dark light

PLA-MKII

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 511 through 525 (of 1,462 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: What will India replace Rafale with #2287019
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    Why would they not re-consider the other MRCA candidates such as the EF, Gripen, F-18E/F etc ??

    That is also a possibility. but given how the Indian bureaucracy works (or how I think it works), another tender would need to be opened; the circus would need to restart from the beginning. This would be something untenable to the air force, who would find other ways (such as beefing up on FLANKERS AND FULCRUMS), which tends to be a far faster process incidentally, to be the pragmatic way to deal with the situation.

    in reply to: EF-2000 vs su-35S #2287060
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    I wouldnt discount another EXCEL sheet that PROVES without ANY DOUBT that the Su-35 is superior to all those above mentioned jets..:-) …

    That may just be your bias playing in, you’re American after all, and Americans are generally considered…

    However, I do like your quote about banking establishments. That we can agree. 😉

    in reply to: What will India replace Rafale with #2287063
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    More Flankers and MiG-35s would be the obvious reaction for India. The LCA should also be a consideration, but past performance of that program has meant it cannot be relied on to fill the gap.

    On the other hand, Pakistan has also stalled on the FC-20, perhaps waiting to see if the Rafale deal goes through or not. So there is some breathing space for both sides. Good. Money better spent in social and infrastructure development.

    in reply to: EF-2000 vs su-35S #2287073
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    Yes, the F-22. I think everyone concerned knows that the Su-35S is not equal to the F-22, PAKFA, J-20. The question is, how does it stack up against the Eurofighter and Rafale, the two aircraft it is most likely to see combat against, IMHO.

    in reply to: The Dark Arts of EW (and Defence Against Them) #2287093
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    A point to note is that while LPI capable radars are a step up from traditional radar visibility, RWRs have not stood still. Frequencies and power outputs that would previously be ignored by RWRs, because there was less concern about LPI, will now be brought to play. Technology itself would impact RWR systems just as they impact LPI radars. Increases in processing power and ability to actively discern a large band of data would likewise allow LPI radars to improve.

    When combined with sensor fusion, RWRs would have a force multiplier effect on improving detection of enemy aircraft, beyond radar detection, either active or passive. Lest people think, sensor fusion is not an exclusive of the Rafale, it is being strived for by every combat aircraft manufacturer and their suppliers and R&D efforts.

    in reply to: 1000-2000 market for a cheap light fighter? #2291229
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    Slowman, the term SDB is being used generically to mean small diameter bombs… see for instance:
    http://chinesemilitaryreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/cm-506kg-small-diameter-bomb-sdb.html

    Anyhow, this is a pretty disturbing news; either Su-30MKK are terrible or Chinese pilots are sucky. I would guess it’s the latter.

    You are entitled to your biases. I would tend to believe that the JF-17 is a worthy fighter plane and air combat is not about a weiner contest.

    in reply to: 1000-2000 market for a cheap light fighter? #2291273
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    If you follow the discussion on pakdefense forum, it would seems the development of JF-17 is far from complete. Only PL-5IIs are carried operationally. Even SD-10 integration doesn’t seem completed. Much less the integration of targeting pod, jamming pod, or ground attack munitions. Until these developments are complete, I see little chance foreign sell.

    I must say that is utter nonsense. I have followed the JF-17 program for the last 10 years, every turn, every rumor, every development. The JF-17 is well known to have integrated a wide range of weapons and is in service with the SD-10 as well as a number of other weapons, including non-chinese weapons. Already integrated weapons include for instance the CM-400 AKG, SDBs, AGMs…

    Interview: Air Commodore Khalid Mehmood, Deputy Chief Project Director, JF-17 Programme, Pakistan Air Force

    Tomislav Mesaric, Zagreb

    In Pakistan the JF-17 combat aircraft programme, conducted as a joint venture with China, is a matter of national pride, with the aircraft on track to become the backbone of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) for decades to come.

    “Two years ago we had only one JF-17 Squadron with 20 aircraft, but now we have two,” said Air Commodore Khalid Mehmood, who was posted to become the programme’s deputy director when the aircraft was still on the drawing board.

    “Both squadrons are completely operational, while one of the two squadrons has two roles: conversion and operational training. We are about to raise the third squadron, but we still haven’t decided which one that will be,” said Air Cdre Khalid. “Around 40 JF-17s are flying at the moment, with the last few from Block I in the final stages of assembly.

    “Production started with a small batch of aircraft we used for maturity of the production processes and for the assessment of operational capability and fine tuning of the aircraft,” he said. “Based on that and the capability enhancements we introduced in the Block I, we will start with production of Block II. The difference will mostly be in capabilities, production technologies, avionics and some maintenance facilitation for the ground crew.

    “As far as manufacturing tempo is concerned,” noted the air commodore, “we are matching the retirement tempo of the air force’s older types, regulating the induction of JF-17s according to the air force’s demands.”

    Regarding the JF-17’s operational capabilities, IHS Jane’s understands that the PAF has the necessary sources codes to integrate weapons onto the aircraft. Air Cdre Khalid confirmed that the PAF has the capability for weapons integration, stating: “We can buy a weapon on the free market and integrate it on the JF-17 on our own and in-country. We have a team of flight test engineers and pilots that form the flight test group as a separate unit.”

    When the JF-17 first entered service it only flew with PL-5EII within-visual-range air-to-air missiles (AAMs) and fuel tanks, but the aircraft is now flying with SD-10 beyond-visual-range AAMs, C-802A anti-ship missiles, an electronic warfare pod and several types of general-purpose and precision-guided bombs. “We are using a combination of weapons of different origins,” the air commodore noted.

    When it comes to the maintenance the PAF has operational (O), intermediate (I) and depot (D) levels, just like in the West. “Since the JF-17 is a new aircraft we haven’t performed any D-level maintenance on it yet, but we are in a process of establishing a component D-level capability,” he said.

    Regarding the JF-17’s RD-93 powerplant, Air Cdre Khalid vouched for it being a very robust engine. “We have flown it for 7,000 hours without a problem,” he said.

    While the Chinese are reportedly working on a replacement powerplant for the JF-17, the PAF seems happy that solid agreements are in place between the Chinese and original Russian designers of the RD-93 to guarantee the supply of enough engines for its needs.

    At the moment the JF-17 is already qualified for quick-reaction alert duty. “We have IFF on board, so we can go straight up and shoot at the enemy,” said Air Cdre Khalid. In standard configuration the JF-17 carries two PL-5EII missiles, two SD-10 missiles and two or three fuel tanks. “The aircraft could have the capability to carry four SD-10 missiles,” he noted, “but we decided to pursue the present configuration. The digital weapon interface is on all hard points, which gives us a lot of flexibility for weapons carriage.”

    So far the JF-17 has not seen real combat, but the type has participated in a number of exercises. “We have very good experience in dissimilar combat against different types of aircraft in multi-bogey environments,” said the air commodore.

    During air combat manoeuvres with the People’s Liberation Army Air Force, for example, PAF JF-17s were pitched against Chinese Su-27s in a number of scenarios and reportedly achieved favourable results.

    With regard to flight training, Air Cdre Khalid said the JF-17 is “very easy to fly – even easier than the F-16 – so pilot training is not heavily dependent upon a two-seat version. We designed it with the concept that we will have a good simulator. The Chinese have extensive experience with simulators, so we decided to go with them. However, if some customer wants the two-seat version, plans for production are at a very advanced stage.

    “For international sales we have joint sales and marketing with our Chinese friends. It doesn’t necessarily mean we all have to sit together on every meeting, but the Chinese side will always know what we are negotiating and we will always know what they are negotiating,” noted the air commodore, adding that he saw co-operation on the programme between the two countries as being “exemplary”.

    “The first thing the new customer has to do is to decide which configuration of the aircraft they want,” said Air Cdre Khalid. “The JF-17 is produced in Pakistan Aeronautical Complex in Kamra, so we can provide everything from manufacturing to documentation and even help with the induction of the aircraft into operational service.”

    http://www.air-defense.net/forum/index.php?topic=5760.120

    in reply to: US in the Pacific #2324052
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    I to would like to see the RNZAF regain a fixed-wing combat capability!
    I was so saddened to hear the NZ Government’s refusal of the ex-Pakistani F-16’s offered to it by the U.S. Government, for such a good deal and price 😡
    But I think the reality is the RNZAF, as a product of it’s Government would have struggled to fund the maintainability of these jets.
    I think it would be more sensible and realistic for the RNZAF to operate the likes of the BAe Hawk 200 in a multi-role capacity. Cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate and maintain!!

    Regards
    Pioneer

    Thinking out of the box, the RNZAF could go for JF-17s, cheap to buy and maintain, and comes with all the multirole it would ever need. :eek:;)

    in reply to: Chinese Su-34 FULLBACK Copy? #2324169
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    Especially when people make dumb threads like this.

    It was reported by Kanwa and chinese publications, its not my theory. Google it. What’s so dumb about discussing about a potential strike variant of the Chinese flanker series?

    in reply to: Chinese Su-34 FULLBACK Copy? #2325363
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    Feels like the forum has dumbed down a bit.

    in reply to: Chinese Su-34 FULLBACK Copy? #2328398
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    I think perhaps it makes more sense to make a j20 based striker. But there is still room imho for a j11 with strengthened hardpoints, massive internal fuel capacity and very serious ew equipment. Let’s see if the news is correct and the j17 does come out…

    in reply to: Chinese Su-34 FULLBACK Copy? #2329117
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    I’m sure it would, in a vacuum. But PLAAF/PLANAF have limited resources as does Shenyang, lots on their plate already including multiple Flanker variants, and platforms in service or development which in concert already cover much of the same spectrum (JH-7A, J-16, J-20, H-6K) and, well, the Flanker platform isn’t getting any younger! I just don’t see it happening.

    According to Kanwa and chinese publications the program is already there… so I feel the point is moot if such a program exists or not…

    in reply to: Chinese Su-34 FULLBACK Copy? #2329121
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    Good point but H-6K is not very survivable. I personally think that a striker variant would be very much in the interest of PLA planners. I do not think they will go for the same solutions as the Russians given their very different requirements –

    – No need for a low level specialized striker configuration. (inlets, side-by-side seating, armour plating,etc).

    It is already being noted in Chinese language publications and Kanwa that such a program is underway… I think the speculative part is the exact configuration that such a plane would have…

    I think being able to reach Australia would make a sensible target.

    in reply to: Chinese Su-34 FULLBACK Copy? #2329133
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    Well, I think China does need a deep striker to cover their 2nd Island chain and beyond….

    in reply to: So how many Iranian MiG-29s are out there #2244195
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    As far as I am informed, Iran has been quietly buying small quantities, over a protracted period of time, from former soviet republics. Around 100 is the number I understand they have accumulated. Logic suggests that if Iran can maintain F-14s and keep them airworthy this long, they can certainly take care of MiG-29s.

Viewing 15 posts - 511 through 525 (of 1,462 total)