch your legs, but you need to comprehend and absorb the fact that this endurance flying has been taking place since the WW2.

Since you are oblivious to the reality on the ground, albeit i can't recall an aircraft but several NATO Choppers have been brought down by these insurgents, who i can assure you are armed with little more than just the AK-47, and there is always the possibility of them receiving more capability from their masters. In any case a Pakistan ground observer did prove back in 1971 that it's possible to shoot down a jet fighter with an assault rifle.

Like I said, choppers are all that they can shoot down. Even if they have stingers they have other priorities to take care of.

Again, you're using a 1971 example I haven't heard of. I am certain that JF-17 is faster and more sophisticated than the jet you claim your rifleman shot down..or no ?

 

[jagjitnatt]

Now you are being frivolous, agreed in a fighter aircraft, you can't exactly get up to go to the bathroom or stretch your legs, but you need to comprehend and absorb the fact that this endurance flying has been taking place since the WW2.

Since you are oblivious to the reality on the ground, albeit i can't recall an aircraft but several NATO Choppers have been brought down by these insurgents, who i can assure you are armed with little more than just the AK-47, and there is always the possibility of them receiving more capability from their masters. In any case a Pakistan ground observer did prove back in 1971 that it's possible to shoot down a jet fighter with an assault rifle.

read it again please.