Ali_Baba
VIP Member
For that same amount, you can get 1 x J10CE, and 1 x JF17C. Shows how expensive the F16s are for the PAF, given their overall inflexibility.
PAF F-16 | Discussions
- Thread starter Trailer23
- Start date
For that same amount, you can get 1 x J10CE, and 1 x JF17C. Shows how expensive the F16s are for the PAF, given their overall inflexibility.
Reichmarshal
Trusted Member
But I fear the deal has already been signed.
both combined still wouldnt outlive an f16 btw. You keep looking at this wrong.
25 mins to 35 mins explains it all
ARMalik
Trusted Member
Na these are just your speculations, and your personal opinion. These are NOT FACTS. When someone says you are speculating, you counter is by even more specualtions. Nice WORK !
Ali_Baba
VIP Member
What is important is the cost per flying hour and the military capability that brings you. If the ratio is 1/3 of the flying hours for 1/3 the cost, then how exactly is that bad? If it costs the same to buy 3 J10CEs for 1 F16 for the same number of flying hours, then how is that bad? The J10CE model is better, because by the time you have exhausted the flying hours, you can buy a new plane ( even with the same number of flying hours ) that will be more advanced through technological advancements and you wont have to factor in the cost of a "mid-life" upgrade. The F16 approach needs a MLU, the J10CE approach doesn't because you would get the J10D at that point.
This obsession of trying to measure total flying hours as a measure of success, and while ignoring the cost of that capability does not accurately reflect value for money. The J10CE model represents better financial value for the PAF given the amount of flying hours it generates and the cost of those hours and the incremental increase in military capability with each batch purchase.
Scorpio
Registered Member
We don't have money.. deal is only possible if its from any support funds .. So If they are free or subsidies.. Then its will not bad deal ... If we get them on loan.. then its bad one ..
this is where your thinking is flawed and actually only exists because of the viper. Ill break it down for you...
If the J-10 has shorter lifecycles, there is no point in an MLU, or a long term support network, because the platform just wont exist long term. The F-16 is literally here for another 40-50 years, designed to operate alongside the latest and greatest, whereas for China, the J-10 is a bottom tier fighter, with zero long term prospect for it, hence why the waining interest in the platform.
In 10 years we'll end up like the JF-17 has now, price hikes and shortages for spares, oem support waning, frustration and the desire to look elsewhere.
The best example to disprove your argument is the shorter lifecycles of Russian Equiptment- its even more alarming considering the Russian kit has far more options for support via the ex ussr states, yet, struggling for spares, struggling for upgrades, struggling to sustain...etc
So no, 1 F-16=3 J-10c's doesnt work, unless you're certain China will still be producing the J-10 in 20, 30, 40 years- which, surprise surprise, it wont be. Infact unless they get some orders, i doubt they'll be producing them by 2030. Its the same trap the Indians fell for with the M2K...
Your argument would be great...If China's interest in the J-10 platform wasnt waining. It effectively at the mercy of any export orders, can you guarantee that in the next 40 years China will support the J-10 platform? Because i can guarantee that the US/LM will.
Where is J-10D going to be built? Considering once again, China is no longer interested in domestically supporting the J-10.
This is flawed actually, because the idea behind your logic is flawed to begin with.
If the J-10 has shorter lifecycles, there is no point in an MLU, or a long term support network, because the platform just wont exist long term. The F-16 is literally here for another 40-50 years, designed to operate alongside the latest and greatest, whereas for China, the J-10 is a bottom tier fighter, with zero long term prospect for it, hence why the waining interest in the platform.
In 10 years we'll end up like the JF-17 has now, price hikes and shortages for spares, oem support waning, frustration and the desire to look elsewhere.
The best example to disprove your argument is the shorter lifecycles of Russian Equiptment- its even more alarming considering the Russian kit has far more options for support via the ex ussr states, yet, struggling for spares, struggling for upgrades, struggling to sustain...etc
So no, 1 F-16=3 J-10c's doesnt work, unless you're certain China will still be producing the J-10 in 20, 30, 40 years- which, surprise surprise, it wont be. Infact unless they get some orders, i doubt they'll be producing them by 2030. Its the same trap the Indians fell for with the M2K...
abcefg
Registered Member
this deal includes new amraams new engines etc
RajaBaja
Trusted Member
No deal signed yet. Ideally, 18 block 52's will go to V standard with focus on getting ARAAM D-3 or D-1's worst case.
The 45 F-16's MLU's, will get Murad AESA upgrade from Turkey and will utilize Turkish BVR options to compete with Indian R-77M procurement.
Addition of 45 front line F-16's to our mix of J-10C and JF-17 block III, will be a massive addition and force for us. Almost near 80% increase in current front line aircrafts with marginal expense but massive resulting capability.
Corax
Registered Member
All valid points, but what works against the Viper option in the PAF is the prevailing political winds in the US. Lockheed may well support the global Viper fleet for the next 20 years or so but for the PAF that's predicated on US politics actually allowing Lockheed to support and upgrade our Viper fleet, and as history has shown, that's a big what if and can change at any moment. What works in favour of the J10 is significant ToT that isn't available for the Viper, and as PAF has shown with it's Mirage fleet, it can continue operating, maintaining, and even upgrading a platform long after support from the OEM has been terminated. The JF17 will continue to form the backbone of the PAF in multiple versions in the decades to come, and without Chinese support, and there's no reasons why the PAF couldn't do the same with the J10 if allowed access to significant ToT and the IP.
Yes, but theres ways to protect against this, like the PAF did the last time. Large enough stockpiles of weapons and spares give protection in those turbulent patches, because pak us relationship will always be up down up down, just need enough to ride that up down
People really over estimate this. We received nothing so far, we also received very little for JF-17, like we still require oem assistance for some payload integration. China isnt just 'ahh take what u want' like people play it out to be.
This one is a bit misleading, PAF only was able to do this because they had access to TONS of spare parts and equipment due to the popularity of the Mirage globally. If they needed something, they could find it with one of the other operators. This isn't possible for the J-10. PAF would have been dead in the water if they couldnt access all of these things. Also, dont discount significant south african support!
I disagree, i think JF-17 is starting to falter, unless PAF gets its act together, buys out CAC and somehow manages to make it all in house (skeptical), it think within the next few years we'll see the end of the program. These next few years are crucial.
The reason is simple though, having all the ToT and IP (never in a million years would happen) is useless unless we're supplying the inputs, but it would just look like another JF-17 agreement lol, where we just buy it all from China.
Scorpio
Registered Member
Make sense ... Only problem here is quoted price tag of 90-100 million $ for block 52 for V updates .. is too much for PAF ..
PAF can't divert the major funds in just updating exiting jets updates ..
In this price they can have multiple new jets
Scorpio
Registered Member
We know American can change at any time .. have habit of imposing restrictions on Pakistan.. time to time ..
These day they our friend .. let's see how long they remains.. ultimately they will show other side again... For sure
So heavy investment in F16 will be suicide....
On the other hand J10C investment can pay off in future... Chinese are loosing interest in domestic further investment in J10c..
May once they done with production of J10... they might transfer export production order and support facility in Pakistan..
Make there own focus on 5th and 6th gen production..
Reichmarshal
Trusted Member
18 block 52 upgraded to v standard will cost PAF between 1.5-1.6 billion USD. Which is not worth it.
Comming to ozgur/murad upgrade of the remaining block 15/20 ac. Turkey it self is reported to be putting its own fleet of 79 ac through this upgrade for around 7 billion usd.
Thats around 85 million per ac !. Its any thing but cheap.
If PAF has that sort of money lying around then might as well go for the v upgrade, as heirs hardly any diff price wise.
All this waste of money over an ac that is sanction prone, plus with these upgrades the u.s oversight of the f 16 will increase many folds.
On top of it all we have better and more advanced options
Corax
Registered Member
Extremely unlikely with the Viper. Back in the 1990s, our Viper fleet was in a very poor state due to sanctions, this is well documented and you only need to read Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail's account of the Kargil conflict to demonstrate how lack of spares and support due to sanctions severely crippled the PAF. You would have to consider effectively setting up license manufacture to become reliant enough to counter potential sanction threats - this was the entire ethos of the JF17 programme, i.e. a sanction proof fighter.
Not for one minute did I suggest that we have a free lunch from the Chinese, but again referring to my point above, we at least have a sanction proof platform, with a greater amount of input in the IP and ToT. We would have to approach Turkey's level of license building the Viper to come equivalent to the JF17.
This again goes back to the point of the Vipers. If we have US sanctions again, the PAF would need to go scavenging for excess Vipers from around the globe, and that's not going to be possible as it was with the Mirages due to requiring US approval to buy second hand Vipers. As with the JF17, we wouldn't need to rely on other operators of the J10C if we have some degree of ToT license production of critical parts. In addition, the PLAF will still have a significant number of J10s in operation for the next 20 years or so, they aren't going to be retired imminently, and therefore the PLAF's fleet will still require support.
I think at the moment the work share is the central fuselage comes from CAC, and all other parts of the airframe are manufactured in PAC (correct me if I'm wrong). IMHO, the PFX project is essentially that, complete manufacture of the JF17 by PAC, which would significantly boost our ability to sustain the platform in the foreseeable future. If PFX isn't that, then we could be looking at PFX (whatever it turns out to be) supplanting the JF17 as the "indigenous" platform of the PAF.
Yep, it's exactly that. We can't do everything in house, so we buy stuff we can build and support in Pakistan, that isn't going to change. But again, at least that provides a home-based supply chain free of sanctions, and that's the most critical part.
I don't think you quite understand how sanctions have impacted the PAF and it's thinking over the decades. What's of critical importance above anything else is having a sanction free supply chain, rather than an asset that becomes a paperweight at the whims of whoever may be resident in the Oval office.
Last edited:
