21AnkushThat would be pretty cool. Not just true integration between West and East systems, but first UCAV in South Asia.
First one outside of US?
ever heard of Mantis ? or Neuron ? don’t kid yourself about it being the first UCAV in South Asia either. let them first build a decent HA or MA UAV and get it into service and then talk about building a UCAV.
21AnkushPLAAF considers JJ-9 to be able to do all the lead in flight training tasks for its current fleet of J-10/flankers + next generation fighter jet. I don’t see why it would not be able to do so for Indonesia, unless they are looking for more of an attack aircraft than a LIFT, that would be a different story.
as per this article, it may well be that the JJ-9 is not the best solution for LIFT for PLAAF for its future fleet of J-10/J-11s. the Hongdu L-15 may be a better solution for the future.
A JL-9/JL-9/FTC-2000 (Fighter Trainer China-2000) advanced lead-in fighter trainer prototype was taking off at 2006 Zhuhai Airshow. Developed by GAIC since 2001, the aircraft appears to have evolved from the earlier JJ-7/FT-7 design from the same company. However several new features were added including a solid nose housing a modern PD fire-control radar, FC-1 style costal side air intakes, double delta wings (no leading edge flaps), integrated avionics (HUD + MFDs, RWR, ECM, 1553B databus, INS/GPS, air data computer) and a fixed IFR probe for mock IFR training. New stepped tandem cockpits and a one-piece windshield give both instructor and student better forward/downward views when compared with JJ-7/FT-7.
However the same WP-13F(C) (max trust 4,400kg, 6,450kg with afterburner) is retained in order to save cost. Its control system is mechanical rather than FBW, again in order to save cost. This suggests JL-9 could only offer a limited improvement in performance (such as all-weather capability and a better low altitude/low speed performance) compared to its predecessor. Once it enters the service with PLAAF, it will replace JJ-7 for the training of J-7/8 pilots. However it could turn out to be obsolete for the training of J-10/11 pilots.
The FTC-2000 designation suggests it is also aimed at the international market for countries who already operate FT-7s. JL-9 might face some competition from Hongdu’s L-15 (see below) which is technologically more advanced thus more expensive. Its main advantage lies with the relatively faster pace of the project and a low price tag. It is possible that JL-9 may be modified into an EW aircraft or a light-attack aircraft in the future. The first prototype of JL-9 (JL90001/421) first flew on December 13, 2003, with the second prototype undergoing static test. The 03 prototype (422) first flew on April 3, 2004. Both prototypes were evaluated at CFTE between 2004 and 2005. The first fight of an improved JL-9 (redesignated as JJ-7B?) took place on August 23, 2006, featuring a new stability control augumentation system (CAS) to achieve better performance, an improved cockpit environment control system and a new microwave landing system (MLS). The improved JL-9 also features a redesigned tailfin housing additional ECM equipment on the top. Some specifications: normal TO weight 7,800kg, max TO weight 9,800kg, max speed 1.6 Mach, max load 8g, ceiling 16,000m, max climb rate 260m/s, ferry range 2,500km. JL-9 was officially adopted by PLAAF in May 2007 and the 01 batch of 5 were devlivered for evaluation by the end of 2008. Recent news (October 2009) suggested that JL-9 passed the technology certification and is ready to enter series production for both PLAAF and PLAN.
BTW, why does the PLAAF need a Lead-In Fighter Trainer ? Is the JL-8 (K-8 Karakorum) not good enough for the role of AJT and LIFT combined ?
I’m asking this because Insig and Rimmer for several pages in the IAF thread kept questioning why the IAF would need a LIFT (it doesn’t have one currently) and why the Hawk AJT could not suffice for the role.
21Ankushback in 2006, there were reports that Pakistan was going to buy 3 refurbished excess P-3C Orions with the E-2C suite..did that sale go through ? if it did, that would indicate that Pakistan would operate 3 different types of AWACS !
Defense Security Cooperation Agency
NEWS RELEASE
On the web: http://www.dsca.mil Media/Public Contact: (703) 601-3670
Transmittal No. 07-03Pakistan – E-2C Hawkeye 2000 Airborne Early Warning Suite for P-3s
WASHINGTON, December 07, 2006 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan for refurbishment and modification of three excess P-3 aircraft with the E-2C HAWKEYE 2000 Airborne Early Warning (AEW) Suite, as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $855million.
The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale for refurbishment and modification of three excess P-3 aircraft with the E-2C HAWKEYE 2000 Airborne Early Warning (AEW) Suite, spare and repairs parts, simulators, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, system software development and installation, ground/flight testing of new systems and system modifications, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $855 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for economic progress in South Asia and a partner in the global war on terrorism. The command-and-control capabilities of these aircraft will improve Pakistan’s ability to restrict the littoral movement of terrorists along Pakistan’s southern border and ensure Pakistan’s overall ability to maintain integrity of its borders.
Pakistan intends to use the proposed equipment to develop an effective air defense network for its naval forces and provide an AEW surveillance and enhanced command, control, and communications capability. The addition of the AEW suites will provide Pakistan with search surveillance, and control capability in support of maritime interdiction operations. These aircraft will also increase Pakistan’s ability to support the U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom operations, and provide anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare capabilities; and a control capability over land against transnational terrorists and narcotics smugglers. The modernization will enhance the capabilities of the Pakistani Navy and support its regional influence and meet its legitimate self-defense needs. Pakistan will have no difficulty absorbing the AEW platform into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be Northrop Grumman Corporation, St. Augustine, Florida and Lockheed-Martin, Greenville, South Carolina. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any U.S. Government and contractor representatives to Pakistan.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.
21AnkushNo, they are not. If you have such a strong dislike for a poster like Rimmer, you might consider putting him on ‘Ignore’. If you don’t, you are just as guilty of polluting the very threads you’re active in.
Arthur, you’re talking about a strong dislike of a particular poster Rimmer or Insig who consistently trolls on IAF threads as being the only factor. their only aim is to consistently question and raise doubts so as to derail a discussion and take in a different direction altogether.
However, what about posters like Showtime 100 who abuse and cannot carry on a civil discussion at any given time ? is it considered acceptable to bring in the other person’s parents into a discussion and get away with it ? how is it then decided what is acceptable and what is not ?
21AnkushAnkush
I will repeat this again. Afordibility was not the debate. You claimed Gripen was never offered. Yet again you have been proven wrong.
man do you have amnesia ? you yourself claimed that the PAF did not go for the Gripen due to cost ! I mean you contradict yourself and then expect to be taken seriously ?!:eek:
PAF did not choose Gripen due to 1) Cost 2) not wanting an entire western fighter fleet. Trust me, if a nation sells us AWACs, it will not hesitate to sellus a lightweight fighter.
and you say trust me ? who’re you ? a Swedish Govt. spokesman ? this is what the Swedish Ambassador to Pakistan said in 2004
Posted: Jul 23, 2004 at 0218 hrs IST
ISLAMABAD, JULY 22 Sweden has declined to sell its advanced Gripen fighter planes to Pakistan until positive movement is made in the Indo-Pak peace process. However, it has agreed to sell Erie-eye Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS), to counter-balance India’s acquisition of the Israeli Phalcon Airborne Surveillance System.
‘‘Sweden has decided not to sell Gripen planes to Pakistan until positive developments are made in the region,’’ Swedish Ambassador to Pakistan Ann Wilkens was quoted as saying, by the Pakistan NNI news agency.The sale of planes was not discussed during President Pervez Musharraf’s visit to Sweden earlier this month, added Wilkens.
Asked when Sweden would prefer to sell the planes to Pakistan, she said: ‘‘That is mainly linked with regional development. Positive regional developments can put this issue on the agenda, but for the moment that is not an issue and it is still an open question’’.
its nothing like the open and shut case of Saab offering and hence Sweden agreeing to sell.
and there’s more as well
Mr Persson, however, tried to downplay discussions surrounding the Gripen fighters, adds AFP. “There are no discussions about Gripen now. Musharraf mentioned Pakistan’s interest, but we quickly moved past (the issue). We have strict laws on weapon exports,” the Swedish newswire TT quoted him as saying.
its a Pakistani newspaper article so you can’t claim its biased like you did for the earlier article. :rolleyes:
21AnkushNo one claimd they were looking to add another type. This was in response to you incorrect claim that Sweden would never offer Gripen to PAF. Lets not back peddle.
Sweden hasn’t offered anything- Saab is a company which has “identified Pakistan as a potential customer, nothing more.
if Saab identifies potential customers, it doesn’t imply that the Swedish Government will support such a sale. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit more on Swedish policies before talking. Or maybe some Swedish posters will be able to drill some sense into you in this matter.
21AnkushUnfortunatley Quad, its not about what we “Think may happen”. He was wrong when he posted a 6 year old Indian press link and I posted a recent Aviationweek one.
Look, I’ll explain again- the PAF wanted the Gripen C/D and Sweden refused. There are news articles explaining that. Even then, Saab was more than willing to sell Gripens to PAF- they care about money not politics. and even now, Saab will happily sell Gripen NGs to Pakistan IF the required political permissions are made available. They even list Nigeria as a potential customer- doesn’t mean that the political permissions to make such a sale (if Nigeria does want the Gripen NG) will be made available.
you really don’t seem to understand despite repeated explanation. the same is seen on the IAF thread as well where you keep repeating nonsense even when someone gives detailed explanations to you. its basically called Trolling.
Swedes would be happy selling to both sides, as French and US have been doing for years…
until and unless some Swedish official said that, I wouldn’t take your opinion to be worth much.
21AnkushAnkush
I will repeat this again. Afordibility was not the debate. You claimed Gripen was never offered. Yet again you have been proven wrong.
I provided a link that had a statement from a Swedish minister saying that the Gripen was not offered when Pakistan wanted it. how can I be proven wrong when the Swedish Minister said so ?:rolleyes:
You make claims, they are questioned and you cannot explain yourself.
Better take a rest…
I think you’re confusing me with yourself. its your statements that get proven wrong and you come up with more stuff getting confused even further. I would suggest you take up your advice and give this forum a break for some time. the number of posts you’ve made over the past month since you joined would indicate the same.
21Ankushwhat about ex SwAF Gripens, I’m s ure there’s a few of those the Swedes are interested in off loading.
but PAF is getting 18 Block 50 Falcons already and is upgrading its earlier F-16s in Turkey to nearly Block 50 standard. so why will they be looking to add a new type, especially one that needs to be upgraded to C/D standard ? and what the guy above posted was regarding PAF being a potential customer for the Gripen NG.
21AnkushNo one in this day and age thinks they can 100% gaurantee protection against nuke missiles. It really is insanity to think so.
no one thinks so. however, the fact that an ABM has a certain percentage probability of kill means that it introduces an element of doubt in the minds of those that launch the BMs in the first place AND it will succeed in neutralising a few of those nukes at least. used around strategic installations and cities, it gives India the time and chance to retaliate in a manner that would annihilate the nation that launched BMs with nukes against it.
if ABMs were of no use then the Russians would’nt be so worried and angry when the US installs ABM systems in Eastern Europe. just because Pakistan cannot develop this system (since NoKo and China don’t have it as yet, so no “indigenous” development possible) doesn’t mean that it isn’t a useful system.
21AnkushI proved you wrong, Pakistan is a potential Gripen customer.
They’d better stick to affordable fighters that they can get as part of some FMS or with long-term credit agreements. Pakistan cannot afford to buy Gripen NGs in any meaningful numbers.
21AnkushNo nation on earth has a proven 100% anti BM/CM capability. Yet again certain posters think if they actually write this down it will become gospel.
the day you get a Chinese ABM system, you’ll sing a different tune. typical. :rolleyes:
Thanks for the kind words Insig. Needless to say, whenever facts are falsified as frequently they are done by some posters, I will strive to be there to correct them! 😉
Take your Mutual Admiration Society of Pakistan to the PAF thread. you’ll find many more who’ll love you unconditionally out there.
21AnkushIndia does not have the S-400.
we know that. he said India NEEDS it, not that India has it. learn to read. :rolleyes:
21AnkushI think that India cannot become a real regional power with China on the top and Pakistan on the left. Cuba crises showed that a real superpower does/can NOT afford to have danger near its borders. Besides that a superpower exports weapons to control others. India is a mega importer.
:diablo: someone seems really upset at such statments by the IAF. :diablo:
21Ankushfc20 will be.
yes. hope lives. 😀
Sign In
