Nick_76Please note that I do not have access to HAL’s directors, PRO etc. (and have neither claimed to have such access). If you indeed have access, then I request you to share whatever is permissible on a public forum. I reiterate that as per various Russian and Indian reports (including Reuters) that have been posted earlier, the airframe design has already been finalized, approved and has begun production already. The finalizations also include the engine, weapons, and avionics also.
Bah, how silly can you bloody well get? Go get yourself a press pass from some press agency or get some accredited guy and talk to the HAL or IAF folks? Instead you waste so much time, writing reams of speculative nonsense in flowery language!! You (and for that matter 99% of the press and public) have no idea of what has been finalized in the PAK-FA and what has not! Instead, you are writing absolute nonsense with such certainty! So if everything has been finalized, show us the schema, the avionics and what not, eh? FYI, the IAF and the Russians are still working out whats best!!!
The agreement between India and Russia only allows for the modification of the PAK-FA to locally customize it for the IAF. This will not be binding on Russia. Thus, HAL’s contributions will primarily be only in the field of sub-contractual manufacture. If at all, some CFD testing, efficient riveting analysis, and possibly composite layout work may be contracted for future prototypes (as the current one’s production is already underway).
You talk such absolute nonsense and I can bet you have nowhere been near an aircraft production floor or even talked to anyone associated with such programs! Some “CFD testing”, “efficient riveting analysis”, “some composite layout work” – what absolute nonsense- do you even know what stage these different things are done at, and what design and development entails vs what is manufacturing process optimization??? Son, please do us all a favour – and do a simple thing- either educate yourself by talking to folks who do this for a living, and show some humility or stop making such stupid categorical pronouncements about what the 5G program will be and what it wont be!! There is nothing worse than ignorance passed off as fact, and you demonstrate this.
Any plane that the IAF purchases is evaluated whether it meets requirements. None of the planes in IAF’s current inventory (except Su-30 MKI) have ben built as per IAF’s ASRs from “scratch”. At most, the PAK-FA will be like the Su-30 MKI only, developed over a model similar to that of the JSF consortium.
More BS, and typical of what you write. Do you understand how the IAF’s ASRs come about? First, they posit effect, and not performance alone! Then based upon what is required they are drawn up! The era of designing an aircraft from the ground up is gone, if you have a strict time margin to play by!! And FYI, the IAF LOVES the MKI. Every pilot swoons over what it brings to the table. If the PAK-FA/5G meets the MKI standard then its a job well done!
The above is exactly the bias which the IAF has, even though Russia too has no prior 5G plane and is yet to fully demonstrate it’s latest fighters (both Sukhoi and MiG boards) and is wanting in its quality and supplies. The preference must be given to ADA only, as it is the home firm.
What nonsense is this. Russia is streets ahead of India in terms of design bureaus and aircraft integration and manufacture capability thanks to the immense human and financial investment made during Soviet times. Misplaced hubris gets nobody anywhere. Fact is that the IAF wants a 5G fighter asap, while ADA is still working on productionizing the LCA. Once that is done, the MCA will come about.
IAF will get a chance to “dictate” its ASRs from the drawing board. From the ASRs, sketches, CAD prototype, flight-models, CFD testing, all the way upto the first full-scale prototype production, the IAF will continuously have maximum arbitration. All these stages have singularly been foregone in the PAK-FA as it began prototype production. Only maximizing efficacy in production & construction/blending and testing work will not change the design, which remains solely Russian.
The IAF will do that if and when it has time. Right now it wants a 5G fighter asap, and it will get that with the PAKFA. Once the LCA is done, the MCA will take it over. And the MKI experience shows how well an existing platform can be customized to meet the IAFs needs.
It is acknowledged that except USA, no nation can afford or has the need for 2 types of 5g fighters. However, in India MCA should be given that opportunity for the IAF to be completely in the decision and vetoing process since the drawing board.
Acknowledged by whom, you? Has any program that India has undertaken be based on external validation? Grow up, please.
The ADA has already released conceptual sketches of the MCA twice and presented it briefly at seminars also. The IAF however, is non-committal to a project that it can oversee and “command” from “embryonic” level for the first time since many decades — till now it has had to proximate or approximate all foreign purchases to its ASRs. The MCA will provide it a preparation of war right from conception.
Of course they are non committal. They want the LCA to be inducted first. Let 120 odd LCAs fly, and then the MCA shall come in.
Please keep the discussion resonant with the kind of response received. A genuflection of civility, rather than adjectives and will help in a coherent discussion. Again, if you know something not discussed earlier then you can share it here.
I dont need to be civil with you when you talk absolute nonsense and couch it in flowery terms and via ridiculous examples of misplaced english straight out of some “Gunga Din” remake – “genuflection of civility” indeed. Peter Sellers would have laughed out loud and called you the man he based his entire stand up routine on.
I have already shared what I know, that HAL has indeed been promised a lot of workshare and it is busy working on a consortium of DRDO, public and pvt firms that can assist it. But you of course, are so caught up in your childish obsession about the PAK-FA being bad and what not, that you cant even recognise information which is spoon fed to you.
Get this straight, once the LCA is complete and operationalized- AND THIS IS INDIAS PRIMARY FOCUS NOW- there will be a chance for a MCA and many more opportunities besides. The PAK-FA will vault the IAFs combat capabilities into a worldclass club, and allow it to defend India, instead you are caterwauling.
Perhaps its age, but you come across as a habitual whiner who is unable to understand the simplest of things and keeps arguing over something irrelevant. The decision has been made, accept it, understand it and move on, whining about it does you no good.
Nick_76Nick76, although there have been no reports that detail HAL’s role in the PAK-FA, it must be noted that the design of the PAK-FA’s airframe, engine, avionics (Russian side) etc. have been approved, digitalized and been given the ‘go-ahead’ for the first production of the prototypes even as India is still negotiating.
Thus, HAL’s role may be limited to contract manufacture of non-critical sub-assemblies and components only. Even if major parts of the fuselage will be manufactured, it must be remembered that it would amount to no more than licence production of a Russian design.
Abhimanyu, stop this brainless speculation please. Go to HAL, ask to speak to their PRO and get access to the directors and you will become aware of what the IAF and HAL plan for the 5G. HAL is going to tap everyone, from pvt sector to other DPSUs to DRDO for design contribution. Your assumption that this will be licensed assembly of non critical assemblies is laughably wrong, especially given what we are doing with the MKI already.
As you said above, the so-termed “fanaticism” may be in the MoD and IAF making the Indian public actually believe that the PAK-FA is a 50-50 joint venture, when in fact the design is totally of Russian origin formulated as per Russian standards only. As per Reuters, the venture is only to modify the PAK-FA for local use by India (unlike Brahmos, Russia won’t adopt Indian inputs).
You are being a joke here, and demonstrating your ludicrous bias. The 5G will have to meet Indian standards as well, as set down by the IAF in its ASRs and individual systems will be type tested by CEMILAC. Your cut and paste of Reuters and what not, is a waste of my time and yours. If you are based in India, finagle a visit to HAL Corp HQ and you will learn more.
Finally, as Mr. Pogosyan himself stated, India’s role will initially be only that of a financier. There is little scope to provide ”last minute” inputs to an in-production prototype.
You demonstrate your remarkable assumptions viz aircraft design and manufacture yet again. The PAK-FA is by no means final, all the hype in the press, Indian and Russian apart. And India (and now Brazil) can contribute a lot to the program technologically. As I said, go do something and learn about what the IAF wants of the aircraft, and then come back.
The MCA has been mentioned by the DRDO chief a few times in interviews and seminars last year. It also finds mention in the previous Standing Committee report on defence. Thus, it is unclear why the govt. is pursuing the PAK-FA even though there was acknowledgement of the MCA.
Because there will be no MCA till the LCA development is complete. Get that straight. India doesnt have the resources to launch 2 fighter programs simultaneously where it does everything. After the LCA attains FOC, then the MCA will be tapped for replacing all the upgraded MiG-29s and Mirage2000s that the PAK-FA wont be substituting for. DRDO themselves are quite confident that the MCA will come about, but their focus, justifiably, remains the LCA for now.
Nick_76Standing Committee of Defence, 29 DFG, 2008-09.
A representative of Air Force stated in this regard during oral evidence: – “As of last year, if you recall, our force level was down to 32 squadrons. If no action was to have been taken by us as a Government, this would continue to go down to a sliding scale of 20.5 squadrons by the end of 2022. Therefore, we have put a plan into motion and we have plan to induct, six squadrons, that goes up to 26.5.
Then we have also initiated the case for the MMRCA, that will increase our levels to 32.5. Finally, we have entered into a Government agreement which is signed with Russia last year in November and that will take us to 42 squadrons with the fifth generation fighter aircraft.
I am happy to report to you today itself that as of this day, as of 1st April,
2008, from 32 squadrons we have gone up to 34 squadrons. We have inducted a new Su-30 squadron in Bareily that is number eight squadron. Today itself the papers have been cleared and we have formed an additional Jaguar squadron at Jamnagar. So, this would constitute the 34th squadron. Of course, the phase outs would also take place concurrently. But with this new strategy in place, we are very confident that with the necessary budgetary provisions being given by the Government and the utilization by the Air Force we would be able to meet our target of 35.5 squadrons by the end of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan and thereafter progress towards 37.5 squadrons by the end of the 12th Plan.”
Nick_76IAF planned acquisition of the 5G aircraft is at 9.5 Squadrons. Assuming one squadron at 20 aircraft – 18 frontline with 2 reserve, that is 190 aircraft.
Standing Committee of Defence 2008-09, 29th DFG:
“As of last year, if you recall, our force level was down to 32 squadrons. If no action was to have been taken by us as a Government, this would continue to go down to a sliding scale of 20.5 squadrons by the end of 2022. Therefore, we have put a plan into motion and we have plan to induct, six squadrons {My note: LCA}, that goes up to 26.5. Then we have also initiated the case for the MMRCA, that will increase our levels to 32.5. Finally, we have entered into a Government agreement which is signed with
Russia last year in November and that will take us to 42 squadrons with the fifth generation fighter aircraft.
Nick_76You’re wrong. I write this at Correio Braziliense and BBC just translate my material. I’m Janes Defence Weekly Brazilian correspondent and I can assure you Brazil will participate at PAK-FA.
Cheers
Pepe
PS: Brazil will not adopt F-35 Lightining. Brazilian Defence Minister, Mr. Nelson Jobim, said it clearly to American authorities at his last US visit.
Which is good. Because Brazilian aerospace and indian aerospace can contribute a lot to each other, and if Brazilian involvement provides a ready source for production, non sanctionable, to keep PAKFA costs reasonable, its good news for India. Many aerostructures can be from Brazil, while India focuses on avionics, and licenses the critical parts which it wants etc. from Russia.
In other news, India is buying 3 Emb-145s to put its local radar, and C3I gear on for its local AEW & C program:
http://www.hindu.com/2008/04/20/stories/2008042059851000.htm
Brazilian jets to serve as eye in the sky for IAF
Ravi Sharma
India to sign deal for three $300-million, advanced surveillance aircraft
——————————————————————————–
AEW&CS programme may be operationalised
in five years
DRDO laboratories involved in it
——————————————————————————–
Bangalore: With the question whether the Air Force is still serious about the Rs 1,800-crore indigenous Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AEW&CS) programme settled, India is to sign a deal with the Brazilian aerospace firm Embraer for three EMB 145 intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft.
The three aircraft together are expected to cost around $300 million.
Based on Embraer’s regional ERJ 145, the jets, which are one of the world’s most advanced and powerful remote sensing aircraft, will be used by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for its AEW&CS programme, serving as the ‘eye in the sky’ for the Air Force, detecting and intercepting enemy planes and missiles which are in flight, and far away.
The AEW&CS, working along with the three Phalcon Airborne Early Warning, Command and Control (AEWC&C) systems that the Air Force is acquiring from Israel, will become a force multiplier, filling gaps in the coverage provided by ground radars.
Defence Ministry sources told The Hindu that the contract would be signed later this month and aircraft delivery would begin in three years.
The DRDO expects that the AEW&CS programme will be operationalised in around five years
The AEW&CS programme involves using a flying platform and mounting sensors (radars) that look far and deep, providing C2BM (command and control, battle management) functions with data link for both tactical and defence forces.
While in the AEWC&C the lofted sensors transmit information to a ground-based command and control centre, in the larger and more expensive Airborne Warning and Control System like the AEWC&C, the sensors disseminate information to a command centre that is part of the flying platform.
Under the agreement, Embraer will not only supply the jets, which have several hours of endurance and in-flight refuelling, but also mount the radar on the EMB-145 fuselage, ensuring that changes in the aircraft’s technical specifications such as its aero dynamism and handling after mounting get recertified in the altered configuration. The Brazilians will also be responsible for the aircraft’s overall endurance with payload (radar) and a modification of the mounts that will receive the radar.
A number of DRDO laboratories are involved in the AEW&CS programme. The Defence Electronics Application Laboratory is involved with the primary sensors, communication systems and data link; the Defence Avionics Research Establishment with the self-protection systems, electronic warfare suites and communication support systems; and the Defence Electronics Research Laboratory with counter-support measures.
While the heart of the radar is from the Electronics and Radar Development Establishment, the responsibility for the overall integration of the systems, mission computer, display and data handling is that of the Bangalore-based Centre for Airborne Systems (CABS).
The CABS has tied up with the Hyderabad-based private firm Astra Microwave Products for development of trans-receiver multimodules.
The DRDO, which initiated talks with companies including Larsen and Toubro, Tata Power and Bharat Electronics with the idea of signing on a partner from the development stage itself for maintenance, upgrading and for taking care of obsolescence of the complicated radar system, has abandoned the idea. The hurdles: not being able to take manpower from outside the DRDO to work on the project, and the levels of commitment and materials.
Follow-up to ‘Airawat’
The AEW&CS programme is a follow-up to the Rs 60.80-crore ‘Project Guardian’ (later called ‘Airawat’), which ended in disaster in January 1999 after the HS-748 aircraft, on which the radar was mounted, crashed near Arakkonam in Tamil Nadu. All eight personnel on board, including four scientists who were critical to the project, were killed.
Nick_76Abhimanyu, your posts are littered with errors especially with regards to the MKI vs PAK-FA model. This time around, HAL is getting deep access to the PAK-FA program and has drawn up a list of areas where indian industry – HAL, Pvt and DRDO can contribute. So take a chill pill and dont let your fanaticism for the PAK-FA being a bad deal overtake your common sense. And no, the MKIs Siva pod will not replace the Litening. The Siva is an ESM pod meant for SEAD, whereas the Litening is a FLIR cum LDP.
Nick_76Abhimanyu.
Just ignore this idiot Buradiah. He is the same Pakistani chap called Titanium who was banned from this forum previously. Irrespective of how many links you post, and how many polite replies you give, he will come back with the same BS.
Nick_76The data processor on the BARS is or was Indian for a long time because there was no Russian counterpart. I think since then its been replaced but maybe not.
They used a Russian signal processor though. When BARS was being developed the Russian chip industry was in an even more dreadful state than it is now and there was no Russian data processor capable of doing the job.
From what I’ve read the Russians have kept up fairly well in antenna development but when it comes to the computing power they had to use Indian components.
Sistema (which owns the largest Russian cellular operator among other things) and its many chip making subsidiaries are now sitting on a lot of money and there is investement across the board in chips in Russia today so I dont think the old problems exist today at the level that they existed a few years ago.
NIIP goes to MiKron a Sistema subsidiary for chips. There is so much money in this company right now that I dont invision many problems for them in the future. Sistema is moving into the Indian cell phone market too. They just bought a 51% stake in Shyam of India. They are borrowing 10 billion dollars to further their expansion efforts in a host of areas. Their CEO has talked openly of becoming a Russian Samsung. They still have a long way to go, but the money is there and they have Putins support which is what really matters.
to summarise, the bars used indian radar computers since they didnt have anything comparable then. this was because the indian unit used commercially available cots 486 level chips whereas the russians were themselves working on getting similar processing units out. they were subsequently used to effect in sukhoi programs.
niip now says they have enough ability in russia and ready products that they can go it alone w/o such assistance, sourcing. the latest western even indian units use the latest cots chips so they might be more compact and faster, but the latest russian data and signal processors, even with local chips are no fold overs either.
all in all, it could be that an indian pak-fa uses indian processors (built using cots chips) but a russian one could have an all russian fit without sacrificing any capability whatsoever.
Nick_76That has nothing to do with your N001 vs. N001 comparison here. Nice try, buddy. Even what the Su-27SM has (updated N001V) is badly outdated in comparison to any planar radar. Maybe you have not figured out regardless of what they do, all that apparatus that makes up a twist cassegrain design is right in front and on the way of the receiving antenna.
it has everything to do with it. dont really care anyways, the point was that the chinese orginal flankers are downgraded vs their russian counterparts, prove otherwise.
Of course, given your tirade. Hypocrite.
hmm let me see, a polite reply to tphuang and off you come frothing at the mouth. hypocrisy indeed.
Oh boy, time to bring the passports out. I don’t give a rat what your passport is.
well i do. i find it incredibly amusing that your defence of the prc is so abusive and violent, in thread after thread, given you are not even from the prc but are just of chinese ethnic origin and trumpet them like blazes. you have zero sources in the prc, i bet you cant even read original sources and rely on folks like t p huang to do the heavy lifting..but you are the expert, and you abuse people and yet you are the offended one! amusing!
The crux of the matter is I find your hypocrisy intolerable when you question sources that has proven on record to be reliable, when your own sources (yourself claiming to be on the know) has proven on record not to be reliable.
you can find anything intolerable (who gives a damn btw?) but i continue to find them unreliable when there is zero evidence of their reliability. i never declare my sources or brag about what i know on this forum (loose lips sink ships), so your claims of being better are bizarre. better than what, exactly?
second, t p huang can speak for himself. he doesnt need somebody as full of bile as you to speak on his behalf.
Oh boy. You seem to be the one going out as if RWS is the latest thing in radar equipment.
no, i was just pointing out that most modern upto date radar sets have it. you are the one who has been trying to downplay it as a manufacturer gimmick and what not.
BS. Its not hard to RWRs to determine range. The ones in the Phantom back in the sixties can give rough range. Just comparing waveforms received from differently located RWRs can give you rough range, as if you think it would take a genius to figure that out.
bs indeed. go on, put one source forward of any in service chinese rwr doing range estimation or having datalinking to permit real time triangulation. otherwise, enough of the generics. y’aint convincing me with this “could be, so must be” . same stuff you pulled on yourfather btw and sferrin in a manner of speaking in the other discussion…..they didnt buy this trainwreck of logic either.
And let me know when you actually talk with the PLAAF to figure out why they don’t have any range finding abilities on their RWRs, despite that they have been showing SEAD capabilities with ARMs, and you would need rangefinding on your RWR for that.
lol, ever figured out that the pastel set comes with additional control eqpt for the same?
And you do? You talked as if you think the Chinese J-11s don’t have RWS. I got an Su-27SK manual in my hard drive that tells you otherwise.
downloaded off the “inturrnet” no doubt. go on, tell us what all features the chinese flankers have. lay it out, tell us whats the separate mode for the rws called in chinese, the range vs different swerling targets, and what not. shoot, must be easy shucks for you!
Let me know when you actually talk to a PLAAF officer why their Su-27s don’t have RWS.
dont give a damn actually.
all i know is that your flankers original n001s were denied certain basic features by the russians.
The Su-27SK manual shows you otherwise on the RWS. China being the only official user of the SK.
if you have anything more than any internet manual, feel free to inform us.
For them to fire R-77s (two engaged) that would mean a new TWS engagement mode. It is a fact that the J-11s do have additional equipment, once that can be verified in photography.
this is incredibly lame. any chap can tell about the tws engagement mode, we aint talking about that.
NCTR should be more of a function with the plane’s EW countermeasures than the radar. One of the best assesement of threat is to read the other emitter’s waveform.
should be, must be, could be ..is not equal to…is. do the chinese aircraft have nctr, or not.
I don’t care what the FK you said. Simply said RVV-AE capability would REQUIRED that you have an additional firing mode for the RVV itself, and you don’t use the STT mode for the R-27. That firing mode, like in all radars fitted for ARH BVRAAM would be a special TWS mode that will enable you to track, lock and engage a target within that mode.
of course you dont care. anything that goes against “rah rah PRC” makes you break out in a cold sweat and off you come seeking a fight like some kid in the playground who’s been told his lollipop aint the bestest ever.
the rest of your spiel is absolute nonsense. there is no proof that there is anything great about a dual engagement mode either, and as i said before, all it is a well known mod to bypass the existing fcs and add a bit of functionality. aint all compared to what the russian flankers have either, which is the basic point.
Does not change the fact that expectations are not _constantly_ met, there are constant delays and price escalations beyond the plans. That fundamentally represents less than satisfactory execution.
india is happy enough to go ahead on program after program, they think different from you.
Nick_76Since you have had a first-hand interaction with NIIP, I would assume that you work in defense industry and I would like to ask a few questions
– What is your *honest* opinion about russian radar technology. Is it on par with western ones. Given that some of the avionics and the ECM equipment on MKI is not of Russian origin, it does raise some suspicion about russian radar tech also, India may have been forced to buy russian radar, simply because weapons would’nt work with any other radar. (please note that its just my general opinian, based upon what ever is available on internet)
to be honest, its a hard call. the bars gets performance equal to top of the line western radars, but it pays a severe penalty in terms of weight and volume. which means only a flanker could carry it. per my own discussions and talking to peers, i feel that russia has a ways to go to catch up in leveraging cots technology to the hilt and evaluating the importance of form factor. but in terms of algorithms and theoretical stuff, the russians are still top notch. its the investment in manufacturing which has yet to take off.
– The fact that China does not have top notch russian radars may also imply that it feels that own radars are comparable or will be shortly. While again I do not have any hard facts, however I work in telecoms and chinese equipment (huawei) is now considered almost to be on par with such giants as Ericsson, Nokia-Siemens, Lucent-Alcatel etc, quite an achievement imho.
i have been following prc radar development for a while, and have discussed their work with some guys who do this for a living. we’ve looked through multiple technology conferences, briefings et al- conclusion is that they are good, but they havent yet made the jump to a level of say a thales or an elta. the restriction on arms technology has hit them in that sense, but this doesnt mean they can be underestimated since it doesnt matter if their latest radar weighs more or doesnt have as many nifty features in its beamformer- as long as it can get the job done. to summarise, still quite some way to go.
Nick_76Upgrading a baseline Flanker to a Bars one is not as easy as it sounds……….as the Indians found out.;)
you are missing my point. its not just the bars per se. why not a zhuk msf? why not something else? of course its not easy, but it would provide a massive boost to chinese capability. but whenever possible, russia has restricted what it provides technologically to china- in my opinion there are 2 reasons for it:
– chinas lack of consideration for ipr when it comes to defense (eg the refleks ripoff 100/105mm round) which it then deploys extensively or even exports
– china being an increasingly powerful neighbour to a russia which is still struggling to rebuild its defence forces, economy and overall industry to what it needs be
Chinese Flanker procurement began in the early 1990’s when all the fancy goodies were not available. Su-30’s were part of the post 1996 reflex.
these goodies were available. india in fact started its flanker evaluation at the same time as chinas, and got access to far more which made it plump for the best. otherwise it too would have been forced to manage with su-30 k’s or buy fewer mirage 2000-5’s. china could have always inducted its systems in blocks with later ones having the more sophisticated items.
Russian defense cooperation with China is well reported (if very mirky making definate facts an impossibility) but what is certain is that Russia has provided significant help. Likely ranging from engine help through to radar seekers for missiles.
thats the entire point. funny thing is that if i say the same as you have, the chinese posters like crobato will be all over me claiming china received no help in anything and abusing me. glad to have a rational debate instead of that. but even so, help on some projects is not equal to whole sale transfer of high end tech and codevelopment or joint production. simply put, i havent seen any item (such as the pak-fa) which is at the bleeding edge of what russia will induct, which is being developed with china as a partner.
The other factor that people seem to forget is the very long term nature of Chinese military modernisation. It was always intended to be the last of the modernisations and China’s own defense whit papers list 2050 as the completion date. Procurements now are largely related to the development of an industrial base. Even procurement prior to 1996 looks more like efforts at producing stop-gap solutions rather than fleet wide replacements, note the small quantitys of Flankers and Kilo’s ordered in that time frame.
if china got more access to top notch gear, it would change its procurement strategy to match. the reason why these solutions are stop gap because they are not good enough for the long term.
Nick_76Not true at all. China never pursued items that were not available in a very short period of time. Check the order and delivery schedules for Chinas flankers, how many Bars equipped birds did India have when China started receiving its Flankers? India procured the better plane but had to wait longer for it. The reason being different procurement schedules.
The fact is that mass Chinese procurement from Russia began in the months immediately after the 1996 Taiwan straights crisis, material was ordered to satisfy an immediate operational requirement brought about by US intervention in that crisis and so China procured the most immediately available equipment. The purchase of the two incomplete Sovremennys being the best example.
The fact that China has purchased S-300PMU2, S-300FM, Moskit, Klub, new built Sovremennys and Kh-31P (for which it also reportedly has a production license) goes to show that very little has been held back from China.
good debate.
its good to have a discussion without abuse- something crobato can learn from, with all his usual “bull” this, that.
now coming to your points, what i would point out is that your points miss certain things.
china could have upgraded its fighters with bars. or it could have been chinese processors running a zhuk msf- but it didnt happen.
when i asked niip – the answer was clear, state cabinet of security decides what is exported. someone like that or somesuch thing. they even helped me try and understand what they were saying, but my note taking couldnt manage.
now lets come to procurement. you missed my point- china is sold certain items- no doubt downgraded in select parameters, but its not transferred production licenses for them, unless there is something better already with russia or in advanced development. the chinese flanker transfer was not accompanied by a deep license of engine technology or even maintenance. irsts are still imported from russia…who knows what else.
the kh-31 is already being replaced by a newer variant in devpt with russia. its no longer the best they have or even planned for.
selling stuff is different from entering into joint ventures sharing technology and state secrets or transferring detailed production.
if china was coproducing items such as the s-400 series, or a joint partner in many critical state of the art russian items, i would agree with you. just think for example, if china license produced the backfire or a modernised variant of the same.
claims that china has its own “other programs” such as the hq-9 or that it received help from russia miss the point. its about the depth of relationship in the defence arena, moving beyond purchase and just technology assistance.
but its not, its mostly outright purchase by china and hard negotiations for the next series of items, which china mitigates risk against by developing its own systems. max russia has done has provide tot for lower end munitions- krasnopol, refleks, and similar stuff, and tech assistance on select chinese programs. thats not the same.
Nick_76I see it realistic, of course you can further upgrade the Flanker, but if it makes sense is another question. The type has been upgraded numerous times and one might question if the money would not better be spent on a new type like the PAK FA and that seems to be the case. According Sukhoi the Su-35 is the last derivate. If it will enter service it is likely to be further upgraded, but probably not in the same way as Typhoon or Rafale.
cheers
Scorpion
Scorps, look east. the su-35 may be the last for sukhoi, but both india and china will continually modify their flankers to keep them relevant and with whatever they can get. in that sense, even if the su-35 never comes about, these other fighters will remain relevant.
Nick_76Don’t give that rant. If you have a simple idea how radars would be designed is that the digital signal amplifiers would be attached to the reception of the array itself, and the DSPs would be processing right behind that. This is the most efficient and effective way because you want to minimize or remove the middle layers between the recieving array and the processing. Thus they would be processing both A2A and A2G signals without any discrimination between the two.
more generic spiel. speak to the niip people before making such comments please. your stuff from “what should be” has nothing to do with “what was”. there is a good reason why the chinese started putting their own radars in the j-11s even if not cutting edge, its far better than the junk (per todays standards) russia sold them. a decade back, it was reasonable stuff, today it isnt.
Listen to this. You are the number one poster in this board who puts national pride and spin on top of things.
what an absolutely predictable response.
right, listening to your screeds against yellowfather et al on the other threads makes it clear who is the # 1 poster. not to mention your “who is the bigger expert” comparisons with star49 (wow)
coming to nationality again- at least i hold an indian passport and have never hidden it. you otoh, are some chinese origin fellow in the us who starts ranting each time china is mentioned. hoo boy.
a polite post to tphuang hurt you so much that off you came with your bilious rants. thats the difference between you and him, irrespective of how much we disagree, i can anticipate he’ll come back with a polite measured reply, you otoh …
take this kindergarten stuff elsewhere pls. i am not interested in the fact that you are chinese, just try to leave your anger at my point of view out of the discussion and respond rationally.
Then figure out how VS can actually be useful. Proper threat evaluation requires range data. Heck even a RWR can give you a range approximate.
the point made was that the combination of rws and vs is used by pilots for situational updates. and here you are restating the same as a great discovery!
and there is no evidence that chinese rwrs have range on bearing tech.
let me know when you even spend some time discussing basic tactics with experienced users of combat eqpt in the plaaf.
The way you talk you sure don’t know the basics of radars. RWS is the most basic function of all the radars, and it can be found going back into the sixties. The Chinese N001s will surely have it as much as you can guarantee that a MiG-23 or an F-4 Phantom will have it. And that’s according to the Su-27SK manual to boot.TWS is much more newer, and limited TWS with engagement, sometimes called the “bugged” mode, is newer because the latter is used in the use of BVRAAMs against two or more multiple targets.
i can actually make out here that you have absolutely no clue about what is on the chinese sukhois of original russian origin. just because some obsolete chinese fighters had it doesnt mean that the russian ones provided to china did, as a separate mode by itself for long range search. the chinese n001s according to niip themselves have tws based original mode and thats it. get used to it. you can brag about how good the chinese flankers are, when china replaces them with its own radars- if, when whatever. dont give a damn really, but if it makes you happy, go for it.
whats even more amusing is how you dismiss it as manufacturer trickery earlier. the russian af got these modes as a special upgrade, including raid assessment and nctr, among others. just because china didnt, you are upset and spinning things. i dont even know why. heck, even so, the radars on the chinese flankers are still better than most of its rivals, even if not modern by todays standards.
Now if you figured this out, this goes entirely against what you said about the RVVAE function not adding anything valuable to the radar. You are trying to provide high quality locking information against two targets at least, not one, and without lighting them up like a flashlight, and that’s going to require significant more processing resources than the STT mode used for the R-27.
can you read? i said the rvv-ae doesnt provide functionality in other modes. the basic rvv-ae capabilility is all the computational modifications provide. so dont tilt at windmills.
Just how many things that you said or predicted really come true, hm?
dozens actually, but i am not interested in blowing my trumpet.
Appreciated really? Maybe you have not been reading about the sudden escalation of costs for the carrier, the MKIs and the failure of testing on the Klubs.
i dont need to read trade mags to get my info and thats the difference.
i know my information from first hand, and all the above are the usual stuff which has gone on between india and russia for ages, till we come to an agreement and move on.
the only real sticking point has been the gorshkov and even that will be renegotiated and done.
face it, if india had no interest in moving further, it wouldnt have the t-50 agreement or the brahmos-2.
Nick_76There is no evidence whatsoever. Chinas approach to licenses is very different to India’s they dont buy them becouse they dont need them, they just steal whatever they need via their vast industrial espionage network.
sure, there is no evidence, as in the vast majority of cases. believe what you will. coming to industrial espionage – china steals because it cant buy as it is under weapon sanctions from the west and cant get what it needs from russia. if it could get militarised tech openly as and when it wanted to, it wouldnt steal.
MKI is a very poor example, For India this was a long term procurement program to satisfy long term needs, India could afford to wait and did so. China could not afford to wait, in 1996 it needed Flankers in 1995 so they took the quickest option.
that is a ridiculous statement. mki is an excellent example, because india never planned for it to be delayed or become a long term procurement program or any such thing. the complexity made it so. face it, critical russian items in the mki which could have been on the su-30 mkk were never cleared, such as the bars.
Sign In
