CAT1Yes. The same politics that delayed the rd-93. The ws-10 would offer a solution with less strings attached.
‘delayed the rd-93’ I don’t recall any delays in the programme because Russia refused to release the engine. Engines were made available as and when required. Regardless — agree with you that WS-10 would be better – 4-5 years should be enough for it to mature.
CAT1Will the PAF have to operate a WS-10 powerplant derived J-10A/B since the Indian government has so much leverage over the sale of the AL-31 engines by Russia?
Same leverage that blocked the engines for JF-17’s??
CAT1Type has a point Ankush. Everyone on here has seen some pretty p*ss poor articles by Pakistani and Indian newspapers. When we find an amusing one we dont even bother posting. Unless we have other reasons to do so.
Same article says that the products purchased from Sweden are better than rival french technology currently operated by the Pakistani Navy — I think the quality / importance of this article can be judged by the fact that the Pakistan Navy has never operated any French AWACS.
CAT1which makes sense for what the PAF wanted- a cheap, BVR capable, 3rd generation operational fighter. national technological growth is not their look-out. almost every air arm will have similar outlook if they have a supplier that they have full faith in and no worry about sanctions or problems with spares supplies. China in this case fits the bill for Pakistan.
and if the aim for Pakistan as a nation was not to develop competency in aerospace in general and fighter design and development in particular, then it makes no difference whether the fighter was only assembled in Pakistan or not or if the JF-17 had any Pakistani designed and developed components in it or not.
PAF pilots and engineers invested alot of time and effort in the development of this product from launch onwards as acknowledged in Alan Warnes recent book on the PAF – ie valuable experience in fighter design and development. Add to that the fact that they will be making the vast majority of components for this fighter in house within a few years and you have a huge impact on aerospace industry. Plus they got the type inducted quickly and to the performance levels required – without wasting billions and years of delay only to realise they would have to buy off the shelf anyway. I think they got their priorities the correct way round.
CAT1thats not a contribution towards the fighter design itself. thats simple licence production based off Chinese drawings and manufacturing processes. no harm in that of course.
I do understand that — my point is that the aim was to get the fighter inducted, operational, and working and worry about making it in house after – and that is what is happening – as opposed to trying to re-invent the wheel.
As for contribution — the type wouldn’t even exist if Pakistan had not wanted it.
CAT1Reality bites! Mind diverted? 😀 For same reason US did not attacked you after 9/11. But they indeed started a proxy war. I think they got lessons from 1971!
That in no way qualifies as even a vague answer to the question I asked – besides flying totaly off topic. Reality bites? Mind Diverted?
Indigenous mean Indian, it fails or works! There is no country whose missiles or aircrafts didn’t crashed/failed at least once, except one!! Pakistan! 😉
Thank you for the complement.
lol Its does not exist! Above all there is no mention of PAF buying J-10 with AESA.
How many times do you want the source — PAF book by Alan Warnes released 2009 – go read and enlighten yourself.
CAT1Or gets inducted and work on even more advanced derivatives begins thereafter. I know its some kind of messianic zeal with you crowd to believe what you just said but the facts speak otherwise.
And what of Pakistan, which – is yet to demonstrate anything beyond money (and there too, in all probability soft loans from the PRC side) that it has contributed to the JF-17.
Ordering Chinese and putting a made in Pakistan sticker impresses none.
As for Paf contribution – latest AFM states that the 1st fighter which has just rolled off the PAC production line has 20% of parts manufactured in Pakistan and that by the time the 40th aircraft is completed in 2012 this percentage will rise to 58% — hope thats enough of a contribution. Also as I keep stressing, local contribution is secondary priority – better to have a foriegn fighter with made in Pakistan sticker on it that does the job it was meant to — than be left baby sitting an ‘indigenous’ fat white elephant.
Your telling anything really doesnt matter.
First, how many AESA equipped FC-20s are being ordered? Whats the actual performance of these AESA equipped FC-20’s. Just throwing out acronyms aint worth much.
I’ve given source for PAF – cheif interviews where he confirms – quantity – timeline and AESA — and you think these are acronyms?? You know well enough that exact performance details are not disclosed at this stage – If that means you can go a few years disbelieving the reality – so be it.
CAT1man you’re just so full of it..how much of this is actually anything “indigenous”, we all know. you keep talking about “flame” because you don’t want to discuss anything in its reality.
the same happened when I asked what one single component on the JF-17 is Pakistani for it to be called a Chinese-Pakistani project and you and all your ilk start screaming that I’m flaming.
so thats basically your modus operandi-when you don’t have answers you say we’re flaming, whereas you spend more time on the IAF thread than on the PAF thread, doing precisely what you claim we’re doing- flaming.
I remember you asking that question because I know its one of your favourite modus operandi — I for one didn’t scream that you were flaming BUT even when I repeatedly answered your question by saying that there was zero Pakistani input – but this made zero difference to the induction / performance / detterant value of the fighter — you kept asking this same question over and over and over again……. now that did make me a little suspicious of your true motives. As I said then – better to have a foriegn fighter that works than be left with an ‘indigenous’ fat white elephant.
CAT1Pakistani Khaled?
Pakistani Babur?
Pakistani J-17?like
Pakistani Nukes?
LOL
You really don’t want to go there do you?
Actualy I have no problem going their – Chinese or Pakistani – they will do the same job. Better to have a foriegn product that works than an ‘indigenous’ white elephant. Some countries have herds of these things – fat aircraft, helicopters and tanks gallore.
CAT1I think India will be delighted if China is the primary weapon supplier to Pakistan..the generals will probably be doing cartwheels in the MOD when that happens. China has a long long way to go to reach American standards in any area.
Thats your opinion – and I can understand why. I would suggest they save the cartwheels until after they acheive something.
CAT1Nope as both countries have different doctrines..it was just an answer to Rimmer on what the Indian lobby does in Washington. Prevent/Delay every Pakistani acquisition..and if they fail on that make sure India has the option to buy a better system.
Tell me — does Indian lobby have the same sway in China — because thats where Pakistan’s defence purchases are headed. Within next 5-10 years virtualy everything will come from China as their industry catches up to western standards. Pakistan’s drastic cut in number of F-16C/D’s and movement towards FC-20’s is only the begining. U.S. is a usefull stop gap for freebies based on war on terror.
CAT1None of them are game changers and the next generation of most of these are available to India if she chooses to buy them. India will always be able to buy better.
Rimmers point is correct to the extent that India does not tell the U.S. what it can and can’t sell — and rejecting U.S. equipment options on the basis of Indian lobby is ridiculas. Hell India couldn’t even stop its closest ally from selling fighter engines to Pakistan(via China ofcoarse)
As for mighty India being able to buy better — good luck to them — Pakistan is interested in ‘Minimum, credable detterence’ not becoming a superpower.
CAT1So why don’t you post one credible source/link?
Whats wrong – don’t know how to Google? Tell me what reason did you find for re-designed nose on J10B — let me guess – you think they did it to make it look more sporty!! I notice you’ve finaly stopped bringing up the other source I gave – Paf cheif interviews confirming FC-20 in 2014-15 with AESA? So happy to help.
CAT1The new gap created the IAF is indigenous and no country gives any other such capabilities, like complete net centric warfare, own GPS, anti-missile systems, hypersonic missile, array of electro-optical and radar satellites etc etc… What will be PAF’s answer to these?
We are all well aware of the India’s mighty ‘indigenous’ efforts and quaking in our boots. Anything DRDO touches either crashes or fails or both.
Thats why I mentioned about EFT, Rafale, Su-30MK or F-18E/F. Instead of 36 J-10 if PAF could manage to buy 20 EFT or Rafale that could have been much better detterence against the IAF.
As I’ve told you before – AESA equiped FC-20 will be sufficent detterent.
CAT1At this moment Pakistan don’t have a good BVRAAM, a few number of 4th generation fighters and some negligible SAM! It will take few hours for IAF to take control of the sky.
🙂 lol Why bring nuclear weapons here? There will be no MAD situation in case of India and Pakistan because of these….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5g_XbY34oI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y89FuGvP4AcThese are well proven technologies.
O ofcoarse — so tell me — if indeed Iaf can take control of the skies in few hours — and there will be no MAD —- prey why does india spend billions to bring its army to the border and then go home again without firing a shot???
Sign In
