What's new

Pakistan buys 13 F16 from Jordan

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is not just price as is being mention by Munir above. It takes a fair mind to concede that even these old F-16s offer better performance than the new JF-17s in most parameters. The pricing is only icing on the cake.

No they don't. Jf-17 with BVR will be a more of 1:1 match, considering the old radar these F-16s have. There have been numerous interviews by PAF personal indicating the superiority of JF-17 over the BLK15 F-16s.

Now please stop parroting the same narrative here. This ain't Pakwheels.
 
Metrics

Specifications · Lockheed Martin
Factsheets : F-16 Aircraft Specifications

FYI Thrust to Weight ratios, wing loading and Fuel fractions are always good measures and calculated at normal take off weights not full external / take off weights , you can but optimum performance is normal take off wt.

5920 lbs / Normal take off wt i think its close to 11+ KG lets say 24000 5920/24000 =.245 or .25
JF17 5134/20000 = .256 or .26

Ideally .28 or better is new trend 4+ Gen
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRK
It is cheaper then JF17... Just do the math. You know the price of JF17. If you know the price of these planes then it is extremely cheap to go for replacing F7p with F16. And since they paid for enough MLU packets (which already are bought) it still is cheap. So in essence it is cash management like no other. But without MLU it is not that good. That is what I said.
fine now we are on the same page. Thanks for explaining.
Araz
 
No they don't. Jf-17 with BVR will be a more of 1:1 match, considering the old radar these F-16s have. There have been numerous interviews by PAF personal indicating the superiority of JF-17 over the BLK15 F-16s.

Now please stop parroting the same narrative here. This ain't Pakwheels.
Because it it a heavier and bigger plane with capacity to carry more ammo probablyit has advantages in these parameters. However as to radar range and avionics , in its current unupgraded state IT would not be better than JFT. F16s would alwayz be looked forward to by PAF because it of established infrastructure, trained pilots and established operative use. It has mqny advantages over JFT. in 5yrs whether that would still be the case needs to be seen.
I dont know much about Jordan but I am assuming that these anes have been unused for some time which is why they looked a bit worse for wear
A bit of TLC from PAF and they will be back to their mean old selves. Desert is good in the sense that things do not rust which is whyAMARCis in a desert 8n Nevada.
Araz
 
Because it it a heavier and bigger plane with capacity to carry more ammo probablyit has advantages in these parameters. However as to radar range and avionics , in its current unupgraded state IT would not be better than JFT. F16s would alwayz be looked forward to by PAF because it of established infrastructure, trained pilots and established operative use. It has mqny advantages over JFT. in 5yrs whether that would still be the case needs to be seen.
I dont know much about Jordan but I am assuming that these anes have been unused for some time which is why they looked a bit worse for wear
A bit of TLC from PAF and they will be back to their mean old selves. Desert is good in the sense that things do not rust which is whyAMARCis in a desert 8n Nevada.
Araz

I was merely referring to the unsubstantial claims by VCheng. JF-17 is marred by delays. If we can get used F-16s and put them through MLU we can get another 15 years out of them. We don't have to wait another 10 years for JF-17 to arrive in numbers. Prudence suggests that PAF should buy enough spares and ammo as well so in case sanctions arrive, these jets can still fly. I am against purchasing offensive USA equipment whether used or not, because if they stop support for whatever reason, we will be in a quagmire. However, if USA is true to mending ways then they will ensure Pakistan remains happy. Just like this Jordanian f-16 case where DSCA wasn't informed, at least not publicly and the waiver for transfer coming from the president.

If i can have another 20-30 f-16s withing 2 years, that's huge. Because procuring JF-17s in those numbers will take more time, plus there are ageing Mirage III/V that need to be replaced.

Lastly, PAF should enhance it's partnership with TAI now since the number of F-16s has increased two fold......so might be a good idea to keep those spare parts rolling in and stock up.
 
Because it it a heavier and bigger plane with capacity to carry more ammo probablyit has advantages in these parameters. However as to radar range and avionics , in its current unupgraded state IT would not be better than JFT. F16s would alwayz be looked forward to by PAF because it of established infrastructure, trained pilots and established operative use. It has mqny advantages over JFT. in 5yrs whether that would still be the case needs to be seen.
I dont know much about Jordan but I am assuming that these anes have been unused for some time which is why they looked a bit worse for wear
A bit of TLC from PAF and they will be back to their mean old selves. Desert is good in the sense that things do not rust which is whyAMARCis in a desert 8n Nevada.
Araz

Let us present numbers rather than making unsupported claims. I still maintain that even the F-16ADF can intercept and deliver ordnance better than the JF-17 in its present form of development with a weak engine, poor internal fuel capacity and cobbled up electronics, as yet unproven. Therefore, getting these 13 planes is a good decision, and only goes to show just how the claims of JF-17 superiority are just that - claims.
 
