star49It is noteworthy that someone who singed the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2s praises a little while ago has changed tunes on the system since Bush decided to sell the F-16s…
It is not noteworthy.
Where did i praise Mirage M2K-5II relative to F-16? Mirage is sophisticated relative to Flankers or Fulcrums and probably better in quality but not against LM F-16. so you are drawing a wrong conclusion.
star49I’m not sure anyone said that the FC-1 is a failure. It is a big step ahead for Pakistan, thanks to its “all-weather” buddy, China.
What is open to question is the level of enthusiasm and funds supply and hiccups, such as the engine. To build locally and induct 200 FC-1/JF-17s, Pakistan will need upwards of $5 Billion and an additional big chunk of amounts invested in infrastructure developments. Now, if Pakistan goes in for 26 odd F-16s now and follows up 3 years later will another 48 odd, it will cost up to 5 Billion dollars. AWACS will cost another couple of billion. Weapons for the JF-17 and F-16 will be needed as well, adding to the cost. US aid will be all but used up by the P-3C deal alone, so Pakistan will need to prioritize or hope for oil strikes.
Recently, I had an opportunity to be in a meeting with many people in the defense industry as well as one retired Pak General. The Gen told us that there is already pressure from pro-F-16 elements in the PAF to buy as many as possible today for the fear of uncertainty if they wait to order more after Bush leaves power. There is the issue of the F-16 production line being closed after the current orders are over. He added that some others want to buy minimum F-16s and invest immediately in buying Gripens or other European system because the money is available now and it would give PAF a system superior to any Indian plane.
As to the engine, I guess going between a turbofan and turbojet may necessitate an intake change, no? Two turbofans of the same approx specs may not need intake change. We’ll know sooner or later about the intake design change reasons and the engine status. 😉
$5B for FC-1? i think you have no idea of aircrat prices or projects.
here is my prediction of F-16 price.
F-16Block52(F-16MLU) $25m per unit
F-16Block52+ $35m to $40m per unit
i think you should stop making predictions.otherwise you will not only have to eat words but grass with it also. :diablo:
star49Ali,
How many bases close to the IB are really used by the Su30+ and IFR capable M2k’s/MiG29’s? With the IFR capabilities available to all frontline IAF fighters (M2k, MiG29, Su30+, MiG 21 UPG), do they really need to be based near the IB? I don’t think so. Your conjecture would have made sense if the IAF had no IFR capability.
OTOH the IFR capable fighters do not need to fly as the crow like the PAF – do they? They can take off from Pune or Mumbai or even as far south as Kochi, refuel, head west, then then north over the Arabian Sea, do their thing then head south refuel over the sea, head west and land!
The PAF’s F16’s and JF17s would have to fly directly over the some of the most SAM rich environments in the world today, from any part of Pakistan to “neutralise” any Su30 or M2k base. How many would get through? How many would get back? How often can the “neutralisation” be repeated over a week or a fortnight without unacceptable losses? In todays and any logically envisioned future environment how many frontline fighters can the PAF “loose” in “neutralisaztion” efforts without compromising their own homeland defence?
Even now an MiG21 UPG is more capable (BVR-wise) than all of the PAF fleet put together. After a F16 50/52 upgrade donation, there will still be more MiG21 UPGs with the same capabilities than the entire PAF BVR fleet and thats not counting the the future IAF BVR capable upgrades. Add to that the already capable M2k’s the MiG 29’s the MKI’s and the long range SAM’s and you should realise the “neutralisation” effort will take a lot more than a couple of feel-good sentences on a web forum.
No offence, but “neutralisation” is not a one time thing. It takes consistent effort to ensure enemy bases are “neutralised”. After all the enemy will also be ensuring all its bases are operational after a “neutralisation” operation – will it not?
so do you think that R-27 and R-77 equiped airforce can challenge AIM-120 or SD-10 equipped airforce? they will all miss there targets just like in the past.
what do you think Pak has such close collobration with Ukraine and China. PAF has more confidence in SA seeker tech than anything coming out from CIS. you can buy there arms for army at most. but most of the high tech area you have to look towards US or EU at present times.
star49Certainly I was not a member who mentioned that the JF-17 is a failure because the PAF is buying F-16, my point was that why would the PAF buy more F-16s if it can get a chaper one engined alternative, while one could argue that the F-16 is superior, well I guess we dont really know what the JF-17 has anyway for a decent comparison, for the price and RELIABILITY one would think that the PAF would choose the Thunder in general and forgo the F-16 issue. In terms of Pakistan and the IMF, yes Pakistan is not in the black list anymore, however long term loans which were made to that Pakistan would in effect not declare bankrupsy a few years ago must still be honoured, Pakistan is actually off the list because it has been adhering to those conditions.
As for the Ft-2000 issue, there has not been a lot of talk compared to please let us have more F-16s Uncle kind of talk which is really sad. What I am trying to say is what will 40 F-16s do that say 60 JF-17s wont do. We are not talking about a one engined and then a two engined fighter of a typical airforce here. And between me and you, dont u think that the two main priorities of the PAF is to get long range SAM coverage and BVR, the second they will get it soon, the first remains “talk”. In my opinion, the PAF would be better served if they had around 300 FC-1s and S-300 Chinese clones, you dont see many airforces buing more than one type of one engind planes these days. Wasn’t the FC-1 supposed to be a close competitor to the F-16 anyway?
Sure you can argue that the PAF needs planes on a priority basis but not the F-16, at least if you are concearned for your defence position vis a vis a reginal rival, go for a more assured supplier.In sum airforces which face the reality of small budgets, the whole PAK budget stands at 4B!, should concentrate more on one type of fighter and air defence systems, not two ONE ENGINED FIGHTERS with similar range and some would argue same rough capabilities. Dont you think that the PAF would be better served with for once a better radar than a dummed down J-10 radar?
As for the AEW issue, its stupid to think that the only logic for an AEW platform is simply because India is getting it, India has a bigger budget, Pakistan does not, the other issue is that India intends to be the agressor in the air war and Pakistan is in theory supposed to be the defender, no way she will win as an attacker anyway, hence it would be better served to spend the money on ground based radars with S-300 type clones, this competing with India logic is stupid.
Does JF-17 engine has 6000hr life? can it lift 10000KG externally? Is its hardpoints are stressed like F-16 (3000KG is safe guess for advance F-16). not to mention very highly reliable radar. range is another issue.
i am not going into avionics. F-16 is the cheapest 4+ generation aircraft and the quickest delivery. there is no argument against that. and the AW&ST article of Jan 3 mentioned down scale radar not down graded radar of J-10 for FC-1. so we can assume that J-10 has larger nosecone. incase of radar volume also matters.
star49the rafale F3 bought by the french AF costed slightly more than 50 millions.
that left 25 millions for the infrastructutre.About the training, let me tell you something.
When the koreans pilots went in Frnce to test the Rafale, they have been allowed to fly with real bombs after few days.
$50m for french airforce. how much will engine upgradation and AESA development cost for export customer.? F-16E came with engine upgrade, not to mention fully developed AESA, Towed decoys EW, fibre optics etc
Rafale is far more expensive than F-16E with much less sophistication. it will take another 10 years for Rafale to reach that sophistication.
star49No reduction in capability? So now the oracle prophesizes that drag does’nt exist! 😀
External fuel tanks on a Flanker? This is even better than “twu-BVR” !
post from some credible sites. not from fan sites. every where range on internal fuel is 3000KM, only Su-34 can do 4000KM. the rest is just refuelling in air. also post data with external load out. just want to see how much flanker range is reduced with drag. untill this point you havent proven any thing.
http://www.rusarm.ru/p_frame/main.htm
http://www.maks.ru :diablo:
star49As I said,the avionics it totally different and the tactics too.
thats why F-16MLU is that expensive as F-16A. not only avionics but engine power is also different
A F-16A block 15 was way less expensive than a mirage 2000 C.
Now the F-16 block 60 is as expensive as a Rafale.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
[/quote]
a proper comparision is F-16C with Mirage C. F-16A came out 8 years ahead.
prove it Blk60 is as expensive as Rafale.
star49Full…external fuel load. No one is nor needs to contest that. Most fighters exceed a range of 3000 km with full external fuel load but their flight profile limitations would be extreme. A normal F-16C optimally ferries to 3886 km on maximum internal and external fuel but only a great oracle such as yourself could claim that this puts it in the league of a long range, heavy fighter. But what happened to the BS about dropping tanks and still having the same range/radius?
now you are twisting the argument. F-16 mission range with external load and full fuel load. but your Su-27 ferry range does not say anything about external fuel or external weopons. put both of them under same conditions. Su-27 has only 1500km combat radius on internal fuel but no externall weopons. F-16 with full fuel load and 5000LBS external weopons have 1500KM combat radius. so where is the difference in terms of capability?
You’re just shooting in the dark here. Drag is’nt just a factor of munition weight, nor is weight the only factor that decides the capabilties of a generic PGM. Need I also ask which AAM? The AIM-120 certainly does’nt have the same Cd as that of an AIM-9.
A Flanker is’nt the draggy, over wing loaded planform the F-16 is.
CAN YOU PROVE THAT?
yea AIM-120 has more drag than AIM-9 no doubt thats why F-16 can carry it on wing tips. there is no reduction in capability under any load conditions.
You don’t know the Flanker any better than you know the Mirage or any other fighter, do you? Even the Su-27, with much less internal fuel compared to the Su-30/35, had a ferry range of ~4000 km as I noted.
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/su27.asp
http://www.flymig.com/aircraft/Su-27/
http://www.answers.com/topic/sukhoi-su-27
http://www.milavia.net/users/fighterjets/aircraft/su27_flanker.phpPerhaps I should now ask you to PROVE that xyz mag actually contains what you (generally) paste? 😀
yes Su-27 can carry a little less fuel but it is also 3000KG lighter than Su-30MK. so it balance out to certain extent. ferrry range of 4000KM under what conditions? external tanks or not? You have to prove this thing :diablo:
star49So who were you trying to fool with the statement ‘i think this article clear all the confusion it is Radius not the range. ‘ when I posted 800 nm as the range of the block-60 with CFTs, 2 2000 lb PGMs and AAMs, with no mention of another 3 external tanks / maximum possible external fuel? 😀
It is’nt just the mass but surface area, shape, flow conditions that influence drag, not to mention the aerodynamics of the planform that carries the munitions. The Su-30/Su-35 has near 10000 kg of drag-free internal fuel alone for a ferry range of ~4500 km and the Su-27P (N595) itself, flown by Anatoly Kvochur, had acheived a range of 4000 km. They don’t suffer the level of major Cd jumps on a loaded F-16. When an F-16 is in the fully loaded configuration specified, it can do little else than fly in a straight line, drop weapons and fly back back in a straight line. There’s no comparison.
But since you are the great oracle of ‘twu BVR’, one should not argue with your amazing ground breaking laajeek! 😀
What debate? You did’nt even have a clue of the Mk.2’s internal fuel increase. Note that Dassault has been gracious enough to mention the exact conditions including payload, mission, speed and altitude, not a comparatively unspecific optimal or theoretic range as in the F-16’s case. Don’t blissfully ignore the 5 min in combat as well.
You just made up the stuff about the F-16 dropping tanks and still having the same radius, to suite yourself. You probably don’t care that ‘PGMs’ don’t have a generic mass value. You’ve just compared the radius of an F-16 with maximum external fuel and light load to 1) the range of one aircraft, loaded, on internal fuel alone and 2) Another with far from maximum possible external fuel for a good period of the mission.
Why don’t you just stop wasting everyone’s time?
CAN YOU PROVE THAT SU-30/35 HAS FERRY RANGE OF 4500KM ON INTERNAL FUEL?
F-16 with full fuel load, 4 AAMs, 2 PGMs (4000LBS)has range of 3000KM per flight international. you dont have any data to disapprove this claiim? it includes all the drag of 4 AAMs, 2 PGMs, 3 fuel tanks, and two CFT. so try to load this with flanker or Mirage and come up with range figure. :diablo:
star49To an extent yes it took a lot of time in near past, when the options and economy were not in favour by a good % ..
Mig-23/29 and Mirages came pretty fast.. after pak went for F-16’s…
Su-30 came pretty fast (relatively speaking) too..
India always has options but just dont want to exercise it. nothing is preventing india from buying Mirages for past 5 years since we are hearing this MRCA issue. it just want to drag it for saving a few cents which ultimately it has to pay by delaying it.
star49though I expect the first of the MRCA will only arrive in 08-09.
you will have to eat your words on this one 😀
in Pak case only the F-16 case took 15 years. in India every thing takes 15 years. MM singh simply cannot allow this amount of money in his tenure. so clearing will be left to next government by that time every thing will be obsolete.
star49It must be related to the fact that since the clinton administration, killingthe european military industryis a priority.
that i agree. US like any other power will try to kill any competing industrial potential.
The F-16 isn’t the super cheap fighter that everyone knows since the F-16A.
The fact that these guys use old mirage isn’t THAT important you know.
totally different avionics, totally new training …..
airframe and engine is the same and so is i think flight characteristics.
F-16E isnt cheap but it is not expensive as compared to F-16A in mid seventies. remember $1 today is not equal $1 tommorrow. and here we are talking about 30 year time difference.
star49Of course these is a possibility of integrating US missiles on French planes.
As long as RAytheon (or another) isn’t forbid by theamerican gov.
i havent seen it untill now for active radar guided missile.
So ? How much for a single miage 2000-9 ?
even if you mix 50:50 old and new the price comes to around $53m. but it does not include the $2B development cost of radar, ew suite. also they were flying mirages for 2 decades. F-16 is complete new machine for them. M2K-9 for newly built is no less than F-16E in price range. and you are comparing it to very cheap F-16blk52+.
star49You weren’t talking of mirage or falcon but mmissiles.
so do you think there is possibility of integrating US missiles on french planes? you have to look at whole package. similarly you can remove mica from mirage and you get Super530D vs AIM-7.
Prove it !!!
UAE bought 33 mirage -9 + the upgrade of 30 mirage to he -9 standard + black shaheen many more for 34 billions of french francs.
A brand new Super rafale for an AF who hasn’t a single french aircraft is around these 75 millions.[/QUOTE]
i think i already posted it at IAF discusion thread. here again. there 63 planes but only 30 are new for $3.2B the rest are just avionic upgrade. also add $2B deveopment cost. so it is about $5.2B for 63 planes with most of infrastructure already there. for F-16E every thing comes under $6.4B excluding weopons.
here is some thing from Nov1998 issue of AW&ST
The United Arab Emirates has finalized the purchase of Dassault Mirage 2000-9 fighters and equipment valued at more than $6 billion, while negotiations over a contract with the U.S. for 80 Lockheed Martin Block 60 F-16s continue to be stalled.
According to UAE sources close to the deal, the Mirage buy includes:
— A fleet of 30 Dassault Aviation Mirage 2000-9 fighters, plus the retrofit of 33 Mirage 2000 SAD8s now in service to the 2000-9 standard, worth $3.2 billion.
— Thomson-CSF RDY multifunction radar equipped with upgraded air-to-ground software, along with electronic warfare countermeasures suites and other equipment worth up to $2 billion.
— Matra BAe Dynamics Mica medium-range air-to-air missiles, either the existing RF or the new infrared-guided version now in development, valued at around $700 million.
— Matra BAe Dynamics Black Shahin stand-off missiles, derived from the Scalp/Storm Shadow being developed for France and the U.K. This part of the deal, which is not yet final, is expected to be worth $1.3 billion.
star49I doubt india woulkd consider the F-18 C or E. It is a joke… Anyway if india can consider something as crappy as F-18 (forget F-16) why not go for Rafale.
I doubt MM singh will take any decision regardsing F-18 as he is PM not RM. Oh but in Pakiland Musharraf has to do everything from begging to licking bushes Ass 😀 . I seriously hope India doesn’t waste 15 years deciding/begging :rolleyes: for a plane.Mirage 2k5 seems to be the ideal choice for MRCA if the plane has to be single engined. On the aspect of F-16 c/d. Are RSAF pilots and planes stationed in kalaikunda permentantly or do they visit annually?
every thing goes through cabinet. MM singh is not capable to clear such big sum of money. i think this story will be longer than 15 years. and it has come out in todays paper that it was IAF that requested US aircraft not the other way around 😀
about F-16 each country F-16 is customized interms of ew suite, aim-120 etc. so there is not point in spending money on some one else beside US :diablo:
Sign In
