Iraq wants to buy 12 JF-17

mulj

Experienced member
Messages
1,989
Reactions
3,243
Nation of residence
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Slowly bit surely this airplane becomes mig 21 of 21st century, until now this is most significant sale, if done, for Pakistan as it couold have also certain political implications, annyway most welcomed if news occurs true.

 
Last edited:

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,754
Reactions
21 12,359
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Understandable, their F-16s are in low readiness state.

If the US eventually leave Iraq, so does the little remaining support for it's F-16s.
 

mulj

Experienced member
Messages
1,989
Reactions
3,243
Nation of residence
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Understandable, their F-16s are in low readiness state.

If the US eventually leave Iraq, so does the little remaining support for it's F-16s.
Those are better then f16 they have, so with numbers significant improvement of iraqi airforce but more intersetinfg thing is longterm influence in region by china trough probably pakistan- iran facilitation. Also economic side and projection is not for disregarding at all.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,754
Reactions
21 12,359
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Those are better then f16 they have, so with numbers significant improvement of iraqi airforce but more intersetinfg thing is longterm influence in region by china trough probably pakistan- iran facilitation. Also economic side and projection is not for disregarding at all.

The block III has a radar advantage with KLJ-7A AESA, but other than that F-16 is superior to a JF-17.no doubt

Going with JF-17 meant that Iraq which is currently under heavy Iranian influence could be more flexible on the use of their combat assets. I don't see the US maintaining their F-16 while being cozy with Iran.
 

mulj

Experienced member
Messages
1,989
Reactions
3,243
Nation of residence
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
The block III has a radar advantage with KLJ-7A AESA, but other than that F-16 is superior to a JF-17.no doubt

Going with JF-17 meant that Iraq which is currently under heavy Iranian influence could be more flexible on the use of their combat assets. I don't see the US maintaining their F-16 while being cozy with Iran.
You fetishise f16 to much. For iraq needs mass jf-17 fleet is better on all imaginable levels.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,416
Reactions
5 18,001
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
The block III has a radar advantage with KLJ-7A AESA, but other than that F-16 is superior to a JF-17.no doubt

Going with JF-17 meant that Iraq which is currently under heavy Iranian influence could be more flexible on the use of their combat assets. I don't see the US maintaining their F-16 while being cozy with Iran.

Iran has F14s and F4 no doubt USA does not want its F16s being ended up with Iran.

The thing is Pakistan and Iran also have their odds.

I dont think Pakistan can trust Iraq with the Jf17. Nobody should sell anything to Iraq when its a Iranian client state.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,754
Reactions
21 12,359
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Yku fetishise f16 to much. For iraq needs mass jf-17 fleet is better on all imaginable levels.
They only bought 12 , what mass are u talking about?

F-16 is superior on brute power alone , this is according to JF-17 pilot in a hush kit interview.

In fact JF-17 are not in the same class as an F-16 tells you much.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,754
Reactions
21 12,359
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Iran has F14s and F4 no doubt USA does not want its F16s being ended up with Iran.

The thing is Pakistan and Iran also have their odds.

I dont think Pakistan can trust Iraq with the Jf17. Nobody should sell anything to Iraq when its a Iranian client state.
Correct, if I am the US I'll sabotage those vipers in advance before some Tehran loyalist in Baghdad gave them up for Iran for study.

And yes, Iraq is 70-80% Iran client state.
 

mulj

Experienced member
Messages
1,989
Reactions
3,243
Nation of residence
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
They only bought 12 , what mass are u talking about?

F-16 is superior on brute power alone , this is according to JF-17 pilot in a hush kit interview.

In fact JF-17 are not in the same class as an F-16 tells you much.
You need to look out of the frames, jf17 has more potential as cheap amd massive airforce then f16 with all strings attached, it is not like cool aid brands fight.
 

mulj

Experienced member
Messages
1,989
Reactions
3,243
Nation of residence
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Iran has F14s and F4 no doubt USA does not want its F16s being ended up with Iran.

The thing is Pakistan and Iran also have their odds.

I dont think Pakistan can trust Iraq with the Jf17. Nobody should sell anything to Iraq when its a Iranian client state.
Do not know bro, it seems something has changed behind curtains, Turkey signed also some big deals about coperation with iraqi ministry of defence.
 

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,144
Reactions
21 18,734
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
JF17 is a light jet. It’s new and seems quite decent compared to the price and possible quite useful for Iraq armed forces needs.

US probably won’t care about the old vipers in Iraq
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,416
Reactions
5 18,001
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Do not know bro, it seems something has changed behind curtains, Turkey signed also some big deals about coperation with iraqi ministry of defence.

I hope not. Iraq deserves nothing.

Only thing we back is Sunni Arabs and Iraqi Turkmens.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,754
Reactions
21 12,359
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
You need to look out of the frames, jf17 has more potential as cheap amd massive airforce then f16 with all strings attached, it is not like cool aid brands fight.

look, no mistake I personally think the JF-17 as a capable jet, but the F-16 is simply more capable.

by buying the JF-17 BLK III, the IqAF move one step forward in adoption of AESA radar, while moving one step backward in almost every other criteria.

Iraq operate the Block 52 with Pratt Whittney F100 PW-229 engine with 130kN reheat thrust, a BLK III Thunder uses the RD-93 with only 85kN total thrust... it will struggle to retain lost energy in a dogfight with a Viper.


JF17 is a light jet. It’s new and seems quite decent compared to the price and possible quite useful for Iraq armed forces needs.

US probably won’t care about the old vipers in Iraq

The F-16 is a 70s design that new 21st century design still struggle to cope.

the Block 52 Iraqi AF used aren't old, they're just not properly maintained because of the political turmoil in the country.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
look, no mistake I personally think the JF-17 as a capable jet, but the F-16 is simply more capable.
Capability should be measured on a aggregate score. Price, quantity, servicability, support package and reliability. On that score JF-17 wins against F-16 even if the latter is potent fighter. It comes with steep price and political strings attached. This is a issue for countries that don't have insurance proof dependability on USA.

As @mulj said JF-17 is the Mig-21 of the 21st century. Cheap, robust, easy to service and stable support package.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,416
Reactions
5 18,001
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
I have had some interactions with some Sunni Iraqi's, surprisingly very nice, down to earth and hard working people.

Im close friends with an Iraqi Turkmen we have been friends since year 8 and our friendship has been strong not to mention we graduated from school together and we still hang out.

His father also served in the Iran-Iraq war as a conscript and got wounded from shrapnel he still lives with ptsd. His a good man. After the war he went to Turkey as a refugee. Turkey gave him citizenship but also the Turkish government once told him to always go back to Iraq because the Turkish government wants Iraqi and Syrian turkmens to stay put if they leave it will be the end of their people and it would lead to Kurdish and Arab takeover of their lands.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,754
Reactions
21 12,359
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
This is a issue for countries that don't have insurance proof dependability on USA.
I think I made my point clear in post #4 in which I quote

"Going with JF-17 meant that Iraq which is currently under heavy Iranian influence could be more flexible on the use of their combat assets. I don't see the US maintaining their F-16 while being cozy with Iran."

Capability should be measured on a aggregate score. Price, quantity, servicability, support package and reliability.
in which Lockheed Martin with the F-16 came out on top no doubt.

in this regard PAC and by extension its engine supplier Klimov must be on top according to you am I correct ??

remember? your JF-17 uses the a variant of the Klimov RD-33 found in the Mig-29, the RD-93. Malaysia was once an operator of the MiG-29, they retired those relatively brand new jets in 2009 citing lack of support. This is no surprise because Russian engine generally has more frequent MTBO compared to their western counterparts.

on the other hand, countries under sanction like Venezuela manage to fly their F-16s no problem. Imagine the readiness rate of countries with US support ??
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Im close friends with an Iraqi Turkmen we have been friends since year 8 and our friendship has been strong not to mention we graduated from school together and we still hang out.

His father also served in the Iran-Iraq war as a conscript and got wounded from shrapnel he still lives with ptsd. His a good man. After the war he went to Turkey as a refugee. Turkey gave him citizenship but also the Turkish government once told him to always go back to Iraq because the Turkish government wants Iraqi and Syrian turkmens to stay put if they leave it will be the end of their people and it would lead to Kurdish and Arab takeover of their lands.
There is something called 'facts on the ground'. These can in the short term be overlooked or even suppresed but over the broader sweep of history will inevitably bite and prevail.

The best example I can give is South Africa. As long as the vast majority of the population remained Black African that 'fact on the ground' would prevail. So it was. Despite the Aparthied government doing it's best it failed and in the end the Blacks got their Mandela in power.

In Palestine conflict Israel has consistently followed this logic. It knows that as long as it can change the 'facts on the ground' the world can cry as much it wants but those territories will remain or be annexed by Israel. You see the settlement projects on the West Bank spreading around Jerusalem in order to change the 'facts on the ground' in Israel's favour.

So it is with these Turkmen. If they all leave their traditional lands they will lose them forever. But as long as they keep living on the land tilled and bled by their forefathers it will remain Turkmen. So I can entirely understand this.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
I think I made my point clear in post #4 in which I quote

"Going with JF-17 meant that Iraq which is currently under heavy Iranian influence could be more flexible on the use of their combat assets. I don't see the US maintaining their F-16 while being cozy with Iran."


in which Lockheed Martin with the F-16 came out on top no doubt.

in this regard PAC and by extension its engine supplier Klimov must be on top according to you am I correct ??

remember? your JF-17 uses the a variant of the Klimov RD-33 found in the Mig-29, the RD-93. Malaysia was once an operator of the MiG-29, they retired those relatively brand new jets in 2009 citing lack of support. This is no surprise because Russian engine generally has more frequent MTBO compared to their western counterparts.

on the other hand, countries under sanction like Venezuela manage to fly their F-16s no problem. Imagine the readiness rate of countries with US support ??
I have insufficient technical knowledge to continue this discussion beyond this point but will say JF-17 is a niche product not intended to be pitched as a F-16 replacement. It has it's own buyer profile and will find some niche buyers which all I can hope for PAC as it wil go to nurture and evolve PAC up the value chain.

Ps. PAF operate a large F-16 fleet and were one of the earliest airforces to recieve what was then a new fighter back in I believe 1982.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan

PAKISTAN BALKING AT JET PURCHASE​


By Bernard Gwertzman, Special To the New York Times
  • Nov. 30, 1982
066486_360W.png

Credit...The New York Times Archives
See the article in its original context from
November 30, 1982, Section A, Page 1Buy Reprints
New York Times subscribers* enjoy full access to TimesMachine—view over 150 years of New York Times journalism, as it originally appeared.
Subscribe
*Does not include Crossword-only or Cooking-only subscribers.
About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.
Defense Department officials said today that Pakistan had refused to accept delivery of six F-16 jet fighterbombers from the United States because they lacked the most advanced American electronic warfare system.
But late this afternoon, an official said that on the basis of talks conducted by diplomats at the United States Embassy in Islamabad with Pakistani Air Force officials, the dispute was on its way to being settled.
''I am 90 percent confident we'll have this resolved,'' he said. But he added that there would still be a delay in the delivery of the six planes, which were to have been sent to Pakistan this week. Pakistan has ordered 40 of the planes from the United States, and the six were the first to be offered for delivery.
The dispute over the F-16's came to light only a week before President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq is to visit Washington for his first meeting with President Reagan. It was an embarrassment to both sides, the official said, because the sale of the F-16's had become a symbol of an improved relationship between General Zia's Government and the Reagan Administration.
''The last thing we wanted was for it to become an issue between the two Presidents,'' the official said, explaining that a major effort was being made in Pakistan to reach a compromise.
When asked about a report that the planes had been held up, a State Department spokesman said that ''the United States and Pakistan are discussing the avionics configuration of the F-16's Pakistan has purchased.''
''By mutual agreement, delivery of the first six aircraft has been postponed until this question is resolved,'' the spokesman said. Pentagon officials said the Pakistanis apparently believed they were purchasing the standard United States Air Force F-16, but had balked when they found out that the craft they were to receive would not have what officials called ''state of the art'' electronic equipment for detecting enemy ground and airborne radar.
This equipment is regarded as vital to permit pilots to take evasive tactics and avoid being shot down by enemy an@tiaircraft missiles or by hostile aircraft, a Pentagon official said. Need for Security Cited
One official said the Air Force did not want to provide the advanced equipment for security reasons. The Pakistanis were being offered a less advanced system, he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/...7963&surface=home-featured&variant=0_identity
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...7963&surface=home-featured&variant=0_identity


There was no explanation of whether the Pakistanis had discovered the problem only in recent days or whether this had been a longstanding dispute.
A Pentagon official said he understood that Israel, which also has the F-16, had been provided with the most up-to-date electronics equipment, which had been used effectively against Syrian antiaircraft sites in Lebanon and against Soviet-made fighter planes piloted by Syrians.
The F-16's are manufactured by the General Dynamics Corporation and by a European consortium. The first six of a 40-plane order, worth $1.1 billion, were to have been delivered to Pakistan by the end of the week. Talks Began in Carter Period
Pakistan has an obsolete air force and has been trying for years to persuade the United States to provide it with an advanced fighter. After Soviet troops moved into Afghanistan in 1979, the Carter Administration opened talks with the Pakistanis about furnishing more advanced equipment, even though there was strong opposition in Congress because of Pakistan's refusal to halt a program that would enable it to match India in possessing nuclear explosives.
The Reagan Administration, however, gave priority to repairing relations with Pakistan. Where the Carter Administration offered Pakistan a two-year combined military and economic aid program worth $400 million, divided between military and economic aid, the Reagan Administration agreed to provide the Pakistanis a six-year, $3.2 billion military and economic aid package.
The first six F-16's are to be paid for in cash, provided by Saudi Arabia, and the remaining 34 are to be financed, in part by military credits from the aid package.
In a pamphlet on Pakistan's foreign policy issued by the Pakistani Embassy here in advance of General Zia's trip, the F-16 sale is given prominence.
''The F-16's are an essential component of the military sales program agreed between the two countries,'' it said. ''Pakistan needs these aircraft primarily for their deterrent value against any potential aggressor.''
''The United States readiness to sell these aircraft represents a symbolic gesture inasmuch as it underlines the American commitment to strengthen Pakistan's defenses in a dangerous environment,'' it said. ''The strengthened defense capability is vital to enable Pakistan to protect itself against the spillover effect of the general turmoil in the region adjoining its territory and to play its due role in preserving the stability of the area.''
American officials have justified the sale because of the threat posed to Pakistan by the Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

A version of this article appears in print on Nov. 30, 1982, Section A, Page 1 of the National edition with the headline: PAKISTAN BALKING AT JET PURCHASE. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

You’re almost out of free articles.​

 
Top Bottom