Pakistan Eyes T-50 as Trainer Option

[black-hawk_101]

So any real news from PAF side for the T-50s as it can easily be assembled at PAC.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

What ever the reasons were but my point is that showing interest does not mean that we are actually buying them..

If interest is shown that means there is a requirement, the required performance and price is the only thing that might restrict it to be inducted (actual buying). UAE also evaluated the EFT but they are negotiating with the French for the Rafale because they found the later more attractive.

 

[Blue Marlin]

IS PAKISTAN INTERESTED IN THE T-50 TRAINER?

Rana Tanveer Hussain, Pakistan’s Minister of Defence Production reportedly told The Korean Herald that the Pakistan Air Force was evaluating the T-50 trainer manufactured by Korean Aerospace Industries (KAI).

Commonly understood as a ‘Lead in Fighter Trainer’ (LIFT) platform, the T-50 is marketed as a next-generation fighter jet-training platform capable of preparing future pilots for current and future platforms such as the F-16 and F-35, respectively. The T-50 was jointly developed by KAI and Lockheed Martin (LM) and has earned export orders to Indonesia, Iraq and Thailand. A lightweight fighter version known as the FA-50 was also ordered by the Philippines Air Force.

This would be the third time that we have heard talk about the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) expressing interest in the KAI/LM T-50, the first being in April 2015 when the Secretary of Defence Production Lt. Gen. Tanvir Tahir told Defense News, “Pakistan is examining the [T-50] and assessing our needs and requirements accordingly.” The rationale behind looking at the T-50 was to apparently secure a new fighter conversion training platform that could prepare future pilots for the PAF’s future fleet, i.e. the JF-17 (current and future variants), F-16 MLU and Block-52+, and potentially the Chinese FC-31 (and maybe even the Sukhoi Su-35, for the very optimistic!)


The Shenyang J-31 Gyrfalcon is one of China’s two next-generation fighter programs. According to Jane’s Pakistan reportedly expressed interest in 36-40 FC-31, the export variant of the J-31 Gyrfalcon. Photo credit: Russavia via Wikipedia

But it was not clear if the PAF would need a platform such as the T-50 (or Russian Yak-130, which the PAF was also reportedly looking at), especially given its limited budget. In an interview with Air Forces Monthly in May 2015, the PAF Chief of Air Staff Sohail Aman stated “but the difficulty is many like the KAI T-50 and Hongdu L-15, with their afterburners, are like fighters, and will cost around the same as an F-16. We cannot afford that now.”[1] In other words, these dedicated training systems are relatively expensive, and for the PAF, which is particularly resource constrained, it would have to be very careful about selecting the T-50 considering that some of its fighter options (e.g. JF-17 and used F-16s) cost as much or less per unit.

Before continuing, we should have a high-level understanding of the PAF fighter pilot’s initial development route: After completing his or her basic and intermediate training courses, the pilot will move onto a Fighter Conversion Unit (FCU) for general training on operating fighter aircraft. Upon completing his or her time at the FCU, the pilot will then be assigned to a platform and then subsequently train with an Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) equipped with two-seat versions of that fighter. The T-50 would fit with the FCU.

Now given that the JF-17 is poised to be the backbone of the fleet and its most common fighter, it is certain that most rookie PAF pilots will initially join a JF-17 squadron. Would it not make sense then to streamline the process and have them train on JF-17s at the FCU level? This will help enhance training efficiencies as well as allow the PAF to collapse its logistics and maintenance overhead by having the same platform meet FCU and OCU needs.

Now one could argue that the T-50 is a more suitable platform for the F-16s and the PAF’s next generation fighter fleet. It should be noted then that the JF-17 is also an adept platform as it is equipped with a modern electronics and armament suite that is similar in concept and form to the KAI T-50. Therefore, there is little reason to suggest that the JF-17 is not a good enough platform to prepare future pilots for platforms such as the FC-31.

But the interest in the T-50 is still apparently there, and that is interesting. Cost, benefit and political integrity are the core points of reference behind any major acquisition by the PAF. From a political standpoint I am not sure if South Korea is the kind of country that would stick to its commercial defence ties with Pakistan in the case of a U.S-embargo, unless of course the Koreans are planning to take on a more daring foreign relations line (which is possible considering how the U.S government rebuffed Seoul’s request for technology for use on its next-generation fighter program).

That said, I would not discount a PAF acquisition from South Korea altogether. The PAF’s existing fleet of T-37 basic jet trainers are old and are nearing the point where they will need to be retired. It is likely that the PAF is looking at the KAI KT-1 basic trainer. The KT-1 is a turboprop design, but its basic performance benchmarks are very close to those of basic jet aircraft such as the T-37, but are substantially cheaper to operate. This makes for the ideal next-generation training platform.


The KAI KT-1 is a basic training platform meant to replace basic jet trainers such as the T-37. Photo credit: Wikipedia commons

In the end it is the PAF that will decide, but to be honest is unlikely that it will opt for the T-50 considering that the cost advantages over acquiring the two-seat JF-17 is not there. The only variable, perhaps, is operational costs. It is possible that lightweight platforms such as the T-50 are cheaper to operate than the JF-17, and in the long-run, it would be more cost-effective to go for the T-50. It is also possible that the South Koreans are willing to tie other goods to the T-50, such as enhanced cooperation on electronics and aircraft development, gains from which could find their way onto future PAF programs. What other reason would there be for the Ministry of Defence Production to be in South Korea this frequently?

[1] Alan Warnes. “Exclusive Interview with the new Pakistan Air Force Chief. PAF’s Cutting Edge Grows.” AirForces Monthly. June 2015 #327. Page 68.

Is Pakistan Interested in the T-50 Trainer?

 

[silent hawk]

AoA
May be useful for FCU but financing and embargo fears would be major hurdles.
Regards

 

[MastanKhan]

AoA
May be useful for FCU but financing and embargo fears would be major hurdles.
Regards

Hi,

But if the 2 seater JF 17 is under production---why would they need a two seater trainer---.

A beefed down trainer version of the JF 17 would be cheaper and more productive.

 

[jupiter2007]

Why new Thread?
Don't we already have thread on this?

 

[silent hawk]

Hi,

But if the 2 seater JF 17 is under production---why would they need a two seater trainer---.

A beefed down trainer version of the JF 17 would be cheaper and more productive.

AoA
There are reports of a two seater JF-17. I think it is planned and not in production. I do not know of any launch dates either. T-50 on the other hand is flying. Fighter conversion through T-50 would be applicable to all PAF present and envisaged aircrafts so worth exploring.
Regards

 

[Areesh]

Pakistan doesn't really need this trainer. We need cooperation from SK on building a new shipyard though

 

[hurt]

L-15 is same useful and more cheaper.
2 seater JF 17 is more powerful.

T-50

 

[!eon]

AoA
May be useful for FCU but financing and embargo fears would be major hurdles.
Regards

Hi,

But if the 2 seater JF 17 is under production---why would they need a two seater trainer---.

A beefed down trainer version of the JF 17 would be cheaper and more productive.

They are really making strange decisions.

 

[Quwa]

They are really making strange decisions.

There are clearly two camps in the PAF. There is one that prefers using a two-seat JF-17 in FCU as well as OCU (if necessary).

Another is averse to a two-seat JF-17, and I think it is worth exploring why this is the case.

I think the reluctance to have a two-seat JF-17 stems from two reasons: (1) it isn't needed for training and (2) the Block-I/II airframe is too short-legged for specialist roles where a two-seater is mighty useful (e.g. dedicated EW). In the eyes of this PAF faction, the in-development JF-17 is just a trainer, and for that sole purpose it isn't worth buying. Of course, I don't see why such a JF-17 wouldn't make for good use in normal missions, but I guess an argument can be made for prioritizing beefier general duty fighter squadrons over an OCU unit. I also suspect this faction would prefer a two-seater based on a larger and lighter airframe, enabling JF-17 to specialist roles such as dedicated EW, strike, etc.

