PAF J-35AE - News, Updates and Discussions

[Michael]

the only thing JF-17 needs for joint missions with a Chinese 4th generation platform is a compatible data link for two way comms - there is no other limiting factor.

Since the J-35 and J-10CE are fighters designed and built by China, and the JF-17 is also a fighter designed by China based on PAF requirements and jointly built by China and Pakistan, I can only analyze it based on Chinese war ideology.

In Chinese war ideology, the importance of the first attack is especially emphasized.
“一鼓作气, 再而衰, 三而竭.” The meaning of this saying is: the first beating of the drum will greatly increase the morale, the second beating of the drum will weaken the morale, and the third beating of the drum will have no morale. The main point is that the morale is most vigorous at the beginning. Doing things in one go, but also have confidence and perseverance, if one after another intermittent, it will give you a negative impact.

China's weapon systems are also designed and combined on the basis of this idea, which emphasizes the need to inflict a devastating blow on the enemy in the first strike to maximize demoralization.
The J-20 will play the role of “door kicker” in the Chinese Air Force. It will ensure maximum stealth, and will move into the danger zone to clear all threats to our non-stealth fighters. It will be followed by the J-16s, which will strike other targets only after the J-20s have gained control of the airspace.
The resulting problem is:
The J-20 cannot carry any external or heavy weapons; it can only carry air-to-air missiles and anti-radiation missiles for destroying enemy fighters and air defense systems. Other weapons can only be carried by the J-16. Including some ultra-long-range air-to-air missiles are also carried and launched by the J-16, with the J-20 guiding the attack.
As a result, non-stealth fighters such as the J-16 need to be able to fly in tactical formation with the J-20 while carrying a large amount of munitions. This involves communication data chains, flight altitude, flight speed, combat radius, radar performance and other closely related data. If the data of the accompanying flying non-stealth fighters lags seriously behind that of the stealth fighters, then it will severely constrain the capabilities of the stealth fighters.
So, do you see the point I'm trying to make?

 

[dbc]

Since the J-35 and J-10CE are fighters designed and built by China, and the JF-17 is also a fighter designed by China based on PAF requirements and jointly built by China and Pakistan, I can only analyze it based on Chinese war ideology.

In Chinese war ideology, the importance of the first attack is especially emphasized.
“一鼓作气, 再而衰, 三而竭.” The meaning of this saying is: the first beating of the drum will greatly increase the morale, the second beating of the drum will weaken the morale, and the third beating of the drum will have no morale. The main point is that the morale is most vigorous at the beginning. Doing things in one go, but also have confidence and perseverance, if one after another intermittent, it will give you a negative impact.

China's weapon systems are also designed and combined on the basis of this idea, which emphasizes the need to inflict a devastating blow on the enemy in the first strike to maximize demoralization.
The J-20 will play the role of “door kicker” in the Chinese Air Force. It will ensure maximum stealth, and will move into the danger zone to clear all threats to our non-stealth fighters. It will be followed by the J-16s, which will strike other targets only after the J-20s have gained control of the airspace.
The resulting problem is:
The J-20 cannot carry any external or heavy weapons; it can only carry air-to-air missiles and anti-radiation missiles for destroying enemy fighters and air defense systems. Other weapons can only be carried by the J-16. Including some ultra-long-range air-to-air missiles are also carried and launched by the J-16, with the J-20 guiding the attack.
As a result, non-stealth fighters such as the J-16 need to be able to fly in tactical formation with the J-20 while carrying a large amount of munitions. This involves communication data chains, flight altitude, flight speed, combat radius, radar performance and other closely related data. If the data of the accompanying flying non-stealth fighters lags seriously behind that of the stealth fighters, then it will severely constrain the capabilities of the stealth fighters.
So, do you see the point I'm trying to make?

I really hope you aren't a serving or former member of the PLAAF. On second thoughts, I hope you are. Fortunately, the PAF are experienced and tactically savvy and I don't think they will adopt your prescribed tactic.

 

[Quwa]

I noticed your “Research Partner” status. I'm not sure what this means in the English context, but I can only guess that you are a research professional. However, from the way you analyze the problem, I think your approach is wrong. Wrong methods will lead to wrong results. And you, as a professional researcher, will further amplify the impact of that wrong result. So, I must speak my mind.

Our study of the military power of any country, or the relationship between two countries, should be based on the reality of that country. Obviously, it would be a joke to try to judge China's decision-making through the analytical articles of the New York Times.

I am a business strategy designer. My recent research has been on South Asian countries. Obviously, I don't study Pakistan through the Indian media, and I certainly don't judge India through what Pakistan says. I will make some basic judgments by directly interacting with members of the countries in question, and when the conditions are ripe, I will personally travel to these countries myself to actually learn about them and corroborate my previous judgments, thus forming conclusions.
I appreciate @Deino 's attitude in analyzing the issue. He is the only non-Chinese person on PDF who knows the real meaning of “三姨夫”. It's a very obscure term used by Chinese military fans, and ordinary Chinese people don't know what it really means. We can thus see his attitude towards research. As a matter of fact, Chinese military enthusiasts use a lot of similar terminology when communicating with each other.
So, dear @Quwa , if you want to really understand and study Chinese military, you should try to study Chinese media first.
For example, “小甜甜 Little Sweetie” and “牛夫人 Mrs. Cow” are two terms often used by Chinese military fans, so you can try to understand their real meanings first.

Normally I don't 'get personal' with people. In fact, I think every single member here will attest to the fact that I'm reserved and only chime in with a thought, not to force my views on others, even if I disagreed with them. Ask @Deino @Oscar @JamD @Bilal @Yasser76 @Falcon26 @arslank01. Anyone.

However, I occasionally make an exception, especially when a post is directed personally at me at the start and at the end.

Firstly, what you've done was:

1. Not understand what I was talking about
2. Not know the prior context
3. Not address the specific points I made
4. Go on a tirade about how I was wrong on something that I did not even talk about, and then bring my title into the mix.

Secondly, the NWT article wasn't a sole reference point. In fact, you made a mistake when you concluded I assessed the issue (which you misunderstood, by the way) through solely that specific NYT article. You quoted me as I was discussing next-gen fighter production in Pakistan. It wasn't about what China should or would do.

You weren't with us over the past 8 years to know that the NYT article was just one among many sources - some of which were official, others through media - that pointed to the points I raised.

In 2016-2017, the then PAF leadership itself said that it was working with China to produce a next-gen fighter in Pakistan. Furthermore, at around that period, AVIC was literally promoting the FC-31 project with a domestic production tie in to whoever would want to invest in the program. And then this NYT article came about quoting Pakistani sources on plans to work with China to bring a next-gen fighter production program to Pakistan.

So, what we had at that time was: (1) The head of the PAF himself saying that the PAF wanted to build next-gen fighters in Pakistan, and that it was working with China; (2) AVIC promoting a next-gen fighter to the export market with a production tie-in; and (3) NYT saying that CPEC would involve such a program. Therefore, when we weigh all of the facts together against the content of the NYT article, the NYT article's claims were reasonably plausible.

Thirdly, I wasn't even talking about China. I was actually talking about what Pakistan was aiming to do from the perspective of Pakistani sources and the other info (e.g., NYT article) that seemed plausible. We were discussing how Pakistan might try to bring a next-gen fighter production line, and whether the PAF (via PAC) was still a good fit for the job, or if it'd be handed over to a different entity, like NESCOM. I wasn't talking about what China would do as that wasn't the discussion point, but rather, who was the more competent player in Pakistan to work with AVIC or TAI on such programs. I absolutely wasn't making a claim about what China would do.

A professional researcher would've probed and asked questions, perhaps a clarification. Why? Because their job is to find information, not to argue their case, at least not before fully understanding the context of the point.

So, before dragging me into a random tirade about my title or whatever, at least pay closer attention to the point I was making, the discussion that had led to the point, and, if you want to do some research, on the history of the PAF's next-gen fighter plans.

Just some additional advice. You don't need to flex to me or anyone else what you do for a living as proof of why we should take you seriously. No one here values appeals to authority. Someone could be a burger flipper for all I care, but if they show strong acumen, reasoning, find and connect sources, and come to sound conclusions, I will respect them. Please learn to do the same. Thanks.

 

[Michael]

It seems you have a knack for complicating the things.... Little S weetie sounds seductive but who has the patience for Mrs.Cow ?.... simplicity has her own charm ...

No one forces you to learn Chinese. I'm just passing on the correct channels to learn this information based on reality to some of my friends who want to learn about the latest developments in China's military.
For example:
If you want to learn about certain weapons and equipment in China, you can learn about them through English media reports. However, based on the current relationship between China and Western countries, English media reports are generally biased or doctored, and many English media even blatantly fabricate fake news. Therefore, the information you see is not the latest or true information. Of course, you can wait for the official Chinese reports, but that will lag by many years. Some of China's military equipment is not even officially announced until it is close to being decommissioned.
However, Chinese military fans obviously have faster access to information to gain this knowledge. However, when they exchange this information on Chinese social media, they use a lot of cryptic, specialized terminology to describe it. These terms cannot be accurately translated by any translation software. If you don't know what these terms really mean, you won't be able to read and understand the information posted by Chinese military fans, and you won't be able to get up-to-date information.

However, many of our Pakistani friends claim that China is a friend of Pakistan on the one hand, but on the other hand, they heavily use information from Western media, which is hostile to China, for propaganda purposes.
Let's think differently. How would you, as a Pakistani, view me if I have been seeing Pakistan for a long time using the Indian media's view of Pakistani reporting?
======================================================
@Quwa
I was processing the above when I saw your reply. I'll reply to it all together. Please forgive me if I have offended you.

I'm not bragging about anything or questioning your point of view. I'm just expressing my protest against your quoting the NYT discourse to analyze China.
Just as the Washington Post reported on the sinking of China's Wuchang nuclear submarine some time ago. If you quote these media outlets to analyze and argue about China, it is unacceptable to the Chinese, especially with your Pakistani identity.
It's like me quoting Times of India to analyze Pakistan for the same reason. How would you feel if I quoted an article from Times of India to prove my own point of view and made a public statement about it in a public forum?

We can talk about the establishment of a production line for fighter jets in Pakistan. But, please don't quote the famous anti-Chinese media in your arguments. That is an inappropriate quote.

 

[Quwa]

No one forces you to learn Chinese. I'm just passing on the correct channels to learn this information based on reality to some of my friends who want to learn about the latest developments in China's military.
For example:
If you want to learn about certain weapons and equipment in China, you can learn about them through English media reports. However, based on the current relationship between China and Western countries, English media reports are generally biased or doctored, and many English media even blatantly fabricate fake news. Therefore, the information you see is not the latest or true information. Of course, you can wait for the official Chinese reports, but that will lag by many years. Some of China's military equipment is not even officially announced until it is close to being decommissioned.
However, Chinese military fans obviously have faster access to information to gain this knowledge. However, when they exchange this information on Chinese social media, they use a lot of cryptic, specialized terminology to describe it. These terms cannot be accurately translated by any translation software. If you don't know what these terms really mean, you won't be able to read and understand the information posted by Chinese military fans, and you won't be able to get up-to-date information.

However, many of our Pakistani friends claim that China is a friend of Pakistan on the one hand, but on the other hand, they heavily use information from Western media, which is hostile to China, for propaganda purposes.
Let's think differently. How would you, as a Pakistani, view me if I have been seeing Pakistan for a long time using the Indian media's view of Pakistani reporting?
======================================================
@Quwa
I was processing the above when I saw your reply. I'll reply to it all together. Please forgive me if I have offended you.

I'm not bragging about anything or questioning your point of view. I'm just expressing my protest against your quoting the NYT discourse to analyze China.
Just as the Washington Post reported on the sinking of China's Wuchang nuclear submarine some time ago. If you quote these media outlets to analyze and argue about China, it is unacceptable to the Chinese, especially with your Pakistani identity.
It's like me quoting Times of India to analyze Pakistan for the same reason. How would you feel if I quoted an article from Times of India to prove my own point of view and made a public statement about it in a public forum?

You're again not understanding the point.

I quoted NYT to discuss Pakistan, and that too in the context of other info I had discussed with the members I quoted which you weren't part of back in 2016-2019. It had nothing to do with analyzing China.

Let me repeat the point I made.

1. Discussion was about the PAF wanting to manufacture a next-gen fighter in Pakistan. But it was unclear if PAC would be a good place for such a project.

2. NYT had an article quoting Pakistani sources about how the PAF tried using CPEC as a means to build said next-gen fighter in Pakistan.

3. I used NYT as a reminder to the members that the PAF tried using CPEC to build a next-gen fighter in Pakistan. I used NYT knowing that the members I was speaking to will recall that the PAF leadership said it wanted to work with China to build a next-gen fighter in Pakistan. In other words, NYT was a supplementary source in addition to stronger primary sources straight from Pakistani officials.

4. I made a point about how PAC may not be the partner for a next-gen fighter, but NESCOM.

Now, whether China would agree, or Turkiye would agree, or if Zambia would agree, if some kid making dosa in South India would agree, or if some aunty finding a bahu would agree, etc, was NOT the subject of the discussion.

 

[Michael]

You're again not understanding the point.

I quoted NYT to discuss Pakistan, and that too in the context of other info I had discussed with the members I quoted which weren't part of back in 2016-2019. It had nothing to do with analyzing China.

Seriously, are you missing the obvious, or just ignoring the point?

Although my English is very bad, I shouldn't have misunderstood.

Your original text:​

One of the supposed parts of CPEC was to set up a production line in Pakistan that would manufacture a next-gen fighter for the PAF and other markets.​

The article you quoted:​

China's 'Belt and Road' Plan in Pakistan Takes a Military Turn​

Obviously, all of it has to do with China.
If we were to seriously explore the issues related to the establishment of a production line for fighter jets in Pakistan, based on the current state of affairs, it would be based on Pakistan's current industrial manufacturing capacity and the provision of technical assistance by China (possibly including Turkey). Of course, this may include Pakistan's imaginary enemy, “India”, but it certainly has nothing to do with the United States. And yet you've quoted China's imaginary enemies.

So, are you missing something? Or am I overlooking something?

 

[Quwa]

Although my English is very bad, I shouldn't have misunderstood.

Your original text:​

One of the supposed parts of CPEC was to set up a production line in Pakistan that would manufacture a next-gen fighter for the PAF and other markets.​

The article you quoted:​

China's 'Belt and Road' Plan in Pakistan Takes a Military Turn​

Obviously, all of it has to do with China.
If we were to seriously explore the issues related to the establishment of a production line for fighter jets in Pakistan, based on the current state of affairs, it would be based on Pakistan's current industrial manufacturing capacity and the provision of technical assistance by China (possibly including Turkey). Of course, this may include Pakistan's imaginary enemy, “India”, but it certainly has nothing to do with the United States. And yet you've quoted China's imaginary enemies.

So, are you missing something? Or am I overlooking something?

Yes, the NYT article has that title, but it was quoting Pakistani sources on some matters the Pakistani military was interested in. The specific point I raised from that article (re: the PAF wanting to produce next-gen fighters in Pakistan) was a supplementary piece in addition to PAF officials stating this back in 2016.

In any case, my discussion with the members was about Pakistan, not China, and not once did I say it was reflective of Chinese goals or thoughts.

You should be a little more self-aware and see what you're doing... You told me the NYT article was a bad source for understanding China when the subject of my discussion was Pakistan.

Now, seeing that you've done wrong there, you're making noise about the title of the NYT article when, again, the discussion had nothing to do with China.

 

[Michael]

Yes, the NYT article has that title, but it was quoting Pakistani sources on some matters the Pakistani military was interested in. The specific point I raised from that article (re: the PAF wanting to produce next-gen fighters in Pakistan) was a supplementary piece in addition to PAF officials stating this back in 2016.

In any case, my discussion with the members was about Pakistan, not China, and not once did I say it was reflective of Chinese goals or thoughts.

You should be a little more self-aware and see what you're doing... You told me the NYT article was a bad source for understanding China when the subject of my discussion was Pakistan.

Now, seeing that you've done wrong there, you're making noise about the title of the NYT article when, again, the discussion had nothing to do with China.

I have no intention of arguing with you about who is right and who is wrong. The topic of this thread is the discussion related to “J-31 (now J-35) future service in PAF”. Obviously, this topic cannot be left aside from China. At the same time, there is no way to leave China out of the discussion related to the establishment of a production line in Pakistan for the JF-17 series or the J-35 series.
I just want to remind you that quoting NYT to engage in the above topic is inappropriate behavior. It has absolutely nothing to do with your point of view. In fact, I have been calling for Pakistan to establish its own complete fighter production line, including even a fighter development system.

Well, that's all. There is no need for us to dwell on this issue. Different cultures can't agree on this issue. Let's just avoid each other's opinions in future discussions.

Let's get back to the main thread.

 

[Yasser76]

I have no intention of arguing with you about who is right and who is wrong. The topic of this thread is the discussion related to “J-31 (now J-35) future service in PAF”. Obviously, this topic cannot be left aside from China. At the same time, there is no way to leave China out of the discussion related to the establishment of a production line in Pakistan for the JF-17 series or the J-35 series.
I just want to remind you that quoting NYT to engage in the above topic is inappropriate behavior. It has absolutely nothing to do with your point of view. In fact, I have been calling for Pakistan to establish its own complete fighter production line, including even a fighter development system.

Well, that's all. There is no need for us to dwell on this issue. Different cultures can't agree on this issue. Let's just avoid each other's opinions in future discussions.

Let's get back to the main thread.

Your English and comprehension are very good, much better then you used to make out....

It is a shame seeing two such valuable contributors argue on here.

 

[Michael]

Your English and comprehension are very good, much better then you used to make out....
It is a shame seeing two such valuable contributors argue on here.

Decades ago, when I was a student, I never passed my English exams. So, please understand me.
I have not questioned this friend's point of view at all. It's just that Chinese people are very sick of western media like NYT/BBC/WSJ, that's all. As a matter of fact, I often read news reports from these western media, but I never quote them.

Let's get back to the topic.

I don't know the actual status of the current PAC production of JF-17, I can only learn some unreliable news from Chinese self media. I don't see any detailed information about PAC's production of JF-17 on the PDF either.
So I can't judge the current relevant industrial production capacity in Pakistan.
I can only base my analysis on some basic common sense of industrial production.
For example: heavy machining equipment, precision machining capability, aerospace material production capacity, communication and electronic equipment industry, etc.
Analyzing the current situation in these related fields, Pakistan's current capacity is not enough. Mere assembly lines do not make much sense.
The new assembly line currently being built in China is a smart factory with extensive use of robots. It has a very large initial investment and requires huge production to pay for itself.
Looking at the current production of the JF-17, it still uses a traditional hand operated assembly line. I don't know if the newest version of the JF-17 will use the smart factory model in the future. But the J-35 was designed to follow the smart factory production model and there is no possibility of it being assembled using the hand work model.

 

[Quwa]

I have no intention of arguing with you about who is right and who is wrong. The topic of this thread is the discussion related to “J-31 (now J-35) future service in PAF”. Obviously, this topic cannot be left aside from China. At the same time, there is no way to leave China out of the discussion related to the establishment of a production line in Pakistan for the JF-17 series or the J-35 series.
I just want to remind you that quoting NYT to engage in the above topic is inappropriate behavior. It has absolutely nothing to do with your point of view. In fact, I have been calling for Pakistan to establish its own complete fighter production line, including even a fighter development system.

Well, that's all. There is no need for us to dwell on this issue. Different cultures can't agree on this issue. Let's just avoid each other's opinions in future discussions.

Let's get back to the main thread.

Firstly, you started the argument. Not me.

Secondly, you're going after me using the NYT article even though I stated, multiple times, that it was a supplementary source in addition to Pakistani official sources on a Pakistani issue that was already corroborated locally. And the specific thing I was quoting NYT about was Pakistan's wish to one day build next-gen fighter aircraft locally - nothing else.

Thirdly, we weren't talking about China in the discussion. We were entirely focusing on the question of whether PAC can handle the job or not, and if some other entity should step up (like NESCOM). The point of that specific discussion wasn't about whether China would agree or not, but whether Pakistan had the capacity to support such a project in the first place.

You were fully welcome to add to the discussion by saying whatever you had wanted, like maybe, "China will not agree." I would've agreed, but the issue here isn't that, it's that you misrepresented my statement and then went after me personally.

Anyways, I will respond to you each time you bring me up. It's not so much about arguing but making sure everyone sees both sides of the story and that you don't establish a false or misleading narrative.

I'm holding you accountable for misrepresenting me, and I will do it for as long as I have to until you retract your original claim.

 

[TF8]

I have been a silent observer on the forum for about 8 years and this is the first time I’m posting anything. Reading posts from different people created an image of them in my mind and I can confidently say that guys like Quwa, Oscar and JamD dont talk nonsense. If you find yourself arguing with them, I would suggest you revisit their post and understand what they are really trying to say.

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

 

[SiliconBit (silicon0000)]

Decades ago, when I was a student, I never passed my English exams. So, please understand me.
I have not questioned this friend's point of view at all. It's just that Chinese people are very sick of western media like NYT/BBC/WSJ, that's all. As a matter of fact, I often read news reports from these western media, but I never quote them.

Let's get back to the topic.

I don't know the actual status of the current PAC production of JF-17, I can only learn some unreliable news from Chinese self media. I don't see any detailed information about PAC's production of JF-17 on the PDF either.
So I can't judge the current relevant industrial production capacity in Pakistan.
I can only base my analysis on some basic common sense of industrial production.
For example: heavy machining equipment, precision machining capability, aerospace material production capacity, communication and electronic equipment industry, etc.
Analyzing the current situation in these related fields, Pakistan's current capacity is not enough. Mere assembly lines do not make much sense.
The new assembly line currently being built in China is a smart factory with extensive use of robots. It has a very large initial investment and requires huge production to pay for itself.
Looking at the current production of the JF-17, it still uses a traditional hand operated assembly line. I don't know if the newest version of the JF-17 will use the smart factory model in the future. But the J-35 was designed to follow the smart factory production model and there is no possibility of it being assembled using the hand work model.

@Michael

Dear Michael, First, try to understand what Quwa is trying to say. As you often said, there are many concepts related to Chinese style and culture that Chinese people have a deeper understanding of, and that others may find difficult to grasp. Similarly, there are things that the Chinese mind may find difficult to understand, especially when presented in a language or cultural context that is not Chinese. I understand that it feel bad if someone tries to see you through the eyes of your enemies, but that's not the case here. It seems you've misunderstood something, either due to a language difference or some other reason. What Quwa said is neither about seeing China through a Western media lens nor about China's point of view. I hope you can understand.

 

[MastanKhan]

Why would Pakistan and other export customers settle for the inferior WS-21 when the WS19 is available?

Hi,

Why did paf go for the P&W on the F16's when they had a more powerful engine available---?