JF-17 - Updates, News & Discussion

[Yasser76]

You serious ? Calling a drone kills as legit ? Why did j10 get 6 and Jeff got 0 against Indian fighter ? Please answer that

Why did J-10 not let F-7PG get a kill? Or Mirage III or F-16A?

F-22 has no air to air kill, maybe email the USAF and share your thoughts.

I think I need to stop interacting with you, it is obvious you are here to flame.

Retard

 

[airhead]

My God, I think I just found the forum's village idiot....

?? What facts do you have to counter it ? See the briefing from avm Aurangzeb on May 4..no f16c were used ..they were playing a backup role

 

[Ak01]

You do realize the F-16 was export success because it was marketed as a cheap fighter? Same goes for Mig-21, Grippen and even the F-5. Same can be said for Mirage series to a extent, so idk what you're on about. SD-10 is a worse missile compared to C AMRAAM, hence why the F-16 was used as the PAF prefers guarantee quality/effectiveness instead of national prestige. Also no fighter conducted the kill, it was the AWAC's that did it. We ain't in 1900's, modern fighter combat record is primarily supported by AWAC's. Even countless F-15 kill numbers are just it shooting missiles and the AWAC guaranteeing the kill. So having kill number doesn't really matter, the A2G thing matters as no force multiplier can perform that. That's the Rafale was popular, it genuinely out did anything in A2G ground role while maintaining a omni-role capabilities unmatched. The only reason why we aren't getting sales is because of politics. No nation is ready to move on to Chinese systems. Only three countries dictate the fighter market, US, Russia and EU. Right now Russia is unable to supply and hence EU is stepping up, we must quickly get into the empty Russian which are primarily users who have no money(basically what the JF-17 is designed for).

Utterly misleading.

The "cheap fighter" angle was an internal angle, pushed by the likes of Boyd and Sprey. It was "cheap" and "simple" RELATIVE to the F-15 at the time, which was not keen on the heavy missile carrier philosophy, instead, wanting a day vfr agile LWF. They got their way.

The export success coming down to it being "cheap" is just a lie, or a misunderstanding of the facts.

There were actual "Cheap" fighers marketed to export. The F20 was marketed as "80% of the capability, at half the cost", so if the F-16 was a success PURELY because of its "cheap fighter" angle, your argument collapses at the failure of the F-20 tigershark.

Heck, the F-20 was actually more capable too, a faster scramble time and actual BVR capability BEFORE the F-16 too. This, at the time, would have been top tier in priority for the PAF, when theyd be on alert for soviets approaching.

"“The F-20’s electronics had been updated to levels that in some ways were superior to the first batch of the F-16 delivered to Pakistan in 1982,” Abbas Mirza said looking at some of the pictures of himself sitting in its cockpit and reminiscing."

"In his report to the PAF, Abbas Mirza’s final conclusion was that the F-20 was designed to be inferior to the contemporary US jets that the US was adamant on selling to developing countries with meagre budgets and low-level threats. No country bought it. Not even the United States Air Force (USAF). “None of the air forces showed interest in the aircraft despite its hectic demo flight schedules across the world. There was no point acquiring these aircraft for PAF. This is what I recommended to air staff on my return to Pakistan,” Abbas Mirza added. The air staff agreed with his recommendations and shelved the F-20 procurement once for all.

Vastly superior to the Mirage III and Mirage V, and the F-6 and the A-5, a system very close to the F-16, perfect for the Indo-Pak scenario back then, the PAF decided not to settle for second best. Despite aggressive marketing campaigns, the Tigershark failed to obtain sales. By the end of the 1980s, the low-cost F-20 died its natural death."

So please, do not try to argue your point by fabricating history. The F-20 was FAR cheaper than the F-16, FAR more capable at the time too, but it was not selected. It was marketed as the Cheap fighter, yet it died a miserable death.

The F-16 OTOH was selected due to assured support (a big one that the JF-17 gets marked down for!!!!), industrial offsets, and a long term outlook, with evolving capabilities. NOT because it was Cheap. Otherwise we'd see F-20s and F-17's flying around the world now.

Misleading

 

[Ak01]

Besides 3 Myanmar and 3 Nigerian JF17s, have any other deals been signed yet? Is the Azerbaijan contract signed and real or still in discussion?

Azeris bought a fair few. Allegedly up to 40.

how many did they buy or are they doing the same BS as what others did..ie will buy 2-3 and test it first. lot of hype from Khwaja Asif and fanboys here on Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Argentina and how this is transform Pakistan economy etc but has anything real been signed?

