Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 47 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 1381

Thread: Pakistan Air Force

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,951
    Usman, are you the Usman Ansari who wrote an article on the JF-17 in Combat Aircraft's latest issue ?

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by 21Ankush View Post
    Usman, are you the Usman Ansari who wrote an article on the JF-17 in Combat Aircraft's latest issue ?
    No. That's another Usman.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    69
    Looks like (Shape) BK m/90, Bombkapsel m/90, Mjφlner. Gliding bomblet dispenser. (600 kg)

    Mirage center pylon max limit is 800kg + pylon

    http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-ALCM-Dec-04-PA.pdf

    http://www.defense-update.com/products/k/KEPD350.htm

    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/m...row/taurus.htm

    http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/mjolner.htm
    Last edited by khanasifm; 26th August 2007 at 20:50.
    pb::

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,088
    Interesting development that brings out some questions:

    This 'Raad' ASM flies 300+ km and is light enough to be carried by a Mirage III? Is there any such missile worldover? Most ASMs with such ranges (300km+) weigh well over a 1000kgs. The Scalp EG, taurus weighs close to 1300/1400 kgs, so does the Klub, the Brahmos weighs about 2500kg. The older ones such as the Harpoons, Sea Eagles, Exocets, Kh 31s all weigh from around 500-700 kgs with corresponding ranges of about 100-200 km. So, surely the Mirage III can hardly be the platform for this weapon? Also, what kind of guidance does this beast use esp. for such huge ranges, esp. if it is to be used for anti-shipping roles as some of the reports have suggested - INS/GPS+Datalink (for midcourse) and then radar homing in terminal phase?

    Anyone have any answers?

    Regards,
    USS.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    179
    Interesting development that brings out some questions:

    This 'Raad' ASM flies 300+ km and is light enough to be carried by a Mirage III? Is there any such missile worldover? Most ASMs with such ranges (300km+) weigh well over a 1000kgs. The Scalp EG, taurus weighs close to 1300/1400 kgs, so does the Klub, the Brahmos weighs about 2500kg. The older ones such as the Harpoons, Sea Eagles, Exocets, Kh 31s all weigh from around 500-700 kgs with corresponding ranges of about 100-200 km. So, surely the Mirage III can hardly be the platform for this weapon? Also, what kind of guidance does this beast use esp. for such huge ranges, esp. if it is to be used for anti-shipping roles as some of the reports have suggested - INS/GPS+Datalink (for midcourse) and then radar homing in terminal phase?

    Anyone have any answers?

    Regards,
    USS.

    You raise some good questions, what I had gathered was this isnt a ASM but a cruise missile for land attack purposes. I think the Pakistan armed forces are equipping it on their fighter jets, ships ect. They cant fit the Babur on planes with its current length and dimensions, so I presume they have made it smaller for the Mirages to be able to launch.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    69
    U.S. pilot tested "Xiaolong"
    新华网 ( 2007-08-27 08:59:25 ) Xinhuanet (2007-08-27 08:59:25) 来源: 国际先驱导报 Source : International Herald Tribune



    美国空军F-16战斗机飞行员杰森·克莱门茨在“枭龙”战斗机训练模拟器上操作。 Air Force F-16 fighter pilots Jiesenkelai come in "Fierce Dragon" fighter training simulator operation. 赵嘉麟/摄 Kyrgyzstan and / perturbation


    “枭龙”战斗机模型。 "Fierce Dragon" fighter plane model. 赵嘉麟/摄 Kyrgyzstan and / perturbation

    “枭龙”战斗机训练模拟器在俄罗斯航展上成为众人跃跃欲试的焦点,美国飞行员也拿它与F-16作对比 "Fierce Dragon" fighter training simulator in Russia show everyone eager to become the focus of an American pilot carries it with the F-16 for comparison

    国际先驱导报记者赵嘉麟发自莫斯科 “感觉不错,一些主要功能和F-16相差不多!”杰森·克莱门茨兴致勃勃地在“枭龙”模拟器上操作了5分钟 后,对《国际先驱导报》这样说道。 International Herald Tribune old friend from Moscow, "I feel good, and some of the major functions of the F-16 are very similar!" Jiesenkelai door visit to Mainz in "Fierce Dragon" on the operation of the simulator five minutes later, the "International Herald Tribune" so said. 这位美国空军F-16战斗机飞行员操纵自如的表现引来不少参观者围观。 The Air Force F-16 fighter pilots maneuverability performance attracted a large crowd of visitors.
    俄罗斯第八届国际航空航天展览会8月21日开幕当天,中国航空工业第一集团公司展区中的“枭龙”战斗机训练 模拟器成为了参观者眼中的“明星”。 Russian eighth international aerospace exhibition on August 21 opening day, the China Aviation Industry Corporation I galleries of the "Fierce Dragon" fighter training simulator into the eyes of the visitors for the "Star."

    数字化功能令人印象深刻 Digital function impressive

    《国际先驱导报》记者在展会现场看到,“枭龙”训练模拟器的正前方墙上悬挂三块大型彩色液晶屏,模拟座舱内 的视野。 "International Herald Tribune" at the exhibition site, "Xiaolong" training simulator is the front wall of three large color LCD screen, simulated cockpit of vision. 它们上方还挂着两块稍小的彩屏,分别显示飞机的空中姿态和地面的情况。 They also hung over the two smaller screen, showed the plane's air posture and the situation on the ground.
    训练模拟器本身,无论从外观大小,还是内部设置,都是模拟真实飞机座舱而建,只不过没有舱盖。 Training Simulator itself, in terms of exterior size, or internal settings are simulated real aircraft cabin built, it is not hatch. 成都飞机设计研究所工程师贺卫东告诉《国际先驱导报》:“此次展出的是中国惟一一台,也是最基础的‘枭龙’ 训练模拟器,生产方可根据客户需求加装必要设备。建造一台普通‘枭龙’训练模拟器的花费在数千万元人民币。 该模拟器可演练航空、作战等多项任务,能够帮助飞行员熟悉不同飞行高度、距离和方位,以及感知 态势。” Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute engineers Fa told the "International Herald Tribune" : "This exhibition is only one Taiwan, but also the most basic 'Fierce Dragon' training simulator, production may, in accordance with customer needs to install the necessary equipment. The construction of an ordinary 'Fierce Dragon' Training Simulator thousands spent 10,000 yuan. The simulator can drill aviation, combat tasks that can help pilots familiar with the different altitude, distance and orientation, perception and momentum. "
    亲身体验了“枭龙”的杰森在谈起它与美军F-16战机的区别时,也特别提到了前者座舱内操作面板上的三块多 功能显示屏,并大加赞赏。 Experience the "Fierce Dragon" Jason talked about it with the U.S. F-16 fighter distinction, also made special mention of the former cockpit panels operating on the three multi-function display, and much appreciated. 他认为,此外,“两者在操纵杆和其他仪器布局方面也有所不同”。 He believes that, "Both the joystick and other equipment layout is also different." 他微笑着告诉记者:“因为时间太短,没有熟悉‘枭龙’全部功能,因此我没办法完全比较两种战机的性能。不过 ,你们这款战斗机的数字化功能令我印象深刻。” He smiled and told reporters : "Because of the shortness of time, not familiar with the 'Fierce Dragon' full functionality, I can not fully compare the performance of the two fighters. However, your new fighter digital functions impressed me deeply. "
    中国一航副总经理胡问鸣对《国际先驱导报》表示,“枭龙”在火控系统和操纵灵活性等方面表现不俗,但在续航 能力和高度方面与F-16还有差距。 An Air China asked Hu Ming, deputy general manager of the "International Herald Tribune", "Xiaolong" fire-control system and the flexibility of manipulation good performance, but in life and with a height of the F-16 is still lagging behind.

    机动性能强 Mobility -

    贺卫东向记者指出,熟练的飞行员在空中完成从发现目标到将其击中的一系列动作只有几十秒,“反应的速度要像 打乒乓球那样快”。 Fa told reporters that skilled pilots in the air from detection of the target to be hit in a series of moves only seconds, "the speed of response, like playing table tennis as fast." “为了抓住稍纵即逝的战机,战斗机研制单位大都通过提高飞机机动性来争取更多一点的时间,‘枭龙’也不例外 。” "In order to seize the fleeting aircraft, fighter development units mostly through increased mobility aircraft to fight for a little more time, 'Fierce Dragon' is no exception."
    在得到参展单位许可后,《国际先驱导报》记者也进入“枭龙”战斗机训练模拟器,并在工作人员指导下“试飞” 。 With the permission of the exhibitors, "International Herald Tribune" reporter also entered the "Fierce Dragon" fighter training simulator, and the staff under the guidance of "flight." 原来,驾驶“枭龙”真是名副其实的全身运动:双脚要控制地面滑行时的方向,以及完成着陆后的制动;作手负责 加减速度,右手通过操纵杆控制飞行高度和姿态,以及武器发射等。 Originally, the driving "Xiaolong" It's truly systemic Movement : feet to the ground control and swerved in the direction, and the completion of the brake after landing; Modified responsible for the hand speed, the right hand by a joystick control altitude and attitude and weapons firing. 当然,这只不过是最基本的内容。 Of course, this is only the most basic elements. 实际飞行时,飞行员还要承受战机完成各种动作时对身体产生的各种影响。 The actual flying hours, fighter pilots to endure all kinds of physical action at the various implications.
    记者顺利从“跑道”起飞升空,并在工作人员帮助下在空中完成了一个筋斗动作。 Xinhua smoothly from the "runway" take-off and expected to help staff in the air and completed a somersault movements. 不过,降落时,却遇到了不小的麻烦。 However, when landing, but encountered a lot of trouble. 即便在工作人员帮助下不断调整姿态,记者“着陆”时,最终还是滑出了“跑道”。 Even in the work of helping to continually adjust its posture and press "landing", or skidded off the end of the "runway."

    价格远低于F-16 The price far below the F-16

    “枭龙”由中国和巴基斯坦联合研制,中方称FC-1,巴方则称JF-17“雷电”战斗机。 "Fierce Dragon" from China and Pakistan, the joint development, the Chinese side said the FC - 1, said the Palestinian side JF-17 "Thunder and Lightning" fighter. 对于中方来说,这是第一种完全基于市场需要而研制的战机。 As far as China is concerned, this is the first one based solely on the needs of the market and the development of warplanes.
    此前有报道称,由于俄罗斯官员不允许中国将装有俄制RD-93型发动机的“枭龙”出售给巴基斯坦,因此,外 界对于这款战斗机的命运一度颇多猜测。 Earlier, there were reports that Russian officials will not permit China with Russian RD-93 engine, "Xiaolong" sold to Pakistan, therefore, the outside world for the fate of this aircraft was a lot of speculation. 而俄罗斯《生意人报》今年4月报道称,俄方已同中方达成了用RD-93型发动机共同组装“枭龙”战机并向第 三国出口的协议,而且得益于普京总统亲自拍板。 While Russia, "Kommersant" in April this year reported that the Russian side had reached with the Chinese side with the RD-93 engine assembled together "Fierce Dragon" aircraft to a third country exports agreement, but also from President Vladimir Putin personally decided. 《国际先驱导报》记者向胡问鸣求证了上述说法,他说:“昨天刚拿到了许可的文件,现在俄方已同意‘枭龙’可 以出口到包括巴基斯坦在内的10个国家”。 "International Herald Tribune" reporter asked Mr Wong to verify the above statement, he said : "Yesterday just received permission from the document, and now Russia has agreed to 'Fierce Dragon' can be exported to Pakistan in 10 countries."
    据业内人士分析,“枭龙”在国际市场其他潜在客户还包括孟加拉国、伊朗、埃及、尼日利亚以及其它亚非国家, 甚至一些拉美国家也有可能购买。 According to industry insiders, "Xiaolong" in the international market other potential customers, including Bangladesh, Iran, Egypt, Nigeria and other Asian and African countries, and even some Latin American countries may also be purchased. 胡问鸣说,目前已有两架“枭龙”交付巴基斯坦,今年还将继续交付六架。 Hu asked Wong said there are two "Xiaolong" to Pakistan this year, will continue to deliver 6.
    此前,巴基斯坦防务专家塔拉特·马苏德中将在北京接受《国际先驱导报》采访时表示,一架全新的F-16的售 价大约为3000万美元,而巴方订购的“枭龙”战机价格约为每架800万美元。 Earlier, Pakistani territorial defense experts in Beijing will accept the "International Herald Tribune" he said, a new F-16 costs about 30 million US dollars, and ordered the Palestinian side "Fierce Dragon" fighter planes for about eight million US dollars. 考虑到巴基斯坦投资参与了此前的研制工作,所以“枭龙”面向其他国家的售价估计在1000万到1500万美 元之间。 With regard to Pakistan's participation in the previous development work, "Fierce Dragon" for other countries is estimated at 10 to 15 million US dollars between. 即便如此,仍然远低于F-16。 Even so, still far below the F-16.
    pb::

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by uss novice View Post
    Interesting development that brings out some questions:
    This 'Raad' ASM flies 300+ km and is light enough to be carried by a Mirage III? Is there any such missile worldover?
    Yes. Its called the Raad.

    Most ASMs with such ranges (300km+) weigh well over a 1000kgs.
    The US AGM86 weighs 1400kg and has a range of 3000km. So what should be the weight of a cruise missile with a range of 350km? i dont know exactly but it would be a lot less then 1400kg i would think.

    the Brahmos weighs about 2500kg.
    2500kg weight for brahmos with a range of 300km? thats one fat missile! Are you sure you got the right weight and are not mixing pounds and kilos?

    So, surely the Mirage III can hardly be the platform for this weapon? Also, what kind of guidance does this beast use esp. for such huge ranges, esp. if it is to be used for anti-shipping roles as some of the reports have suggested - INS/GPS+Datalink (for midcourse) and then radar homing in terminal phase?
    Regards,
    USS.
    As far as i know, the mirage centre pylon can carry around 850kgs. That should be more then enough for carrying Raad. Im not sure about the use to attack ships. Given that it looks like a mini version of babur, i think it would be more for ground attack use with similar guidance - terrain matching and GPS. I have not read any reports of sea trials of this as yet so doubt the sea version claim.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaduna2003 View Post
    Yes. Its called the Raad.
    Right, chalk up another "world's first" for the PAF.

    The US AGM86 weighs 1400kg and has a range of 3000km. So what should be the weight of a cruise missile with a range of 350km? i dont know exactly but it would be a lot less then 1400kg i would think.
    Nice point, so pakistan is now producing AGM86 types which perhaps only its f16s could carry (i believe thats the only a/c in their inventory that can carry upto 3000lbs max payload).

    2500kg weight for brahmos with a range of 300km? thats one fat missile! Are you sure you got the right weight and are not mixing pounds and kilos?
    Nope, its a BIG missile, but it flies almost @ Mach 3. And it takes just about 1 of them to sink a decent sized ship.

    As far as i know, the mirage centre pylon can carry around 850kgs. That should be more then enough for carrying Raad. Im not sure about the use to attack ships. Given that it looks like a mini version of babur, i think it would be more for ground attack use with similar guidance - terrain matching and GPS. I have not read any reports of sea trials of this as yet so doubt the sea version claim.
    The RAAD is an amazing acheivement to say the least.

    Regards,
    USS.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by uss novice View Post
    Right, chalk up another "world's first" for the PAF.
    Not really.

    Missile--------- Weight------------ Range--------- Payload
    TAURUS------- appx.1400 kg------- 300+ km------ 500kg
    SCALP-------- appx. 1300 kg------ 250+ km ------ 450kg
    TORGOS------ 980 kg------------- 300 km ------- 450kg
    (TORGOS Carried by Cheetah)
    http://www.saairforce.co.za/the-airf...cruise-missile

    It shares guidance system with Babur according to official release. It's not anti-ship weapon but intended for strategic use (bunkers,runways,ports,command centers etc)


    KADUNA,

    MirageIII drop tanks: (I believe the bigger ones must be for centerline only)
    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mirage-5.htm

    Drop Tanks 625 L drop tank with 499kg of fuel for 96nm of range
    1300 L drop tank with 1038kg of fuel for 199 nm of range
    1700 L drop tank with 1358 kg of fuel for 260 nm of range
    Last edited by Farooq; 28th August 2007 at 23:11.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by Farooq View Post

    KADUNA,

    MirageIII drop tanks: (I believe the bigger ones must be for centerline only)
    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mirage-5.htm

    Drop Tanks 625 L drop tank with 499kg of fuel for 96nm of range
    1300 L drop tank with 1038kg of fuel for 199 nm of range
    1700 L drop tank with 1358 kg of fuel for 260 nm of range
    Thanks. i stand corrected. centre pylon can carry around 1400kgs.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by uss novice View Post

    Nice point, so pakistan is now producing AGM86 types which perhaps only its f16s could carry (i believe thats the only a/c in their inventory that can carry upto 3000lbs max payload).
    You did notice that AGM86's range is 3000km and not 300? How does that mean pak is producing AGM86 types???

    The RAAD is an amazing acheivement to say the least.

    Regards,
    USS.
    Well, it's just the next logical step after Babur.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,577
    A new Music Video [~1-2 months old actually] dedicated to PAF.

    Shows some numbers on JF-17 between 1:28-1:38 [Not sure if Authentic]

    Apart from that, some nice footage on the planes

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV8qshtqIzE

    *Sound is bit messed up in initial few seconds.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,649

    Talking

    Hello folks, haven't posted here since 21st June. Does SOC still hang around here? If so, I have a reply for him to ponder upon

    Limited & Superficial Comparison of Air Assets of the PAF & IAF

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,565
    The MKI is like Arthur,existing on people's nerves!
    Last edited by RayR; 28th October 2007 at 07:38.
    PEOPLE.FIRST.MISSION.ALWAYS.
    Have a good one..

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Okinawa & Tokyo
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    Hello folks, haven't posted here since 21st June. Does SOC still hang around here? If so, I have a reply for him to ponder upon

    Limited & Superficial Comparison of Air Assets of the PAF & IAF
    Hi, I read it and am more interested in what happened between you and the FBI.

    As for the response to SOC's post. I haven't read his analysis so I can't comment too much..but I would like to mention that your blog post has too many uncertain variables. When I mean uncertain, it is most of the information you are using to prove your point, are mostly in the future and because of that, we do not know for sure if things will happen the way you predict they will.

    most of the arguments are "IAF has this, but PAF will have that".
    I think if you are to use that kind of argument, you should also contemplate what the IAF will procure/upgrade/etc in the same time frame as well.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,323
    Quote Originally Posted by rayrubik View Post
    The MKI is like Arthur,existing on people's nerves!
    More like making internet fanboys c*rap their pants and then post their rambling on the forum so as to get some back at the bad bad MKI.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,951
    most of the points on that blog are totally rebuttable..

    for eg. cruise missiles attacking IAF bases near the border..this coming from a guy from a country that totally lacks strategic depth ! almost ALL PAF bases can be hit from within India by cruise missiles and since he almost always talks about the future, the 1000 km Nirbhay will be able to strike ALL PAF bases. so there goes that argument about how the PAF has an advantage there..and the ridiculous comment about less well trained IAF technicians ! PAF technicians apparently all hold doctorates and the attrition rate and sortie generation rate and turn-around rates of the PAF is the world's best.. no figures of course, just regular bravado and plain talk with no data to back it up.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Burpelson AFB
    Posts
    13,191
    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    Hello folks, haven't posted here since 21st June. Does SOC still hang around here? If so, I have a reply for him to ponder upon

    Limited & Superficial Comparison of Air Assets of the PAF & IAF
    Interesting analysis. It should be pointed out that more details on the FC-1 have been emerging, so if I wrote the same thing right now it might look a little different.

    Anyway:

    "Point is moot when its clear that the FC-1 / JF-17 does not expose its blades AND uses RAM coating, as has been discussed in interviews with officials."

    Just because the engine face is hidden in a line-of-sight sense doesn't mean a radar reflection can't be obtained.

    "For instance, the radar can simultaneously engage 4 not 2 as SOC mentions."

    That'd be one of the details I wasn't aware of

    "The PAF is likely to have a 500 fighter airforce"

    I was writing within the context of what was on the books or projected right now (or more accurately, right then). Where does a 500 fighter force come from?

    "AEW&C assets will also negate any advantages the MKI has over any potential encounter with the FC-1 / JF-17. When both sides have this, it levels the playing field for the FC-1 / JF-17"

    What AEW&C aircraft is under contract for delivery to Pakistan right now (or agian, more importantly, a while ago when the article was written)? Also, it might level the detection and situational awareness playing field, but you still have to consider weapons system performance. The AEW&C aircraft won't be guiding an SD-10 or R-27ER/R-77.

    "If seems clear that the J-10 will be focused on countering the 230 odd MKI that India will eventually have."

    Doesn't that make my argument for me? If the FC-1 could do that, it would negate the need for the J-10.

    If I have to use Chinese hardware to face a modern, well equipped fighter force, give me the J-10 over the FC-1 11 times out of 10 (removing the J-11B from the equation of course).

    "present long range SAMs seem prohibitively expensive."

    They should look at the HQ-9, giving S-300PMU capability for what one would assume is a fraction of the cost.

    Will the FC-1 work for Pakistan? I have no doubt it will. Is it an inferior aircraft to the Su-30MKI in terms of performance? Most assuredly so, which is the reasoning behind the J-10 purchase apparently, using your information. The Su-30MKI is a heavy air superiority aircraft, in a different class than the lightweight FC-1, so of course you're going to have differing capabilities and such. My point is not so much that the FC-1 is a Mk.1 POS that should be relegated to a hangar somewhere in the Gobi Desert, but rather that Pakistan could have done better when you consider what they have to face. I think they got caught up in the prospect of a BVR-capable aircraft that they could manufacture themselves to some degree.

    I'd consider re-looking and re-analyzing the situation, but with the immaturity that reigned at PakDef (Fahad H, Munir, and Sabre) after the last go-round, it's not worth the effort at this time.
    Sean O'Connor

    Sean's Blog, now with forum
    ACIG.org Team
    Airliners.net

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    Hello folks, haven't posted here since 21st June. Does SOC still hang around here? If so, I have a reply for him to ponder upon

    Limited & Superficial Comparison of Air Assets of the PAF & IAF
    when you wrote specifically signifying the aspect that and I quote,

    The Bars radar has Jet Engine Modulation (JEM) technology, allowing for a target to be identified at range by simply analyzing the radar returns from the target's engine compressor face.

    Isnt the JEM is a de-facto or quite common in almost all modern airborne radars and even not-so modern ones? and If that is the case, you signified it thinking that this must be something really special (read : JEM), in that case....

    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,262
    Quote Originally Posted by SOC View Post
    Interesting analysis. It should be pointed out that more details on the FC-1 have been emerging, so if I wrote the same thing right now it might look a little different.

    Anyway:

    "Point is moot when its clear that the FC-1 / JF-17 does not expose its blades AND uses RAM coating, as has been discussed in interviews with officials."

    Just because the engine face is hidden in a line-of-sight sense doesn't mean a radar reflection can't be obtained.

    "For instance, the radar can simultaneously engage 4 not 2 as SOC mentions."

    That'd be one of the details I wasn't aware of

    "The PAF is likely to have a 500 fighter airforce"

    I was writing within the context of what was on the books or projected right now (or more accurately, right then). Where does a 500 fighter force come from?

    "AEW&C assets will also negate any advantages the MKI has over any potential encounter with the FC-1 / JF-17. When both sides have this, it levels the playing field for the FC-1 / JF-17"

    What AEW&C aircraft is under contract for delivery to Pakistan right now (or agian, more importantly, a while ago when the article was written)? Also, it might level the detection and situational awareness playing field, but you still have to consider weapons system performance. The AEW&C aircraft won't be guiding an SD-10 or R-27ER/R-77.

    "If seems clear that the J-10 will be focused on countering the 230 odd MKI that India will eventually have."

    Doesn't that make my argument for me? If the FC-1 could do that, it would negate the need for the J-10.

    If I have to use Chinese hardware to face a modern, well equipped fighter force, give me the J-10 over the FC-1 11 times out of 10 (removing the J-11B from the equation of course).

    "present long range SAMs seem prohibitively expensive."

    They should look at the HQ-9, giving S-300PMU capability for what one would assume is a fraction of the cost.

    Will the FC-1 work for Pakistan? I have no doubt it will. Is it an inferior aircraft to the Su-30MKI in terms of performance? Most assuredly so, which is the reasoning behind the J-10 purchase apparently, using your information. The Su-30MKI is a heavy air superiority aircraft, in a different class than the lightweight FC-1, so of course you're going to have differing capabilities and such. My point is not so much that the FC-1 is a Mk.1 POS that should be relegated to a hangar somewhere in the Gobi Desert, but rather that Pakistan could have done better when you consider what they have to face. I think they got caught up in the prospect of a BVR-capable aircraft that they could manufacture themselves to some degree.

    I'd consider re-looking and re-analyzing the situation, but with the immaturity that reigned at PakDef (Fahad H, Munir, and Sabre) after the last go-round, it's not worth the effort at this time.
    The fighters as such do not matter really, without the mission and the related network support for that. A different class does mean only, that it can be tasked with different missions. But it says nothing about the cost effectiviness for a given one. A F-16 can kill a F-15 and the other way around, related to a mission. For smaller countries the F-16 is the better solution, the related missions in mind. Just to give an innocent example.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,649

    Arrow Limited & Superficial Comparison of Air Assets of the PAF & IAF

    Hey SOC

    Quote Originally Posted by SOC View Post
    Interesting analysis. It should be pointed out that more details on the FC-1 have been emerging, so if I wrote the same thing right now it might look a little different.
    Point taken


    Just because the engine face is hidden in a line-of-sight sense doesn't mean a radar reflection can't be obtained.
    Yet it was your opinion some time back that if the intakes are RAM treated that would not be an issue.. so are you saying that there is no RAM treatment? Or that the PAF won't treat the most important radar reflective area but treat other sections? Isn't this getting a bit like tom and jerry here?

    "For instance, the radar can simultaneously engage 4 not 2 as SOC mentions."

    That'd be one of the details I wasn't aware of


    "The PAF is likely to have a 500 fighter airforce"

    I was writing within the context of what was on the books or projected right now (or more accurately, right then). Where does a 500 fighter force come from?
    I believe I read it somewhere in pakdef, on an interview with someone. Perhaps you can dig it up or ask at the Q&A section.. I spent my five minutes trying to dig it up but without success.

    What AEW&C aircraft is under contract for delivery to Pakistan right now (or agian, more importantly, a while ago when the article was written)? Also, it might level the detection and situational awareness playing field, but you still have to consider weapons system performance. The AEW&C aircraft won't be guiding an SD-10 or R-27ER/R-77.
    Swedish and apparently chinese. Again we're digressing to the range of the radar which I have covered in my article

    "If seems clear that the J-10 will be focused on countering the 230 odd MKI that India will eventually have."

    Doesn't that make my argument for me? If the FC-1 could do that, it would negate the need for the J-10.
    Aren't you oversimplifying here?

    If I have to use Chinese hardware to face a modern, well equipped fighter force, give me the J-10 over the FC-1 11 times out of 10 (removing the J-11B from the equation of course).
    Have you thought of how many you are going to get? Make my day and build me your airforce with PAF's budget for 250 JF-17s. Build me a cost analysis and lets see what you got.

    "present long range SAMs seem prohibitively expensive."

    They should look at the HQ-9, giving S-300PMU capability for what one would assume is a fraction of the cost.
    You know, I liked the HQ-9 before you started talking about it Your eagerness to supply the Pakistanis with the HQ-9 makes me think the USAF has the system nailed.

    Will the FC-1 work for Pakistan? I have no doubt it will. Is it an inferior aircraft to the Su-30MKI in terms of performance? Most assuredly so, which is the reasoning behind the J-10 purchase apparently, using your information. The Su-30MKI is a heavy air superiority aircraft, in a different class than the lightweight FC-1, so of course you're going to have differing capabilities and such. My point is not so much that the FC-1 is a Mk.1 POS that should be relegated to a hangar somewhere in the Gobi Desert, but rather that Pakistan could have done better when you consider what they have to face. I think they got caught up in the prospect of a BVR-capable aircraft that they could manufacture themselves to some degree.
    I think your technical analysis has failed in key quarters. Remember a whole host of issues such as the 4 simultaneous engagements were known before you wrote your article, they were in fact posted on my blog, which I believe you took some of your data from (?). I also think you've missed out on the main factor that makes the MKI a better platform than the FC-1 (again lest you take it to mean something else, this does NOT mean that the FC-1 cannot compete, but an area that it lags which is not a show stopper).


    I'd consider re-looking and re-analyzing the situation, but with the immaturity that reigned at PakDef (Fahad H, Munir, and Sabre) after the last go-round, it's not worth the effort at this time.
    I most certainly await your analysis and do appreciate that you've taken the effort to attempt to think about the issues at hand. I don't actually completely disagree with the aforementioned three names you mentioned; as someone who has studied some modest psychology, I do know that when a person is discussing one issue (say the FC-1) and then suddenly brings in a completely different issue (say Pakistani effort in Waziristan), its something of a "red flag" of bias. But you are a thinking individual and I most certainly appreciate that. Yet I do find some of your views offensive and in bad taste, for instance your "the most useless word" jihad steam out, it seems you know little about the word or what it means. For instance, did you know that there is a jihad against cancer? Or illiteracy? But I'm degressing from the topic and I dare say am getting on your nerves.

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Burpelson AFB
    Posts
    13,191
    Before we get into the real interesting confrontational part of this, here's my response to your response regarding the FC-1 issues:

    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    Yet it was your opinion some time back that if the intakes are RAM treated that would not be an issue.. so are you saying that there is no RAM treatment? Or that the PAF won't treat the most important radar reflective area but treat other sections? Isn't this getting a bit like tom and jerry here?
    Here's what I said on my blog: "if the inlet trunks are not RAM coated then radar returns will still be able to propagate back and forth through them. Simply hiding a compressor face is not enough". The impression people have sometimes is that physically hiding the compressor face with a DSI intake arrangement or some sort of inlet trunk design is not sufficient to defeat a modern radar system. Add RAM into the equation and you have a much better solution. I'm not saying that there is no RAM there (I have no evidence to support that either way), but I am saying that DSI alone is not going to make your jet significantly less detectable as is sometimes erroneously believed.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    Swedish and apparently chinese. Again we're digressing to the range of the radar which I have covered in my article
    If they have actually signed a contract for a foreign AWACS system then the error is mine for missing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    Aren't you oversimplifying here?
    Not really.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    Have you thought of how many you are going to get? Make my day and build me your airforce with PAF's budget for 250 JF-17s. Build me a cost analysis and lets see what you got.
    Get the Chinese to give me a flyaway cost figure for a J-10 and you've got a deal.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    You know, I liked the HQ-9 before you started talking about it Your eagerness to supply the Pakistanis with the HQ-9 makes me think the USAF has the system nailed.
    I brought the HQ-9 into the equation because they need something resembling a modern, strategic SAM system, and the relationship with China being what it is makes the HQ-9 a logical choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    I think your technical analysis has failed in key quarters. Remember a whole host of issues such as the 4 simultaneous engagements were known before you wrote your article, they were in fact posted on my blog, which I believe you took some of your data from (?).
    Again, if there were oversights, the errors were mine. I believe the issue of the radar was still not fully settled when I started writing the article (which if I rememebr right was a while before I finalized and posted it).

    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    I most certainly await your analysis and do appreciate that you've taken the effort to attempt to think about the issues at hand.
    I have no issues readdressing something that needs to be re-examined, especially if its due to faulty or incomplete analysis on my part.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    I don't actually completely disagree with the aforementioned three names you mentioned
    With what part? The part where:

    Fahad states: "That article betrayed the authors INSECURITIES and perhaps even his age"

    Or:

    Munir states: "SOC is as biassed as an Indian with inferiority complex"

    Criticize the FC-1 and those would seem to be the standard types of responses one gets, but more on that later.

    At any rate, it is amusing to say the least that I can be critical of the FC-1 and be in the wrong, but people like that can throw the term "Indian" around as a disparaging remark and expect you to assume that they are in the right and totally free of the bias they incorrectly accuse me of being full of.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    as someone who has studied some modest psychology, I do know that when a person is discussing one issue (say the FC-1) and then suddenly brings in a completely different issue (say Pakistani effort in Waziristan), its something of a "red flag" of bias. But you are a thinking individual and I most certainly appreciate that.
    And where in relation to the FC-1 was Waziristan even mentioned? I did mention it in an earlier article as a reason why the US should not be so quick to sell Pakistan the F-16, but that had to do with US-Pakistani relations and not at all to do with the FC-1. In the article you were rebutting Waziristan was never even mentioned.

    It's a blog, and as such I was free to discuss whatever I saw fit (anyone with an internet connection, by the way, could have figured out that I decided to focus on the more professionally-oriented side of things, which is why I completely recreated an entirely new blog site). If I chose to take issue with an aspect of US-Pakistani relations, then that's my prerogative and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just as everyone who has a dissenting opinion has the right to disagree and air their own viewpoint. I never once deleted anyone's comments on that old site, choosing not to censor their viewpoints.

    Now, if people choose to take criticism of something slated for Pakistani use as meaning that everything I say about a Chinese military aircraft is automatically biased towards the negative, then they clearly have reading comprehension difficulties that need to be addressed on either the personal or the societal level. Anyone with the reading comprehension skills of a ten year old can see that I hold many Chinese weapon systems in relatively high regard, including the J-10 and HQ-9, and that I am decidedly impressed with their ongoing modernization issues. But that sort of thinking doesn't fit in with the image that some individuals want to have of me, so they ignore such thoughts in order to foster their own egocentric and inaccurate concepts.

    I wasn't ever criticizing the professionalism or competence of the Pakistani Air Force. I was making a point that it was my opinion that they could have done better than the FC-1, and should have done better given what was going on in another Subcontinent air arm. Which, again, was simply my opinion. Why my opinion on that specific issue warranted an attack on my character, especially when that article was not critical of Pakistan's military competence or professionalism in any way apart from their acquisition priorities, is beyond me.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLA-MKII View Post
    Yet I do find some of your views offensive and in bad taste, for instance your "the most useless word" jihad steam out, it seems you know little about the word or what it means. For instance, did you know that there is a jihad against cancer? Or illiteracy? But I'm degressing from the topic and I dare say am getting on your nerves.
    If you didn't get the point of that article, then you didn't get the point, and I see no reason why I should bother explaining it at this juncture.
    Last edited by SOC; 30th October 2007 at 02:50.
    Sean O'Connor

    Sean's Blog, now with forum
    ACIG.org Team
    Airliners.net

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Burpelson AFB
    Posts
    13,191
    France has approved the sale of the RC-400 radar set and the MICA AAM to Pakistan specifically for the JF-17.

    Source: Defense News, 22 Oct 2007 issue, page 3.
    Sean O'Connor

    Sean's Blog, now with forum
    ACIG.org Team
    Airliners.net

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    831
    Did pakistan drop the italian griffo?

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,951
    were'nt they supposed to be happy with the KLJ-9 radar and the SD-10 ? why go in for what many Chinese posters on this forum considered an inferior missile to the SD-10 ?

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,323
    Ankush

    To me, it suggests that the PRCs radar and AAM development has quite a ways to go. The RC-400 is inferior to the RDY2 latest variant in some key parameters, considering that the former is but a scaled down variant of the latter. And the SD-10 was touted as an uberweapon.
    All in all, I would say that theres quite a ways to go yet, before the PAF which is having to match the IAFs tech heavy acquisitions, will be satisfied with Chinese avionics and gear.
    Last edited by Nick_76; 31st October 2007 at 08:42.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by broncho View Post
    Did pakistan drop the italian griffo?
    No. Thales right now is just supplying the RC-400/Mica for evaluation along with several other bidders. After carrying out evaluations, PAF will award the contract. If the European systems do not offer that great a leap over the Chinese ones (considering the price difference), PAF will most likely stick with the Chinese avionics.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Burpelson AFB
    Posts
    13,191
    sumeet1981 is no longer a member of this forum. All of the India-Pakistan bigotry and whatnot will not be tolerated regardless of the perpetrator. Be mindful of yourselves and respectful of other forum members and our experience here will be far more enjoyable.
    Sean O'Connor

    Sean's Blog, now with forum
    ACIG.org Team
    Airliners.net

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,323
    Hi SOC


    Sumeets id was hacked, check your PM.
    Last edited by Nick_76; 2nd November 2007 at 07:10.

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick_76 View Post
    Ankush

    To me, it suggests that the PRCs radar and AAM development has quite a ways to go. The RC-400 is inferior to the RDY2 latest variant in some key parameters, considering that the former is but a scaled down variant of the latter. And the SD-10 was touted as an uberweapon.
    All in all, I would say that theres quite a ways to go yet, before the PAF which is having to match the IAFs tech heavy acquisitions, will be satisfied with Chinese avionics and gear.
    PRC hasn't made their counter offer yet. They will offer something better when the competition for the 2nd batch of JF-17s come along.
    Visit my Chinese military blog at http://china-pla.blogspot.com/

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