CAT1My intent, as it is or was- has been clear- a) Find out the Pakistani contribution to the JF-17 to determine whether onr not, it is not license production. If you cant handle that, then sorry- you shouldnt be discussing this in the first place.
Your response on the other hand, has been documented. I have no wish to continue to engage in this circular discussion, but your statements are of course, now on record.
You and your compatriots ‘intent’ is very clear indeed. If you can find nothing else – you will ask the age old question again -‘what precisely has Pakistan contributed to the JF-17’ — ofcourse you already have very strong views to say that Pakistan has contributed nothing – and it is simply a licence production. But you have to labour the point anyway. Even when someone replies and agrees that Pakistan has most likely contributed very little other than design / performance specifications, participation in testing etc – you will still forward another post – asking the very same question again — and yet if anyone was to try to make any comparison with the 23 years old and counting LCA project — you don’t seem to be able to handle that – If you are going to come on the PAF thread and go out of your way to put the force down -regardless of how you disguise your inocent little questions – perhaps you should learn to take a little payback also.
I don’t know which response you are on about being documented – but the one and only thing I do agree with you on is that I have no wish to continue to engage in this circular discussion.
I would actually hazard a guess and say that the lacked the kind of honest professionalism expected from them when it came to admitting their limitations by engaging in this sort of silly propoganda (with the current CAS apparently being much better if we consider his recent interview).
Yes ofcourse by saying anything negative about the LCA they automaticaly become unprofessional.
Hmm…I actually see your frustration, given that you are unable to provide any kind of evidence whatsoever for the original question, now you seek recourse in performance & price. Nice generic catch-all phrases…but then again, care to point out the exact performance or avionics specs or performance specs or even the exact price? Wait, you cant..! But never mind, keep plugging away!
If you actualy read my post – I said that I was not in a position to defend / reject their comments because I am not privi to the info they will have — this somehow leads you to believe that I can give you price / performance specs??
Hmm…there are several other reports from Indian scientists & the like, who were involved from the program from its genesis, I might have to hand type it out & I well might, but as this is the PAF thread..
As I said before – for every article praising the LCA – there is one ridiculing it. What would you expect scientists & the like who were involved in the program from its genesis to say – ‘sorry guys we blew billions on this thing – but we still can’t let you have it’ ?– Ofcoarse they will elaborate on the brighter side of things – and local industrial development is without doubt – one of them. You continue to miss the point — Pakistan has not tried to contribute engines, radars etc to the JF-17 because it can not afford the luxery of ballooning costs and a 23+ years wait before it gets its hands on the type. Perhaps India could afford this – good for it.
Yet, those measured steps will continue to place Pakistan on reliance on the gentlemen who actually built the JF-17 for Pakistan. A subtle point, which you fail to discern.
As I said before – the type will have massively more local supportability than any fighter in the PAF’s history – that is a step in the right direction.
CAT1Nice try but: that post of yours screamed out its intent out so loud that even the blind coulda seen it. Having said that, its good to see you now say that it was not so etc. Presumably, the next time around, we will not see similar comments from you, after all you have now publically disowned these statements vis a vis the Indian aerospace industry/LCA & said that was not your intent etc.
Actualy I haven’t disowned anything – you continue to read what you want to. As for flame baiting — you don’t think repeatedly asking what exactly Pakistan has contributed – despite being answered a number of times — is flame baiting? Does pot, kettle, black mean anything to you. Your intent on this thread is also clear to see even for a blind person.
No, I wouldnt- but ignoring the question & saying Pak didnt do so because because all attempts elsewhere etc were failures, Pak did not ever make mistakes, everyone who did the fell flat on their face etc and couldnt make a mistake,etc etc etc kind of forecloses the topic before the question was answered. So if you cant take a dekko at it, others certainly should. And which is what I wanted- out of quite serious interest in the topic.
Please let me know if you still think I have egnored your question – and I will happily copy the reply again.
Ah, but then why do we have worthies from the PAF no less comparing it to the LCA or gentlemen (Gd1) earlier on in this thread make snide remarks on the same ? You do realize that while it may be a giant step for Pak, as far as even the subcontinent is concerned- its not unique or a first. Which is what makes much of the hyperbole, either by private individuals or Pak Govt associated professionals who should know better- a tad ridiculous, when they seek to compare it to a project which is entirely different & paint it as a success whilst slinging mud @ the “other” & portray it as something which it isnt. Quite the shade there of Musharraf saying SUPARCO was equal to ISRO or the like, thanks to signing an agreement for a second hand satellite.
This is the exact problem which I refer to when I say blind nationalism- and the utter lack of logic or for that matter, grace when it comes to acknowledging ones own strengths or weaknesses, yet having the moral rectitude to not sling mud at someone else.
With regard to what worthies from PAF say- While I would like to – I am not privi to the information they have – and therefore cannot defend or reject what they say. I would hazard a guess that they know more than me or you. Comparison to the LCA is to be expected – given that India is the main rival.
As for why its such a big deal – as you say its a giant step for Pakistan. Unfortuneately for you they will compare and will not have much regard for what was made where when they do. They will look at performance, price etc only. I can appreciate your frustration with this.
Kindly dont evade the issue, yet again as you are wont to do. The claim you made was that the LCA was not intended to kickstart an Indian aeronautics industry and its benefits were unintended spinoffs, now that there are sources specifying the opposite, changing the parameters again? Quite the moving goalposts syndrome there. Besides, I am quite aware of the negative press about the LCA- its a free press in India & as of now, I can even quote line & verse about what could have been done better & where- its a free world, and the information is provided by the GoI to its public. Care to show that from the Pak side? Its really not there is it? Has any Pak Govt had the fortitude to display its projects, warts and all, openly? Quite the apples & oranges syndrome there again- which of course quite succintly plays to everything Pak does is a success, and of course, the opponents is a delayed failure etc etc. Hmmm… I wonder where all the official Pak audit reports on the Super7–JF-17 lineage are, bar some PR blurb in the PAF official history.
Sorry but you have convinced me of nothing. I still believe that the main purpose of the LCA was to give the IAF a modern, indigenous fighter at the right price and within the specified time. Harping on about industry benefits — while I do not want to belittle them — does not make up for the fact that the main purpose has not been achieved. If your view is that the main purpose was to build up the industry and actualy getting it avialable for the IAF on time and on price was just a secondary priority — you are entitled to it — but I must say I find this highly ilogical. These articles you’ve got saying its all about developing the industry – are they at point of project launch or after all the problems with it?
Oh we agree on this, and I daresay I will also point out that it would be entirely impossible for Pak to attempt something on the scale of the LCA, precisely because it lacks the scientific crosslinkages between industry, academia and state owned units that India has developed. What I would also like to add is that if there are some gents who anticipate that the JF-17 can give this capability to Pak, I would question it- precisely because both India & PRC have discovered that if one needs to move forward & develop own ability, you need to strike out on your own. Licensed production alone, irrespective of how many variants are generated is, by itself, a dead end.
As you say – we agree – If India has struggled with all these wonderful crosslinkages etc. Pakistan would have realy struggled. And therefore their approach is correct.
I’m sure the JF-17 is the first – measured – step – I would expect many further measured steps in the future.
CAT1Lets not be disingenuous. You clearly flamebaited wrt “falling flat on ones face” “as others experience clearly demonstrates” in a reference to India without mentioning it explicitly. These quotes have been marked previously & your current denials notwithstanding your claims were all too clear, even if they were blatantly false.
I’m not denying anything – I just said I didn’t mention the LCA or India- which I didn’t. My point was that you over stretch a limited aviation industry and you doom you project to failure — if you see that as flamebaiting – thats your issue.
Now if merely asking about the Pakistani contribution to the JF-17 is mudthrowing, if you cannot stand even a simple question on what Pakistan has contributed to the JF-17, why precisely are you on a public forum?
Would you rather that inconvenient questions merely disappeared?
I have answered that question a number of times – its not asking it -thats the problem — its continueing to ask it in every post regardless of that answer that is the issue. Would you like me to start every post by saying ‘ Pakistan has most likely contributed very little to the JF-17 other than design / performance specification, cost share, participation in testing but will be manufacturing / supporting the type localy in what is deemed a 50/50 joint project by both CATIC and neutral sources’ would that make you happy?
I’m doing the same as what you are doing on a public forum.
And this is sufficient grounds for calling this the first time it has ever happened or claiming that as a notable achievement? Every AF decides how its needs are best met & there are MANY programs where the local AF has undertaken a far higher degree of user specification. India for its MKIs, the Gnat program etc etc. What exactly makes the JF-17 unique or for that matter codevelopment?
It’s notable and special because it is the first time Pakistan has been able to tailor a type exactly to its needs – as opposed to buying of the shelf – because its the first type which will be manufactuured in Pakistan.
Are these basic things so hard for you to stomach. This intolerance wouldn’t be down to the same blind nationalism that you accuse me of would it??
I have here an excellent article on the LCA program from MilTech in which it makes the quite categorical point that the creation of a local aerospace industry was one of the prime drivers, shall I put it up? Never mind the innumerable Indian sources which quite mention the same.Tangential to this thread, but nevertheless interesting- perhaps they too are merely mistaken!
I’ve seen alot of LCA articles too – many of them Indian – although they don’t paint such a rosy picture. As you say not quite the right thread though.
Lets be clear- Pak was unable to cope with a program on the order of the LCA & it chose the license manufacturing (or joint development or whatever euphemism if you must) to proceed with the JF-17.
However, this is no sagacity or proof of Pakistans superior decision making- it was but what it could do. By the same standards, I can point to the Jaguar in IAF service & say that proved how superior India was to..I dunno, anyone?
I’m sure that if Pakistan had attempted something like the LCA – they would have struggled – probably even more than India – maybe it would have taken more than 23+ years. With that in mind Pakistan’s limited input in the JF-17 and partnering wth China was absolutely the correct thing to do.
CAT1well, well, well..so you’re now claiming that simply laying down the specifications for the design is tantamount to being a co-developer ?! well, the IAF laid down the specifications for the Su-30MKI ! so, according to your own definition, henceforth you shall claim that the Su-30MKI is a part Indian product.
I think maybe you should read the post again. My point was to indicate the different possible interpretations of ‘designed by an AF’. Isn’t the SU30MKI a version of a existing type — the JF-17 was designed and produced from scratch to PAF requirements — see any difference?? As for being a ‘co-developer’ thats what CATIC says — take it up with them
As for timelines, the J-10 project was launced in 1986…and in 2006, its still not going to be presented at the Zhuhai Air Show..so my guess is that the program was a miserable failure since you claim that 20 years is the litmus test for a programs success/failure ??
would 19 years be success according to you ?? :rolleyes:
To my knowledge J10 is in service and even up for export. How not appearing at Zhuhai makes it an automatic ‘miserable failure’ only you can explain.I gave 20 years as the litmus test – and you come up with this- and ask if 19 will be ok? – whats up can’t find anything other than the great success of the LCA?
CAT1Well, then by your own definition, CAT1 is worse than a novice to claim surprise at the delays in the LCA program.
My point was that even an organisation like Boeing accepts that delays are almost inevitable and we have CAT1 behaving as if he’s never heard of fighter projects getting delayed before and using that as an excuse to degrade the project itself.
I don’t claim surprise at any old delay — just when it has been a grand old 23 years since project launch and the type is still not in service.
CAT1Really? So even asking what Pakistan has contributed to the JF-17, which it proudly touts as codeveloped with China, is mudthrowing which prompts your outbursts of muckraking vis a vis India?
yes I think this qualifies – if I can be accused of mudthrowing even without mentioning the LCA or India
Lets see- Pak AF, once, in AFM described the JF-17 as the first fighter designed by an AF if my memory serves me correct- hmmm. So how many windtunnel tests did the PAF engineers conduct? Did they design the airframe in detail?
‘First fighter designed by an AF’ now how does that translate into wind tunnel tests – could this not just as easily be refering to setting design criteria – range – payload – etc specifications??
These questions arise because the Pakistani side has claimed a lot. They wouldnt arise otherwise. And of course, the not so unusual comparisons of the JF-17 vs other projects, when its clear that its a license production effort & doesnt merit the comparison since its apples to oranges. The Indian side has contributed far more to the MKI than the PAF to the FC-1, in terms of technology- doesnt make the whole thing Indian? Or the Bison upgrade Indian, or for that matter the Jaguar & MiG-27 Indian because they are receiving local components.
FC-1 was manufactured solely for PAF requirements. It has been designed to meet PAF’s specific needs to its specification. Without the PAF there would be no FC-1. Can you say the same for India and the SU30.
Really? Are you talking of the Eurofighter? No wait, is it the JSF then? Hmm, lets see- can we have one fighter project which has been on budget & on time…hmm!
Ok lets narrow it down to fighters which failed to become operational within a 20 years of project launch – left with many examples now??
Hmm… I also see you skedaddling around the basic point that the Indian contribution to multiple projects comes entirely from this project, something which you refuse to acknowledge since it overturns the nationalistic belief that India’s attempt to build an aerospace industry is a failure, when it is anything but given the increasing Indian contribution to a range of originally license produced types, thanks to the LCA & other programs.
I hereby – once again – acknowledge the LCA projects great contributions to multiple projects — but my point remains — was this the projects main aim at point of launch or are these side benefits?
The simple point is that license producing an existing type is a far easier job & does not qualify as codevelopment in anyway whatsover, despite whatever claims you make of it being a success vs an abinitio make effort. Which was the point & glad to see you concur.
I don’t agree that Pakistans involvement in the JF-17 amounts to licenced production but do agree that its contribution is far easier for it to cope with than it was for India and it contribution to the LCA. This is because Pakistan has wisely bitten off what it can chew.
Fair enough, but this entirely eliminates the JF-17 from any sort of joint development tag. Its a licensed manufacturing program which by its very nature will be a simpler affair for Pak then either developing its own fighter. On the negative side- this also means that Pak will continue to rely on China and other OEMs for product improvements.
The JF-17 will have massively greater local supportability compared with any fighter in the PAF’s history – I think thats got to be step in the right direction.
CAT1HAL has been doing such substantial Licence manufacturing that doing what Kamra will do with the JF-17 was possible for it almost a decade and a half ago. the Local manufacturing and support network of HAL and its associated private firms is already in place.
What is crucial for India, is the Research and development base for future projects that it may pursue. the R&D that was done for the LCA, and the expertise it developed meant that the IJT which is on the same level as the JF-17 at least in terms of materials and structure was ready in altogether 36 months.
You may not see it, but I do at work as well…there are Indians who have worked on the LCA and the IJT and have expertise on par with Americans who have worked on the F-18. THAT cannot come with simple licence manufacture, but from building a program from scratch up.
I know that India has licence manufactured for decades and do not deny all that it will learn from the LCA project.
However if you are from the industry as you indicate, I assume you understand – that fighter projects such as the LCA are launched to fullfill specific airforce requirements within specific time frames – increasing the local aviation industries abilities and knowledge during the course of the project is a valuable side benefit. To fail in the main purpose and be left clutching the side benefits – while making the best of a bad situation – can hardly pass as a great success. Had India opted for greater foriegn input and major components, earlier in this project – I’m sure the project would have hit its main as well as secondary aims.
Hence my point for the JF-17 – get the priority right – achieve its primary purpose first – regardless of how much or how little Pakistan contributes – and the industry side benefits can follow. How you even begin to compare the IJT and JF-17 is beyond me.
CAT1[QUOTE=Nick_76]
CAT1, mudthrowing at a neighbours aviation industry and its aerospace achievements will not disguise the fact that the JF-17 does not have substantial Pakistani technological input.
As regards India falling flat on its face (I have to bring this up, and I will be more honest than you were being direct about my comparison) – as is obvious from my prior post- its anything but, since the bulk of the IAF fleet upgrades now have LCA components being used in them already.