At the time of the Argentinian evaluation, i was in regular communication with a close aide of their brig general isaac, who was their COAS basically. They REALLY liked the JF-17, particularly in terms of weapons package and financing. It was the govt who was dragging their feet under the pressure of the US. The JF-17 was the preferred choice, over Tejas and the F-16 at the time, but the govt had fell to US pressure, leading to the deal being canned. It was a purely political play. They were really impressed.

In terms of KSA, etc, it was all utter nonsense anyway. Some kids at Reuters were having the time of their lives selling JF-17s every day. I would ignore anything that came from them. The GoP even denied them lol.

With Iraq, originally there was a deal to sell shahpar 2's, alongside JF-17's. I was in touch with some of the guys at GIDS who had mentioned a Shahpar Contract was basically due to be signed within coming days. Never heard of it again. I havent written this one off entirely because the delay could be due to a variety of factors. If a shahpar contract does get signed, then id probably quite safely say that a JF-17 contract will have been signed too. Though, i could be wrong and they could just stick with UAV's.

My fear is that JF17 is not up to the mark in global market. This whole positioning of "we are cheap" is back firing. No one likes to buy cheap things no matter how poor you are particularly when national pride is at stake. Nations want quality and performance.

The issue is, military purchases, particularly large ones are as much of a politics play as they are capabilities. But also, governments want long term assurances, they want to know their multi billion dollar investment will be protected, supported and sustained 20/30/40 years down the line. This is where the JF-17 struggles a bit.

Because Pakistan does not produce much in house in terms of spares/sustainment, its heavly reliant on Chinese production lines to supply parts. If more lucrative contracts become available to those producers, why would they be interested in renewing contracts with the PAF or continuing to sustain the aircraft? They're not a charity, their interest is money, and they'll chase wherever they can get the most of it.

This above was also used as a negative point by prospective F-20, YF-17 and F16XL customers. Its also why the PAF had made it a part of the contract that the PLAAF was to induct the type too. By doing so, it would have made sure that the PAF would continue to receive support from China, as they will have needed it themselves too. This is quite a big negative for any prospective customer. The UAE for example was ready to buy F-16XL's, on the condition that the USAF purchased 100+ units itself too. This was for security.

Beyond this, the fighter markets had been split into a couple of distinct camps. Europe, US and Russia. If you couldn't buy US, you'd buy from UK, if it was a no from the UK, youd turn to the French. If the French said no, then Russia Zindabad. There was a market each of them had carved out for themselves. Nothing China had on the export catalogue really was groundbreaking enough to create that market. The original JF-17 evaluations had it viewed as underwhelming, and not necessarily worth the cost vs just MLU'ing old stock fighters.

Now while things are different now, the other issue is LCA's are very limited in markets. Everyone who needed an LCA, built their own. Those who needed LIFT's looked at LCA's also for that market, but the LIFT market isnt that huge, limited to airforces who are going to be using more advanced aircraft in the future, so to build capacity for their pilots.

The problem is the JF-17 is a limited market fighter, chasing a limited market segment. It was bound to struggle. It was always going to be an issue, and anyone who viewed it as a potential export success was probably drinking their kool aid a bit too much. Though, its very sufficient for Pakistan, how many countries have the same reqs as Pakistan. Not many.

I think the Chinese will carve out a very nice market and make their entrance into the fighter markets with the next gen's though.

Also, while JF17 has proven to be strong in A-G roles (both in Swift Retort and BUM), it has not proven to be up to the mark in AA roles. I still dont get why PAF did not have JF17 equipped with PL15s, engage Indian fighters in on May 3 2025? Why the JF17 was in a support role rather than be in a lead role along with J10s? Is it that they couldnt carry PF15s or their radar is weak? or they couldnt climb to the required altitude fast enough ? Even is Swift Retort, the AA role was primarily led by F16 even though JF17 were carrying SD-10s back then...so why did they not engage Indian fighters in Feb '19? Does the PAF not trust JF17 in AA roles? No matter how much we try to hide it, we cannot deny that JF17 did not have a single AA kill (except for a drone). This would have greatly helped its sales if it had shot down just 1 Indian plane. We need to do something about its engine thrust or lack thereof.

IMO, nothing to do with engine thrust, but the reality is the JF-17 fits into the LO mix of our fleet, it wouldn't be the tip of the spear anyway. It was always designed to be the airspace defender as opposed to the formation leader. Though, what i will say is it was a very, very poor decision on part of the PAF to so hastily attribute all kills to the J-10. Just handing a few over to the JF-17 would have done wonders for it. They did try to do this in 2019, but it was a very stupid endeavour, however, they could have done that now since the J-10 and JF-17(allegedly) both carry PL-15's.

 

[airhead]

Azeris bought a fair few. Allegedly up to 40.



At the time of the Argentinian evaluation, i was in regular communication with a close aide of their brig general isaac, who was their COAS basically. They REALLY liked the JF-17, particularly in terms of weapons package and financing. It was the govt who was dragging their feet under the pressure of the US. The JF-17 was the preferred choice, over Tejas and the F-16 at the time, but the govt had fell to US pressure, leading to the deal being canned. It was a purely political play. They were really impressed.

In terms of KSA, etc, it was all utter nonsense anyway. Some kids at Reuters were having the time of their lives selling JF-17s every day. I would ignore anything that came from them. The GoP even denied them lol.

With Iraq, originally there was a deal to sell shahpar 2's, alongside JF-17's. I was in touch with some of the guys at GIDS who had mentioned a Shahpar Contract was basically due to be signed within coming days. Never heard of it again. I havent written this one off entirely because the delay could be due to a variety of factors. If a shahpar contract does get signed, then id probably quite safely say that a JF-17 contract will have been signed too. Though, i could be wrong and they could just stick with UAV's.


The issue is, military purchases, particularly large ones are as much of a politics play as they are capabilities. But also, governments want long term assurances, they want to know their multi billion dollar investment will be protected, supported and sustained 20/30/40 years down the line. This is where the JF-17 struggles a bit.

Because Pakistan does not produce much in house in terms of spares/sustainment, its heavly reliant on Chinese production lines to supply parts. If more lucrative contracts become available to those producers, why would they be interested in renewing contracts with the PAF or continuing to sustain the aircraft? They're not a charity, their interest is money, and they'll chase wherever they can get the most of it.

This above was also used as a negative point by prospective F-20, YF-17 and F16XL customers. Its also why the PAF had made it a part of the contract that the PLAAF was to induct the type too. By doing so, it would have made sure that the PAF would continue to receive support from China, as they will have needed it themselves too. This is quite a big negative for any prospective customer. The UAE for example was ready to buy F-16XL's, on the condition that the USAF purchased 100+ units itself too. This was for security.

Beyond this, the fighter markets had been split into a couple of distinct camps. Europe, US and Russia. If you couldn't buy US, you'd buy from UK, if it was a no from the UK, youd turn to the French. If the French said no, then Russia Zindabad. There was a market each of them had carved out for themselves. Nothing China had on the export catalogue really was groundbreaking enough to create that market. The original JF-17 evaluations had it viewed as underwhelming, and not necessarily worth the cost vs just MLU'ing old stock fighters.

Now while things are different now, the other issue is LCA's are very limited in markets. Everyone who needed an LCA, built their own. Those who needed LIFT's looked at LCA's also for that market, but the LIFT market isnt that huge, limited to airforces who are going to be using more advanced aircraft in the future, so to build capacity for their pilots.

The problem is the JF-17 is a limited market fighter, chasing a limited market segment. It was bound to struggle. It was always going to be an issue, and anyone who viewed it as a potential export success was probably drinking their kool aid a bit too much. Though, its very sufficient for Pakistan, how many countries have the same reqs as Pakistan. Not many.

I think the Chinese will carve out a very nice market and make their entrance into the fighter markets with the next gen's though.



IMO, nothing to do with engine thrust, but the reality is the JF-17 fits into the LO mix of our fleet, it wouldn't be the tip of the spear anyway. It was always designed to be the airspace defender as opposed to the formation leader. Though, what i will say is it was a very, very poor decision on part of the PAF to so hastily attribute all kills to the J-10. Just handing a few over to the JF-17 would have done wonders for it. They did try to do this in 2019, but it was a very stupid endeavour, however, they could have done that now since the J-10 and JF-17(allegedly) both carry PL-15's.

Thanks for this view. Although not sure about the last point …So basically you are saying that paf should be lied about jf17 kills?? Really? And the world will believe it ? What about the awards being given to the wrong pilots ??? Would they have not caused consternation ?

