KramerCheck the date.
I wonder how many Pakistanis who read that had their hearts leap in joy only to later sink as they realised that it was April 1st.
Kramerwell not so ugly but not a beauty
I know that looks are very subjective to each viewer, but which gunship is a beauty anyway ? I find that most are functional and aggressive, but none can be called a beauty. IMHO, the LCH is a looker. But thats just my opinion.
Kramer“political” is in my eyes, very common bribes at the right places…:( due to the fuzzy nature.. and i really hope the IAF and india gets what it wants by performance, industry/know how, and economy.
Why bother evaluate? to make it look good?
well what makes you think that the Swedes cannot bribe ? There have been accusations against Saab as well as BAe in other parts of the world, so they’re not saints..and Bofors was the one that started it all in India, with the FH-77B gun kickback scandal..that one scandal and the resulting fall of the Congress govt. has ever since made both bureaucrats and (mainly Congress party) politicians very wary of being seen as favouring one particular company.
KramerMy proof
500 SD-10 ordered by PAF in 2007
Fact
PAF ACM stated JF-17 BVR capable
Fact
JF-17 has BVR capable radar
Fact
Your proof of it not being BVR capable?
none of this constitutes as proof of any kind. No proof of the PL-12 being integrated. No proof of it being test fired. In the real world things don’t necessarily work the way you want them to on the internet.
KramerI am afraid what you have stated is not definitive by any means. The LCA radar also incorporates EL/M-2032 M tech. Does that mean that it is automatically Derby qualified?
As per Rimmer’s logic, yes. Whoever wants photographic evidence to prove that can go find it on their own. 😀
You state one of the “Key reason” to incorporate Chinese avionics was to get BVR capability ASAP. Is this the reason why Pakistan is now hunting for RC-400/Mica capability? In fact, this would only occur if the PAF found the current fit sub-optimal. Given that, why would Pakistan invest heavily in such a venture! Especially at a time, when the PAF Chief talks of making every dollar/rupee count!
Exactly the point I was making. Why would the PAF want French avionics and weapons on the JF-17 unless they were not satisfied with what the Chinese were providing. In the past as well, almost all Chinese imports for the PAF had Western avionics integrated and even AIM-9s because the PAF found their performance better than Chinese equivalents. And I would think that even after such a deal is signed with the French, the integration of such equipment, testing, etc. will take anywhere between 1 to 2 years.
I am well aware of the 300 SD-10 comments. Might also be worth remarking that those reports appeared in conjunction with the procurement of the J-10 or FC-20 as its Pak variant was named. Hasnt that program been put on hold?
That is true. They are said to be waiting for the J-10B variant to mature although it may have to do with funding as well with F-16 Block 52s to be paid for as well as JF-17s.
That’s like the IAF waiting for the LCA Mk2. Only difference is that no Pakistani says that the PAF thinks that the J-10 is not worth inducting as of now because its not there yet (capability wise) to be their front-line 4th generation fighter, whereas everyone likes to say that the IAF is not inducting more LCA Mk1s than the 48 because its not meeting requirements. All a question of how people interpret things and how they present it. One thing can be presented as a sign of failure whereas another can be presented as “waiting for it to mature”..;)
As things stand today, I really dont see any definitive evidence that Pakistan has operational BVR capability on its JF-17s. If you have any evidence that proves it with certitude, I’d change my opinion.
They’ll ask you to find evidence to prove that it doesn’t..the fact that you (or them) cannot find a picture or an article of a JF-17 with BVR missiles apparently isn’t enough proof.
KramerRegarding JF-17 being equipped to use BVRAAM as of now, once again we dont know. But using statements about capability to say it is or lack of pic vid evidence to say it is not is only arguing for the sake of argument. But we have some simple facts based on which one can draw his/her own conclusions.
One of the KEY reason behind PAF’s decision to go for the chinese avionics for 1st 50 machines (in 2003/04-so its an old decision) was their desire to get BVRAAM ASAP. Chinese radar on JF-17 is a derived from the one on J-10. Since the latter is compatible with SD-10, it doesnt require too big a leap of the faith to assume that integration of this BVRAAM with KLJ-7 is not too hard. PAF authorised to start negotiations for 300 SD-10 back in 2006 or so while the first JF-17 pics with installed radar also date back to 2005/06 period. I know we havent seen/heard anything specific about weapon integration or testing. In fact i cant recall JF-17 ever demonstrating anything but dumb bombs or may be WVRAAM (?). But we also know that JF-17 weapon integration & testing in Pak has been going on for around two years or so, and in my humble opinion they are likely to have integrated & tested a bit more than just the dumb bombs/WVRAAM during this timeframe in spite of the fact there is no official confirmation or pics/vids. The fact that first batch was meant to be primarily for air defence role (refer to ACM’s interview in AFM in 2004-dont remember the month) with A2G capabilities added subsequently could also be used as supporting evidence. Having said all this, AMRAAM was not a part of the equation, & its purchase might have changed PAF priorities later on. BUT all this suggests that nothing could be said of JF-17’s present BVRAAM capabilities with absolute conviction.
P.S. Any opinions &/or corrections are more than welcome.
firstly, let me say thank you for your cogent post that uses civil language in contrast to the bombast that Rimmer has been using.
The point is this. We (and by we I mean neutral as well as Indian posters) will not be able to believe claims about BVR and PGM integration until and unless there is specific evidence pointing to it. Look at the J-10 program and compare it. It was cloaked in secrecy for a lot longer than the FC-1 and yet there is more than adequate video and picture evidence pointing to what weapons it has integrated and tested, including PL-12s.
Contrast that with the FC-1. Being always intended for export rather than use by the Chinese Air Force (as I believe they are now called) the FC-1 was always given more coverage than the J-10. So its clear that China has no reason to hide any such integration of PL-12s and their testing on the FC-1. If anything, it improves the export prospects and will attract more international customers.
You will also agree that the development and integration of weapons on the JF-17 will be done by China as it is primarily their technology and they have the experience with the J-10. Having seen quite a few videos originating in China that show the FC-1 roll-out, avionics, flight tests, interviews with TPs, etc. I am not going to be able to believe that when it comes to the PL-12, all of a sudden they became shy. After all, its common knowledge that the JF-17 was to be BVR capable. Not showing it carrying BVR weapons doesn’t make any sense whatsoever because those who need to know (the IAF) will know perfectly well whether it can or cannot carry BVR weapons. the rest of us don’t really matter.
This is perfectly reasonable. I can quote another example. For a long time it was said (and the late Harry who was on Bharat-rakshak and Keypubs was the one who confirmed it) that IAF MiG-29s were wired to carry the R-77. No photographic evidence existed. Harry confirmed it after speaking to a MiG-29 pilot Flt. Lt. Ramji Yadav who ferried a MiG-29 for an aero-show to Chennai. yet, without photographic evidence to date, you will find very few who believe that claim. Even pictures from Kargil do not show the MiG-29 with the R-77, but rather with the R-27ER and R-60s.
I am simply saying that it in the absence of proof, I and most others will choose to believe that the JF-17 is not as yet BVR capable or PGM capable. That it will eventually get these is not in doubt. After all the PAF intends to use it in both air-defence and strike roles so its only natural that it gets these weapons.
Another point, the first squadron that took delivery of the JF-17 is an A-5 unit that specialised in ground attack. So it appears to gel with the theory that the JF-17 as of now is capable of fulfilling the A-5’s role (and obviously it’ll be better) but as more and more testing is done and it matures, it will be integrated with a wider array of weapons allowing it to replace the Mirages and older F-7s.
KramerDont bother yaar. Lets live in their fantasy world.
LCA is ahead of JF-17.
JF-17 has no advanced Chinese radar, PAF did not order 500 SD-10 and PAF ACM did not say JF-17 is BVR capable.
Afterall, why let facts get in the way of demeaning a nations capability?
😉
your post seems to show that you have no argument left to make so you resort to such silly talk.
KramerI have been saying this for almost two years that Gripen has a huge fan following in IAF pilots they liked it very much compared to any other jets since it is very friendly to fly mostly will be flown by younger iaf pilots and this was told to me by a IAF pilot based in Agra
Nobody disputes that..I’ve corresponded with a few IAF pilots in the past and their experiences with the Gripen simulator that was once shown at Aero India made them really like it. It does have quite a fan following among IAF pilots it seems.
Unfortunately for them and for Saab, the MRCA is going to be a political decision in most likelihood.
KramerIf so why the MRCA?…wasn’t the given reason that the fleet level is decreasing and that the LCA is not ready for replacement.
Remember when the MRCA was initiated,they IAF only wanted the Mirage 2000’s(purely to augment the fleet) not the high tech planes on offer today.
You might want to go through the Standing Committee on Defence reports yourself. They clearly state that the IAF intends to induct the Su-30MKI in the heavy role, MRCA in the medium weight category and the LCA in the light weight category.
KramerThey aim to fill the Mig 21’s with the MRCA hence the hesitation with the LCA. If the PAF was given 12 billion to spend can you honestly say that they would order 500 J-17’s instead of any of the MRCA jets available?
If the IAF was not given the MRCA money trust me they would have ordered a lot more of the Mk1 LCA. Airforces make do with what they have just like us common folks.
says who ? At least in even the recent-most Standing Committee on Defence, the MoD representatives make it clear tha the IAF is looking to replace its MiG-21s with the LCA.
KramerHome | Movies | News | Sports | Quotes | Videos | Yoga | Dev | LiveTv | Mobile
* General
* Sports
* Regional
* National
* International
* Politics
* world
* Business
* MarketsNeWs @ UniUrs
The two MMRCA contenders that passed the Leh trials!
by Shiv Aroor on Thursday, April 1st 2010 Comments Off
in NationalIt’s the latest tidbit on India’s $12-billion Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition that’s doing the rounds (and it was first reported by The Hindu on Tuesday). Four of the contenders that underwent cold-weather evaluation trials at Leh didn’t meet performance requirements. OK, major understatement. Four of the contenders bit dust in Leh. Read that again: four aircraft. That’s huge. It’s still unclear which part of the Leh test the four aircraft types failed at, though it is quite clear that it was either the switch off/on after landing, or the take-off with meaningful combat load at that altitude. In this latest update, news from Indian Air Force officials have indicated that the two sole survivors of the trials were the European built Eurofighter and the American F-16.
The Eurofighter is built by a European consortium and is currently flying in the British and German air forces. The American built F-16 is the same type used by Pakistan and Israel. However US officials have pledged that the version India will receive will be superior to those, utilizing the radar in the upcoming stealth fighter, the F-35.
I don’t see anything of this sort on his blog and he doesn’t write for any “National”..April Fool’s day celebrations J-7 Hotdog ?
KramerApril Fool’s day..wait for another day before you take any news coming out today for what its worth.
KramerYou are the one claiming that the JF-17 has operational BVR…yet not a single link to back that up.
Only claims and PR handouts that “it will” have that capability.
yes and he will not argue when :
-anyone claims that the LCA has the capability to fire the R-77, Astra, Derby, PGMs, LGBs, anti-radar and anti-shipping weapons since according to him the fact that any fighter has the capability proves that it ALREADY does all these things
-anyone claims that the LCA’s radar is fully ready, tested and flying. After all there are plenty of articles claiming that LSP-3 would fly with the MMR and be capable of xyz, so it must be fully ready. And we can also start talking about AESA on the LCA since it CAN fly with an AESA on the LCA Mk2.
-anyone posts that the LCA is ALREADY 9G capable, since umpteen articles can be posted that state that the LCA is designed to have a max. dynamic g load factor of 9G. whether it has reached that g load factor or not is immaterial as per Rimmer’s logic.
Kramer“The JF 17 Thunder, the light weight and low cost multi role fighter aircraft has high maneuverability and BVR capability. It has advanced aerodynamics configuration and high thrust. The JF 17 Thunder will replace the ageing fleets of A 5s, F 7Ps and the Mirages in the PAF inventory thus fulfilling a multi role task.”
http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/2009/11/first-jf-17-thunder-fighter-plane.html
With the start of serial production of the aircraft at PAF Kamra, June 30, 2009 became a Red Letter day in the annals of PAF’s chronicles. A lightweight and low-cost multi-role fighter aircraft with high manoeuvrability and Beyond Visual Range (BVR) capability, the JF-17 has Mach 1.6 capability with advanced aerodynamics configuration and high thrust. It can operate over long distances and is well suited to undertaking a broad spectrum of offensive and defensive missions. Fulfilling a multi-role task, this aircraft is meant to eventually replace the ageing fleet of A-5s, F-7s and the Mirages in the PAF inventory, and thus become the PAF’s mainstay.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C11%5C27%5Cstory_27-11-2009_pg3_3
Furthermore, he confirmed that the first JF 17 Squadron would be established shortly. The JF-17 is a lightweight and low-cost multi-role fighter aircraft with a high manoeuvrability and beyond visual range (BVR) capability. It has advanced aerodynamics configuration and high thrust.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/464/
Weapons Capability
The aircraft would be fitted with modern Stores Management System incorporating accurate weapons delivery modes and solutions involving minimum pilot work load
The system would be based on Mil-Std-1760 architecture for all stations including the wingtip stations
The aircraft would be capable of carrying some of the most modern as well as conventional weapons, including:
70-100 Km range beyond visual range active missiles
Highly agile Imaging infra red short range missiles
Air to sea missiles
Anti radiation missiles
Laser guided weapons
Programmable delays cluster bombs
Runway penetration bombs
General purpose bombs
Training bombs
23 mm double barrel gun
You really are clutching at straws here man..
All of those articles state in a general way that what it is capable of..only the PAC article is worth talking about which point to “WOULD BE CAPABLE”. Any person can see what that means when they have no articles stating that its been done and no pics or videos to prove it either.
Just like ADA articles state that the LCA can fly at 9G/-3Gs and carry all of the above weapons. It doesn’t mean that it HAS BEEN DONE !!! It simply means that at some point in the future it can be done.
KramerAlot of noise from you Kramer, but still no evidence.
looking at how many posts you make without showing any proof to back up your claims, its you whos making the noise.
ACM of PAF has stated JF-17 can carry BVR and PGMs. You claim it cannot.
All I am asking for (3rd time now) is your source/proof?
yes and ADA designers have claimed that the LCA CAN carry the Astra (even if its not yet even been test-fired as yet), R-77, anti-radar and anti-shipping weapons, precision guided weapons and that it weighs 5500 kgs empty. Also, that it CAN fly at 9Gs/-3Gs. I can show you videos where people say that it CAN or even brochures that state what it CAN do.
IAF ACM’s have also stated that the LCA will be inducted in large numbers, more than 100 will be inducted. So then, your claim about the IAF not wanting the LCA is also out the window using your very own logic.
So we won’t have any more arguments on the JF-17 or the LCA will we ?
stating that something CAN do something does not indicate that it DOES. It means that at some future point it CAN do it.
Sign In