Let us present numbers rather than making unsupported claims. I still maintain that even the F-16ADF can intercept and deliver ordnance better than the JF-17 in its present form of development with a weak engine, poor internal fuel capacity and cobbled up electronics, as yet unproven. Therefore, getting these 13 planes is a good decision, and only goes to show just how the claims of JF-17 superiority are just that - claims.
OK. So be it. Since you are starting an argument in support of F 16 ADF why dont you present your data and any comparative analysis and then we can discuss this on this very thread. I will await your detailed analysis and then we rock and roll. At some stage I would have to say we are comparing two different weight classes and some equation has to be taken into account to marry this disparity. However since you seem hell bent on projecting your point of view so be it!!
Araz
 
OK. So be it. Since you are starting an argument in support of F 16 ADF why dont you present your data and any comparative analysis and then we can discuss this on this very thread. I will await your detailed analysis and then we rock and roll. At some stage I would have to say we are comparing two different weight classes and some equation has to be taken into account to marry this disparity. However since you seem hell bent on projecting your point of view so be it!!
Araz

Sure, let's start off with some basics:

Engine:
F-16 ADF: F100-PW-220, 14,590/23,770 lb.
JF-17: Klimov RD-93 11,510/19,000 lb.

Maximum speed:
F-16 ADF: Mach 2.05
JF-1: Mach 1.6

Service ceiling:
F-16 ADF: 55,000 ft.
JF-17: 55,500 ft.

Maximum range:
F-16 ADF: 2400 miles.
JF-17: 1880 miles

Weights:
F-16 ADF: 16,285 pounds empty, 25,281 pounds combat, 37,500 pounds maximum takeoff.
JF-17: 14,520 empty, 20,062 pounds combat, 27,300 pounds maximum takeoff.
 
Let us present numbers rather than making unsupported claims. I still maintain that even the F-16ADF can intercept and deliver ordnance better than the JF-17 in its present form of development with a weak engine, poor internal fuel capacity and cobbled up electronics, as yet unproven. Therefore, getting these 13 planes is a good decision, and only goes to show just how the claims of JF-17 superiority are just that - claims.

1. Fuel Capacity / Range: You need to keep things in perspective. What is the average width of Pakistan? Is JF-17 meant for / supposed to attack targets deep inside enemy territory? What roles could stand-off weapons play? You still think that Range matters? Think about the acronym 'ADF' - you still think range matters as much as you say it does in the context that you are implying?

2. Weak Engine: The adjective 'weak' is relative to the air-frame in which it is installed. You probably mean to say that TWR of JF-17 is less than F-16. You are focusing on 'weak' engine and claiming that JF-17 is at a serious disadvantage in climb performance. Do you have any figures / benchmarks to show that a yawning gap exists and that it actually matters practically in presence of AWACS, Ground-based Radar network, etc...?

Are you concerned that an F-16 might turn on a JF-17? Does IAF fly F-16? If a bunch of JF-17s are sent to intercept an incoming sortie, how could their climb performance be a decided disadvantage? Suppose a party of JF-17 are on a CAS mission, how would their climb performance doom them? Does having a high wing-loading mean something here?

While you have not said this, let me also address TWR as it relates to WVR combat. Yes TWR matters, and yet JF-17 reportedly conserves its energy better than an F-16 in a turn. That is an advantage bestowed by its air-frame design. Do you think that designers were stupid when they knew that F-16 was something of a benchmark, and that JF-17 was likely to encounter flankers, etc...?

3. Speed: First, no one actually knows the max speed of JF-17. It is expected to be less than Mach 2. But achieving top speed requires careful planning for optimum performance at a certain altitude. Exigencies of warfare are likely to dictate that nobody gets the leisure to attain top speed and make it actually count. Mirage is a Mach 2+ fighter. How many PAF pilots have actually taken it to Mach 2+? Throwing numbers around does not make an argument in itself.

4. Every fighter had 'cobbled up' electronics until they proved themselves. Please suggest ways and means of demonstrating that such electronics pass or fail a certain threshold test. Can you say with any confidence that you can give a definitive answer? How can claims be turned into facts? Can you say? Should PAF go hunting some planes for you to know that claims are true and that performance is up to mark? F-16 has kills in its record - good. Now should someone start a war to see whether or not JF-17 is as good as claimed? If PAF says that JF-17 has met and surpassed expectations, a cynic like you would not buy this statement. Is that JF-17's fault?

5. You fail to appreciate the role of JF-17, the scope of its operation, and the compromises that were necessary for its design. You just want to compare it with F-16 and declare a victor based on your whims. Read Munir's explanation again if you do not get it.
 
Sure, let's start off with some basics:

Engine:
F-16 ADF: F100-PW-220, 14,590/23,770 lb.
JF-17: Klimov RD-93 11,510/19,000 lb.

