Pakistan Air Force | News & Discussions.

[aliyusuf]

AFAIK, 45 F7PGs and 6 FT7PGs.

48 F-7PG and 9 FT-7PG were purchased in 2001-2
5 F-7PG and 3 FT-7PG have been lost due to accidents.
Remaining are 43 F-7PGs and 6 FT-7PG

There were rumors of acquiring additional 11 F-7PGs, but never substantiated to my knowledge.

 

[Code_Geass]

It might be we only have jf 17s and f-16s in 2030
Which seems very unlikely
But i dont see project azm will be able to give a 5th generation by then..

Yeh but mirages are upgraded along for ground attack only these Mig 21 family is obsolete both sides of border I don't think Indians will Pitch them again against PAF

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

It might be we only have jf 17s and f-16s in 2030
Which seems very unlikely
But i dont see project azm will be able to give a 5th generation by then..

In the past, the concern with not getting new fighters was that we'd miss out on key capabilities. But with the JF-17, we're able to access those capabilities right away. So, even if the F-16s are stuck as-is, we can at least push AESA radars to the JF-17 (plus other technologies).

The JF-17 solves 80% of the problem and, defensively speaking, we can add as many of those as we can afford. But the remaining 20% has to do with offensive capability, which we've kept putting off due to a lack of options and cash. That's where Project Azm or, more specifically, the PAF's scope for an FGFA (twin engine) comes in.

 

[Code_Geass]

Yeah i agree, do you think the design that was painted on tail of our c 130 recently has anything to do with project azm??

In the past, the concern with not getting new fighters was that we'd miss out on key capabilities. But with the JF-17, we're able to access those capabilities right away. So, even if the F-16s are stuck as-is, we can at least push AESA radars to the JF-17 (plus other technologies).

The JF-17 solves 80% of the problem and, defensively speaking, we can add as many of those as we can afford. But the remaining 20% has to do with offensive capability, which we've kept putting off due to a lack of options and cash. That's where Project Azm or, more specifically, the PAF's scope for an FGFA (twin engine) comes in.

 

[Code_Geass]

Btw work on quwa.org has slowed down alot recently

In the past, the concern with not getting new fighters was that we'd miss out on key capabilities. But with the JF-17, we're able to access those capabilities right away. So, even if the F-16s are stuck as-is, we can at least push AESA radars to the JF-17 (plus other technologies).

The JF-17 solves 80% of the problem and, defensively speaking, we can add as many of those as we can afford. But the remaining 20% has to do with offensive capability, which we've kept putting off due to a lack of options and cash. That's where Project Azm or, more specifically, the PAF's scope for an FGFA (twin engine) comes in.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Yeah i agree, do you think the design that was painted on tail of our c 130 recently has anything to do with project azm??

It's probably the author's vision. Thus far, all we know is that the CAS said that the PAF's interested in a twin-engine design with supercruise and room for directed energy weapons. Moreover, it has to be ITAR free (i.e. 100% free of any controlled US components/subsystems). The PAF is open to partnerships, so it's keeping an eye on the TF-X, but I imagine the FC-31 and/or a new Chengdu project are also under consideration.

@JamD the confusing thing about Azm is that "next-gen" doesn't have to be confined to an FGFA program. You can, in theory anyways, continue working on the JF-17 as-is and evolve its design. Even HAL is doing as much with their Tejas Mk2. Likewise, one of South Korea's KFX proposals was basically an up-worked T-50.

I wonder, at some point, if the PAF basically opted to bifurcate the JF-17 and FGFA into separate streams. So rather than the FGFA replacing the JF-17, the JF-17 line continues along an evolutionary track of some kind. That may also reconcile some of @messiach earlier points re: Azm being a natural next step from JF-17 (as well as the previous CAS' statements about Azm's design being done with Chinese help, etc).

Heck, if we take this to one natural conclusion, the twin-engine FGFA might just end up being more of an import or consortium project, while Azm = JF-17 NG.

 

[Danishwer]

PG is a good aircraft over all and requires low maintenance. For what it does and brings; there is no better substitute.

Can we compare the Indian Mig-21 Bison to Pakistani F7PG. Which one is superior? does IAF Bison has similar Flight Time and Radius?

 

[denel]

Can we compare the Indian Mig-21 Bison to Pakistani F7PG. Which one is superior? does IAF Bison has similar Flight Time and Radius?

PG any time; plus the entire flight envelope of PG is very close to F-16A/B

http://paf-eagles.blogspot.com/2011/04/f-7-mig-21-in-paf-service.html

You can scroll towards the end to read tufails' view.

 

[JamD]

It's probably the author's vision. Thus far, all we know is that the CAS said that the PAF's interested in a twin-engine design with supercruise and room for directed energy weapons. Moreover, it has to be ITAR free (i.e. 100% free of any controlled US components/subsystems). The PAF is open to partnerships, so it's keeping an eye on the TF-X, but I imagine the FC-31 and/or a new Chengdu project are also under consideration.

@JamD the confusing thing about Azm is that "next-gen" doesn't have to be confined to an FGFA program. You can, in theory anyways, continue working on the JF-17 as-is and evolve its design. Even HAL is doing as much with their Tejas Mk2. Likewise, one of South Korea's KFX proposals was basically an up-worked T-50.

I wonder, at some point, if the PAF basically opted to bifurcate the JF-17 and FGFA into separate streams. So rather than the FGFA replacing the JF-17, the JF-17 line continues along an evolutionary track of some kind. That may also reconcile some of @messiach earlier points re: Azm being a natural next step from JF-17 (as well as the previous CAS' statements about Azm's design being done with Chinese help, etc).

Heck, if we take this to one natural conclusion, the twin-engine FGFA might just end up being more of an import or consortium project, while Azm = JF-17 NG.

It's hard to debate something like this. The problem is how many things do you have to change about the JF-17 before it stops being a JF-17. There's no objectively true answer to this question. Everyone will have their own metric. For me as soon as you change the number of engines that's a new aircraft. But someone will point out that F-5 and F-20 are basically the same aircraft.

PAF's future procurement plans are unclear, this much I can agree on. Azm could might as well turn out to be a JF-17NG as you called it. Or it could be the actual NGF. Not sure. We will have to be patient.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

It's hard to debate something like this. The problem is how many things do you have to change about the JF-17 before it stops being a JF-17. There's no objectively true answer to this question. Everyone will have their own metric. For me as soon as you change the number of engines that's a new aircraft. But someone will point out that F-5 and F-20 are basically the same aircraft.

PAF's future procurement plans are unclear, this much I can agree on. Azm could might as well turn out to be a JF-17NG as you called it. Or it could be the actual NGF. Not sure. We will have to be patient.

I agree. In any case, as much as we're all whining about the lack of new fighters, the JF-17 Block-3 is a serviceable solution. My concern now is less to do with the aircraft itself, and whether we'll have enough money to build a large enough fleet. The current outlay is 76 (50 B3s + 26 Bs), but retrofitting the B2s could bring 126 AESA jets.

Either way, the difference of the JF-17 is the difference between having the MiG-21 in numbers instead of the F-6 and F-86 during the 1971 War.

The one plausible variable is upgrading the F-16s with an AESA radar. If anything, I'd say that is the PAF's main priority aside from the JF-17 as that could result in up to 76 additional AESA radar-equipped jets.

 

[JamD]

I agree. In any case, as much as we're all whining about the lack of new fighters, the JF-17 Block-3 is a serviceable solution. My concern now is less to do with the aircraft itself, and whether we'll have enough money to build a large enough fleet. The current outlay is 76 (50 B3s + 26 Bs), but retrofitting the B2s could bring 126 AESA jets.

Either way, the difference of the JF-17 is the difference between having the MiG-21 in numbers instead of the F-6 and F-86 during the 1971 War.

The one plausible variable is upgrading the F-16s with an AESA radar. If anything, I'd say that is the PAF's main priority aside from the JF-17 as that could result in up to 76 additional AESA radar-equipped jets.

Here's to hoping the economy picks up in the coming 5-10 years.

 

[khanasifm]

PG is a good aircraft over all and requires low maintenance. For what it does and brings; there is no better substitute.

Next batch of 76ish jf-17 including dual seaters will replace all 3 pg and another mirage sqn

Or approximately 4 sqns

Another ~100 will be needed to replace all mirage sqn

Jf finally tally is expected to be around 250 plus unless another type is is also indicted

 

[MastanKhan]

It's hard to debate something like this. The problem is how many things do you have to change about the JF-17 before it stops being a JF-17. There's no objectively true answer to this question. Everyone will have their own metric. For me as soon as you change the number of engines that's a new aircraft. But someone will point out that F-5 and F-20 are basically the same aircraft.

PAF's future procurement plans are unclear, this much I can agree on. Azm could might as well turn out to be a JF-17NG as you called it. Or it could be the actual NGF. Not sure. We will have to be patient.

Hi,

If the right engine was available—- a single engine fgfa would be a perfect upgrade for the JF 17 with twin tails and next gen features.
That would be the least expensive way forward.

 

[fatman17]

AFAIK, 45 F7PGs and 6 FT7PGs.

Yes the original number was 57, so 4 attritions

 

[fatman17]

These PG s need to be replace 27feb proved mig 21 derivatives are obsolete in modern era Dog fight

Depends on the pilot skills