It’s not the first time when hi-ranked Rostekhnologii and Oboronprom staff are ‘confused’. In spring of 2009 Oboronprom chief (Oboronprom is subsidary to Rostekhnologii) Andrey Reus was sure that Sikorsky X2 just ‘have started ground tests’ and ‘going to make first flight next year’.
Audience was confused, too.

Are they political appointees…? Or real designers who rose to the top?

BTW, any news about PAK FA avionics and its intake blocker etc? Would appreciate any insight on the PAKFA thread.

YES … like I already in the general news tread about that post, since everytime I read such comments … I remember an answer like this (from a nice guy at SDF):

Deino

You will always have such comments from the Russians and Americans and even from some European firms. The honest fact is these guys and their aerospace industries are behemoths & they only respect proven competence, after their “peer” has demonstrated multiple classes of fighters, aircraft etc.

Till then, they’ll remain skeptical, whether it is about Chinese ability or any other country. Similar skepticism has been directed at many other nations & their programs, not just Chinas.

And for the record, most Russians qualify their comments about China with “but they work hard and are willing to spend and learn” – so its not all bad. Also, the heart of any 5G program is the engine. Till China remains dependent on Russia for its engines, the Russians will feel they have an unassailable edge.

More here. Thanks to other discussion forums who picked all this up.

http://spsaviation.net/story_issue.asp?Article=736

On SAMS

The current surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems with the IAF may not be the latest, but are still very capable of thwarting challenges …. The ageing Pechora fleet will be replaced by the new generation medium range (MR)-SAM system and OSAAK System will be replaced by short-range (SR)-SAM system, which is a new generation low level quick reaction missile system being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) as a joint venture. In the interim, Spyder low-level quick reaction missile systems are being acquired …. Spyder SAM System will be operationalised next year. The indigenous, state-of-the art Akash SAM system will be inducted this year. … by 2022, the entire air defence (AD) cover will have new generation SAM weapon systems.

Radars

The induction of medium power radars has already commenced in March this year. These radars are expected to be operational by December 2012. IAF is also replacing the existing P-18, ST-68, Indra-I and Indra-II radars with indigenously developed Rohini radars. Some Rohini radars have already been inducted and are operational. All radars will be operational by 2014-15. Apart from these, we would be inducting multi-purpose rifle sight (MPRS), low level transportable radars (LLTRs) and low level light weight radars (LLLWRs). The total percentage of legacy sensors in IAF hence would come down below 20 per cent by 2014-15.

Also mentions IACCS. On AWACS

We have received and are operating all the three AWACS and they are in the process of extensive operational employment and evaluation. The systems are working exceptionally well and to our satisfaction. Our operators are fully trained…We also plan to acquire three AEW&C Systems from DRDO in the near future. In the long run, there are definite plans to procure additional AWACS.

SP’s: Could you give the latest update on the indigenous light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas development/acquisition programme? ….

CAS: As of now, we have seven LCA aircraft and these are being put through their final paces, before induction into the IAF this year. We are expecting two more limited series production aircraft to join the fleet by the third quarter this year. The LCA, in its present form, is a fourth generation aircraft and we are working with HAL to enhance its capabilities. I am hopeful that the aircraft, in its final operational clearance configuration, will be a much more potent platform, to be a ‘fourth generation plus’. .

….plus mentions uprated engine and design changes for MK2 both of which we know about.

The complete text for all sections above is in the link, don’t want to have issues re:copyright

IAF now plans 6-7 squadrons of LCA MK-2 up from five earlier, like I had predicted.

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,”

The incorporation of systems like the Kh-31/35, KAB series bombs, LGBS, IFR on the LCA for FOC for MK1 itself shows the IAF is fairly serious about using the aircraft as a frontline Multirole type.

Overall LCA numbers production run envisaged is now at a healthy ~48 MK1 + 120-140 MK2 for IAF plus another 2-3 squadrons of MK2 (Naval version) for Navy.

I’ll wager that even these numbers will rise since the IAF usually orders 2-3 squadrons more before the line winds down. They did the same for the Jaguar and Su-30 MKI as well.

I would like to differ. Only An inservice or an operational aircraft can be “upgraded” not an aircraft that is in development. An aircraft under development is always “under development”. Hope you got the what I am trying to convey.

Thats not really a logical way to look at things IMO. So if the IAF’s Su-30 MKI went from a Russian RC to Indian RC1/RC2 with superior capabilities, even as it was being delivered and not operational, it did not count as an upgrade? Seems to me you are just cherrypicking to be honest.

An upgrade is an upgrade, sometimes if the service/customer feels it has enough time to wait for the upgrade to be done before the product is delivered, it will ask for the same. In other cases, if the customer wants any capability ASAP, it will be willing to compromise and accept a lesser capability at the beginning and have the upgrades delivered later. Other upgrades can come depending on improving technology, rival developments or even as a MLU.

The point remains – in the case of the Tejas, without relying on other OEMs, India managed to implement three different generations of avionic systems, which were in turn fielded on operational aircraft.

Tejas derived Avionics 1- went to the Su-30 MKI, second variant – more integrated went to the DARIN-2 and MiG-27 Upgrades. Both of these are operational.

The latest Tejas tech, is now flying on both the Tejas LSP and is also being fielded on the DARIN-3 Jaguar upgrade, and is to be used for the Super-30 upgrade as well.

So as you can see, India’s technology refresh and upgrade rate is ahead of PACs, since it has more local design & development capability. Apart from software, hardware rigs, and manpower, available systems in India now include MFDS, all sorts of computers, hydraulic systems, mechanical systems, cooling systems, RWR & ECM suites, and now a RLG-INS as well. That apart, work is proceeding apace on other systems, including weapons etc (LGBs, missiles).

Unless Pak., achieves similar in depth capability, it will be dependent on foreign vendors who are more expensive, and its tough economic conditions mean its upgrades will be more limited than those of India.

Don’t know what you’re going on about since I never said JF-17 is as good as F16block52.

Your own words in your previous reply.

Saying that the JF-17’s avionics are on par with those of the F-16 – even if true – is not the same as saying the JF-17 is on par with the F-16.

Glad to see you concur the JF-17s avionics are not on par with those of the F-16 yet, so lets move on…

We know why Tejas has more upgrades – because the IAF keeps rejecting it.

Not accurate. The avionics upgrade were done without IAF insisting for them. They were done because the local agencies had the capability to provide a new avionics suite in the timeframe based on the latest COTS, so they went ahead and did it. What was on the intial Tejas LSPs actually flies today on the Su-30 MKIs (which will be brought up to Tejas integrated OAC standards in the Super 30 upgrade) and the DARIN-2 & MiG-27 Upgrades. At any rate, the point remains, with most of the key capability inhouse, the refresh/upgrade rate for Indian aircraft and systems is superior to than can be achieved by PAC, unless it invests commensurately. Coming to what the IAF expects of the LCA, well thats the thing, IAF can afford MMRCAs from abroad, so they will obviously expect local kit to be as good as what they can source from abroad. The PAF cannot afford to be so picky with the JF-17 given its economic challenges and since the bulk of its fleet are increasingly aging Mirages and it cannot afford the best kit from abroad.

As for JF-17’s reliance on foriegn sources — current roadmap projected for 80% in country production share with possibility to go to 100% after initial 150 units – so I wouldn’t worry too much.

Exactly. It is a projected roadmap for possible local assembly, based on a projected factors and assumptions (including financing). As things stand though, the AFM article mentions that even structural components e,g significant portions of the fuselage will come from PRC.

Also, since you will be license assembling most of the key avionics systems, you cannot reverse engineer them to come up with modified local versions since that will constitute an IP violation, that ties you to the OEM supplier.

India faced the same problem when it contemplated the Jaguar upgrade. It then went inhouse using Tejas tech and systems integration expertise and upgraded 2-3 squadrons to DARIN-2 level and now, the DARIN-3 upgrade is underway.

That is entirely because India now makes many of the key systems for fighter upgrades inhouse, from MFDs, to Mission/StoresManagement/Display computers, RWRs, SPJs, integrated ECM suites, Electronics cooling & thermal management systems, plus of course it can do all the system integration & flight testing.

Now, use that as a baseline – is the PAF able to upgrade any fighter entirely on its own end to end, without involvement by any OEM bar subsystem sourcing. So far, it has not achieved this level of capability which arrives only if you develop the systems inhouse in depth plus do all the system integration work yourself.

So whats your point here Teer?

So the BVR may not have been integrated at this moment in time along with a bunch of other items. We know that various weapons / pods are being integrated as we speak. We know that the PAF wanted to induct the type asap and do much of the integration after induction. The latest article by Alan Warnes confirms the PAF’s attitude of continuing the momentum of rapid induction on fast track — dealing with any shortfalls later with system development catching up — does that make this a bad fighter? Does that mean it is not going to have BVR capability?
Does the PAF considering / comparing and evaluating none Chinese weapons options make Chinese options automaticaly inferior?

My point is simple. That so far the evidence, does not match Redgriffins statements that BVR is already done/ready for sure. None here have argued that the PAF will not get BVR capability. All we noted was that the PAF still has a way to go in that aspect, given the JF-17 is yet to be conclusively shown as BVR armed and operational, and the PAF only has around 18 F-16s BVR armed, when the adversary AF has over 350 odd aircraft with that capability and two decades of operational training experience.

With regard to the Chinese meeting the requirements – you have to love the logic — a senior PAF official says something you don’t like – so it must have been said with some ‘context’ ie not realy true.

Hardly. I am just pointing out that if the Chinese had indeed met the requirements, then there would have been no need to go to France, and now per recent reports, Italy.

You are more than keen to compare the capabilities of mature / modern western fighters against a developing type like the JF-17 — I wonder how your beloved LCA compares with these same western aircraft. The same western fighters that India is about to spend alot of hard cash on. Perhaps thats one for the IAF thread.

You can always ask the question about the LCA in the IAF thread, in fact you are welcome to. With its MMR & the Derby – the LCA compares well to most of the IAF inventory bar the Su-30 MKI & the MMRCA (either the Rafale or Typhoon). Both these types will be superior in several criteria, especially once the latter get the Meteor, which will far outrange the Derby.

However, the LCA will be far superior to most of the types that will phase out as it is inducted including the Darin-3 Jaguars, MiG-21 Bisons, and both versions of the MiG-27 (Upgrades & regular).

Coming to comparisons – my point is fairly simple. The JF-17 still has a ways to go to mature, as you admit, so it is premature to count on it as the BVR workhorse. India does not face the same issue because it has tons of Su-30 MKIs, MiG-29, Mirages to hold the line and even the MMRCA when it comes will be fairly mature in Air to Air (check both aircraft types), since the IAF placed emphasis on already achieved systems capability.

Err ….. no I don’t selectively pick and choose what to believe and how you reached the conclusion that I seem to ‘concur’ is beyond me. Perhaps you should just read the posts again.

Well, if you want to believe only one part of what NAK Browne said, while not looking at his conclusion or his points on other topics, what else can be said. Eitherways..

I already said I agreed with the point about not catching up in a previous post …..ditto to reading those posts agian.

So then what was exactly the point of only highlighting the first part of Brownes statement..

It was the IAF’s soon to be boss who said the PAF was closing the gap — is he not aware of the overwelming power of the IAF – as detailed above -he is about to command. O sorry – he must have said it in some ‘context’ ie not realy true — but everything PAF officials said in wikileaks can never have any ‘context’ and can be the gospel truth only. Is that about correct?

Of course he is aware of what he commands and which is exactly why he said “but they wont catch up” – I fear you are again falling into the trap of interpreting only what you wish to see in NAK Brownes forthright comments as versus what he actually said. In other words, even your current inductions (“fast track inductions”) cannot close the gap – which I just demonstrated to you.

I repeat my points below, so that you can see the numbers again.

Now, lets see the actual details as they stand. Currently, the IAF’s BVR armed fleet is:

60+ MiG-29s (R-27), now being upgraded to R-77
50+ Mirage 2000 H’s (Super 530D) now in negotiations for Mica IR/IM
120+ Su-30 MKIs (R-27, R-77)
120+ MiG-21 Bisons (R-27, R-77)

So, 350 aircraft in the IAF today, BVR capable.

Now tell me how many aircraft in the PAF are BVR capable? 18 F-16s…the first four F-16 upgrades are to arrive in December. And even here, the PAF has reportedly (at least going by earlier pronouncements) signed up for around 20-30 MLU kits for the 46 F-16 A/B legacy fleet.

Now by which time, will the PAF get more BVR capable aircraft. AFAIK- even the first 30 JF-17s are not yet BVR capable.

By the time the PAF actually acquires significant BVR capability (beyond a couple of showpiece squadrons), the IAF will have added its remaining 150 Su-30 MKIs, completed its upgrades for its older aircraft, and begun inducting its next tranche of BVR capable fighters including the MMRCA, LCA etc and even begun with the Su-30 upgrades.

So tell us, how exactly is the PAF going to match or even field a proportional force equal to the IAFs, when, as the recent Wikileaks statements show, even paying for existing contracts has been delayed & the PAF leadership itself admits that affordability is a big issue (dont offer us equipment we cannot afford to the US). Second, Wikileaks notes the US professional evaluation that it will take 2-3 years for the PAF to even get some proficiency with BVR tactics. So its not just getting the equipment.

Financing these systems as I noted previously will continue to be a challenge. Pakistan, per Wikileaks, is behind on payments for the JF-17, Swedish AWACS and even the F-16s. So despite all the magazine articles about a 150-200-250-300 JF-17 force, where is the money, for rapid induction & operationalization.

In contrast, they note the IAF has been training and operating with the BVR for a long time. India acquired its BVR weaponry in the 80’s and has been updating and modernizing since then as well. Such institutional knowledge in depth, transferred across multiple squadrons and crew is missing in the PAF.

Please let me know by when the PAF will get 350 odd BVR armed fighters in its fleet. Also, please note that after the MMRCA comes in (and releases some of the older MiG-27s), the number of BVR armed fighters in the IAF will actually rise further.

I would also suggest that you stop worrying about the PAF paying for its equipment. Despite everything you refer to from wikileaks have you seen ANY delay in supply of F-16’s, JF-17’s and Swedish AWACS since your precious cables were sent? Actualy they have also picked up some aerial refuelers along the way – also just agreed another 50 JF-17’s on ‘fast track’.

Havent there been delays in the F-16 Upgrade schedule & the procurement of advanced systems for the Mirage & JF-17 fleet. I think there have been several reports. It does seem Pakistan is heavily reliant on liberal financing for its high end weapon systems, but the question is how long will that last, and who’ll pick up the bill. Recently even the PA Chief spoke of using aid for civilian purposes, that would again impact the defence acquisition from US.

I believe the Falcon S7 radar being offered by the Chinese (here http://www.catic.com.cn/indexPortal/home/index.do?cmd=goToChannel&cid=928&columnid=2123&cpid=1656&columnType=102&likeType=list&ckw=AR&language=US ) is very likely a version of Grifo S7, I guess being offered as an alternative to the KLJ-7. A lot of F-7s were sold with Grifo radars (e.g. Namibia and Bangladesh). They could follow the same formula for the FC-1.

If you consider that for the first batch of JF-17, we are talking of 50 planes, the manufacturing (assembly) is likely very manual by relatively highly skilled techinicians. It is not mass production. I therefore believe making say 60 radars (with 10 spares) and switching to 50 or 100 of another type will not be that difficult.

Just my thinking!

Entirely possible.

A similar approach is even being followed by India with the Tejas. The first 40 are getting the local MMR with Israeli processing for the A2G function, software etc. After which the next batch may either keep the MMR or replace it with an AESA (the MK2 is being designed with that in mind). So if the payoff is worth it, even Pakistan could adopt this approach. However, there are two significant issues

– The Italian radars will be expensive. Paying for them, when the current JF-17 project payments itself were delayed, is going to be hard

– BVR weaponry is closely integrated to the FCR. The KLJ-7 etc come with the SD-10, at least once all the trials are done, etc. But what weapon will the Italians offer that is in the same class. I doubt whether the US would allow their AMRAAMs to be integrated onto the JF-17 given how touchy they have been about even the F-16s being MLU’ed out of Pakistan for concerns about Chinese involvement.

The KLJ-7 specifications are here:
http://i45.tinypic.com/bg5l74.jpg

Not a bad set, though the Zhuk-ME and RDY-2 should outclass it by a significant margin. On a plus side though, it does not appear to lag the APG-68V9 range by a huge amount or may even be in the same ballpark at least going by public estimates.

Teer the answers to most of your querries (including avionics, license assembly or production etc etc) are in Allan Warne’s article. Buy it and read it.

If you have the answers post them. Generally thats what most folk do on this webboard rather than just alluding to a text.

What you called TERPOM (it’s actually TERPROM), is present in the JF-17 too. A digital moving map display with terrain feature overlay. Google for JF-17 cockpit, simulator pictures. You’ll see it in operation in one of those. By the way, automatic terrain following AFAIK even in F-16s is available only with the use of LANTIRN nav pods on Block 40/42 and CCIP machines. Go figure.

TERPROM is more than just a digital moving map with terrain feature overlay – if you google for the details, you’d note it is an entirely passive system which is cross referenced with GIS data & is proprietary to a particular company – and it has been licensed for use even by the EF & if memory serves me correct, even the Rafale team. So, having a digital moving map & terrain overlay is not what I was talking about. I was referring to the ability to conduct a high speed low altitude flight plan, in a passive manner without tripping opponent EWS & RF detectors. And re: your automatic terrain flying bit, it might interest you to know about a public briefing by a certain firm which had clips of F-16s flying about without any pods & relying purely on preloaded database, integrated into the aircraft’s nav attack system.

As for the JF-17 not being BVR capable, use search engines again. There is an old picture of an SD-10 being fired from a JF-17 prototype. SD-10Bs (note not A but B) were’nt delivered as show pieces.

So a picture of a SD-10 being fired from a prototype, is equal to delivered and operational capability.
Are you aware that R-77s were fired from a certain IAF aircraft several years back and there were even pictures to that effect, but I deliberately did not include that capability as operational on series aircraft. Perhaps your standards of reference are different, but I would tend to rely more on exhaustive evidence rather than googled pictures etc as they’d be more certain.

The SAR capability of the KLJ-7 from a reliable source (don’t ask otherwise I’ll be throwing names again) is less than 2m resolution. Not as good as 2 feet (not exact figures either) of the Viper but good nonetheless.
As far as Italian avionics are concerned, I’ve only seen it mentioned in that story no where else so I can’t comment on it, but then why again is PAC Kamra license manufacturing KLJ-7 sets?

Weren’t those same sources saying the FC-1 could pull 9Gs though PAC says 8G? Be as it may, so you admit the 2ft resolution on the V9 is better. Ok, have you also considered other facets of performance as ECCM, operating modes, user friendliness & the like. Since you set a lot of store by anecdotal evidence, let me point out that this generally where US equipment, according to certain ME evaluators who have had exposure to various equipment, including PRC, continue to have an edge. Of course, upto you to consider it. Coming to KLJ-7 production, that is indeed a valid point, but then again – if that was the single discriminator, why was the PAF even considering the RDY3 and Mica combo..

The Italian avionics were used on PT-1 including Grifo S-7 but were dropped.
As far as the French are concerned, I have no idea, but that is Allan Warne’s quote from a serving high ranked PAF officer. I’d recommend you put that querry to Mr Warnes himself.

My point is pretty simple. The PAF would like to put its best foot forward to go beyond the rather messy issue of the French refusing to sell stuff to Pakistan, especially after a French official made his comments in India. Of course the PAF statement makes sense in that context. But speaking dispassionately, the evidence is actually counter to those statements, I’m afraid.

I only post what I read or get told by people in the forces I know, so I can’t throw about links to websites to back me up. As I always say take it or leave it.
I won’t be talking on this topic any more.
Thank you

So, just because a guy “in the know” tells you or I the moon is made of green cheese, should we believe it. They too can make mistakes or even toe the official line. Its up to us to sort the wheat from the chaff.