CAT1CAT1, Do you expect an official statement from ISPR? We will all know in a few months. We have history as an indicator – Musharraf has been willing to let US base in Pakistan to attack Afghanistan and he has a record of compromising Pakistani sovereignty for aid and other rewards from the US. Like they say, once it is established that so and so is a -, it’s only a matter of price negotiations.
Do you believe that Bush released “unlimited” F-16s because he felt that Pakistan was going to become a beacon of democracy and virtue 😉
No disrespect to you – and you are entitled to your view BUT you did not answer what I thought was a valid and crucial question related to your ‘theory’ — I’l ask again —– Why would the U.S. need to bribe Pakistan in order to use its territory to attack Iran when it could use its existing and fully operational assets already in Afghanistan to do the same job (I think Afghanistans border with Iran is actualy longer than that of Pakistan) Take a look at a map – I would not expect major differences between flight times from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Also by transfering attack assets to Pakistan wouldn’t the U.S. risk loosing the crucial element of surprise???
CAT1Golden Arrow,
You are adament that Pakistan has agreed the use of its territory for attacks on Iran in return for F-16’s – although in terms of back up you only have speculative articles.
Would you care to explain why America needs to bribe Pakistan for its bases when it could easily use Afghanistan (also has a lengthy border with Iran) where its assets are already in place???? Surely moving assets to Pakistan would achieve nothing apart from possibly loosing the element of surprise?
With regard to the J10 – is it such a disaster if Pakistan does not induct them for the time being if good F-16’s are coming onboard instead? Surely this is good – gives the J10 time to mature, China to induct its own engine etc. After all the option does not go away for the future.
CAT1Quote ‘The idea is to keep the billions in payoff/aid given to Pakistan within the US economy. Look for a quiet sidelining of the pro-China PAF senior officers and the strengthening of the old-US group. I’ll look for a quiet announcements of “troubles” with FC-1 and “unforeseen” delays with plans of buying J-10. So, I can only wish luck tothose who are stating PAF will buy large numbers of FC-1 or J-10’
It all depends on what quantity , price , terms F-16’s are made available on – 25C/D’s and upgrade of the existing 32 F-16’s certainly will not be enough to halt the FC-1 and J10- What the hell is Pakistan going to replace 250+ A5, Mirage and F7 currently in service with??
CAT1Netcentric, – why do you keep asking the same questions – knowing full well that the answers are not known?
Why don’t you just say what it is you are trying to prove?
Are you trying to say that because you do not have a spec and picture of the avionics – the avionics do not exist or are substandard?
Are you trying to say that because no licence deal on the engine ar alternaive plans have been disclosed these are not in place?
Overall you seem to be keen to prove that initial deliveries cannot be made next year – I think we should wait and see (PAF still thinks so – and they should know more than you?), rather than keep posting the same questions.
CAT1The specific capabilites of the avionics/radar are still unknown. If you known them, please post the details so we can assess / compare.
more importantly, what engine will be used is still unknown, since Russia has not allowed the re-export to Pakistan. Unless they willl use the F-7 engine inthe FC-1, its still an unknown .
Still there are too many unknowns for a 2006 induction, hence the term the “empty riveted shell”. Considering the FC-1 does not have anything going for it in airframe design / technology, aerodynamics, etc. At least the engine, Radar, avionics would be helpful to understand how useful of a fighter aircraft it will be in the coming decades. Frankly, I think a Mig-21 BISON has everything the FC-1 has and more, expect for payload.
Remember its peers in terms of aircraft coming out are
So the fact that ‘specific capabilities of the radar/avionics are still unknown’ and engine issue is unknown must mean that no radar/avionics/engine exist for this fighter? – hence your empty shell coment? You have to love the logic.
As for it being ‘riveted’, and having nothing in airframe design / technology, aerodynamics etc – and being only as good as the Mig-21 BISON – lets just say there’s no prizes for guessing your country of origin 🙂
CAT1‘US lawmakers have put forth a proposal to link all FMS aid to Pak via Paks’ cooperation wrt the AQ Khan saga. The public support is just PR and to avoid embarassing Musharraf.’
Wow – before the U.S. used to put sanctions on countries they were unhappy with – now they publicly support them and supply patriots to the country next door 🙂
‘You answered your own question! India’s huge market means that they’d be glad to replace the Russians.’
So the fact that countries like Seria and Iran could potentialy get countermeasures to a system such as the Patriot via Russia would be all ok with the U.S. because India has a big market??? 🙂
‘But if the sale happens, would you or would you not press the panic button?
Thats what the author is referring to imho.’No the author is saying they have already panicked. As for your question – ‘but if’s’ do not deserve the effort of answer. We’ll talk when you get the delivery.
CAT1‘Analysts are still not sure why Washington would go for such an escalation but many believe it has lot to do with the intrinsic lack of trust in General Musharraf and his Army Generals, specially their double games and cover ups of the Dr AQ Khan nuclear sales network.’
Yeah right! So let me get this straight – they come up with the obvious answer to all this …… lets supply Pac3 to India. But at the same time continue to defend Pakistan’s position on the AQ Khan issue in public.What is this guy on?
So Pakistan does not get hi tech equipment due to its close links with China — Would India’s close links with Russia not worry the U.S?? With Russia happily arming the likes of Iran and Seria I am sure the U.S will not mind. (Indias huge market will make everything o.k.)
As we well know with Pakistan’s record – talking about selling something is a world apart from selling something. Ofcourse Pakistan has to watch the situation but I wouldn’t press the panic button just yet (as the author seems to suggest).
CAT1Is China negotiating a deal for more RD-93’s for production batches or is the plan to use a tried and tested RD-93 in the test aircraft and move to a indigenous engine for production aircraft??
The engine of this aircraft has always been a mystery to me – I have never pictured Russia (Indian pressure) allowing it to be re-exported to Pakistan – yet at the same time it is hard to believe China / Pakistan have continued to waste time / money on the project only for it to be scuttled by this issue.
You also have to wonder why Russia allowed the RD-93 to be used in test aircraft – knowing full well that the project is Pakistan specific.
CAT1Just an FYI;
HawKeyes and Erieyes are separate deals and its not either or. Most likely Erieyes are meant for PAF and hawkeyes will go to PN stationed at karachi and Gawadar base. Like it says in the article, USN is hopin to link up PN’s air surv. and recon. with theirs so their area of scope is smaller and they are freed to do other things. I would assume that this step is to keep an eye on Iranian navy. Pakistan this way will be able to keep an eyes on its both eastern and western flanks.
The article states ‘with the Air Force taking the lead in negotiations’ – this suggests the PAF is equaly if not more interested in the Hawkeye than the PN. While the PAF and Pakistan in general has grave reservations about U.S. equipment due to their previous bitter experience with sanctions – I’m afraid that U.S. equipment is just too damn good, the terms too attractive to egnore. PAF officials have often stated that U.S. equipment almost without exception give best bang per buck. This is a very important point for a country with limited budget.
I
CAT1Are there some real data available?
“The Kunlun II actually has a significantly higher dry thrust than the RD-93.”
Translates into > 60 kN/90 kN engine. :confused:
Given Chinese inherant secrecy I doubt anyone will have unrefutable proof of the above. What would be surprising is that China would want RD-93’s (if indeed it does – beyond prototype testing) if it has indigenous options available.
CAT1The WS-13 was rumoured to be equivelent to the RD-93. Does anyone have any further details on this or any other alternative indigenous Chinese engines that may be planned for the FC-1.
CAT1:diablo:
Maybe, but what is about more F-16s???? The J-10 is in “mass-production”, when it comes to infos from this forum. :rolleyes:
Pakistan already has the infrastructure to support the type. Any additional F16’s – even A,B versions are good gap fillers. Any such F-16’s are likely to be entirely or largely under ‘military aid’. So by asking for additional F-16’s Pakistan has the chance of getting good, free fighters which won’t make any big difference to overheads — begining to understand why they are asking for them?? – and why asking for them has nothing to do with J-10’s in mass production??
CAT1It is rumored that, because the first batches of these planes are
still powered by Russian engines, that a technicality somehow arises such
that the Chinese are restricted from exibiting these newer items.Untill Chinese engines are installed,
I doubt we’ll be seeing any J-10’s or any JF-17’s on display
on any air shows any time soon.
Something doesn’t ring true about these rumours. To my knowledge FTC2000 has a domestic engine??
CAT1I can just about understand them still keeping the J10 under wraps – but I’m surprised to hear that the JF-17 and FTC2000 will be a no show. Whats the point of an airshow where your best and latest don’t get an outing?? 😡
CAT1Great pics PLA 🙂
JF-17 O3 looks mean. I’m glad to hear that Pakistan has accepted Chinese avionics / radar for the type – this is one big hurdle out of the projects way.
As the project director stated in his interview with AFM July 04 ‘ we were not impressed. However, they promised to improve their technologies, and with our guidance – and more time – they have met our expectations and we now have an avionics package available.
I know (as some members pointed out on another thread) that Air Vice Marshal Shahzad Aslam in the same feature said ‘ I don’t think we will ever operate a purely Chinese aircraft with Chinese avionics.’ On the face of it this seems like a contradiction between the two interviews but wait…..
I e-mailed Alan Warnes to query this aparant contradiction – below is his reply sent to me on 17th June o4
‘Hi xxxxxxx
Nice to hear from you. Yes, they are painting Mirages in this new scheme, when
I was at Masroor a number of their aircraft are also in these new marks.
What AVM Marshal was saying and I should have expanded on it, was that the PAF
would never go with a Chinese fighter with chinese avionics that they suggest,
ie never buy one without any of the PAF’s westernised ideas in it.The last sentence ended with “Mianwali”, which is the next article.
Alan’
Sign In
