Teer

A few years ago, my humble opinion was that if growing pak/Ind disparity keeps widening, Pakistan would increasingly see nuclear weapons as its best line of defence. My fear is that this is exactly what is happening, and that such thinking might even overtake their conventional defence doctorine.

Which India will again counter with the use of both more nukes and platforms which have no equivalents in the Pak arsenal, eg BGVs like Shourya and SSBNs like Arihant, and tomorrow, even more advanced platforms capable of n-delivery like 5G aircraft. And in the BM arena, India will field more and more systems to whittle down the deterrent capability of Pak n-systems.

Basically, irrespective of what Pak does, it will not be able to catch up with India. India currently has one of the most peacenik govts ever, headed by a bureaucrat who has gone over and above his mandate to meet Pak. demands, yet India’s recapitalization of its defence systems has started off. The AF & Navy both have been substantially successful & both have kicked off their programs in earnest, with substantial orders, local and international placed & other programs well on track. The Army has been partly successful – in terms of armor and NBC, and a flop in terms of new arty guns but even that will be ultimately addressed.

The bigger point is one way or the other, Pak has to look at its own strategy of seeing India as a rival; ultimately the gap between the two countries, economically and technologically is too wide and is only going to grow. The more Pak spends on defence to somehow close the gap, thats that much money away from its civilian economy, and hence that much more against Paks own attempts to redress the gap, since military spending flows from civilian inflow. Now with US aid also in doldrums, where will Pak get assistance from. I dont think China will be as generous in the tune of billions of dollars.

Hey he said mig 21++ twice and fourth gen fighter once. Probably the former is his opinion the other to look polished.

What silliness, now you have him come out openly praising the platform despite what you said earlier and now he said exactly what he meant, thrice over, yet you cant admit you were mistaken. He has specifically said that the LCA is a 4G fighter and by FOC should have 4G+ capabilities, especially as the MK2 variant will also be around by then.

His MiG-21++ statement is also in line with the IAF classification of heavy, medium, light. The IAF only operates one light fighter, the MiG-21.

The LCA has 50% more pylons, more payload & substantially more range than a MiG-21 Bison, but at the end of the day, size wise, it is in the light fighter class, a light, single engine fighter doing what the Bison does, which is multirole. But much more effectively with a wider range of armaments.

Compare to the Su-30 MKI, which has 12-14 missile carriage capability, and a 3000 km range without IFR (max, with 4 missiles).

What guys like you need to understand is that the IAF is not too bothered about all this generation BS. It looks at capabilities based on the previous class. Hence the Rafale, Typhoon are competing in the MMRCA contest – not “Advanced 4.5 g fighter contest” as they are intended to replace MMRCAs – like the retired MiG-23 BNs, the older MiG-27s and even the oldest Jaguars over time. This is why ADA calls the LCA follow on, the AMCA with a focus on M, as in Medium as it would be slotting in between the light fighter (the LCA) and the heavies (Sukhois).

The LCA, by designation and by design is a MiG-21++ class aircraft logistically, its the “Light Combat Aircraft”. It is designed for the form factor of the MiG-21, logistically so as to fit into all the AFB basing that the MiG-21 used with minimum fuss. In contrast, AFB have had to be upgraded heavily including runways, and shelters, to use the much larger, heavier Su-30 MKI.

There is nothing wrong with what the CAS said, its your ilk which is reading more into it than required, especially given the Bison was praised as being better than even the Mirage 2000s. That statement if interpreted similarly out of context, would have made you guys even more distraught.

So my words you proudly quote above translate into me saying that JF-17 is on par with F-16?? Amazing if somewhat twisted interpretation!

No, I quoted you exactly on the very point where you stated the F-16 avionics may be on par with the JF-17 whereas the point was that the JF-17s avionics are not currently on par with those of the F-16. As matter of fact, given the range/payload advantage of the developed F-16, comparing the JF-17 otherwise is also untenable. The issue was of avionics, where as I showed, the F-16 has the edge thanks to the US’s considerable lead in the domain.

India maybe able to manufacture more items for upgrade in house than PAC but can it manufacture more / better items than China? The JF-17 is a joint project and its upgrades cannot be isolated to PAC’s abilities.

