Pakistan’s JF-17 Thunder – An Analysis

By Mihir Shah
for LiveFist

On March 23 2007, two JF-17 “Thunder” fighters took to the skies for the first time in Pakistan as a part of the Pakistan Day celebrations. Touted to be Pakistan’s first home made fighter, the JF-17 is expected to be the Pakistan Air Force’s frontline fighter well into the future. With this article, I’ve made an attempt to examine the JF-17 in the Indo-Pak context. But first, some background information on the program.

The program began in 1986 as the Super-7, when China signed a $550 million deal with Grumman to modernise its fleet of J-7 (MiG-21s manufactured in China under license) fighters. The United States ceased technical assistance following the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, and the project almost ground to a halt. However, Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAC) managed to keep the program alive with its own resources, as the FC-1. The project got a new lease of life in 1999, when Pakistan and China signed an agreement to “jointly” develop and produce the FC-1 with both countries contributing 50% of the funds. Russia’s Mikoyan Aero-Science Production Group provided technical assistance. The FC-1 (Designated JF-17 “Thunder” by Pakistan) was supposed to be a lightweight all-weather multi-role fighter, which would replace Pakistan’s fleet of Mirage-III, F-7, and A-5 aircraft, whose safety record is going downhill by the day. The Pakistani version would sport a Western avionics suite, which included the Italian Galileo Avionica Grifo S7 radar, a variant of which is already in service with the Pakistan Air Force on its F-7 fighters. It would be powered by one Russian Klimov RD-93 turbofan. The “Aviation Week & Space Technology” magazine reported in November 2006 that “Pakistani officials expect the first contract for 16 aircraft (split equally with China) to be awarded next year, with deliveries as early as 2007. A full-rate production contract would follow around 2009. Initially, Pakistan will provide 58% of the parts, but that is supposed to increase gradually to 100%.” The overall Pakistani requirement is expected to be around 150 fighters.

Although the Pakistanis tried to demonstrate with the Pakistan Day flypast that everything was tickety-boo, this is far from the truth. The Western avionics are nowhere to be seen, and supplier decisions do not appear to have been made. Radar integration, a challenging job under the best of circumstances, seems to have run into problems. The task is complicated in no small part by the lack of space available in the JF-17’s radome. It is now widely claimed that the first batch of Pakistani JF-17s will be equipped with Chinese avionics and radar. The weapons package is yet to be finalised. While China is expected to push its PL-9 dogfight missile and the yet untested SD-10 beyond visual range air to air missile, the South Africans have reportedly offered their A-Darter and T-Darter missiles. In January 2007, the head of the Russian Defence Ministry’s International Cooperation Department, Colonel-General Anatoly Mazurkevich, announced that Russia had “denied China the right to supply its JF-17 fighter aircraft powered by Russian RD-93 engines to third countries, asking it to sign an end-user certificate for the engines”. In Indian circles, this was taken to be a total Russian denial., a Chinese military website reports that while five RD-93s have been purchased to power the prototypes, an agreement on the further purchase and re-export of the engine is still pending. To make things worse, the Chinese have yet to make any firm commitments, and appear to have lost interest in inducting the FC-1, preferring the more capable J-10 instead.

Given development time-frame and mission profile, comparisons between the JF-17 and India’s “Tejas” light combat aircraft are inevitable. But similarities, if any, are merely superficial. The Tejas, meant to replace India’s massive fleet of MiG-21s, is a wholly different project as far as technology is concerned. Its airframe, made of advanced carbon fibre composites, is light years ahead of the Thunder’s all-metal airframe. The ADA, HAL, and NAL invested considerable time, effort, and resources in its development, and came up with what is arguably one of the finest airframes in the world. The same goes for the Tejas’ aerodynamics which, because of the compound delta-wing, extensive wing-body blending, and low wing loading are superior to those of the Thunder, which has a more conventional layout along the lines of the F-16 and a rejected Soviet light fighter design. As far as flight dynamics and control go, the Tejas, with its relaxed static stability and quadruplex, full authority fly-by-wire digital flight control system, is far more advanced than the Thunder, which still features conventional controls (fly-by-wire exists only for pitch control). The Tejas then, is a state of the art combat aircraft which will be India’s first step towards self-reliance. Program wise, it is more comparable to the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale, considering not just the technology involved, but also the scope of the project. In the light of this argument, its longer timeline is hardly surprising. But the Thunder, despite Pakistan’s best efforts to package it as “indigenous”, is anything but. Pakistan’s contribution to the design and development of the project is close to nothing. Even today, it does not sport any Pakistani systems. It is at best a cheap and low-tech Chinese aircraft that Pakistan can mass produce. As Siva, a contributor on Bharat Rakshak points out, the JF-17 is more comparable to the HJT-36 Sitara intermediate jet trainer – since both have an all-metal airframe, conventional controls, and an externally sourced engine. And the Sitara was developed even faster than the Thunder.

This is not to say that the JF-17 is a bad aircraft. It will serve a very important purpose by giving Pakistan valuable experience in fighter aircraft manufacturing. It will help Pakistan rid itself of dependence on American weapons. It will give the Pakistan Air Force a shot in the arm by beefing up numbers and providing it with decent beyond visual range combat capability. Dismissing it as “worthless” would be nothing short of stupid. My friend and aviation enthusiast Kartik sums it up beautifully: “If the Pakistanis integrate even a medium performance radar and use the SD-10 with it, it is a big threat to the Indian Air Force – just look at the MiG-21 Bison to see what an underestimated fighter can turn out to be. The Sukhoi Su-30K was also found to be a poor aircraft when the IAF first evaluated it, and then after all sweat and toil put into getting its avionics in place and the thrust vector controls, the Su-30MKI is a completely different beast! I somehow fear that the JF-17 shouldn’t prove to be a fighter that makes the Fulcrums, Mirages, Bisons almost on-par or just a little superior. Which is why the IAF needs a true fourth generation fighter to stay ahead – both airframe wise as well as avionics wise.”

(Mihir Shah is at [email protected].)

62 thoughts on “Pakistan’s JF-17 Thunder – An Analysis”

  1. Hello Mihir Shah. The article which you have written is very informative. To your article, I may add a few smaller “nuggets” :

    1] Nomenclature : The JF in JF-17 stands for Joint-Fighter, because it was jointly developed by China and Pak. The ’17’ in its name is an increment over the 16 of F-16, to signify that the JF-17 shall be a modern successor to the F-16 in the PAF. It is sometimes referred to as just F-17 also.

    2] The JF-17 had suffered drawbacks in its design in 2005, after which DSI and LERX were added. The CAC claimed that the DSI (Divertless Section Intake) is a feature that is present only in the JSF. This feature has been claimed to have reduced weight by 200-300 kgs, besides increasing stealth (as the engine blades are claimed to have been substantially shielded from direct view).

    This was incorporated in Pt-04 (Prototype-04). Pt-06 is apparently the production version.

    3] As per the statement of PAF CAS, the total requirement of JF-17s in PAF is upto 250 instead of the initial 150.

    4] As per a Chinese media report, there are 2 Chinese and 1 European company in contention for the radar system. The first batch of 8 JF-17 fighters (all to be delivered in 2007) shall be equipped with the Chinese KJL-10 radar.

    As per the news report, I quote, ““Pakistan is very clever. They will allow two Chinese companies to compete with each other first, and then get the Chinese compete with Western companies. If Pakistan requests, Galileo Avionica will provide Pakistan with the radar system for testing on JF17,” a source from Galileo Avionica said.

    5] As per the same news report, the weapons that are most likely to be integrated are Chinese only, namely LT-2 Laser Guided Bombs, LS-6 GPS guided bombs and SD10 active radar guided AAMs.

    6] As rightly mentioned by you that the PLAAF itself may be more committed to the J-10 rather than FC-1 (for which it has not placed firm orders), however it is widely speculated that the JF-17 may have a tremendous export market in third-world nations which may not be able to afford expensive fighters like F-16 and MiG-29. It also has modern 4th generation avionics and a “decent” weapon suite.

    7] Although as mentioned by you that the JF-17 is rumoured to have been developed from a cancelled fighter project of the USSR (termed Project-33), it is not true. The protrusion which runs along the uppermost part of the fuselage (can be termed as the spine) is a “vestige” that has been inherited from the MiG-21. No other Russian fighter too has that distinct feature.

    Thank you.

    References :
    First post by saf2000 in the following page from a discussion board :

  2. Mihir, to my earlier comment I may add that the avionics suite of JF-17 shall be Chinese only (with probable exception of radar) in all batches.

    Regarding points 2 and 3, I have the provided relevant references in the article, “JF-17s at last”.

    I fully agree with your view that JF-17 can be (and is) on par with frontline fighters of the IAF, especially the MiG-29 and Mirage-2000. Thus, it will be assessed with utmost seriousness by the IAF.
    However, despite this threat, it may not “ring alarm bells”, as it can be countered by the present fleet.

    All 3 future acquisitions of the PAF, namely 250 JF-17s, 80 F-16s and 40 J-10s can be countered by the Tejas. The Tejas is avionically equivalent, and performance-wise very close to F-16 and the J-10.

    It may also be mentioned that the J-10 along with J-11 (licenced Su-30) and some token number of FC-1s shall constitute the backbone of the PLAAF for the next 4-5 decades. Thus, the case of Tejas being inducted in very large numbers to counter these 3 aerial adversaries in the neighbourhood is strong, because it will be very cost-effective due to its being indigenous. A foreign MRCA may thus be unnecessary.


  3. Goodone Elmihiro. But going thru it, the Tejas and the thandar look the same and probably do the same role. the only diff is the tejas might survive longer due to its more modern FBW and avionics. but otherwise i dont see anything ‘outstanding’ in one ac over the other. correct me if i am wrong

  4. Well JF-17 is not a state of art aircraft but it amazes me how you have proved it to be a crap in front of LCA. Radar and weapons may be a problem for JF-17 but so are for LCA too and LCA is still far from induction.

    LCA is still far far away from IOC , the pylons, which are structures fixed to the hard points on the fuselage or wings, are yet to be made. Without them weapons, pods and other stores cannot be attached to the aircraft. Neither have the drop tanks been fitted. As a result, the aircraft’s fly-by-wire capabilities with drop tanks and weapons, which will involve a shift in its centre of gravity, are yet to be checked.

    Confessed a test pilot: “The LCA has flown almost all its 400 sorties without a change of configuration”

  5. Hi again. To the previous anonymous commentator I may say, that the report that he has referred to is dated July 2005, and so is irrelevant presently.
    Presently, the Tejas has flown 642 test-flights (as of today). The pylons have been attached onto hard-points as various test-flights with dummy payloads have taken place.

    The following image is that of Tejas landing at Aero-India 2007. A missile payload attached to the rightmost pylon is visible :

    In comparison with the JF-17 whose radar and subsequent weapons-package are yet to be finalized, a phased-array radar (presumably Elta) for the Tejas has commenced integration, and the weapons-package had been finalized in 2006. Weapons integration shall commence in this month.


    References :

  6. Corrigendum : I may correct an error in the 4th point of my first comment that only the test-bed JF-17s have installed the KLJ-10 radar, whereas I had mistakenly stated that the first bach of 8 JF-17s shall have JLK-10 radar installed.

    The tender fort he radar of the JF-17 shall include radars for the first batch also.


  7. Well, CAS had already said that PAF may get ahead from IAF, if IAF donot get hold on latest jets. As he might be mentioning PAF getting armed with FC-1s, F-16s, and J-10s.. LCA is going to take some more time to be inducted into squadron. Also it will take much more time to replace huge numbers of ageing mig-21s then it will take PAF to replace its relatively less F-7s..
    Also, FC-1 new PT is claimed to be one of the finest designs. FC-1 with BVR capability and 3000 kms of range is formidable aircraft. According to chinese and pakistani sources it is much better than LCA.

  8. Abhiman, thanks for the comments. Interesting bit about the nomenclature – I always wondered why the Pakistanis did not call it the JF-1. Now it makes sense. About the DSI – doesn’t it also increase thrust at take-off? And about the mish-mash of designs – could this be an F-16 + MiG-21 + Project-33?

    The outstanding part is that the Tejas was developed by a country with no experience in the development of advanced fighter aircraft. The FC-1 comes after a fairly long line of Chinese fighters.

    The JF is certainly a threat – no two ways about that. But the LCA with Israeli radar, possibly lower RCS, and better avionics and flight control won’t be inferior to it. Secondly, if I recall correctly, 3000km is the ferry range of the JF-17. Not the combat range.

  9. The JF-17 is quite a capable fighter, comparable with most fighters presently in service with air forces around the world. But its induction shouldn’t cause much consternation among the IAF. It does have some innovative features such as the quite advanced DSI inlets, which indicate a good level of aerodynamic understanding of fluid flows into the engines, although the intakes look more crude than the ones presently on the F-35 JSF and advanced F-16 versions.

    Another point to note is that the JF-17s will be inducted into the PAF. This is an important point to note to those who believe that induction means combat readiness. It doesnt. The KF-17 flew only in 2003, and most probably, hasn’t achieved IOC yet. read this post on
    to understand it better.

    The LCA is most certainly a far more capable fighter, thought the specs of the two crafts look very similar. indeed, they are in the same class and suited for the same roles. However, in today’s aviation world, those alone dont matter. avionics, FCS, radar, and maneuverability are the important factors. In all of these, the LCA is superior.

    The LCA will have a more powerful engine. The LCA has a far better FCS, its carrying caability is bettter (4000 kg vs the F-17s 3800 kg), even though the LCA is lighter. The LCA has better performance on maneuverability front as well.

    the only area where the JF-17 beats the LCA is wrt range, which is understandable given that LCa is a smaller, nimbler aircraft.

    The big difference is that the LCA has always been and will remain a point-defence fighter and not a primary frontline strike aircraft. That job would be done by the Jaguars, Mig-27s, the MRCA aircrafts that would be inducted, MCA (that will be developed) and the indo-russian fighter, not to forget the Su-30s. The Pakistanis, on the other hand, intend to use the JF-17 for all these tasks.

  10. Mihir, the JF-17 is basically a derivative of the F-7 only which is evident from the distinct and prominent curved spine over its fuselage, and delta wing. Rumours about covert transfer of F-16 fighter to China or rejected Russian project (project-33 as you said) are likely to be unsubstantiated. I do not know anything about DSI.

    anon29, as per the official website of PAC Kamra and the article by B. Harry “Radiance of Tejas”, the Tejas carries more fuel in weight. As per the members of a discussion board who attended Aero-India 2007, the worst-case combat-radius of Tejas on internal fuel is 800 kms and with external pods the range is 1,200 kms. These ranges are comparable to the MiG-29KUB of the Indian Navy’s Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier.

    Thus, I think that the Tejas not only is a medium strike fighter, but may qualify to compete in the MRCA tender also.



  11. btw, even the LCA has a ‘spine’, though it is less pronounced than on the MiG-21 or the JF-17.

    For info on DSI, please check out this extremely informative site:

    The ferry range of the JF-17 has been advertised as 3000 km while that of the LCA is about 2600 km (as of Aero India 2007).

    “Thus, I think that the Tejas not only is a medium strike fighter, but may qualify to compete in the MRCA tender also.”

    The Tejas is a Light aircraft in 12-16 ton class. The F-16s and F-18s are medium clas aircraft.

    IAFs operational doctrine calls for light aircraft to hold position and protect territory as point defense aircraft, while medium and heavy class aircraft perform offensive operations and strike missions.

    The LCA is quite a capable aicraft. An interesting thing i noticed was that although it is much lighter than other aircraft, it can carry almost as much armaments as other heavier aircraft, and has almost same range. A truly amazing achievement, IMO, for DRDO.

  12. Hi anaon29. In my view, range of Tejas mustbe greater than JF-17 on account of higher internal fuel than it as per official sources.

    I agree with your view that Tejas has performance that is comparable to medium fighters like Gripen despite its light weight.
    Although the Tejas is a ‘Light’ aircraft, this does not translate into ‘lesser’ capability. The composites that have been used in the fabrication of Tejas not only reduce weight but also increase structural strength simultaneously.

    As per the diagrams and sources that were posted by me in the comments section of other articles of Mr. Shiv Aroor, the max. external load of Tejas is 5.5 tons, whichis again comparable to Gripen and MiG-29K (though not known whether permissible simulataneously).

    The spine of JF-17 has “uncanny” resemblance to that of the MiG-21 especially in shape. Regardless, it is officially disclosed that it is a descendent of the MiG-21.

    The J-8 was another MiG-21 derivative very similar to the J-7. However, the J-8 II was changed such that instead of the tunnel-intakes of the MiG-21, side-intakes were fabricated.

    This expertise has undoubtedly been used to design another MiG-21 derivative in the FC-1. I think that the consultancy from Russia may have been in re-framing the cockpit and tail etc.

    It may be interesting to note how the MiG-21 has been immensely useful in the furthering of the Asian (China & India) military aviation industry.


  13. Shiv, my father, and my father-in -law are generals retired from the Indian army. I told them both about Livefist after reading about it on SMC. Just wanted to tell you that they are glued to it, and enjoy it enormously.

  14. Hi Abhiman,

    I wonder where you found the 5500 kg figure… AFAIK, even ADA was talking about >4000 kg (approx 4200 if i remember correctly). If you counted the 5500 kg from the loading on individual pylons, its not so. That diagram is only showing the max. load per hardpoint, rather than the total maximum possible.

    IMO, those who talk of the JF-17 being ready in record time are talking crap… the project dates back to 1986, with significant US help. then, in 1999, Pakistan came up, and put up the cash (of course, they lack the brains).

    The JF-17 is a early 4th gen aircraft, nothing more. Its contemporaries are in the 1980s.

  15. Continuing with my above comment, those who say that the LCA will be delayed, and will come out only after the Thunder dont know what they are talking about. The LCA is a far more advanced aircraft, with newer capabilities, and hance, require much more rigorous testing before production.

    Theres a fundamental difference between Induction and IOC. Induction is just giving the aircraft to the sqns. IOC is when the aircraft is cleared for combat operations. The Thunder is still being tested by the PAF, and is at the same state the LCA is in now (probably worse off even). the LCA will be cleared for Operations by next year. The first Production aircrafts have been built, and will fly this year.

    The LCA compares quite favorably against other projects, considering that the project design work began only in 1990 and FSED work began only in 1993. Unfortunatey, most journos forget this and report the project as taking off in 1983. the ASR itself didnt come out till 1995.

  16. Hi anon29. I agree with your view that the external load of 5,500 kgs may not be realized on Tejas. However, it may unclear whether that is due to under-utilization of the max. load capacity of pylons or impermissible simultaneous carriage of maximum load. As an example, the max. capacity of the middle pylon under the wing is 800kgs. but the weights of R-77 or R-27 are 175kg and 248kg. respectively thus leaving most of the capacity underutilized.

    It may also be due to structural/aerodynamic constraints also that the total of 5,500 kgs may not be carried at once.

    As known to me, the first unit of LSP is expected to make first tes-flight in a few days from now only, and thereafter it will be inducted into the IAF.

    I also agree that Tejas can compare favourably with other projects. As per the promotional article on Tejas that was released by HAL during Aero-India 2007, the estimated delay due to US sanctions is between 2-3 years. Else, by now the first 8 LSPs would have been inducted into the IAF already and perhaps the MRCA tender may not have been needed.

    Regarding the JF-17, it is often erroneously claimed that it took a “record time of 4 years” to complete its development because it is an upgrade on an existing airframe. It is imperative to note that comparitively, the JF-17 has taken a much longer time to develop fully.

    Following are images of JF-17 from Pakstan :

    Contrary to my earlier comment I may say that the red-green paint on JF-17 is now looking awe-inspiring.

    The article on DSI that you posted was very interesting and cleared many concepts. However, DSI being a patented trade-secret of Lockheed Martin, it may be unclear how claims of using the same technology on JF-17 have been made by CAC Chengdu.


  17. Hi Abhiman,

    The reason why Tejas can’t carry 5500 kg is due to impermissible simultaneous carriage of maximum load.

    I think DRDO should start working on multi-missile racks, if they haven’t already. These can accommodate upto 3 missiles or 6 bombs on one pylon, which can greatly improve the capability of LCA. That way, the underutiliation that you talked about wouldn’t happen.

    Unfortunately, I’m disappointed with the slow progress of the LCA testing program. In 6 years, they have logged only 500 hrs of testing. This should be quickly accelerated. Most other countries quickly build quite a few prototypes to make the testing time shorter.

    Coming to your DSI observation, I think the DSI may been explored initially during the super-7 program, and continued by the Chinese. After all, once the basic principles are known, given time and money, with the right labs, you can build it. But, as i noted, the DSI looks cruder than on the JSF. Plus, it isn’t accompanied by the inlet cowls that are on the JSF, which suggests that its not the best.

  18. anaon29, multiple launchers on the Tejas shall indeed allow optimum utilization of max. load capacities. The JF-17 has dual-launchers on its 2nd and 6th pylons as can be seen in a scene in the following video :

    This increases the number of stations in the JF-17 to 9, which is one more than Tejas. If the Tejas also employs dual-launchers in the 2nd and 7th pylons, it shall have a total of 10 stations, which is only 1 less than the F-16, and 2 more than Gripen.

    As known to me, DSI was explored only after the JF-17’s design exhibited many flaws in the PT-04 test-flights that were held in 2005. Leading Edge Extensions were also added after PT-04 only. This may have led the ACM of PAF to recently comment that the present version of JF-17 is very different from the 1st version.


  19. I wonder why we haven’t heard our Government protest the Russians allowing the Pakistanis to get the engines..

    Probably its a part of their policy to be Cowards.

    If it were China in our place, i’m pretty sure they would have taken strong steps.

  20. In my view, an attempt may be being made by India to disassociate from Russian “pressure” to purchase additional arms, compensate for lost sales to Pakistan and agree to unfavourable terms.

    Anyway there would be no gain in blocking the sale of RD-93 to Pakistan because, as mentioned earlier the JF-17 can also be equipped with the Chinese WS-13 engine and possibly the M-88 also.

    1) As per a statement from Klimov officials at the Zhuhai airshow held in China in Dec. 2006, “if we do not sell to Pakistan, someone else will.”.

    2) As per Pakistani news reports quoting PAF ACM, Russia has kept in abeyance the formal procedure to prevent China’s export licence to export RD-93 to Pakistan. Now, 2 JF-17 fighters with RD-93 engines have overtly been supplied to PAF by China.

    From these 2 above points, Russia is keeping the assurance not to re-export RD-93 to Pak in abeyance, to extract maximum defence contracts from India. This may be akin to “economic blackmail”.

    Hence, I think India must “call Russia’s bluff”, which is definitely and overtly hinting at supplying RD-93 engines to Pakistan.

    Thus, India must secede from this orbit of Russian influence in which eventually it is India which is the “losing party”. This is because Pakistan can source embargoes hardware from China,US or elsewhere (hence no diminish in Pak threat assesment) and Russia will have to be “appeased” with costlier purchases and more contracts.

    This will enable India to be wholly objective in its scrutiny and outlook of foreign hardware for its needs. This will also “spur” a demand for indigenous weaponry and reduce dependence on foreign hardware.

    But most importantly, Indian defence requirements shall be independent of unrelated geo-politics and be determined objectively by the 3 services only.

    Thank you.

  21. OK lets make a fighter Jet;
    Recipe: Take a Miraj air frame +give it an HAL Tarka. Marinate it (waste your) 26-30 Odd years.
    Buy radars from Israel
    Pods from russia
    Seats from Martin Becker
    Engine from general electronics
    Agains if that does not work call segam or General Electric for help
    Missiles are from russian origin or TOT from russia christened as Indian
    Composites that also with the help of TOT.
    Electronic suits are also christened
    HMS is also the same case
    Still not sure that it works or not
    We have made an indi(a)-genious fighter capable to fry down an F-22 from sky and blah blah
    same is the case with JF-17

  22. Diamond_heart, the components mentioned by you which have been procured from abroad also have parallel indigenous counterparts in development in India.

    The components were imported as a temporary measure only to allow time for indigenous development of the same component.

    As an example, the GE-404 engine and Elta radar were procured as the Kaveri engine and indigenous multi-mode radar are under development.
    Similarly an indigenous ejection seat (not licence produced) of Tejas has been developed, which has been tested and certified by Martin Baker.

    The Tejas currently shall use Israeli Litening targeting pod. However, it might be replaced by the SIVA High Accuracy Direction pod.

    Regarding composites, the software that was developed for determining composite-layout structure of aircraft, has been sold to Airbus Industrie and used in the composite-layout model of A380 jet. It beat other top contenders in the contract tender.

    Besides, the composites technology has been perfected to an extent that Tejas has more percentage of composites by weight and surface-area than Eurofighter also (as per data available in official websites of the same).

    The HMS has been developed jointly with Israel, which developed the cueing system.


    References :

    1)ARDE develops safe ejector system for Tejas :

    Autolay software makes ADA a Global leader :

  23. Normally a comparison of something with another this is useless unless both are flexed at the same point.
    Verily an apple can be compared with an apple and surely a ripe apple cannot be compared with an apple that is still developing.
    Now let me compare certain facts;
    with 40% composites LCA speed=1.8 m
    With non composites JF-17 speed=1.8 m
    Now flex JF-17 with a 40%
    Weight to thrust of LCA with 40% composite=1.07
    JF-17 without composite =almost 1
    Niether one a tested plan in actual environment
    Comparing the both with Rafeal and Typhoon is mockery of technology.
    I guess JF-17 and LCA are chips of the same block

  24. Diamond_heart, it may also be noted that despite the fact that the empty-weight Tejas is 1 ton lesser than JF-17, and that its size is smaller than JF-17, the max. external load of Tejas is >4000kgs compared to 3,700 kgs of JF-17.
    As per the official website of PAC Kamra, the top speed of JF-17 is Mach 1.6 as compared to Mach 1.8 for Tejas.

    In my view, Tejas can be compared to Eurofighter and Rafale in the segment of structurals, and most avionics. The Tejas is second to none of these in terms of unstable design, quadruplex FBW, high percentage of composites, and other avionics.


    Reference :

    Official website of PAC Kamra :

  25. Plz do the homework before giving a reference here is the exact quote from the link u have given
    “8. Strength and Fatigue Life

    JF-17 airframe is made of semi-monologue structure
    High strength steel and Titanium alloy adopted partially at some critical places.
    Max speed: 1350 KPH (Mach 1.8)
    JF-17 aircraft would be designed, tested and proofed against the requirement tailored for MIL-A-8860 and Chinese National Military Specification GJB67-85
    The desired fatigue life of the JF-17 airframe is 4,000 flight hours or 25 years
    The period to first overhaul would be 1,200 flight hours”
    At serial No. 8 you will find the exact speed the speed u have mentioed was of Proto type 1-3 and with the DSI the weight was reduced and speed was increased. Plz check janes on this issue

  26. As i posted earlier, both planes are in their development stage and will adopt some changes in future. Now if u want to compare them u must adopt a similar line and similar role of the aircrafts. Having said that, u may see that when u want to compare JF-17 and LCA to make them at par consider the both have same composite ratio, speed etc

  27. The page of PAC Kamra is self-contradictory. In the link given by me, the top-speed in clean config is mentioned as Mach 1.6 and in the very next page (quoted by you) it is mentioned as Mach 1.8.
    It is plausible that both pages refer to the latest prototype only.

    Thus, it is unclear whether the top-speed of JF-17 is Mach 1.6 or Mach 1.8.


  28. I agree with Diamond Heart regarding above moreover Placing a 40% composite on spitfire or Gnat or vipers or mig 21 or MIRAJ does not make an air frame a generation ahead. Regardless the composites used the air frame of LCA is still a copy of MIRAJ meaning thereby is 30 year or more old.

  29. JF-17 is a light weight, multi-role day-night, all weather fighter with max TO weight 12,700kg, max speed 1.7M, ceiling 16,500m, max weapon load 3,900kg, range 3,000km. It would be equiped with a Russian engine (probably RD-33, that powers MiG-29). PAF’s version would carry a European avionics suite that includes a multi-mode Pulse Doppler radar, INS (Inertial Navigation System), multi-function displays etc and is expected to fulfil 70 percent of PAF operational requirments.

    The aircraft is of beyond-vision-range (BVR) attack capability with the SD-10 medium-range air-to-air missile (MRAAM) developed by China Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute (LETRI, also known as 607 Institute). The aircraft also carries two short-range AAMs on its wingtip-mounted launch rails. The options include U.S. AIM-9P and Chinese PL-6, PL-8, and PL-9 SO MIHIR SHAH UR TEJAS CANNOT EVEN TOUCH R F 17 BEYOND F 16

  30. Abe u pakis, first make something on your own, apart from green paint then talk big..u chutiyas cant even make a screw on ur own..

  31. salay jaltaa hain bhanchod f 17 kisnay banaya tum log apnay pappa russia say madad latay hoo
    aur phir web bana karr hagtay hooooooo!

  32. You know what the problem with you rat-indians is ….. its your inability to accept the reality. You barked about us Pakistanis not having Nuclear Capability and got the shock of your life when we conducted Nuclear Tests. Asking the Russians not to give us engines, and getting slapped in the face when we flew our Thunders on 23rd of March 2007. Now you wanna b|t(c)h around by saying that the Thunder is comparable to your HJT Sitara …… lemme ask you, is it the same sitara that crashed on aero india airshow? The same dinky aircraft whose canopy popped open when your faggot indian airforce pilot forget to lock the latch!

    Why don’t put a sock in it and shut your whore-ranting!

  33. Hi,
    look at it here first.
    China and Pakistan has already got many orders fo the JF-17 thunder.
    lca project has been started 22 yeas ago and may not be completed in next 22 I think.
    dont find errors in Thunder just find what u people have made so far.
    Pakistan+China= Super Power

    this is first step dont forget Pakistan can start more projects.

    Pakistan is going to install italian GRIFO avionics in JF-17 Thunder.

    bye u stupid indians

  34. Read it
    Several radars have been tested onboard prototypes of JF-17 and the final version is still yet to be determined, and these include:

    Israeli Elta EL/M-2032 radar: Two delivered to China before the sales stopped under US pressure. At least one was installed on the first Chinese prototypes for test and evaluation. There are unconfirmed reports that at least one unit was lost when a prototype crashed.
    Russian Phazotron Super Komar radar: This is a development of Komar (Gnat) radar Russian offered to upgrade Q-5 and J-7. The Komar (Gnat) itself, is a development of Phazotron Kopyo (Spear) radar offered for MiG-21-93/98, with newer electronics to drastically reduce the weight by more than a third, from the original 125 kg of Kopyo (Spear) to 80 kg. With the exception of the sector of scan is increased to +/- 60 degrees from the original +/- 40 degrees of Kopyo (Spear), all of the rest of performance parameters of Komar (Gnat) remained the same as that of Kopyo (Spear). Super Komar radar has improved capability than Komar (Gnat) in that instead of being able to simultaneously track 8 targets and engage 2 of the tracked like Komar (Gnat) and Kopyo (Spear), it can simultaneously track 10 targets and engage 4 of the tracked. It is reported, however, despite successful tests, the radar was eventually rejected by both China and Pakistan, because the 60/40 km tracking/engagement range of Super Komar radar was simply too short, and this was the reason why no more follow-up orders were placed.
    Italian FIAR Grifo-S7 radar: Unlike the Russian Super Komar, the Italian radar lacks the capability of multi-targets tracking and engagement via semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles. However, it does have multi-targets tracking capability (up to 8) and single target engagement capability via semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles and when using active radar homing air-to-air missiles, two targets can be simultaneously engaged. The radar weighs 110 kg and a slotted planar array antenna. This Italian radar has higher MTBF than the Russian radar, up to more than 220 hours. Furthermore, the ISO-9002 certified radar and electronics manufacturing facility at Kamra of the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex already had vast experience in license assembly / production of earlier Italian FIAR Grifo series radars for F-7MP/P/PG, and the Italian radar would have advantage over its competitors should assembly / production licenses be granted like it had been done earlier. This Italian radar emerged as the winner in the competition against British Blue Hawk and French RC-400 radars, and it was reported that at least several unit would equip the very first JF-17 in Pakistani services.
    British GEC-Marconi Blue Hawk radar: this radar is developed from GEC-Marconi Blue Vixen radar onboard BAE Sea Harrier, with MTBF over 200 hours. The radar lacks the compatibility with semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles, and this was one of the reason it was rejected by Pakistan, but this capability can be incorporated up on customers’ request. The radar weigh 104 kg and incorporates a slotted planar array. This British radar remains a potential candidate on exported versions of JF-17 should potential customers require cheaper alternative to the Italian Grifo-S7 radar, and the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex can readily integrate the radar to JF-17 upon customers’ request.
    French Thomson-CSF RC-400 radar: this radar is developed from Thomson-CSF RDY radar onboard Dassault Mirage 2000, with reduced peak power and maximum range due to decreased size and weight. Like the British GEC-Marconi Blue Hawk radar, this French radar was also rejected by Pakistan for lacking the compatibility with semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles, but Thomson-CSF had claimed that such capability could be readily incorporated upon customer’s request. Another reason for Pakistani rejection of the radar was that instead of being built to the MIL-STD-1553, the French radar was built to the French DIGIBUS standard instead, so extra work must be done for compatibility with MIL-STD-1553 standard, thus increasing the cost. However, for potential customers who had been accustomed with French equipment, this French radar is a logical choice because although the initial cost for installation is increased, the overall operational cost would be decreased when the radar is compatible with all other French equipment in the inventory. For this reason, RC-400 also remains a potential candidate for export versions of JF-17 for possible future customers equipped with French systems. Pakistan Aeronautical Complex is capable of performing the conversion for installation and providing the supports upon customers’ request if this radar is to be selected.
    It is reported (to be confirmed) that a Chinese radar of unknown designation has been offered for the production version of JF-17, and the Chinese offer had some key advantages over the Italian one, such as compatibility with Chinese weapon systems.
    Radar has strong ECCM capacity and multiple modes, such as A2A (both BVR & close), air-to-ground, air-to-sea, terrain avoidance, etc. Terrain following mode is not standard, but can be added upon customer’s request by either incorporating an external pod such as the Chinese Blue Sky navigational and targeting pods, or alternatively, the direct integration of the radar itself.
    It can simultaneously detect 40+ targets, simultaneously track 10 of 40 detected targets, and simultaneously engage 2 of the 10 tracked targets by guiding 2 semi-active radar homing BVR missiles to attack two separate targets. Alternatively, two missiles can be fired at the same target to raise the kill probability.
    When active radar homing air-to-air missiles are used, the number of targets that can be simultaneously engaged are increased to 4.
    The detection range for a typical air target of RC 3 m² is 125+ km; looking downrange is 45+ km; range for sea target is 250+ km.
    When engaging land targets, the Chinese radar can lock on to individual vehicle like American radars do, instead of only being able to lock on to a large group of vehicles like the Russian Phazotron Kopyo (Spear) radar onboard MiG-21-93.
    Easy to access LRUs with fully digitized solid state electronics and built-in self test functions.
    Plenty of room for improvement is incorporated in the design so that the current plannar slotted array can be readily replaced by a passive phased array.
    Reprogrammable digital processor with open architecture design.
    Option to incorporate IFF.
    The internally mounted electro-optics is not standard for JF-17, but the radar is compatible with them for their rapid integration upon customer’s request.

    [edit] Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS)
    Though the exact type of the helmet mounted sights for JF-17 is yet to be determined, the HMS will be standard. JF-17 is compatible with a wide range of HMS, and its HMS will be at least equal or better than the HMS offered for J-7E/F-7PG, which first appeared in 2002 at air show and various defense / electronics exhibitions such as CIDEX held in China. According to the staff from the developing firms and their advertise at these exhibitions, the HMS offered for J-7E/F-7PG is already better than the latest Russian HMS available on the export market in that the Chinese HMS is specifically designed to improve the performance of the Russian system, and it outperforms its Russian counterparts including ASP-AVD-21, Shchel series, Sura series in various fields:

    In comparison to the original standard Russian ASP-PVD-21 HMS onboard the MiG-29 and Flanker family, the field of view of the Chinese HMS for J-7E/F-7PG is +/- 90 degrees, which is far greater than the mere +/- 8 degrees of the Russian ASP-PVD-21 HMS.
    In comparison to the latest Russian HMS available with +/- 60 degrees of field of view, the Chinese HMS for J-7E/F-7PG still enjoys much greater field of view at +/- 90 degrees.
    The elevation of the latest Russian HMS designed to replace the original ASP-PVD-21 HMS onboard MiG-29 and Flanker family is only +/- 40 degrees, while in contrast, the Chinese HMS for J-7E/F-7PG is already +/- 45 degrees.
    The Chinese HMS for J-7E/F-7PG already had higher reliability than the Russian HMS.
    The Chinese HMS for J-7E/F-7PG are easier and much cheaper to manufacture than its Russian counterparts.
    Although the Chinese HMS for J-7E/F-7PG has already enjoyed numerous advantages over the latest Russian HMS developed later, it still might not be the final type of HMS selected for JF-17, because even as the Chinese HMS for J-7E/F-7PG was first revealed in 2002, the Chinese manufacturers such as the 613th Institute had already started the development of newer HMS designed to replace the HMS for J-7E/F-7PG. Three major Chinese manufacturers, XBOE, the 613th Institute, and Luoyang Optoelectro Technology Development Center have already developed a variety of HMS systems with improvements including the adaptation of common attachments and power sources so that all night vision goggles and HMS are interchangeable, without the need to replace the entire system. The weight would be further reduced from the 200 grams weight of the Chinese HMS for J-7E/F-7PG, while the performance is further increased (mainly in the increase of elevation angles). While it can not be confirmed the claims by various sources that the more advanced Chinese HMS onboard Chengdu J-10 developed from HMS onboard the J-7E/F-7PG would be selected for JF-17, the aircraft is certainly compatible with the more advanced Chinese HMS onboard Chengdu J-10

    [edit] Electronic warfare
    It has all the standard electronic warfare systems, such as radar warning receiver, missile approach warning system, etc.

    The computer can store more than 500 existing radar signals for identification, which is around 5 times of that F-7MP/P, and actually already stores more than 250 known radar signal patterns.
    360-degree field of view for the missile approach warning system with both infrared & ultraviolet spectrum detection.
    Very sensitive to the “afterburn” of missiles.
    The detection range is 60+ km.
    One detection sensor is in the tail and two at the front.
    Moreover, it can provide a certain capacity of tracking and positioning of approaching missiles.
    BM/KG300G Self protection jamming pod.
    KZ900 Electronic reconnaissance pod.
    Blue Sky navigation pod: Low altitude navigational and attack pod
    FILAT Forward-looking Infrared Laser Attack Targeting pod
    Other targeting pods

    [edit] Communication
    The JF-17 has two communication radios; one of them has the capacity for data link to exchange data from either a ground control center or an AWACS/AEW.

    The modular design of solid state avionics has enabled the data link for the air-to-ground precision guided munitions to be carried internally, thus eliminating the need to carry external data link pods that are common for current Russian and Vietnam War era American systems, but this only applies to the radar or GPS guided air-to-surface missiles, because for television, infrared, or laser guided munitions, the aircraft lacks built-in electro-optics targeting and weapon control systems, so an external electro-optic targeting pod must be carried such as the Chinese built Blue Sky.

