Hi Fedaykin, that’s necessity, but still doesn’t take away from the fact that maintaining these aircraft must be a severe challenge, especially as several of the parts must be getting very hard to source. The stores the PAF does have, would have to be carefully husbanded.

Especially for an aircraft the Pakistanis did not license manufacture, so lack original design documentation & tooling, the problems mount up.

Much the same reason, India retired its MiG-23s, bulk of its MiG-21s, and its handful of MiG-25s, plus its Canberra.

This despite the huge infrastructure & capabilities at HAL and even the IAF (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today/Unit-Articles/336-11BRD.html).

Of the entire MiG fleet, only the MiG-27 (around 2 squadrons) and MiG-29s remain, and the former will also be retired around 2020, per my estimates.

To whit, a PAF Chief ( Rao Qamar Suleiman) also mentioned that the Mirages were his biggest challenge, as the spares were getting harder and harder to locate.

RQS’s quote from February 2011 to Aviation Week, regarding the Mirage fleet:”We are getting second hand parts, but we dont know the history of these spare parts we are getting. Its a flight safety issue and a nightmare for me.”

Another recent article also mentioned the Mirage fleet was increasingly challenged.

Reason i picked on the Mirages is also because the JF-17s are first replacing the F-7s, per Khalid Mahmood, JF-17 Deputy Project Director.

Vikas – thanks, but Khalid Mahmood says there are 2 squadrons at 18 aircraft each, and a third is being launched. Thats 36 airframes, are another 14 confirmed or are they LSP/trial ones?

Also, I ran across an article where a Chinese interviewer spoke to a PAF official around middle of last year, at an airshow, and it clearly mentions that the J-10 is not being procured and only the JF-17 is.

So, the PAF’s advanced fighter fleet seems to be the force of 60 odd F-16s.

Possible indications of ‘Super 30’ cockpit upgrade on this Su-30SM (both Irkut projects). What appear to two side-by-side, large area displays in the front and three in the back:

Could be the IAF is going its own way using the LCA systems as well. MK2 is intended to have a brand new IMA based avionics setup with data fusion, plus a new frameless HUD. DARE has already mentioned that it will be providing these new IMA Mission Computers for the Su-30 MKI upgrade as well.
Plus, as mentioned in my post above, a Bars upgrade has been trialled quietly in 2012, with implementation this year.

Any idea from Russian sources about what the Su-30 SM BARS is at? In terms of hardware (TWT rating etc)? That should give us an idea.

Su-30 MKI Upgrade – Part 2

NIIP released an interview at AeroIndia. Can’t seem to access the original links on Blogspot, so here is the summary.

RADAR

1. Latest upgrade of Bars completed in 2012, being implemented this year

2. Indian specialists have evaluated the Bars extensively over the years, also in test flights exceeded usual Russian standard flight tests, with upto 10 test flights per day.

3. A lot of feedback from “Indian specialists” (probably refers to both IAF & DRDO) over the Su-30 MKIs use in India etc, revolved around new approaches versus what NIIP was used to. Free scope to handle all sorts of targets, Russian, non Russian. A lot of data collected even on operation in EW environment. The Suggestions incorporated into latest version of radar

4. This is now the new standard and is also the standard for the latest 42 MKI ordered. Agreement signed, all relevant details agreed on. Whole IAF Su-30 MKI fleet to be modernized to this latest standard. Ryazan will do the bulk of the work on this with the work commencing within the next couple of months! First few of the 40 MKI to be upgraded by Russia, rest by India (HAL) with technology details furnished.

My note – clearly, this is NOT software alone, as Ryazan is the dedicated hardware manufacturer for the Bars. We are looking at an upgrade to the Bars here, both hardware and software.

5. Apart from this, a new dedicated training mode is being developed in a compressed timeframe based on an Indian requirement. There is no time to test and evaluate in Russia. The Indian side responded very promptly with their contribution, so NIIP could also do it in time (probable reference to RC-1/RC-2 changes?)

6. Current radar system (production radar) also in discussion to be further upgraded. This is the much discussed Stage 1 and Stage 2 modernization.

Stage 1: The complete PESA upgrade
Stage 2: AESA

7. At present, discussions are on with regards to PESA, Stage 1.
But NIIP has also offered the IAF the Stage 2 based on PAK-FA tech.

EW:

Su-30 MKIs are receiving the reworked R118 system with improved coverage. This is the Eagle Eye system. Six antenna’s instead of 4, as on the other aircraft which are getting the R118 tailored for the fact that the Su-30 MKIs front (With canards) requires a unique solution.

What was the rationale for inviting foreign bidders in the first place if indigenous LUH is available for the role?

India is dual sourcing in a variety of projects. It uses imports for the interim while a local project gets ready for the rest.

There are several projects where this policy has been followed. Radars, EW, etc.

With some it has been successful. Others like the LUH, not really.

With the LUH, fiasco or not, the reality is that the conditions required by the Indian Armed forces are often stringent and not available via an off the shelf buy.

For instance, the reason the current LUH is being cancelled is because neither Eurocopter or Kamov met all the requirements and an Indian Army General went on record with his objections. Among them, that wounded troops could not be accomodated in the chopper without them having to twist their bodies etc.

Basically the ad hoc modifications proposed by the vendors were not suitable.

The real winner then is HAL, because it now gets more time to make its helicopter ready and to local specs.

Why are there a lot of ‘indigenous’ indian military programmes that claim to be such, but are in fact ‘collaborations’ with foreign firms? In those pics of the TATA ‘developed’ SPG, they claim it’s ‘indigenous’, but then actually have a photo showing the South African workers from Denel, which actually developed the gun?! So how come Denel wasn’t blacklisted?

Till date, I haven’t come across any significant Indian program that claims to be indigenous yet denies its foreign assistance, wherever acquired either via JV or consultancy. At most, its shoddy PR which just shows a couple of models but subsequent interviews or official reports always mention the collaborating partner.

Theres also a lot of nuance in current arms proposals being pitched by Indian arms firms, which are tailored to India’s Defence Procurement Procedure.

The Indian DPP specifies various kinds of programs each of which has different levels of indigenous content (by value) with local participation.
They are Buy, then, Buy and Make, Buy and Make (Indian) and Make.
1.Buy again breaks into Buy Indian, and Buy Global. Buy Indian stipulates 30% local content by value.
2.Buy & Make refers to TOT, with local content gradually rising.
3. Buy & Make Indian is in specific with regards to a JV with 50% local content.
4. Make (local only by default) – again either very complex strategic systems (e.g. Long range ballistic missiles, BMD radars, etc) or low value items. Again, with several types of % by value mandated.

Its comprehensive but can also get confusing.

Now, if you look at the above, a company which is competing in the Buy Indian or Buy & Make Indian category, will obviously tout its indigenous credentials since it will have (by law) either 30% or even 50% planned via local contribution. If its Make , even more so!!

Why not take credit for it and in fact by not publicizing it, they may understate their work.

Tata for instance planned to do the electronics and hydraulics, plus mover (vehicle + integration) for any SPG, with the gun & breech imported/contributed by its partner or even that liable to be assembled in India.

They have a fairly substantial defence setup. Look here:
http://www.tatapowersed.com/

Coming to blacklisting, thats a sore point. Thanks to India’s current hamfisted MOD, they blacklist at the drop of a hat. Technically, even JVs are not permissible. But there are hopes that via the private sector, Indian firms may buy out the technology & combine with their own contributions and hence avoid the JV tag with a blacklisted firm & hence still get technology in.

A bit of a challenge and unlikely to happen easily.

Right now, there are JVs happening dime a dozen, but do remember, that if an Indian firm is touting any of these programs for a local requirement, it will have to justify its own contribution as well.

The militants claim that more than a dozen military personnel were killed in the attack and that 3 JF-17 fighters were destroyed..

the PAF maintains that only 1 soldier was killed and 1 officer injured in the attack and 1 aircraft (JF-17?) was damaged

What is the actual tally of deaths and aircraft damaged or destroyed?

link

I wonder what the actual tally here was as well. Perhaps 3 JF-17s were destroyed.

Clearly, these guys attacking the bases are well prepared & have been fairly effective so far at identifying and targeting the high value assets such as aircraft.

Looks like PAF did lose one of its SAAB AEW&C aircraft in the strike on its AFB.

The PAF denied it initially, judging it by the posts earlier on in this thread (August 2012) but now the details are out.

ISLAMABAD: The February 6 admission by senior officials of the defence ministry that a Saab-2000 aircraft fitted with an Airborne Early Warning & Control System (AWACS) was totally destroyed in the August 15, 2012 terror attack on the Kamra airbase, implies that the concerned authorities had been keeping the tax payers in the dark for the past six months by claiming that it was only the nose cone of the precious aircraft which had been partially damaged and that it would be repaired by the manufacturers in Sweden.

The fact that the Kamra airbase raiders had completely destroyed one of the four Saab-2000 AWACS planes was made public for the first time by Additional Secretary Defence Rear Admiral Farrokh Ahmad during a meeting of the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Defence on February 6, six months after the Minhas airbase at Kamra was attacked by the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan.

The meeting was chaired by President Zardari’s sister, Azra Fazal Pechuho, as the chairperson of the 18-member Committee. Responding to a question by Ayaz Ameer, one of the Standing Committee members, Rear Admiral Farrokh Ahmad conceded that a Saab-2000 AWACS which was parked at the Minhas airbase was completely destroyed by “miscreants” when the Kamra came under attack.

When asked by Ayaz Ameer to further enlighten the Committee on the issue, Secretary Defence Lt Gen (R) Asif Yaseen Malik admitted that one fourth early warning ability of the PAF was knocked out by the raiders with the ruining of one of the four Swedish-made Saab-2000 planes.

But the secretary defence did not respond to Ayaz’s query about the actual loss suffered by the national kitty due to the ruining of Saab-2000 AWACS. As The News asked PAF spokesman Group Captain Tariq Mahmood about the likely price of the Saab-2000, he sought a couple of days to collect the required information. Asked about the price of the Saab-2000 AWACS, a senior PAF official said while requesting anonymity that the perished plane was worth 130-140 million US dollars. But a highly placed defence ministry official differed with the figure, saying that the plane destroyed at Kamra was worth 250 million US dollars.

However, a senior defence ministry official said on the condition of anonymity that the Saab-2000 AWACS destroyed at Kamra was worth $250 million. Ayaz Ameer, a former army captain, estimated the price of Saab-2000 somewhere between 250 and 300 million US dollars.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-159025-Tax-payers-kept-in-the-d…

Unlike the P3Cs lost in the Mehran attack, this is a more serious event as this aircraft is unlikely to be replaced for free as the P3Cs reportedly were, by the US (albeit PN may have lost the upgrade costs?)

Plus reports on the net suggest that another AEW&C was also damaged in the raid, and was sent to Sweden for repairs, this aircraft being the one the PAF initially admitted to.