JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Jeff Head]

Well, the less actual combat the better.

The idea is for these instruments of war to be highly capable and practiced, and for your adversaries to know that they are highly capable and that you are practiced in their use.

If you are doing those things properly, then you know what they are capable of.

Those weapons work the best...by far the best...when they deter aggression and combat and are not needed for them.

Combat is what you do when you are either :

a) Not communicating that you have highly capable systems which you are very good at using to your adversaries who then underestimate you and make war upon you..

- or -

b) Adversaries think they can best your systems with their own plans and capabilities and believe theirs methods are better, irrespective of what you might have.

That is when you find out if they actually work as advertised.

Personally, I would far rather have capable systems which I exercise regularly and which deter war, than to have to use them in war.

As it relates to the JF-17, it is clear that Pakistan has them. It is clear that Pakistan is practicing with them. it is clear that Pakistan is improving them. It is clear that the JF-17s are newer than their F-16s.

It is not clear that the JF-17s are better than the F-16s.

If I were Pakistan and engaged in the type of fight with terrorists or separatists, or fanatics that require CAS, where my enemies do not have an air force, and if I thought my own efforts against those enemies would not be lessened or hurt by using JF-17s, then I would use them in such a confrontation to make sure they do what I want them to do, and to exercises those squadrons with such combat.

If on the other hand I thought that my F-16s would hurt or defeat those enemies more soundly...and I mean demonstrably more...then I would use the F-16s because my business is to beat the enemy as badly as I can.

 

[Saqr]

I waive a magic wand, and *poof* you're now Air Marshal Saqr of the Royal Saudi Air Force. Would you be happy enough with PAC demonstrating precision strikes in a controlled environment, or would you rather see evidence from actual combat? Keep in mind there are plenty of used F-16s out there for your air force.

I don't think Saudi Arabia is a prospective customer the PAF has in mind. Nigeria on the other hand, they can go ahead and request those used F-16s, but even they would know how much of a mountain the processes in Washington (State Department approval + Congressional approval + commercial negotiations) is going to be. I believe they would much rather avoid that and go for an alternative that purports some of those key capabilities without the hassle (I.E. political considerations for America).

 

[vesicles]

Well, my 2-cent on the issue of the actual effectiveness of the JF-17 is that we should give the PAF more credit. What I mean is that we all know the PAF is a highly capable air force with tremendous amount of experience, including actual combat experience with both Western and Eastern planes. I think we all agree that the PAF has some of the most skilled fighter pilots with actual combat experience. And another thing that we should all agree is that the PAF does not make their decision lightly. This is a major investment in their national security. They would only make their decision after the most thorough consideration of all factors. Before they decided to go with the JF-17 and while they had the 1st batch of JF-17, they must have conducted tons and tons of test-flights and put all systems and subsystems under the microscope. And they now have 2 squadrons of the JF-17, which means at least 50 experienced pilots have flown the planes for extended amount of time. We all know how cocky these fighter pilots can be. If they found anything wrong with the plane, they will make their opinion heard.

So, taking all these factors into consideration, the PAF still decided to not only keep the JF-17, but to move forward with the acquisition of even more JF-17's. And I think we can all see their enthusiasm with the JF-17. All these point to one conclusion: the JF-17 is an excellent plane. No matter if it has actually participated in combat. Experts who have actual combat experience and know what to expect of a piece of combat-capable equipment seem to like JF-17. I think that is what matters.

 

[Blackstone]

...
So, taking all these factors into consideration, the PAF still decided to not only keep the JF-17, but to move forward with the acquisition of even more JF-17's. And I think we can all see their enthusiasm with the JF-17. All these point to one conclusion: the JF-17 is an excellent plane. No matter if it has actually participated in combat. Experts who have actual combat experience and know what to expect of a piece of combat-capable equipment seem to like JF-17. I think that is what matters.

Noted, but let's not forget JF-17 is Pakistan's first foray into highend multi-role light fighters, so the pressure to use it in the PAF is high. Consider how long India kept its indigenous but problematic INSAS assault rifle and Arjun MBT in part due to national pride.

 

[Saqr]

Another thing I want to point out is that Pakistan's COIN operations predate the JF-17 (in terms of its formal induction and regular service within the PAF).

This is an important point.

Prior to the JF-17 the PAF had basically relied on the F-16. In other words, for the past many years the PAF had dedicated not only aircraft, but actual personnel, training regimens, equipment, operational budgets, etc, to COIN in FATA.

What this means is that the resources to COIN have already been allocated. Not only that, but the people involved within those operations are veterans on that front, meaning, it is the F-16 unit(s) who are the most experienced, and thus able, in this area.

What would using JF-17 at this point serve for the mission? Yes, the commercial incentive is there, but mixing commercial goals with national security requirements is a dangerous thing to do, and the last thing anyone in Pakistan wants is tainting a very sensitive period in our time (which is basically waging a war on our own soil).

On the other hand, attack helicopters are in very, very high demand in the COIN theatre by the Pakistani Army. I imagine the AH-1s fly a lot more than the F-16s do and are definitely more in harm's way than the F-16 can ever be in that area. The need for a new platform there is urgent, so you'll see the Army use even the newest and least tested platforms, e.g. WZ-10, AH-1Z, if and when possible.

 

[vesicles]

Consider how long India kept its indigenous but problematic INSAS assault rifle and Arjun MBT in part due to national pride.

But did the Indians keep investing in their problematic INSAS assault rifle and Arjun MBT for future development and actively advertise them to the world? Or they simply tried to sit on it for awhile to save face? This is a legitimate question since I have no idea the developmental history of INSAS assault rifle and Arjun MBT...

 

[Blackstone]

But did the Indians keep investing in their problematic INSAS assault rifle and Arjun MBT for future development and actively advertise them to the world? Or they simply tried to sit on it for awhile to save face? This is a legitimate question since I have no idea the developmental history of INSAS assault rifle and Arjun MBT...

I recall reading something about India marketing the Arjun, but I'm not sure if they sold any.

 

[[email protected]]

Gif of JF-17 vertical take-off for PAS15 aerial demonstration

 

[Blackstone]

Gif of JF-17 vertical take-off for PAS15 aerial demonstration

Good demonstration of Russian turbofan capability.

 

[Rauf]

Good demo of Russian Turbofan on a good airframe ? Doubt it could do the same if mounted on a very large brick.

PS: Correct, the best way to make sure your equipment works is to test it on real live test dummies, these days they be the Talibans, TTP, ISIS etc. Sad but true.