CAT1‘Didn’t the AVM say that PAF found Chinese avionics crappy and that PAF will only go for Western stuff? Now all of a sudden with Pakistan’s “guidance” and magic it is a wonder weapon?’
Given your interest in this topic I assume you read the interview of the Cheif Project Director in July 04 issue of AFM. In it he makes clear that Chinese did not have what Pakistan wanted initialy – but Pakistan specified its requirements and the Chinese have not disapointed – and as a result a suitable package is now available. I will post the exact words if you like.
‘The plane doesn’t have a radar, avionics and missile and this guy talks of a superior BVR ability than India!
CAT-1 – You asked me about bombast and bluster that I noted a few posts above. This is an example.’
The fact that a radar / avionics/missile and their relative abilities have not been disclosed does not mean that none exist. e.g. SD10 development / testing.
This point aside – I tend to give the Chief Project Directors view more wieght than anyone on this board.
CAT1Pakistan begins fighter aircraft production this year: officials
Islamabad, May 9, IRNA
Pakistan-Fighter
Pakistan will begin production of JF-17 fighter aircraft this year, senior military officials said on Monday.
The light weight, all weather and multi-role aircraft is jointly being developed by Pakistan and China.
“The small batch production of JF-17 would begin in the second half of this year,” Chairman Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), Air Marshal Aurangzeb and Chief Project Director of JF-17 Air Vice Marshal Shahid Latif told newsmen at Kamra.
The first consignment of four aircraft would be delivered to PAC Kamra in December next year. Another batch of four aircraft would be ready by March 2007.
They said initially Pakistan has committed 150 and China 250 aircraft and production capacity of PAC Kamra would be over 20 aircraft per annum.
The officials said fifty percent of the airframe would initially be manufactured in Pakistan and it would progressively be enhanced to hundred percent. Similarly, cooperation with original equipment manufacturers would be expanded over a period of time for
co-production of avionics systems.
Twenty-two avionics systems would be co-produced at PAC including radar, self-protection jammer, high tech flight control and mission computers.
The JF-17 is planned to be a replacement of the aging fleet of PAF. The aircraft would be capable of carrying short range, beyond visual range, anti-ship as well as anti radiation missiles. There would also be provision of carrying high and low drag bombs, laser guided, runway penetration and cluster bombs.
It would be equipped with state-of-the-art avionics package to provide an all weather navigation and attack capability. The state of the art on-board multimode radar would have the capability to track multiple targets and its advanced electronic warfare suite will have self protection and jamming capabilities.
The chairman PAC said the JF-17 project would ensure availability of a contemporary, affordable and sustainable weapon system for the PAF capable of meeting its operation requirements.
“There is also possibility of payback of the financial investment and profitability through aircraft sales to foreign countries as already a number of countries are showing keen interest in the aircraft,” he added.
Replying to a question, he said the Aircraft Manufacturing Factory of the PAC is developing a high speed long range drone known as Comet.
It will have a speed of 300 kilometer per hour and a range of 60 kilometer with take off weight of 85 kilograms.
He also revealed that the PAC would soon start manufacturing aviation parts for Boeing 747, 767 and 777 aircraft under an arrangement with the Boeing company. “The know-how thus gained would also help in establishing JF-17 production line.
“The PAC has also recently completed avionics upgrade of Mirage aircraft in collaboration with French company Sagem. This modification substantially increased the air to air and air to ground precision weapons release capability of the aircraft,” the official added.
“Similarly, F-16 engines are also upgraded to increase their operating life and performance characteristics saving 30 million dollars.”
To a question Air Marshal Aurangzeb said eight more Mushak aircraft are ready for delivery to Saudi Arabia by the end of this month.
“Another five would be delivered in September this year, completing the deal of twenty Mushak,” he said.
CAT1Sameer – As I stated my only aim was to prove that the view that Pakistan has contributed nothing other than paint is incorrect.
With regard to the example of ‘going to a restaurant’ – I hope the differences between a meal and a fighter aircraft are not lost on you.
The quote I gave from Alan Warnes – was what he wrote – If it doesn’t make sense to you – or is not detailed enough for you – take it up with him. To me it only served the purpose of an independent confirmation that Pakistan had contributed more than just paint – and the quote did just fine for this purpose.
As for your english lesson –
‘do kindly askm english is not everyone’s first language.’
at least try to spell correctly in the sentence you are questioning whether someone else’s english is their first language.
CAT1So if I take a picture of mine in front of NASA, that makes me a lead scientist?
No it doesn’t – but if you had put up the cash for half of it and set the performance characteristics – (as a minimum and confirmed by nutral sources) – maybe still not lead scientist but perhaps you would be justified in claiming ‘significant contribution’?
CAT1Sameer ‘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.
CAT1Sameer,’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.
CAT1Whats this – do you guys have selective reading disorder – I stated
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.
Yet this is totaly egnored? You still harp on about only contribution being paint and my post being a tactic to avoid the question??
Amazing how I can find you singing kumbya, haleluya etc quite happily on any Indian thread but here your desire for ‘discussion’ and questioning ‘bombastic claims’ manages to overpower you.
CAT1O – 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.
CAT1‘what is Pakistan’s contribution to the FC-1’ – unfortuneately in their blind nationalistic fervour to put down anything to do with Pakistan certain members miss the point completely – what matters most is not what Pakistan has put in but what it will get out – and that is a modern BVR capable fighter in the quantities it requires. Local production and Chinese backing guarantee spares and support. Please don’t respond with that clap trap about you only asking inocent questions because Pakistan’s contribution is SOOO important for the FC-1 to be viable for the PAF — tell me how many aircraft has Pakistan flown in the past that it ‘ contributed ‘ to — now all of a sudden ‘contribution’ is your biggest concern??
As for the engine issue – time will tell what is used in the initial batches and subsequently – my ‘speculation’ is that Russia has made some noises to avoid annoying India – but thats as far as it will go. Whatever the ground reality I’m sure the Engine is not a problem for the PAF and the programe will continue apace. You don’t go around inaugorating factories and offering for export if your engine just got swiped.
So saying ‘Lying and blustering is not unusual for the country in question.’ is not flamebait?? And theres even a dig about getting banned from Pakdef if you posted such ‘factual’ claims there?? Well what if I was to use the exact same words to describe India – would that be flamebate? and what if I posted it on BR with a few examples for good measure? Do you think I might get banned there? The level of hypocracy is stunning.
CAT1Wednesday, April 20, 2005. Page 7.
Report: China Jet Deal May Pique New Delhi
By Lyuba Pronina
Staff Writer
Russia will deliver 100 jet engines to be used in Chinese fighters in a $267 million deal, Kommersant reported, citing an unnamed source in the Defense Ministry.
The deal could upset India, Russia’s No. 2 arms client, as the Chinese fighters are destined for Delhi’s regional rival Pakistan, the paper said. However, a clause in the agreement does not allow for the re-export of the engine, a defense official told Kommersant.
[…]
Only the start of the article from The Moscow Times I’m afraid as you have to subscribe. A bit contradictory though — why would New Delhi be piqued if Russia won’t allow the engines to be re-exported?
GA – back to the inlets – I agree that the inlets on the model in the video look different to the prototypes — but I wasn’t convinced by the finish, detail and visual dimensions of that model as a whole — hence my comment that you have to make a hell of a leap to take the inlet design on that model to be an accurate depiction of the redesign. Models of the FC-1 have consistantly been a poor reflection of the real thing – and are therefore insufficent to confim a relatively suttle change in design.
With regard to someone at Pakdef posting it — thats where this rumour started.
I’m not definetively saying that the lnlets have not changed, just that so far it is only a rumour.
CAT1To my knowledge – changes to the inlets are so far confined to internet rumours. Someone suggested that a model shown in the JF-17 inaugoration event showed redesigned inlets – I’ve seen the video and think you have to take one hell of a leap to jump to that conclusion. Even if the inlet has changed there is no guarantee that this is due to the engine changing.
CAT1CAT1,
So a Pak govt’s Information Minister’s on the record interview is not “official”? You are moving goalposts to fit your theory. On March 25 – Pak minister says FC-1 has engine issues. On April 19, you have a report saying Russia will not allow RD-93 engines to be sent to Pakistan.
If I am moving goalposts to suit my theory – you are certainly selective in mentioning events to suit yours – Forgot to mention the JF-17 factory inaugoration on April 5th in your above post? I suppose the Paf Chief re-confirming delivery schedule at that event and enphaticly declaring that there would be no external threat to this fighter and Pakistan would aquire JF-17′ s in quantities influenced only by operational requirements and affordability – perhaps this is not ‘official’ in your view – or – maybe you think its a ‘political’ statement.
We are both viewing the same set of available reports and facts in two different ways – I support this project – so I see all the positives and give less emphasis to the negatives – You would love to see this project fail and therefore see all the negatives and egnore any positives – I can understand and accept that – I think we should wait for further reports and facts.
CAT1‘So everything goes by “logic” is it? Can you explain why your info minister said there were engine troubles and now we see reports confirming that?
I have the recording of the info min’s interview and can email you. PM me if you’d like.’
I think these comments were made before signing of the contract between China and Russia and before inaugoration of the JF-17 facility – Given that I go by ‘logic’ I give the latest events more importance. Ofcourse the articles posted about the deal between Russia and China is more recent than all these events but it carries the big minus of stressing ‘unofficial sources’ with regard to the particulars of the deal.
I’m not saying you are wrong – what I am saying is that in view of all the information I have come across – I think that the PAF has a solution to the ‘engine problem’. This is my opinion and could be as flawed as anyones but I have already explained the ‘logic’ that I’ve based this on in 2 previous posts -(points that nobody directly refuted / adressed). In the absence of concrete info (e.g.Officail statement from PAF and/or China) – perhaps we can agree to disagree for the moment.
CAT1Maybe Russian allow RD-93 to be RE and produce by China but China must buy 100 RD-93 first! Then the subsequent production must pay license copy.The 100 RD-93 maybe repackage so that it can be re-export for foreign customer!
As I said before the reason why the engine is not a problem for Pakistan is anyones guess – the few above are possibilities – it wouldn’t be the first time China has tweaked and re-exported Russian technology. Incidently a version of the Kunlun is very similar in appearance to the RD-93.
I find it highly ilogical that although Pakistan alegedly just had it confirmed that they have no engine for this project – they go ahead and launch the assembly / production facility anyway – and reconfirm the delivery schedule – just because the Chinese leader is visiting (who didn’t even go to the inaugoration).
Also highly ilogical that China is ploughing ahead with aquiring 100 plus of a fighter it has never shown any interest in (other than responding to Pakistan’s requirements) while Pakistan is left high and dry looking for a new engine.
CAT1CAT1,
The Kamra factory is just going to assemble planes to begin with and there is no chance of engine manufacture.
If China is going to break the contract, well and good but PAF will be dependent on an illegal act by China for its mainstay for the next 30 years. There is always a cahnce that Russia can stop shipment of further RD-93s if China’s violation is discovered. There is also the issue with spares. The very fact that China is ordering so many RD-93s suggests that they don’t have a domestic equivalent capability.
India has so many pending contracts with Russia from Artillery to Tanks to Aircrafts to Ships, so it can at any point tell Russia that it will order more if Russia stops Engine supply to China, especially if China has already broken its contract.
If I was PAF chief, I’ll be very wary of having the future of my homegrown mainstay dependent on Russian and Indian actions.
I understand your points but the key question is – why / how is Paf able to plough ahead with factory inaugoration if there is no engine? The PAF chief seemed quite sincere when he called it ‘ the most important day in PAF’s history’ also reconfirming delivery schedule for the type — are these fitting actions / comments with regard to a engineless fighter?? I again stress that the inaugoration is after signing of the contract between Russia and China. These are the key points which lead me to believe that in the PAF mind the engine is not a problem. Why / how they can believe this – only they / China know at this stage – I could come up with no end of possibilities – all of which would be guesswork / speculation. Time will tell.
Sign In
