SOCThe J-10 is totally out matched in terms of air to air missiles
Says who? The Russians that aren’t selling any more R-77s to China?
but it has to be more or less as agile a Gripen or even close to the Eurofighter in terms of sustained and instantaneous turn rate.
Why? Because it happens to be a canard-delta? Does your logic apply to Viggen also?
I guess in avionics is also between and F-16 block 30.
The reliability of its systems well is where probably it might not be so good.
Yeah, terms like “guess” and “probably” don’t make credible arguments.
SOCFrance has approved the sale of the RC-400 radar set and the MICA AAM to Pakistan specifically for the JF-17.
Source: Defense News, 22 Oct 2007 issue, page 3.
SOC[color=red]Thread cleaned up. Keep all of the Iranian speculation to the other thread if you don’t mind.[/color]
SOCBefore we get into the real interesting confrontational part of this, here’s my response to your response regarding the FC-1 issues:
Yet it was your opinion some time back that if the intakes are RAM treated that would not be an issue.. so are you saying that there is no RAM treatment? Or that the PAF won’t treat the most important radar reflective area but treat other sections? Isn’t this getting a bit like tom and jerry here?
Here’s what I said on my blog: “if the inlet trunks are not RAM coated then radar returns will still be able to propagate back and forth through them. Simply hiding a compressor face is not enough”. The impression people have sometimes is that physically hiding the compressor face with a DSI intake arrangement or some sort of inlet trunk design is not sufficient to defeat a modern radar system. Add RAM into the equation and you have a much better solution. I’m not saying that there is no RAM there (I have no evidence to support that either way), but I am saying that DSI alone is not going to make your jet significantly less detectable as is sometimes erroneously believed.
Swedish and apparently chinese. Again we’re digressing to the range of the radar which I have covered in my article
If they have actually signed a contract for a foreign AWACS system then the error is mine for missing it.
Aren’t you oversimplifying here?
Not really.
Have you thought of how many you are going to get? Make my day and build me your airforce with PAF’s budget for 250 JF-17s. Build me a cost analysis and lets see what you got.
Get the Chinese to give me a flyaway cost figure for a J-10 and you’ve got a deal.
You know, I liked the HQ-9 before you started talking about it 😀 Your eagerness to supply the Pakistanis with the HQ-9 makes me think the USAF has the system nailed.
I brought the HQ-9 into the equation because they need something resembling a modern, strategic SAM system, and the relationship with China being what it is makes the HQ-9 a logical choice.
I think your technical analysis has failed in key quarters. Remember a whole host of issues such as the 4 simultaneous engagements were known before you wrote your article, they were in fact posted on my blog, which I believe you took some of your data from (?).
Again, if there were oversights, the errors were mine. I believe the issue of the radar was still not fully settled when I started writing the article (which if I rememebr right was a while before I finalized and posted it).
I most certainly await your analysis and do appreciate that you’ve taken the effort to attempt to think about the issues at hand.
I have no issues readdressing something that needs to be re-examined, especially if its due to faulty or incomplete analysis on my part.
I don’t actually completely disagree with the aforementioned three names you mentioned
With what part? The part where:
Fahad states: “That article betrayed the authors INSECURITIES and perhaps even his age”
Or:
Munir states: “SOC is as biassed as an Indian with inferiority complex”
Criticize the FC-1 and those would seem to be the standard types of responses one gets, but more on that later.
At any rate, it is amusing to say the least that I can be critical of the FC-1 and be in the wrong, but people like that can throw the term “Indian” around as a disparaging remark and expect you to assume that they are in the right and totally free of the bias they incorrectly accuse me of being full of.
as someone who has studied some modest psychology, I do know that when a person is discussing one issue (say the FC-1) and then suddenly brings in a completely different issue (say Pakistani effort in Waziristan), its something of a “red flag” of bias. But you are a thinking individual and I most certainly appreciate that.
And where in relation to the FC-1 was Waziristan even mentioned? I did mention it in an earlier article as a reason why the US should not be so quick to sell Pakistan the F-16, but that had to do with US-Pakistani relations and not at all to do with the FC-1. In the article you were rebutting Waziristan was never even mentioned.
It’s a blog, and as such I was free to discuss whatever I saw fit (anyone with an internet connection, by the way, could have figured out that I decided to focus on the more professionally-oriented side of things, which is why I completely recreated an entirely new blog site). If I chose to take issue with an aspect of US-Pakistani relations, then that’s my prerogative and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just as everyone who has a dissenting opinion has the right to disagree and air their own viewpoint. I never once deleted anyone’s comments on that old site, choosing not to censor their viewpoints.
Now, if people choose to take criticism of something slated for Pakistani use as meaning that everything I say about a Chinese military aircraft is automatically biased towards the negative, then they clearly have reading comprehension difficulties that need to be addressed on either the personal or the societal level. Anyone with the reading comprehension skills of a ten year old can see that I hold many Chinese weapon systems in relatively high regard, including the J-10 and HQ-9, and that I am decidedly impressed with their ongoing modernization issues. But that sort of thinking doesn’t fit in with the image that some individuals want to have of me, so they ignore such thoughts in order to foster their own egocentric and inaccurate concepts.
I wasn’t ever criticizing the professionalism or competence of the Pakistani Air Force. I was making a point that it was my opinion that they could have done better than the FC-1, and should have done better given what was going on in another Subcontinent air arm. Which, again, was simply my opinion. Why my opinion on that specific issue warranted an attack on my character, especially when that article was not critical of Pakistan’s military competence or professionalism in any way apart from their acquisition priorities, is beyond me.
Yet I do find some of your views offensive and in bad taste, for instance your “the most useless word” jihad steam out, it seems you know little about the word or what it means. For instance, did you know that there is a jihad against cancer? Or illiteracy? But I’m degressing from the topic and I dare say am getting on your nerves. 😀
If you didn’t get the point of that article, then you didn’t get the point, and I see no reason why I should bother explaining it at this juncture.
SOCIs it true, that the AIM-54 was never used in a real fight by a U.S. Navy, only by Iran?
Keep in mind what the USN wanted the F-14/AIM-54 combo for in the first place. There was never an opportunity to fire Phoenixes at BACKFIREs, thankfully, so the only time it saw combat was a few pot shots taken at fleeing Iraqi aircraft in DESERT STORM.
Iran though, that’s another story entirely.
SOCthe problem with this design you’re showing is that the engine compressor faces are directly in line with the intake..no S or Y (not possible for a twin engine) shaping for the duct would mean its no stealth fighter.
Have you ever seen the intake arrangement of the X-32?
On-topic, when does the first LCA-N roll out?
SOCHello folks, haven’t posted here since 21st June. Does SOC still hang around here? If so, I have a reply for him to ponder upon 😀
Limited & Superficial Comparison of Air Assets of the PAF & IAF
Interesting analysis. It should be pointed out that more details on the FC-1 have been emerging, so if I wrote the same thing right now it might look a little different.
Anyway:
“Point is moot when its clear that the FC-1 / JF-17 does not expose its blades AND uses RAM coating, as has been discussed in interviews with officials.”
Just because the engine face is hidden in a line-of-sight sense doesn’t mean a radar reflection can’t be obtained.
“For instance, the radar can simultaneously engage 4 not 2 as SOC mentions.”
That’d be one of the details I wasn’t aware of 😀
“The PAF is likely to have a 500 fighter airforce”
I was writing within the context of what was on the books or projected right now (or more accurately, right then). Where does a 500 fighter force come from?
“AEW&C assets will also negate any advantages the MKI has over any potential encounter with the FC-1 / JF-17. When both sides have this, it levels the playing field for the FC-1 / JF-17”
What AEW&C aircraft is under contract for delivery to Pakistan right now (or agian, more importantly, a while ago when the article was written)? Also, it might level the detection and situational awareness playing field, but you still have to consider weapons system performance. The AEW&C aircraft won’t be guiding an SD-10 or R-27ER/R-77.
“If seems clear that the J-10 will be focused on countering the 230 odd MKI that India will eventually have.”
Doesn’t that make my argument for me? If the FC-1 could do that, it would negate the need for the J-10.
If I have to use Chinese hardware to face a modern, well equipped fighter force, give me the J-10 over the FC-1 11 times out of 10 (removing the J-11B from the equation of course).
“present long range SAMs seem prohibitively expensive.”
They should look at the HQ-9, giving S-300PMU capability for what one would assume is a fraction of the cost.
Will the FC-1 work for Pakistan? I have no doubt it will. Is it an inferior aircraft to the Su-30MKI in terms of performance? Most assuredly so, which is the reasoning behind the J-10 purchase apparently, using your information. The Su-30MKI is a heavy air superiority aircraft, in a different class than the lightweight FC-1, so of course you’re going to have differing capabilities and such. My point is not so much that the FC-1 is a Mk.1 POS that should be relegated to a hangar somewhere in the Gobi Desert, but rather that Pakistan could have done better when you consider what they have to face. I think they got caught up in the prospect of a BVR-capable aircraft that they could manufacture themselves to some degree.
I’d consider re-looking and re-analyzing the situation, but with the immaturity that reigned at PakDef (Fahad H, Munir, and Sabre) after the last go-round, it’s not worth the effort at this time.
SOCSOCSeriously though, if this deal is official it will give Iran a lot more leeway to conclude its nuclear programme.
I wouldn’t go that far, this is for a reported 24 aircraft, not enough to deter any potential US military action. If 24 aircraft were that much of a deterrent, then it would actually make military action before they were delivered more likely.
SOCBTW..what are the chances of Iran buying the JF-17 now..:DI guess that is something somebody should strike that off from the “potential export list” in wiki for the JF-17:p
Why should anybody buy the JF-17 when the J-10 is available?
Anyway I think they have the numbers wrong. One J-10 unit in Chinese ervice is 28 aircraft, why do they think that Iran is buying only 24 and that they will form two squadrons? A lot of the Iranian force structure is based on the American and Soviet model, and that would indicate that around 24 aircraft would barely make up one squadron, let alone two.
SOCThe MiG-29 has always employed the R-27; the story about export FULCRUMs using R-23s instead of R-27s is completely bogus. Likewise the R-27 was designed to function as part of the new weapon systems for the MiG-29 and Su-27; once the MiG-29A project was shelved the R-23 went away as a FULCRUM weapon option. The MiG-29 doesn’t use the R-23, and it doesn’t use the R-33 either before someone brings that story up. The reason you saw the -23 in a lot of early artists impressions is because we had no idea what the “AA-X-10” was going to look like!
There was a false indication of less capable fire control systems in the MiG-29 for a while though, as the R-73 was not being carried very often. This had to do with the Su-27 fleet getting the R-73 first; for a while, the MiG-29 had to make do with the R-60 and as such when the R-73 began to be seen on Russian-operated aircraft it gave the impression that the R-73 was not made available or not compatible with foreign FULCRUMs, when this was simply not the case.
SOCAhhhh….MiG-29 escorts ‘Backfire’ originally from the DoD’s ‘Soviet Military Power’ 1985 (?), one of my childhood favourites. Thankyou.:)
Amusingly, if you take away the AA-7s, that one isn’t that far off.
SOC891 shouldn’t be anywhere here.
Where should it be then? Last I heard it operated within the Bohai Gulf, making Huludao a possibility.
SOC😮 ooohhhaaaa rumour-time again !! :diablo:
Why is that F-22A carrying AIM-7s? And why does it have the nose/forward fuselage section of an F-35 grafted onto (into?) it behind the radome?
😀
SOCThat should be the sub assembly hall. That makes it either an 093 or 094, and the apparent hull diameter of approximately 11.5 meters would make it the 3rd or 4th 094, depending on the currency of the image in relation to the one at Xiaopingdao (i.e. the first 094 could have gone down there for trials but then returned to Huludao for refit/final fitting out/etc and shown up in the new Huludao image). This proves without a doubt that there will be at least three 094s in service.
Here’s a question for you, if you look at the warships on the southern pier, what’s the big one on the end with the helo pad? Is it an LHA type, or is it the LHA-looking boat that they use for weapons trials? I’ve been trying to find that weapons test ship for a while (I forget what its called).
I’ll have to go back and update my blog article to take the new sub hull into account.
Sign In
