Last time I checked, the engine for the LCA had exploded.
😮
Tell me about it :diablo:
More news….
[u]11th-hour try to block US F-16 sale to Pakistan[/u]
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON, July 27 (Reuters) – A handful of U.S. lawmakers have launched an 11th-hour attempt to block the sale of U.S.-made F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan but have garnered little immediate support.
Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Ed Markey introduced a bill on Thursday to bar the sale unless President George W. Bush certifies that Pakistan has stopped building a big, newly-reported, plutonium-production reactor.
Markey, co-chair of a bipartisan task force on curbing the spread of nuclear arms, acted just before the end of a 30-day window, during which Congress has statutory power to block the proposed arms sale.
He said the F-16s were capable of delivering nuclear weapons “and if this arms sale goes through, we will only be putting additional fuel on the fire of an Indian-Pakistan nuclear arms race.”
Barring a resolution of disapproval in both houses of Congress by this weekend, Bush will have the authority to go ahead with the supply to Pakistan of up to 36 Lockheed Martin Corp. F-16C/D models and related gear worth up to $5.1 billion if all options are exercised.
Congress would still have the power to pass laws to block the sale “up to the point of delivery,” which could be years away, said Richard Grimmett, an arms expert at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
[u]Israel Klein, a Markey spokesman, said: “We believe there’s still an opportunity for Congress to weigh in and block the sale.”[/u]
New York Democrat Rep. Gary Ackerman, co-chair of a congressional caucus on India, has also introduced legislation to prohibit the F-16 sale. He said in a statement he feared technology leakage to China among other risks.
Ackerman has collected five co-sponsors — four Democrats and Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, said Jordan Goldes, an Ackerman spokesman.
A spokesman for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar said he had not heard of any resolution of disapproval introduced in the Senate.
Pakistan paying for its past deeds ?
——
……
according to testimony by US Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs John F Hillen to the House International Relations Committee, the same panel that first voted for the nuclear deal.• US government has done a “security site survey” of Pak bases and facilities, drawn up security plans of these sites where the F-16s will be located and it has been put in the deal that Pakistan will comply with the ‘‘approved security plans’’.
• US presence to ‘‘monitor compliance’’ with the security plan and a ‘‘very enhanced end-use monitoring programme’’.
• Two-man rule for access to equipment and restricted areas, wherein Pakistan cannot use these F-16s in exercises and operations with third countries without prior approval of the US.
• The planes are not equipped with technology that would allow them to carry out offensive action to penetrate airspace of another country that is ‘‘highly defended’’. They cannot deliver nuclear weapons.
• F-16 maintenance and parts storage has to be in dedicated facilities run by Air Force personnel—and not sub-contractors—which are part of the ‘‘overall surveillance plan.’’
• No supply of the aircraft unless US finds Pakistan ‘‘fully compliant’’ with the security plan requirements.
• Routine access to F-16 aircraft also restricted to Pakistan Air Force personnel pre-approved by the US. And only the PAF can perform maintenance, no Pakistan contractors, industry or third countries to be involved.
“The security plan greatly exceeds US Air Force standards for our own security of these weapons systems,’’ Hillen said while urging the House panel to approve the sale. Even this did not fully convince the members as Hillen then went on to say there was more which he would discuss in detail in a ‘‘closed session’’.
It seems as though Pakistan is finally paying to price for its alleged illicit activities in the realm of intentionally leaking F-16 technology to its reverse engineering happy communist neighbor.
Nobody may know for sure, but the allegations of Pakistan lending one/many F-16 to China are pleanty :
A USAF study reads :
…China received a single F-16 from Pakistan …
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/obrien.html
The J-10 could have benefited from U.S. technology in two ways. First, the Israeli LAVI was greatly influenced by access to General Dynamics F-16 technology. Israel passed on the knowledge of some of this technology, which may have included avionics, advanced composite materials, and flight control specification,27 to Chengdu. Fly-by-wire technology may have been shared as well. ….J-10 benefited from PLA access to Pakistan’s F-16 fighters.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/pla-china_transition_12_ch08.htm
FAS says >>
..a single F-16 provided by Pakistan..
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/j-10.htm
Asia Times says the same >> http://atimes.com/atimes/China/DL04Ad01.html
another article reads :
In addition, the PLA has attempted to build an indigenous aerospace and military industry with its production of the J-10, which currently is in production. It reportedly contains technology supplied by Israel from its Lavi fighter program as well as technology reverse-engineered from an F-16 reportedly given to the PRC by Pakistan.
China has added several features that were directly reverse-engineered from a U.S.-made F-16 Falcon jet fighter provided to Beijing by Pakistan.
The Pakistani F-16, sold to Islamabad during the 1980s, was given to the PLAAF as part of a secret military trade deal between Pakistan and China. In return for the U.S.-made F-16 jet, Pakistan received a deep discount on the purchase of Chinese-made M-11 ballistic missiles.
Asia Week says >>
It borrows technology from the America’s front-line F-16 fighter, believed to have been acquired via Pakistan
http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/96/0412/nat7.html
Febuary 2005 issue of Kanwa says :
Pakistan loaned a single F-16 to China for technical evaluation,the aircraft give deep impression on pilot and engineers alike
http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/posts/3692984.shtml
Another ..
The 1992 sale of the 28 Falcons to Pakistan was canceled during the last days of the Bush Sr. administration because Islamabad had openly purchased weapons technology from China. The sudden appearance of Chinese nuclear-tipped M-11 ballistic missiles brought a swift embargo of U.S. arms sales on Pakistan, including the previously ordered F-16 Falcons.
A Pakistani Brigadior has allegedly confessed in an interview to Pakistan lending China one of its F-16’s in exchange for a discount on M-11 missiles that Pak bought from China.
One Pakistani military officer, reportedly at one-star level, noted on April 18, 2002 : “China has added several features that were directly reverse-engineered from a US-made F-16 Falcon jet fighter provided to Beijing by Pakistan. The Pakistani F-16, sold to Islamabad during the 1980s, was given to the PLAAF as part of a secret military trade deal between Pakistan and China. In return for the US-made F-16 jet, Pakistan received a deep discount on the purchase of Chinese-made M-11 ballistic missiles. The new Chinese J-10 supersonic fighter is designed to take on and defeat US-built F-16 and F-18 fighters that make up the bulk of American airpower.”
Considering the US restrictions to the present sale of F-16’s to pakistan, it sure looks like the US administration thinks that the above allegations are true. Going by reputations, it does not seem terribly impossible aswell.
The Pakistani View by Moeed Yusuf, July 28 issue of ‘The Friday Times’
F-16s and Pakistan’s constraints
by Moeed Yusuf
The much-delayed Pakistan-US F-16 deal is finally to be signed next month. The Chief of Air Staff’s briefing on the issue last week has received a lot of attention in the press. Apart from the usual focus on numbers and costs, there has been significant criticism on the reported terms and conditions of the deal.
Elaborating on the modalities of the deal during the briefing, the PAF chief acknowledged, rather apologetically, that the deal includes no guarantees of delivery from the US. Clearly, any deal without clear guarantees is inherently risky. This is especially true in the Pakistan-US case, where a history of holding such deals hostage to the overall state of bilateral relations already exists. The last time the US agreed to sell 28 F-16 A/B jets to Pakistan in 1990, it subsequently delayed delivery of the aircraft (26 of these have still not been delivered; their delivery has only now been confirmed as part of the latest deal) despite having received payment from Pakistan. Naturally, lack of guarantees in the current deal then forces one to suspect a repeat of history.
Three important questions flow from this situation: why is the US reluctant to provide guarantees; why has Pakistan accepted a deal without any assurances; does a no-guarantee deal imply that the process could hit a roadblock again? Let us tackle these questions in the same order.
To begin with, the US equation is guided by legislative constraints. Consider that Washington’s post-9/11 relations with Pakistan are continuing at the behest of executive waivers on coup-related sanctions (assistance to Pakistan is restricted on this count under Section 508 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act). To remove such sanctions altogether, or even to undermine them completely is a virtual impossibility until General Pervez Musharraf is in power. This is so because such a change can only be made by approval of US lawmakers whose majority continues to hold an extremely negative view of Pakistan. With such sanctions remaining, providing guarantees would, in effect, have undermined the sanctions regime by de-linking the delivery of F-16s from any major development on the bilateral front. This the US lawmakers would not allow until Pakistan’s image takes a decisive turn for the better.