 

[Jinn Baba]

No wrong comparison. No one has dared put any fighter against the f22 ..so it hasn’t seen any AA combat and if it did we all know what the outcome is gong to be . Jeff has seen real AA scenarios and it failed us on both accounts

That's what happened with JF17. Last time it flew against India - they grounded their air force for two days.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

Besides 3 Myanmar and 3 Nigerian JF17s, ...

So, Pakistan built a light combat fighter to replace its own fleet of light combat fighter is a failure in your opinion?

Total produced as per publicly available information (based on serial numbers):

Country​	Air Force​	Block​	Quantity​
China/Pakistan​	-​	Prototype​	6​
Pakistan​	Pakistan Air Force​	Block-1 (A)​	50​
Pakistan​	Pakistan Air Force​	Block-2 (A)​	59​
Pakistan​	Pakistan Air Force​	Block-2 (B)​	26​
Pakistan​	Pakistan Air Force​	Block-3 (A)​	23​
Myanmar​	Myanmar Air Force​	Block-2 (A)​	6​
Myanmar​	Myanmar Air Force​	Block-2 (B)​	2​
Nigeria​	Nigerian Air Force​	Block-2 (A)​	3​

 

[Michael]

So, Pakistan built a light combat fighter to replace its own fleet of light combat fighter is a failure in your opinion?

Total produced as per publicly available information (based on serial numbers):

Country​	Air Force​	Block​	Quantity​
China/Pakistan​	-​	Prototype​	6​
Pakistan​	Pakistan Air Force​	Block-1 (A)​	50​
Pakistan​	Pakistan Air Force​	Block-2 (A)​	59​
Pakistan​	Pakistan Air Force​	Block-2 (B)​	26​
Pakistan​	Pakistan Air Force​	Block-3 (A)​	23​
Myanmar​	Myanmar Air Force​	Block-2 (A)​	6​
Myanmar​	Myanmar Air Force​	Block-2 (B)​	2​
Nigeria​	Nigerian Air Force​	Block-2 (A)​	3​

CATIC also possesses a JF-17B3 fighter jet, which is used for participating in air shows and customer demonstrations.
There is also a JF-17 fighter jet in the CAC showroom.

 

[rafale]

Azeris bought a fair few. Allegedly up to 40.



At the time of the Argentinian evaluation, i was in regular communication with a close aide of their brig general isaac, who was their COAS basically. They REALLY liked the JF-17, particularly in terms of weapons package and financing. It was the govt who was dragging their feet under the pressure of the US. The JF-17 was the preferred choice, over Tejas and the F-16 at the time, but the govt had fell to US pressure, leading to the deal being canned. It was a purely political play. They were really impressed.

In terms of KSA, etc, it was all utter nonsense anyway. Some kids at Reuters were having the time of their lives selling JF-17s every day. I would ignore anything that came from them. The GoP even denied them lol.

With Iraq, originally there was a deal to sell shahpar 2's, alongside JF-17's. I was in touch with some of the guys at GIDS who had mentioned a Shahpar Contract was basically due to be signed within coming days. Never heard of it again. I havent written this one off entirely because the delay could be due to a variety of factors. If a shahpar contract does get signed, then id probably quite safely say that a JF-17 contract will have been signed too. Though, i could be wrong and they could just stick with UAV's.


The issue is, military purchases, particularly large ones are as much of a politics play as they are capabilities. But also, governments want long term assurances, they want to know their multi billion dollar investment will be protected, supported and sustained 20/30/40 years down the line. This is where the JF-17 struggles a bit.

Because Pakistan does not produce much in house in terms of spares/sustainment, its heavly reliant on Chinese production lines to supply parts. If more lucrative contracts become available to those producers, why would they be interested in renewing contracts with the PAF or continuing to sustain the aircraft? They're not a charity, their interest is money, and they'll chase wherever they can get the most of it.

This above was also used as a negative point by prospective F-20, YF-17 and F16XL customers. Its also why the PAF had made it a part of the contract that the PLAAF was to induct the type too. By doing so, it would have made sure that the PAF would continue to receive support from China, as they will have needed it themselves too. This is quite a big negative for any prospective customer. The UAE for example was ready to buy F-16XL's, on the condition that the USAF purchased 100+ units itself too. This was for security.

Beyond this, the fighter markets had been split into a couple of distinct camps. Europe, US and Russia. If you couldn't buy US, you'd buy from UK, if it was a no from the UK, youd turn to the French. If the French said no, then Russia Zindabad. There was a market each of them had carved out for themselves. Nothing China had on the export catalogue really was groundbreaking enough to create that market. The original JF-17 evaluations had it viewed as underwhelming, and not necessarily worth the cost vs just MLU'ing old stock fighters.

Now while things are different now, the other issue is LCA's are very limited in markets. Everyone who needed an LCA, built their own. Those who needed LIFT's looked at LCA's also for that market, but the LIFT market isnt that huge, limited to airforces who are going to be using more advanced aircraft in the future, so to build capacity for their pilots.

The problem is the JF-17 is a limited market fighter, chasing a limited market segment. It was bound to struggle. It was always going to be an issue, and anyone who viewed it as a potential export success was probably drinking their kool aid a bit too much. Though, its very sufficient for Pakistan, how many countries have the same reqs as Pakistan. Not many.

I think the Chinese will carve out a very nice market and make their entrance into the fighter markets with the next gen's though.



IMO, nothing to do with engine thrust, but the reality is the JF-17 fits into the LO mix of our fleet, it wouldn't be the tip of the spear anyway. It was always designed to be the airspace defender as opposed to the formation leader. Though, what i will say is it was a very, very poor decision on part of the PAF to so hastily attribute all kills to the J-10. Just handing a few over to the JF-17 would have done wonders for it. They did try to do this in 2019, but it was a very stupid endeavour, however, they could have done that now since the J-10 and JF-17(allegedly) both carry PL-15's.

I think the JF-17 target market is all the those countries that operated the legacy Migs from USSR times.......but problem is a lot of them went awry over the past decades such as Syria, Libya,Iraq. But there are African/South East Asia and South American nations that might be interested in JF-17BLK III, even if they don't need to actually fight, but rather have the money and need to keep a decent airforce just in case.

It's just how you market it.

The spares supply and sustainment is a major issue, not just with JF-17 but also with legacy western fighters. Once the OEM goes kaput, even LM or Northrop can't do anything.

Like mentioned many times, i work industrial plant maintenance, it is not unusual to see some original OEM from Japan or USA or Europe that provided the original equipment many decades ago and now it is bankrupt or cannot sustain so maintenance people have to scramble to upgrade or go with jugaari solutions. (Hint: what Israelis tried with the KFIR).

But yes you are right on the 30 years horizon part, airforces want to invest in not just the upfront fighter jets cost, they want to know if they can get ample supplies for sustainment and if further future upgrades as MLU will be available. In my view, even Rafale program struggles here, because even with the large GCC and Indian orders, the pace of development and evolution is too damn slow and behind the times because the continuous capital expenditure required is simply too much to be divided over too few airframes left for new production. F-16s are the best deal in this case, not sure if any fighter went through so many upgrades in its 40 year life.......because F-16s were sold in thousands, so it made sense for LM to keep investing in the platform with its partners and keep reaping the profits.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

CATIC also possesses a JF-17B3 fighter jet, which is used for participating in air shows and customer demonstrations.
There is also a JF-17 fighter jet in the CAC showroom.

Interesting.

Do you have any photos for it and do you know what their serial numbers are?

 

[Oscar]

IMO, nothing to do with engine thrust, but the reality is the JF-17 fits into the LO mix of our fleet, it wouldn't be the tip of the spear anyway. It was always designed to be the airspace defender as opposed to the formation leader. Though, what i will say is it was a very, very poor decision on part of the PAF to so hastily attribute all kills to the J-10. Just handing a few over to the JF-17 would have done wonders for it. They did try to do this in 2019, but it was a very stupid endeavour, however, they could have done that now since the J-10 and JF-17(allegedly) both carry PL-15's.

2019 would have led to an escalation to allow the JF-17 to get the kill purely because for that to happen it would need to violate airspace. None of the vipers ever violated airspace in both the clearances. Same goes for letting the Block-3s get kills - you could but why put an asset at greater risk to get the kill versus an asset that is at lower risk to achieve it?

 

[Oscar]

Utterly misleading.

The "cheap fighter" angle was an internal angle, pushed by the likes of Boyd and Sprey. It was "cheap" and "simple" RELATIVE to the F-15 at the time, which was not keen on the heavy missile carrier philosophy, instead, wanting a day vfr agile LWF. They got their way.

The export success coming down to it being "cheap" is just a lie, or a misunderstanding of the facts.

There were actual "Cheap" fighers marketed to export. The F20 was marketed as "80% of the capability, at half the cost", so if the F-16 was a success PURELY because of its "cheap fighter" angle, your argument collapses at the failure of the F-20 tigershark.

Heck, the F-20 was actually more capable too, a faster scramble time and actual BVR capability BEFORE the F-16 too. This, at the time, would have been top tier in priority for the PAF, when theyd be on alert for soviets approaching.

"“The F-20’s electronics had been updated to levels that in some ways were superior to the first batch of the F-16 delivered to Pakistan in 1982,” Abbas Mirza said looking at some of the pictures of himself sitting in its cockpit and reminiscing."

"In his report to the PAF, Abbas Mirza’s final conclusion was that the F-20 was designed to be inferior to the contemporary US jets that the US was adamant on selling to developing countries with meagre budgets and low-level threats. No country bought it. Not even the United States Air Force (USAF). “None of the air forces showed interest in the aircraft despite its hectic demo flight schedules across the world. There was no point acquiring these aircraft for PAF. This is what I recommended to air staff on my return to Pakistan,” Abbas Mirza added. The air staff agreed with his recommendations and shelved the F-20 procurement once for all.

Vastly superior to the Mirage III and Mirage V, and the F-6 and the A-5, a system very close to the F-16, perfect for the Indo-Pak scenario back then, the PAF decided not to settle for second best. Despite aggressive marketing campaigns, the Tigershark failed to obtain sales. By the end of the 1980s, the low-cost F-20 died its natural death."

So please, do not try to argue your point by fabricating history. The F-20 was FAR cheaper than the F-16, FAR more capable at the time too, but it was not selected. It was marketed as the Cheap fighter, yet it died a miserable death.

The F-16 OTOH was selected due to assured support (a big one that the JF-17 gets marked down for!!!!), industrial offsets, and a long term outlook, with evolving capabilities. NOT because it was Cheap. Otherwise we'd see F-20s and F-17's flying around the world now.

Misleading

To be fair the original LWF program targeted a flyaway cost of just $3 million per aircraft in 1972 dollars for the F-16 prototype. Pretty damn cheap for the era, even relative to contemporaries.

F-20 1983 flyaway was $10.7M vs. F-16A's $12.4M (and F-16/79 at $11M). Other drags: Europe spun up its own F-16 lines (SABCA Belgium, Fokker Netherlands) locking in GD/Lockheed dominance.

JF-17 sales bet big on MiG-21/F-5 replacement volumes in Arab/Third World fleets chasing "cheap LO mix," but GCC/African Arabs? Nada. No UAE, Saudi, Egypt, Algeria, etc. in the bag. Actual buyers: Myanmar, Nigeria, Azerbaijan (recent), with talks for Libya LNA, Bangladesh, maybe Saudi/Iraq. But that's scraps vs. the illusion of flooding the market. F-16 won on offsets, evolution, and logistics which the JF-17 simply doesnt have the volume for.

Export was always secondary for these birds. Super-7 kicked off as a PAF/China joint to upgrade J-7s amid US sanctions post-Tiananmen, not some export goldmine. China shifted gears hard once security needs pivoted to maritime threats (Taiwan Strait, not Soviet hordes), so Super-7 into FC-1/JF-17 for PLAAF backup while PAF got its workhorse. Can't dump all blame on the jet itself when geopolitics and buyer priorities nuked the path.

 

[baqai]

@airhead i think you are in this thread with "mai na mannu" attitude with this a2a thing

Let me rephrase what AVM Paracha famously said "acha tu nahi lagta laikin kissi ku zarb paray woh mairay bain hath sai paray ya dain hath sai paray uss sai kia farq parhta hai"

 

[Ibbi32]

CATIC also possesses a JF-17B3 fighter jet, which is used for participating in air shows and customer demonstrations.
There is also a JF-17 fighter jet in the CAC showroom.

Is this same jf-17 that had mockup irst?

 

[Ak01]

2019 would have led to an escalation to allow the JF-17 to get the kill purely because for that to happen it would need to violate airspace. None of the vipers ever violated airspace in both the clearances. Same goes for letting the Block-3s get kills - you could but why put an asset at greater risk to get the kill versus an asset that is at lower risk to achieve it?

no no, im saying we should have just credited the kill, regardless of whether it was ACTUALLY a J-10 or not. We did credit the JF-17 with abhi, but the truth came out. Im not suggesting that we should hold other assets back, but rather, if a J-10 does get a kill, just credit it to the jeff