The Chinese certification system is different from the west. By 2006 when it was revealed, it was equivalent to a Western FOC. It already had 2 operating regiments. It received IOC in 2004 when the first operating regiment was delivered.

Well, sinodefence mentions it was an IoC. Now, in cognizance of your claim that “the Chinese system is different from the west”, the only conclusion is that the Air Force grants the IoC certificate (unlike the manufacturer granting the IoC, as in India and the west).

Regarding your earthtimes article. I cant see it. But i will give you a better one-google for it & you will get the entire thing. Its AFM-Jan 2010? issue, & Alan Warnes is the leading authority on JF-17 outside Pak. You will be able to see a timeline of the project in that article. There were only two flying protos with DSI (PT 4 & 6) and PT 1, 2 were conventional flying. PT 2, 5 were also conventional for static testing- 5 came out way before 4: dont ask me why. Sept 2008 issue-& by this time PAF already had 8 machines-clearly states dat 04 WILL join PAF though i have never seen any evidence of that.

This is the link to earthtimes article. The first line itself says, “…Two prototypes of the JF-17 advanced multi-role light combat aircraft (LCA) …… have arrived in Pakistan for evaluation trials, Online news agency reported. ”

What I’m saying is, that the first 8 units (the SBPs as they’re called) included 2 prototypes from the PT series (fine, I discount the PT-05 if it came before PT-04).

I don’t dispute the rest (never have).

And no pak is not alone in this sense. You stated that IOC for F-16 was achieved in 1979? Any ideas of the exact date? Coz i can tell you that first FSD machine-you can call it a PT: separate from demonstrator YF-16-made its first flight in Dec 1976. First full production aircraf enter USAF SERVICE on 6 Jan 1979, & according to you it was assigned IOC sometime in 1979-when exactly would help. BUT HANG ON. Dat sounds strange. Only 2 years from 1st FSD machine or PT to service entry and only 2-3 years to IOC. I mean F-16 did have a fbw and had to open up its flight envelope before IOC.

See, as metioned earlier it is the no. of parameters that counts and not the absolute test-flights. Besides, the PT-04 was completely redesigned in 2004 and so many flight-tests conducted from PT-01 to 03 would definitely have to be repeated. It added lerxes and DSI (reportedly after only F-35). Then, it is hard to believe that it is up and running in just 4 years after 2004.

The only explanation for all this is, that as tphuang pointed out, the PAF will induct a couple of squads, fly them around for a couple of years and then give it the IoC, just as PLAAF did vis-a-vis J-10. So, PAF seems to be following PLAAF in this case.

Equal?…the Gripen C/D is operational in various air forces while the Tejas has 6 prototypes and has no functional radar. Equal yes..sure.

Even the Mk2 a true paper plane with not even a fictional engine is equal to the Gripen NG which was flown supersonic by the IAF last week in Sweden. They are also equal obviously.:rolleyes:

I underlined the phrase, “as they fly today”, but you missed it. I pointed out that radar integration is ongoing as we speak, but you missed. And I told you NOT to bring the cliched argument of “proven” jet, yet you did. Can you please explain all the members here, why did Sweden induct fresh “unproven” Gripens in 1996, instead of “proven-in-many-air-forces” Mirages and F-16s ? So, why shouldn’t IAF do the same vis-a-vis the Tejas now ?

If a total of 80 Mirage-2000-V frames are to be purchased, then the MRCA must be scrapped. These 80 units will definitely serve the original MRCA purpose very well, as they will easily equate the F-16 and Gripen in strike capability.

Upgradation of our existing Mirages can also continue simultaneously.

No..the LCA is barely equivalent on paper to the Gripen C/D today….I half wish that the IAF choose the Gripen NG as the MRCA. Then you can go on and on about how the IAF choose the inferior Gripen instead of the super duper LCA.

The above is totally inaccurate, and shows your total lack of info. As mentioned numerous times earlier forget “paper specs”, as they fly today, range-payload specs of Tejas Mk.1 and Gripen C/D are equivalent (I’ve posted references earlier). Tejas’ engines provides greater thrust. Airframe-wise, both 4.5 gen designs with significant composites, unstable frames — all CFD tested meticulously. Avionics wise FBW system of Tejas is even later then Gripen; other EW and flight management equipment derived from Su-30 MKI none less.

Radar integration on LSP-3 Tejas is on last stages now. Flight envelop opened fully.

Now if you have anything contrary to the above, then you may say so (which you obviously can’t and pleae don’t “hurtle” down the “proven” fighter argument).

Abhi, sorry mate, but you have abs NO idea of what you are talking about. Show me a credible link of what you are saying, i.e. first two delivered to PAF were prototypes. Since 2-3 of the remaining were also protos according to this ‘wide speculation’ that only you are aware of, i dont think you will have any problem finding links to them either.

As per this newsreport from strategypage forum, states that the first 2 jets to fly into Pak from China were prototypes. These are likely to be the PT-04 and PT-05, because DSI was introduced in PT-04 onwards.

But please try to get your head around a little issue here. PT series had only 2 machines with DSI intakes. So where do you get this definite 2 & speculative 2-3? But i’ll wait for your links.

No. The PT series had 3 units with DSI PT-04 thru PT-06. First 2 were delivered in early 2007, as shown above. PT-06 must’ve been included in the latter batch of 6 that were delivered. In all 3 prototypes were inclusive of the total 8. (I actually mistyped the comment earlier that “…along with the remaining 8”).

Regarding years of testing. Once again you are messing up the timelines. PAF inducted the machine in 2009. That 6 years from its first flight. Since you keep saying, no other airforce, did you check F-16 timelines as i suggested? Also, show us some link covering the bestowing of IOC status on J-10.

See, as I mentioned earlier it is the flight parameters that counts and not absolute test-flight hours. One could clock thousands of hours just take-off and land without testing anything. F-16 completed over thousands of hours and many flight parameters in the 2000 flight tests it conducted from debut flight.

Now, as mentioned earlier China did announce the certification of it’s J-10 in 2007. That is a decade after first flight in 2007. It is thus unlikely that the JF-17 completed it’s tests in 4 years since PT-04 first flew (since PT-01 thru PT-03 were re-designed).

It must be noted that even the secretive PLAAF announced the certification of J-10, besides other announcements. There is absolutely no reason why PAF should withold the announcement of IoC / FoC certification of the JF-17, given that it has reported on the inaugration of the JF-17 complex at Kamra (stone-laying, plant completion etc.). The only conclusion is that PAF is simply flying the JF-17 around and just “inducted” it on an “as is” basis.

The Air Chief made a valid point when he explained why he is not in favour of using the IAF against Naxal ops. The IAF is trained to annihilate the enemy. But in this case when the combatans are our own citizens interspersed between innocent tribals / villagers / paramilitary on our own soil, IAF’s job is difficult.

Last time I’m drawn to discussing JF-17 in the IAF thread. I had responded to Kramer earlier to put a halt to an incessant “haggling” on JF-17, which was divergent from this thread.

No evidence of it being anything but a MSA..

No sir, KLJ-7 is a derivative of the J-10’s KLJ-10 radar, which is known to be a ESA. So unless in the unlikely case, that this shares only the designation with the KLJ-10, KLJ-7 is indeed a phased array one. China has not gone too far in the slotted array route at all, and has sort of “jumped” to phased array type radars.

Only if they get the IR Mica and a French IRST to use it with…RF threats, well lets just say there is something in hand to deal with those. 😀

That’s what I said earlier and in the PAF-III thread also. Pak’s interest in a French avionics suite is only because of Mica, Otherwise, they shouldn’t have complaints from Chinese avionics.

Here it must be mentioned that France really doesn’t have a problem dealing with China; it’s just that a NATO-wide US-led embargo on China stops it. I’m sure given the chance, they’d readily integrate Mica with Chinese FLIR on the FC-1 (if it’s possible).

Sure..when you end your MRCA and PAKFA sidetrack in every thread. :p
And being BVR capable ain’t the same as BVR operational..

Arey baba, how many times have I said that it doesn’t matter whether JF-17 has SD-10 now or then ? Will IAF wait for Rimmer’s news reports to formulate tactics on JF-17 ? It IS BVR capable — if not today, then tomorrow it will be. Just like all other covert & clandestine Chinese missile transfers in the past (Babar, M-11, HJ-8, C-102 anti-ship cruise missiles) one fine day we will suddenly see photos of JF-17 firing an SD-10 too. Anyway, ACM Fali Major didn’t find the JF-17 to lose sleep over. So, chill.

I don’t understand when they’re getting AMRAAMs from US, what’s the big hullabaloo over SD-10 ?

the IAF rejected the idea to do Stage 1 training on the Hansa for a very good reason. Civilian pilots (and not all guys who hold a private pilots licence become airline pilots) do not need to be given the same level of acrobatic flying training as military pilots. Keep in mind that the IAF decides who goes into the fast jet stream, transport stream or helicopter stream after its Stage 1 training only. The acumen, skill and reflexes shown during Stage 1 training decides that. Putting cadets into what is a very docile basic trainer like the Hansa will not be the ideal platform to judge these skills.

See, it is true that upto now stage-1 training on Deepaks decided whether a pilot will go in the fighter stream or transport stream. What I’m saying is that Hansa, which is known to have demonstrated acrobatic manouevers also (despite not having been certified as such), can be used for the role. IAF, or NAL can ask for it to be certified as such after putting it through the rigours.

Its not a misconception. Its the way it was designed, its the way it was certified. You cannot willy-nilly overnight decide to fly a civil registered, certified aircraft for military training. It is against the rules, and the Hansa doesn’t have much of the equipment that are considered mandatory for military aircraft (for e.g a Flight Crash Recorder, Aural Warning System, etc.) and other useful features like HUD, Flight Envelope Warning System.

BTW, the Hansa’s FAR 23 specifications indicate a max. load factor of 2.5g/-1g. Thats for the utility role and you can easily do ‘upside down’ flying or loops within that load factor and if you carry stores (the Hansa doesn’t) you can go slightly higher than 2.5g. If it was designed per FAR 23 “Acrobatic” criteria, its max. load factor limit would have been 6g/-3g range or higher, which are more commensurate with a military basic trainer.

A utility plane as per FAR 23 can perform the following:

– steep turn, loop positive, Immelman, Chandelle, Lazy eight, Cuban Eight, Aileron Roll and Barrel roll.

What a utility plane per FAR 23 CANNOT (but Aerobatic plane per FAR 23 can) do are the following :

-Vertical Roll, Rolling turn, Hesitation Roll, Slow Roll, Wing Over, Split-S, Erect Spin, Knife Edge

Now do you still want to continue arguing that the Hansa should have been used for basic trainer needs as is, or that others suffer from “misconceptions” ?

Arey yaar, instead of being hell-bent on trying to prove me wrong, why didn’t you try to find solutions to the problem of getting an indigenous solution for IAF’s training ?

The above is indeed good research on the manouevers that are authorised / allowed under various FAR certifications, in response to my earlier contention that Hansa is known to have performed some kinds of acrobatic manouevers.

Now, I still stand by the view that NAL Hansa can execute the manoeuvers required of a militray trainer, or as per the aerobatic FAR 21 standards. Currently it is only utility FAR 23, but upon addition of the new 169 kW SR305-230 engine for Hansa-4, the NAL Hansa will match the specs of the USAF T-3A Firefly, which was introduced in 1994 by USAF Air Education and Training Command, ” ….. to screen pilot candidates by exposing them to military style traffic patterns, aerobatics and spins.” This replaced the older T-41 Mescalero.

Dimensions of both the T-3A Firefly and NAL Hansa are the same (in fact, NAL Hansa has somewhat larger dimensions). The T-3A Firefly’s engine is rated at 260 hP and Hansa 4’s new SR305-230 is rated at 227 hP. So, after this addition of SR305-230, the Hansa should match the “spin levels” of the PT-3A Firefly. In other words, it can then seek a new FAR 23 certification under the aerobatic category.

IAF pilots were a part of Hansa’s flight-testing because the only authority in India who had personnel who could flight test any new aircraft belonged to ASTE, Bangalore. Its not because the Hansa had a military role.

Not only the that, but only an IAF pilot is qualified enough to perform acrobatic manouevers of the kind, but civilian pilots are more into “ordinary” flying. It is because an IAF pilot could demonstrate aerobatic skills on a trainer, that I suggested that Hansa is capable of military flight training. All prop-trainers cannot do aerobatics, much less utility FAR 23 certified ones.

What could have been done is to utilise the knowledge gained from the Hansa, and design a tandem (not side by side like Hansa or Grob) seater design with NAL taking the design lead, TAAL (Taneja Aerospace Limited) and HAL doing the manufacture, ASTE being involved from the start to give the IAF’s inputs and give good pilot inputs as well, and using an off-the-shelf Canadian Pratt and Whitney engine to keep development time minimal. That would have been the ideal situation.

However, the fact that the IAF awoke to the situation as late as 2009 and now wants to have a basic trainer ASAP means that there is no time to develop an indigenous HTT-X based on the Hansa. The IAF mucked it up but there’s nothing that can be done about it now.

No need to even make a tandem seater. NAL is already going ahead to add a more powerful engine on the Hansa-4, that will undoubtedly bring it in the class of the T-3A Firefly of the USAF.

IAF just has to sign on the dotted line. Like always.

This whole debate arose because I said to Abhimanyu that I don’t believe the JF-17 is a 4th generation fighter and you said that you were surprised that I said it. Do you have any points that counter mine on why the JF-17 should not be considered a 4th gen fighter ?

If not, we’ll just agree to end the debate here because while you see my point and I see your point on blind nationalism, it won’t do us both any good to write any more about it.

Kramer, I’ve been following the JF-17 since the past few years, and it is a decent 4th gen. fighter, even with the Chinese avionics (I think the KLJ-7 radar on it is likely to be a phased array radar). You do know that all it’s avionics etc. are derived from J-10, right ? It has a good enough MAWs, HMS (albeit a Chinese one), RWR and a laser-designator/ target pod. It has one MORE weapon-station than the Tejas. IAF would definitely not treat it on par with a MiG-21 bis.

The JF-17 as it stands today is more advanced than PAF’s 20-year old F-16 Cs. And if Pak manages to get French or western avionics/weapons for JF-17, it will become a very lethal fighter in the class of Tejas, which should worry the IAF.

You may also end your debate with vikasrehman over the generation of the JF-17. The queries on the current or future BVR-capability of the JF-17, and other such small issues were also unnecessary. It IS a BVR-capable jet. Period.

I’m not a member of South Asian Jets Association, but I’m giving a reality check on the JF-17. Please don’t underestimate it.

please. the NAL Hansa was designed to be a club trainer, not a military spec basic trainer. there are different specifications for designing civilian and military trainers, for instance the g limits are different. I see that you’re not aware of that.

See, Ajai Shukla wrote in his blog that IAF rejected an idea to train rookie pilots in civillian flying clubs. Now, these are used to train rookie pilots to give them the bare basics of flying although they’re on their way to become civillian airline pilots. The stage-1 trainer of the IAF also serves the same purpose.

Now, it is a misconception that NAL Hansa is a “civilian” trainer, whereas only Deepak can perform acrobatic turns. IAF pilots themselves were part of Hansa’s flight-testing and Wing Commander P Ashoka was a test pilot of Hansa. Here is an account of this last Hansa test-flight in which he is documented to have performed “tight-loops and turns”, “upside down” and flying over reportedly tree-top height.

Even if Hansa MAY be lacking in some aspects of acrobatic training, can’t the IAF simply ask NAL to modify the Hansa to military standards ? What is the pressing need to float a global tender for trainers that would be much more expensive ?

and while I don’t agree with Abhimanyu on the IAF using the NAL Hansa for Stage 1 training of military pilots (only because it was designed to FAR 23, Category “Utility” specifications and not FAR 23, Category “Acrobatic” specs), I do believe that had the IAF shown far sight, they’d have contracted NAL to tie up with HAL and build a basic military trainer on the lines of the Hansa, but designed to FAR 23 Category “Acrobatic” and “Utility” specs.

Kramer, I fully agree with the above. Given that Hansa is reportedly capable of doing acrobatic manouevers also, the above task would have been all the more easier and quicker. No need to float yet another global tender for trainers.