h177Re: If it’s off-topic, i should really join in!
Originally posted by Arthur
Well, the only reason why a weaker US$ can postpone the eventual pain of the US’ over-consumption (that’s what it is guys: all this trade + budget deficit means is that the US as a country is using more resources than it can pay for!) is because international trade is still calculated in US$, and with that being the case it is still the rest of the world paying up for American soccer moms driving truck-sized cars in order to get their buckets full of chicken wings for TV snacks. The percentage of the US economy (=money circulation) with borrowed-but-not-to-be-repaid-money is nearing 10%, and rising.Devaluating the US$ in the short term will alleviate the burden as it gets cheaper for the world to sponsor those chicken wings and SUVs. But with a devaluating US$, it’s not all that smart for any country to keep a large pile of those very same US$ as their foreign currency reserve: that reserve will be losing it’s value.
So a continued devaluation of the US$ will in the long run force the world to seek other currencies for international trade (be that Pound Sterling, Euro, Yen, Laotian Kip or some really nice sea-shells). That would of course have quite an impact on international trade, but even more so on the US, because by that time it will be the United States having to cough up each and every penny for their carrier battle groups, steel industry and Bigfoot-tyres.
A mega-inflation would definately make it a painful but fast cure.
Mega inflation or massive devaluation of dollar is not a cure for this chronic disease.Because US imports far more than it exports. Software, food and Aeroplanes are major export items. Software is mostly pirated in third world countries. Food is mostly given as Aid. Boeing is on down hill. Cars and other consumer electronics and Textiles Asians and European dominat. The only practical solution i can see is that US occupies the whole Middleast oil and sent the Arabs into exile to Africa and massively increase oil production or increase price untill a point where every thing balanced out.
h177Originally posted by SOC
That was certainly interesting, thanks for the link. I can’t read most of it but what I can decipher seems to suggest that an R-Darter with a midcourse guidance facility taken from the T-Darter was offered to Pakistan in 1999. Maybe they evaluated it against the SD-10 and rejected it? On a side note, will the FC-1/SD-10 deal include any needed Chinese assistance in integrating the FC-1s weaponry into other PAF platforms?
PAF is looking at some thing like Grifo 2000 radar upgrade for F-16 if US upgrade is not available. Most of PAF aircraft will be using FIAR Grifo radars so i don’t see any assistance from China in that case. But we have to wait and see untill they announce operational entry. Testing and evaluating something is not important.
h177Check this website it is i think i french it shows the proposal of joint development of R-darter.
http://www.sistemasdearmas.hpg.ig.com.br/aam/aamrdarter.htm
Em 1999, a Denel ofereceu ao Paquistão uma proposta de armas ar-ar para o caça Super 7 produzido em conjunto com a China. Inclui uma proposta de um míssil BVR equipado com datalink que acredita-se ser o T-Darter. O Paquistão testou o míssil H-4 em 2003 e acredita-se que seja este míssil. O Paquistão também estudou a aquisição do Matra MICA e PL-10 chinês. O Paquistão pretende contrapor a ameaça de mísseis de longo alcance chineses como o Vympel R-77, Super-530D e o Astra.
Atualizado em 24/06/2003
h177Originally posted by SOC
A Mirage III cannot fire a Super 530D.Telling someone on the 10th of October that acquisition is a near term priority implies that A) you are still looking, B) you havent yet acquired, and C) you’re speaking in the present tense, not about a weapon 7 or 8 years ago!
I put R-530 not Super 530D.Pak is also seeking a western aircraft does that mean that FC-1 is useless. They will anounce about BVR weopon some time next year and it will sudden like H-2 and H-4 announcement.
h177Originally posted by SOC
The current FC-1 has little in common other than a general aerodynamic similarity with the original Grumman-assisted Super-7 design of the early 80s. The original design was a heavily modded J-7. Look at the vertical tail, it was nearly identical to the J-7. Today’s FC-1 is a different machine. The original program was interrupted by some tanking in Tianamen Square. Why does it have a nose cone? To fit a bigger radar. Why does the J-8II have a closed nose? Same reason. Don’t lecture me about history lessons.I never said Pakistanis lacked intelligence. I never said the PAF was “dumb”. Want to discuss helping each nation out? Why did Pakistan condone Taliban and Al-Qaeda border crossing? Knowing how to use an aircraft is one thing. Needing the source codes and such means you want to alter it and/or build it yourself. But you can employ an aircraft just fine without that kind of material.
That Taliban were created with Us consent in the beginning but the relation turn sour after business couldnot be done with them because Saudis bought them and also with 4.5 Million Afghan refugees pak didnot had that much option with out western help.
h177Originally posted by SOC
“Pakistan is seeking beyond-visual-range missiles”Is seeking implies hasn’t taken possession of.
“A top near-term priority is the acquisition of beyond-visual- range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAMS)”
Acuisition is a priority, that also implies that they haven’t been acquired.
And then there’s this one…
“The PAF intends to take up the US offer to upgrade the country’s existing F-l6s, the ACM says, with capabilities that would allow the service to add a BVRAAM as a top priority.”
SInce we have yet to upgrade their aircraft, which it appears are what the BVR platoform will be (other than the FC-1), then they can’t test the missile in Pakistan, can they?
And did you ever consider that when he said the program could be ready for operational use in less than a year, he meant the missile itself? That doesn’t mean Pakistan either-if they’re jointly developing it, then operational induction in “less than a year” could easily mean Chinese use.
F-16 is totally different matter which cannot be upgraded untill US permission because otherwise losing support for other spares. By acquisition he means a western bvr weopon otherwise Chinese PL-11 semi active radr missle was available a 7 to 8 years ago. If Mirage can fire Exocet, Raptor or muspow and R-530D, R-Darter so it is not that out of question for upgrading some of them for testing SD-10.
h177Originally posted by SOC
And yet still nothing that says the weapon is in Pakistan. I never doubted that they are going to eventually recieve the SD-10 :rolleyes:
They will anounce it only when it enters operational service and how can it be evaluated on current aircraft if it is not Present inside Pakistan. China does not have Mirages or Grifo radar equipped F- PGs or F-16.
h177Originally posted by SOC
Nice article. Does it say that the SD-10 has been delivered to Pakistan? No. Ergo, using your source, is their a BVR weapon in Pakistan right now? No. WIll there be in the future? Yes. What’s your point?
The point is if some thing is going to enter operational service with in a year it is most probably under evaluation. and this SD-10 was displayed in Pak exhibition some 2 years ago.
h177New weaponry aimed at neutralizing India
By Our Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Oct 10: Pakistan is seeking beyond-visual-range missiles and new fighter aircraft
to counter the threat posed by India’s acquisition of new, sophisticated weapons, says Air Chief
Marshal Kaleem Saadat.
In an interview with the Jane’s Defence Weekly published this week, the air chief said: “The changing
balance of power tilting dangerously in India’s favour” has forced Pakistan to look for new and
advanced weaponry.
India announced on Friday that it has signed a deal with Israel for buying three Phalcon airborne
early warning radar systems.
New Delhi plans to mount Israel’s Phalcon surveillance radar on a Russian IL-76 aircraft and also
has signed a separate deal with Moscow for the aircraft.
India is also negotiating another deal with Israel to buy Arrow – an anti-missile system that could
neutralize part of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
Although India already has a larger fleet of sophisticated aircraft and outranks Pakistan in the sea, it
continues to expand both its air and sea fleets.
In a bid to neutralize the threat posed by such deals, Pakistan is also looking for sophisticated
weapons from foreign sources.
A top near-term priority is the acquisition of beyond-visual- range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAMS),
Mr Saadat told the Weekly, which is the world’s most prestigious journal of military hardware and
strategies.
The air chief said that although Pakistan would prefer to buy the missiles from suppliers in the United
States or Western Europe, since “that option is not yet open I guess ultimately it will have to be the
Chinese”.
Pakistan has been working with China on developing the SD-10 BVRAAM missile, which could be
ready for operational use “in less than a year”, the air marshal said.
The PAF plans to mount the missiles on its existing fleet of fighter jets but is also looking for new
aircraft, he added.
The air chief described the purchase of new fighter jets with “F-16 and above capability” as another
primary need.
Pakistan is already negotiating with three countries – the United States, Belgium and the United Arab
Emirates – to acquire the planes.
Pakistan had signed a deal with the United States in late 1980s to buy 32 F-16 fighters, but the US
government stopped their delivery in late 1990 following a dispute over Islamabad’s nuclear
programme.
In June this year, President Gen Pervez Musharraf raised the issue again with President Bush when
the two leaders met at Camp David. Pakistan reiterated its request for the aircraft late last month as
well, when a Pakistani delegation visited Washington to attend a meeting of the US-Pakistan defence
consultative group.
