Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 32 of 36 FirstFirst ... 22282930313233343536 LastLast
Results 931 to 960 of 1057

Thread: Pakistan Air Force III

  1. #931
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaduna2003 View Post
    Going with all chinese avionicsnis the right choice. They offer the most independent and strings free solution and can be upgraded as required. The f16 can have all the western gizmos they like but good to ensure that jf17 stays independent and strings free
    but this quote from wikileaks is also to be kept in mind ? "Simply not comparable", coming from the mouth of a PAF AVM says a lot.


    Chaudhry acknowledged that the Chinese JF-17 (another staple in the PAF fleet) is simply not comparable to the F-16 in terms of quality, particularly its avionics and weapons systems.

  2. #932
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackArcher View Post
    but this quote from wikileaks is also to be kept in mind ? "Simply not comparable", coming from the mouth of a PAF AVM says a lot.
    Leaving aside the comparison between the two. Did you expect him to say, our JF-17 is as good as your F-16 but please give us more F-16s?

  3. #933
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,559
    Nope but the F 16 is redundant if the JF 17 is as good. Especially because the F 16 comes with all sort of strings.
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  4. #934
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,554
    Talking of F 16s , here is another enlightening wikileaks cable!
    Some relevant portions...full cable here


    E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/11/2019 TAGS: PGOV, PREL, PTER, MARR, PK

    SUBJECT: THE WAY FORWARD FOR PAKISTAN'S F-16 PROGRAM

    Classified By: Anne W. Patterson for reasons 1.4 (b) (d)

    2. (C) What is broadly referred to as the "F-16 case" is really three individual cases: (1) a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program purchase of 18 new aircraft, to be paid for entirely with Pakistani funds; (2) Renovation (Mid-Life Upgrade) on 35 of Pakistan,s fleet of 46 older F-16s, which include aircraft acquired through the Excess Defense Articles (EDA) program, to be paid partially with FMF funding; and, (3) a $641 million munitions case, to be purchased using Pakistani national funds. The Pakistanis also will have to pay $80 million to install the upgrade kits in Turkey and approximately $25 million to build and defend a separate F-16 base because of USG concerns about potential technology transfer to China.

    ----------

    ISLAMABAD 00000177 002 OF 004

    --------------

    9. (C) There are three related cases in the current program:

    --New Aircraft. In 2006, the GOP signed a five year contract to purchase 18 new Block 52 aircraft. The first delivery is scheduled for 2010. As of September 2008, Pakistan had paid $388 million in national funds, leaving a balance due of $1.04 billion. The GOP is over 30 days behind schedule on its December 2008 payment; its September payment was made almost three months late and only after Pakistan received the first tranche of its IMF Standby Agreement payment. The next payments due are: $113M in December 2008 (now overdue), $99.5M in March 2009, and $301M in June 2009.

    Finance Minister Tareen confirmed to Ambassador January 28 that Pakistan would make the overdue December payment "soon," but he asked for three-four months grace period on the next two payments, so that they could be included in the GOP's next budget cycle, which begins in June 2009. Both Tareen and Defense Minister Mukhtar have admitted they are not sure if Pakistan can continue to pay. Post firmly believes that the GOP cannot afford to continue to make these payments, and we do not expect this situation to change. The GOP is also reportedly behind in payments to China, Sweden and other countries for JF-17s, Erieye Airborne Early Warning And Control(AEW&C) radar and other aircraft/programs.

    --Excess Defense Articles Aircraft and Mid-Life Upgrade. In 2005, the U.S. agreed to give Pakistan 14 used U.S. older type F-16s, adding to the Pakistani fleet of 32 aircraft, and it now has received all of these aircraft. All 46 older F-16s need an upgrade to bring them up to the avionics capability level of the new F-16s. The current upgrade case is for 35 of these older F-16s. In 2006, Secretary Rice notified the Congress that, due to technology transfer concerns, the U.S. required that installation of the upgrade kits must be performed outside of Pakistan; there is still debate about when that decision was conveyed to Pakistan. Pakistan has now contracted with TAI in Turkey to perform this estimated $80 million installation, which is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2012.

    The U.S. agreed to assist the upgrade through U.S.-funded FMF. To date, we have provided $334 million in three installments, the first ($108 million), which supplied all the funding needed through March 2008. When Pakistan failed to meet its June 2008 payment, the U.S. Air Force issued a stop-work order on the upgrade kit production line in August 2008. The Congress then approved $116 million for the June and September 2008 payments, and $110 million for the December 2008 and March 2009 payments. Pending is a congressional notification to use $142 million in FMF to cover the June and September 2009 upgrade program payments. If approved, this would leave an outstanding balance of $398 million for the upgrade kits.

    ISLAMABAD 00000177 003 OF 004

    PATTERSON
    PEOPLE.FIRST.MISSION.ALWAYS.
    Have a good one..

  5. #935
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    313
    24 page jf-17 supplement due out in a few days with the July issue of AFM. Do enjoy

  6. #936
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,846
    Quote Originally Posted by CAT1 View Post
    My point is that PA regularly calls on PAF to assist in FATA --- they call air support when they need it -- ie when they are in a 'tight spot' --- whether this leak is suggesting that PA will deny PAF's assistance or as you interpret it - it is suggesting that PA will deny that it calls on PAF when it is in a tight spot --- both statements make no sense. Example - when do coalition forces call for air support in Afghanistan?
    The PA may regularly call the PAF for support. Its a different thing though, given their preeminence in the Pak establishment whether they'll acknowledge whether the help was a plus, or the reason for their survival in the tactical event. Thats what the AVM is wrly referring to.
    Second, coalition forces can hardly be compared to Pak., and its completely different milieu.

    So even if this leak is a correct reflection of what AVM said (and there is no guarantee of that) and your interpretation is correct -- how do you know it is 'grounded in fact' and not designed specificaly to get the US to as you yourself say clear 'the F-16, the Sniper pod, and large quantities of both LGBs and JDAMs which would have otherwise caught US SD attention over Indian objections'. Although if Indian objections are taken so seriously - does beg the question why 100's of AMRAAM's were also released.
    See the rest of the Wikileaks, the US knows that just supplying a few hundred AMRAAMs and merely 18 new F-16s will do nothing to prevent the IAF from dominating the PAF, at best it might, buy them a couple of days, and that too optimistically speaking by which time the US thinks it may intervene to prevent the conflict from escalating further. Even that is not a given. Furthermore, the US clearly took Indian concerns into account by not releasing SEAD type of items like the targeting system mentioned in the wikileaks document. Whatever they did release, apart from the AMRAAM can be used for COIN ops.

  7. #937
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Type59 View Post
    How ironic you guys love to quote wikileaks but miss out on kiyani saying wants more drone attacks.
    So Kiyani wants more drone attacks from the US, and the PAF chief says in parliament that he cant control the drones as they fly from Shamsi AFB run by the UAE. So don't these contradict your statements about Unlike Libya, Pakistan will not be bombed soon. Now, don't you see that your own Army Chief, for whatever reason, is willing to trade sovereignty to the United States when it comes to prosecuting Pakistani targets on Pakistani soil.

    Overall, still got aid to upgrade nuke program. US will eventually withdraw, no large scale destruction of pakistan. It has too many friends unlike Libya.
    That's just speculation at this time - the US withdrawal has been talked about for ages but its not happened yet.

    Also, Pak diverted aid intended for other purposes to the nuke program etc, but the US has cottoned on and its really not something great or good to tom tom.

    http://thenews.jang.com.pk/TodaysPri...3&dt=5/18/2011

    http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakista...bills-wsj.html

    US rejects 40 percent Pakistani bills: WSJ

    ...Nevertheless, US officials say Pakistani claims have been rejected for a number of reasons, including failure to confirm that expenses were incurred in support of US operations in Afghanistan and the war on terror. Some US officials also fear that some of the aid is being diverted to the border with Pakistan’s traditional rival, India....

    “There is an increasing belief that [Pakistanis] walk both sides of the road,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, told The Wall Street Journal.

    She called for a total US aid freeze until a “credible” investigation clears Pakistan of any official complicity in harbouring Bin Laden. President George W Bush created the Coalition Support Fund soon after Sept 11, when it became apparent that the US would only be able to defeat al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan with help on the Pakistani side of the border. Since then, the US has provided nearly $20 billion in assistance to Pakistan, including $8.87 billion to reimburse Islamabad for expenses said to be incurred fighting militants.

    Coalition Support Funds are deposited directly into Pakistan’s Treasury, and the US has limited ability to track the money after it is transferred, US official say. “This is a big problem and I think we have to find out exactly how the money has been used,” Mrs Feinstein said.
    The point is there is no free lunch.

    As regards destruction of Pakistan, I don't think anyone, especially the Indian Govt., wants Pakistan to be destroyed. Any such event, or even a worsening of the situation will lead to a civilian exodus. Who'd house them, who'd take care of them. Its not something any neighbor would relish.

  8. #938
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Teer View Post


    Depends on your definition of quality...the IAF would never have taken those planes, and its a fact but the PAF may have no other options and its their call. And as regards "on schedule", we're all sufficiently versed with the "history" of the FC-1 project. The Indian side would have been more concerned if the PAF got similar numbers of the J-11 or even the J-10 rather than the JF-17, which to be honest, though a leap forward from the increasingly ancient Mirage 3/5's is not really in the class of any of the Indian Air Force's recent acquisitions (which will increasingly dominate its force structure) and I daresay, even the MiG-29 upgrade (and the in procurement Mirage 2000 one).

    Quality means what was in the requirements was met.
    FC-1 is what PAF wanted. a cheap defensive fighter that PAF can build in quantity locally if outside supplies got cut by politics.

    and they got it.

    with a good networked AWAC support and good AAMs even a cheap little fighter can cost the attacker alot.

    IAF may have the numbers and quality on paper. but PAF can put up a costly fight with their setup.
    J-10 or J-11 would be nice, but FC-1 is their basic building block to their plan.

    plus, if the fight gets really bad they can always ask china to ferry over J-10s

  9. #939
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzo View Post
    Regardless rayrubik can not have expected to post those leaks without any response... Even when it was clearly a cheap shot, one which he seemed to derive some pleasure out of.
    But fair enough, i'm sure the otherside would have posted similar articles if they could find them.
    Why don't you counter the argument instead of attack the person. Would it have made a difference if somebody else had posted this bit of news from Wikileaks apart from Ray? Plus, it would have eventually ended up here.

    Plus, it was informative. I for one always was curious about how exactly the PAF managed to fund so many high budget acquisitions despite the tough economic conditions. The wikileaks excerpt about "Both Tareen and Defense Minister Mukhtar have admitted they are not sure if Pakistan can continue to pay. Post firmly believes that the GOP cannot afford to continue to make these payments, and we do not expect this situation to change. The GOP is also reportedly behind in payments to China, Sweden and other countries for JF-17s, Erieye Airborne Early Warning And Control(AEW&C) radar and other aircraft/programs." was informative.

    Also, so was this bit about the US's balancing act:

    We have and will deny arms sales that we believe would upset the regional balance of power, as we have with the recent GOP request to buy the Coastal Targeting Suppression System, which enables Harpoon missiles to be fired at land or near-land targets using GPS technology.

    I believe the PAF was likewise not sold HARM & HTS along with the F-16s either.

    The bit about the IAF's edge in BVR, etc & the US assessment of the time to be taken by the PAF, view on the JF-17, concerns about TOT etc was also interesting. Overall, a lot of details for those genuinely interested in the topic, and one wouldn't have known about these articles if Ray hadn't posted them.

  10. #940
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,846
    This part is also revealing:

    The U.S. agreed to assist the upgrade through U.S.-funded FMF. ... If approved, this would leave an outstanding balance of $398 million for the upgrade kits.
    Question is, were funds finally released for the F-16 fleet upgrade (older 46 aircraft including the new 14 transfers). Because, otherwise only 18 F-16s in the PAF can truly be called modern and with BVR capability. The disparity is stark. The IAF, as it stands today, has over 330 BVR armed air to air fighters. The PAF has just the 18 Block 50 F-16s.
    Last edited by Teer; 30th May 2011 at 21:43.

  11. #941
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    41
    1. So the new F-16s are superior to JF-17..thats known and obvious..whats leaky about that? F-16s are superior than alot of planes in service in south-Asia or soon-to-enter service aircraft. What's the point of argument?

    2. So JF-17s are inferior to MMRCA contestants...again..its something we all know. JF-17s were never designed to be superior to such aircraft.

    3. IAF is stronger than PAF..again, its obvious. What's the point of contention here?

    These are simple straight forward points and would not have devolved into a mess had it not been for the usual detractors who just cant resist throwing in the bait.

    4. I suppose these leaks would also give rest to the 'Free F-16' notion?

    I can only urge us all to conduct the discourse without the whole excitement :P.

  12. #942
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,846
    Re Erkokite,

    Plus, PLAAF's "internal trainings" - the PLAAF has not exercised in BVR against the USAF, French AF, RAF, but the IAF has, multiple times. Net.., IAF won't fight the way PLAAF does, so internal exercises can only go so far.

  13. #943
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by i.e. View Post
    plus, if the fight gets really bad they can always ask china to ferry over J-10s
    It has never happened even when Pakistan was broken into 2 in 71...China will stay out of it as usual.

  14. #944
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,086
    blue;

    Quote Originally Posted by Teer View Post
    The entire assembly line is dependent on Chinese supplies of raw material and systems, not to mention Russian engines. Even once production stabilizes, many key systems will continue to be sourced from China. Pakistan simply does not have the economic wherewithal to make every tiny screw inhouse. So, FC-1 is hardly a juche fighter which can be made locally in quantity, if supplies are cut off.

    it is somewhere between a overhaul facility and a full-scale manufacturing plant. this airplane is mostly traditional metal, the idea was to shift most manufacturing to PAK once chinese suppliers are doe.

    And cheap? How cheap is cheap exactly...any fighter like the FC-1/JF-17 is not really cheap, especially factoring in operating costs. Plus, missiles will run out, aviation fuel won't be available.

    cheaper than F-16 and J-10;

    Plus, you were using quality in a relative context, comparing vis a vis the neighbouring air arm, and quite frankly, the IAF would not buy into your views, they would procure something more capable.

    my "Quality " is always narrowly defined as "per requirement".
    schedule cost quality.
    if you can get 2 right you are a success.




    Only if the PAF is phenomenally lucky. The Indian's will definitely go for the PAFs AWACs, their limited number of tankers, and all the supporting assets the cheap little fighter requires to sustain a defense against the more expensive, heavier fighters.

    Yes but at what cost? this is where PAF can complicate their opponent's planning. back in the days, Soviet Union can always over power those Nordic Neutrals's military forces. but the costs is what made them think twice. at least that 's the idea.



    The J-11 is doubtful, thanks to its Russian antecedents, and the J-10, well that would have been better, at least if the PRC was willing to fund it. The FC-1 is simply not good enough to actually give the IAF pause or buy the PAF breathing space.



    J-11B now is 100% MIC. including engines. actually it has less reliance on Russians vs J10, as J-10 still relies on Russian AL-31FN in current version)

    FC-1 was always meant to be quantity side of the hi-low mix, something that can dog fight and shoot BVRs.

    If they feel like splurging actually they can make it into a poor man's Gripen.




    By which time, the fight would have ended. Pilots and maintenance personnel can't retrain for a new type within hours or days, at least not to the level that they are proficient with it. The PRC stayed out of the '71 conflict, and '99 one. They'll sit out any other one as well. They even refused participation in the Gwadar port project.


    with chinese pilots and crews? just a wild guess.

    rumor has it that in '99 PRC opened up their radar stations up there as a early warning net for PAF.
    pure rumor ofcourse.

    Gwadar port will have a chinese operator now.

  15. #945
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Samsara View Post
    It has never happened even when Pakistan was broken into 2 in 71...China will stay out of it as usual.
    past behavior is usually good indication of future actions.

    usually is not certainty.

  16. #946
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    In a happy place
    Posts
    12,210

    Exclamation Moderator Message

    This thread is now re-opened following a clean-up.

    The moderator team do not expect to see any more of the tomfoolery that has taken place on this thread over the past couple of days.

    Any repetition will not be tolerated.

    As always, many apologies to the sensible majority who come here to talk about military aviation.

    Regards

    GA

  17. #947
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,462
    Pakistan is said to be building at least one more JF-17 factory.

  18. #948
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    41

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    Pakistan is said to be building at least one more JF-17 factory.
    I saw related data on twitter:

    PAC KAMRA to open second JF-17 Thunder production site near Nawabshah
    Reading the AFM JF-17 special. BRB :P
    Last edited by MaximumG; 1st June 2011 at 08:24.

  19. #949
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,442
    The JF-17 design is supposed to drastically cut the man-hours of time needed to keep it airborne compared to MiG-21. It's fuel consumption will increase, but cutting cutting man-hours is more important in the broad scope of factors. Why do people keep insisting a small fighter like JF-17 will be relatively expensive? The claim is unsubstantiated.
    Go Huskers!

  20. #950
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    The JF-17 design is supposed to drastically cut the man-hours of time needed to keep it airborne compared to MiG-21. It's fuel consumption will increase, but cutting cutting man-hours is more important in the broad scope of factors. Why do people keep insisting a small fighter like JF-17 will be relatively expensive? The claim is unsubstantiated.
    JF-17 is probably the cheapest light fighter in market right now. There may be doubts about what it is capable of, but definitely no doubts that it is the cheapest of all.

  21. #951
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    41
    Regarding the June edition on JF-17...alot of stuff we more or less know, but the paper takes you into great details into the history of jf-17 and PAC Kamra. Its a great reference materials if you are digging up details.

    Did mention PAF F-16s showed those Eurofighters how WVR combat is done at Anatolian Eagle..now that was one interesting bit of info. :diablo:

  22. #952
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    113
    You forgot the rejoinder to the French about Chinese avionics. ''You may not sell to us, but the Chinese are coming out with solutions matching or exceeding your systems.'' And that was 2 years ago.

  23. #953
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,559
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumG View Post
    Regarding the June edition on JF-17...alot of stuff we more or less know, but the paper takes you into great details into the history of jf-17 and PAC Kamra. Its a great reference materials if you are digging up details.

    Did mention PAF F-16s showed those Eurofighters how WVR combat is done at Anatolian Eagle..now that was one interesting bit of info. :diablo:
    PAF fighters know their F 16s very well, which makes me wonder why LM wasted time offering F 16 to the IAF.
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  24. #954
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by quadbike View Post
    PAF fighters know their F 16s very well, which makes me wonder why LM wasted time offering F 16 to the IAF.
    PLAAF know their Su-30s very well, which makes me wonder why Sukhoi wasted time offering the Su-30 to the IAF

  25. #955
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by redgriffin View Post
    You forgot the rejoinder to the French about Chinese avionics. ''You may not sell to us, but the Chinese are coming out with solutions matching or exceeding your systems.'' And that was 2 years ago.
    You missed the punchline when he ends the sentence with "and they have"

    This is in context of avionics requirements for JF-17s... (Saying just so we can avoid China vs France tangent picking off)

  26. #956
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    113
    Oh invariably, that 'tangent' will get picked up. Soon the usual culprits will show up and ''Kaboom!'' goes the thread.
    Anyhow the artist's impression of the two seat Thunder is quite beautiful plus the MMI (including HMD) of the palne being described as ''light years ahead of any 3rd generation fighter, with nothing left to chance''. The ejection seat is a PAF specific modified Martin Baker Mk16, same as the one on the Euro canards and F-35.
    Also encouraging is the number of inquiries about the aircraft from different nations.
    Also for naysayers and doubters, the issue contains a group picture of the joint PAF and CATIC development team .

  27. #957
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,187
    any chance of showing a scan of the twin seat JF-17 ? Did it look anything like this ?
    Last edited by BlackArcher; 1st June 2011 at 19:23.

  28. #958
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,187
    JF-17 twin seater I had found earlier
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  29. #959
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by redgriffin View Post
    Oh invariably, that 'tangent' will get picked up. Soon the usual culprits will show up and ''Kaboom!'' goes the thread.
    Anyhow the artist's impression of the two seat Thunder is quite beautiful plus the MMI (including HMD) of the palne being described as ''light years ahead of any 3rd generation fighter, with nothing left to chance''. The ejection seat is a PAF specific modified Martin Baker Mk16, same as the one on the Euro canards and F-35.
    Also encouraging is the number of inquiries about the aircraft from different nations.
    Also for naysayers and doubters, the issue contains a group picture of the joint PAF and CATIC development team .
    Yes, best thing in this issue is PS picture of dual seater JF-17 with 4 BVRAAMs (Two BVRs under wing + Two BVRs on wingtips like F-16)

  30. #960
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    113
    @ Black Archer, ''No''. Copyrights, you might have heard of them? Buy your own copy my friend. And the artist's impression of the actual two seater design is way more graceful than what you've posted. Infact if (God willing) the 2 seater becomes a reality, it will be amongst the best looking dual seat fighter variants out there IMHO.
    I'm amazed at how this aircraft has grown through it's development. I remember meeting an airforce officer (a group captian, GDP) about 2 years back who told me that the F-16s would be our last US purchase. I asked him about the Thunder at that time and he said it was ok for our needs thats it.
    I met him again at a wedding this March, and this time around he was gushing with pride and pleasure over the Thunder. ''It's a wonderful aircraft. We've fully opened up the envelope, very highly agile, 9Gs etc etc''.
    What struck me most at that last meeting was his assertion that the avionics are overall at par with the Block 52s. I was pretty dismissive of that till I read this article and all the gushing of praise for the Thunder's avionics. Guess we have pulled one. :-)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES