dark light

jawad

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 235 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Pakistan Air Force III #2381618
    jawad
    Participant

    Yeah may be UAE will look at some new aircraft and feel that F-16E/F are not Super Advance anymore:rolleyes: just like what they are doing with the Mirage-2000-9s

    On serious note, it will be Fc-20 that will join the F-16 C/D Block 52+

    in reply to: SAAB receives order for Erieye AEW&C system #2391442
    jawad
    Participant

    Thanks for the lesson. That is very, very …strange. Swede, Finn, Brit etc. But short for Pakistanian is racist? You learn something new every day…
    More on topic. The Saudis (hopefully not a racist term) are interested in almost every branch of the Investor that have any connection to military products. And they are not shy about it. Thanks to god the Wallenberg family are true patriots… But sometimes money does talks…..

    That is considered as offensive by Pakistanis (Pakistanian if You like, though this is the first time i have heard this word “Pakistanian ” :D) last year there was lot of media coverage after a video of Prince Harry was posted on internet using the same word for a Pakistani

    Prince Harry’s use of the word “***” to describe a member of his platoon was “completely unacceptable” but he should not be punished, David Cameron has said

    Anyhow

    i think this sale of Saab-2000 AEW&C to Saudis will also backup PAF’s decision to go for Saab-2000 instead of EMB-145 (which offers slight speed and altitude advantage) was criticized in some circles. Brazilian Air Force and Hellenic Air Force of Greece and now Indian air force have chosen the EMB-145 as platform for the AEW&C

    in reply to: SAAB receives order for Erieye AEW&C system #2391634
    jawad
    Participant

    RBS-70, BAMSE and the alike is not regardes as an offensive system either. The argumentation for this is that they are used to protect national air space and not
    for offensive raids. That’s what I meant with bypassing the laws using creative specification of the systems.

    US cannot embargo the Gripen engine to countries it is ready to sell it’s own similair systems to, per an agreement signed in 1999 (or 2000? do not remember the date).

    RBS-70 was sold to Iran by Singapore, not by Sweden.

    Anyhow. Like Arrows said, lets go back to the focus of this thread.

    Well thats what i am saying at that time USA wasn’t ready to sell F-16s to PAF so there was no chance that they would have agreed to sell engines and other weapons to Pakistan as part of jas-39 Package

    in reply to: SAAB receives order for Erieye AEW&C system #2391672
    jawad
    Participant

    Exports are decided by ISP (http://www.isp.se/sa/node.asp?node=410) which by law is govern by pretty tight rules, but in practice is not due to creative specification of different systems.
    For instance Erieye is not considered a offensive system and can therefore be exported to a broader range of countries. To examplify Gripens to Pakistan was not given export clearance, but Erieye was.
    Same applies to pretty much every sensor suite, like Giraffe AMB, MAW-300 etc..

    Oh. And those interested in finding out what this and future/past “secret customers” can check out ISP’s annual reports which specify the value for every contract, to what country, the past year.

    Pakistan was denied sale of Gripen at the time when USA wasn’t ready to sell the F-16s (both old and new) so talking about Sweden’s possible approval or disapproval meant nothing at that time as USA wouldn’t have allowed the sale to go through as engine and man weapons are still american are start with.

    Saab’s efforts to promote and secure MMRCA deal is clear indication that Sweden don’t have lots of problems in selling weapons to countries that are and will be involved in conflicts in their regions

    in reply to: SAAB receives order for Erieye AEW&C system #2391737
    jawad
    Participant

    Dont count on it. We have very strict laws regarding export of (offensive) weapons to dictatorships or “conflict countries” in Sweden. For good and for worse. Both UAE and the Saudis approaced Hägglunds to accuire CV90s some ten yrs ago, but the government put a stop to it on a very early stage.
    Most W European countries (spare France) have these laws. But the regulations are especially tough in Sweden and Germany.
    Some Swedish companies have compensated for this by smuggeling weapons through third party countries. Howitzers to India and RBS70 to Pakistan are just two examples. (Today India is regarded a fully democratic country, so all export limitations to them have been lifted).

    So now India and Pakistan are no more in “conflict countries” list:eek: i wounder if these two are not in the list of “conflict countries” then who else would be?

    Ever heard of Nuclear Triangle :diablo:

    ———–India

    Pakistan…………China

    They are trying their best to sell JAS-39IN to India which shows that not every thing is as people might like to believe

    back to the topic

    Its really interesting that Saudis will go for Saab-2000 AEW&C but then there are not many choices outside USA if you want to diversify. Wht is even more interesting is that they ordered only one Saab-2000 AEW&C which seems so unlike th kingdom’s attitude to words arms purchases

    in reply to: Indian Space & Missile Discussion II #1801753
    jawad
    Participant

    Because Brahmos costs a lot more than what a harpoon costs(2.73 million to less than a million for the harpoon)..

    Pakistan – HARPOON Block II Anti-ship Missiles
    Washington, May 31, 2006 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan of HARPOON Block II Anti-ship Missiles as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $370 million.
    The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale of 50 UGM-84L (submarine-launched), 50 RGM-84L (surface-launched), and 30 AGM-84L (air-launched) Block II HARPOON missiles; 5 Encapsulated HARPOON Command Launch Systems; 115 containers; missile modifications; training devices; spare and repair parts; technical support; support equipment; personnel training and training equipment; technical data and publications; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $370 million.

    HARPOON Block II Missiles cost Pakistan Nay around 2.85 million doller a piece in 2006,This cost of HARPOON Block II Missiles includes associated equipment and services and will get slightly lower for old customer and high for newer customers

    and if u see other deals also average price will turn out to be around 3 million doller. i think that JimmyJ raised a valid point that India needs a light weight Antiship missile because not every platform can carry a heavy missiles like Brahmos

    Lastly don’t pay lot of attention to what the manufactures have to say about the products of other companies because usually that’s the way they try to say that their product is good, u know by saying that one of the most widely used across the world and demanded antiship missile is obsolete in front of our product

    in reply to: Military Aviation News from around the world – V #2421157
    jawad
    Participant

    …The delegation of the Serbian Ministry of Defence was among the first foreign delegations that was shown the manoeuvrability of the Chinese multi-role combat aircraft J-10.

    Really

    how reliable is this news? i am asking because i think PAF would have not only seen such demonstrations but also test flown the aircraft as they seem very committed to the purchase of atleast two Squadron of improved J-10/Fc-20s:rolleyes:

    in reply to: Pakistan Air Force III #2377168
    jawad
    Participant

    It does not make much sense to buy a Boom tanker when most of your AC use the probe. The F 16 CFT option is much cheaper, I think there are also normal drop tanks equipped with refueling probes !.

    How do the C-802A compare to KH 35 carried by 29K ?

    PAF operates around 45 F-16A/B that are being upgraded to F-16AM/BM (MLU that will bring them almost as capable as Block 52 as far as avionics are concerned).PAF is also pushing hard for the renaming 14 F-16A/B Block 15 OCU built under Peace Gate III/IV which are now being operated by the US Navy to fill the Aggressor role as F-16N, if that happens total no of F-16A/B will be 59 as compared to the 18 new F-16C/D block 52+.

    Now only new F-16C/D block 52+ can carry CFT and 45(upto59) F-16A/B cant carry conformal fuel tanks. This may push PAF to look for the boom tanker.

    Both C-802A and KH 35 are excellent anti-ship missiles though C-802A enjoys advantage in having greater range and heavier warhead.

    in reply to: Pakistan Air Force III #2377208
    jawad
    Participant

    With the Current MIDAS tanker won’t you need to first equip the F 16s with that refueling probe equipped CFTs ? The ones which are on offer for the F 16IN ?

    I think all your points are valid but Maritime Strike is the most important, In past Wars PN was brushed aside easily and ports like Karachi blockaded, Block 52+ Harpoon will make sure it will not be as easy in a future conflict. Especially as IN currently lacks a bit in fleet air defense.

    How 29Ks fare against Block 52+ will have a big impact on future Indo Pak conflict (hopefully there will be none!)

    Unfortunately so far PAF is not shown any interest(Which i think they should) new conformal air refuel tank system for F-16s to make them capable of talking fuel from IL-78. There are rumors that PAF might buy few old tankers capable of refueling F-16s but given the current budget constraints it doesn’t seem possible atleast not in near future.

    F-16 C/D Block 52+ with AIM-120 C5 and Mig-29K with R-77

    well lets just say that a lot will depend upon the Pilot skills

    JF-17s are already being displayed with C-802A with range of 180 Km and we can imagine that in future Fc-20 will also be equipped with that missile for maritime support. Both these aircrafts can be refueled with IL-78.

    i think that main purpose of purchase of the IL-78 tanker/transport aircraft is to support the PAF’s future fleet of JF-17s of which PAF is looking to acquire more than 250.

    JF-17s will be equipped with this capability before the end of this year and till then 30 Mirage-III Rose-I will be upgraded with in-flight refuelling probes of South African origin at PAC kamra.

    in reply to: Pakistan Air Force III #2377259
    jawad
    Participant

    Does the PAF even need tankers? Their combat capability is aimed solely at defending against India and all their fighter-bombers are stationed not far from the Indo-Pak border. Unless they’re planning to offensively invade deep into Indian territory(an unviable plan) I don’t see why they’d need that kind of range.

    Viability of the mission always depends upon the Perceived Value of Target and Projected losses

    Pakistani air force can use air-to-air refueling in number of ways

    They can use it

    • To support an attack deep inside india on high value targets if they need it

      [*]It will allow short range aircraft to be able to strike at long distance

      [*]For the Long range maritime strike capability in Support of PN

      [*]For the high endurance for the airdefence missions especially with introduction of AEW&Cs

      [*]For allowing aircrafts to takeoff with extra payload and refule once in air

      [*]For helping the strike package on their way back if they are running low on fuel

      [*]For suport of overseas exercises

    These are Multirole Tanker-Transporters aircrafts version of IL-78 which can be used by the PAF as required. This brings another extra capability for the PAF as their Payload capacity is much more than that of PAF’s C-130s (payload capability is second only to PAF’s Boeing 707s)

    in reply to: Pakistan Air Force III #2380037
    jawad
    Participant

    I have a feeling Pakistan’s factory is too busy trying to meeat PAF demand. I have a feeling they will be coming from China.

    This is a joint venture project and both nations will get their part of share from the exports. PAF will like nothing more than export earnings as this will help them in financing future versions of the JF-17 Thunders

    in reply to: Pakistan Air Force III #2380076
    jawad
    Participant

    I can’t speak for the public days, but there were no “swarms” when I went to see it last Monday and Wednesday. Only about half a dozen onlookers on both occasions. The two aircraft were parked sufficiently far from the rest of the static display to discourage many visitors, I suspect.

    10-114 Farnborough Airshow 2010.

    I had to wait 15 minutes to get a clear photo. But one of the stars of the show just had to be photographed.

    Simon Curtis

    in reply to: Pakistan Air Force III #2388854
    jawad
    Participant

    seeing these pics of the JF-17, the JF-17’s similarities with the IAR-95 design of the 1970s is quite striking..with the exception of the DSI intakes the layout of the wings, fuselage, nose are all very similar, and even the LERXes that were added on later. Its almost like a copy of that design..

    http://img134.imageshack.us/f/scan0001cu.jpg

    one more image

    http://www.straero.ro/templates/images/iar95.jpg

    did China get the blueprints for this design in the early 1980s after it was cancelled by Romania ?

    Just because some drawings of IAR-95 have some similarity with the JF-17 pictures does not mean that both projects have anything to do with each other.

    IAR-95 was bigger heavier and was to have more powerful power plant

    As anyone can see that there is nothing common in these two aircrafts

    IAR-95 Specifications

    Length: 16 m

    Wingspan: 9.3 m

    Height: 5.45 m

    Wing area: 27.9 m²

    Empty weight: 7,880 kg

    Max takeoff weight: 15,200 kg

    Powerplant: 1× Tumansky R-29-300 with afterburner
    Dry thrust: 81.4 kN
    Thrust with afterburner: 122kN

    Hardpoints: 9 in total (6× under-wing, 2× wing-tip, 1× under-fuselage) with a capacity of 3200 kg

    JF-17 Specifications

    Length: 14.0 m

    Wingspan: 9.45 m

    Height: 4.77 m

    Wing area: 24.4 m²

    Empty weight: 6,411 kg

    Max takeoff weight: 12,700 kg

    Powerplant: 1× Klimov RD-93 turbofan
    Dry thrust: 49.4 kN
    Thrust with afterburner: 84.4 kN

    Hardpoints: 7 in total (4× under-wing, 2× wing-tip, 1× under-fuselage) with a capacity of 3,629 kg

    in reply to: J-10B vs Pak-fa #2385282
    jawad
    Participant

    As both aircraft belong to different generations and weight categories so there is no comparison, not to mention that none of these aircraft is in service and we lack data for both of these aircrafts.

    Having said that, PAK FA will certainly have quite an influence on the air warfare in Asia once it becomes operational. It will have big impact on the Chinese, Pakistan, Australians, Japan etc and in long term on Israelis (if Russians decide to sell it to….)

    in reply to: Pakistan Air Force II #2431775
    jawad
    Participant

    French JF-17 Deal Could Anger India

    ….Graw-Hill Companies.

    Last time I checked India wasn’t even able to stop Russia from (from exporting RD-93) which it buys arms worth billions of dollars each year.

    So will France drop a deal with Pakistan air force when it has little chance of winning MMRCA?

    As far as USA is concerned, USA itself is providing similar advance weapons so on what grounds they will raise their objections?

    For first batch Chinese were able to defeat GRIFO-S7 radar and we all know that they will be competing for the second batch and if French aren’t able to offer superior technology it would be hard for them to compete with china on price

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 235 total)