Argentina to purchase JF-17 ‘Thunder’ jets from Pakistan

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 727
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post18 Sep 2021, 19:51

UKDJ reporting that there is some indication that Argentina is set to purchase JF-17 Block IIIs from Pakistan:

Argentina intends to purchase 12 JF-17A Block III fighters from Pakistan according to a draft budget presented to the nations congress.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/argenti ... -pakistan/

The Argentine Air Force has thus chosen Pakistan’s JF-17 Thunder, discarding offers from Russia, USA and India.
The 12 JF-17s will include 10 single seater Block IIIs and 2 dual seat Block IIIs.


Now the source for that is OSINT twitter account, which can be misleading, and I did not verify it from Argentine Congress website. Another South American website reports the following:

Argentina allocates 664M for JF-17 Block III purchase in FY2022
https://www.aviacionline.com/2021/09/ar ... in-fy2022/
Therefore, the presence of the Thunder in the 2022 budget should be taken only as a purchase intention (a serious and firm indication, that’s for sure), and not as a deal already closed. One cannot underestimate the current economic and political situation in the country, in which the incorporation of modern weapon systems may not be seen as a priority.


So most likely Argentina does intend to procure fighters, and with JF-17 there isn't much UK can do directly to block the sale, therefore seems likely that the only deal breaker would be the lack of funds. It would be interesting to see what kind of weapons come along with the jets.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1437
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post18 Sep 2021, 21:14

It is Chinese answer to AUKUS.

In past Pakistan couldn't sell JF-17 with modern cruise missiles to Argentina because of Chinese. Now Chinese gave green light for that.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4558
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post19 Sep 2021, 16:14

Interesting if for no other reason than its another light fighter, ala Brazil's Gripens. I understand they don't have the big $ for so called "heavyweight" jets like Flankers, etc. but it makes you wonder... Pakistan's F-16's and JF-17's put up a pretty good fight vs. heavier Indian jets in recent skirmishes. We're told the J-10C trounced the SU-35 in recent Chinese tests too. Same with Gripens slamming SU-27's BVR.

It seems if your RCS is low enough, your radar/other sensors are powerful enough and you have the weapons to reach out and touch the enemy, you're in business. And with enough internal fuel or tanking, these light fighters might be able to make up the range difference of their larger counterparts. And if that's the case, why spend more money than you have to?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7425
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post20 Sep 2021, 15:45

milosh wrote:It is Chinese answer to AUKUS.



Pathetic if true.
Choose Crews
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7868
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 Sep 2021, 01:24

It was only a matter of time. Before a deal for the JF-17 was made with Argentina. As they had no other real alternative...........
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2380
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post21 Sep 2021, 19:13

21-9-2021
Following the international uproar generated by the mention of the JF-17 Thunder in the budget proposal for fiscal year 2022, presented last week before the Argentine Congress, the The Argentine Ministry of Defense issued a statement indicating that it has not yet taken a position on the next Argentine supersonic fighter.

https://www.aviacionline.com/2021/09/th ... 7-thunder/
When Obi Wan logged onto Twitter: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious"
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7868
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Sep 2021, 01:09

basher54321 wrote:
21-9-2021
Following the international uproar generated by the mention of the JF-17 Thunder in the budget proposal for fiscal year 2022, presented last week before the Argentine Congress, the The Argentine Ministry of Defense issued a statement indicating that it has not yet taken a position on the next Argentine supersonic fighter.

https://www.aviacionline.com/2021/09/th ... 7-thunder/



So, many false alarms........... :?
Offline

commisar

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2018, 21:56

Unread post03 Oct 2021, 14:39

mixelflick wrote:Interesting if for no other reason than its another light fighter, ala Brazil's Gripens. I understand they don't have the big $ for so called "heavyweight" jets like Flankers, etc. but it makes you wonder... Pakistan's F-16's and JF-17's put up a pretty good fight vs. heavier Indian jets in recent skirmishes. We're told the J-10C trounced the SU-35 in recent Chinese tests too. Same with Gripens slamming SU-27's BVR.

It seems if your RCS is low enough, your radar/other sensors are powerful enough and you have the weapons to reach out and touch the enemy, you're in business. And with enough internal fuel or tanking, these light fighters might be able to make up the range difference of their larger counterparts. And if that's the case, why spend more money than you have to?



If the J-10C did well against a Su-35 it's purely due to its new AESA radar. China has eclipsed Russia in terms of radars recently. Looks like Russia will need to beg India for more cash to finally develop and field and actual AESA airborne radar.
Offline

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 459
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post04 Oct 2021, 09:19

If I was Argentina I would not only aquire fighters but assymetric abilities. Why not buy short and medium ranged scuds and a few sams.
An anti-acces strategy is a better option.
The Falklands has a limited amount of airfields.
You could break the airfields and occupy the island before the British carrier Task force even had morning tea.
Now holding the island and supplying a garrison?
That's another story.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4558
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post04 Oct 2021, 17:37

jessmo112 wrote:If I was Argentina I would not only aquire fighters but assymetric abilities. Why not buy short and medium ranged scuds and a few sams.
An anti-acces strategy is a better option.
The Falklands has a limited amount of airfields.
You could break the airfields and occupy the island before the British carrier Task force even had morning tea.
Now holding the island and supplying a garrison?
That's another story.


But... didn't the Argentine's make good use of what they had (fighter wise)? The Skyhawks sounded like capable opponents, and everyone saw what just 1 well placed Exocet shot was capable of - and it came from a Super Etendard. Their Mirages... I'll grant you, lackluster performance. But it makes me wonder... if they would have had any chance at all, had they not had a decent fixed wing component air force. I think at a minimum, they need a small number of JF-17's to maintain a credible deterrent, and possibly more.

Just SAM's and SCUD's... I don't think would work. The latest SAM's are fearsome, but then again I don't think they can afford the latest. SCUD's? Never did they strike me as reliable. Difficult to target? Yes. Reliable weapons that were capable of affecting the outcome of hostilities? No.

But perhaps you weren't advocating for no fixed wing assets? I would think, anyway..
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1437
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post04 Oct 2021, 19:40

jessmo112 wrote:If I was Argentina I would not only aquire fighters but assymetric abilities. Why not buy short and medium ranged scuds and a few sams.
An anti-acces strategy is a better option.
The Falklands has a limited amount of airfields.
You could break the airfields and occupy the island before the British carrier Task force even had morning tea.
Now holding the island and supplying a garrison?
That's another story.


Mini cruise missile cost lot less then ballistic missile and have noticeable better range because it is fired from plane. Btw Falklands are further then 300km treaty limit range of land based ballistic/cruise missiles which Argentine can buy so it would be pointless.

SAMs? It is questionable what is better option for them. Getting more JF-17 and advanced EW radars or SAMs? More JF-17 would allow them to have some always ready and with EW radars they could detect EF2000 much earlier then with SAM radars.

If they get PL-15 for JF-17 I think it is more dangerous then SAM medium battery.
Offline

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 459
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post05 Oct 2021, 01:17

China, Tehran or NK, would all be willing and ready to sell the Argies ballistic missiles.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7425
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post05 Oct 2021, 07:08

jessmo112 wrote:If I was Argentina I would not only aquire fighters but assymetric abilities. Why not buy short and medium ranged scuds and a few sams.
An anti-acces strategy is a better option.
The Falklands has a limited amount of airfields.
You could break the airfields and occupy the island before the British carrier Task force even had morning tea.
Now holding the island and supplying a garrison?
That's another story.


Image
Choose Crews
Offline

timmymagic

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 19:48

Unread post18 Oct 2021, 20:05

jessmo112 wrote:If I was Argentina I would not only aquire fighters but assymetric abilities. Why not buy short and medium ranged scuds and a few sams.
An anti-acces strategy is a better option.
The Falklands has a limited amount of airfields.
You could break the airfields and occupy the island before the British carrier Task force even had morning tea.
Now holding the island and supplying a garrison?
That's another story.


The Argentinian's would struggle to transport a company of troops these days...they wouldn't last long against the troops the UK has on the islands...
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2592
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post20 Oct 2021, 06:01

timmymagic wrote:The Argentinian's would struggle to transport a company of troops these days...they wouldn't last long against the troops the UK has on the islands...


This is moot as the UK can reinforce quickly by air. That means the Argentinian would need to take out the runways which they can do so only if they can get past the Typhoons.

As fearsome as the UK company of troops on the island may be, I don't think that's the constraint/deterrent. What UK is trying to do is to avoid having to increase the garrison at a time when defence pounds & pennies are least available. That would be needed if the Argies bulk up.
Next

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests