What are the ROSE-3 upgrade specifics and how many aircraft will get it? When was this introduced?

The first pic that of a PAF Mirage-V? Isn’t it the small nosed one?

BTW Finmec’s site seems pretty clear regarding the specs.

At least 14 aircraft will get the ROSE-3. Upgrade is same as ROSE-II with some changes. The ‘small nosed’ one is a Mirage-5EF. You can get some details regarding ROSE upgrade here: http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/ac/mirage.html

Here ya go,

http://www.finmec.com/GRIFORadar.asp?pdb=GRIFORadar

Range ship with 10,764 sq ft (1,000 sq m) radar cross-section in adverse weather conditions
P2800 60 nm (69 mi; 111 km)
P2801 55 nm (63 mi; 102 km)

I have checked their website. Only Grifo ASV values are given against ships size targets and that is understandable as ASV stands for ‘Anti-Surface Vessel’. Grifo M is also discussed but its figures are not mentioned in the definition test.
At the bottom of the page (characteristics) figures are given in a meshed format (I guess that just copied it from some other format into HTML) and it is difficult to make out if the ‘range-ship’ is for all the radar types given or only the ASV radar. I am certain it is only for the Grifo ASV radar.

once again thats not the detection range for fighter sized targets thats max range.

It is not the max range but detection range. Try this website: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f16_7.html

“Radar operating modes may be selected by the pilot by using either the throttle, the sidestick controller, or knobs on the radar control panel. The primary air-to-air search mode is Downlook, which provides clutter-free indication of low- flying targets. Fighter-sized aircraft can be detected at ranges of up to 35 miles. In the Uplook mode, there is no need for the filtering out of spurious responses from the ground, and the pilot can detect targets at ranges of up to 50 miles.”

let assume what you said is correct and its comparable/slightly better than apg-66. So u assume that Grifo-M stats are similar to APG-66 has a range of 55 km against fighter sized targets and around ~ 30 km tracking range its still overkill to fit mica on it isnt it and its still inferior to Kopyo-M.

The earlier/basic APG-66 has a range of 35 miles (56 km) in look-down mode, which provides clutter-free indication of low-flying targets. In the Up-look mode, the range is 50 miles (80 km).

[QUOTE=Indian1973
JF-17 is a lightweight, multirole, day-night, all-weather fighter with maximum takeoff weight of 2,700 kilograms, maximum speed 1.7 M, ceiling 16,500 meters, max weapon load 3,900 kilograms, range 3,000 kilograms. It would be equipped with a Russian engine, probably RD-33, that powers the MiG-29.
[/QUOTE]

With weight of just 2,700 kilograms and range of 3000 kilograms it doesn’t stand a chance against anything.

The way it looks like – PAF gave half of the initial funds to CAC and gave design specs and in return CAC built them a plane and promised to give them ToT, set up local production facility and a limited license to market the plane. To think of it it seems similar to the Chinese J-11 arrangement.

PAF did not just gave money and design specification but is participating in design and development phase as well – in fact the deal signed between Pakistan and China calls for ‘co-development’ and ‘co-production’ of the aircraft [Ref. Story of the PAF, 1988-1998, page 101]. And in the official PAF history book on the same page (101) it’s written [and I quote here] ‘… A considerable number of PAF engineers and pilots were expected to participate in the development phase with the Chinese design team and vendors of Western avionics and weapons. A team of pilots and engineers would be specially trained to participate in the flight test phase.’
Now the above mentioned book only covers the duration of 1988-1998, before the JF-17 project gathered pace. You would have to wait for the ‘Story of PAF, 1998-2008’ for more details on how, what, why PAF engineers, technicians and pilots worked o this project.

But one can look at the previous development project between CATIC and PAF/AMF – the K-8, on which more details are available in the same book (since six first K-8s arrived in Pakistan in November 1994).
On page 161 of the official history book ‘… The first general agreement to design and develop a basic jet trainer with advance features was signed between China and Pakistan, on 21 August 1986…. ’, and on the same page ‘ … The design phase of the K-8 started in May 1987. For participation in this phase, a team of nine engineers flew to Beijing on 27 August 1987. Each member was assigned a specific design area or speciality depending upon his academic background and experience. This team was to stay at Nenchang for a period of fifteen to twenty-one months, depending upon the members respective specialities. Under this agreement, twenty-one engineers, two pilots and twenty-eight technicians participated in aircraft design, tooling design and manufacture, piece part production, sub-assembly, final assembly, as well as flight and ground test phases. They made meaningful contributions towards the overall programme. The first prototype aircraft flew in January 1991, after which the AMF participated in the flight test phase of the programme. One prototype aircraft was flown to Pakistan in March 1993 as per the provisions of the first general agreement.’

So for the co-development and co-production of a jet trainer, twenty-one engineers, two pilots and twenty-eight technicians participated from PAF side – now take a guess, how many PAF engineers, technicians and pilots are participating in JF-17 project. I have a rough answer, thanks to a talk with the JF-17 Project Director that I had many moons ago, but you would have to wait for the next official history book to get an answer:)

i am attaching a report submitted by AIR COMMODORE TARIQ MAHMUD ASHRAF… some time back about SU30MKI…

it seems chaps in PAF knew what this devil can do… :diablo:

The SU-30MKI article was written for Defence Journal and first posted on PakDef.info in above word format.

Writeoff??

It is damaged but not so badly damaged to be a write-off. It will be repaired by KSEW and put back into service.