What's new

Tejas team to put 'best ever' aerobatics in Bahrain

You lose product support!
If the PLAAF don't want the FC-1, the PAF are the only buyers, they aren't going to get a lot for their money. And they aren't! PAF already has issues with the JF-17s payload and combat load. But they were forced into it. Originally the PAF wanted the Gripen! However, someone inside Pakistan decided to take bribe from China. The Chinese are learning and transferring tech of J-7 to Pakistan. Had you bought into the Gripen, you would have more technical experience with newer technology and save on operating costs. Uptime of the JF-17 is probabiliy really bad given the Mig-29 with its 2 engines was designed to keep in mind a short life span of engines. Its a bad project. The Mig-21 had its day. But its outdated in terms of low speed handling and agility.
The RnD for the JF-17 is mostly done by China and still being done by China. At their own leisure and pace. The IAF have a similar deal with MKI Flankers except its far ahead in the technology and generation gap.
If PAF was serious about a indigenous aerospace complex they would have started off with real projects no matter how hard with longer growth potential.
MKI assembly will soon turn into a MKI upgrade line and than a T-50MKI line.
The JF-17 like I said, Was a J-7 line. Now what? Electronics are always being updated but the engine will always limit the growth of the aircraft. Ontop of this, Russia supplies the engines. And the Russians are worse than americans when the cut you off from the supply.
Not mentioned is the fact Russians have NO LOVE for Pakistanis. They play with the Indians and are letting you into the new BRIC club on a leash.
IMO going for an Gripen would have been a better idea since America isn't pressured by India as much as Russia is.
So if Pakistan doesn't play ball, no more RD-93s.

Don't know whether this is your views are some one others views

However JF-17 was actually a smart decission for the Pakistan because it dosen't matters whether it is a abandant Soviet MIG-33 project which was actually the single engine variant of Mig-29, and whose IPRs and blueprint and data was purchased by the AVIC china or not, the matter of fact it was tailor build for the PAF. Now it means that PAF didn't bought it off the shelf rather customized with active participation with the Chinese OEM, so actually its the PAF role not the PAC involvement. Now for the Grippen, if every airforce is given the choice to select the fighter plane with no funds issue, then most will chooce F-22 Raptor straight away, but there is also the economical budget, and requirement and PAF being a professional force, takes decission on the basis of its requirement, budget, and threats, and not by the gignos thinking like you or me or any other poster here in the PDF.

Grippen was thought by the PAF at the time, when US stopped the delivery of the F-16, but again the problem for the SAAB was the R12 turbofan engine, which was actually the licence produced F-404 Engine of the US origin. So why PAF choose JF-17, there is superb article written by @Horus in the PDF which describes in detail, why PAF choosed F-16 and not Mirrage 2000, and why JF-17 plan was materalized, give a read, unfortunately I cannot give you the link as I am banned from the all the sections except Indian defence.

Now the advantage of JF-17 was great to PAF
1. It gives PAF long range BVR, which was unavailable earlier.
2. It gives PAC Kamra experience to produce, which will help PAF for the local support and repair facilities.
3. It gives PAF various weaponary which is why this plane is very attractive like CM-400 AKG, so how many countries provide such weapons with the fighter aircraft.
4. It gives the PAF cheaper alternative, fair capable , superior weaponary , customized subsystem to choose for the replacement of urgently needed aging old 3 airframe like Nanchang Q-5, J-7, and Mirrage 3/5.
5. With the JV with the China, PAF make sure, that the future upgradation, upgraded and superior weaponary and upto date tech availability.
6. China developing its own Turbofan engine, so till it gets matured enough, Russians engine can work which is upgraded one, not the old Mig-29B engine without FADEEC.

Now PAF is not a big airforce, like RuAF, PLAAF or IAF, so its doctrine don't have the requirement of the Role specific fighter plane like Speciallized long range Bomber, DPSAU, Interceptor, Airsuperiority, Recce, SEAD, DEAD, CAS, Strike and Ground attack aircraft so what she need is the multirole fighter plane. Since Pakistan don't have the strategic depth, a short range light wt multi role fighter plane fits well in PAF doctrine. What PAF actually needed is not the fighter plane but strong Air defense system, all network connected, and AEW EC in C4ISR because in the present time 100 cruise missile do job well than the 100 fighter plane will less danger of erritation and all future clash will be short, high intensity, network intrensic clash.

