Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

[MastanKhan]

Is it due to the engine and other signoff from US?
It is ok, jf-17 was designed with Gripen in mind in terms of egronomics and capabilities. Lets see if winds of change continue to hold to get any second hand units of f-16s. sooner or later they will come

Hi,

JF17 BLK2 is right behind the Gippen E---when the BLK3 pops up---that would be a totally different story---.

If tier 1 western EW package was available for the JF17---it would have served Grippen's roasted behind on a platter---.

Oh---by the way---what does the south african air force have to say about Grippen---?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Is it due to the engine and other signoff from US?
It is ok, jf-17 was designed with Gripen in mind in terms of egronomics and capabilities. Lets see if winds of change continue to hold to get any second hand units of f-16s. sooner or later they will come

The JF-17 and Gripen are basically in the same category of lightweight, multi-role fighters. Yes, the Gripen has advantages in some areas, but these aren't decisive enough to warrant a need for the Gripen in the PAF. The JF-17 will get 90% of the same work done at 40% of the price, tops.

That said, I would see if it's possible to get Saab's design and technology input in Project Azm, i.e. the next-gen fighter. @messiach had hinted that Project Azm will conceptually follow the JF-17 as a lightweight, workhorse fighter. Surely, Saab will know a few things about optimizing the maximum out of an inherently small design.

Imagine the thought of a highly agile fighter with low RCS airframe, sensor fusion and network enabled warfare capabilities. Below is one of the old concepts pitched for Turkey's TFX. Man, I would love it if Project Azm reflects this ... 150-200 of them ...

 

[CriticalThought]

The JF-17 and Gripen are basically in the same category of lightweight, multi-role fighters. Yes, the Gripen has advantages in some areas, but these aren't decisive enough to warrant a need for the Gripen in the PAF. The JF-17 will get 90% of the same work done at 40% of the price, tops.

That said, I would see if it's possible to get Saab's design and technology input in Project Azm, i.e. the next-gen fighter. @messiach had hinted that Project Azm will conceptually follow the JF-17 as a lightweight, workhorse fighter. Surely, Saab will know a few things about optimizing the maximum out of an inherently small design.

Imagine the thought of a highly agile fighter with low RCS airframe, sensor fusion and network enabled warfare capabilities. Below is one of the old concepts pitched for Turkey's TFX. Man, I would love it if Project Azm reflects this ... 150-200 of them ...

View attachment 487621

Project Azm should be a moment if reflection on Pakistan's role in the world at large, and the types of threats we face other than the Indian threat. As time goes on, it is certain that Afghanistan will get an airforce at some point (except if some other things happen to dissuade them from the idea). If USA-China relations sour, Gawadar would be under threat by Uncle Sam. We need to think globally when defining the requirements for Azm.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Project Azm should be a moment if reflection on Pakistan's role in the world at large, and the types of threats we face other than the Indian threat. As time goes on, it is certain that Afghanistan will get an airforce at some point (except if some other things happen to dissuade them from the idea). If USA-China relations sour, Gawadar would be under threat by Uncle Sam. We need to think globally when defining the requirements for Azm.

Yep ... low-cost, optimized for maximum possible performance and widely deployed (esp. in sizable numbers).

 

[CriticalThought]

Yep ... low-cost, optimized for maximum possible performance and widely deployed (esp. in sizable numbers).

Longer range as well...

 

[randomradio]

The JF-17 and Gripen are basically in the same category of lightweight, multi-role fighters. Yes, the Gripen has advantages in some areas, but these aren't decisive enough to warrant a need for the Gripen in the PAF. The JF-17 will get 90% of the same work done at 40% of the price, tops.

You seem to be comparing the Gripen C with the JF-17.

The Gripen E is a medium weight aircraft. It has 3.4T of fuel versus 2.3T that the JF-17 carries, which gives it a basic range of 2500Km versus 1800Km on JF-17. And the Gripen E's payload is almost twice that of the JF-17's. Its MTOW is nearly 17T versus 12.5T on the JF-17.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

You seem to be comparing the Gripen C with the JF-17.

The Gripen E is a medium weight aircraft. It has 3.4T of fuel versus 2.3T that the JF-17 carries, which gives it a basic range of 2500Km versus 1800Km on JF-17. And the Gripen E's payload is almost twice that of the JF-17's. Its MTOW is nearly 17T versus 12.5T on the JF-17.

Yep I was comparing the C/D to the JF-17.

That said, the Gripen E/F might actually be the most accessible Western fighter as far as the PAF is concerned. Granted, there's Sweden being reluctant to sell arms to shaky states, but it doesn't seem to emphasize that as much these days. There's the issue of third-party IP (from US and UK), but not insurmountable (e.g. T129).

Still, an import of that scope when the emphasis is apparently on sourcing marquee solutions from home or at least fully willing suppliers (e.g. China) is tough to swallow.

 

[randomradio]

Yep I was comparing the C/D to the JF-17.

That said, the Gripen E/F might actually be the most accessible Western fighter as far as the PAF is concerned. Granted, there's Sweden being reluctant to sell arms to shaky states, but it doesn't seem to emphasize that as much these days. There's the issue of third-party IP (from US and UK), but not insurmountable (e.g. T129).

Still, an import of that scope when the emphasis is apparently on sourcing marquee solutions from home or at least fully willing suppliers (e.g. China) is tough to swallow.

If the PAF manages to get their hands on the Gripen E/F in sizeable numbers, it's going to create a lot of headache for the IAF. The Gripen E configuration with a GaN radar that was offered to India was superior to the Rafale F3R's air to air configuration. The same radar and EW suite can also potentially be used on the JF-17.

But getting Sweden and the US to sell their stuff to Pakistan in the current atmosphere is quite an uphill task.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

If the PAF manages to get their hands on the Gripen E/F in sizeable numbers, it's going to create a lot of headache for the IAF. The Gripen E configuration with a GaN radar that was offered to India was superior to the Rafale F3R's air to air configuration. The same radar and EW suite can also potentially be used on the JF-17.

But getting Sweden and the US to sell their stuff to Pakistan in the current atmosphere is quite an uphill task.

IMO Saab would likely take the safer route of using Leonardo's Vixen 1000E or Raven ES in any Pakistani offer, much simpler (as Leonardo is already involved with Pakistan). Be it India or Pakistan, I'd say any race for Saab might be in the context of their respective next-gen efforts too.

 

[Tank131]

Yep I was comparing the C/D to the JF-17.

That said, the Gripen E/F might actually be the most accessible Western fighter as far as the PAF is concerned. Granted, there's Sweden being reluctant to sell arms to shaky states, but it doesn't seem to emphasize that as much these days. There's the issue of third-party IP (from US and UK), but not insurmountable (e.g. T129).

Still, an import of that scope when the emphasis is apparently on sourcing marquee solutions from home or at least fully willing suppliers (e.g. China) is tough to swallow.

With respect, the US didnt allow Jordan to sell used F-16s to PAF. There is no way the gov of US will allow sales of new 4.5gen Gripen. Any potential sale would jeed removal of US IP. UK might still be doable, but being that Pakistan is close to China and getting cozier with Russia on a daily basis, i dont see that happening. Plus, there is literally no reason that the same or similar electronics couldnt find their way into JF-17. If PAF wants something from SAAB in the vein of Gripen, then deal with Leonardo and SAAB for electronics and maybe UK for EJ200, but for your JF-17..

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

With respect, the US didnt allow Jordan to sell used F-16s to PAF. There is no way the gov of US will allow sales of new 4.5gen Gripen. Any potential sale would jeed removal of US IP. UK might still be doable, but being that Pakistan is close to China and getting cozier with Russia on a daily basis, i dont see that happening. Plus, there is literally no reason that the same or similar electronics couldnt find their way into JF-17. If PAF wants something from SAAB in the vein of Gripen, then deal with Leonardo and SAAB for electronics and maybe UK for EJ200, but for your JF-17..

But the US apparently allowed the LHTEC turboshaft to slide through with the T129, and hasn't done anything to stop the GE gas turbines for the MILGEM.

To be honest, we don't know if Khawaja Asif's statements re: Jordan are correct, especially as the PAF hasn't commented to that effect, not even when the CAS explicitly called the US out for bailing on the CSF/FMF (you'd think he would say something of Jordan?)

The point re: the Gripen E/F wasn't the electronics, but the range and payload capabilities, which can benefit the PAF in some fronts (i.e. maritime ops) sooner.

 

[MastanKhan]

The JF-17 and Gripen are basically in the same category of lightweight, multi-role fighters. Yes, the Gripen has advantages in some areas, but these aren't decisive enough to warrant a need for the Gripen in the PAF. The JF-17 will get 90% of the same work done at 40% of the price, tops.

That said, I would see if it's possible to get Saab's design and technology input in Project Azm, i.e. the next-gen fighter. @messiach had hinted that Project Azm will conceptually follow the JF-17 as a lightweight, workhorse fighter. Surely, Saab will know a few things about optimizing the maximum out of an inherently small design.

Imagine the thought of a highly agile fighter with low RCS airframe, sensor fusion and network enabled warfare capabilities. Below is one of the old concepts pitched for Turkey's TFX. Man, I would love it if Project Azm reflects this ... 150-200 of them ...

View attachment 487621

Hi,

The flexibility of a multitude of offensive weapons that come available with the JF17 negates any advantage that the Grippen would have over the JF17 in our arena---.

What is 80 to 85% in difference in capability favoring the grippen today in some fields today and one on one in the others---will narrow down to about 95% over all in some fields and at par with many others in the BLK3.

Local un-restricted supply chain of weapons and low cost of maintenance and quick ready availability of all weapons will give advantage JF17 when considered as a total weapons system---.

As great as Saab product is---its maintenance is exponentially expensive as well---as the south african air force found out---@denel can better answer that comment of mine---please correct me---.

 

[ziaulislam]

You seem to be comparing the Gripen C with the JF-17.

The Gripen E is a medium weight aircraft. It has 3.4T of fuel versus 2.3T that the JF-17 carries, which gives it a basic range of 2500Km versus 1800Km on JF-17. And the Gripen E's payload is almost twice that of the JF-17's. Its MTOW is nearly 17T versus 12.5T on the JF-17.

Gripen ng has everything 33% more than jf17 while gripen c is similar to jf17
The reason is better engine..its not twice or 50%
If block 3 does get engine upgrade it will be similar to gripen

But the US apparently allowed the LHTEC turboshaft to slide through with the T129, and hasn't done anything to stop the GE gas turbines for the MILGEM.

To be honest, we don't know if Khawaja Asif's statements re: Jordan are correct, especially as the PAF hasn't commented to that effect, not even when the CAS explicitly called the US out for bailing on the CSF/FMF (you'd think he would say something of Jordan?)

The point re: the Gripen E/F wasn't the electronics, but the range and payload capabilities, which can benefit the PAF in some fronts (i.e. maritime ops) sooner.

I think its correct ...USA simply wanted Pakistan to buy their stuff i.e new f16s and was blocking used f16 for that reason only

This doesnt applu for t129 or milgem

Secondly used f16 will be looked upon very negatively fron india perspective ..india knows that air power is very important

I doubt the milgem or t129 bothers india..as long as IAF has decisive advantage against PAF everything else is irrelevant in conventional warfare

Imagine USA allowing 40-60 used f16 that would have put IAF on the backfoot...india opposition to even 8f16 is well known and did all it can to block it ..used f16 is not going to bring jobs to usa

Indian usa citizens are way more influential educated and way more united than Pakistani ..

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Gripen ng has everything 33% more than jf17 while gripen c is similar to jf17
The reason is better engine..its not twice or 50%
If block 3 does get engine upgrade it will be similar to gripen


I think its correct ...USA simply wanted Pakistan to buy their stuff i.e new f16s and was blocking used f16 for that reason only

This doesnt applu for t129 or milgem

Secondly used f16 will be looked upon very negatively fron india perspective ..india knows that air power is very important

I doubt the milgem or t129 bothers india..as long as IAF has decisive advantage against PAF everything else is irrelevant in conventional warfare

Imagine USA allowing 40-60 used f16 that would have put IAF on the backfoot...india opposition to even 8f16 is well known and did all it can to block it ..used f16 is not going to bring jobs to usa

Indian usa citizens are way more influential educated and way more united than Pakistani ..

The Block-III will not have the same physical/airframe improvements as the Gripen E/F, i.e. no new engine, not many range/payload improvements (maybe 9 hardpoints, but the 2 new ones may be for special mission pods, not weapons), no major airframe changes.

Basically, the point of Block-III is to bring AESA and other new tech to the mainstay PAF fleet, but it's not there to drastically alter range coverage or weapon carrying capability. Maybe a JF-17 Block-IV or even Project Azm, but I wouldn't count on the Block-III to provide those changes.

Anyways, the PAF has been looking for another fighter platform to provide that range and payload capability.

It originally sought the FC-20/J-10A (see the 2009 PAF book by Alan Warnes), but that fell through due to the PPP's governing. In 2016, IHS Jane's said 30-40 new fighters were being sought to be an interim for the 2020s until the next-gen fighter comes alive.

My main point is that the Gripen E/F is probably the most accessible Western fighter today to the PAF to fulfill such a requirement. If Western fighters as a whole are a no-go, then this is a moot point, but if the PAF is still open to the idea (the previous CAS said he was looking both East and West) then the Gripen E/F is something to look at.

 

[randomradio]

IMO Saab would likely take the safer route of using Leonardo's Vixen 1000E or Raven ES in any Pakistani offer, much simpler (as Leonardo is already involved with Pakistan).

There's the new Grifo-E available.

Be it India or Pakistan, I'd say any race for Saab might be in the context of their respective next-gen efforts too.

India's practically given up on Saab. The focus has moved back to Rafale.

Hi,

The flexibility of a multitude of offensive weapons that come available with the JF17 negates any advantage that the Grippen would have over the JF17 in our arena---.

The Gripen E has 10 hardpoints and its wing and fuselage have been redesigned to hold a lot more.

You won't find an equivalent weapons loadout for either JF-17 blocks.

Gripen ng has everything 33% more than jf17 while gripen c is similar to jf17
The reason is better engine..its not twice or 50%
If block 3 does get engine upgrade it will be similar to gripen

The entire Gripen airframe has seen redesign. Just look at the pic above and tell me whether that's just 33% more.

LCA Mk1 and JF-17 are very similar when it comes to range and payload, even the weapons layout. Gripen E is a generation ahead in terms of design.

As for Block 3, even with a new engine, you will still have to redesign the airframe if you want to achieve Gripen E's capabilities.