Alpha BravoI don’t care about JF-17. My point was that Alpha Bravo‘s post could be taken to mean that PLA-MKII had used the word ‘privy’ incorrectly, when he had not. One should be careful not to mislead on such subjects, especially when someone is using a non-native language, as English presumably is for PLA-MKII.
I’m well aware of the context in which PLA-MKII used the term privy. I meant what I said about PLA-MKII making outrageous claims about being “privy” to certain “classified” knowledge, on which he makes stupid claims.
Alpha BravoI am guessing even if the MiG29s are offered for $20M a pop the cost per flying hour will be very high compared to a simpler single engined type…
what the smaller countries really need is a Gripen for the price of a JF17 😀
What could you do with the Gripen that you can’t do with the JF-17? I think for most small countries, an aircraft like the JF-17 is quite enough, i.e. a cheap lightweight platform that provides BVR capability for air policing/defence and a secondary ground strike ability.
Alpha BravoThis seems similar to the situation in Kargil over 10 years ago. Back then, the Indians used land and airforce to expel the invaders. So what’s different now? :dev2: I guess bullies know when they are beaten.
Indian media of course are as hysterical as ever…
Alpha BravoOld news or new news, the contract is an old one – written in the 1990s. The contract stipulates that China buys 250 FC-1. Will China break its contractual obligations to one of its most important allies? Very unlikely.
You still haven’t provided an official Chinese source for this mythical contract.
Remember, what roles are being replaced by what is a matter of opinion only. One could just as easily say that the J-10 does not fully replace the role of J-7s, and the JH-7B definitely does not replace the role of the CAS focused Q-5s.
Just as PhantomII notes, the J-8 still has a role and is still providing stellar service, despite the J-10s and J-11s. And is still being built despite J-20s! In similar fashion, China being the large airforce that it is, needs reasonable replacements beyond its elite units for the bulk of its forces. J-7s and Q-5s need replacements.
It’s also your opinion that the PLAF are seeking a new platform for CAS. What makes you think they really are looking to replace old types on a one-for-one basis? What makes you believe CAS is such a priority for the PLAF? Given the types that the Chinese are working on and entering service, it appears that introducing large numbers of less capable aircraft to suite a specific role is not what the PLAF are doing. Rather, they are introducing more capable multirole aircraft that fulfil a greater number of roles.
To sum up:
1. China is obligated by contract to by 250 FC-1s at minimum. The contract may be a decade old but a contract is a contract.
You still haven’t provided official PLAF conformation of this mythical contract
2. All indications are that the Chinese are working on a WS-13 based FC-1, which has been spotted being tested if not potentially already in trials with the air forces.
Does that constitute proof that the Chinese will be buying the FC-1? No.
3. The J-10 cannot fully replace the hordes of J-7s or Q-5s. JH-7Bs are not suitable for CAS or air defence (not proper J-7 / Q-5 replacements).
That to me is the fact of the matter.
Again, you assume the the Chinese are intending to replace the “hoards” of older types on a one-to-one base. Your “matter of fact” is as outdated as your logic.
Dear Deino,
It has been stated by Pakistani officials that the contract so stipulates at least the purchase of 400 aircraft, 150 for the PAF and 250 for China. No country would go into a joint venture without knowing that they can get to a minimum efficient number of aircraft sold.
Again, you assume some PAF comment almost 10 years ago speaks on behalf of the entire PLAF?! You’re so deluded. Where are the official Chinese comments of a contract?
Would you be privy, contradicting what has been officially stated, as to what the contract stipulates?
If you’re privy to such details, please do share.
Secondly, why would you think that it opens a new logistic chain where there is no synergy? The J-31 will run on two engines of what the FC-1 will run on. Surely an excellent way to minimize your logistics footprint.
An even better way to improve logistics is not to introduce an additional type that provides no real benefit in terms of capability. The Chinese are no longer thinking of numbers anymore but capability. Your logic is based on outdated numbers superiority of Soviet times.
The existence of the J-10 does not per se contradict buying FC-1s. J-10s are not ideal for the CAS role, and would be a waste to replace Q-5s with this. I just think you could have done better than to paint my opinion as a dead end. Far better and more worthy of your respect would have been if you answered with valid points and evidences.
Even more of a waste to replace something like the Q-5 with an equally less capable aircraft. Again, it’s beyond merely introducing and replacing an aircraft to fulfil one specific role.
1. What evidences you have, officially that you know that China will not buy FC-1s.
What evidence do you have, officially, that you know the Chinese will buy the FC-1?
2. That the contract does not stipulate a purchase (would be a very strange joint venture, virtually all joint ventures stipulate a buy, see the Eurofighter, Jaguar, etc). Directly contradicting what we know from Pakistani officials.
And of course the Pakistani officials speaking almost 10 years ago is official Chinese conformation that they will acquire the FC-1 is it?
In any case, we shall know soon enough. The WS-13 fitted FC-1 is flying already.
So what, what does a WS-13 powered FC-1 bring to the table for the PLAF that other types can’t do? I don’t think cost is that much of an issue for the PLAF, otherwise we wouldn’t be seeing the significant range of developments of the Flanker platform. If the Chinese were serious about introducing large numbers of short range, less capable fighters, the FC-1 would have been in service by now. The RD-93 engine would not have been an obstacle and they wouldn’t be “waiting” for almost 10 years to have the WS-13.
Alpha Bravo[QUOTE=PLA-MKII;2020492]
Its very widely reported for a very long time, confirmed by many top PAF officials on the record. A simple google search would have saved you embarrassment.
China, Pakistan Agree To Produce New Fighter Jets -FT
　　05-09-05 04:33 PM EST
　　NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Pakistan and China have agreed to start joint production of a new fighter aircraft intended as a replacement for the aging French and Chinese aircraft used by Pakistan‘s Air Force, the Financial Times reports in an article on its Web site Monday, citing a senior Pakistani airforce officer.
　　The agreement, the newspaper says, comes only two months after the U.S. offered to sell F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan, reversing sanctions applied almost 15 years ago in protest at Islamabad‘s nuclear weapons program. The first four of the JF-17 “Thunder” aircraft would be delivered to Pakistan next year for trial flights, while the supply of a total of 150 aircraft would begin in 2007, said Air Vice Marshal Shahid Latif, director of the JF-17 project.　　China‘s Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute is the architect of the JF-17 while its prototypes, first flown last year by Pakistani test pilots, were made by the Chengdu Aircraft Company based in Sichuan province, according to the FT.
　　”The (JF-17) project is not only of strategic importance to the air force but it has far-reaching implications both for the national defense and economic prosperity of Pakistan,” Air Vice Marshal Latif said in a rare press briefing, according to the FT. Pakistan and China were planning to produce at least 400 JF-17 fighters, with the balance of 250 of them on order for China‘s airforce. Pakistani air force officials said that, under the agreement between their two countries, half the fighters would be produced on an assembly line in China while the other half would be made in Pakistan.
　　A Pakistani government official said the JF-17 project was being pursued with a view to exporting the fighter to other countries once the aircraft has established a service record with Pakistan. “It‘s the first time China plans to export the JF-17 to another country and Pakistan‘s experience could help China with its future marketing efforts,” he said, according to the newspaper.
Poor manners and poor intellect. There is little to discuss here. You’re going to my ignore list.
Sigh…your childish fanboy antics are really amusing. Here’s the problems with your “opinions”.
1. Read the parts highlighted in bold. Seems like even then there were retrospective assumptions that were changed.
2. This article is dated from 2005!!! Yet, amazingly, all the “official facts” from that piece are nowhere to be seen! Where’s the production plant in China? Where’s the Chinese built FC-1s for the PLAF?!
3. Since when did the PAF become the official mouthpiece for the PLAF?! I asked you to provide an official Chinese source that they were/are planning to build and induct the FC-1. You can’t, so it’s your assumption and fanboy wishful thinking that the PLAF will induct the FC-1.
Sure, ok, run away and bury your head in the sand whenever anyone challenges your wild fantasies 🙂
Alpha BravoYes, the comparison is an apples and oranges comparison. What everyone is ignoring is that China has signed a contract that it will buy 250 FC-1s. As is understood and discussed in the recent interview.
“The report also said that, although China reportedly is trying to change the engine for the JF-17 fighters”.
So beyond “opinions” we know that China originally agreed to buy 250 FC-1s, and that the latest information including from Jane’s says they are waiting for the indigenous engine. We also know that China has no meaningful replacements for J-7s and Q-5s. Beyond this, everything else is merely opinion and heresy.
Can you provide an official Chinese source that confirms the Chinese have “signed a contract” for 250 FC01s? Or is this an “opinion” you were alluding to? There’s no mention of it in the link you provided. Why would a Russian engine be a critical point for something like the JF-17 when it hasn’t stopped the Chinese from operating the J-10 and J-11 with Russian engines and the JH-7A with British Rolls Royce Spey engines in the past? There’s nothing in your post but merely your opinion, heresay and fan boy wishful thinking.
The truth of the matter is that I doubt the PLAF are seriously interested in something like the JF-17 when it was primarily meant to be an export project, not to mention the fact that they have enough going on with other projects to make it redundant. Even then, it hasn’t really been successful as an export project either, its main customer, the PAF, can’t even support its own plans without Chinese loans, and no other country has really taken it seriously. There’s always talk of third world countries showing interest, but nothing comes of it, not even somewhere like Bangladesh. It may change in the future, but given that its been flying and operational with the PAF, you’d think there would have been some orders by another country by now.
Alpha BravoNational Air Cargo 747 Crash at Bagram Afghanistan
A 747 contracted to the US Air Mobility Command crashed on takeoff at Bagram, eight persons were on board.
Seeing something like that is enough to put you off flying for life, RIP the souls that were lost.
Seems like the AoA was very high, I’m assuming to get to a safe altitude to evade light ground fire. The stall looked very dramatic, not sure if there was loss of power at some point.
Alpha BravoSurely comparing the J-8 with the JF-17 is like comparing apples and oranges isn’t it? The J-8 being primarily a long rage, high speed, high altitude interceptor, while the JF-17 is a lightweight multirole aircraft. J-8 may be faster and fly higher than the JF-17, but at medium/low altitudes, the JF-17 would have the upper hand.
I don’t think the Chinese developed the JF-17 for domestic use, but primarily as an export project along with the PAF/PAC. The PLAF have different requirements than the PAF, i.e. aircraft with longer range given the larger airspace, hence the emphasis on the J-8, J-10, J-11 etc.
Alpha BravoRe-reading the Jane’s report, it seems that AGAT has also provided seekers for unspecified Indian SAMs.
Most likely the Akash, given it’s based on the SA-6 Gainful.
Alpha BravoIndia wants Russian JV BrahMos missile warship deployment
Not sure if it’s the right thread for this, but any news if whether the Russians do intend to field the Brahmos on any of their platforms? I guess given their stockpiles of Yakhont and other assets, there may not be any need?
MOSCOW, Feb. 21 (UPI) — India wants its joint venture BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles installed on Russian warships.
Indian Defense Minister A. K. Antony bluntly delivered that message Tuesday when Russian Defense Minister Dmitry Rogozin visited India.
…
Indian analysts have developed four possible reasons for Russian reluctance to deploy BrahMos:
First, it parallels missile systems already deployed.
Secondly, unlike India, the Russian navy isn’t currently commissioning new warships until the new Gorshkov class frigates go online.
Thirdly, many Russian experts view BrahMos as a downgraded Yakhont supersonic cruise missile already deployed with the Russian armed forces, so why should the Russian military choose to deploy it?
Finally, the Russian cannot incorporate JV lessons from the BrahMos because everything for the missile is out-sourced from Russia. The missile’s target acquisition software, guidance, navigation and fire control systems are all Indian contributions to the JV, along with the firing mechanisms.
Alpha Bravo‘Successful’ missile Nirbhay misses target
Not sure how it can meet “all the basic mission objectives successfully” if it had to be terminated mid-flight due to course variation and failing to hit the target.
India’s indigenously built ambitious sub-sonic cruise missile Nirbhay failed to reach its target and was terminated after it deviated from its path following its maiden launch on Tuesday.
Defence scientists however claimed the test “to be a very big achievement”. The missile, with a strike range of 1000km, was launched at 11.50am from the Integrated Test Range of Defence Research Development Organisation in Chandipur, about 200km east of Bhubaneswar.
“It met all the basic mission objectives successfully,” Ravi Kumar Gupta, DRDO director, told Hindustan Times.
Alpha BravoThanks for the great pics.
Any details on the helmet mounted sighting system the Chinese are using on their helicopters?
Alpha BravoFeels like the forum has dumbed down a bit.
Especially when people make dumb threads like this.
Alpha BravoThats what happened to the army’s artillery program. Nearly everyone got blacklisted.
So Tata has come up with a truck mounted SPG and I hope they get all the orders (about 700 pieces initially).
http://defenceforumindia.com/tatas-155-mm-howitzer-mounted-gun-system-1072
—-
I am hoping this latest scam doesnt affect the Rafale deal since there are some major allegations.
Why are there a lot of ‘indigenous’ indian military programmes that claim to be such, but are in fact ‘collaborations’ with foreign firms? In those pics of the TATA ‘developed’ SPG, they claim it’s ‘indigenous’, but then actually have a photo showing the South African workers from Denel, which actually developed the gun?! So how come Denel wasn’t blacklisted?
Sign In
