Nick_76I’m not denying anything – I just said I didn’t mention the LCA or India- which I didn’t. My point was that you over stretch a limited aviation industry and you doom you project to failure — if you see that as flamebaiting – thats your issue.
Nice try but: that post of yours screamed out its intent out so loud that even the blind coulda seen it. Having said that, its good to see you now say that it was not so etc. Presumably, the next time around, we will not see similar comments from you, after all you have now publically disowned these statements vis a vis the Indian aerospace industry/LCA & said that was not your intent etc.
I have answered that question a number of times – its not asking it -thats the problem — its continueing to ask it in every post regardless of that answer that is the issue. Would you like me to start every post by saying ‘ Pakistan has most likely contributed very little to the JF-17 other than design / performance specification, cost share, participation in testing but will be manufacturing / supporting the type localy in what is deemed a 50/50 joint project by both CATIC and neutral sources’ would that make you happy?
I’m doing the same as what you are doing on a public forum.
No, I wouldnt- but ignoring the question & saying Pak didnt do so because because all attempts elsewhere etc were failures, Pak did not ever make mistakes, everyone who did the fell flat on their face etc and couldnt make a mistake,etc etc etc kind of forecloses the topic before the question was answered. So if you cant take a dekko at it, others certainly should. And which is what I wanted- out of quite serious interest in the topic.
It’s notable and special because it is the first time Pakistan has been able to tailor a type exactly to its needs – as opposed to buying of the shelf – because its the first type which will be manufactuured in Pakistan.
Are these basic things so hard for you to stomach. This intolerance wouldn’t be down to the same blind nationalism that you accuse me of would it??
Ah, but then why do we have worthies from the PAF no less comparing it to the LCA or gentlemen (Gd1) earlier on in this thread make snide remarks on the same ? You do realize that while it may be a giant step for Pak, as far as even the subcontinent is concerned- its not unique or a first. Which is what makes much of the hyperbole, either by private individuals or Pak Govt associated professionals who should know better- a tad ridiculous, when they seek to compare it to a project which is entirely different & paint it as a success whilst slinging mud @ the “other” & portray it as something which it isnt. Quite the shade there of Musharraf saying SUPARCO was equal to ISRO or the like, thanks to signing an agreement for a second hand satellite.
This is the exact problem which I refer to when I say blind nationalism- and the utter lack of logic or for that matter, grace when it comes to acknowledging ones own strengths or weaknesses, yet having the moral rectitude to not sling mud at someone else.
I’ve seen alot of LCA articles too – many of them Indian – although they don’t paint such a rosy picture. As you say not quite the right thread though.
Kindly dont evade the issue, yet again as you are wont to do. The claim you made was that the LCA was not intended to kickstart an Indian aeronautics industry and its benefits were unintended spinoffs, now that there are sources specifying the opposite, changing the parameters again? Quite the moving goalposts syndrome there. Besides, I am quite aware of the negative press about the LCA- its a free press in India & as of now, I can even quote line & verse about what could have been done better & where- its a free world, and the information is provided by the GoI to its public. Care to show that from the Pak side? Its really not there is it? Has any Pak Govt had the fortitude to display its projects, warts and all, openly? Quite the apples & oranges syndrome there again- which of course quite succintly plays to everything Pak does is a success, and of course, the opponents is a delayed failure etc etc. Hmmm… I wonder where all the official Pak audit reports on the Super7–JF-17 lineage are, bar some PR blurb in the PAF official history.
I’m sure that if Pakistan had attempted something like the LCA – they would have struggled – probably even more than India – maybe it would have taken more than 23+ years. With that in mind Pakistan’s limited input in the JF-17 and partnering wth China was absolutely the correct thing to do.
Oh we agree on this, and I daresay I will also point out that it would be entirely impossible for Pak to attempt something on the scale of the LCA, precisely because it lacks the scientific crosslinkages between industry, academia and state owned units that India has developed. What I would also like to add is that if there are some gents who anticipate that the JF-17 can give this capability to Pak, I would question it- precisely because both India & PRC have discovered that if one needs to move forward & develop own ability, you need to strike out on your own. Licensed production alone, irrespective of how many variants are generated is, by itself, a dead end.
Nick_76I don’t claim surprise at any old delay — just when it has been a grand old 23 years since project launch and the type is still not in service.
Ah. And what precise interpretation of success shall we see next & whose yardstick is the judgement by? As far as India is concerned, if it operationalizes the LCA & inducts it, as well as gets the ability to make & design most if not all of its various subsystems inhouse- its a success. It has quite clearly succeeded already in several aspects of this program and is proceeding well on the first. So what exactly is your yardstick, but a pyrrhic one!
On the one hand- we have a licensed manufacture program, which is “codevelopment” & a success because China is using its J series experience to design & develop it for Pakistan, & this is an achievement!
But otoh, the viability of a much more ambitious project inhouse, with visible & tangible benefits across a host of other programs and complete products (IJT etc) is but “unintended” and a spinoff.
Nice yardsticks! :p
Nick_76yes I think this qualifies – if I can be accused of mudthrowing even without mentioning the LCA or India
Lets not be disingenuous. You clearly flamebaited wrt “falling flat on ones face” “as others experience clearly demonstrates” in a reference to India without mentioning it explicitly. These quotes have been marked previously & your current denials notwithstanding your claims were all too clear, even if they were blatantly false.
Now if merely asking about the Pakistani contribution to the JF-17 is mudthrowing, if you cannot stand even a simple question on what Pakistan has contributed to the JF-17, why precisely are you on a public forum?
Would you rather that inconvenient questions merely disappeared?
‘First fighter designed by an AF’ now how does that translate into wind tunnel tests – could this not just as easily be refering to setting design criteria – range – payload – etc specifications??
And this is sufficient grounds for calling this the first time it has ever happened or claiming that as a notable achievement? Every AF decides how its needs are best met & there are MANY programs where the local AF has undertaken a far higher degree of user specification. India for its MKIs, the Gnat program etc etc. What exactly makes the JF-17 unique or for that matter codevelopment?
FC-1 was manufactured solely for PAF requirements. It has been designed to meet PAF’s specific needs to its specification. Without the PAF there would be no FC-1. Can you say the same for India and the SU30.
Without India there would be no Su-30 MKI, an aircraft which by now is a variant by its own and sufficiently different from the baseline Flanker variants, that a complete combat specced MKI cannot be “converted” from other Flankers (for reference, I can provide the exact quotes from the GOI). The MKI was also made for the IAF’s specific needs.
Coming to the other point: Hmmm…so Pak put in money & the FC-1 exists. Without the export success that was the IAF several other types in the IAF would not be viable. So lets see- all this makes them unique?
Ok lets narrow it down to fighters which failed to become operational within a 20 years of project launch – left with many examples now??
What is “viable”? A program with 37 confirmed orders for IOC, a currently active program being spearheaded by 4 IAF test pilots of the order of WingCommanders & above plus Naval personnel, whose chief has publically committed to purchasing the aircraft come what may, and this is not viable?
Ah wait, let me see the usual- the Arjun was not ordered for more than 124 etc so it will be the same here etc- hmm…never mind, different organizations, different requirements, different manufacturers & that apart, the dirge for the Arjun is yet to be sung given its in LSP..so never mind, tlets not even bother with that chestnut shall we?
Hmmm, seems like you are letting nationalism come in the way of common sense once again. Pretty much the same as you earlier sought to deny the creation of a substantial local aerospace industry as an unintended spinoff & failed to acknolwedge their contibution to all other IAF programs. Must be a very limited concept of “viability” then, the kind that you narrowly define so as to suit your purposes. But never mind, you were earlier claiming that you never mentioned the LCA & the IAF directly- glad to see you being more honest this time around.
I hereby – once again – acknowledge the LCA projects great contributions to multiple projects — but my point remains — was this the projects main aim at point of launch or are these side benefits?
I have here an excellent article on the LCA program from MilTech in which it makes the quite categorical point that the creation of a local aerospace industry was one of the prime drivers, shall I put it up? Never mind the innumerable Indian sources which quite mention the same.Tangential to this thread, but nevertheless interesting- perhaps they too are merely mistaken!
I don’t agree that Pakistans involvement in the JF-17 amounts to licenced production but do agree that its contribution is far easier for it to cope with than it was for India and it contribution to the LCA. This is because Pakistan has wisely bitten off what it can chew.
What is its contribution? You can “disagree”, but on what basis do you disagree but blind faith? Where & what has Pakistan contributed to the JF-17 & “wisely bitten off what it can chew”? All it is doing is license manufacturing (you are welcome- as I have repeatedly said, to correct me with specific information), and your statements are as they say, making virtue out of necessity, whilst insisting that somehow, somewhere it was a better decision than what India did with the LCA.
Lets be clear- Pak was unable to cope with a program on the order of the LCA & it chose the license manufacturing (or joint development or whatever euphemism if you must) to proceed with the JF-17.
However, this is no sagacity or proof of Pakistans superior decision making- it was but what it could do. By the same standards, I can point to the Jaguar in IAF service & say that proved how superior India was to..I dunno, anyone?
The JF-17 will have massively greater local supportability compared with any fighter in the PAF’s history – I think thats got to be step in the right direction.
No doubt. But thats hardly the same as codevelopment.
Nick_76I know that India has licence manufactured for decades and do not deny all that it will learn from the LCA project.
However if you are from the industry as you indicate, I assume you understand – that fighter projects such as the LCA are launched to fullfill specific airforce requirements within specific time frames – increasing the local aviation industries abilities and knowledge during the course of the project is a valuable side benefit. To fail in the main purpose and be left clutching the side benefits – while making the best of a bad situation – can hardly pass as a great success. Had India opted for greater foriegn input and major components, earlier in this project – I’m sure the project would have hit its main as well as secondary aims.
Hence my point for the JF-17 – get the priority right – achieve its primary purpose first – regardless of how much or how little Pakistan contributes – and the industry side benefits can follow. How you even begin to compare the IJT and JF-17 is beyond me.
Wrong. And its precisely because you deny this, we are left with this debate. The LCA was intended to give India aerospace design and development ability not just field a fighter- were that the case, India would have merely assembled a fighter. Irrespective of how much you seek to deny this, it cannot be negated that the LCA program has achieved its aim of creating a substantial industry which can design and develop items on its own, even while the fighter development continues.
Nick_76Well, then by your own definition, CAT1 is worse than a novice to claim surprise at the delays in the LCA program.
My point was that even an organisation like Boeing accepts that delays are almost inevitable and we have CAT1 behaving as if he’s never heard of fighter projects getting delayed before and using that as an excuse to degrade the project itself.
The reason why CAT 1 & many others (not Vikas) do so, is because its an article of faith that the LCA is a failure & the JF-17 is a success, since India sucks, Pak good.
They will never admit the fact that today India has a far better aerospace complex, thanks to the LCA & that India today, makes worldclass avionic items in certain categories, complex composite structures, can design & productionize complicated systems etc. Its simply, a matter of faith over logic. Or rather, denial.
Nick_76U learn from doing. No doubt about this. But HF-001 (Marut) made its first flight in 1961. Why do u think next indian design LCA made its first flight almost after 40 years of that? Point being that while u learn by doing, u need to learn before you can actually do something.
Again you are mistaking the political and fiscal decision from the Indian side, and mixing it with the inability to do so. There were several projects proposed after the Marut- the HF-73 & several others, entirely achievable. Which fell by the wayside on grounds of $$ & Rs/-.The LCA, in fact would have come much faster if these had existed, and the licensed manufacture of the MiGs etc did little to remove the delay in the LCA project, since- you learn from doing, and India was mostly manufacturing to other peoples specs @ the time. It knew the how, but not the why.
Nick_76Even a novice should know this, and one does not need any articles to prove such ‘common sense’ logic. However, i totally agree with what cat1 said. Having admitted that LCA project would have many benefits for Indian aviation industry, let me ask you a very simple question. What was the primary objective behind LCA project?
Two objectives- 1. Create a fighter to the IAF’s ASR’s 2. Create & establish a local aerospace industry.
The first is on the way, and it has entirely succeeded in the latter in several areas.
Come on nick. I dont expect such stuff from u. A lot of sides claim all sort of things. Only because of personal opinions we tend to take such claims literally mainly to serve our own purposes.
PS. Do u mind sharing the whole paragraph with me? I also remember reading the article, but wouldn;t mind taking another peek at it.
Vikas, I understand the PAFs political compulsions in making these statements, but the average poster should understand the difference between these claims & reality- which is why I mentioned it.
U have used this word ‘license production’ throughout this discussion. So come on give me some previous examples, where a licensee has been as thoroughly involved in a fighter’s conception, design, and development as in JF-17.
I could state the MKI. IAF sends personnel, so does Indian industry- key items are developed by the Indian side.
My point is that you are saying as as thoroughly involved in a fighter’s conception, design, and development as in JF-17– which is why I have been asking all along – what has Pak contributed to the JF17?
Because, the PAF can specify specs, but the other side develops it!
Im sure u know how long it takes a country to establish infrastructure before there could be any seriously attempts vis-a-vis fighter design/development. Why do u think India decided to go for a huge number of licence produced Mig-21 instead of locally produced Maruts?
Foreign exchange restrictions & easy availability- there is an interesting piece by an IAF person where he remarks that everything was “buy Russian” because it was so cheap. And look what it did to the Indian aerospace industry by enticing service & politicos with cheap products, instead of working on their own stuff. A bad payoff.
Nick_76That’s a fine example. But then Israel did not have much to lose. The project was primarily funded by foreign money, and most countries would jump at such an opportunity. Also don’t forget American expertise that came along with the money.
Now compare this Israeli experiment in 80s with Indian experiment in 50s. Unless im mistaken India already had some design experience with HT-2 as well as licensed production of Vampire. Marut’s conception was indeed a bold and what u call high risk move. India had a massive lead on Israel. Yet 50 years on, can u honestly say that Indian aviation industry is as advanced as that of Israeli?
Vikas, forgetting a wee bit here, arent you? The Marut experience was allowed to die out in India, because- India for its part could not afford to, nor did it have the strategic vision to proceed further and decided to merely license manufacture. In no way does that compare to what India began with the LCA, for in reality what it is doing is quite similar to what Israel did, start a project which gives its key people exposure to whats cutting edge & plug away at it, till its complete. Take a look at what all items are flowing from the LCA into other projects- the moment something is ready the IAF uses it. Its that straightforward!
Dont u think u r comparing Oranges with Apples now? By the time, India started work on LCA, it already had substantial experience in aircraft design (Marut) as well as manufacturing capabilities that came with locally built Marut and licensed production of Russian/Western fighters. Hence, India had a strong enough basis to initiate LCA programme.
Yes, very correct & it is also true that despite this, it discovered that it needed the LCA to truly move into the next step. That is something, I daresay, many folks on the Pakistani side who rah! rah! about the JF17 dont realise. Pak license makes the Chinese RWR @ Kamra- how many variants has it developed on its own, taking it forward? The Grifo-7 is manufactured at Pak- have Pakistani variants emerged? Hence, even with the JF-17, this situation is unlikely to change.
Now compare this with Pakistan, whose aviation inductsry is yet in its infancy. Any project planner would teall u (based on simple observations) that What u describe as high risk/high reward strategy would have be totally unfeasible in this case.
Agreed, but does the average person who says Pakistans aerospace industry will catch up with the Indian one, all on account of the JF-17 admit this? We see a lot of filibustering (not you) about how lousy the LCA is & that proves Pak right- ermmm, no, not really.
Marut did not succeed mainly because of India’s rather limited experience in aviation R&D,
Incorrect. Marut was a success & used in war. What killed it was lack of funding pure & simple. Indian politicians did not have the money for it, & it was allowed to die. There was no need for any bleeding edge aviation R&D to take the Marut forward- all that was required was money & political will. Money would have also allowed for a suitable engine to be developed/ procured, as was offered by the UK.
and even after 50 years of its conception they are still dependent on licensed manufacturing (MKI/MRCA).
Incorrect- India is contributing more & more to all the programs it manufactures & could quite do without the fancy high end programs. What drives it is its AF’s need for as high technolgy as geopolitical compulsions and funding allows it. If it sought to – it could churn out inexpensive Bis clones or for that matter MiG/ Jag clones to offset the need for a MRCA or the like, and suit them up with sufficient locally produced items. But this is would be in-efficient & not allow India what it seeks- the desire to truly master as many aspects of high end manufacture as it can, ranging from AESA radars to turbofan engines. So its this aim which drives Indias purchases.
Pak totally realises their limitations in this regrad. However, instead of going for simple licensed production, they have been fully involved in FC-1 project throughou its conception, design/redesign, and development…something that is not normally associated with mere licensed production…and would remain so during its production. Experience Pak is gaining from this experiment is more than likely to result in good reward and (depending on funding) in shorter time than India’s experience.
I see the “normal” word- and the point is that India has done so for several projects. As far back as the 60’s, Indias Suranjan Das was taking part in test flying and developing the Gnat- does that make the Gnat a “codevelopment”- I would still suggest that it remains a Folland work, same as the JF-17 remains CATICS.
As regards Pak realisin its limitations in this regard- I also see a lot of PAF types erroneously claiming that the PAF has done better with the JF-17, where is their intellectual & moral honesty in admitting that the JF17 is a licensed production program & they are not being totally truthful by seeking to compare it to a neighbours effort? Should be more professional, dont you think?
Nick_76It will depend on them for a time until the infrastructure in Pakistan is set up. This is the beginning of a whole industry for Pakistan. This will move Kamra to a much self-sufficient entity.
I doubt this since its unclear as to whether all or the maximal amount of spares will be produced by Kamra to even the avionics items, let alone the powerplants (the RD-33s for which Pak has no access to its technology).
Fair to say for the immediate future but this WILL change as the Pakistani industry matures. Based on the relations between the two companies, Chinese companies will always be there as consultants. Pakistani companies, entities and PAF personnel in turn will consult the Chinese. Pakistan had always been a contributor to China because of its American-based air force and access to Western training and equipment.
Chinese companies may provide consultancy, but till Pak makes the transition to a full fledged design & development based industry wrt aerospace, it will remain limited in terms of what it can contribute to the JF-17. Simply put- the Chinese side built this aeroplane, the Pak side observed. You learn from doing. And secondly, this plane will probably not cross the 150 side for Paks own requirements- simply put, there will be much better alternatives available from China itself.
The FC-1/JF-17 is simply not a “licensed manufacture.” This is a shared design created by China and Pakistan from the very start. Even if CAC is doing most of the current development work, the aircraft design belongs to Pakistan as well as China.
The point is that there are several licensed production programs where the design & substantial amount of technical knowledge plus future modification rights are sold to the licensee.
It is intended to form a base for the Pakistani aviation industry. Another way to look at it is the J-11 and the SU-30MKI licensed manufacture projects are set aircraft variants with a set arraignment in components — engines, radar, avionics, etc.
The J-11’s original agreement perhaps, the MKI not really-
http://sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su30mk/history/
The Su-30MKI programme has for the first time in Russian history showcased a new model for military-technical cooperation incorporating all types of long-term cooperation currently practised in the world such as:
– delivery of the first consignment of products in the baseline version (Su-30K),
– joint R&D to produce an upgraded version (Su-30MKI),
– granting the customer a licence to manufacture with subsequent replacement of Russian-made components with those of foreign origin (in December 2000, a contract was signed to sell to India a licence to manufacture 140 Su-30MKI planes of the final delivery group),
– upgrading of the planes from the first deliveries to the technical status of the final delivery group,
– setting up of a joint technical service centre for aftersales maintenance of the equipment supplied,
– using the «export beachhead» to expand into the regional market (in 2003, a contract was made to supply Su-30MKM planes to Malaysia).
India is basically modifying its Su-30 MKIs as it sees fit. But at the end of the day, it remains a licensed production program, with a lot of laissez faire given to the customer in terms of what it wants to do. That apart, this is a deep license with even engine technology flowing to India for the Al-31 FPs. [Before it comes up, its also been noted that the recent reports of Russia supplying components are for the first MKI batches to speed up production & HAL is still receiving substantial TOT]
The JF-17 is not a variant but a cooperative design which can have different engine, radar and avionics suites according to availabity and need in two separate countries. It’s an open ended design project that when set up in Pakistan will allow that nation to do as with it as it pleases. This is very different from the two Flanker licensed manufacture projects we mentioned.
Not different from the MKI in particular, but only that the Indian side’s design involvement in the MKI vs the Pak involvement in the JF-17 is far greater, and thats because its aerospace industry was assisted by its local programs. Still doesnt make the MKI a local program but licensed production. For the Chinese side, this is an from the scratch project, but what the Pakistanis are doing is license manufacturing it- their aerospace industry is in a nascent stage in every respect.
Nick_76[QUOTE=CAT1]
I have already answered your ‘question’ and explained why Pakistan has contributed so little to the JF-17 – but you seem to need to ask the same question repeatedly, regardless – wouldn’t be a case of ‘mudthrowing at a neighbours aviation industry ‘ would it??? You are right lets not be so ‘juvenile’
Really? So even asking what Pakistan has contributed to the JF-17, which it proudly touts as codeveloped with China, is mudthrowing which prompts your outbursts of muckraking vis a vis India?
Lets see- Pak AF, once, in AFM described the JF-17 as the first fighter designed by an AF if my memory serves me correct- hmmm. So how many windtunnel tests did the PAF engineers conduct? Did they design the airframe in detail?
These questions arise because the Pakistani side has claimed a lot. They wouldnt arise otherwise. And of course, the not so unusual comparisons of the JF-17 vs other projects, when its clear that its a license production effort & doesnt merit the comparison since its apples to oranges. The Indian side has contributed far more to the MKI than the PAF to the FC-1, in terms of technology- doesnt make the whole thing Indian? Or the Bison upgrade Indian, or for that matter the Jaguar & MiG-27 Indian because they are receiving local components.
You think that a project is a success even if it has massive cost overuns, huge delays, leaves your air force in the lurch – even if it gets canceled — provided it has allowed the nations industry to develop – you are entitled to your view.
Really? Are you talking of the Eurofighter? No wait, is it the JSF then? Hmm, lets see- can we have one fighter project which has been on budget & on time…hmm!
Hmm… I also see you skedaddling around the basic point that the Indian contribution to multiple projects comes entirely from this project, something which you refuse to acknowledge since it overturns the nationalistic belief that India’s attempt to build an aerospace industry is a failure, when it is anything but given the increasing Indian contribution to a range of originally license produced types, thanks to the LCA & other programs.
The simple point is that license producing an existing type is a far easier job & does not qualify as codevelopment in anyway whatsover, despite whatever claims you make of it being a success vs an abinitio make effort. Which was the point & glad to see you concur.
My preference – is to get the type developed and in service, something like on time – as cheaply as possible -within the performance requirements — and let industry development take place inline with local manufacturing and support network. To me having the type in service is more important than where its radar was made.
Fair enough, but this entirely eliminates the JF-17 from any sort of joint development tag. Its a licensed manufacturing program which by its very nature will be a simpler affair for Pak then either developing its own fighter. On the negative side- this also means that Pak will continue to rely on China and other OEMs for product improvements.
As for being asked to ‘search the forum it is there’ — I didn’t post that — Try to refrain from including other members comments when specificaly addressing me(how clever)
That statement was obviously mentioning all the gentlemen who called RayR a retard & did the handwave of its on the forum, you didnt search, for merely asking the question. And of course followed by your filibustering on the LCA, when the question was of Paks contribution to the JF-17. That was clever, but didnt quite work.
Nick_76One example would be DARIN and MATRA missile for Jaguar.
Hmm.. that is indeed comparable to the JF-17 in some ways. After all, HAL & IAF basically played a role in avionics & weaponry integration customer specific to the IAF, but with considerable OEM assistance, such as from Sagem & British Aerospace, whose design after all it was.
Nick_76The JF-17 was designed to form a basis of the Pakistan aviation industry. It will be entirely Pakistani once the plants and assembly lines are set up. The number of aircraft and versions that can come in the future is unlimited.
Pakistan will have to depend on Chengdu for this work since the latter designed & built the aircraft.
Pakistan can change and modify the base design in the future. They can make as many or as few any mark they want.
They dont have the capability to do so without substantial OEM expertise.
Second, licensed manufacture can include substantial sops of the likes of design modifications & re-export rights.
The question is- what has Pakistan contributed to be more than a licensed manufacturer.
This not a simply licensed production where Russia grants you the right to build certain number of Flankers but no more.
Hmmm, I think the J-11 program is far more than a regular licensed production program since PRC is modifying its locally produced SKs extensively but whether that was within the scope of the original agreement is unclear. Thats like stating that the original license manufactured SKs were jointly developed with China which of course, would be incorrect. And China is able to proceed further with the J-11 because of its J-10, JH-7, J-7 and J-8 programs which gave it the experience to do something of this sort. Nothing on the scale of the latter exists in Pak.
Nick_76[QUOTE=CAT1]
I’m sure it’s great to go through a ‘challenging’ process by trying to contribute everything yourself – and sure you would learn alot more by doing this — but to result in massive delays / huge cost overuns / the aircraft nowhere near operational when your force actualy needs it and then being forced to spend billions on interim solutions— are these also part of the grand plan? As a developing nation Pakistan is no position to throw away cash on such ‘challenging’ processes – perhaps some developing nations feel they are justified in doing so.
Indigenous production of the JF-17 will lead to major strides in Pakistan’s aviation capabilities. It’s approach is correct – learn to walk before you run – or you fall flat on your face – like others amply demonstrate.
CAT1, mudthrowing at a neighbours aviation industry and its aerospace achievements will not disguise the fact that the JF-17 does not have substantial Pakistani technological input.
As regards India falling flat on its face (I have to bring this up, and I will be more honest than you were being direct about my comparison) – as is obvious from my prior post- its anything but, since the bulk of the IAF fleet upgrades now have LCA components being used in them already.
Even if it were to be cancelled or a failure- the Israeli example with the Lavi shows the success a high visibility steamroller approach has towards aerospace development and building up of capabilities.
Either which ways, you cant deny the obvious gentlemen, irrespective of how much mud you sling.
The evidence is that India has already achieved a far more substantial aerospace capability than Pakistan by pursuing a high risk/ high reward approach as compared to Pakistan which is merely undertaking a licensed manufacture program in which it has little input in terms of actual technology contribution.
So, in effect all you are left with is that Pakistan did not have the ability to pursue a program of the nature of the LCA & chose to go for license production. That is entirely understandable, since Pakistan cannot even acquire the TOT for the Gripen, but thats exactly the chicken & the egg syndrome, since without it- you will be stuck in the same situation, irrespective of how & where you call the JF-17 as codevelopment.
The next thing is of course, the relative technological competence of the respective industries- you would be quite correct in stating that Pakistan cannot endeavour to attempt such a program, quite so! It severely lacks either the manpower or the private industrial ability to whit.
A nice distraction (having replied to your statements)- but lets return to the JF-17:
Even now, despite being asked to “search on the forum, its all there”- we have NO EVIDENCE of any sort of substantial Pakistani contribution to the JF-17 bar, of course funding.
All you can come up with- is that if Pakistan were to do so, it would fail, because our neighbour is a failure, so Pakistan is correct. Lets not be so juvenile. Nor has the cash its neighbour has invested been “thrown away”- it has done so to generate a business benefit as is evident from the amount of firms that are currently involved in similar ventures & are substantially helping the Indian economy with.
I fully agree that the JF-17 is good for Pakistan to some limited degree, I was just pointing out what an apples to orange comparison it is, to compare licensed assembly to an ab-initio development, and call it either equivalent to the latter or “co-development”.
In the meanwhile, we still dont have anything on what Pak has done in the JF-17 program, technologically substantial that is.
So lets not divert from that by throwing mud at India, albeit without naming it directly (how clever!)- the question was & is- what has Pak contributed to the JF-17?
Nick_76Isnt it obvious? I dont think either the JSF or any Russian aircraft will be available to the PAF, so China remains the only choice more or less. So they should be more & more integrated with the chinese industry in the future.
Nick_76[QUOTE=sox]I just wanted to know Pakistans’ contribution towards JF-17 and now I have a very “convincing” post as to why contributing less or nothing is the best thing since sliced bread
If you have any doubt about the logic of the post or remain ‘unconvinced’ perhaps you can compare the progress of this project with that of some other developing country which may well have tried to contribute its own engine, avionics, radar – and the cost overuns, delays and interim solutions that resulted in – can we think of any examples?
Sure- several examples come to mind. But what you are in effect trying to say is that all Pakistan did, to avoid the above was resort to licensed production. Great to see you admit the difference.
The entire point is that when you make things on your own- you have to go through a far more challenging process- instead of having someone else build your plane, others supply every item in it and integrate it, and then at the end you can call it your “own” or “codevelopment”, the last of which is stretching the truth as it were, what with a few TP & some 20 odd engineers contributed & paying the costs.
Even here, several locally made items could have been integrated if Pakistan was capable of manufacturing them- but we are yet to see any evidence on that score, apart from “my chacha said so” kind of stuff.
Where are Pakistans own Stores Management systems, Mission computers, RWRs (instead of the license manufactured Chinese one), HUDs, MFD programs, fabrication technology (glass fibre, carbon-carbon), digital Fly by wire computers -even the hardware, or Jamming pods? Or Mission planning & data retrieval systems, or FDRs? Where are Pakistans windtunnels and purpose designed CFD software to aid in aircraft design? Where is RCS & IR analysis done? Despite whatever delays – all this is ready with folks who make their own stuff- in terms of “examples”, and one is happily refitting all imported buys or local upgrades with all these items.
Where are Pakistans equivalents? The answer, clearly seems to be : Zip, nada, zilch.
So what is Pakistans practical contribution to the JF-17, bar money for the term codevelopment to be used. Its a licensed production program, pure & simple.
Sign In