    [edit] Engine
    The current engine in JF-17 RD-93 is not completly smoke free.It has been significantly decreased, some smokiness still remains.But however truly impressive about the RD-93 and even considering all its misgivings, is the acceleration and quick response it can achieve. The engines’ response is virtually instantaneous.Here is a comparison between RD-93 and WS- 13:

    ENGINES WS-13 RD-93 %ge Difference

    Length (m) 4.15 4.25 -2.35%

    Diameter (m) 1.02 1.04 -1.92%

    Weight (Kg) 1135 1055 7.58%

    Thrust (Afterburning, kN) 86.37 81.3 6.24%

    Thrust (Dry, kN) 56.75 50 13.50%

    Bypass ratio 0.57 0.49 16.33%

  35. Hi,s indians see the variety of weapons it can use, u stupids just build some power to accept realities…….

    The SD-10 is the primary Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-to-Air Missile (AAM) for the JF-17All weapon systems are designed to be compatible with both Western systems (ie. supporting MIL-STD-1760 data bus), Chinese systems and Pakistani systems as well.

    [edit] Air-to-air weaponry
    The JF-17 is primarily an export-oriented fighter, thus it can be built according a customer’s specifications and use a variety of Chinese and Western weapon systems.

    These include air-to-air Beyond Visual Range missiles (BVRs).

    Non-Chinese Weapons

    R-Darter BVR-AAM (Proposed at IDEAS 2006, Karachi, Pakistan)
    A-Darter WVR-AAM (Proposed at IDEAS 2006, Karachi, Pakistan)
    IRIS-T WVR-AAM (Proposed at IDEAS 2006, Karachi, Pakistan)
    AIM-9L/M SidewinderWVR-AAM
    AIM-7F Sparrow BVR-AAM
    AIM-120C BVR-AAM
    Chinese Weapons

    PL-9 for within visual range combat
    SD-10 BVRAAM a Beyond Visual Range missile

    [edit] Air-to-ground weaponry
    In addition to unguided bombs and rockets, the aircraft is adopted to deploy a wide range of precision guided munitions, including:

    Non-Chinese weapons:

    DPGM (Precision Guided Bomb) – Denel (South Africa)
    Raptor-I precision-guided long-range glide bomb (60 km) – Denel (South Africa)
    Raptor-II precision-guided long-range glide bomb (120 km) – Denel (South Africa)
    Anti-ship missile such as Exocet and Harpoon missile.
    Russian KAB series laser guided bombs (these Russian bombs can not be directly mounted onto weaponry pylons like Western or Chinese munitions, instead, additional special adaptation rails are required for JF-17 when using them)
    Indigenous Pakistani Weapons

    H-2 Stand-off bomb
    H-4 Stand-off bomb
    Ra’ad Stand-off cruise mssile
    HATF-2 Anti-Runway bomb
    Chinese weapons:

    FT (Fei Teng) series of GPS guided bombs
    LT (Lei Ting) of laser guided bombs
    LS (Lei Shi) series of GPS glide bombs
    C-101 Supersonic Anti-ship missile
    FL-7 Supersonic Anti-ship missile
    C-701 Air-to-surface missile
    TL-10 Anti-ship missile for boats with displacement up to 500 tons
    TL-6 Anti-ship missile for boats/ships with displacement up to 1,000 tons
    C-704 Anti-ship missile for ships with displacement up to 3,000-4,000 tons
    C-801/802 Anti-ship missile for ships with displacement greater than 4,000 tons
    All precision guided munitions listed above are either GPS or radar guided, and when the television or laser guided munitions are deployed, addition electro-optical targeting pods such as the Chinese-built Blue Sky pod must be carried externally in order to provide guidance and targeting information.

  36. This is why indians are jealous……indians u just try to develop ugly tejas which will never be in the fase of production.
    bcz india just knows how to buy they cannot make anything. just look at their missile system.Pakistan is far ahead in missile system

    List of customers with confirmed aircraft orders:

    Pakistan Air Force – 4 delivered; 150 ordered with plans for an additional 100 [7]
    People’s Republic of China
    People’s Liberation Army Air Force – under evaluation of the PLAAF
    Zimbabwe Air Force – 12 ordered in 2004. Yet to be delivered
    Azerbaijan Air Force – 26 ordered in 2007. Yet to be delivered

    [edit] Potential customers
    The following air forces have shown interest in the JF-17 Thunder:

    Egyptian Air Force
    Lebanese Air Force
    Bangladesh Air Force
    Nigerian Air Force
    Myanmar Air Force
    Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force
    Sri Lanka
    Sri Lanka Air Force

  37. An year and more later, the article shows the difference between Our way for designing fighter aircraft and theirs.
    The JF-17 has been a compromise solution and will remain so. But the quest for perfection means that the strict requirements of IAF may or may not be fulfilled. The pakis however have gone ahead and inducted the JF-17, if you can call that an induction, while we still are 2 years to go to IOC. But we have made good strides forward and while the capabilities and weaknesses of LCA are well known, pakis and chinkis have tried and tried hard to hide theirs.
    The biggest example is the DSI or diverterless supersonic Inlets. What am I talking about? check the Proto-4 or newer photos and you will see a bump or hump near the air-inlets. That is what is called DSI. Gotit? It is talked about as if its such an achievement in aerospace engineering. It is nothing but making a virtue out of weakness, it had to be added because the airflow wasnt good enough. They had to add it. So they added a hump near the inlet and talk as if they have added a canard or new control surface. Anyways Let them enjoy while they can. Bakre ki maa kab tak khair manayegi.
    Eagerly waiting for LSP-3

  38. Mihir, I dont understand, how can you compare FC-1 to Sitara?
    ok capability wise they are the comparable. But Sitara was fully made in India, whereas FC-1 was made in china, with pak only providing money.

    After the production of ‘flyable’ FC-1, the porkis painted it green and flew JF-17 on 23 mar. I purchased a RC aircraft for Rs. 4000/- and its also is flying.

    Chinese are not even inducting the FC-1 in PAALF, something that they made, why should they, its for 3rd world countries…

    And Comparing LCA and FC-1 is like comparing Tata Nano or Swift to Habib Sitra… LMAO…

    tell me something, if you porkis could ever develop something hi-tech (or even something-tech), why could nt you develop a car, a space rocket, a nuclear reactor?

    Because no country will share its space technology, satellites with you, even when you try to lure them with uncle sam’s or arabic money…

    even when 1 LCA will down 5 JF-17s (considering that LCA has 5 missiles left), you porkis on internet will claim the opposite, like you do for 65 war and kargil.

    even the mki is more indian than JF-17 is paki.

    anyways pakis, enough time wasted, now its time for you to plan a terror strike somewhere in India, hurry or u’ll be late to your madressa terror institute using all the money you get from US/Arab for terrorizing India.

    adios heros (Indians)
    bye suwarkhoron (Pakis)

  39. The JF-17 is like the F-20 Tigershark. Pit it against the Su-30MKI WVR and it will be a vaunted adversary.

  40. yeh yeh all the crap just for nothin. you both think that you can rip each other apart eh, well lads go and start the show.

  41. Idiotic comparison given that Indians do not know shit about the JF-17 yet continue to compare LCA's marketechture to their supposed understanding of the JF-17s capabilities.

    Pakistanis are not really obsessed with indigenous aspects of the program. They need a potent first shot capability and the JF-17 gives it to them. They can upgrade the aircraft with western or Chinese weapons and avionics, yet these have to meet the PAF's ASRs, which contrary to many Indians here, are just as important to the PAF as those of the IAF's to its higher command. In other words, PAF is not budging on its requirements. Secondly, a very important thing to consider here is that the Program Management Office (PMO) of the JF-17 aircraft is managed by a serving AVM of the PAF. This is unlike anywhere else in the world. PAF has direct input into the design and ensures that its capabilities requirements are met. As such, the capabilities and performance parameters that JF-17 is being designed and tested against are as close to real operational ones as possible.

    When I read idiotic comments like the following by Siva at BR "As Siva, a contributor on Bharat Rakshak points out, the JF-17 is more comparable to the HJT-36 Sitara intermediate jet trainer – since both have an all-metal airframe, conventional controls, and an externally sourced engine. And the Sitara was developed even faster than the Thunder.", I am simply baffled. Just by virtue of airframe construction similarity, a multirole fighter is being compared to an AJT. You Indians really need to get a grip on reality.

    This very same JF-17 is on track to fly with MICA and western avionics. There are already 4 blocks defined for the upgradation in the future and to keep on discounting the aircraft with silly reasoning is no different than sticking one's head in the sand.

    PAF has operated modern western aircraft longer than the IAF. They have flown even more advanced Western aircraft while on deputation to many countries and have a very good idea about the capabilities available on various Western aircraft. So what the JF-17 promises is far more advanced and capable than most Indians here are willing to accept (I love the linking of JF-17 to the F-7 just to put down the aircraft even though there is nothing common here. Lets not confuse Super sabre/7 project with JF-17). I know what I propose is very difficult for most Indians to understand, so be it. I know one thing for sure, the reality is far different from the make belief that is spouted by the so-called Indian experts on JF-17.

  42. i was reading some real nonesense by indians over here.what they are good at is real twist of tongue and making of words.what i have seen is that all the time these people will first try to make opponents look very inferior in every no matter how much beating they get on every account, especially in war field.try to make reasons for your failiures then when other suceeds call it that he has cheated and copied then run away from guys are the best at propaganda prostitution, nakedness(physically)and making films(bollywood,kunjars and kanjarees,whom you idolize)

  43. well it may be the worst aircraft and similler to bison and etc according to u ppl but the fact remain it stirred the curiosty with in diifernt countries it getting export orders from around the globe even turkey nato member is interstd in it i wonder why if its so full of crap in comparison to tejes i wonder why they didnt opted to go for tajes and since its not a poor country it woudnt care to much for money either ?

  44. lMFAO. See how bitter truth is. Pakiz are burning like hell after reading the fact that JF17 stands for JUNK fighter 17.

    Instead of Researching on there own they are coming here and crying like a bitch. LOL

    OKk keep thinking that "Your cheap china made JUnk fighter can shot down 10 raptors in a single sorties "

    If it make you happy. 😛

    If u wanna know the fact. Just go through the above post again



  46. ya all duma$$ Pakis. the world laughs at ya for you being the terrorists, pan-handlers and the followers of the pedophillic ideology.

    1971 was perhaps not the harsh lesson for you, but disintegrating your farcical mullah land in 10 more countries will certainly teach ya half-breed islamic terrorists.

  47. Nice Article…it gives a good insight on the two projects…


  48. It is unfortunate to read some of the comments full of hate , mud slinging and abuses.
    I am a veteran of a war with india, and has faced them more than a few occasions.
    Yet I want to suggest to my friends on both sides to display some decency, let us mind our language and behave like civilized people.
    its all right to have differences, but , not appropriate to be abusive.
    it is not for me to clearing the points, but allow me to say, there is always a way to engage in a pleasant discussion even among the bitter sides.
    Wishing you all luck.
    A man who saw the blood, dead bodies , but always maintained the higher values. even enemies deserve respect.

  49. Interesting to see how many pakistanis follow your blog 🙂
    PAF vet- thanks for your comment. I share your sentiments
    – Retd Indian Navy officer

  50. This is reply to Anonymous reply as he try to sympathize with Pakis and Indians for their aggressive comments and return replies.

    For him to understand the underlying anger may he had to ask his great great grand father's generation what would have happened if USA got divided after their civil war and form a enemy country next to the border instead of Mexico and Canada.
    Countless millions of their women and girls were traded/converted into/killed with blunt weapons. So my ignorant friend anonymous this is not about war. It is about of trampling of our womankind/their beliefs/ their lives. That is why our blood boils with Pakis.
    American and west European countries are stubbornly with their spoil kid Pakistan. Due to our Iron lady P.M Madam Indira Ghandhi we were able to dismember the Pakistan and soon establishing diplomatic relations with the new friendly country Bangladesh. Look at your spol kid Pakistan condition now. Every corner and street is filled with sectarian violence mass killing is daily feature there. Taliban, Al Qaida, ISIS all are born and brought up by middle East Sheikh's money and your weapons and trained and re-exported here to US and European countries. London attack, Madrid attack. Paris bombing, 911, 26/11, Libya, Iraq, Algeria, Nigeria, Kenya Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan. The counting is on… You feel good now. Let take them more as immigrants. Let them establish Sharia in more parts of London.
    When will you learn ??

  51. Yes , I m the one who proposed decency. And I admit for some I am off the mark by a mile. Decency is for decent, civilization is for civilized and acrimony is for those who are not.
    Please read history, when do you think the subcontinent was a country as you propose? Wasn't Punjab a separate state when Brits came? The very notion of one country is ill founded, if in doubt consult Wikipedia. first know what are you talking about. Rhetoric can't replace the truth.
    For decent ppl were my comments, for all others , what stops you? not even morality I think. so come on don't talk and bring it on. Lets see who succeeds.
    My apologies to some honorable ppl like the naval officer from india. Unfortunately, some times you have some naïve souls who need be shunned.
    Ex Army Officer Pakistan.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top