PAF JF-17’s in China for Zhuhai 2012…………..

the former ACM was referring to the Tejas Mk1 as a MiG-21++..which is fair, that’s 2 generations apart from the MiG-21, even though the punch and capability leap of the Tejas makes a comparison quite awkward. the ACM himself stated that a one-to-one replacement of the MiG-21 is not needed since modern jets perform many more roles and far better, than the MiG-21s did.
.

See this link for a news report which states that ACM was refferring to the Tejas Mk2 when he called it a Mig-21++……………

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/lca-to-be-an-advanced-version-of-mig-21-iaf-chief_679747.html

Some pics of JF-17’s in production at PAC Kamra and a JF-17 patch…….

Good points Mack8. Glad to see someone else can see the blatant hypocracy of all this. Forget U.N’s, NPT’s etc etc — how the hell can one country develop nuclear weapons and use them as a deterant / threat — do pretty much what it wants in its neighbourhood including bombimg soveriegn lands and at the same time threaten to go to town on any of its same nieghbours who dare to develop the same nuclear capability???
It’s like the neighborhood bully carrying a big stick to beat everyone with and not letting any of his victims pick up a stick of their own. Only this is worse – this bully is backed up by the local mob boss.

As for Iran’s ability to defend — I agree that they could have done more despite the sanctions. As they stand they cannot stop an attack – just make it as painfull as possible – through misile attacks, disrupting shipping etc. I would not expect their AF to have any significant impact. Hey – perhaps the very denial to them over all these years – of the means to defend themselves – is exactly what has driven them to seek the ultimate weapon of defence.

That panther artwork looks amazing!!! Looking forward to alot more pics.

So we are agreed then on the facts that the JF-17 is not the equal of the F-16s Block 52s whether it be in terms of payload and range or avionics…I already quoted your statement which equated the two, and its pretty clear they are not the same class of aircraft. As long as you are open about this, I don;t think there is any argument.

All I said on the subject was that ‘even if ‘ the JF-17 avionics are as good as those of the block 52 this in itself does not make the JF-17 as good as the block 52. How you turn this into me equating the 2 as the same class of fighter is beyond me.

India funded the Su-30 MKI, and contributes systems to it of its own design & manufacture and is increasing the same. Even so IP of the basic platform rests with Russia, since it did most of the work for the Flanker series and has access to it. Same as with JF-17 and CATIC. Can PAC tomorrow make a Super JF-17 without CATIC assistance or only 50% workshare from CATIC?

If not, all you are saying is semantics.

As matter of fact, the Super-30 upgrade will increase the Indian contribution to the aircraft in some areas. I am yet to see any details even in the AFM article of Pak contributing heavily in terms of systems to the JF-17, it mostly talks of licensed assembly and TOT from CATIC to PAC. Chinese engineers going to Pakistan setting up the assembly lines and so forth..

As already stated Jf-17 is a 50 / 50 joint project from conception onwards – if you have sources to confirm the same for the SU-30 – you are surely justified in equating the 2.

The PAKFA is Russian. What you are talking of, is the eventual FGFA.

Of course India will be at a disadvantage when compared to the J-20 if the metric was only one – self reliance, which is why the FGFA alone cannot compensate, and which is why India has the AURA and AMCA programs as well to round it off.

Problem is you are comparing a licensed assembly & customization program like the JF-17 to being equivalent to full blown capability development, this when you don’t even have deep TOT for systems like the engine (which too can only go so far in making your own systems).

Its fairly obvious that unless you produce your own systems, having limited funding puts you at a disadvantage & reliant upon your partner to step up and share the burden.

Once again the topic is changed to suite the answer. The topic was upgrades. You stated that the JF-17 was at a disadvantage for upgrades because it is a joint project compared to the Tejas which is ‘indigenous’. The point is that just being a joint project does not automatically mean an aircraft is a disadvantage for upgrades. Is the Typhoon at a disadvantage for upgrades compared to the Rafale?

So PAC isn’t manufacturing the engine for the Jf-17 – tell me is India making the engine for the Tejas despite its ‘full blown capability’?

As awe inspiring as India’s planned FGFA,AURA, AMCA plans are – given their track record – I would wait for them to actually produce a worthwhile platform in a half reasonable timescale before counting those particular chickens.

Regards planning – surely, there is a difference between planning & actually going ahead. How many F-16s had the PAF planned for in the 80’s?

That’s the point – this time round the ‘planning’ for JF-17 is based on a reliable ally with 50 odd year track record and not the sanction prone U.S.

As one other poster mentioned, both JF-17 tranches depended on Chinese financial assistance, how long do you think that will last if the program keeps adding complexity and cost. These are things you have to pay for yourself.

India is not running to Russia for integrating third party kit onto the Su-30 MKI. They are adding it themselves via own avionics rigs in India & paying for what they want. In contrast PAC is yet to achieve these capabilities and nor is it as liberally funded.

The point was that just being a joint project does not put JF-17 at a disadvantage for potential upgrades – China will do whatever PAC cannot do and show them how to do it. With regard to paying for things – Pakistan does pay for the vast majority of what it buys but does take advantage of generous Chinese credit facilities. For example PAF will only pay 10% for the AWACS upon delivery with the remainder paid off in ‘easy instalments’. Economic situations change and are never set in stone – regardless, despite financial constraints the JF-17 is galloping along without any issues.

The Chinese offer generous supplier credit to anyone who buys their hardware – and have always been particularly helpful to Pakistan – so I think your concern about how long such assistance will last is misplaced.

So you are unable to admit the point again. India sources select systems from abroad when it requires them, but can produce other systems on its own.

The MiG-29 Upgrade – has HAL furnished nav systems, has an Indian EW suite, will have other gizmos including the IAF specific ODL.

For the Mirage 2000 upgrade, it will have the DRDO/HAL OSAMC to tie into the system. As mentioned in the IAF thread, Dassault pointed out that if Indian systems were to be included, cost of upgrade would rise due to integration complexity, for just fifty airframes India decided it would just choose the OEM fit & put in its own OSAMC to add more systems and weapons as it wanted.

Where are the PAFs examples of Indias DARIN3 or MiG-27 Upgrade?
This is actually an example of what India can do thanks to its own flexibility. Tell me where PAFs own RWRS, SPJs, Open Architecture Computers etc for its aircraft?

My point was that IAF is reliant on foreign sources for a great many things including complete upgrades for top end types – and I made this point in response to repeated emphasis being put on how reliant PAF was on foreign sources. I’m not sure how turning to comparing HAL to PAC somehow refutes the point. If HAL can indeed produce a wider range of products in house than PAC —- does that somehow automatically mean that IAF is not reliant on foreign sources?
A better way to prove none reliance on foreign sources would be for example – complete in house upgrades of Mig-29 / Mirage 2000 but of course that is not realistic.

The MiG-21++ comment being in context of the LCA, like the JF-17 being a 200 -300 odd NM mission radius aircraft and payload wise, being a 7 odd pylons as versus a 12 pylon aircraft and when looking at ranges, compared to a maximal mission radius of almost double the amount (depending upon the payload) like the Su-30 MKI.

The ACM clearly complimented the LCA as well, which flies in the face of journalistic interpretation of “left handed compliment” and the like. Irrespective of what reasons you ascribe, its fairly evident that the LCA is here to stay & that the IAF is aiming for many squadrons of the type.

Err…… Somehow vague comparisons between the JF-17 and SU-30MKI —– equate to the IAF chief calling the Tejas a MIG-21++??
As for LCA being here to stay and getting inducted in large numbers – O I hope so. The more ‘MIG-21++’ fighters in the IAF – the better.

Serious commentators have always known what the LCA is & note the programs progress. In fact, the real internet fans apparently selectively deny the IAF ACMs positive comments about it, cannot admit that comparing a licensed program like the JF-17 to another like the Su-30 (which in fact has deeper TOT and more local content) is germane, cannot admit that economic troubles may not make off the cuff estimates of high production values of the JF-17 with all sorts of yet to be ordered gizmos mentioned only in mags materialize..I do hope they become more realistic over time & sober up.

IAF Chief called the LCA a MIG-21++ earlier this year. Furthermore various Indian articles have said that this description was for the Tejas Mk2 version – O dear, wonder what he thinks of the Mk1 version. Whatever positive he may have said about it after this view — he has not said anything to retract his assessment. If you have issues with that assessment – you should take it up with him.

JF-17 was a 50 / 50 joint project from conception onwards – SU-30 was not – its as simple as that.

‘off the cuff’ estimates? 100 JF-17’s on order and signed up ‘ is that off the cuff? Specific statements from PAF ACM that by 2016 PAF would have 100’s of JF-17’s, 40 odd FC-20’s and 60 odd F-16’s are ‘off the cuff’?
So what appears in mags is not ‘realistic’ and ‘sober’ enough for you? So you think that instead of believing the PAF ACM and Alan Warnes (who has made repeated visits to Pakistan and written a book on the PAF) – we should believe you – O yes now that would be ‘realistic’ and ‘sober’ wouldn’t it?

Roadmap towards 100%?? Care to point out where exactly the PAC will set up factories for the raw materials, items like the ejection seat (down to its firing cartridges – since its 100%), or even other stuff like cockpit transparencies. Or is it “towards 100%” wherein it could be 30%, 50% etc?

As compared to India & the MKI, a pretty unrealistic and amusing wish to be sure, that they’ll do “a better job than India in absorbing the MKI TOT”, as India is already on Phase 4 of the aircraft manufacture and this year even achieved a landmark in engine tech, with the first HAL made AL-31FP (from local systems) successfully completing its long test.

India has several licensed production programs and is already onto JVs and D&D. This is Pakistan’s first fighter assembly program from tech tranfer and it has nowhere near the same industrial capability.

The Roadmap towards 100% comment is a direct quote from the recent article by Alan Warnes– and as I’ve already stated I’d bet he knows a bit more about this subject than you so if I have to choose I’d rather believe him if its all the same. As bizarre as it maybe to you ‘Roadmap towards 100%’ normally means roadmap towards 100% and if someone wants to say roadmap towards 30%, 50% etc they say ‘Roadmap towards 30%,50% etc’ – quite amazing really.
So you want to know ‘where exactly’ PAC will set up factories for the raw materials? Do you want exact postcodes? Now there’s a reasonable request.
Regardless if you have issues with what he writes – take it up with him – perhaps he will put a correction in the next issue – or maybe not.

It is you who keeps bringing up the SU-30 as a comparative project to the JF-17– so if this comparison is ‘unrealistic’ and ‘amusing’ as you state – I would suggest you stop doing it.

I don’t recall saying that Pakistan has the same industrial capability as India – but great that you decided to share it again anyway

As regards the MMRCA and the MKI – you missed the point again, perhaps, this is why you don’t get what TOT means as versus rhetorical flourishes of 100% and the like. TOT is mostly process knowledge for manufacturing & enables local support, it does not transfer detailed design capabilities which can be put together like a lego kit for a different class of aircraft (besides which there are IP restrictions). Bottom line, if you are expecting 100% indigenization for the JF-17 and making a MMRCA out of it, expect CATIC to have some words about the matter..

Sure a key aim of TOT is to allow local support – but are you not supposed to absorb what you learn and utilise it / improve it for your in house projects? IP issues come in if you copy someones design and pass it off as your own – absorbing knowledge / tech and using it elsewhere is not an IP issue – in this instance the IP issue is just a feeble excuse.

With regard to making JF-17 a MMRCA – I didn’t say anything of the sort – as usual you put words into my mouth and then answer them yourself – amusing.

LOL, and where is the evidence that the entire capability is to be “imminently” operational on the PAF’s JF-17? A couple of pics & its imminent in 6-12 months (where did that come from?) and how many JF-17s will there be at that time. Play with words as you like, but when you suggest that the “imminent” induction of BVR in the JF-17 can somehow counter the not so imminent but already operational BVR capability on far more IAF fighters, its positively “bizarre” and reflective of skewed thinking… somehow your own words seem to apply best to your own statements..

Given that PAF is the only current operator of the JF-17 and that PT-06 aircraft is well known to be a test aircraft based in China for the JF-17 project—- who do you think this BVR missile is being tested for ? Outer Mongolia perhaps?
Is 6-12months an unreasonable timeframe to induct an already operational missile on an in service platform? Perhaps you can enlighten me with a more ‘realistic’ timescale.
So PAF going from having no BVR capability to having a significant and increasing BVR capable fleet is not any counter to the already operational IAF BVR fleet? And you accuse me of bizarre and skewed thinking.

Again, more word play. Well, since you are so much into this stuff – have you heard the phrase, quantity has a quality of its own?
Even if you operate F-22s, they can only operate in one place at one time. And the PAF does not operate F-22s and is actually behind its regional adversary in numbers and technology, ergo capability.

As already stated more than once PAF has always been numerically inferior due to the relative size of the 2 nations – no changes and no shockers here. You were continuously arguing that PAF was not closing the ‘capability’ gap by listing IAF’s ‘ ‘quantity’ advantages — so I tried to help you see the difference between the two. Sorry if you see that as ‘word play’ – but believe it or not different words do mean different things.

The capability to do so, when in an inferior manner to an adversary, and which can be countered, translates to a limited capability at best.

While you unsurprisingly try to water it down as much as possible – at least you now understand ‘capability’ – well done.

Or the PAF could go for only what was available to it, despite previously choosing kit and then being denied it as per the public statements of a senior defence official from the supplier nation. Despite their internet fans trying to dismiss this point via statement about “amazing logistics and logic”.

PAF considered and negotiated a French option – but ultimately stuck with the Chinese option. As far back as 2007 the PAF ACM even said that the Chinese package was so good that only something ‘exceptional’ would make him consider a change. Alan Warnes in his latest article writes that the chinese avionics of the JF-17 are light years ahead of any third generation aircraft. The only official comment from France on this specific issue as far as I know is from Sarkosy’s office saying ‘ It’s a deal that’s not ready from the Pakistani side’ – ‘for now, the state of the dossier doesn’t allow us to carry on with it’ – I don’t follow how you deduce from that statement that PAF chose the French Kit and was refused. If you have a source to back up your stance that Pakistan wanted to proceed with the French option for the JF-17 but were refused by the French – please do share. As for Internet fans – evidently they are not exclusive to the PAF.

Its Rafale – not Rafael. And a conflict is not going to be a level playing field, unless you think the PAF ACM will complain to the IAF ACM that the latters not playing fair for committing all three types – Su-30 MKIs, Rafale/Typhoons, LCAs to the conflict. In which case, I wish him luck.

I know that you often find it hard to reply to my points– so just type anything to pass it off as a reply. We’ll use this as an example – I said ‘So you comparing JF-17 / its abilities with the likes of the Rafael – to prove that it is ‘just not good enough’ is ok. But the same question for the LCA is a –tut,tut- ‘classification blunder’. Always good to know it’s a level playing field.—and you reply with the above?? Can you explain what part if any of what you proudly gave as a response has got anything remotely to do with the point I made?? It seems that where you don’t have an answer you simply invent a new point and then happily answer it yourself. Throw in a few ACM’s – wish someone good luck in some fantasy scenario that you just invented and hey presto – another point successfully answered!! Good job.

In case you are still not getting the point, the IAF is fielding a heavy-medium-light force structure to counter the PAF & PLAAF.The medium types being of the latest gen in production (e.g Rafale/Typhoon) can actually bring capabilities to the fight equal to the heavies. In counter, the PAF has ….the JF-17, a handful of F-16s and a limited number of force multipliers. Do ponder on whether that strategy constitutes deterrence.

After pondering ……. 100’s of Jf-17’s, 60+ F-16’s and topped up with FC-20’s together with Western and Chinese AWACS solutions by 2015-16 as outlined by PAF ACM – will provide a suitable air component to the overall strategy of credible minimum detterance.

And how many FC-20s are on firm order? When will they be delivered by?

No Rafale / Typhoons are on order at the moment – but seems to be ok for you to go on about them. Initial 36 FC-20’s by 2015-2016 as per PAF ACM – as already posted a number of times– but I don’t mind repeating – I’m getting used to it. Here’s a very recent related media report – looks like FC-20’s in 2015-16 time frame was realistic after all — perhaps even a bit too conservative?
http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/china-to-give-squadron-of-j10-b-fighters-to-pak_723217.html

Of which 5G type we know pretty little about capability, what specific attributes it has, and when it will be in production by. This is not evidence.

So if you don’t know anything about it – must automatically mean it can’t be any good? All independent observers accept it as a 5G type – and thats all I called it.

Here we go again….terms like “BVR workhorse” …”no doubt”, this when the JF-17 is yet to be made operational w/BVR (oh wait, thats “6-12 months”), the first FC-20 is yet to fly in PAF colors. Heck, even the F-16s are likely to be in trouble given the US pressure in recent days..

Given that there is ‘no doubt’ that the JF-17 will be BVR capable and ‘no doubt’ that it will be the most numerous fighter in the PAF there is also ‘no doubt’ that it will be the PAF’s ‘BVR workhorse’ – quite simple really.
As for the FC-20 not flying in PAF colours yet – no need to worry as deliveries are not expected until 2015-16. PAF ACM has categorically stated first deliveries would be about 2 years after contract signature – I don’t think that 2015-16 timescale is remotely optimistic especially in the light of recent media reports.

F-16’s are likely to be in trouble? Even where the U.S suspended a third of military aid recently they were catagoric in saying that this would not effect the supply of F-16’s. If you have a source confirming otherwise – please share.

Wherein the evidence is to the contrary..

Errr…… what ‘evidence’? ‘The IAF ACM says that Tejas is better than the Jf-17 and the PAF ACM says the opposite. What’s this ‘evidence’?

No skewing the numbers from my end…only the facts as they are, as versus “no doubt” etc.

Referring to 63 in service F-16’s as ‘ 40+ F-16’s’ and referring to 100 contracted JF-17’s as ’50-60 JF-17’s’ – pass for ‘facts’ and not skewing the figures?? ‘no doubt’ about that one!

And how many of these have been delivered and have BVR capability? Do the math..

That’s it if you’re cornered on skewing the numbers – just change the goal posts! So if you were not talking numbers and actually talking about current fighters in service with BVR – why did you say 40+ F-16’s and 50-60 JF-17’s??

And here you were saying the recent reports about the JF-17 were not clarified? In which case, you concur that the recent JF-17 buy was with PRC financial assistance?

I don’t recall ever denying that the first batch of 50 as well as the second batch of 50 JF-17’s are being bought with PRC financial assistance. Are you trying to get me to agree with something that I never disagreed with in the first place – again?

Again, no firm orders placed yet for FC-20 ? JF-17 orders nowhere in sufficient quantities to replace ~400 Mirage and F-7s and F-16s (taking your own count) coming to 63. This when Pak economy is yet to sustain a production run without Chinese assistance.

No urgency for placing FC-20 orders as delivery not required until 2015-16 but you should read up on recent media reports on the subject. JF-17’s being churned out of PAC Kamra at 2 a month with 100 signed up already – I think continuous orders in batches of 50 are more realistic than expecting 400 to be ordered in one go. With regard to the economy – economic outlooks change over time – for the time being Chinese assistance is there for all to see.

…”but they will not catch up”…oops.

To repeat myself once again – ofcoarse PAF won’t catch up – they have always been a substantially smaller force due to the difference in size of the two countries – but it would appear that the belief that PAF is closing the gap is not limited to the Indian ACM….. oops!

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_chinas-j-10b-fighter-to-pak-worries-india_1572508

But it will face both types…irrespective of whether it is their peer or not. IMO, the PAF would have been better of investing in the J-10.

Let me get this straight – you accuse me of saying that JF-17 is as capable as SU30MKI – when I say that I said no such thing and queastion where you got this from – the above is your ‘reply’??! The fact that these 2 types may face eachother in a conflict automatically means that I have said that the 2 are equal in capability?? On this basis I could just stop posting — you can invent what I ‘said’ and then simply respond with some knock out replies.

Only posting part of what he said without pointing out what he said thereafter did not show what he said in entirety…

Once again I’ll repeat myself – The IAF ACM said that the PAF was ‘closing the gap’ – as a stand alone statement this is not reversed by anything he said afterwoods so posting just that part of his statement was not misleading or questionable in any way. Regardless – as per Indian article I already posted he doesn’t appear to be the only one with this concern.

Whatever floats your boat..

Its you who is always trying to ‘float your boat’ by making out that your stance has somehow been vindicated and proved correct through your superior arguments – when in reality – often I have never even disputed said point.

100 signed up with Pak requesting China for financing & kits.. do you think this will continue? And if PAC is building them, why go to PRC? Your projections depend a lot on an optimistic estimate of a best case scenario given current issues..

Err…… yes I do think it will continue as long as Pakistan needs the support – based firmly on the track record. My ‘projections’ are consistent with the PAF ACM’s projections and with 100 Jf-17’s already signed up / financed, PAC KAMRA already confirmed as producing 2 per month, 30+ already delivered — why do you think 150 by 2016 are an ‘optimistic estimate of a best case scenario given current issues’ . If anything I would suggest that the 150 number by 2016 is very conservative.

Eh, I asked you to post any report to the contrary, all you have had to say is wikileaks is not credible (this when Bill Sweetman references it for DTI) and you seem to think making jibes about anyone pointing out the reality suffices for an argument..

Basically, what you are saying is that jibes apart, you don’t have any evidence to counter what wikileaks noted about Pak having economic issues and hence delays occuring to the F-16 program already..

So where did I say Wikileaks in not credible? What I said was that the Wikileaks e-mails are years old – do not confirm any actual delays in the project – and questioned why there was not a single report from any source in all the time that has lapsed since those e-amails to date – to confirm any actual delay. In fact since those delays PAF – Turkey have signed an agreement to upgrade 42 F-16’s with first 3 being upgraded as we speak. Please try to answer my points instead of trying to deface my points into something that you can reply to. Go look at TAI’s official site to confirm details of the upgrade contract with PAF — signed up – LONG AFTER – those wikileaks cables and read up on PAF’ very recent ordering of another 10 upgrade kits — and then see if there is any substance left to the ‘reality’ you are so keen on pointing out.

Thats the 31 original plus the new A/Bs..
But the original plans in DSCA called for sixty airframes:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/12/26/18468870.php

So I was right in that the program is not as ambitious as originally envisaged, wikileaks notes lack of airframes and financing troubles, they were evidently right.

Go look up the agreement signed with Turkey – it is for 42 F-16’s – (with an additional 3 being upgraded in the U.S as pattern aircraft). 45 being the total number of F-16A/B’s PAF has – they can hardly upgrade more unless they get more.

In light of having to seek financing from PRC for the less expensive JF-17, no evidence so far from your end of firm FC-20 orders and capabilities therein, repeated statements around US being upset w/Pak, I’ll have to go with optimistic..

With 100 Jf-17’s already signed up / financed, 36-40 FC-20 confirmed to join the PAF by 2015-16 by the PAF ACM more than once and despite being upset clear statements from U.S. saying that F-16 supply would not be effected – upgrade kits still being ordered – I’ll go with realistic.

So a delay is only a delay when you agree it is a delay and till then it is not a delay. Great.

No actually it’s the other way round – if you say there is a delay – the onus is on you to prove this. PAF – Turkish agreement has been signed a long time after those wikileaks e-mails which DO NOT say anything about an actual delay in the programme. PAF ACM has confirmed earlier this year that the first 3 F-16’s are being upgraded in Turkey – I’ ve already posted a picture of these for your benefit. Look further down this post for links to TAI’s official site confirming the F-16 upgrade order and a link to prove that PAF has ordered the remaining 10 upgrade kits as recently as July 2011 –and you STILL believe this project is suffering delays and scale back?? So where is your proof of an actual delay in the project?

Sigh..I never said the upgrade was not going through. Reread what I said. I said the problems in financing the PAF F-16 upgrade are symptomatic of the problems in attempting to modernize a force without having a significant economic capability to support it. Thats just borne out by recent events.

O so now the upgrade is going through. What about the phantom delay? Make your mind up.

Here, try to rationalize or deny this report as well.
http://pakmr.blogspot.com/2011/05/pakistans-f-16-program-at-risk-of.html

Lol x 10 — I ask you for any reports to confirm an actual delay in all the time that has lapsed since those wikileaks e-mails which DO NOT confirm any actual delay – and the best you can do is give a link to some guys blog – where he has based his ‘report’ on the same wikileaks e-mails?? O I will try to rationalize this – right after I stop laughing.
Here’s a link for you to try to ‘rationalise’ – its only TAI’s official website confirming signing of the contract for 42 F-16 upgrades (remaining 3 are being upgraded in the U.S. as pattern aircraft) and timescale for completion. Once again I have to emphasise that this agreement was signed well after those wikileaks e-mails. Never mind perhaps they are just saying this for effect!
http://www.tai.com.tr/news.aspx?contentDefID=120

Wikileaks..

The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has approached the U.S. with a request to use Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to help pay for Mid-Life Updates (MLU) on its existing fleet of F-16 fighter aircraft. This request would require the modification of the original Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) that sanctioned the deal and notification to Congress of the change.

…..

The F-16 sale was primarily built around three separate Foreign Military Sales cases that had a potential value of $5.1 billion. The 2005 Kashmir earthquake and subsequent financial constraints caused Pakistan to reduce the number of new planes purchased from 36 to 18 lowering the overall value of the deal to $3.1 billion.

IOW, Pakistan had financing issues regarding the F-16s, approached the US to pay for the MLUs out of US aid, and had to scale back on the program itself

Please tell the full story – Pakistan asked for FMF funds to be used to finance the upgrades (the wikileaks e-mails were sent around this time) but was this request approved by the U.S? As you will already know the answer to this is a yes – i.e. Pakistan got its way and financial constraints were overcome – via FMF funds.

And in recent days US aid is tied up:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/10/us-pakistan-aid.html

Care to point out how this proves a delay in the F-16 upgrades or even has an effect on the upgrade programme — especially when the U.S. has specifically stated that this will have no effect on the ‘supply of F-16’s’?

Just in case you still harbour the remanants of any hope that there is any delay or scale back of the F-16 upgrade work heres another link for you –confirming a further order for 10 upgrade kits taking total number ordered to 45 – which is in fact the total number of F-16 A/B aircraft opertated by the PAF. Given that this order has only been placed in July 2011 — you might want to give more importance to this than those years old and out of date wiki cables and the blogs based on them by nobody’s.
http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?id=3633
and another one
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/03/360302/lockheed-to-provide-pakistan-with-10-f-16-upgrade-kits.html

Point is that PAF or PArmed services rarely if ever publish any audit reports of delays or problems or otherwise, so its not as if we’d get any statements admitting to delays. But you are seriously off track IMO, if you think China is just going to act as Pakistans sponsor for the latters military needs and open up its wallet.

O so they managed to keep it a secret now. So whats the explanation of no confirmation of this phantom delay from Turkey or the U.S or any of the worlds media outlets? Is PAF managing to gag them all? The fact that they have placed an order for the final 10 upgrade kits very recently – is that just part of the elaborate cover up?? So U.S. is helping with this cover up – right? Talk about colourfull imagination.
So you don’t think China – where required – will continue to open up its wallet for Pakistan’s needs? Well lets just say the facts seem to go against your concerns / hopes – even if we look at a few examples of recent events alone and ignore the history of support since the 1960’s — 6 Frigattes, AWACS aircraft, 100 JF-17’s all either F.O.C. or on cheap finanace.

Sure, economics is not for this thread, when even a cursory reading shows that your statements about the PAF being on track with some expensive programs are likely to be affected thanks to a weak economy.

Likely to be effected as your perception and hope is not the same as actually effected. If you have sources confirming actual delays to the JF-17, F-16 or fc-20 due to finance issues – please share.

If you say so…but evidence suggests otherwise. Namely the PAF is lagging in terms of modernization and capability & its the PA which has more of an equivalent capability at least in some areas versus its peer.

My comment was that – despite its current economic constraints the PAF continues to be a viable component of ‘minimal credible deterrence’ moving forward. and that remains a valid position regardless of any ‘evidence’ that ‘suggests otherwise’ – which I am sure you have already posted / repeated.

Yes, you believe it likely, but so far the evidence does not bear it out. In fact the overall military position by the Pakistan establishment, that of focusing on its military spending to the detriment of building up a sustainable economy, has hurt it.

What evidence does not bear out? With regard to economics – when you have a longstanding history of wars / tension / territorial disputes with a far larger neighbour – there is no surprise that defence needs take priority. There are many other examples of countries spending handsomely even extravagantly on defence while still harbouring desperate poverty – lets not single out Pakistan for that one.

So basically, exchange US for China, and alls well. China will make up for Pakistans financial constraints and reliably supply its best kit, which happens to be expensive, and all this at Pakistans terms as and when the latter wants. Very realistic, to be sure.

I don’t recall saying China to replace U.S –their respective relationships with Pakistan have always been worlds apart. As for China making up for Pakistans financial constraints – does numerous cheap credit / foc deals qualify?? Or maybe paying half the cash for a complete new fighter / leaning on Russia to let Pakistan have the engine and then supplying the first 100 as foc/ cheap credit is a better example. Very realistic? Err….. more like reality itself.

Israel is a technology powerhouse, and has products the world wants, and if push comes to shove, can still survive without an external supplier. Is Pak in the same position?

As you well know my referance to Israel was to give you an example of another country that does fine relying on the ‘largesse of a benevolent supplier’ – given that you were saying that such a relationship was unsustainable — and nothing to do with what products it makes. Do the billions of dollars of aid each year for decades, FOC U.S. hardware and unprecedented access to US tech over the same period — not qualify the U.S. as a ‘benevolent supplier’ to Israel in same way as you perceive China to be a ‘benevolent supplier’ to Pakistan?

Thats a pretty big assumption on your part, that there won’t be an all out war scenario and even otherwise, in a limited conflict, the IA will not use its number and technology pluses to its advantage.

O yes – the history books are just bursting full of examples of nuclear armed neighbours going to all out war with eachother. Big assumption indeed. I think its called M.A.D and its still M.A.D. regardless of IA’s ‘number and technology pluses’.

No, I quoted you exactly on the very point where you stated the F-16 avionics may be on par with the JF-17 whereas the point was that the JF-17s avionics are not currently on par with those of the F-16. As matter of fact, given the range/payload advantage of the developed F-16, comparing the JF-17 otherwise is also untenable. The issue was of avionics, where as I showed, the F-16 has the edge thanks to the US’s considerable lead in the domain.

You did not talk about avionics alone in your previous posts – but rather gave chapter and verse why the JF-17 was not as good as the block52 – something which I had never claimed in the first place – and that was the point.

Thats akin to saying India is ahead just because the Russians make more items and the Su-30 MKI is a joint project or the like. Point remains that if you are reliant on China, it does not translate to self reliance. Which means upgrades will be sourced from CATIC & Chinese OEMs, not local firms.

No its nothing like saying SU-30 is a joint project – the little difference being that the JF-17 is actually and officially a 50/50 joint project and SU-30 is not. A better comparison would be PAKFA — using your logic will India be at a disadvantage when compared to China’s J-20 when it comes to upgrades? PAKFA being a joint project and J-20 being self reliance?
Latest AFM states that various major upgrades for the JF-17 are already planned including IRST and in flight refuelling probe. I don’t see how it just being a joint project somehow puts it at a disadvantage when it comes to upgrades.

The LCA project has been fairly successful in developing inhouse expertise & those abilities, are flying on IAF frontline fighters today. In contrast, despite your attempt at sarcasm, its a fact that the PAF cannot rely on PAC for its own upgrades, and it remains, by your admission dependent on France and China.

I would be happy to list what the ‘fairly successful’ LCA and IAF continue to rely on from foreign sources but this is not the thread for it. Lets just say it’s a long list. Just remind who they are dependant on for upgrades to Mig 29 and Mirage 2000 despite their ‘inhouse expertise’.

Thats a misreading of the situation as unlike the PAF the IAF intends to consolidate around 3 classes of fighters, heavy, medium and light. The light fighters are by design MiG-21++. , whether they be the LCA or others with similar payload/range capability when compared to the Su-30 MKI or MMRCA. But lets have the ACM speak for himself as versus journalist interpretations of what he thinks about the LCA..

40 of the MK1 variant & 120-140 of the MK2 variant are quite sufficient numbers. So your statements are not in consonance with IAF plans as they have clear need for the LCA and are supporting it, and are fairly upbeat about it.

The MIG-21++ comment is a direct quote from the ACM and not journalists interpretations. IAF is lumbered with LCA – the thing has taken up so much time and resource that outright rejection is just not an option – hence as one Indian article put it the ACM’s ‘left handed compliment’ in calling it a MIG 21++. Good to see that such sobering comments from the IAF’s own ACM have forced even internet fans to be more realistic in what the expect from the type.

That just adds to my point that despite notes of partnership, the PAC remains reliant on CATIC for most key systems and integration expertise. This will not come cheap and the PAF will continue to remain reliant on its primary partner. As far as I know, Pakistan does not make any radars, airborne EW systems – ESM/ECM, mission or nav-attack systems or stores management systems of its own design. Licensed assembly will not take you beyond a point.

Ofcoarse PAC remains reliant on CATIC for many aspects – but they have a roadmap to increase indigenous input towards 100%. Lets hope they do a better job of absorbing the technology than India has done with the billions it has paid for licenced production and technology transfer. Was MKI deal not meant to be complete tech transfer? If they had absorbed its entire tech – I wonder why they don’t make their own MMRCA instead of buying from others.

If you look at closing the gap based on the JF-17s “imminent” BVR role. By the same standards, the MMRCA’s “imminent BVR role” with systems like the Meteor BVR, the FGFA’s imminent BVR role with stealth & new generation Russian BVR makes the PAF thoroughly outclassed even in the future in the BVR role. Not to mention, that as things stand the IAF has over 300 BVR armed & operational fighters today, with two decades of operational experience, whereas the PAF has – what 18 F-16s in comparison, and nowhere near the same experience..IMHO, the gap will remain as it is despite PAFs attempt to bridge it, and will not be closed unless the PAF can operationalize equal numbers of equally capable fighters or even superior ones, neither of which is likely.

Equating the ‘imminent’ in Jf-17’s BVR role (being integrated now) to the imminent in MMRCA’s BVR (first aircraft not due for delivery until 2016) and the ‘imminent’ in FGFA’s BVR (first aircraft not due for delivery until 2018) — betrays skewed thinking. I would suggest that 6-12 months is a reasonable ‘imminent’. Bizarrely you seem to think 5-7 years is equally ‘imminent’.
‘Capability’ does not mean quantity and it does not mean how many years you have had something compared with someone else and it does not mean how many more you are going to get compared to someone else – look it up in a dictionary if you don’t believe me. What ‘capability’ means is – the ability to do something – in this context – that you could not do before. For example IAF had BVR, Air refuelling, AEW – the PAF did not have these – now the PAF has these and hence they have closed / are closing the ‘Capability’ gap as acknowledged by the IAF’s own ACM.

Why would you spend money on alternatives if the Chinese option was equivalent or superior? Logistically, and logically, it makes no sense.

Considering alternatives has started to cost money? ‘logistically’ and ‘logically’ it makes no sense to you that the PAF would consider all available options for key systems before deciding on the best cost / benefit option? Them looking at any alternative product automatically makes the Chinese option sub standard? Amazing ‘logistics’ and ‘logic’.

The IAF Chief clearly notes that while the LCA has state of art systems, it is a light fighter and hence if you are comparing a light fighter to a MMRCA, then you are engaging in a classification blunder which the IAF does not.

So you comparing JF-17 / its abilities with the likes of the Rafael – to prove that it is ‘just not good enough’ is ok. But the same question for the LCA is a –tut,tut- ‘classification blunder’. Always good to know it’s a level playing field.

Neither of which will be in the class of the IAF Fleet or rather superior, as they will be in less numbers, so as to deter the IAF. Your expectations are fine, but how many FC-20’s have been confirmed as being on order? What are their equipment fits, their performance. Its fairly premature to state that either type will dominate the PAF. As things stand, it will be the F-16 which will be the BVR workhorse and even the pre-eminent strike fighter.

The PAF has always been at a disadvantage in terms of numbers due relative size of the two countries so no shockers here. Consecutive PAF ACM’s are on record as expecting 36 FC-20’s by 2016. As for equipment fits capability – read up on expected abilities. If you have any lingering doubts about how capable it will be – remind yourself that the same manufacturer is currently flight testing a 5th generation type. With the quantities expected there can be no doubt that the JF-17 will be the PAF’s BVR workhorse, backed up by upgraded F-16’s / Block 52’s and topped up with FC-20’s.

How would his opposite number ever accept the JF-17 as inferior to the LCA. The likes of that happening are slender.

And vice versa – so the point is disputed – as I already said.

Besides which closing the gap is relative, yes from zero BVR armed fighters versus 300 odd, you might add some 100-150 odd BVR armed fighters over the decade, finance permitting (some 40+ F-16s & 50-60 JF-17s), but the IAF will add much more than that, ending up in pretty much all its fleet (bar a handful of Jaguars) being BVR armed.

As already stated the PAF has always been at a disadvantage in terms of numbers due relative size of the two countries so no shockers here. Regardless it is amusing how you skew the figures to suite your argument. ‘40+ F-16’s’?? – The PAF had 31 + 14A/B’s from the U.S. + 18 block 52’s – do the maths. ‘50-60 JF-17’s’? – they’ve already signed up for 100!!
So while IAF ends up with virtually all its fleet BVR capable — what do you think will happen to the PAF fleet – with Mirages, F-7’s being replaced by JF-17’s, F-16’s and FC-20’s???

You have been copy pasting the reply before as well – I am just pointing out that the context matters. You were only looking at the “closing the gap” part, while ignoring the larger context. I am just pointing that out.

Thanks for pointing that out but the ‘closing the gap’ remark remains valid as a stand alone statement since he did not say anything afterwoods to retract this.

So the JF-17 is equal in capability to clearly heavier platforms with more capability such as the Su-30 MKI or the MMRCA..
Lets face, it – quantity or capability, it does not add up.

Errr …… where did you get that from? So where did I say the JF-17 is equal in capability to SU30MKI or the MMRCA??

Posting the entire statement would have shown what he said, eitherways no big deal.

Posting part of his statement also showed what he said. No big deal? Really? So wonder why I’ve had to defend myself for posting his words for the last half a dozen posts.

Glad to see you concur.

You make it sound like you’ve convinced me with your well-structured arguments – the reality is I never said otherwise.

In four years, the PAF will get most of 150 JF-17s plus 60 F-16s and plus FC-20s? Dare I say this is incredibly optimistic? Given current issues with the Pak economy, the rate of induction is likely to be substantially lesser.

Well on the way with JF-17’s — with 100 already signed up — upto about 30 delivered – PAC is building 2 a month – do the maths from now until 2016 – I think 150 is bang on target sometime in 2016..
F-16’s – 18 block 52 on line — I’m sure that if there was a single report anywhere in the world to confirm a delay to the upgrade programme you would have posted it by now. 45 being upgraded as per PAF ACM’s statement earlier this year.
PAF chiefs continued confirmation that FC-20 is on track with induction around 2016.
So overall – no not ‘incredibly optimistic’ at all — more like realistic.

Check wikileaks – it clearly states that the PAF has had issues with financing its upgrades. To clarify, please tell me – how many upgrades has the PAF financed till date, when will these arrive by? That should clearly settle the matter. As far as I am aware, of 60 total upgrade kits notified by DSCA for a fleet of 46 confirmed F-16 A/B + 14 possible F-16 A/B transferred by US/acquired by PAF, PAF’s has plans for only 35 F-16 upgrades (leaving 11 aside). That clearly indicates either financing issues (since the upgrade would restore the F-16 airframe hours up) & even FAS does not confirm all upgrades are paid for yet.

I asked for a source confirming actual delay in the upgrade programme which you were alluding to – especially given that the PAF ACM has confirmed ongoing upgrade of 45 F-16’s in Turkey only a few months ago. A few years old statement in wikileaks saying that Paf had issues financing the upgrade – with no source to confirm that an actual delay occurred as a result – in all the time that has lapsed in between —— is nowhere near cutting it. Comments / conjecture about how many upgrades have been contracted / Fas not updated to show payment received are speculative at best. If the programme had been delayed you would have seen appropriate reports accordingly — of which there are a grand total of zero. In terms of details of the upgrade contract – I’m sure you can find reports covering signing of the contract between Pakistan and Turkey and associated schedule – Until someone posts a source for the revised schedule or delay – I think the sensible position would be to believe everything is on track. In the meantime – please see the picture attached showing PAF F-16’s being upgraded in Turkey – this picture was taken a long time after the wikileaks cable you refer to.

But how long will that supplier continue to offer such easy terms. When the Pak premier visited China recently, China noted it could not offer outright aid as it was against its policy. IMF et al have been fairly hard on Pak., policies in recent months: http://tribune.com.pk/story/112323/imf-refuses-talks-with-cash-starved-pakistan/
Plus, key US leaders have now gone on record stating that they may hold back aid until they see Pak., policies change to match US requirements. Point is you cannot only depend on a supplier’s largesse, especially when the supplier has credible economic requirements of its own.

Well China has offered easy terms / free goods to Pakistan since the 60’s – so don’t hold your breath for any major change there. Despite a policy against outright aid – cheap financing of mega economic projects and defence purchases are of equal benefit freeing up resources for other purposes. Reports suggest that the second batch of JF-17’s are FOC, and details of how Pakistan is paying billions for its AWACS, submarines, frigates, naval helicopters etc from China remain vague — although you’ll be glad to hear that there is no report of any delay in any of these projects.
Of coarse and regardless of China’s support – Pakistan has to make economic progress – but detailed debate on that / IMF etc is not for this thread. Bottom line – despite its current economic constraints the PAF continues to be a viable component of ‘minimal credible deterrence’ moving forward.

Anyways, just to quickly focus on my points. Given current Pak economic issues & lack of PAC industrial capability, I find it unlikely that PAF will get the kind of capabilities it needs to adequately deter the IAF. Relying on external assistance to provide all the capabilities – viz the largesse of a benevolent supplier – well, I find it somewhat unrealistic. One deters either by technology quality or in terms of platform quantity – IMO, PAF is lagging in both & the disparity will continue.

I believe I’ll do a quick focus of my points also. Despite current Pak economic issues, I find it likely that PAF will continue to get the kind of capabilities it needs to adequately deter the IAF as a vital part of an overall military position of ‘minimum credible deterrence’ — due mainly to Chinas support, developing PAC industrial capability and good foresight by PAF of which JF-17 is a good example
Over the years PAF’s main obstacles to maintaining deterrence have been – 1. Financial constraints – 2. Lack of reliable supplier of modern tech. Chinas rapid emergence in military aviation is a real game changer for Pakistan. The lack of reliable supplier issue is becoming history and the financial constraints issue is made much easier.
As for over reliance on the ‘largesse of a benevolent supplier’ – seems to work well for Israel.
Your continued and repeated focus on how many more the IAF flies compared to PAF and comparing the two forces missile to missile despite the completely unequal size of the 2 countries — assumes an old fashioned all out war scenario– which is out of the question in a nuclear backdrop.