PAF J-10CE News, Updates and Discussion

[MastanKhan]

I think Algeria could be the next customer as, due to CAATSA, they may not buy from their traditional fighter supplier, Russia. The Egyptians may be a target too.

That said, keep an eye for KAI. The ROK has some flexibility in offering arms to states the US may not be directly warm with; I can see the F/A-50 emerging as a cost-effective way to replace F-16A/Bs, MiG-29s, Jaguars, etc.

Hi,

Actually---it should be Angola that Kamra needs to reach out to---. I don't remember who brought it up or I read it somewhere---.

 

[Oscar]

Hi,

Actually---it should be Angola that Kamra needs to reach out to---. I don't remember who brought it up or I read it somewhere---.

Not without financing of which they are getting enough due to China being the largest trading partner - but it is possible they either get the FC-1(not JF) or more likely a combination of JL-9s and dumbed down J-10s.

 

[Quwa]

Not without financing of which they are getting enough due to China being the largest trading partner - but it is possible they either get the FC-1(not JF) or more likely a combination of JL-9s and dumbed down J-10s.

Hi,

Actually---it should be Angola that Kamra needs to reach out to---. I don't remember who brought it up or I read it somewhere---.

You both should take a look at the Second to None article about how the PAF looked at the F-20, even after buying the F-16.

Story of F-20 ‘Tigershark’ Trials by PAF Trying it Out – Second To None

secondtonone.com.pk

In the early 1980s, AHQ didn't think it could afford enough F-16s to replace the F-6s, so it looked at a lightweight multirole fighter. The US offered the F-20 and the PAF sent a team to check it out, citing a potential order of 100 units. Based on what they saw, the PAF team liked the F-20, but they couldn't complete the tests because Northrop was still integrating weapons to the F-20 and, sadly, they lost most of their prototypes. The program got shelved.

I bring this up because, for its time, the F-20 was filling the exact niche of the JF-17. The one air force (i.e., PAF) that needed a lighter multirole complement to the F-16 could have been the launch buyer, yet neither AHQ nor Northrop thought the PAF alone could keep the F-20 alive.

Seeing this and, frankly, the relative lack of traction of other similar fighters (e.g., Gripen), I wonder if the JF-17 is just too niche for most countries. This is not an indictment on the JF-17. There aren't many air forces like the PAF that expect to fight heavily in the air - and alone without allies. Interestingly, the countries that have similar issues as the PAF have lightweight fighters of their own, e.g., India (Tejas), Sweden (Gripen), South Korea (FA-50).

For most other countries, air power is a strategic asset meant to provide deterrence, not an integral tactical tool. So, they prioritize things like range, payload, and, increasingly, stealth more so than low operating costs and numbers. Others, like a small NATO state, expect to operate in an alliance, so it just needs enough assets to deliver its share (e.g., Romania and 1-2 F-35 squadrons).

By joining NATO, I think the Swedes will also move away from the doctrines that led to the Gripen and, instead, favor a larger and more strategically impactful NGFA. They'll likely bank on their collaborative alliances with the UK and other North Sea neighbours.

Ironically, I think the remaining country to find true value in the JF-17 is Iran. They seem to understand the value of lightweight tactical assets in numbers and would appreciate how much each single JF-17 (especially Block-III) offers in versatility. However, I think they also have it in them (maybe in a few years) to develop their own solution.

 

[studsmart]

You both should take a look at the Second to None article about how the PAF looked at the F-20, even after buying the F-16.

Story of F-20 ‘Tigershark’ Trials by PAF Trying it Out – Second To None

secondtonone.com.pk

In the early 1980s, AHQ didn't think it could afford enough F-16s to replace the F-6s, so it looked at a lightweight multirole fighter. The US offered the F-20 and the PAF sent a team to check it out, citing a potential order of 100 units. Based on what they saw, the PAF team liked the F-20, but they couldn't complete the tests because Northrop was still integrating weapons to the F-20 and, sadly, they lost most of their prototypes. The program got shelved.

I bring this up because, for its time, the F-20 was filling the exact niche of the JF-17. The one air force (i.e., PAF) that needed a lighter multirole complement to the F-16 could have been the launch buyer, yet neither AHQ nor Northrop thought the PAF alone could keep the F-20 alive.

Seeing this and, frankly, the relative lack of traction of other similar fighters (e.g., Gripen), I wonder if the JF-17 is just too niche for most countries. This is not an indictment on the JF-17. There aren't many air forces like the PAF that expect to fight heavily in the air - and alone without allies. Interestingly, the countries that have similar issues as the PAF have lightweight fighters of their own, e.g., India (Tejas), Sweden (Gripen), South Korea (FA-50).

For most other countries, air power is a strategic asset meant to provide deterrence, not an integral tactical tool. So, they prioritize things like range, payload, and, increasingly, stealth more so than low operating costs and numbers. Others, like a small NATO state, expect to operate in an alliance, so it just needs enough assets to deliver its share (e.g., Romania and 1-2 F-35 squadrons).

By joining NATO, I think the Swedes will also move away from the doctrines that led to the Gripen and, instead, favor a larger and more strategically impactful NGFA. They'll likely bank on their collaborative alliances with the UK and other North Sea neighbours.

Ironically, I think the remaining country to find true value in the JF-17 is Iran. They seem to understand the value of lightweight tactical assets in numbers and would appreciate how much each single JF-17 (especially Block-III) offers in versatility. However, I think they also have it in them (maybe in a few years) to develop their own solution.

In response to Iran ... There is no light weight fighter or any sensible fighter program active in Iran. unfortunately they failed to establish any successful fighter jet program to date . May be future cooperation with China could result success

 

[ghazi52]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[FuturePAF]

Pakistan should be looking at how the Electronic warfare variant of the Eurofighter is being developed and work towards developing an EW variant of the J-10; one full strength squadron;18 aircraft (if not two) is minimally necessary to cover and support the rest of the PAF squadrons.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[GriffinsRule]

Pakistan should be looking at how the Electronic warfare variant of the Eurofighter is being developed and work towards developing an EW variant of the J-10; one full strength squadron;18 aircraft (if not two) is minimally necessary to cover and support the rest of the PAF squadrons.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That would be China's job and initiative, not PAF, which most likely can't modify the J-10 in any way or form both legally bound or technically.
Do the Chinese have any incentive to do so? That's debatable but I would guess no since they are doing so on the Su-27 clones instead given it's larger load, range and power generation capacity.

 

[ghazi52]

​

 

[ghazi52]

Pakistani J-10C





1

25

528

 

[FuturePAF]

That would be China's job and initiative, not PAF, which most likely can't modify the J-10 in any way or form both legally bound or technically.
Do the Chinese have any incentive to do so? That's debatable but I would guess no since they are doing so on the Su-27 clones instead given it's larger load, range and power generation capacity.

It’s something Pakistan needs more, and should try to lead in a project jointly with CAC to develop. Work in EW can come downstream into better EW suite for the J-10 and JF-17 for export, improving the prospects of export cleared sales.

Pakistan Must Diversify its Electronic Warfare Assets

This is the third article in Quwa’s series on the Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) modernization goals by 2030. ‘Swift Retort’ was the first – and only – large-scale air operation in South Asia ...

quwa.org

https://www.saab.com/contentassets/b04bbc0285b24996ace22a31be6b10d9/arexis-enabling-mission-success

The future of aerial warfare will become heavily dependent on EW and the ability to maintain C4ISR supremacy, especially in the face of Indian Stealth fighters soon enough. The small fleet of DA-20 won’t be enough for the PAF for long.

New Electronic Warfare Suite Top Feature Of F-35 Block 4, Air Combat Boss Says

The F-35's Block 4 upgrade has many features, but Air Combat Command's commander says its electronic warfare abilities will be most critical.

www.thedrive.com

 

[SiliconBit (silicon0000)]

PAF J-10C To Be Pitted Against Qatari Rafales !​

Next month, the Pakistan Air Force will be sending its J-10C fighters on their first overseas deployment to the brotherly and allied nation of Qatar for aerial warfare and support exercises in the region with the Qatari Emiri Air Force’s topline fighters.




Copied from Old Forum Thread by @windjammer Windjammer

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

When you see him, drop your tanks and run as fast as you can like you did in 2019....!

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

The ecosystem that Pakistan Air Force created for JF-17 Thunder tremendously boosted J-10C's operational integration with other platforms which was witnessed practically during recent large-scale exercises.

Also that is one unique serial number '22-111'.

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

 

[air marshal]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies