JF-17 - Updates, News & Discussion

[Quwa]

All things considered, Pakistan made do with what it had pretty well.

The JF-17 is a product of both the PAF's requirements and its reality at different points in time.

The design we see today is a result of what Chengdu could offer at the PAF's budget in the early 1990s. Had the JF-17 design work been extended past 1999 (rather than frozen and kicked into development), we may have seen a more ambitious design akin to the Tejas (relaxed stability, heavy composite use, etc) because Chengdu's design capacities evolved since 1994 (thanks to J-10).

Perhaps this other fighter would've been more attractive to the market, but it'd only be entering service now (like Tejas Mk1A), and at a higher cost. But the option was there, the PAF preferred the time, expediency, and lower cost. @Oscar

 

[Nilgiri]

The JF-17 is a product of both the PAF's requirements and its reality at different points in time.

The design we see today is a result of what Chengdu could offer at the PAF's budget in the early 1990s. Had the JF-17 design work been extended past 1999 (rather than frozen and kicked into development), we may have seen a more ambitious design akin to the Tejas (relaxed stability, heavy composite use, etc) because Chengdu's design capacities evolved since 1994 (thanks to J-10).

Perhaps this other fighter would've been more attractive to the market, but it'd only be entering service now (like Tejas Mk1A), and at a higher cost. But the option was there, the PAF preferred the time, expediency, and lower cost. @Oscar

It made full sense to leverage off China. Starting and rolling frictions commensurate to Pakistan's needs and budget.

Its all about PAF in end having requisite chunk of sensoring+weapons+propulsion in the air domain within reasonable cost and time and specific customisation.

This is first priority given slim margins. These will then impact larger development capacity as secondary priority after it, with commensurate larger budget and HR as can be foreseen to some extent. When that is still limited as time progresses, there is still the need to leverage off China in whichever projects again. Overall Pakistan knows its model pretty well now (w.r.t budgetary and geopolitical situation), the margins remain slim so the path is pretty concrete for short and mid term.

 

[Oscar]

The JF-17 is a product of both the PAF's requirements and its reality at different points in time.

The design we see today is a result of what Chengdu could offer at the PAF's budget in the early 1990s. Had the JF-17 design work been extended past 1999 (rather than frozen and kicked into development), we may have seen a more ambitious design akin to the Tejas (relaxed stability, heavy composite use, etc) because Chengdu's design capacities evolved since 1994 (thanks to J-10).

Perhaps this other fighter would've been more attractive to the market, but it'd only be entering service now (like Tejas Mk1A), and at a higher cost. But the option was there, the PAF preferred the time, expediency, and lower cost. @Oscar

The original FC-1 design and what the JF-17 came to be are somewhat different. Thanks to the head of testing and other PAF engineers that went on hand - In their own words they would push for F-16 like features in every aspect - from the cockpit, to LERX, blended features to FBW and so on.

Otherwise the aircraft really would have been a 3.5gen fighter

 

[Quwa]

It made full sense to leverage off China. Starting and rolling frictions commensurate to Pakistan's needs and budget.

Its all about PAF in end having requisite chunk of sensoring+weapons+propulsion in the air domain within reasonable cost and time and specific customisation.

This is first priority given slim margins. These will then impact larger development capacity as secondary priority after it, with commensurate larger budget and HR as can be foreseen to some extent. When that is still limited as time progresses, there is still the need to leverage off China in whichever projects again. Overall Pakistan knows its model pretty well now (w.r.t budgetary and geopolitical situation), the margins remain slim so the path is pretty concrete for short and mid term.

Yep, but what's interesting is that had the PAF gotten the Peace Gate III and IV F-16s, it might have pursued a more ambitious program than Super-7. The F-16s would've held the fort for the 1990s, 2000s, and even 2010s. So, the space to pursue something closer to the Tejas Mk1A would've been there (to replace the upgraded Mirage III/5s and F-7Ps).

The original FC-1 design and what the JF-17 came to be are somewhat different. Thanks to the head of testing and other PAF engineers that went on hand - In their own words they would push for F-16 like features in every aspect - from the cockpit, to LERX, blended features to FBW and so on.

Otherwise the aircraft really would have been a 3.5gen fighter

Yep, but they still worked with the fundamental design Chengdu made with FC-1. If the PAF had gotten the PG-III/IV F-16s, they would've had the time and space to pursue a riskier and more ambitious program with China.

Imagine asking the Chinese to design a new fighter, but based on their learnings from the J-10. We might have had a more Gripen-looking design. I think, by 1999, Chengdu could have begun such a project, but the induction timeframe would've been like 2020 (which the PAF would've been OK with since it'd have ample F-16s).

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

 

[ghazi52]

 

[ghazi52]

 

[MastanKhan]

The original FC-1 design and what the JF-17 came to be are somewhat different. Thanks to the head of testing and other PAF engineers that went on hand - In their own words they would push for F-16 like features in every aspect - from the cockpit, to LERX, blended features to FBW and so on.

Otherwise the aircraft really would have been a 3.5gen fighter

Hi,

If Paf could have gotten away with it---they would have copied the F-16 100%---right from head to toe---inside out---.

The JF17 is the closet thing they could get away with from the F-16.

 

[Oscar]

Hi,

If Paf could have gotten away with it---they would have copied the F-16 100%---right from head to toe---inside out---.

The JF17 is the closet thing they could get away with from the F-16.

Echoing ACM Shamim from his own book - when they first learned about the F-16 it seemed someone had read the PAF's Air Staff Requirement and build a fighter around it. It is the PERFECT fighter for what the PAF need(ed,s) as its mainstay. 50 years on still the perfect blend of power, speed, maneuverability, sensors and weapons capacity.

 

[m52k85]

View attachment 3073

This has to Alan Warnes / AFMs poorest right-up. So many inconsistencies. 5,000lb extra thrust, who are they kidding?

 

[Sparten]

Yep, but what's interesting is that had the PAF gotten the Peace Gate III and IV F-16s, it might have pursued a more ambitious program than Super-7. The F-16s would've held the fort for the 1990s, 2000s, and even 2010s. So, the space to pursue something closer to the Tejas Mk1A would've been there (to replace the upgraded Mirage III/5s and F-7Ps).

If there were no sanctions, PAF would have gone for F14/F15/Tornado for the twin engine requirement of that era. 3 sqdrns.
There would have been no ROSE Mirages and no F7PG. The Super 7 would have beena J10 variant, if it did exist at all.

 

[VCheng]

If there were no sanctions, PAF would have gone for F14/F15/Tornado for the twin engine requirement of that era. 3 sqdrns.
There would have been no ROSE Mirages and no F7PG. The Super 7 would have beena J10 variant, if it did exist at all.

There would have been no sanction if Pakistan did not detonate a nuclear device. Pakistan chose to do what it did. The tradeoff for not having any of those twin-engined platforms is having a nuclear deterrent. Not a bad deal, IMO.

 

[Sparten]

There would have been no sanction if Pakistan did not detonate a nuclear device. Pakistan chose to do what it did. The tradeoff for not having any of those twin-engined platforms is having a nuclear deterrent. Not a bad deal, IMO.

Oh totally. Ukraine illustrates thats very well.

 

[Quwa]

There would have been no sanction if Pakistan did not detonate a nuclear device. Pakistan chose to do what it did. The tradeoff for not having any of those twin-engined platforms is having a nuclear deterrent. Not a bad deal, IMO.

FWIW the Tornado was available amid the nuclear sanctions (alongside the M2K/-5), but the PAF's focus (and funding) went towards the workhorse multirole fighter (Super-7), which was far more pressing due to the non-availability of the F-16.

In addition to Peace Gate III/IV (71 F-16s), ACM Parvaiz Mehdi Qureshi said that the PAF had an option for 50 more. So, in retrospect, I think the PAF wanted the F-16 to be its workhorse, hence the goal to reach a 150-strong fleet (plus 10 attrition reserves).

I agree with @Sparten. Had the PAF F-16 fleet formed to full strength, the PAF would've sought a dedicated strike platform. Even without Pressler, I think the PAF would've sought the Tornado as there was probably more scope to integrate custom munitions into them than the F-15.

All this past talk might seem irrelevant, but it does inform how the PAF could approach things now that it does have options again. The JF-17 and J-10CE are now here to form the mainstay, multirole workhorse; the interest in the J-31 speaks to the longstanding need for a strike asset.

Echoing ACM Shamim from his own book - when they first learned about the F-16 it seemed someone had read the PAF's Air Staff Requirement and build a fighter around it. It is the PERFECT fighter for what the PAF need(ed,s) as its mainstay. 50 years on still the perfect blend of power, speed, maneuverability, sensors and weapons capacity.

Then couple all that with the massive economies-of-scale afforded through USAF, NATO, East Asian, and Middle East orders. Northrop had developed the F-20 thinking that the F-16 wouldn't be affordable enough for most air forces.

Yet, the industrial backing provided to the F-16 had made it an unprecedently cost-effective design, one we'll probably not see again in manned aircraft.

Remember, in the 1980s, the PAF did look at the F-20 as an option in addition to the F-16, and it tried emulating the Tigershark model onto Sabre-II. In the end, however, it ordered another 71 F-16s with an option for 50 more.

 

[VCheng]

FWIW the Tornado was available amid the nuclear sanctions (alongside the M2K/-5), but the PAF's focus (and funding) went towards the workhorse multirole fighter (Super-7), which was far more pressing due to the non-availability of the F-16.

In addition to Peace Gate III/IV (71 F-16s), ACM Parvaiz Mehdi Qureshi said that the PAF had an option for 50 more. So, in retrospect, I think the PAF wanted the F-16 to be its workhorse, hence the goal to reach a 150-strong fleet (plus 10 attrition reserves).

I agree with @Sparten. Had the PAF F-16 fleet formed to full strength, the PAF would've sought a dedicated strike platform. Even without Pressler, I think the PAF would've sought the Tornado as there was probably more scope to integrate custom munitions into them than the F-15.

All this past talk might seem irrelevant, but it does inform how the PAF could approach things now that it does have options again. The JF-17 and J-10CE are now here to form the mainstay, multirole workhorse; the interest in the J-31 speaks to the longstanding need for a strike asset.

I remain sure that PAF will make the best choice from all available options now as it did back in those days.