Thats akin to saying India is ahead just because the Russians make more items and the Su-30 MKI is a joint project or the like. Point remains that if you are reliant on China, it does not translate to self reliance. Which means upgrades will be sourced from CATIC & Chinese OEMs, not local firms.

Despite all the ‘superior’ in house abilities India has made quite a mess of the LCA project – lets hope it applies the same ‘superior’ abilities to its upgrades.

The LCA project has been fairly successful in developing inhouse expertise & those abilities, are flying on IAF frontline fighters today. In contrast, despite your attempt at sarcasm, its a fact that the PAF cannot rely on PAC for its own upgrades, and it remains, by your admission dependent on France and China.

You are correct to point out India’s better ability to afford the best of west in terms of new fighters – and there expectation for local kit to be as good. That’s exactly why LCA will continue to struggle. Will the IAF want to induct large numbers of the LCA which its own air chief describes as a MIG21++ when it can buy whatever it desires from the west? I doubt it.

Thats a misreading of the situation as unlike the PAF the IAF intends to consolidate around 3 classes of fighters, heavy, medium and light. The light fighters are by design MiG-21++. , whether they be the LCA or others with similar payload/range capability when compared to the Su-30 MKI or MMRCA. But lets have the ACM speak for himself as versus journalist interpretations of what he thinks about the LCA..

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/iaf-undergoing-major-transformation-air-chief-to-ndtv-114743

Tejas took us 20-21 years to reach this stage but over the last two years I have seen that we have reached a very good stage and there is light at the end of the tunnel. And I’m very very positive Tejas will be inducted into the Air Force. We have already given the initial operational clearance, now the squadrons will slowly come and start operating these aircrafts. It will take a couple of years for these aircraft to get full operational clearance. During this time, the phase two build-up is also going on with the actual engine which is a GE-414 engine which has been decided. Thereafter, the Tejas will have the engine and we will have 6-7, if not more, squadrons of the Tejas class of aircraft. Now all the people who have flown this aircraft swear by it, it’s a wonderful aircraft. Of course, it is not in the fifth-generation class but I would call it a MiG-21++, with some latest technologies, with the latest collaborations an excellent aircraft to fill in the gap in our numbers which is there.

..which explains the context of the MiG-21++ remark fairly well..

And:
http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/06/iaf-to-induct-more-pilots-naik.html

On LCA: The LCA will enter into squadron service by the end of the year and then will become operational in a couple of years. Similarly, we will have six or seven operational squadrons of the LCA Mark-II,”

40 of the MK1 variant & 120-140 of the MK2 variant are quite sufficient numbers. So your statements are not in consonance with IAF plans as they have clear need for the LCA and are supporting it, and are fairly upbeat about it.

Same points as you made before and already answered. JF-17 is a joint project so you need to consider the capabilities of both the partners – not just one of them when you make remarks about potential for upgrades.

That just adds to my point that despite notes of partnership, the PAC remains reliant on CATIC for most key systems and integration expertise. This will not come cheap and the PAF will continue to remain reliant on its primary partner. As far as I know, Pakistan does not make any radars, airborne EW systems – ESM/ECM, mission or nav-attack systems or stores management systems of its own design. Licensed assembly will not take you beyond a point.

Nobody is disputing the IAF’s numerical superiorty – but to discount Jf-17’s immenant BVR role on the basis that it is not in place in this moment in time – is a bit unwise. I’m sure the new IAF chief is not just on about 18 F-16’s when he talks about the PAF ‘closing the gap’.

If you look at closing the gap based on the JF-17s “imminent” BVR role. By the same standards, the MMRCA’s “imminent BVR role” with systems like the Meteor BVR, the FGFA’s imminent BVR role with stealth & new generation Russian BVR makes the PAF thoroughly outclassed even in the future in the BVR role. Not to mention, that as things stand the IAF has over 300 BVR armed & operational fighters today, with two decades of operational experience, whereas the PAF has – what 18 F-16s in comparison, and nowhere near the same experience..IMHO, the gap will remain as it is despite PAFs attempt to bridge it, and will not be closed unless the PAF can operationalize equal numbers of equally capable fighters or even superior ones, neither of which is likely.

As already said — looking at alternatives does not automatically make the Chinese option inferior. The bit about Italy has appeared in one report without any named source. I would wait until there is official confirmation – similar unnamed sources also said that the second 50 JF-17’s would be delivered within weeks!! Probably just more media mix ups.

Why would you spend money on alternatives if the Chinese option was equivalent or superior? Logistically, and logically, it makes no sense.

Glad you agree that the LCA does not match upto the best from the West.

The IAF Chief clearly notes that while the LCA has state of art systems, it is a light fighter and hence if you are comparing a light fighter to a MMRCA, then you are engaging in a classification blunder which the IAF does not. It intends to field three classes of fighter, each with differences versus the other. The Su-30 MKIs (and FGFAs) will be the heavies, with MMRCAs in the middle & the LCAs completing the light end of the mix. Each will bring capabilities the others may not. The LCA may be more cost effective and lower signature than the Su-30 MKI, but the latter has, due to its size, a phenomenal radar aperture, and range /payload capabilities. The MMRCA may not equal the Su-30 MKI in terms of payload, but the latter fighter may be armed with a 100 km + ramjet BVR like the Meteor, which the Su-30 MKI may not have.

By the time MMRCA comes on line I expect the JF-17 will be PAF’s BVR workhorse topped up with the more capable FC-20.

Neither of which will be in the class of the IAF Fleet or rather superior, as they will be in less numbers, so as to deter the IAF. Your expectations are fine, but how many FC-20’s have been confirmed as being on order? What are their equipment fits, their performance. Its fairly premature to state that either type will dominate the PAF. As things stand, it will be the F-16 which will be the BVR workhorse and even the pre-eminent strike fighter.

As already explained – his point about LCA being superior was refuted by his opposite number – so this is debateable. His point about PAF closing the gap is not disputed by anyone of any meaningfull position – so believable.

How would his opposite number ever accept the JF-17 as inferior to the LCA. The likes of that happening are slender. Besides which closing the gap is relative, yes from zero BVR armed fighters versus 300 odd, you might add some 100-150 odd BVR armed fighters over the decade, finance permitting (some 40+ F-16s & 50-60 JF-17s), but the IAF will add much more than that, ending up in pretty much all its fleet (bar a handful of Jaguars) being BVR armed.

His point about PAF not catching up is sensible and already accepted as correct by me. Do you get it yet? If you don’t – don’t worry – I will copy paste this reply as many times as you need.

You have been copy pasting the reply before as well – I am just pointing out that the context matters. You were only looking at the “closing the gap” part, while ignoring the larger context. I am just pointing that out.

I think you need to understand ‘closing the gap’ as being more about capability than quantity.

So the JF-17 is equal in capability to clearly heavier platforms with more capability such as the Su-30 MKI or the MMRCA..
Lets face, it – quantity or capability, it does not add up.

Sorry for pasting just part of what he said – I didn’t know it was against your rules. What I highlighted was not posted out of context and remains factual.

Posting the entire statement would have shown what he said, eitherways no big deal.

I have accepted that the PAF won’t catch up – numbers for one (while they are closing the gap) – more than once and actually never said the opposite – yet you continue to feel the need to ‘demonstrate’ this to me.

Glad to see you concur.

150+ JF-17’s + 60 odd F-16’s on track + topped up with FC-20’s most of which should be in place around 2015-16?

In four years, the PAF will get most of 150 JF-17s plus 60 F-16s and plus FC-20s? Dare I say this is incredibly optimistic? Given current issues with the Pak economy, the rate of induction is likely to be substantially lesser.

Please post a reliable source confirming ACTUAL DELAYS in F-16 upgrade.

Check wikileaks – it clearly states that the PAF has had issues with financing its upgrades. To clarify, please tell me – how many upgrades has the PAF financed till date, when will these arrive by? That should clearly settle the matter. As far as I am aware, of 60 total upgrade kits notified by DSCA for a fleet of 46 confirmed F-16 A/B + 14 possible F-16 A/B transferred by US/acquired by PAF, PAF’s has plans for only 35 F-16 upgrades (leaving 11 aside). That clearly indicates either financing issues (since the upgrade would restore the F-16 airframe hours up) & even FAS does not confirm all upgrades are paid for yet.

Yes the PAF is heavily reliant on favourable financing but as I already said you shouldn’t let this worry you. Aside from the fact that economic situations change – the current F-16’s are likely to be the last Western iarcraft PAF buys – its new supplier has deep pockets and has a well established track record in being extremely helpful. Can you think of many other countries who have invested in, developed and delivered a fighter to the specific needs of another country mostly at their cost and then supplied the same fighter to that country on cheap credit terms?

But how long will that supplier continue to offer such easy terms. When the Pak premier visited China recently, China noted it could not offer outright aid as it was against its policy. IMF et al have been fairly hard on Pak., policies in recent months: http://tribune.com.pk/story/112323/imf-refuses-talks-with-cash-starved-pakistan/
Plus, key US leaders have now gone on record stating that they may hold back aid until they see Pak., policies change to match US requirements. Point is you cannot only depend on a supplier’s largesse, especially when the supplier has credible economic requirements of its own.

Anyways, just to quickly focus on my points. Given current Pak economic issues & lack of PAC industrial capability, I find it unlikely that PAF will get the kind of capabilities it needs to adequately deter the IAF. Relying on external assistance to provide all the capabilities – viz the largesse of a benevolent supplier – well, I find it somewhat unrealistic. One deters either by technology quality or in terms of platform quantity – IMO, PAF is lagging in both & the disparity will continue.

Captor has quoted ranges of 370 km vs transport a/c (Boeing 747) and 185 km for fighters. It can track something like 20-30+ targets and uses interleaved RWS, TWS and VS – quoted tracking range is 160 km vs a 5m2 target. It can TWS in its entire 120° arc due to high mechanical speed. It has automatic IFF and NCTR. The display shows own missiles a 2-D plan and elevation view. ECCM is high – it has dedicated ECCM data processing..
.

IMHO even the quoted tracking range, translating to a detection range of around 100 nm is an underestimate or one sanitized for public consumption. Italian AF pilots noted the EF Captor had twice the range of their Tornado F3 fighters, which by itself had a range of around 120-130 km vs a fighter target, actually increasing in later variants.

Its not all India’s fault either.

MOD had to play a lot of hardball to negotiate India getting design involvement and also for ensuring IP India pays for via funding the overall program is not transferred via exports to a couple of nations.

Russia took a fair bit of time to agree..

2 of MK1 and 6-7 (and even more, depending on need) of MK2.

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/06/iaf-to-induct-more-pilots-naik.html

On LCA: Naik said the LCA programme is shaping up well in the run up to the Final Operational Clearance. “We are happy that now we are finally progressing and that there could be light at the end of the tunnel. The LCA will enter into squadron service by the end of the year and then will become operational in a couple of years. Similarly, we will have six or seven operational squadrons of the LCA Mark-II,”

Also more LCA & MMRCA could be ordered even beyond current plans

http://newsindia24.blogspot.com/2011/02/iaf-seeks-government-sanction-for-more.html

Preparing itself for a two-front war scenario, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has sent a proposal to the Defence Ministry to increase its sanctioned fighter aircraft strength from 39.5 to 45 squadrons.

PAKFA testing going on ok so far, Pogosyan says its doing about ok.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/20/357476/paris-russias-pak-fa-fighter-shows-promise.html

“There is no aircraft in the world that doesn’t undergo certain modifications based on the test [programme] results. The most successful only require minor modifications to support systems. Our experience so far gives us confidence that we will avoid significant problems. The past year gives us sound grounds to say we are moving in the right direction.

“We’re quite happy and pleased with the course of testing.”

Two prototypes are now flying at the Gromov flight test centre at Zhukovsky, a suburb southeast of Moscow.

On FGFA

Russia has a requirement for 150 or more of the aircraft, which carries the internal Sukhoi designation of T-50, to enter service from 2015-16. India plans to buy between 200 and 250 of a modified design under the designation Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft.

Pogosyan denies that New Delhi is simply providing funding for Russian designers to produce a modified aircraft for the Indian air force’s requirements.

He says India is bringing its own engineering input to the joint variant, although he declines to detail New Delhi’s contribution beyond saying it covers aspects of airframe design, software development and other systems.

Pogosyan points to previous co-operation between the two countries in which Indian engineers helped to develop the capabilities of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI in Indian service as evidence of India’s engineering expertise.

The reports I have read so far on FGFA speak of Indian contribution to composites, FBW system, avionics including onboard ESM, mission avionics (Mission computer & Navigation suite).

Interesting to see the Russian requirement finally at reasonable numbers of 150 and more units.