SameerIt is widely known that the pakdef crew tends to get all members to start mentioning India on unrelated threads all the time as a diversion tactic when they simply cannot answer basic questions, we see Arshad doing this on the PA thrad as well…… I won’t bother responding to the Oracle Himself of course but the rest of the members viewing this thread get the point, I have now pointed this out a record 13 times now… see other Pakistani threads for details….
Looks like certain people cannot purposely stick to topic afterall…
talk about complexes :rolleyes:
SameerIt is not just about money but a political decision. US or EU engine is unlikely to be sent to China for testing and without CAC expertize it will become another failed project like LCA. also for reducing the cost large production order volume is also necessary. so different engine possibility is almost ruled out. i think with today prices 3 RD-93 can be purchase for 1 EU engine and there are ugrades involved interm of MTBO , fuel efficiency and TVC.
:rolleyes:
Yhe “let us get our lads to mention India” attitude continues, I think that I have pointed this out a record 10 times on this very thread already
failed LCA project really?
tsk tsk tsk still bringing up India on their own threads…..
SameerThe Harpoons must be “donated” under the US aide programme or else it would make no sense in buying the Harpoon when Pakistan can easily get exocets which would give them a longer arm in deed.
Sameer[I]’PAF’s Westernised ideas? What is that? Change the name? A system is either Western or not. Your guy says he will not accept Chinese stuff. But all of a sudden the Chinese system becomes great because PAF put some “ideas” into it? If PAF had the ability to instantly improve aircarft subsystems then why go for a cheap Chinese plane? They might as well take an F-7, apply their “Westernised ideas” and make it into an F-22, no?’[/I]
I posted what the AFM Editor said – if you don’t like it / want to believe it thats your problem.
[U]’I thought you held PAF brass and project directors to higher standards. Are you now saying they are of the same level as anonymous internet posters?’[/U]
How you can turn what I said into this is amazing – you must have one hell of an imagination.
I think that the question seems to be CAT1, that you have been posting a couple of quotes here and there but you yourself do not seem to understand what it means and in stead of saying what he means to say is blablabla or I am not sure, you say nothing but hey its your problem, why the bias etc…… Do you actually understand what a Pakistani westernized idea really is?
From your quote, it would appear that the Air Marshall would never accept a plane that is 100% Chinese, they would want a certain % of French etc LCD screens, HUD etc etc etc
Hence we can deduce that the PAF believes that Chinese avionics are not as good as western ones, well daaaa, but now the PAF is having to accept these avionics perhaps by force or to keep the price down.
Finally, about the first Waynes quote “the FC-1 is the first fighter completely designed by an airforce”…., I think that again Waynes should be asked to expand on what he was saying there or someone who has read THE ENTIRE ARTICLE COULD GIVE US THE CONTEXT OF THIS QUOTE because it is obvious that CAC has designed and developed the fighter with the PAF giving out certain requirement updates which DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO A MEANINGFUL CONTRUBUTION AS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFIC COMPONENTS OF A FIGHTER.
Sameeris that just assembling airframe from supplied parts or does it include machining airframe structures such as wing spars from solid aluminium billets?
i now PAC has got some experience of machining airframe structural parts for K8 – PAC can manufacture 45% of the airframe for K8. They were hoping to for 100% airframe capability for K8 but since PAF wants to order K8s in small batches rather than in one go it wasn’t considered economic to set up a line for 100% manufacture and only use it occasionaly. but i think PAC and PAF really want to make go of JF-17.
The Chinese were reluctant to go ahead with JF17 project. The only reason they went ahead was at PAFs insistance. The PAF could quite easily have gone for the off the shelf design like F-7MF but they insisted on JF-17 becuz they wanted to gain experience of designing and manufacturing an aircraft. Having a limited budget they couldn’t spent billions on re-inventing the wheel on their own so they did a shrewd thing and let the Chinese design the aircraft to satisfy PAF needs whilst the PAC personnel watched and learnt.
Similar thing happened during the design of K8. With K8 i know PAC personnel had design input. For insistance the Chinese wanted Ft-5 style engine bay – but the PAC wanted western type engine bay (BAe hawk style) for easy access to engine for maintainance – in the end PAC view prevailed.
Assembling the K8 is one thing, assembling the FC-1 is another especially if things such as FBW are incoorporated, you need a lot of skilled engineers etc working, won’t be surprised if a few Chinese technicians and engineers come along at first until PAC gets things together although from what I have read, PAC should be upto the task.
Sameer1) Is it not also possible though Usman that the team of engineers that were sent be it for the K-8 or FC-1 were there mainly for training purposes, surely these engineers had brains and made a certain amount of contribution to the project in the loosest sense of the term contribution but I d not find it surprising for the PAF and Pakistani engineers to be sent to China, IAF personnel were also sent to Russia for the MKI project and there are Indian engineers in Russia at the moment on a periodical basis looking after the Gorshkov refit as well, what one tends to look for in terms of a nation contributing to a programme is reasonably more specific, something which i gather none of you can provide. One can for example easily find out what Germany contributed to the EF-2000…. NOTE: I am not saying that Pakistan did not contribute, I am simply providing another possible interpretation of why Pakistani engineers are being sent….
The problem is that we read a lot of “meaningful contribution…” “first fighter to be designed by an airforce…” but these people who make such statements, such as Waynes or the author of the Pakistani journal which usman quotes must surely be basing their statements on a certain amount of fact or well other things which I wont get into due to constant misinterpretation on this thread…. Where are those facts comming from, the trend remark that I am getting here is that, as per Pakistnis, Pakistan has made x % of contributions to the project but we really cannot tell you what we did….
SameerSameer ‘lad’ – I know exactly what you said and haven’t confused any posts – your problem is that having clearly defended the ‘paint only’ argument by saying ‘Golden Arrow points to only the paint job being done in Pakistan, I am afraid that there is no proof of that either,’ (suggesting that even crediting Pakistan with the paint maybe going to far) and then later on going and contradicting yourself by accepting that Pakistan had set the performance characteristics (considerably more than paint? no?) you are now trying to wriggle out of your own hole.
As for what the editor stated – one liner or not – and whether you can ‘understand’ it or not – that together with your earlier post where you accepted performance characteristics had been set by Pakistan – is enough to refute the ‘paint only – if you’re lucky’ argument —- which was my whole point from the start. Point I was trying to make – made – end of story. As for your very interesting questions for which you cannot accept one liners. I don’t think anyone on this forum has the sort of evidence you want – but you already know this don’t you.
CAT1, I apologize, you cannot understand english, please do not insert bracketed terms and claim that I have said it, a few english lessons will now follow
1)”‘Golden Arrow points to only the paint job being done in Pakistan, I am afraid that there is no proof of that either,’ (suggesting that even crediting Pakistan with the paint maybe going to far) and then later on going and contradicting yourself by accepting that Pakistan had set the performance characteristics (considerably more than paint? no?) you are now trying to wriggle out of your own hole.”
😀 Dear CAT1, when I say “there is no proof of that either” I mean there is no proof of Pakistan painting the plane or China doing it so much is the lack of info about any contribution the nation made, I was not suggestin, note that you ADDED THE BRACKETS NOT ME TSK TSK TSK, that all Pakistan did was paint, I was asking if there is ven proof of anything at all, not saying that Pakistan did or did not do anything!!!! :rolleyes:
I understand your tendency to try to distort simple english and inserting brackets to try to fit your diluted way of answering qustions but please again, if you get mixed up, do kindly askm english is not everyone’s first language.
This is also the second time I will repeat a simple sentence made before
JUST ECAUSE A COUNTRY SETS REQUIREMENTS FOR A FUTURE FIGHTER JET DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT CONTRIBUTES IN TERMS OF DEVELOPIG ANYTHING, JUST AS GOLDEN ARROW SAID, WHEN YOU GO TO A RESTAURANT AND YOU TELL THE CHEF TO MAKE THE FOOD EXTRA SPICY, YOU ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE COOKING. I am really sorry that you did not understand what I said TWICE ALREADY but please stop purposely trying to create holes for me in your imaginition…
Finally CAT1, from the postings of many a member from your own cuntry it always seemed that the FC-1 was a joint development, EVEN YOU POST a quote from Waynes talking about the FC-1 being the first fighter jet to be developed by an airforce, hence my question was justified since this quote of yours does not make sense, either you should have simply explained that quote like everyone else would have or you should not have posted it since in its current form it simply does not make sense, the CAC designed and developed the FC-1, what te heck is Waynes talking about, in what context……. Anyway I am finding it irritating to constantly answer back to lines which I am APARENTLY SAYING, please let us end it here with this “diging yourself in a hole BS” first you confuse posts then add brackets where you spice things up with your own challenged interpretation of what YOU THINK I said…. sad
Again
1) There is no proof that Pakistan will paint or not paint, hence my posts had many a question mark, not in the affirmative….. :rolleyes: I was never interested in paint, my questions were rather more SPECIFIC AS MENTIONED TWICE ALREADY AND YES it appears that no adequate answers have been given and HENCE I SUGGESTED THAT WE MOVE ON. :rolleyes:
regards
SameerSameer,’lad’ – I care a damn about your ‘specific side’ questions. The point I took exception to and the point you were defending was that all Pakistan had contributed was a coat of paint – I gave you a neutral source that states otherwise (your suggestion that the Editor is talking about the PLAAF is laughable – go read the whole feature). Regardless you are by the end of your post contradicting what you said earlier – now you state that Pakistan determined the FC-1’s ‘performance characteristics’ (now accepting its a little more than paint then??)
With regard to moving on – fine by me.
😀
Just for the record “lad”, I was not the one who talked about paint 😀 , it was Golden Arrow, you can take your claim up with him, since we have two very different names, I would expect that you would mind not confusing the posts now? 😀
My only comment about paint jobs was that we may not even know if the paint job is done in Pakistan or China…. go figure how selective reading galore continues, agian CAT1, I moved on now, if you intend to continue to confuse posts of different individuals that is your problem, not mine. Also for the record in case of selective reading syndrome, all airforces issue requirements for their future fighter jet, how this relates to a meaningful contribution in terms of development of something to fulfil that piticular requirement is beyound me. :rolleyes: Finally CAT1 if yo do not care to answer specific questions, could you 1) stop confusing posts and 2) not answer and move on and 3) if you do not care to answer questions why bother signing into a forum? 🙂
regards
ps I was not saying that the editor was talking about the PLAAF, I was saying that as far as I know the PLAAF has been involved in the project (THEM TESTING THE PLANE AND ALL), it had nothing to do with your Waynes comment, please do not try to mix things up, you can kindly ask and things can be made clearer to you, also dear CAT1, next time you post a reasonable proof, one liners won’t do, what is Waynes talking about, I can’t understand that, the FC-1 was designed by CAC, since when was it completely designed and developed by the PAF and what exactly did the PAF design, that was my question from the begining…. 🙂 ,anyway, as I said before let us move on shall we?
SameerExcuse me but how is this statement evidence that the Pakistani Airforce designed the FC-1? I believe that the questions I asked were a bit more on the specific side, hence smart arsed satements about selective hearing don’t apply, won’t you agree? 🙂
As far as I know the aircraft was designed and developed by a certain Chinese company called CAC, in fact the website in question talks about it being the first fighter fully designed and developed by them in a joint business venture with the Pakistan and supervised by a certain airforce called the PLAAF (them being the first to test the fighter and all) which aparently is not all that interested and I honestly do not believe that its a flame for stating the obvious.
In any event since you do not appear to know the answer to my simple questions, I will move on.
ps CAT1, lad, it is you who appears to have selective reading, if you read my first sentence in my last post, it is reasonably accurate, you cannot point out to a single component that pakistan has developed yet (you talk about the unavailability of neutral sources, i cannot even find Pakistani sources about what exactly they did for the project, what they designed etc), anyway I understand your tendency to try to see a flame in things so again i will desist from continuing this simple topic which appears to get everyone so defensive around here.
The only evidence of Pakistani involvement for the record apart from funding can be summed up as follows
The FC-1 was to make it’s first flight in 1996, but the project was delayed when Pakistan sought to upgrade the performance characteristics of the FC-1 to respond to India’s acquisition of Su-30MKIs. After several years of stagnation, the Pakistani Prime Minister’s February 1998 trip to China resulted in an agreement to continue development of the fighter. Currently Pakistan is interested in acquiring at least 150 fighters, with the Chinese contemplating acquiring over 200.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/fc-1.htm
SameerO – I admit it – horror of horrors – I cannot give you a neutral source confirming exactly what Pakistan has contributed – BUT – this does not mean Pakistan has contributed nothing.
AFM Editor Alan Warnes wrote on page 33 of the July04 issue ‘ The JF-17 is arguably the only fighter that has been designed and developed by an Airforce’ Does this neutral source refute your ‘factual’ statement that Pakistan’s only contribution is ‘ applying a coat of paint’ ? Or perhaps he was just making conversation.If you faced an FC-1 in the air – I’m sure the question foremost in your mind would be who contributed exactly what to the fighter.
Sorry but it does matter about the motivation for posting – as if that motivation is to flame – pages of useless arguments / abuse follow – ending in the thread getting locked. What these clowns think they are achieving is beyond me.
The problem is nothing to do with different nationalaties posting on a thread – the problem is members who repeatedly post the same largely irelevant – but loaded – questions. They attempt a thin vaneer of decency but read through their posts and you can see that it is difficult for them to contain their true, extreme and rather childish views.
Horror of all horror it has been years now since Pakistan has officially been involved in the project and you are telling me that after so many years, you cannot even point out to a single component that Pakistan has developed? Now CAT1, it is not us who divert the thread in tangents, is it not allowed to ask what the involvement of a country is to a certain project? Golden Arrow points to only the paint job being done in Pakistan, I am afraid that there is no proof of that either, by all accounts the project remains partly Pakistani funded and a few engineers are proppably in China and learning how to assemble etc but the jist of Pakistani involvement ends here and it is not flaming for someone to say that. The whole point of a forum is to discuss, it is also understood that the thread title “Pakistani speculation” gives any topic of speculation a right to belong here. I was hesitant to participate in this thread, however it gets on my nerves when someone asks a touchy question and somehow the oracles of pakdef can already predict that its a flamebait, I wager that it is but a tactic to avoid answering questions, one wonders if so many threads would get locked if simple answers were given and people simply moved on.
Isn’t it pathetic, the most knowledgeble person about Pakistani defence affairs cannot give an answer but yet if someone says “Pakistan’s involvement in the FC-1 project is quite limited” he gets branded a flamer? :rolleyes:
SameerWould you be so kind as to point me to exactly where Pakistan’s exact contribution is mentioned with a source from that link, that link has a lot of now banned members’ postings and a lot of blablabla, or is this the latest strategy, accuse people who ask normal questions of flaming, or give them a 10 page thread hoping that they give up on it 🙂
It would only take 5 lines of typing to tell us all what exactly was Pakistan’s contribution to the FC-1?
Also I wonder how without any sense of certainty it appears that the FC-1 engine has mysteriously been confirmed? 🙂
Simple questions
IS Pakistan developing the FCS?
Is Pakistan developing a radar?
IS Pakistan developing the engine?
Is Pakistan developing the weapons systems?
Did Pakistani engineers come up with the FC-1 design and if not what contribution did they make in any design changes etc which followed?
Let me guess I just flamed? 😀
SameerOne wonders if the term flame is properly understood by the pakdf crew? Is there anyone who can actually give us some clue as to the actual contribution of the Pakistani establishment? Let me guess a certain member will now try to divert the thread on a tangent by reffering to something to do with INdia or the new trend send a star to Indian threads as revenge or whatever else to divert a simple and quite basic discussion.
SameerAlot of “Incarnations” lately, i thought it was forbidden to use multiple ID’s ?
I take it you are either a moderator or a hacker who can establish this with proof or I will take it as yet another comment by the pakdef team?
SameerI wonder what this thread has to do with Kargil and Kaveri?
This may be funny but is it not possible with a delay of course to fit the same American engine that powers the LCA, now that would be funny.
SameerI doubt there are any more left anywhere? We bought them all lol.
Well…Budget constraints, We’re 1/8th of your size and the GDP/Capita has no significant difference.Well you see if India buys, Pakistan wouldnt be buying the same model anyway, just another point on how lucrative Marketing Licensing is ;-)…its another way of saying you will save us the money for marketing Indians. As for Bangladesh, they dont have enough money I guess to keep their Mig-29s in air, I dont know if they even want to buy the Mirages in the first place.
Since when did GDP per capita count for millitary purchasing power? Only defence budgets do and country reserves and to an extent total GDP which stands at more than 10 times your size, you will also notice that the GDP per capita figure of 2004 has leaped ahead still but that is beyound the scope of a completely unrelated forum which is why i find it amusing, why bring it up?
Sign In