Now MKI is the long legged, airsuperiority fighter plane, and meant more for the PLAAF, so leave aside that.
Second the choise of RD-33 Engine bad -- First who told you its a bad or unreliable engine, actually it is cheaper but with less TBO life, so in short cheaper in imediate costing, but costly in long run.
Chinese turbofan engine for JF-17 is on the pipeline, and it will takes years to mature enough. The rule of the thumb is that even if the untested/unreliable engine is developed, it is first tested in the tested airframe, and the untested airframe is used with the tested/reliable engine. In short, even if the Kaveri was ready, it wouldn't be used in LCA, rather some other tested airframe.
 
.
Don't know whether this is your views are some one others views

However JF-17 was actually a smart decission for the Pakistan because it dosen't matters whether it is a abandant Soviet MIG-33 project which was actually the single engine variant of Mig-29, and whose IPRs and blueprint and data was purchased by the AVIC china or not, the matter of fact it was tailor build for the PAF. Now it means that PAF didn't bought it off the shelf rather customized with active participation with the Chinese OEM, so actually its the PAF role not the PAC involvement. Now for the Grippen, if every airforce is given the choice to select the fighter plane with no funds issue, then most will chooce F-22 Raptor straight away, but there is also the economical budget, and requirement and PAF being a professional force, takes decission on the basis of its requirement, budget, and threats, and not by the gignos thinking like you or me or any other poster here in the PDF.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/tejas-te...batics-in-bahrain.417230/page-8#ixzz3yZBRaDUd
Thats, good for the Chinese. But you don't see the PLAAF flying off with the bird even if China bankrolled it.
Why did the Soviets abandon the Mig-33 concept?
Keep in mind India HAL already has/had a Mig-21 line!
The reason being was because the Mig-21 airframe was no longer cost effective.
The Cold WAR is over. Hence no need for airframes of such calibre.
The J-7 line was almost entirely handed over to PAC but its limited on its growth!
JF-17 shares the same flaws that effected the Mig-21, lowspeed handling and short legs.
Despite the changes, you see the Chinese opting for a heavier J-10 which BTW has a AL-41 engine.
Whats the difference between J-10 and JF-17? Well the J-10 creates more lift at slower speeds, and better wing loading even though the AL-41 engines are NOT easy to replace or maintain. There is also the payload, ceiling, range etc..
Unlike China, Pakistan does not have military sanctions. They had an option to buy Gripens and possible ToT or Rafales. I don't see the logic. It is better than the J-7 but the J-7 in PAF will around a lot longer than Mig-21bisons of IAF. Why didn't the PAF update the J-7s with EW and buy AWACs as a solution?
PAF needs to fit. Not fat. I'm smelling corruption.