But then this T-50 news. Honestly, I don't think it (or any discussion about LIFT) is being pushed by the anti two-seat JF-17 faction, nor the pro faction, but another group entirely. In fact, we shouldn't even look at this issue in terms of JF-17 but rather as the start of a long-term shift in the PAF doctrine.

Modern air forces are moving towards a two tier training regimen involving turboprops such as Tucano and Hurkus at the basic and intermediate level, and then a LIFT at the advanced and fighter conversion levels. Cue the PAF's reported interest in T-50 and Yak-130.

So the future training doctrine of PAF could very well be based on this layout: (1) A modern turboprop such as Hurkus or EMB-314 for basic and intermediate flight training. (2) A dedicated LIFT such as T-50, L-15 or Yak-130 for advanced and fighter conversion.

Now one might ask why a dedicated LIFT and not a two-seat JF-17, I think that has to do with operational costs. It is possible that the T-50 is just more affordable to operate, especially in terms of getting rookie pilots in the air more frequently. Remember, the JF-17 is still a full fledged fighter.

 

[hurt]

There are clearly two camps in the PAF. There is one that prefers using a two-seat JF-17 in FCU as well as OCU (if necessary).

Another is averse to a two-seat JF-17, and I think it is worth exploring why this is the case.

I think the reluctance to have a two-seat JF-17 stems from two reasons: (1) it isn't needed for training and (2) the Block-I/II airframe is too short-legged for specialist roles where a two-seater is mighty useful (e.g. dedicated EW). In the eyes of this PAF faction, the in-development JF-17 is just a trainer, and for that sole purpose it isn't worth buying. Of course, I don't see why such a JF-17 wouldn't make for good use in normal missions, but I guess an argument can be made for prioritizing beefier general duty fighter squadrons over an OCU unit. I also suspect this faction would prefer a two-seater based on a larger and lighter airframe, enabling JF-17 to specialist roles such as dedicated EW, strike, etc.

But then this T-50 news. Honestly, I don't think it (or any discussion about LIFT) is being pushed by the anti two-seat JF-17 faction, nor the pro faction, but another group entirely. In fact, we shouldn't even look at this issue in terms of JF-17 but rather as the start of a long-term shift in the PAF doctrine.

Modern air forces are moving towards a two tier training regimen involving turboprops such as Tucano and Hurkus at the basic and intermediate level, and then a LIFT at the advanced and fighter conversion levels. Cue the PAF's reported interest in T-50 and Yak-130.

So the future training doctrine of PAF could very well be based on this layout: (1) A modern turboprop such as Hurkus or EMB-314 for basic and intermediate flight training. (2) A dedicated LIFT such as T-50, L-15 or Yak-130 for advanced and fighter conversion.

Now one might ask why a dedicated LIFT and not a two-seat JF-17, I think that has to do with operational costs. It is possible that the T-50 is just more affordable to operate, especially in terms of getting rookie pilots in the air more frequently. Remember, the JF-17 is still a full fledged fighter.

if talk about operational costs,L-15 is the best

 

[tarrar]

About FC31, the aircraft is long away from completion, it will go under go many changes before it officially gets inducted in PLAFF, so we are looking at approx time frame of 10+ years & we do not have that much time, as Mirage & F7 are crashing this is a problem for PAF. So SU35 today is the best choice for PAF as it brings complete air superiority & air dominance.

 

[Paksanity]

I have this feeling that T-50 is being forced on PAF. Korea has probably linked supply of naval ships with T-50. Given how badly Pakistan needs to improve its navy, PAF may have to accept some T-50s in the greater interest of the nation.

 

[Basel]

I have this feeling that T-50 is being forced on PAF. Korea has probably linked supply of naval ships with T-50. Given how badly Pakistan needs to improve its navy, PAF may have to accept some T-50s in the greater interest of the nation.

SK can not supply ships with out permission of USA because most of systems on their ships are from USA.