Though a part of me wishes thd winner to be NG. For one simple reason. To see Abhimanyu’s reaction (after all his stuff about MK-2=NG).

Sorry Abhi…couldnt resist. 😉

so what does that say ? that they will not go for a Western engine but will settle for an uprated RD-93 in the future ? maybe that will help keep acquisition costs low for the JF-17.

so with 100 engines for the JF-17 and all likely to equip the PAF’s JF-17s, and with an option for 500 engines or 1000 engines, these numbers indicate that there is no Chinese option available for the entire future production run of the JF-17 either.

I’m saying that because PLAAF has not yet shown any interest in inducting this fighter, whereas if you assume that eventually PAF will induct 250 of them, it will leave 250-750 JF-17s out of 500-1000 RD-93 options.. I guess that lays to rest theories about the WS-10 engines for future batches.

An option is an option and remains an options until exercised. While the above could be an indicative of no Chinese option available for the entire future production run of the JF-17 either, that is NOT a forgone conclusion. My personal opinion, however, is that RD-93/upgrades are likely to power future FC-1/JF-17, though many in Pakistan would prefer a chinese option. While we have heard a lot of WS-13 related rumours over the years, I can’t remember seeing any official statement linking WS-13 (or any other chinese engine) with FC-1/JF-17.

you seem to take umbrage at the term assembly line- most aircraft assembly lines that are set up to build aircraft on licence begin with CKDs (completely knocked down kits), SKDs (semi knocked-down kits) and then as the supply-chain from within the nation starts, they start building parts from raw materials. That is still nothing but a licenced production assembly line.

I was referring to assembly from SKD, though many don’t even seem to want to believe in that.:)

interesting to know about the talks with Thales..is it only for the MICA IR or regarding other avionics as well ?

The article mentions avionics too.

Huh! Vikas, you either seems to have either missed the point or looking to change the tune of the subject at hand. Just because I said Untested JF-17, it wasn’t mean to discredit any of his deployment background or design at large. I only doing some comparison between fully certified J-10 and that with the JF-17 which yet to achieve FOC and not deriding JF-17 for any of its means. I had put forward irony or illogical kind of functioning according to which PAF itself no giving due credit to fully certified and potent J-10 which becomes highly viable option to be considered for upgrade without waiting for its improved version. At the same time, J-10 in its current form especially when it first entered the service couple of years back still had a enough room to be considered for upgrade. Instead PAF rather gone for newly born JF-17 which by any means won’t bring a kind of a advantage and challange that J-10 could have bring forth. Hence it clearly indicates that PAF was hit by absence of enough budget.

Zoom, with all due respect, Im struggling to understand some of your arguments. Anyway, I have already talked about PAF’s problems wrt availability/affordability in an earlier. They do have limited resources and limited options, and anyone denying this is in denial. Yet to think that PAF decided to buy JF-17 now and J-10 in 2014/15 because of their budgetary issues is simply preposterous. JF-17 and J-10 have their own rightful places in PAF’s future plans. As of now, PAF appears to be working towards an AF consisting of 3 types; JF-17/F-16/FC-20. JF-17 would be the lo-med tech (and hence in large numbers) and F-16/FC-20 would med-hi tech (and hence in somewhat lower numbers). Considering what JF-17 means for PAF and Pak aviaition industry, it is absurd to suggest they should have delayed this programme to get J-10. That would have been equivalent to short-term gain at the expense of long-term loss. So, No. Thank you.:)

In the meanwhile, PAF yet to show any competency which can highlight their commanding feat given kind of a mismanagement they have done as far as procurement of farily available and capable means in the form of J-10, because they rather diverted already resource constrainted budget towards luxurious means like Awacs and IFR and rather choose to do criminal level of carefree attitude by letting own airspace vulerable by not going towards potent fighter jets at the cost of IFR and Awacs.

If you are saying what I think you are saying, then Im afraid its an ‘egg first or the chicken’ sort of situation. But for the sake of argument, a single AEW&C could provide you coverage over tens of thousands of square miles (Im sure someone could provide you with more accurate estimates), and guide ground/air based fighters towards the areas of threat in time. Do you have any idea how many fighters you would need to keep this sort of vigilance? I assume a few dozen. So what would be better (theoretically) both in terms of asset preservation and costs; one/two AEW&C & few fighters in air backed up with refuellers (to increase their loiter time) with the rest of fighters on the ground or a few dozen fighters in air (at any time) doing round the clock CAPs? PAF tried to get AEW&C even back in 80s when they were operating F-6s. Not because its a luxury, rather it gives you a considerable advantage (or deterrence in this case).

Regarding absorbing particuler assets, yes you are right as far as MKI is concerned, but it doesn’t necessarily applicable to J-10s since PAF hadn’t required to worry about TOT and absorption of large fleet of nearly 230 J-10, rather J-10 only going to form very least amt of PAF’s strenght as far as their numbers are cocerned. If PAF had enough bucks and accordingly gave order two years back, I don’t think Chinese may have find it tough to even supply atleast 60% of the fleet given their ability to churn existing inventory of J-10 and speedy deliverly of the same to PLAAF. If PAF can see JF-17 as a workhorse in test flight level itself as far as their arrival till few years back then I don’t see any reason for diverting same fund towards J-10.

Any ideas how many J-10s PAF is planning in the long run? How do you know for sure that PAF does not plan to get J-10 with some sort of ToT agreement…isn’t Brazil plnning to acquire 36 (and may be more) with ToT? Once again, both JF-17 and J-10 have their own rightful places in PAF’s plans.

Your post seems to have nothing to do with my contention by any stetch of imagination. As far as nearly obsolate fleet of PAF is concerned, purchase of IFR and Awacs has literally done no favour to its force structure, since purchase of potent platforms in the form of fighter jets was much more important task to replace nearly 2 and 2.5 generation fleet(other then F-16). Force consist of true 4th fighter jets like J-10 and F-16 Block 52 still represent a potent threat even without IFR and awacs. Economy has every say in building of airforce and purchase of certain luxurious assets like IFR and Awacs doesn’t make it justifiable either. Because IFR and Awacs isnt a toy which can be orderd and get it delivered by tommorrow itself which makes purchase of potent fighter jets make it immensly important to make up for security needs till their arrival. But in PAF’s case, we are ironically seeing reversal of the same according to yourself, as force multipliers are getting delivered first and then fighter jets like J-10 and Falcons following later.

AWACS/AEW&C types of platforms are likely to provide better area/threat coverage than the ground based radars. An AF would get more time to respond to a particular threat, and could respond to it more efficiently. In my opinion, that is a big force multiplier. As for the IFR, I think we all know the advantages.

This style of procurement only suggest that, PAF was suffering from lack of enough bucks all this years to build its airforce and in the end when it fully realizes that, it has no choice of procuring what they wish to be in their limited budget, they straight away gone for untested JF-17s and limited number of J-10s as only available means. I don’t want to bring F-16 Block 52’s as they are more of appreciation by US for Pak’s help in their war on terror.

Untested? It was may be couple of months ago or so when we heard that 12 FC-1/JF-17 (4 flying prototypes + 8 LSP machines) had flown >2,000 sorties. What makes you think it remains untested? Sure the design is not proven…but untested? Take a look at F-16s. USAF had received hundreds and many other countries had ordered these machines in hundreds even before it got to IOC stage. Israel was using it in actual combat even before it received FOC (or was it IOC?). JSF programme has already got considerable committments from various countries. How many times it has flown? Has the design been proven? Are all these countries/AFs lead by idiots?

Having said above, sure PAF has a lot of constraints, both affordability and availability. In the light of these constraints, I think it is rather commendable as to what they have done or are planning to do. Period.

If this is really the case then why does we are still not seeing J-10 in PAF service? especially when PAF can fully embrace something like JF-17 which yet achieve its FOC let alone getting fully mature to become workhorse of PAF. As formula of purchasing fully tested J-10 first and modifying it later according to once needs, something which we have observe in JF-17 project become much more possible option for something as potent as J-10. But instead, we are seeing reversal of the same which only goes on to make one conclude that PAF wasn’t even position to garner enough bucks to purchase most available and economical Chinese option in the form of J-10 as far as purchase price and potency without western avionics is concerned.

To be frank, Im no longer sure whether you even know the logic of your own arguments. How do you think a brand new design achieves its IOC & FOC? Do you think USAR purchased falcons or USSR purchased flankers or RAF inducted Typhoon or IAF will only induct LCA only after they received their IOC/FOC? PAF went for JF-17 because the fighter is ready for next stage, i.e. becoming operational at squadron level. Once it does, it would take (as is the norm) another couple of years or so before it gets FOC. Same thing happened to falcon, flankers, fulcrum, Gripen, and same will happen to programmes such as LCA and JF-17. Hope it makes sense.

As for J-10, well let me put it to you this way. Just like every other AF, PAF also has its own priorities and initiatives, and has to make do what is available. PAF has various programmes going on at the moment. Their first JF-17 squadron would become operational in another 6 months or so, by which time they would also start receiving their first new F-16s. They have various other things coming too. All this would mean a lot of new logistics, tactics, training and so on. Adding a brand new type, i.e. J-10 would only stretch their already stretched resources. And sure they wanted a more advanced J-10 version than what was available right now. This is why the J-10 purchase went to 2014/15. Let me put it to you in another way. We all know that IAF has been operating at a lower squadron strength (than it is sanctioned for or it want) for a number of years. We know IAF has resources and it can buy from almost anywhere. Do you think HAL couldn’t churn out 25-30 MKI per year? Do you think IAF could not have bought a lot more MKI and quicker had they wanted? But the limiting factor is not how many can be produced rather how many IAF could absorb in a particular time.

unreliable. it is proved jf-17 is much better than mig-29k.

Mig-29K is based on a proven design. JF-17 is a new design, yet to enter operational service, and will mature & prove itself over time.