Grippen was thought by the PAF at the time, when US stopped the delivery of the F-16, but again the problem for the SAAB was the R12 turbofan engine, which was actually the licence produced F-404 Engine of the US origin. So why PAF choose JF-17, there is superb article written by @Horus in the PDF which describes in detail, why PAF choosed F-16 and not Mirrage 2000, and why JF-17 plan was materalized, give a read, unfortunately I cannot give you the link as I am banned from the all the sections except Indian defence.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/tejas-te...batics-in-bahrain.417230/page-8#ixzz3yZDYsmKo
ADA's and HALs design consulate, at least 1 of the bigger ones was dassualt. Back in the 90s. Why didn't Pakistan try the M-88 engine? Also India 2 was sanctioned. Is Pakistan?
If you wanted to keep people employed at PAC and give them experience, than you should have tagged dassault BAE NOT China. They have a military embargo against them. Ontop of that PAF bought into the JF-17 NOT J-10.
1. It gives PAF long range BVR, which was unavailable earlier.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/tejas-te...batics-in-bahrain.417230/page-8#ixzz3yZESHpLW
BVR comes down to missiles. Maybe they'll get their AMRAAMs on the JF_17 but until then SD-10 isn't a R-77 or MICA. If you wanted to put SD-10s on a platform you could have upgraded those J-7s which will fly till?
2. It gives PAC Kamra experience to produce, which will help PAF for the local support and repair facilities.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/tejas-te...batics-in-bahrain.417230/page-8#ixzz3yZErtUQP
It'll keep them employed, but the computers and labs used to design the JF-17 is in Pakistan.
Imagine if ADA was in another country. and yet it is.
3. It gives PAF various weaponary which is why this plane is very attractive like CM-400 AKG, so how many countries provide such weapons with the fighter aircraft.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/tejas-te...batics-in-bahrain.417230/page-8#ixzz3yZF68w3b
CM-400 is ballistic missile right? solid fuel? Heavy right? Whats the problem with Kh-31s? CM-400AKG is the poor mans missile. And like i said. You have various Mirage 3s that could use the missile.
4. It gives the PAF cheaper alternative, fair capable , superior weaponary , customized subsystem to choose for the replacement of urgently needed aging old 3 airframe like Nanchang Q-5, J-7, and Mirrage 3/5.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/tejas-te...batics-in-bahrain.417230/page-8#ixzz3yZFhQxl7
What like an AESA radar which apparently is now cheap enough for IAF to field on its Jaguar fleets?
5. With the JV with the China, PAF make sure, that the future upgradation, upgraded and superior weaponary and upto date tech availability.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/tejas-te...batics-in-bahrain.417230/page-8#ixzz3yZFwtVuu
Remember originally the PAF was hunting for other weapons partners in South Africa and Europe looking for missiles and bombs to arm the plane and electronics. Only for the PAF to get told to love Chinese maal.
6. China developing its own Turbofan engine, so till it gets matured enough, Russians engine can work which is upgraded one, not the old Mig-29B engine without FADEEC.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/tejas-te...batics-in-bahrain.417230/page-8#ixzz3yZGIjDWw
China has not finished the WS-10 let alone start another engine project. The RD-93 depends on its funds from JF-17 orders and more importantly the Mig-29 sales.
Now PAF is not a big airforce, like RuAF, PLAAF or IAF, so its doctrine don't have the requirement of the Role specific fighter plane like Speciallized long range Bomber, DPSAU, Interceptor, Airsuperiority, Recce, SEAD, DEAD, CAS, Strike and Ground attack aircraft so what she need is the multirole fighter plane. Since Pakistan don't have the strategic depth, a short range light wt multi role fighter plane fits well in PAF doctrine. What PAF actually needed is not the fighter plane but strong Air defense system, all network connected, and AEW EC in C4ISR because in the present time 100 cruise missile do job well than the 100 fighter plane will less danger of erritation and all future clash will be short, high intensity, network intrensic clash.

Now MKI is the long legged, airsuperiority fighter plane, and meant more for the PLAAF, so leave aside that.
Second the choise of RD-33 Engine bad -- First who told you its a bad or unreliable engine, actually it is cheaper but with less TBO life, so in short cheaper in imediate costing, but costly in long run.
Chinese turbofan engine for JF-17 is on the pipeline, and it will takes years to mature enough. The rule of the thumb is that even if the untested/unreliable engine is developed, it is first tested in the tested airframe, and the untested airframe is used with the tested/reliable engine. In short, even if the Kaveri was ready, it wouldn't be used in LCA, rather some other tested airframe.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/tejas-te...batics-in-bahrain.417230/page-8#ixzz3yZGnBxwg
What the PAF needs is fighter like Tejas or Gripen with short take off, landing and MODERN. Of course the radars and AWACs are important.

This all being fun to dispute.
Ans me this. Why would I buy a RD-93 engine from Russia with short life span when I could buy F404 or M-88 with little or no strings attached?
Remember, Russians don't forget their friends. And they fuking hate the people who killed their boys when they tried to save Afghanistan. Everything they have done, so far as relations with Paksitan go have been to keep Pakistan subdued.
Russia is NOT the alternative for Pakistan. Smartly they went to the Chinese, who one way or another, sent them back to Russia!
 
.
Considering the scenarios, what we have produced is not just a fighter. But an aerospace industry.

This :tup:

Despite all the shortcomings, missed deadlines, cost escalations and a few imported critical components such as engine, what India got out of the LCA project is NOT just a decent fighter but a whole array of ecosystem (including private industry participation) to design, build and validate a fighter jet from concept to a finished product.

And once our struggles with Engine development fructify (which will happen eventually), Indian defense would not only be 100% self-sufficient but be a force to reckon with, in the arms industry!
 
.
Thats, good for the Chinese. But you don't see the PLAAF flying off with the bird even if China bankrolled it.
Why did the Soviets abandon the Mig-33 concept?
Keep in mind India HAL already has/had a Mig-21 line!
The reason being was because the Mig-21 airframe was no longer cost effective.
The Cold WAR is over. Hence no need for airframes of such calibre.
The J-7 line was almost entirely handed over to PAC but its limited on its growth!
JF-17 shares the same flaws that effected the Mig-21, lowspeed handling and short legs.
Despite the changes, you see the Chinese opting for a heavier J-10 which BTW has a AL-41 engine.
Whats the difference between J-10 and JF-17? Well the J-10 creates more lift at slower speeds, and better wing loading even though the AL-41 engines are NOT easy to replace or maintain. There is also the payload, ceiling, range etc..
Unlike China, Pakistan does not have military sanctions. They had an option to buy Gripens and possible ToT or Rafales. I don't see the logic. It is better than the J-7 but the J-7 in PAF will around a lot longer than Mig-21bisons of IAF. Why didn't the PAF update the J-7s with EW and buy AWACs as a solution?
PAF needs to fit. Not fat. I'm smelling corruption.

It was Chinese AVIC project, but could not find any order from PLAAF, because PLAAF needed long legged fighter planes like Flankers, and they have superior plane called J-10 period. China want to increase its share in the international market which is around 5 percentage and JF-17 is one product of that.

Soviets abandoned the Mig-33 concept due to the lack of the funds. Don't have much time to explain everything, but in short during the Cold War, the soviet lay emphasis on the ground control rather than the aerial platform, thats why they have the superior Ground Radars and Sams. Mig-33 concept was like F-16, cheaper, easy to mass produce, single engine derived from Mig-29 not Mig-21, don't know how do you find anything common with the Mig-21.
JF-17 shares the same flaws like Mig-21 -- What are you smoking. First Mig-21 was powered by tubojet engine and was Delta platform with tail, meant for high speed of max speed match 2.5 and as an interceptor, and JF-17 design is conventional design so better handling in slow speed, and slow speed landing.

There is no comparison of JF-17 and J-10, and J-10 design is better derived from Lavi project with FBW in all axis and use of composites, and the powerplant used in earlier is AL-31 not AL-41 but will be replaced with the Chinese.
I told you earlier on the rule of thumb, that new airframe are always powered by the reliable engine.
J-10 will become the backbone of the PLAAF not the flankers like J-11, J-16 etc.

Grippen was powered by the US engine, so US denied the engine for the export to the Pakistan because it was supplying F-16 to PAF. Second Rafale was out of budget of the PAF.

Upgradation of J-7 comes with the price, and PAF did upgrade J-7 with the itallian Griffo Radar with 30 KM range. The nose inlet design of the J-7 dosen't permit the fitment of the large Radar due to space constrain, and their is no point of upgrading the plane which is likely going to get retired soon. If their won't have been delay, than IAF won't upgrade its 125 Mig-21 to Bison standard for the role as an interceptor.


ADA's and HALs design consulate, at least 1 of the bigger ones was dassualt. Back in the 90s. Why didn't Pakistan try the M-88 engine? Also India 2 was sanctioned. Is Pakistan?
If you wanted to keep people employed at PAC and give them experience, than you should have tagged dassault BAE NOT China. They have a military embargo against them. Ontop of that PAF bought into the JF-17 NOT J-10.

M-88 Engine for JF-17 ?? first it is costly second its dry thrust is less than RD-33/93 Engine. third a plane is always designed around an engine not the opposite, so if you wanna be Gingos to think that engine is just plug and play type stuff believe what you want, other wise the original Mig -33 engine which was the single Mig-29 concept had the same engine of the Mig-29.

For the sanctions to the India -- Do you know F-404 engine for the PV-1, and 2 was bought during that period with 14 units ordered from GE and US didn't stopped the delivery of the F-404 engine to ADA though it blacklisted DRDO.

PAF bought JF-17 not J-10 because thats what they choosed to by joining the project by partially funding the project. So actually its the PAF project not the PAC project funded by PAF.

BVR comes down to missiles. Maybe they'll get their AMRAAMs on the JF_17 but until then SD-10 isn't a R-77 or MICA. If you wanted to put SD-10s on a platform you could have upgraded those J-7s which will fly till?

AMRAAM for JF-17 forget about that. For the BVR, the integration is not that easy, in short, with BVR, the radar is choosen well before and Chinese BVR will be the primrary weapon. Some jignos thinks that R-Darter and A-Darter, but that will comes with the Raven Aesa radar in JF-17. for J-7 I already explain you the lack of size do not permit the bigger radar to be fitted inside the nose of the J-7. For MIG-21 Bison, it was the Russian Kopyoo Radar with 60 KM range, that how India was able to use 2 R-77 BVR for the interceptor role.

It'll keep them employed, but the computers and labs used to design the JF-17 is in Pakistan.
Imagine if ADA was in another country. and yet it is.

Well for the local support, and repair, you don't need the CFD modelling data and the wing tunnel data. Once the design is frozen, the only thing needed to manufacture is the SOP and the drawings. PAC can do small changes, to remove all the glitches or call the chinese AVIC to do so from the inputs from the customer i.e PAF pilots.

CM-400 is ballistic missile right? solid fuel? Heavy right? Whats the problem with Kh-31s? CM-400AKG is the poor mans missile. And like i said. You have various Mirage 3s that could use the missile.

You fail to understand, and now beating the bush. E.g during the Falkland war between Argentina and UK, Argentina was denied the antiship EXOCET missile by france which she needed desperately. In short such weapons are only given to friends or the allies, and are not available freely in the global market.

What like an AESA radar which apparently is now cheap enough for IAF to field on its Jaguar fleets?

AESA Radar in Jaguar is totally a waste, and I think it should be fitted with the EL/M 2032 instead of Aesa 2052, because it is a ground attack fighter plane not the airsuperiority fighter or the dog fighter. The real power of the Jaguar is the capability to fly close to the ground with full load with high speed with the capability to terrain avoidance, terrain hugging to avoid the radar detection, and the NAV attack sensor to put the dumb bombs accurately to the target.

Remember originally the PAF was hunting for other weapons partners in South Africa and Europe looking for missiles and bombs to arm the plane and electronics. Only for the PAF to get told to love Chinese maal.

Pakistan have good ties with the South Africa, and may be funding the A-darter and R-dater, which is derived from the Rafael Python and Derby. The Ra'ad is nothing but the South african Air launch cruise missile developed by Daniel Aerospace Turgus.

China has not finished the WS-10 let alone start another engine project. The RD-93 depends on its funds from JF-17 orders and more importantly the Mig-29 sales.

RD-93 dose not depend on the funds from JF-17, because Mig-29 and Mig- 29K is still there and will be there for a while.

What the PAF needs is fighter like Tejas or Gripen with short take off, landing and MODERN. Of course the radars and AWACs are important.

PAF need the fighter which are cheaper, and provide the PAF weapons and capability enough to protects its airspace.

This all being fun to dispute.
Ans me this. Why would I buy a RD-93 engine from Russia with short life span when I could buy F404 or M-88 with little or no strings attached?
Remember, Russians don't forget their friends. And they fuking hate the people who killed their boys when they tried to save Afghanistan. Everything they have done, so far as relations with Paksitan go have been to keep Pakistan subdued.
Russia is NOT the alternative for Pakistan. Smartly they went to the Chinese, who one way or another, sent them back to Russia!

1. RD-93 is cheaper and JF-17 was designed around it. F-404 could not be ordered by the AVIC from the GE, and M88 engine lack the thrust required. FC-1/JF-17 was designed for the export and to keep the cost low russian engine was choosen. It will be interesting to see the order of the FC-1 when WS-10 engine, which I don't think very soon and with the trainer available and with the Block 3 with the AESA and HOBS missiles in the Global market.

2. There is no friend or enemy in the real international world, and all the deals, friendships changes with the profits and gain.

3. With just few helicopters and few weapons does not meant that Russia is going to give high end weapons to Pakistan thus fortiefy its Indian weapon market which is the biggest in the whole world for the Russian.
 
Last edited:
.
There is no comparison of JF-17 and J-10, and J-10 design is better derived from Lavi project with FBW in all axis and use of composites, and the powerplant used in earlier is AL-31 not AL-41 but will be replaced with the Chinese.
I told you earlier on the rule of thumb, that new airframe are always powered by the reliable engine.
J-10 will become the backbone of the PLAAF not the flankers like J-11, J-16 etc.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/tejas-te...batics-in-bahrain.417230/page-8#ixzz3yedQlQRl
J-10 is not Lavi. Lavi was a F-16 with canards and delta. The J-10 is also a J-7 mutilated beyond recognition. But its also based on another Chinese design. In all its a Chinese design. Regardless of where they got the idea, J-10 too is built on J-7 infrastructure that is why they put out a prototype and sq quickly. The Al-41 also wasn't cheap but increased some payload and made the J-10 suitability large and efficient for growth.
And also more than 500+ flankers in PLAAF. Not a small number. China does not need a quick take off fighter. J-10 is heavier and as a result its take off isn't too good with payload. But PLAAF isn't as strategically close to the threat. PAF is.
1. RD-93 is cheaper and JF-17 was designed around it. F-404 could not be ordered by the AVIC from the GE, and M88 engine lack the thrust required. FC-1/JF-17 was designed for the export and to keep the cost low russian engine was choosen. It will be interesting to see the order of the FC-1 when WS-10 engine, which I don't think very soon and with the trainer available and with the Block 3 with the AESA and HOBS missiles in the Global market.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/tejas-te...batics-in-bahrain.417230/page-8#ixzz3yefTPl5P
I'm not going to debate this. point by point. But the entire point was to have weapons to fight a war. Russia isn't going to sell you engines if things go wrong.
China probably will but even they'll get cut out about Pakistan.
And if they were serious about force multipliers in war and peace time.
The would have updated their F-7's with BVR and datalink with BVRAAM with AWACS or ground based radars. Like the IAF did with bisons earlier.
As for a dog fighter and visual interceptor, they have got their F-16s with AMRAAM.
The mood is policy. Pakistan initiated a policy of being Indias equal. Not true, but they believe. If India has a MBT or Fighter jet project, they must too. If India tested a nuke and pretty much got NSG waiver. We must too.
Bad policy. Your trying to become equal to a nation that has a bigger budget.
Mind you India is on the super power bandwagon, NOT because it wants to but because when you have 1 billion people, you have to keep talent employed. Pakistan, doesn't have infrastructure or the economics when it began such a stupid quest.
If you have nuclear weapons why build everything else that is not economical?
Listen. Technically, JF-17 is a good fighter. Reality is even though its NOT criticize by the PAF, IT is NOT what they wanted. Not even close. RD-93 may be cheap. But fuel efficiency, uptime vis the F404 is bad. The Russians have way around this. But when you have single engine backbone aircraft to train new gen of pilots. You'd wan't more uptime. Not to mention lifecycle, the F404 is cheaper. Not the RD-93. Initial operating costs of Girpen and Tejas are greater but you get more time in the air with the 2 and costs less. Meaning less sq. More savings etc.
JF-17 is not an example of how you make an omelet from an egg. Pakistan during the 90's had huge policy problem issues with effected the JF-17 concept.
Also its been said this is a Tejas thread not JF-17 thread.
Tejas only competitor is the Gripen. However the weapons available for Tejas will be drastically different. Almost the complete Su-30MKI arsenal and Pythons and Derby AAM with dual rail launchers.
IMO the short sightedness of the Tejas was only creating such small aircraft. There does seem shortage to place weapons considering the payload it could potentially carry. I'm surprised ADA or HAL isn't complaining the size is too small to fit things in.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom