Nick_76AFAIK, the J-model of Hercules is not suitable for Special Operations. That is a bit of surprising pick for me.
Why? Anything in specific? :confused:
Because that sensor suite screams Special Ops to me..
Nick_76What does the package come with? As far as i can see:
1. self protection suite: AN32 has this too.
2. Secure Comms equipment: AN32 has this too.
3. FLIR: Id be surprised if AN32 doesnt have FLIR capability or coudnt be adopted for it.So whats the reason behind adding another aircraft type to the ever growing list? I still get the feeling im missing something in the picture.
An-32s are long in the tooth, and are supposed to go through an upgrade and reengining with Ukraine. But frankly, the C-130J will be a more modern aircraft, not just in avionics, but handling and all the other things that go into making the aircraft.
The AN-32 is a rugged dependable bird, but its not the aircraft of choice for anything too fancy.
Nick_76I dont for a moment doubt your knowledge. And am glad to hear about it. Honest 🙂
Didnt mean to sound testy either, but your first post seemed a tad acerbic. Anyways, no probs. 🙂
As ive stated many time before. Aint going to happen. PAF is not dropping the JF17 and wishing it away wont solve your problem. It’s going to get both JF17s and J-10s.
Look I am just playing a contrarian here. You know, I know, that the JF-17 is going to be the PAFs future – I am just pointing out that the PAF can do better. But thats about it..
Each airforce has its own needs and preferences. PAF prefers light and medium fighters and will stick with those. So once again, you will never see a J-11 in PAF colors no matter how much you might wish it. Aint happening.
I frankly dont want to see a J-11 in PAF colors, cause it would be a PITA for the opponent. But it makes for a good debate. 😉 🙂
But there is one massive advantage to the JF-17, standardisation. Transitioning to a 4 fighter force (J-7, JF-17, Mirage, F-16) is good for the PAF.
Likewise. And not interested in the topic enough to warrant a new thread.
Okey dokey!!
Nick_76Nick, while IAF is going for a hev/med/light mix, i think it has been becoming quite obvious that PAF have decided to go for a light/med mix, and not to explore the option of heavy weights (at least for the time being till something more suitbale becomes available…probably a chinese next gen fighter). We all know that its almost impossible for PAF to achieve air superiority over IAF, and in any case that’s not their primary objective. Their primary moto has always been the defence of their air space. They dont have the resources to go for a heavy weight fighter like Eagle/MKI, and would have had to make a lot of sacrifices in other parts. Hence, instead of making these sacrifices, they have decided to go for an AF composed of JF-17/J-10/F-16. Every one of these machines will be multirole, have BVR, data-linked, and air-refuelling capability. In addition to this, Pak is also exploring her options for both med/long range SAMs, and some decisions will be made regarding these in near future. While i agree that light/med fighter may suffer from certain disadvantages against heavy weights, i guess an AF made up of above-mentioned fighter and backed by AWACS/tankers as well as SAMs would form a credible detterrant against anything IAF would have in its stock over next 10-15 years.
Vikas, I dont question that this what the PAF has done. I merely pointed out that this is a very unreasonable expectation on the PAFs part. In the next 10-15 years, the IAF will be a force with its striking power doubled, thanks to the new airframes and qualitatively new weaponry, quite a lot of which will be directed at taking out entirely these nodes the PAF is depending upon, ie the GCI and AEW&C. And without these, the light fighters will be severely hobbled.
Finally, unlike Pakistan, India has to go for a heavy weight class fighter because of its future ambition. India wants to be a global power for which it would need an AF which has the capability to operate globally, and i guess MKI fits that bill. In comparison, PAF intends itself to be a regional AF able to defend its skies, and therein lies the importance of JF-17 for them.
This is an incorrect premise. When the MKI was launched, India was not planning for global powerdom- it was realized by the IAF that the PLAAFs shift towards heavy fighters required a corresponding response. Now, with MKIs in the fleet and on the way, the IAF can explore, force projection, but its a corollary, not the reason for the acquisition.
Just like anyother AF, PLAAF has its own priorities. Of course J-10 programme is of a lot more importance to PLAAF than JF-17, but one should not forget that both J-10/JF-17 are the product of one company, and each will benefit the other. Considering the fact that PAF will purchase J-10 (in considerable number in years to come), i guess chinese would remain committed even to JF-17 to a certain extent. Finally, China also has global ambitions, and too large an AF to be replaced entirely by J-10/11…even though they cant/wont replace many of their old types on 1 on 1 basis…and that’s where JF-17 would fit in quite neatly.
My point was that when the PAF was asking the PLAAF to focus on the JF-17, they should have plumped for the J-10 instead.
Its possible though that they didnt have that level of access and settled for what was publically available. But now that the J-10 is public, why not try and make tje J-10 the new JF-17 and quietly shift focus? Not much loss of national pride and a more effective platform.
Nick_76I have no idea what you are on about regarding various boards nor do I intend to give a class here on open architecture and its benefits or pitfalls and the performance bottlenecks it inherently introduces. If you want, read up in your own time on the issues with real time systems, issues with interface standardization and data access performance bottlenecks.
I really dont think you can give me a class- given your statements about source code and the like, I am pretty sure I have forgotten more than you have ever learnt on the topic, since I deal with all these issues in the real world, not academic theory and debates on the internet. Lets come to open architecture & integration & interface standards, I could quote line and verse, but you seem to be mistaking interface applications with source code, and not even realising what source code is necessary for, and the many variations therein! The MKIs avionics items sourced from multiple vendors all follow the same interface standards & international proprietary standards that have been a focus of the program. Its merely your belief (mistaken as it is!) that because a handful of avionics items come from barely 4-5 countries, it wouldnt work!
Then I do wonder what one has to make of the melange the JF-17 seems to be!
Russian engine, Chinese airframe plus russian aerodynamic help, Chinese radar, French avionics, German radio, US ejection seat….and the list goes on and on..and wait, Swedish erieyes, so swedish datalinks even!
And unlike in India’s case, the PAF is not even integrating all this inhouse with its own core computer, but depending upon OEMs.
What then?
So to get this straight- the JF-17 is a rousing success right and an example of gung ho! 😉
The bottom line is that US, france, russia and china prefer to develop all components domestically for security and performance reasons. The local versions of their aircraft are better then then export versions. India is doing the best it can by getting what it can from various sources while also trying to get tech transfer. This is a compromise at best and if india had local technology, they would have acquired it domestically too. And ther performance would have been better then the candy store approach currently being followed.
This is merely you claiming that the grapes are sour. Just because Pakistan does not have an aviation industry (yet!) worth its name, does not mean that you can claim the same when it comes to India and claim an equal- equal.
FYI, China has done the same thing with the J-11 that India has done with its MKI. It too has licensed production of the Su-27SK design and is replacing select subsystems with its own units, which is exactly what India is doing with the MKI. Nor is China developing all components locally, it has the brains to take help as and when necessary. The only two truly vertically integrated aviation powerhouses were the Soviet Union & the US, and today, both are looking towards international cooperation in a time of shrinking budgets. And that level of vertical integration affected the Soviet economy summat horrible.
Secondly, the MKI is currently better than any Sukhoi-30 variant in service with the RusAF and likely to be so for the future- the Su-35 yet awaits funding. And the PAK-FA will be a Russo-Indian JV as well. So even that claim is incorrect.
Any claims to the contrary are tainted with nationalistic pride and have little to do with reality.
A cross attitude doesnt a reasonable arguement make! Just because the facts bear out that replacing the JF-17 with the J-10 wont make much difference to Pak bar the purse (after all, if you could license produce the airframe for the JF-17, you could attempt to negotiate the same for the J-10!)
The one focused on nationalism here is you- look beyond it, at the reality, light fighters just dont cut it. This has little to do with how nice the JF-17 looks in green and red, the J-10 would look equally good and function better.
Its the PAFs call to make, and so they have- but that doesnt mean that the decision cannot and wont be debated.
lets get back to JF-17. This has gone far off track. Take this to IAF thread if you really want.
Start a new thread if you wish- no promises though, work will keep me away for 23 out of 24 hrs, but there are others who’d be interested.
Nick_76You are right about the dangers of licensing technology as it becomes obsolete pretty fast. However in the case of JF-17, as far as i know, the RD-93 will not be license produces in pakistan and as such, the updated engines can always be incorporated from either china or russia.
This is a ridiculous assumption! Technology is not licensed for merely technologys sake, but for creating a viable supply chain network flexible enough to meet the customers immediate requirements!
This is precisely the reason most countries have no trouble licensing tech to another. The host country may be able to copy the product (and thats a big MAY as well) but wont be able to design a follow on improvement. For that, they will always be dependent on the design house back in the country of origin.
Again, a very big assumption on your part! Given design data & source codes, both of which are part of the DPP as elucidated by india, the country in question can iteratively modify and improve the product to its requirements and keep it viable. That is entirely because of local industrial ability which is able to absorb TOT on that level and take it forward. The PRC can also do the same, even if its access is restricted to Russia on account of the arms embargo. But in Pakistans case, it is restricted to PRC dependency because it has little to no local avionics or aircraft manufacturing and design and development ability experience as of yet.
Nick_76Thats a $176.5 million (Rs. 718.36 crore!!!!!!) per aircraft without any guarantee that these are sanction-proof! 😮
Its our money, we are paying for it (probably full market value too from what I see). Is there any mention in the news that these potential supplies are sanction-proof in any way?
What is the advantage of the 130Js that cannot be carried out in some measure by other aircraft supplied by more co-operative sellers?
Its imported!!
And 5-10% of the deal will definitely help struggling officers in the MOD.
Now now Shalav, be reasonable. :p
Nick_76We can discuss the core systems on another thread. As far as system integration in an open arch environment goes, im quite familiar with it and know what the issues are. Which is why i raise them.
I doubt this. You may have discussed this on various boards but you dont seem to understand how it works.
The OEMs provide their products along with engineering support and key interface documentation.
Now depending upon the deal, they’ll provide more or less. For eg, in the MKI deal, HAL is even making the LCD displays for the MKI from kits supplied by Thales, getting a good understading of the unit in the process. But the Malaysians wont go to that level and will depend on HAL for product support- a deal which has already been agreed upon.
Now all these items are integrated with Indian vendors involved- Govt and private. If India were to buy the F-16 Block 52, it would be in the same quandary Pakistan is going to find itself in. Each weapon to be integrated requires the express involvement of Lockheed Martin!! In Indias case, it is integrating its own items as and when it wants to- thats part of the original agreement, and Irkut is called in for the finer points as and when necessary.
This is something India can do – because by the end of the MKI deal, HAL and DRDO will have a good handle on the MKI and know what to do with it, and how to customize it even further, but with India driving the modifications.
And this is why the MKI is a Joint venture! Whilst the PAF is attempting to do something similar with the JF-17, it simply does not have the local industrial and R&D ability to support it, which is why it is at best a half measure, and the J-10 would make no difference in the same procedure.
India upgraded the MiG-27 and Jaguar, with far less OEM support than the MKI, because it license produced the aircraft, and the LCA project gave it the experience & subsystems required to modify 4 squadrons worth of MiG-27s and Jaguars (to be followed by 2 more squadrons of MiG-27s). The initial order alone (40 Jags and 40 MiG-27s) is more than all the Mirage 3s upgraded so far by the PAF, and the key difference is that India is doing it on its own w/o OEM support.
So – you realize- this source code, multiple vendor thing is a misnomer. India can easily decide the required intensity of war it wishes to fight (it has!), plot its duration (which it has!) and build up the requisite inventory of spares and logistics.
Nick_76I’d seriously liked to have seen the R77 on the M2ks (as was rumored). Whether Israeli Derbys or French Micas; against Amraam equipped PAF f16 blk52 its too darned close although the Teen (Apg 68) suffers from a marginally lower detection range.
But still, IMHO this is a very comparable upgrade to the Mirage 2000-5/9 other than the Scalp. At probly half the cost.
Regards,
USS.
All IAF a/c are being made cross compatible. Its because of cost.
Nick_76– Have all equipment vendors agreed to provide access to to source code?
You dont need access to the entire source code to integrate equipment. All these items have standardized interfaces and application code required to make them work, and thats provided!
The source code for the most critical item, the Mission computer is with the Indian side, it was because of this desired transparency, that they had it included. Similarly for the FBW etc- who do you think will be making these items, loading them up, testing them? The Mission computer btw, is critical to integrating new systems and items. Which will come with their own generic interfaces- RS22, 1553B.
– Do the vendors have a hostory of working together?
Yes. The MKI, MKM, Jagaur and MiG-27 upgrades have the same critical components.
– Who is doing the integration of the subcomponents for the MKI?
Russia and India.
– What are the country specific tech transfer laws in play here? how many countries are involved?
No country specific tech transfer laws have hindered progress till date. The only hindrance has been bureaucracy and money.
The number of countries involved? Russia, India, France, South Africa, and Israel.
Heck, there are more countries involved in the Dreamliner project.
Since Russia is extensively vertically integrated, almost all the critical hardware, bar some avionics comes from them, and is to be license produced in India as well.
Singapore and malaysia are never going to war. this is a classic case of ill can get a bigger system then you can. In cases where the countries really are in active alert (turkey, israel, greece, egypt) they prefer F-16 over F-15.
This is an incorrect argument. The RMAF and RSAF are professional AFs who can afford the best. And the former prizes its independence. The other countries you mention are NATO members with limited budgets. Egypt and Israel want to get numbers out of their arms aid. And Israels air superiority fighters are the F-15s.
Each airforce is different. But the track record of AMRAAM over iraq is better then any other long shot missile in active use. On the other hand, In real use the R-27s didnt work too well over africa even in a low ECM environment but looked great on paper.
The track record of the AMRAAM is best against a low tech, ill motivated opponent. That matters.
The R-27 failed when used by mercenaries in Africa. When used by professional AFs under proper maint and deployment, its record may well be different.
And the R-27 and R-77 are different creatures.
The J-10 isnt a joint project, is more expensive then JF-17 and there is no agreement to produce it in pakistan. So it is a moot point.
What is “joint” in the JF-17 bar funding? So the same could be provided for the J-10. And for more capability, you have to pay more.
Nick_76Lets use MKI vs LCA as an example. Going by the logic used thus far, MKI is better than LCA in almost every aspect, and yet LCA’s development is still going ahead at full pace. Why do u think that is the case? I dont think LCA is purely PAK or China-centric or only to defend air bases or merely to replace Mig-21s…or is it?
I am surprised you brought this up Vikas! I thought you would have known- the IAF is planning for a heavy-medium-light AF. The MKI/PAK-FA are the heavies, the Jag-MiG-27, Mirage 2K, MiG-29 , MRCA are the mediums, the LCA the replacement for the MiG-21s – the light.
Also consider, the IAF had 70% of its fleet as the MiG-21 at one point of time – is it planning to replicate that? No. The LCA will be around 30% of the IAF at a full run of 220 a/c.
The point is that the IAF “gave up” some amount of medium, light fighters to focus on the “heavy” segment, because of the obvious advantages. And it will have 230 MKIs. Meanwhile the PAF is replacing light with light, and buying a token force of medium fighters!
Both J-10 and JF-17 have their own places in PAF’s future plans. While PAF has already started receiving JF-17, no one in their right mind expects J-10 till (i guess) F-16 deliveries have been completed. By then J-10 and its associated technologies would be more mature and probably even more advanced. It seems that PAF has decided to form its AF around these 3 machines, and that’s how they will go about it.
I am not questioning what PAF is doing – we know what its doing. I am questioning the efficacy of it doing what its doing!
Its depending upon AEW&C and MRAAMs to counter heavy fighters with longer reach. What now, if India inducts LRAAMS and targets the AWACs from day 1 and knocks them off?
You are facing an AF with more numbers, with better technology- and you are concentrating on a volume vs quality arrangment? It wont work!
Regarding PLAAF’s interest in JF-17, i take such statements with a pinch of salt. Do we have any official statements from chinese that they wont buy
FC-1 (If yes, please point us in the the right direction)? For years and years, we kept hearing that JF-17 will not come into PAF with RD-93. While chinese kept quiet (i cant remember them making any official statement prior to late 2006), all we heard from PAF officials (and without any reasons) that there is nothing to worry about. Now we have 2 RD-93 equipped JF-17s in PAF with more to come soon. Of 16 LSP aircraft, 8 will go to PLAAF, and i think i would rather take PAF official’s word who have said that China will buy FC-1.
[/QUOTE]
From day1, the PLAAF has been lukewarm on the JF-17. Their money is not infinite, and they want to focus on the J-11, J-10 and the future 5th gen program. Why would they splurge on yet another type? I am sure you are aware it took some serious “calling” by the PAF to have the PLAAF even commit funds to this JV.
They’ll buy it, but it doesnt necessarily mean that they’ll support it anywhere to the level of the J-10.
Nick_76George J, welcome back!!! The fact that your posting itself gets the oracles knickers in a twist is even better.
mission data input slot, which seems to be std Su-30MK fitments.
Can you point out where this is?
Indian MC1/MC2
This is only on the Indian MKI…remember that India wants the MKI source codes to integrate any third party weapon (MC handles the navi-attack computations). I dont think the RMAF has asked for that level of access. Azhar, et al correct me if I am wrong.
Nick_76Awesome pics by Sergey Krivchikov – Russian AviaPhoto Team
The future of the IAF
The Surya Kirans (Rays of the Sun)
Their replacement
Mirage 2000s with Il-78 MKI
Indian Navy Il-38 Upgraded
The Big Bear- the radome looks new, perhaps the new Elta 2022 radar?
Nick_76F-16 vs MKI is a matter of choice ofcourse. But if i was flying in a war, id rather be in a combat proven, AMRAAM equipped F-16 block52 rather then an MKI. The use of so many different equipment vendors is an integration nightmare and the performance of the package is yet to be put to test in a real war. In addition, the AMRAAM is the best long shot projectile going around and the MKI doesnt have it. But we are offtrack so lets compare the F-16 vs MKI in another thread.
Integration nightmare or a pilots dream? The designers have used the best subsystems from a variety of suppliers and because the MKI comes with a deep license, the IAF can stock up on the majority of the airframe and propulsion spares, which are the ones that matter.
Combat proven Block 52? Then why is Singapore going for F-15s now that Malaysia is buying the MKM, rather than just beefing up its F-16 fleet?
Combat proven AMRAAM? Against whom? Against deception jammers? Against aircraft with modern defensive aids, MAWS?
These are all pithy homilies- the F-22 is not “combat proven”, but few would be seriously able to discount its ability.
Replies in text
The reason PAF is getting with JF-17 is:
– Good bang for the buck.Same with the J-10.
– Ability to customise to own needs and drive the performance.
Same with the J-10
– Local production.
Negotiate for J-10
– Fleet diversification (US and Chinese based fleet).
See above,
– Upgrade path.
Not really- still tied to CATIC to update the Mission computer and avionics, since Pak doesnt make its own avionics and weapons control gear.. .
– Good choice of weapons (including SD-10 for BVR and a host of GM)
J-10 has more payload
– Good performance.
Yet to be proven..
– Ability to export once local demand is met
Quite doubtful since China will be pushing the J-10 and Russia is busy dumping cheap MiG-29s
.
There is no other plane that meets the criteria. J-10 perhaps is the only one that comes close but PAF will get J-10 in anycase. Just that they will not be made locally. So as a result, the JF-17 is here to stay and it will be continually upgraded as per PAF requirements.
J-10 beats the JF17 in every criteria, and the PLAAF itself is not keen upon it..what does that tell you?
Nick_76The JF-17’s are meant for the rest of the indian airforce apart from the MKIs. The 100 F-16s and the 30 to 50 odd J-10s have the responsibility to go after the MKIs. And they are more then enough for the task at hand given that they will be defending over home turf and have the advantage of being a combat proven package.
By the time these aircraft come in, the IAF would have finished its upgrades, plus would be well into its MRCA & LCA programs as well. That apart, purely in capability terms- the MKI far outweighs the F-16 and if the J-10 is anything like it, that as well. In exercises against the RSAF- who fly upgraded F-16s superior to what the PAF has- the MKIs had a multiple victories vs nil record. Its a question of payload and range plus sensor package- the MKI can choose its battles to its advantage, a light fighter comes in with a severe disadvantage.
The JF-17 is the ideal aircraft for PAF and so it will not be cancelled. It meets the performance and cost parameters and can be produced locally. The perfect fit for the long term plan. Eventually, the PAF will end up with up to 100 J-10s but that will never mean the JF17 will be dropped. It will continually be upgraded and is here to stay. 🙂
I understand how emotive the JF-17 is to the PAF Fans- but frankly, its too little for the job at hand. A decade back, a JF-17 would have been good enough, but today, its simply not enough.
The next big procurement from china for the PAF is likely to be the fifth-gen fighter (J-14?) around 2017. I would be very surprised and shocked if PAF requested to acquire the J-11. The chances are as remote as PAF suddenly deciding to acquire the A-10 to pound tanks.
Unfortunately true- because the J-11 is the only a/c with the range and payload to be a pain for the IAFs tactical fleet, bar the Sukhois.
Sign In