That the Bush administration has not even contemplated the idea of lobbying with Capitol Hill on the issue of guarantees confirms its strategy of reaching out to Pakistan without defending it in the face of opposition within the US. While the administration understands the need to keep Pakistan in the tent, rather than defending Pakistan’s cause amid persistent pressure, the White House has opted to simply ignore such allegations. This is clear from the way the Bush administration is tackling the AQ Khan affair and allegations of cross-border infiltration against Pakistan. While Bush has supported Pakistan internationally, he has been tight-lipped at home. The lack of interest from the White House to get a deal inclusive of guarantees passed is then hardly surprising.
Why has Pakistan opted to go with the ‘assurance-less’ deal?
Perhaps the biggest factor is the PAF’s need. Notwithstanding reviews from certain quarters that challenged the need for the PAF to purchase F-16s, the PAF’s fleet is highly depleted and is in urgent need of up-gradation. The service has received no new aircraft comparable to the F-16s since the US invoked sanctions in 1990, and has even struggled to obtain spare parts for the existing fleet. Consequently, the total number of ‘flight capable’ aircraft at any given time is significantly lower than the total fleet size (due to some being out of service).
Moreover, contrary to popular belief, no option comparable to the F-16s is available to Pakistan at the moment. Pakistan did try to purchase the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen but the deal fell through, reportedly due to external pressure. The French Mirage jets were also considered but again their purchase could not be secured. The JF-17 and J-10 Chinese jets are not mature technologies. Moreover, they are simply not comparable to the block 50/52 F-16 C/D, which Pakistan will be receiving (18 of the aircraft in the deal are these latest versions).[i] Even when the JF-17 comes on board, it will only replace the ailing Mirage and F-7 fleets and would not constitute a substitute for F-16s. Add to this the fact that the PAF has got a reasonably good deal in terms of costs for the entire package. [/i]
What does this mean for the future of F-16s? Is Pakistan likely to receive them, or is a repeat of history on the cards?
Simply put, this will be solely dependant on the state of Pakistan-US relations over the next three years (the delivery of the new aircraft is expected by then). Lack of guarantees implies that the deal still remains tied to overall relations. An objective analysis, keeping in mind the current realities, would suggest a strong likelihood that the aircraft would actually be delivered. The present situation is much different from 1990, when Pakistan had a covert nuclear programme; more importantly, the US interest in the region had almost fizzled out. While Pakistan’s importance in the war on terror is sure to gradually decline in the coming years, the US cannot afford to abandon a nuclear Pakistan until it remains engaged with India and Afghanistan. Washington will continue to play a balancing act. A peaceful South Asia and Pakistan’s support as a Muslim ally will remain important for it in the foreseeable future. The repercussions of abandoning Pakistan post-Afghan jihad will also act as a deterrent to reemploy the same policy.
Pakistan is not in a position to force the issue as far as guarantees on this deal are concerned. Perhaps in a relationship with some parity, this might have been possible. However, Pakistan’s leverage to influence the Bush administration remains extremely limited. The best Pakistan can do is to tie the deal’s payment schedule tightly to the progress on delivery in the first three years. The schedule of payments should be exponential so that the minimum possible amount is committed in the initial years (the down payment should be as low as possible; this is presuming the financial modalities are still open for negotiation).
Additionally, Islamabad should continue approaching the European states and perhaps even the Russians :confused: 😮 to get comparable deals. While these are unlikely to materialise for a variety of reasons, at least it will signal Pakistan’s intention to move away from complete dependence on the US.
Finally, Islamabad must persistently emphasise the extreme negative impact on the already tarnished US image among the Pakistani masses if Washington were to rethink the delivery of the aircraft after the deal is inked. Such pressure could work since the US currently remains desperate to enhance its image among Muslim populations in the region.
Moeed Yusuf is a Consultant on Economic Policy at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad.
Atomic Wings : A new mini-reactor revives the dream of a nuclear-powered aircraft

After more than six decades of research, the first atom-powered airplane is cleared for takeoff. Although details of the project remain classified, a description of this remarkable aircraft has begun to emerge from technical conferences and declassified engineering studies. The plane will be both familiar and unique. Familiar in that it will resemble a Northrop Grumman Global Hawk, the bulbous-nosed unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that the U.S. Air Force has used to track enemy movements in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unique because its nuclear reactor is unlike any other. Rather than split heavy elements or fuse light atoms–as in fission and fusion reactors–it will use what is known as a triggered isomer reaction. If this new powerplant, called a quantum nucleonic reactor, performs as scientists expect, its effect on the aircraft industry may prove as revolutionary as the introduction of the jet engine.
Ungainly Elegance
To the trained eye, the ungainly Global Hawk is a thing of beauty. A triumph of function over form, its whale-snout nose presents a tiny radar cross section. The thickly shrouded rear-mounted engine, located high in the tail, presents a minimal heat signature. Even the paint, which appears faded, serves a purpose: It helps dissipate heat from the plane’s electronic bay. Together, these design features make the Global Hawk virtually invisible as it loiters at 45,000 ft., directing its powerful radar and high-resolution cameras on trouble spots.
One improvement would make the Global Hawk the perfect surveillance platform: eliminating the need to top off its fuel tanks. For UAVs operating deep within hostile airspace, refueling requires dashing hundreds, sometimes thousands, of miles to a friendly landing field. It is chiefly for that reason that the Global Hawk has been selected as a testbed for one of the boldest experiments in aviation history. Project managers for Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory tell people they have begun discussions that could lead to the conversion of a Global Hawk to a nuclear-powered aircraft.
If the plan takes shape, a Global Hawk will be pulled off the production line and undergo extensive airframe and powerplant modifications. Chief among these will be the addition of some 2700 pounds of radiation shielding. Installed between the tail section and the main electronics bay, the shielding will create a “hot cell.” In this area, which will be designed to minimize leakage of radiation, engineers will install the world’s first airborne quantum nucleonic reactor.

A solar cell or engine-mounted generator sends electricity to run a small X-ray machine. The X-rays strike a block of hafnium-178, triggering a drop in the energy levels within the nucleus of the hafnium atoms. This change in energy levels is accompanied by the release of a burst of gamma radiation. The gamma rays heat the core of a heat exchanger. Superheated air from the exchanger floods into the jet engine, performing the same function as the expanding gases created by burning jet fuel. For safety reasons, conventional jet fuel will power the engine when it is below cruising altitude.
Flying Nukes
A jet engine is the essence of mechanical simplicity. Fuel and air are mixed, compressed and ignited. As the gas burns, it moves rapidly rearward, propelling the aircraft forward. Normally, this is done by burning jet fuel, which is exactly what the new nuclear plane will do when it takes off, climbs and lands. When it reaches cruising altitude–in the vicinity of 45,000 ft. and above trans-Atlantic airline traffic–the engine will switch over to running on hot air created by the reactor. Using this power source, an unmanned version could remain on station for months on end. A manned version, the logical next step, could operate as long as the crew had food.
Building a nuclear aircraft poses daunting engineering challenges. The underlying operating principle, however, is straightforward. In a fission reactor, atoms of a very heavy element, such as uranium, are persuaded to split apart, casting off neutrons that split other atoms and produce heat. In a fusion reactor, atoms of a very light element, such as hydrogen, are cajoled to join. Here, too, the conversion of mass into energy obeys the tenets of Einstein’s famous E=mc2 equation. The immense heat release keeps the reaction going.
Fusion reactors are in their infancy. But as early as 1940, scientists were thinking about ways of using the heat from nuclear fission to power airplanes. From the late 1950s through the 1980s, the Air Force and the Navy drew up blueprints and got as far as testing components for nuclear craft. At one point, a converted Convair B-36 Peacemaker flew with an operating reactor. However, none of these components were ever connected in the same airplane and a nuclear-powered aircraft never flew. The snag was the shielding needed to protect air crews from radiation–principally neutrons–streaming from the reactor. Planes with enough shielding to protect humans were too heavy to carry weapons. The quantum nucleonic reactor neither splits nor fuses atoms. Rather, it creates its power by triggering a massive release of gamma radiation. This is dangerous to humans, but requires less shielding to control.
Radical Reactor
The fuel for the quantum nucleonic reactor is a form–or isomer–of hafnium. Paradoxically, hafnium is the same element used to slow chain reactions in some fission reactors. A nuclear chain reaction occurs when neutrons emitted by a splitting atom strike an adjacent atom, causing it to split as well. Hafnium has a considerable capacity to absorb neutrons without splitting, hence its use as a brake or control rod in fission-type reactors.
In the late 1990s, researchers at the University of Texas in Dallas made a remarkable and unexpected discovery about the hafnium isomer known as hafnium-178. When they bombarded the metal with “soft” X-rays like those your dentist uses to examine your teeth, the metal released a burst of gamma rays 60 times more powerful than the X-rays. While this may seem impossible, it is permitted by the laws of physics. On the subatomic level, bombarding hafnium-178 with X-rays has an effect similar to triggering a small avalanche by tossing a snowball onto a snow-covered roof.
One of the most useful aspects of this newly discovered type of nuclear reaction is that the gamma ray output drops precipitously the moment power to the X-ray machine is turned off, explains Capt. Christopher Hamilton. He conducted research on a hafnium reactor at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, and was the first to propose using that device to power a Global Hawk.
A hafnium-fueled reactor has two other attractive features, Hamilton says. Since it produces only gamma radiation, less shielding is required. And should an accident occur, there is less of an environmental concern than with fission. Hafnium-178 has a half-life of only 31 years compared to thousands of years for other reactor fuels. In addition, unlike uranium or plutonium, hafnium-178 cannot support a chain reaction, which means it cannot be used to make rogue nuclear weapons.
In his report on the potential for the new reactor, Hamilton calculated that a small X-ray machine could be used to generate gamma radiation and create sufficient heat to run a conventional military jet engine. The Los Alamos and Sandia nuclear weapons laboratories in New Mexico have since taken up research for the project, supported by funding from the Department of Energy. Researchers involved with these projects have been instructed to discourage public discussion of the new type of reactor. Los Alamos scientists have expressed suspicion that the triggered isomer reaction process may not release useful amounts of heat. The Department of Defense, on the other hand, has put the reactor on its Militarily Critical Technologies List, which means it is on the fast track for future funding.
Executives for Northrop Grumman tell the press that while they have not yet signed a contract to convert a Global Hawk to nuclear power, they are aware of discussions taking place within the Air Force. Conventional aircraft can take a decade to move from concept to the runway. The civilian atomic airplane has, in one form or another, been under discussion for more than 60 years. With the emergence of a new type of power-plant, that decades-old dream may at long last take wing.

The quantum nucleonic reactor neither splits nor fuses atoms.

Hafium-178 has so low radiation levels, that its applications in passenger carrying aircrafts is being evaluated.
– Sourced from popular mechanics
I guess the final decision will depend on who pays the most bribes and kickbacks.
Hey!, its not that bad. Or is it ?
Then choose something else.. The conditions are hard but Yanks have every right on Earth to set them as they want to..
BTW, it is the talks about Indian invasion that are pathetic.. Who would want to invade Pakistan and what for?
Well said. You certainly did save me from typing that part 🙂 😀
Pak has other means to deliver nukes.
What about pakistan’s famed “indigenous” ballistic missiles ?
… castrated F16s..
😀 😀 🙂
[u]Act fast else Pak will have an edge: IAF[/u]
New Delhi, July 20:
[….]
The IAF is also unhappy with progress on HAL’s :confused: indigenous Light Combat Aircraft ([u]LCA Tejas[/u]), which it feels will be obsolete by the time it [u]becomes part of the fleet, possibly as late as 2015.[/u]
[…]
What the … 2015 ?? 😮 😮 2010, and now 2015.. BLOODY HELL!!!!
The hell with ADA & its cohort orgs. 😡 😡 😡
😀
The typhoon tranche-2’s that the RAF was supposed to get were instead redirected to the Saudi Arabian Air Force following the conclusion of the deal with the same country.
Now will Israel and Rafale be willing to sell their Litening-3 pods to Saudi Arabia as well ??? Will the Saudis accept Israeli equipment if Israel do approve of the sale ???
Hmm…not very long ago US Customs was in the words of a newspaper “sure to order a fleet of Dhruv’s” … wonder whatever happened to that :rolleyes: ?
[I]US lawmakers, fearful of any warplane-technology leakage to China
Finally they are looking at things from this angle. It has happened before (Pak gives PRC F-16 … rev. engg… etc) and going by reputations and history there is no reason why it it will not happen again.
Actually India are selling 18 Su-30’s to Belarus (through Russia) and making up for the numbers by getting new MKI’s 😎
Check this >> http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=India+Su-30+Belarus&meta=