What's new

Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight

Status
Not open for further replies.
You have to change this mentality. Under the current situation Pakistan does not have much of a choice. Your own air chiefs have said that if it was possible then PAF pilots would be flying Eurofighters and not JF-17s. PAF is only accepting what China is offering and all the statements you see are more for morale boosting.

JF-17 is better than the fighters it is replacing.

I never for myself claimed MKI is the second best. I personally feel a combination of Eurofighter and MKI is very very lethal.

MKI and F-22 are not comparable because stealth takes F-22 a world apart. Once the stealth is compromised, both are in the same league ...but if you use the stealth well, then the enemy will never find out what hit them (until it's too late).

lack of opportunity dose not meaned that paf will go for junk kind things.. paf has spended huge time and amount in r&d of jf 17 thunder and by the way thunder project is not a current project it was sought bact in 1992 after usa embargo on arm sales so in order to avoid future problems paf decided to go for self reliance and result of huge efforts of china and Pakistan is jf 17. and lack of opportunities dsnt mean that paf will waste its resources and funds on obtaining an obsolete and non reliable fighter.. of course jf 17 is a reasult of great r&d and hard work dedication of 10 years , which is , if not equal to f 16 but very much near to f 16s., and then future upgrades will make it more lethal.
 
I somehow dont find any chinese sources that back that claim of Pakistani engineers being significantly (forget equally ) involved in JF 17's design. I am obviously not counting PAF defining specs for JF 17 as contributing to design.

And about production, the % of local production of SU 30 MKI in India is more than the % local production of JF 17 in Pakistan. That doesn't make the flanker an Indian product...;)


then how come jf 17 is developed as per the strategic requirements and needs of paf ?? dont tell me that paf just send them specification and then china supplied the product lol..

dude my uncle who is currently serving as air vice Marshall was personally involve in the development of thunder he spent 4 years in china. its not good to be over smart , try to accept things. :pakistan:
 
lca tejas may be 4++ but still its on papers what is the point be being so proud when its prototypes are still flying? its far from induction here is toi article Tejas LCA project to cost more than Rs 13,000 crore over 35 years - India - The Times of India now how can one thing which is not fully ready for combat services is comparable with something which fully functional and performing remarkably in the air? by going ur logic i should come up with stealth version jf 17 which paf wish to produced near 2018 . lol.

there is a world of a difference b/n a plane that is still in ur minds and a plane that has completed 1300 filghts with all weapons integration tests done sucesfully..
Can u pls give me the link to the weapons integration tests done on the JF 17.?..thx


and abt thunder production , pdf is a very diverse forum with great information related jf 17 is available u can easily found the contribution of Pakistan in the preparation of thunder.
No were is it is mentioned.perhaps u could give me as ur uncle is the vice marshall.It wuld be very helpful.
If i remember correctly even a separate thread was started by a Indian member for that..but that was closed.

and how come tejas is fully indegenious? when half of the components are either from israel or russia..:hitwall:

if u culd prudly say that JF 17 is indigenopus wen only u did the funding then we with abt 60 % Indian components can definitely say that the Tejas is indigenous.
 
Made as per PAF requirements just like al khalid mbt, operated by PAF just like Pak Army, first sqdrn in service already, every single specification was discussed with PAF engineers before included in the aircraft including lerx, dsi, ecm housing, glass cockpit, hud, weapons and mission management computer. Initially offered an analog fly by wire version but on PAF's request, customized version of J-10 IRON BIRD (type 634) qual channel fly by wire was incorporated in it. Manual back up replaced by dual channel fbw from fourth prototype onwards.

Want to know more contribution?
 
lack of opportunity dose not meaned that paf will go for junk kind things.. paf has spended huge time and amount in r&d of jf 17 thunder and by the way thunder project is not a current project it was sought bact in 1992 after usa embargo on arm sales so in order to avoid future problems paf decided to go for self reliance and result of huge efforts of china and Pakistan is jf 17. and lack of opportunities dsnt mean that paf will waste its resources and funds on obtaining an obsolete and non reliable fighter.. of course jf 17 is a reasult of great r&d and hard work dedication of 10 years , which is , if not equal to f 16 but very much near to f 16s., and then future upgrades will make it more lethal.

No it is not a junk fighter...People would be fool to call JF17 a junk fighter...However one has to understand that JF17 is not the best choice available in the market...Due to Arms Imbargo and other sanctions complemented with lack of funds this is the best PAF could field...Now honestly tell me if you get a chance to put your hands on Eurofighter would you still go for JF17??? Looking at specs and capabilities answer would be "HECK NO"...However looking at other factors (theater of war, role of fighter, self sufficiency, cost) etc your answer would be "Yes i would choose JF17", Had my economy better with no fears of sanctions i would have gone for Eurofighter but with all those restriction JF17 is the best i can some up with....

Remember JF17 is a force multiplier for you...It would be a sitting duck for MKI in 1-on-1.. Things changes when theater of conflict moves from 1-on-1 to a war scenario and many other factors...So chilax....JF17 is not the best in the market but is the best that PAF could field....
 
then how come jf 17 is developed as per the strategic requirements and needs of paf ?? dont tell me that paf just send them specification and then china supplied the product lol..

dude my uncle who is currently serving as air vice Marshall was personally involve in the development of thunder he spent 4 years in china. its not good to be over smart , try to accept things. :pakistan:

It is true that PAF has assisted the Chinese in the development (merely as an observer). The question ere is what are your contributions

As for LCA, the entire R&D was done in India. Some components might be foreign but we aim to make it as Indian as possible.

LCA is not meant to be a budget fighter and IAF is in not desperate to induct them. LCA is going to be a state of the art light weight multi role with the best techs in the world. LCA has also provided India with lot of learning experience that will be used while developing MCA.

The LCA today is different from the LCA that was visualized 20 years ago. I'm sure the final product will be the best in it's class.

JF-17 is not something you can call "State of the art". It is simply a modern fighter jet with all the basics to keep the cost low.
 
Pakistani engineers were ther right from the aircraft R&D and took part in every single development of the entire project. PAF wanted it to be on par with its requirements.

"Fierce Dragon" Avionics R & D centers from various professional institutes to send less than 35 years the average age of more than 50 technical staff and Pakistan sent 24 technical staff. Project started on the face unusual test. Difficult technical innovation, research and development time constraints, difficulties in the transfer of technology to Pakistan, which like the three big mountains firmly pressing difficulties triple R & D center in the hearts of everyone. Many in the history of R & D centers are blank. The new avionics technology is the "Fierce Dragon" highlights the aircraft is a very difficult road of innovation. The entire development cycle from system level design, software development, facilities set up to complete the comprehensive test system DSI just only two years, three generations of this machine in our country for all types of avionics system design unprecedented in the history. In addition to avionics systems development, the R & D center will need to implement a large number of technology transfer to Pakistan. Is the need for Pakistan to conduct technical training for engineers and technicians, and technical difficulty of such a workload is no less than designing a new avionics system. Thousands of copies of the English document, more than 5,000 A4 drawings, digital prototype is complete. Selection of technical difficulties, personnel training Pakistani ... ... According to the schedule, all procedures were orderly. The young team of experienced avionics system design of our history has never been a severe test, just two years time, they were beautiful with a node declared "Xiaolong" avionics success of the project, realized in China Avionics system design from a technical introduction to the overall technical output of a historic leap.

link http://www.cannews.com.cn/zghkb/html...tent_6516.htm#


NOTE: The CAD software was provided to Chinese by Pakistanis as it came with the Agosta 90b TOT program from France. This greatly helped in designing and later modifying the aircraft later in the fourth prototype.
 
On the lighter side, who won? The JF-17 or the MKI?

:lol:

Carry on. ;)
 
It is true that PAF has assisted the Chinese in the development (merely as an observer). The question ere is what are your contributions

As for LCA, the entire R&D was done in India. Some components might be foreign but we aim to make it as Indian as possible.

LCA is not meant to be a budget fighter and IAF is in not desperate to induct them. LCA is going to be a state of the art light weight multi role with the best techs in the world. LCA has also provided India with lot of learning experience that will be used while developing MCA.

The LCA today is different from the LCA that was visualized 20 years ago. I'm sure the final product will be the best in it's class.

JF-17 is not something you can call "State of the art". It is simply a modern fighter jet with all the basics to keep the cost low.

In the end, you will see JF-17s shooting down LCAs and possibly JF-17s being shot down by the LCA.

State of the art does not matter here. LCA is nothing revolutionary and JF-17 never claimed to be anything revolutionary either. In the hands of PAF pilots, the LCA pilots will have their hands full coping with the JF-17s and I suspect the same the other way around.

Your putting down our workhorse of the future to make your own workhorse look better is an exercise in futility as you know nothing about the JF-17 or its potential, your pilots have never flown against it and you have no idea how efficiently the Pakistani side will employ it.

For the very same reason, I desist from putting down anything that the IAF may field.
 
Last edited:
then how come jf 17 is developed as per the strategic requirements and needs of paf ?? dont tell me that paf just send them specification and then china supplied the product lol..

dude my uncle who is currently serving as air vice Marshall was personally involve in the development of thunder he spent 4 years in china. its not good to be over smart , try to accept things. :pakistan:

Defining user specifications/strategic requirements is very different from Designing the aircraft to meet those requirements. Not denying PAF's role in doing the 1st.. Only questioning the 2nd..

Its also not good to be a fool to believe all that media with unnamed sources feeds you...
 
Made as per PAF requirements just like al khalid mbt, operated by PAF just like Pak Army, first sqdrn in service already, every single specification was discussed with PAF engineers before included in the aircraft including lerx, dsi, ecm housing, glass cockpit, hud, weapons and mission management computer. Initially offered an analog fly by wire version but on PAF's request, customized version of J-10 IRON BIRD (type 634) qual channel fly by wire was incorporated in it. Manual back up replaced by dual channel fbw from fourth prototype onwards.

Want to know more contribution?

1 Made as per PAF requirements just like al khalid mbt, operated by PAF just like Pak Army, first sqdrn in service already: Does not signify any contribution to aircraft design..Only to defining Specifiactions

2. every single specification was discussed with PAF engineers before included in the aircraft including lerx, dsi, ecm housing, glass cockpit, hud, weapons and mission management computer Again refers to defining requirements and specifications

3. Initially offered an analog fly by wire version but on PAF's request, customized version of J-10 IRON BIRD (type 634) qual channel fly by wire was incorporated in it. Manual back up replaced by dual channel fbw from fourth prototype onwards. Again specifications


Never argued that the plane was not designed specifically for PAF (specially since Chinese airforce anyway doesnt want the plane)
 
Specifications in many cases were innovative and new for the Chinese because they were not exposed to some of the gear that we have been interfacing with. Having flown with Airforces of more than 12 countries in the recent past with vastly different inventories including the very latest has provided our folks with design insights that most other Air Forces lack.

Secondly, Pakistani ground crews have had a similar opportunity interfacing on the engineering end with not only the diversity in our own air fleet, but also that of other air forces.

The specifications give way to design innovations because the requirements drive the design and capabilities. Most of the other Airforces have to fit their requirements to what is available. In our case with the JF-17, from the very beginning we were involved in the design process (The Air Force itself was involved all along and there was no third party involved).
 
This is a special case of "Ignorance is a Bliss" as after giving hundreds of posts, articles, there is simply no use. Some things developed by Pakistani engineers are.

1. HUD

2. WMMC (weapon and mission management computer)

3. Stores Management computer. Just to name a few

There are many others and i will discuss them with you later. Even if we did not design a single piece of it, what difference would it make? As long as it fills the role of future mainstay of PAF the way it is right now, it fits in BIG TIME !
 
In the end, you will see JF-17s shooting down LCAs and possibly JF-17s being shot down by the LCA.

Umm not a realistic scenario..Both are going to fulfill interceptor roles...


State of the art does not matter here. LCA is nothing revolutionary and JF-17 never claimed to be anything revolutionary either. In the hands of PAF pilots, the LCA pilots will have their hands full coping with the JF-17s and I suspect the same the other way around.

As said there is hardly any chance both of these fighters will pitch against each other....


Your putting down our workhorse of the future to make your own workhorse look better is an exercise in futility as you know nothing about the JF-17 or its potential, your pilots have never flown against it and you have no idea how efficiently the Pakistani side will employ it.
Sir this is true for any fighter which have not seen combat...All we can do is compare fighter jets based on their knows specifications and think which one would come as winner....


For the very same reason, I desist from putting down anything that the IAF may field.
Was wondering how to military strategist work because they also have limited knowledge about how the opponent going to field their weapons system...All you would know is how potent the weapon is going to be and work out a strategy to cope with it...Anyways i can see what you are trying to say however the more we discuss the more we will learn...Don't you think so??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom