TeerAgain, you seem to have developed an ability to overook some facts.
Despite having a “Cold Start” doctrine that emphasises mobility andfirepower, and seems impressive on paper, Indian army is actually less mechanised (as a proportion of overall army strength) then Pakistan. Even if you take into account overall numbers, Pakistan has more APCs.
If anyone has to start spending more money on its army, it is not Pakistan.
Why is it you continue to post such things yet never provide evidence for what you have to say?
The Indian Army is supported by the much larger Indian economy which has sufficient capability to meet requirements. Pakistan, on the other hand…
TeerRegarding JF-17 being equipped to use BVRAAM as of now, once again we dont know. But using statements about capability to say it is or lack of pic vid evidence to say it is not is only arguing for the sake of argument. But we have some simple facts based on which one can draw his/her own conclusions.
One of the KEY reason behind PAF’s decision to go for the chinese avionics for 1st 50 machines (in 2003/04-so its an old decision) was their desire to get BVRAAM ASAP. Chinese radar on JF-17 is a derived from the one on J-10. Since the latter is compatible with SD-10, it doesnt require too big a leap of the faith to assume that integration of this BVRAAM with KLJ-7 is not too hard. PAF authorised to start negotiations for 300 SD-10 back in 2006 or so while the first JF-17 pics with installed radar also date back to 2005/06 period. I know we havent seen/heard anything specific about weapon integration or testing. In fact i cant recall JF-17 ever demonstrating anything but dumb bombs or may be WVRAAM (?). But we also know that JF-17 weapon integration & testing in Pak has been going on for around two years or so, and in my humble opinion they are likely to have integrated & tested a bit more than just the dumb bombs/WVRAAM during this timeframe in spite of the fact there is no official confirmation or pics/vids. The fact that first batch was meant to be primarily for air defence role (refer to ACM’s interview in AFM in 2004-dont remember the month) with A2G capabilities added subsequently could also be used as supporting evidence. Having said all this, AMRAAM was not a part of the equation, & its purchase might have changed PAF priorities later on. BUT all this suggests that nothing could be said of JF-17’s present BVRAAM capabilities with absolute conviction.
P.S. Any opinions &/or corrections are more than welcome.
I am afraid what you have stated is not definitive by any means. The LCA radar also incorporates EL/M-2032 M tech. Does that mean that it is automatically Derby qualified?
You state one of the “Key reason” to incorporate Chinese avionics was to get BVR capability ASAP. Is this the reason why Pakistan is now hunting for RC-400/Mica capability? In fact, this would only occur if the PAF found the current fit sub-optimal. Given that, why would Pakistan invest heavily in such a venture! Especially at a time, when the PAF Chief talks of making every dollar/rupee count!
I am well aware of the 300 SD-10 comments. Might also be worth remarking that those reports appeared in conjunction with the procurement of the J-10 or FC-20 as its Pak variant was named. Hasnt that program been put on hold?
As things stand today, I really dont see any definitive evidence that Pakistan has operational BVR capability on its JF-17s. If you have any evidence that proves it with certitude, I’d change my opinion.
Not referring to you, but those bawling about how the JF-17 not having BVR is “demeaning a nations capability” or talking about “fantasy worlds”, may do well to remember how similar reasons were trotted in similar fashion to state that the PAF F-16s were BVR capable with Sparrows in discussions all over the net.
The truth was of course different.
Now, the JF-17 not having BVR does not make much of a difference IMHO when facing an IAF with some 340 BVR equipped airframes. The PAF may well think the same & prefer to put its money into something which it really wants, eg the RC-400/Mica combo, if it can afford it.
TeerSince my earlier posts were deleted due to the use of sms language – im limited to internet access via an old samsung for the time being – i will try again. 🙂 But i have to be brief, cant provide any links, & have to rely on memory. But please do correct me where you feel im wrong.
Teer, you mentioned/implied in one of your posts that all JF-17 machines in service belong to LSP batch. There is plenty of info out there to confirm that LSP batch consisted of 01-08 machines, & serial production started with 09; with 1st two manufactured in china while PAC started with the assembly of no! 11.
I am afraid you misunderstand my words.
Irrespective of how we parse semantics, the point was that these JF-17 are not the definitive variant with an all new French avionics fit, and missiles which the PAF will acquire in bulk. Only some 40-50 of these initial variants have been ordered so far. Same as the LCA.
By your standards, the first 8 would be LCA LSP, whereas the next 40 would be series production. Either ways, the first 48 or even 68 given the way things are going (the IAF may well order another squadron if the MRCA is delayed), wont be the definitive variant which is going to be the MK2.
Eitherways, what I am referring to is that at this stage of the program, whatever you call it, both aircraft are pretty much at the same level, capability wise.
The key differences of course being in that India has far more control over the LCA than Pak has over the JF-17 and has far more economic strength with which to support the program development ergo, the Rs 8000 crore, ie Rs 80,000 Million (~$2 Billion) investment into the LCA including the MK2, cleared by India’s Cabinet Committee on Security.
In contrast, Pak is yet to cross that hurdle.
This brings me to the issue of IP rights vs license assembly. I think this is somethin you cant know without taking a peek at the contract. Although the manufacturing at PAC would be on the lines of mki, i.e. skd, ckd & so on – due to the limitations of PAC industrial expertise , it has been a JV through & through. Pakistanis have been physically present in china throughout its design & testing, & a lot of testing/weapon integration & testiing is being done in Pakistan itself. Does this mean Pak has full IP rights or some or none? We simply cant say one way or another without some official evidence. Its just like PAK-FA/FGFA. The latter would be based on the former with some indian specific/made modifications & avionics. We know its a JV but without specific info we simply dont know which country would have what right. It could be equal IP, or IP rights for country specific avionics & so on. We simply dont know.
Regarding the first point, we can have a good “case study” regarding what happened to the similarly “jointly developed” Al Khalid, its currently in Venezuala in its MBT2000 form, and what did Pakistan get in terms of IP and workshare?
So the point remains that it may very well be the case with the JF-17 as well.
Next, the PAK-FA comparison is not really germane as in the case of the FGFA, of which the PAKFA is merely a testbed yet with significant development yet to be done, India will contribute 25% of engineering development.
Given the timeframes envisaged and the funding requirements, Russia is not going to be developing an all new PAK-FA and then a separate FGFA with India. For all practical purposes, both aircraft will be functionally identical in terms of performance, hence the latest reports of both countries buying a mix of single and double seater aircraft.
Minor differences in terms of avionics fits wont constitute a 25% contribution to the overall program. India intends to be a co-participant in many engineering contributions to transition a prototype engineering test bed into a fully functional platform. HAL & assorted partners have capabilities in CAD, CAE, CAM and as regards avionics, both hardware and software (including embedded systems).
So the final PAK-FA or FGFA whether in Indian or Russian service, will have an Indian contribution.
Furthermore, to determine whether this will extend to exports, lets apply the same approach as we did with Pakistan and look at how a prior agreement with UAC/Irkut was implemented, regarding the Su-30 MKI.
All similar MK variants exported by Irkut, now UAC, use Indian made and supplied radar computers and display software. India also makes the canard assemblies and other fuselage components which are then integrated by Irkut into its export variants sold to other nations. Furthermore, in the Indian MKI as well, the contributions are well known via avionics items and are actually increasing, reducing dependence on UAC/Irkut. This too was part of the deal, but could be made to work only because India itself had the capabilities.
Could you inform me of the corresponding share of Pakistan in the JF-17? Where are the Pakistani developed avionics items and components f.e. in the aircraft?
If all you are doing is supplying part of the funding and assisting in fine tuning and integration, which by all indications is the case, Pakistans influence on Chengdu is correspondingly lesser.
Eg, the MKI cannot be exported without the Bars radar computers made by HAL, because the radar performance will suffer appreciably. Is this the case with any any system on the JF-17? Clearly not.
Given that, while Chengdu has offered license manufacturing and transfer of technology, and is apparently also assisting Pakistan in modifying the basic design to its requirements, ergo the look out for French avionics and systems, nothing stops Chengdu from supplying the JF-17 on its own to foreign customers. After all, it made it.
At max, some revenue sharing could be possible viz foreign sales (e.g. UAE purchase of the Block 60 Viper), but given we dont hear that about the MBT2000 / Al Khalid, I dont see why its a certainty here either. Especially, since for the money Pakistan invested it got rights to manufacture the aircraft in Pakistan and incorporate third party (non Chinese) equipment.
Regarding JF-17 IOC status & so forth, that remains a mystery to me. Back in Nov 2009, i remember coming across a youtube video (i think it was Dawn news) which mentioned (if i remember correctly) that upto couple of months ago, i.e. Aug/Sept 2009, these machines (prototypes/LSP) had accumualated more than 2000 flights (or was it flight hours?). That was >6 months ago. Im not sure how many hours such a fighter would require before IOC. Since there is no official confirmation, its anyone’s guess.
Its not merely a question of flight hours but test points and capabilities inducted. Which was the entire point of discussion so far, since there is no evidence that the JF-17 has A2A BVR capability operational.
The other issue was that there is also the issue that the PAF may not wish to heavily invest in said capability for a limited amount of aircraft, when the rest would carry a definitive avionics fit which is entirely different.
Lest comparisons with India are pointed out, India has a much stronger economy and can afford to spend correspondingly. The PAF is not in the same position, given the PAF chiefs recent remarks about prudent expenditure.
In fact, unless funding is made available, IMHO, another bigger question mark hangs over the JF-17 program viz this respect, as it will have to compete within the PAF for spending on the F-16 and FC-20 programs (the latter of which was said to be suspended according to Pakistani reports, but it may have changed) and the PAF itself would have to compete for funds against the Pakistan Army and Navy, especially the former.
The PA f.e. if it intends to even remotely counter the Indian CS Doctrine will have to heavily invest in its mechanized formations, which too, dont come cheap. The Navy now states that it needs new submarines – the French Marlin apparently.
Given Pakistans somewhat precarious economic situation at present, and with no signs of drastic improvement, one must ask as to what PAF program will have to bear the price. In the recent past, the PAF has fared rather well, with tankers, AWACS and F-16s and associated equipment. As such it may now be asked to wait its turn.
Ergo, Pakistan may have to pare down the option of fitting out the JF-17 expensive third party equipment. The only “other” option is to develop the capability to make these systems inhouse of its own design and make, but that is an even more capital expensive process.
TeerStraw man arguments. Nobody has suggested one standard transporter. A variety of transport aircraft is logical, to cope with different loads. Horses for courses. You’re actually the one arguing against it. I’m proposing that a small number of large freighters (small because they’re not needed for most loads, & they are, as you say, expensive to operate), to supplement the smaller ones, would be useful. You are arguing in favour of limiting variety in cargo boxes.
It’s nothing to do with range: it’s to do with the size of the things to be transported. C-17 or A400M or An-70 or C-2 can carry bigger (wider, taller) individual items than an Il-76. Russia doesn’t need any of them because it has An-124 for the big stuff, & so could afford to abandon An-70. Half of Europe has signed up for A400M, most of the rest for a few C-17, & several countries for an An-124 lease because they want to carry large loads sometimes. India is stretching its wings outside its own borders nowadays, & the ability to move large loads quickly, e.g. large helicopters, is valuable.
You are arguing that what has been good enough in the past will always be good enough. Well, paint me purple & call me an aubergine! All that money we’ve spent on developing new stuff was wasted! We could have stuck with Spitfires, Lancasters, & the good old C-47 for transport. 😀 Why didn’t you tell use earlier?
You need to do something about this chip on your shoulder, & think more about what you’re arguing for, & against. You’re arguing against yourself some of the time, & sometimes you’re being plain nonsensical. Consider that guff about ASTOR, where you seem to claim that Brazil has it. No, Brazil has a different system (neither British nor American) which does a similar job. Other countries have still other different, non-British, non-American systems, e.g. Israel. Somehow, you seem to imagine that in suggesting the utility of such a system for India, I am pushing British & American systems. That’s weird.
If I suggested that India should buy more Arjun, I think you’d claim I was pushing Challenger 2 or M1. :diablo:
LOL!! Well said.
The ASTOR is a much required system, anyone who says the IAF would not want the capability – well, I’d sure like to have what they are smoking. If there is an equivalent system off the shelf from Thales or any other vendor, I’d sure like to see it.
An all weather surveillance radar, able to map huge swathes of ground in real time, detect troops and equipment….gee, how useless.
About the C-17, well the IAF ordered it because there was no other option.
They are not too happy with the IL-76s payload versus requirements. Multiple flights vis a vis the optimal cut into airframe hours and generate spares burn ie costs.
This past year itself, the IAF was unable to support the Border Roads Org viz equipment transport for achieving its ambitious targets to ramp up infrastructure vis a vis China..the IAF’s AN32 and IL76 fleet just didnt have enough spare capacity to manage.
Clearly buying more IL-76s was not the solution.
The C-17s are clearly targeted at moving huge amount of equipment ASAP into theater, huge versus what IAF can do currently, barely equal to the task if we consider overall requirements.
The A330 MRTT was chosen for the same issue as well but a foolish MOF scrapped that, while clearing gold plated AW choppers for our politicos.
Unfortunately or fortunately, whichever side of the spectrum one is on, the IAF will have to pick up items from the United States which are not available elsewhere.
For instance, 22 Boeing AH64D – the Longbow variant – would do nicely for the attack chopper requirement. Add datalinks to get their radar data to the 150 odd LCH planned, and you have a force multiplier right there.
TeerIf so why the MRCA?…wasn’t the given reason that the fleet level is decreasing and that the LCA is not ready for replacement.
Remember when the MRCA was initiated,they IAF only wanted the Mirage 2000’s(purely to augment the fleet) not the high tech planes on offer today.
The MRCA proposal predates the LCA. It was later dusted off and then sought to be tailored around the Mirage 2000 V-II post Kargil.
The LCA & the MCA were intended to be in different categories even then. The LCA would replace the MiG-21s, the Mirage 2000-V would replace the MiG-23 BN and some of the older MiG-27s, and Jaguars.
Things changed thereafter once the CAG pointed out that a single vendor deal violated DPP & the bid got opened up. But the main change was that the IAF took a look at what the PLAAF was doing, and decided to focus more and more on heavy fighters, e.g. the Su-30 MKI, along with the MRCA and LCA to back them up.
Different state of affairs altogether today. The IAF now plans for a 3 aircraft structure ideally, heavy, medium, light and to address delays eg with the MRCA deal for instance, has sought to also upgrade its existing mature platforms.
In a way, the MRCA deal getting opened up proved better for India, delay of course not being excusable. The thing is that each of the fighters today in the MRCA procurement is far ahead of the Mirage 2000-V in capability. We would have otherwise got stuck with 126-200 obsolete platforms in a time when everyone else would be picking up newer gen platforms at comparable cost.
TeerDoes it actually matter if the J-17 has BVR capability now…if it does not have it right now,it will have it later.
Makes the claim that the JF-17 program is ahead of the LCA as things stand, untenable.
And why does it matter if Pakistan has IP rights over the J-17…IP or no IP will not make the jet any more or less deadlier.
Puts Pakistans investment into the aircraft in perspective. And as regards deadly, if the French proposal does not go through, its capabilities viz theater of ops will be rather limited.
But it cannot be disputed that the PAF supports the J-17 a lot more than the IAF supports(supported ??) the LCA. The reasons may be many but that fact remains.
Facts – 1) India – with the clearance from AF – has signed off on Rs 80,000 Million for the LCA. Pretty solid support
2) Pak really does not have an option viz the JF-17. What else can they afford or even get. Their upgraded Mirages have the clock ticking.
TeerBrahmos cleared for Air Force
Excellent.
The IAF gets a missile system able to reach out to 290 km and with the ability to strike reduced RCS targets among heavy clutter.
More squadrons are also likely to be ordered.
This along with the HARPY, the HAROP and existing Kh-31s etc makes the IAFs SEAD and DEAD capabilities that much more potent.
The ALCM version is now next on the list.
Once the IAF adds Brahmos capability to a squadron or two’s worth of MKIs and then distributes the aircraft across different formations, that will be another huge step forward.
TeerI guess in part I’m looking at MAD deterrence from the “limited” war theory view as opposed to the ‘unlimited” or “total” war theory, i.e. focusing upon C4IR/CoG, “counter force” and “key” strategic targets instead of vaporizing civilian population centers as well of an OPFOR nation state that have no input into what their government does.
Indian strat assets have sufficient accuracy for adequate exploitation of regular (as compared to TN) warheads.
The issue is with of course, bigger bang for the buck. IMHO, Anil Kakodkar and the establishment sticking together on this issue, esp. the services, implies the latter are ok with whatever is there currently, TN or no TN. Different Qn altogether whether they will be proven wrong over time or are right to begin with.
TeerAbsolutely. Whats sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, nicht war?
Also, interesting to see the claim that the JF-17 is ahead, because as it stands both programs seem to be at the same stage, operationalization wise.
Namely a MK1 developed (48 orders for the LCA, 40-50 for the JF-17), while a MK2, follow on or whatever we call it is sought to be finalized. We knew the details for the LCA already, and that the IAF chief and the Govt of India are supporting the program to the hilt. ( with a confirmed investment of Rs 800,000 Million, cleared this 2009 fiscal).
In the JF-17s case, the PAF is now known to be seriously in search of an absolutely new radar and avionics suite, plus a new missile. More changes may be in the works as well.
But the question is what will they do if Pakistan cant afford it?
Pakistans economic condition is not exactly rosy at present, and does not seem to be set for improvement either. French systems are quite pricey.
Lack of these systems would place a question mark on the combat efficacy of the JF-17 and the PAF may prefer to cap the production/ hold off on the program, while they induct limited numbers of better aircraft like the FC-20 or perhaps F-16s purchased with partial US financing, and husband their older upgraded jets.
TeerChinese company are increasingly expected to generate capital from non govt sources.
Absolutely, which is why they might go their own way.
Pakistan paid money to join projects that have immensely helped Chinese industry
To some extent, yes. But the Chinese invested significantly as well, and after all, contributed their industrial and domain specific knowledge to make these items to begin with.
look at JF 17 they operationaly tested DSI intakes, now they have been placed on J 10B.
They could have tested them via any other program as well.
Pakistan has benefited to a lesser degree, but still have benefited.
Tilting at windmills here. Never said that the license manufacturing of the MBT-2000 & JF-17, has not helped Pakistan.
Was just pointing out that further exports of these types may not necessarily benefit Pakistan as China may go its own way. (“Profit motive uber alles”, as in your first point).
If it was not for AlKhalid, the Peruvian would never have bought MBT 2000.
Perhaps, perhaps not. This statement above, appears to be an assumption. Havent seen any data anywhere from the Pak side being part of this pitch, besides which most of the MBT-2000 systems and technologies have derivatives on other operational PRC designs, so that counts for proven capability as well.
Glad the Chinese dont listen to you, because they would have lost alot of money esp Hongdu, who has less resources from government. Hongdu has been put on international map due to K8. Maybe thats the difference China has competation between aircraft manufacturers wheras DRDO and Hal together dominate every sector.
Actually, you merely reiterate my point that China may go its own way as it has previously. Viz. HAL & DRDO e.g. for HALs exports eg ALH, HAL wins the deal and the profit is its own, like here where Norinco wins the profit for the MBT2000.
TeerAnd the price of the JF 17 (projected like 20 million dollars) will sky rocket once they introduce European radar and weapons, putting it at a disadvantage in international competition against the late generation fulcrums.
Absolutely. The RC-400 and Mica wont come cheap. Not to mention the significant money Thales will make out of the Mission suite, and other systems since Pakistan does not make its own.
Significant effort from the Chinese developers as well, to assist as they will have the original design details, to make all these systems work together.
If the Chinese developed Stores Management Suite & Nav attack suite dont synch well with these French/European items, then even these will have to be replaced, plus add more time and cost expense to the JF-17.
Regarding exports, there is also the possibility, like we are seeing in the case of the K-8 and MBT-2000 sales to Venezuela et al, China may just take its design and sell it directly to third parties.
Why bring in Pakistan, wheres the value add and why share profit. Pakistans presence may only help in the PR aspect for certain Middle East nations eg Egypt.
TeerLet me know if any of the above links are not to your liking.
Again, no links from you guys on any claims you always make.
Going to leave this now. Its getting like a Turkey shoot….
You are the one claiming that the JF-17 has operational BVR…yet not a single link to back that up.
Only claims and PR handouts that “it will” have that capability.
TeerRest of the links are generic blurb.
Lets focus on PAC one as they are doing the license manufacturing.
The aircraft would be capable of carrying some of the most modern as well as conventional weapons, including:
Again talk of future capability.
70-100 Km range beyond visual range active missiles
Where are they?
Highly agile Imaging infra red short range missiles
Air to sea missiles
Anti radiation missiles
Laser guided weapons
Programmable delays cluster bombs
Runway penetration bombs
Not a single system specified.
General purpose bombs
Training bombs
These have been achieved.
TeerYou have basically proven nothing. You were arguing that in its present form the JF 17 can fire BVR AAMs. I have challenged that and you have not given a single link to prove it can.
Yes it is designed to do so, then again so is the LCA. Can they do it at the moment. NO. Not yet. 😉
So the talk about JF 17 being ages ahead of the LCA in maturity is just bull….
Absolutely.
As things stand, the JF-17 the PAF has is just a LSP variant, and the PAF has put out a tender for more advanced avionics and weapons for the next batch.
PR talk aside, thats a clear admission that series production is yet to even start.
Challenges lie ahead, especially if the third party avionics and weaponry dont synch up well with the existing Chinese equipment.
Pak doesnt make its own mission computers or avionics hardware either which would have helped.
Plus, this will add more complexity to the licensing process, ie in terms of setting up facilities to assemble the airframe, put in test rigs etc to handle full scale assembly as the design data and manufacturing processes for the airframe are transferred from Chengdu to PAC.
TeerHow many times do you want me to post this?
…….
So show us the A2A BVR and A2Sea missiles integrated on the JF-17 today…oh noes, they are secret!
Sign In
