Be dazzled
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
TuAF bought 52? Not a small number. Systems induce all kinds of problems when inducted to be rectified later. Why the fuss.
JF-17 - Updates, News & Discussion
- Thread starter ghazi52
- Start date
do take a look at the rest of the operators and how many they have...
Reichmarshal
Trusted Member
Mashak/saab safari is a 50+ years old platform.
its upgrade ie super mashak was retro fitted with a more powerful 260 HP engine, cockpit air-conditioning, MFD/glass cocpit and electric cum manual elevator and rudder trim.
There were no structural upgrades. So this talk about the brakes is bs
its upgrade ie super mashak was retro fitted with a more powerful 260 HP engine, cockpit air-conditioning, MFD/glass cocpit and electric cum manual elevator and rudder trim.
There were no structural upgrades. So this talk about the brakes is bs
what does anything structural have to do with brakes?
hussain0216
Elite Member
Yeah it makes no sense, any braking issue would be identified and rectified, for example we have almost 400 of these planes, you can't exactly have a brake issue and not fix it
manufacturing defects, ever heard of these????????
PakShaheen_79
Trusted Member
Is there any picture of Thunder with serial number from 2024 like 24-33X etc. Looks like there are only handful Block III in PAF. By now number should have gone past XX-340 where XX is year. Why production rare is on lower side compared to block I and II? Any airframe rolled out this year. We are already in 2nd quarter of the year.
hussain0216
Elite Member
All current JF17s being made are going to Azerbaijan until the order is fulfilled we won't see anything for PAF
Oscar
Moderator
Not the first time a slip up has cascaded - there were 2 F-6s lost because a Pakistani tech was doing opposite wiring - a F-16 was lost because one oversight led to a mirage screw used in the aircraft - and JF-17s had screens just shut off mid flight for no reason and PAC had no idea until they bought in an outside consultant. But since most Indians have the habit of lying or whitewashing everything to brush it under the carpet to look faultless we have decided to imitate that habit instead of all other good aspects.
Doesn’t mean PAC is bad - poor manufacturing - etc which the bhaktora pappus will catch on to try “soft kills” on since their Tejas never has had pipes delivered with mud stuck in them leaving poor HAL blokes inspecting and cleaning every jet on the line.
The USAF rejected an entire KC-46 batch because everywhere on the jet they found poorly done processes, loose screws , trash and even tools left there and sent to delivery with no QC - the F-16 was crashing due to a manufacturing defect with wire chaffing(even a movie on it) but no sir - Mushak and PaC got something wrong… off with @arslank01’s head.
باہر مل میں تیرے بریک سیٹ کرتا ہوں
Quwa
Research Partner
It's also worth remembering that PAC, at its core, isn't an OEM. It's the PAF's MRO wing, and it's run accordingly so, even with AMF in the picture. PAC never got even close the investment, time, and autonomy (from AHQ control) that HAL got, which afford HAL a lot of space to make mistakes and develop internal competencies.
Generally, AHQ understands and acknowledges this issue, which is why since 2017, they've tried developing AvDI, or AvRID, or (today) NASTP.
IMO, we're in the early - and rough - stages of the nurture track. However, younger PAF leaders are increasingly self-aware of the Kool Aid and want to maintain doing the right thing, which is to ensure an aerospace OEM emerges in one shape or another.
The advent of UCAVs has made building an OEM a lot easier, IMO. NASTP can start at a relatively more accessible level via a few UCAV programs, especially a 2-3-ton loyal wingman. So, from the onset, it can build a solution that would be built in large numbers with inherently lower costs and complexity than an NGFA yet, at the same time, develop many of the core disciplines necessary to one day develop a NGFA.
m52k85
Registered Member
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that's how the turks started.
Quwa
Research Partner
Yep. Their giants (e.g., Turkish Aerospace, Aselsan, Havelsan, Roketsan etc) are all state-owned too. They've figured out a way to manage military leadership, engineering, and business stakeholders relatively efficiently, allowing each to develop well.
Interestingly, NASTP currently is an amalgamation of the work TAI, Aselsan, and Havelsan do separately (e.g., aircraft, radars, avionics, EW/ECM, etc). I think as the work and infrastructure at NASTP grows, they might split it more into more domain-focused entities. The groundwork for it is there, in a way, through setting up different campuses nationwide, for example.
White Privilege
Registered Member
What about something like the Barracuda family of missiles? PAF must be rolling out cheap and scalable guided munitions like hot cakes to really punish Indians in case of conflict......
m52k85
Registered Member
Turkish Uni's also do original research, I wonder how much of that fed into bringing about a conducive environment for these companies to germinate in. We on the other hand have 'do number' publications, chacha mamu style citations and review process. @JamD might know better.
