maglomanic
Junior Member
Interim solution. PAF needs fighters NOW to fill it's ranks. JF-17 and J-10 both will take some time. F-16 A/Bs with MLU will be able to the airsupriority and strike missions where as the advanced versions will make up the front line fighters doing specialized missions like SEAD/DEAD airsupriority over battle field/enemy airspace and deep strikes.FreeAsia2000 said:
If you look at it, it's pretty much philosphy of our Chinese friends to walk on two legs
Thats how it appeared, the assertion that while China should be concentrating on next gen fighter like it's competetitors it is wasting time on '2nd rate' fighter. I am sorry if thats what you didn't mean.Gollevainen said:
Not at all Golly. My only problem (proplem if you like it that way
) is that people make generalizations without backing it up proof. Trust me it's not just one side i am furstrated with, it's two sides. One side makes JF-17 look like something in the class of F/A-22 and the other one tries to portray JF-17 as a meuseum relic. The truth is that it's neither. It's plane that was designed and produced because Pakistan wanted independence from western suppliers who cut the supplies whenever they wish. Then comes price 'because' it was to be fielded in great numbers and fill lo side of the fleet.Well to me the one flows logically from the other. If you think about it what would airforce need? Whatever fits their doctrine. But i did use the word doctrine if i recall correctly and that i mentioned in my last post as well. Any way sorry for the misunderstanding if anywhere i didn't use the right term.
Golly thats where i say see it in the light of the user who will operate it. If we are to start comparing planes like that then everything is '2nd class' compared to F/A-22. Thats exactly what i have been pointing out that if we are to generalize this way and follow this logic then alot can be said about alot many fighters and not just JF-17. Jf-17 is a very limited design and their is no denying it. But if we are applying standards from different category to a plane that belongs to differnt category then thats a mistake IMO. If JF-17 were to compete in F-16 category then it would be a J-10 and FC-1. Thats exactly why Pakistan is going for more F-16s and J-10s for hi role and JF-17 on lo side.
You are pretty much contradicting me and then using the saem argument as me. Your first point regarding less but qualitative airforce means a single type doing all sorts of missions. Now tell me who would 'waste' a capable fighter like F-16 or J-10 doing CAS or something that A-5 does in PAF?? How are you going to generate enough sorties if you dont have enough numbers?? Battles are not about fighter versus fighter. Battles pit airfroces against airforces. The argument for quantity still holds truth and even the top most airforces use a lo fighter for missions on which they wouldn't want to lose an expensive and much more capable fighter.
PAF doctrine calls for very rapid raction within it's own airspace with enough capability to counter enemy threat. The tech improvements on this fighter are just to that end. Datalink and BVR seems to be the most obvious ones. Given the threat assesment they are more of a necessaty then a half hearted attempt to make JF-17 that it cannot become due to design constraints. JF-17 is for within home airspace. Your argument that the roles that are being filled in by Mirages and F-7 are not relevent anymore, i would want more from you than just that. When you have fighters like Jaguars, Mig-27,LCA, Harriers and Mig-29 in your threat list, Jf-17 makes much more sense. In past decade IAF has acquired less than 50 Sukhois. The claim of 190 MKIs is something i would like to see when that happens. The threat assesment doesn't call for an all next gen airforce when you don't have any power projection ambitions.
In that context a hi-lo mix works just fine. 70 or so high end F-16C/D and J-10s with a medium layer of F-16A/Bs and lo role being done by JF-17.
Pakistan wasn't part of that program. Pakistan only joined FC-1 when Super seven was scrapped. Your assertion that J-10 wasn't even considered is totally correct and at that time Pakistan was prolly looking at western fighters to fill the hi role. Mirage -2000, Gripen and F-16s all have been considered again and again.That pretty much shows what i have been saying that JF-17 is not meant as a hi role fighter.Also if you think about it JF-17 is better prospect for indiginisation than a more complex J-10 or anyother fighter. It fits into this role as well.
Lets call it quits then, you would never find me initiating personal remarks but if someone is gonna accuse me of something pretaining to my origin and not on substance of what i have to say then thats in bad taste. I concur however lets forget about it and move on.Hohooo...dont even dare to venture on that road. There wasent anything personal in its negative meaning, only generalization and my personal style. Im the last person in this forum to you to seek possiple confrontation out of things that doesent exist
Last edited by a moderator:
