FCS is different and new, that alone makes a huge difference. Maintainability and simplicity is something that makes the JF-17 far superior to the exceedingly complex F-1. General engineering improvements in the last 3 odd decades is also an advantage.

Aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering benefiting from modern CAD design is yet another improvement. Weight management techniques have also improved. Further, the JF-17 has certain level of composites, which again is an improvement.

EW integration into the bodywork is another advantage of a fresh design. Uprating engines without optimizing inlet again is highly non-optimal. (for instance F-16s with the more powerful GE engine but the small inlet barely improve on their performance…). Even with the modified engines giving a theoretical improvement, the F-1 would be underpowered compared to the JF-17.

IMHO the only advantage I see is the theoretical top speed of the F-1, essentially at the cost of maneuverability.

These are just some from the top of my head.

I think that anyone thinking a jet designed in the 1960s is comparable to an aircraft designed 3-4 decades later has a very unique perspective indeed.

Actually Tempest, the PAF went for Chinese avionics, as the ACM noted that the Chinese have really come up and fulfilled all their requirements. The BVR question was also solved with the SD-10, which the PAF was initially sceptical about and now are extremely satisfied with.

There was a point, earlier in the program when PAF was not sure about Chinese stuff but the rapid development in Chinese milavia has overwhelmed all such concerns in the past few years.

from what’s been said, it is the India’s officials that want Dassault to be responsible for any potential defect that may result from HAL’s production… even if it’s entirely HAL’s fault.. for as long as India asks for such silly engagement (from any manufacturer, not only Dassault), they’ll have to wait for any technology they may expect… you want technology, independence, and do it by yourself it’s fine, but you have to assume responsibility for what you do… it is, sort of: “you want to play with the big guys? grow up then!” 😉

Perfectly sums it up. I have an indian acquintance whose friend wosrks at HAL. Appointments are based on who u know and who ypu are related to. Officers sip tea and pretend to be busy. Its a bureaucrstic dead end. Dessault is doing the right thing.

Curious to know what you meant by your last sentence y-20Bacon

Rii I must say Marx’s thoughts are proved wrong on that account by Jung’s experiments. Jung’s work suggests man is inherently religious; you will end up worshipping something or the other, i.e. money, porn, military aviation etc.

Even so, the pedagogic influence of religion is very strong, particularly so in societies that have not essentially given up on religion.

As for who the afghan taliban are or what codes they live by you have only heard from sources whose neutrality cannot be blindly accepted, to say the least. And they are as diverse a group as the communities u live in. Be not quick to judge.

Yes, of course, nuclear weapons do not mean you ignore conventional.

That’s an interesting point that Canada could contribute elsewhere. My point was that some posters previously on this thread were claiming that sales to x, y and z where proof of the F-35s vaunted capabilities. That sort of argument doesn’t fully mesh with the idea that these purchases are politically motivated.

That makes sense, I agree. Revised numbers:

50 JF-17 Block II single seaters
30 JF-17 Block II dual seaters

(incidentally the JF-17 twin seaters are, according to pshamim not going to be like the F-16s, won’t lose fuel capacity for the extra seat, so guessing will probably be a bit stretched or with a slight hump or both)

Good point, I was hoping simulators would solve this problem but perhaps I was too optimistic on that account.