So far the Americans are reluctant to sell the aircraft, but the Pakistanis are now focusing their
attention on convincing Washington to allow it to buy used aircraft from Belgium, the Netherlands or
the UAE who want to sell the F-16s they had purchased earlier from the United States. They require
Washington’s approval to sell the aircraft to a third country.
Air Marshal Saadat said that if the US government has objection to selling new F-16s, acquiring
used ones was one alternative option.
Pakistan had also been interested in buying used Mirage 2000- 5s from Qatar, but the air chief said
that since India was interested in the same aircraft as well, it “is (now) too complex a deal, so
perhaps it would not be easy to complete”.
Pakistan is seeking larger numbers of less sophisticated aircraft as well to replace its aging fleet. “We
have to replace our A-5s, F-7s and Mirages within five to seven years,” Air Marshal Saadat
explained.
Pakistan has also requested the HAWK surface-to-air missile system from the United States, and is
exploring similar Ukrainian, Spanish, Italian and Chinese systems as well.
In order to address “the threat posed to our navy by the Indian Navy”, the PAF is also looking to
acquire an air-to-air refuelling capability that would “extend the range of our aircraft”, ACM Saadat
said.
h177Originally posted by SOC
Is there a BVR weapon in Pakistan? According to the above analysis, no. Therefore, at this time the Pakistani Air Force has NO BVR CAPABILITY. Will they in the future? Undoubtedly, the FC-1 will carry the SD-10. Does the PAF operate the FC-1 right now? No.As far as building the FC-1 is concerned, that has absolutely nothing to do with the SD-10. Can you show me where it says that the PAF will be building the SD-10?
I’m not saying that the PAF will not get a BVR weapon system. The point is that right now there is none operational given the evidence we have to examine.
“In contradiction to many AMRAAM users that have no idea how their missiles work the PAF is not that stupid.”
I’m not even going to touch that one.
It has been reported previously that with the same company R-Darter missles were delivered.
SD-10 could re-arm Pakistan’s fighter force
JANE’S MISSILES AND ROCKETS – NOVEMBER 01, 2003
Pakistan could equip its fighter force with China’s SD-10 beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM), says Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Chief of Staff Air Chief Marshal (ACM) Kaleem Saadat. In an interview with our sister title Jane’s Defence Weekly, ACM Saadat says that the acquisition of BVRAAMs is a top near-term priority for the PAF.
Pakistan is interested in buying such a missile from US or European suppliers, but “that option is not yet open”, he says. “I guess ultimately it will have to be Chinese.” Pakistan has been working with China on developing the SD-l0 BVRAAM missile, which ACM Saadat says could be ready for operational use “in less than a year”. Whichever missile Pakistan chooses, “money is [now] not a problem” as it had been previously.
ACM Saadat says the plan is to ultimately retrofit the missile into all PAF fighter aircraft.
In 1991 the Aerospace Division of Pakistan’s National Development Complex (NDC) revealed that it was conducting ‘preliminary studies’ for a new medium-range air-to-air missile. No full-scale hardware had been built at that time, but NDC engineers were said to be investigating several different approaches to the future missile’s design.
The existence of the SD-10 programme was acknowledged by Chinese officials for the first time in early 2002. The missile’s relationship with a reported Chinese national BVRAAM programme is unclear. SD-10 could be the export designation for a Chinese missile to be known as PL-12, but sources within the China National Aerotechnology Import-Export Corporation (CATIC) say the PL-12 and the earlier semi-active radar homing PL-11 have all been abandoned in favour of the SD-10.
SD-10 is a rocket-powered missile of conventional layout, with cruciform wings and tail surfaces. Early models and artist’s impressions showed a weapon similar in general configuration to the US AIM-120 AMRAAM, but a recent full-sized model has tail-mounted control surfaces of novel form whose inner leading edge is swept sharply forward. Their planform may have been influenced by that of the cruciform trapezoidal ‘butterfly’ moving control surfaces on the Vympel R-27 (AA-10 ‘Alamo’) family of air-to-air missiles. According to CATIC sources the missile has a range of 80km.
At the 1996 Air Show China in Zhuhai, the China Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute/No 607 Research Institute displayed a newly developed active-radar seeker.
Known as the AMR-1, this was thought to be for a new air-to-air missile derived from the LY-60 surface-to-air missile.
Russia is the source for the missile’s inertial navigation system and datalink, and although CATIC is known to be developing X-band and Ku-band active-radar seekers, recent reports suggest that China has been co-operating closely with Russia’s Moscow-based AGAT Research Institute, which may be providing the SD-10’s active seeker. The Chinese weapon could use AGAT’s 9B-1348 active-radar seeker developed for the Vympel R-77 (AA-12 ‘Adder’), or technology from the Institute’s 9B-1103M seeker family.
The PAF has also named acquisition of new fighters with “F-16 and above capability” as another primary need, says ACM Saadat. The service is currently exploring a number of options, including F-16s repeatedly requested from Washington and the possibility of receiving used F-16s from Belgium or the Netherlands, both of which are planning to retire some of their fleet.
“What we were suggesting is that if the US government has objections to only [supplying] the new [F- l6s], acquiring used ones is one alternative option,” ACM Sadaat says. He adds that “they [Washington] haven’t said ‘yes’, they haven’t said ‘no'”.
If more F-16s are not available, the Mirage 2000-9 and Gripen are seen as alternatives, and ACM Saadat notes that “the service is actively talking” to the manufacturers of both aircraft. The PAF prefers the F-l6 option because Pakistan already possesses the necessary logistical and training infrastructure to support the aircraft.
The PAF intends to take up the US offer to upgrade the country’s existing F-l6s, the ACM says, with capabilities that would allow the service to add a BVRAAM as a top priority.
Improvements beeing considered would include digitised electronics, structural support changes and enhanced sensors such as improved radars.
If Islamabad fails to acquire additional sophisticated fighters, it would try to upgrade its ground-based air-defence systems, the ACM says. Pakistan has requested the Hawk surface-to-air missile system from the US, and is also exploring similar Ukrainian, Spanish, Italian and Chinese systems.
h177Originally posted by SOC
Well, if the H-2/H-4 are the Raptor-I/II, then Pakistan still has nothing related to a BVR air-to-air capability.
They didnot claim publicly untill now which didnot mean they are not testing it on it. The only open information is about SD-10 operational service with in a year. so it is just guessing.
h177South Africa’s Kentron developed a jet-powered stand-off weapon named “Multi-Purpose Stand Off Weapon (MUPSOW)”, leading to a long-range derivative designated “TORGOS”, where the acronym meaning is unclear.
In fact, most details of these two weapons are unclear, with little information available even on the Kentron website. MUPSOW is described as a submunitions dispenser for use against soft targets and with GPS-INS guidance. TORGOS is described as having a weight of 1 tonne (1.1 tons) and a range of 300 kilometers (188 miles). It will use GPS-INS midcourse guidance, but also has thermal imaging terminal seeker that can operate autonomously, or allow remote control over a data link.
The H-4 bombs have been made through indigenous efforts by modifying the technological design of South African T-Darter BVR missiles. Till the induction of JF-17 Thunder in 2006, with a provision for BVRs, the H-2 and H-4 bombs could be carried by Mirage fighter jets. The H-4 infrared device is said to be comparable to that of the AA11, AA12 and Python 4 in the Indian arsenal
h177Originally posted by troung
“Check this website H-2 is raptor 1 and H-4 may be MUSPOW because only MUSPOW version TARGOS has IIR seeker which is mentioned with H-4 in the news report and definitely not AAMS”The range on the Raptor II matches the stated range on the H-4. Both the Muspow and Torgos have a longer range then the one stated for the H-4. That counts them out.
Exact range should not be a factor because Pak media gives usually inaccurate informations about ranges and other technical stuff but Muspow is there because of the guidance system as mentioned like datalinks, IIR, mid course updates etc.
h177Originally posted by SOC
If you print an exorbitant amount of money, you will invariably devalue the currency. That leads to inflation.
That will be in the long term only if for that money goods produced outside are not available. I don’t see that to happen if China keeps its currency fixed and US buy Chinese products but it will surely effect European products and commodities.
h177Originally posted by SOC
:rolleyes:If we printed dollars at random, inflation would spiral out of control. Are you familiar with the concept of finance, or are you talking from a rear-hemisphere orifice just for the sake of argument?
I think these concepts comes from economics. And inflation depends much on supply and demand. Rate of money supply will not have that much effect if for that money their is demand outside the country.
Sign In