Even if it were to be cancelled or a failure- the Israeli example with the Lavi shows the success a high visibility steamroller approach has towards aerospace development and building up of capabilities.
Either which ways, you cant deny the obvious gentlemen, irrespective of how much mud you sling.
The evidence is that India has already achieved a far more substantial aerospace capability than Pakistan by pursuing a high risk/ high reward approach as compared to Pakistan which is merely undertaking a licensed manufacture program in which it has little input in terms of actual technology contribution.
So, in effect all you are left with is that Pakistan did not have the ability to pursue a program of the nature of the LCA & chose to go for license production. That is entirely understandable, since Pakistan cannot even acquire the TOT for the Gripen, but thats exactly the chicken & the egg syndrome, since without it- you will be stuck in the same situation, irrespective of how & where you call the JF-17 as codevelopment.
The next thing is of course, the relative technological competence of the respective industries- you would be quite correct in stating that Pakistan cannot endeavour to attempt such a program, quite so! It severely lacks either the manpower or the private industrial ability to whit.
A nice distraction (having replied to your statements)- but lets return to the JF-17:
Even now, despite being asked to “search on the forum, its all there”- we have NO EVIDENCE of any sort of substantial Pakistani contribution to the JF-17 bar, of course funding.
All you can come up with- is that if Pakistan were to do so, it would fail, because our neighbour is a failure, so Pakistan is correct. Lets not be so juvenile. Nor has the cash its neighbour has invested been “thrown away”- it has done so to generate a business benefit as is evident from the amount of firms that are currently involved in similar ventures & are substantially helping the Indian economy with.
I fully agree that the JF-17 is good for Pakistan to some limited degree, I was just pointing out what an apples to orange comparison it is, to compare licensed assembly to an ab-initio development, and call it either equivalent to the latter or “co-development”.
In the meanwhile, we still dont have anything on what Pak has done in the JF-17 program, technologically substantial that is.
So lets not divert from that by throwing mud at India, albeit without naming it directly (how clever!)- the question was & is- what has Pak contributed to the JF-17?
I have already answered your ‘question’ and explained why Pakistan has contributed so little to the JF-17 – but you seem to need to ask the same question repeatedly, regardless – wouldn’t be a case of ‘mudthrowing at a neighbours aviation industry ‘ would it??? You are right lets not be so ‘juvenile’
You think that a project is a success even if it has massive cost overuns, huge delays, leaves your air force in the lurch – even if it gets canceled — provided it has allowed the nations industry to develop – you are entitled to your view.
My preference – is to get the type developed and in service, something like on time – as cheaply as possible -within the performance requirements — and let industry development take place inline with local manufacturing and support network. To me having the type in service is more important than where its radar was made.
As for being asked to ‘search the forum it is there’ — I didn’t post that — Try to refrain from including other members comments when specificaly addressing me(how clever)
CAT1[QUOTE=Nick_76]
[I]
Sure- several examples come to mind. But what you are in effect trying to say is that all Pakistan did, to avoid the above was resort to licensed production. Great to see you admit the difference.
The entire point is that when you make things on your own- you have to go through a far more challenging process- instead of having someone else build your plane, others supply every item in it and integrate it, and then at the end you can call it your “own” or “codevelopment”, the last of which is stretching the truth as it were, what with a few TP & some 20 odd engineers contributed & paying the costs.
Even here, several locally made items could have been integrated if Pakistan was capable of manufacturing them- but we are yet to see any evidence on that score, apart from “my chacha said so” kind of stuff.
Where are Pakistans own Stores Management systems, Mission computers, RWRs (instead of the license manufactured Chinese one), HUDs, MFD programs, fabrication technology (glass fibre, carbon-carbon), digital Fly by wire computers -even the hardware, or Jamming pods? Or Mission planning & data retrieval systems, or FDRs? Where are Pakistans windtunnels and purpose designed CFD software to aid in aircraft design? Where is RCS & IR analysis done? Despite whatever delays – all this is ready with folks who make their own stuff- in terms of “examples”, and one is happily refitting all imported buys or local upgrades with all these items.
Where are Pakistans equivalents? The answer, clearly seems to be : Zip, nada, zilch.
So what is Pakistans practical contribution to the JF-17, bar money for the term codevelopment to be used. Its a licensed production program, pure & simple.
I’m sure it’s great to go through a ‘challenging’ process by trying to contribute everything yourself – and sure you would learn alot more by doing this — but to result in massive delays / huge cost overuns / the aircraft nowhere near operational when your force actualy needs it and then being forced to spend billions on interim solutions— are these also part of the grand plan? As a developing nation Pakistan is no position to throw away cash on such ‘challenging’ processes – perhaps some developing nations feel they are justified in doing so.
Indigenous production of the JF-17 will lead to major strides in Pakistan’s aviation capabilities. It’s approach is correct – learn to walk before you run – or you fall flat on your face – like others amply demonstrate.
CAT1[QUOTE=sox]I just wanted to know Pakistans’ contribution towards JF-17 and now I have a very “convincing” post as to why contributing less or nothing is the best thing since sliced bread
If you have any doubt about the logic of the post or remain ‘unconvinced’ perhaps you can compare the progress of this project with that of some other developing country which may well have tried to contribute its own engine, avionics, radar – and the cost overuns, delays and interim solutions that resulted in – can we think of any examples?
CAT1Much song and dance is made about how much or how little Pakistan has contributed to the JF-17. One thing is for sure – they have contributed well within their means, which – other than things like performance criteria etc. may well be very little.
But this is entirely the sensible aproach. Why try to re-invent the wheel and try to contribute things which are going to stretch Pakistan’s limited aviation ability – but are no problems for an experienced manufacturer like Chengdu. With this approach, while anyone can shout from the rooftops that Pakistan has contributed very little to the project — 1. they have been able to set the performance criteria and get the plane designed for their needs, 2. They will have full access to its technology and eventualy be able to support it fully, localy 3. been able to halve the cost of the development by partnering with CATIC 4. they look on target to getting the type operational in time to replace aging types 5. They have got access to items which otherwise would be none starters e.g. Russian Engine – at least on the prototypes …. etc etc
Compare the above approach and associated benefits with stretching to contribute more — or worse still going it alone. I’m sure you would get huge delays, massive cost overuns and the need for ‘interim solutions’. The choice is between learning the easy way and getting your product cheaper and earlier or learning the hard way, paying substantialy more and putting up with endless delays — tough choice 🙂
CAT1Latest pic of JF-17 06 seems to show a slightly re-designed nose cone – with horizontal lines on each side – I think the Gripen has a similar design.
CAT1Another image of JF-17 PT06 from a different angle.
1st time we see DSI modified JF-17 with AAM
great pic! the canopy hasn’t changed after all – guess it was just the angle of the last pic that made it look more bubbled than normal.
CAT1let me correct you here, if PAF wants J-10, it will EVENTUALLY get them. CAC can’t even produce it fast enough to supply plaaf. Even PLANAF can get a piece of J-10, how many J-10s do you think will be available for export in the next few years? Unlike JF-17, China is currently not actively looking to export this thing.
You may well know more about J10 production speed than me – Any sources would be interesting – but I would be surprised if China could not cope with 36+ aircraft for export to Pakistan over next 2-4 years.
As for China not actively looking to export the type – fine – but as I said before if Pakistan wants it – which it clearly does – it will get it – and China will accomodate its requirements. The two nations track record in co-operation is ample proof of this.
CAT1Ans. As I have mentioned earlier, we are keeping all available options open and wants a well balanced multirole jet fighter aircraft. We will be inducting 18 new F-16C/Ds and most probably will use our option of 18 more after the first squadron will be operational. We will also be inducting 26 MLU F-16A/B as well as our existing fleet of 34 aircraft will also undergo the MLU upgrades. 150 JF-17 Thunders and 36 F-10A aircraft will also be joining PAF, and more F-10s can be expected. Most probably we will also purchase FC-20 fighter aircraft from China.
Sounds like F-10A’s (J10’s) are a definate – but what the hell is the FC-20??
Sign In