Maximum speed:
F-16 ADF: Mach 2.05
JF-1: Mach 1.6

Service ceiling:
F-16 ADF: 55,000 ft.
JF-17: 55,500 ft.

Maximum range:
F-16 ADF: 2400 miles.
JF-17: 1880 miles

Weights:
F-16 ADF: 16,285 pounds empty, 25,281 pounds combat, 37,500 pounds maximum takeoff.
JF-17: 14,520 empty, 20,062 pounds combat, 27,300 pounds maximum takeoff.
None of what you say is surprising as the 16 is a larger platform. Max speed is irrelevant as with modern day missiles it maybe of little use. I dont know whether there is a way of developing a system by which size and engine disparity are calculated per unit with each plane assigned a number of units based on parameters. In my view that would be the only sane way of doing a comparative study. I will also disregard the negligible difference in the max ceiling.
so carry on.
Araz
 
Sure, let's start off with some basics:

Engine:
F-16 ADF: F100-PW-220, 14,590/23,770 lb.
JF-17: Klimov RD-93 11,510/19,000 lb.

Maximum speed:
F-16 ADF: Mach 2.05
JF-1: Mach 1.6

Service ceiling:
F-16 ADF: 55,000 ft.
JF-17: 55,500 ft.

Maximum range:
F-16 ADF: 2400 miles.
JF-17: 1880 miles

Weights:
F-16 ADF: 16,285 pounds empty, 25,281 pounds combat, 37,500 pounds maximum takeoff.
JF-17: 14,520 empty, 20,062 pounds combat, 27,300 pounds maximum takeoff.

VCheng, you can't just compare both aircraft based on the above mentioned parameters.
Look at it at from Financial POV, or operational cost (spares, weapons, cost of fuel, cost of repair) etc.
Or simply just take price of 1 AMRAAM and compare with price tag of Chinese weapons you will get your answer which is more cost-effective for PAF, as both airframes are already in active service.

Also, these jets are not ADF but rather MLU airframe (which they don't need again anytime soon).
 
None of what you say is surprising as the 16 is a larger platform. Max speed is irrelevant as with modern day missiles it maybe of little use. I dont know whether there is a way of developing a system by which size and engine disparity are calculated per unit with each plane assigned a number of units based on parameters. In my view that would be the only sane way of doing a comparative study. I will also disregard the negligible difference in the max ceiling.
so carry on.
Araz

VCheng, you can't just compare both aircraft based on the above mentioned parameters.
Look at it at from Financial POV, or operational cost (spares, weapons, cost of fuel, cost of repair) etc.
Or simply just take price of 1 AMRAAM and compare with price tag of Chinese weapons you will get your answer which is more cost-effective for PAF, as both airframes are already in active service.

Also, these jets are not ADF but rather MLU airframe (which they don't need again anytime soon).

I just gave those basics just to reinforce what I said here before that people disagreed with:

(1) These F-16-ADFs (OCU) represent a good deal for PAF because of their capabilities.

(2) Even these old F-16s are better in their capabilities than the spanking new JF-17.

We can talk actual numbers or we can talk without them, either way I am pretty sure both those statements are correct. The implications of both are pretty interesting too.
 
Thank you for that post, but I would be willing to wager that that 33 year old PW and airframe can put a pair of missiles backed by decent avionics and enough fuel to do the job from brakes off to 40,000 feet faster than the JF-17, or put twice as much ordnance in ground targets with greater accuracy, other things being equal.

Great as the JF-17 is, it has a weak engine, not enough internal fuel and cobbled together avionics. It will take some time to develop into a platform fit for this century rather than the last.

No offence intended or implied, Sir.


Vcheng,

What is the big deal with the engine---the F14 had a weak engine---the Phantom had a weak engine---the F18 had a weak engine---.

Everybody has cobbled together avionics and power plants nowadays---what is the big deal----. India is mating israeli equipment to russian equipment---.

So---the loiter time for the JF17 is not as much as that of an F16----but with half of that time without refuelling is still enough for the job-----.

You introduced yourself as an accountant one time---do other people know you as an engineer!!!!

Sure, suit yourself. With the present engine, the JF-17 is not going anywhere fast. Literally.

(BTW, this classic "Trust us, we know what we are doing" attitude belongs in the last century, and can work only so far in this changed world. Time to wake up! Deeds and evidence based conclusions work much better.)


Vcheng,

Is the 30 years old F16 not superior to the base model Grippen in every manner. These aircraft have certain ground strike capabilities matched by none other----and if the job can be done by a 5mil aircraft---then why waste a 35 mil aircraft.

Bettet BVR's, WVR's and electronic package will always make the difference----.

Please define what a better power plant would do in this case----!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom