Farooqhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqOBEuCtvf0&feature=related
A Pakistani mirage chasing airlaunched cruise missile (Raad) around 0:24-0:28. It also shows the seperation around 0:17 .
FarooqI remember reading this in tphuang’s blog that the Chinese were supposed to buy 250 odd FC 1s but now that plan is dropped and they are concentrating on the J 10s and 11s.
Ante_climax,
The article you posted is from 2007. In a more recent entry on TPHUANG’s blog he covered an article which mentioned that PLAAF will be ordering FC-1. He has a picture and exact lines underlined of that article. I had asked him about the reliability of the magazine and he said it’s a very reliable source.
http://china-pla.blogspot.com/2008/10/cac.html
Furthermore this same news was covered by HUITONG who is considered a very reliable source on Chinese military affairs.
http://cnair.top81.cn/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm
“The latest news (October 2008) suggested that PLAAF has decided to acquire some FC-1s as a low-cost light figher/attack aircraft to replace its obsolete J-7s and Q-5s.
“
FarooqPakistan has sponsored numerable terrorit groups and provides safe havens to others. Pakistan is a terrorit state whose terrorist activities are bringing it to the brink of state failure.
Most of the terrorists established themselves during the Afghan Jihad when Ronni Regan used to invite them to white house and proudly say “i am mujahaideen”. I am not surprised you conviently failed to mention that part.
As far as support of non-state actors goes everyone in south asia has done it one way or the other and will keep doing it in future (i dont see a reason why would they stop).
Your Pakistan at brink theory i have heard for years now and it is quite boring. The way things are i think you’ll probably take this wish to grave.
P.S: If you really think Pakistan is a terrorist state then it’s a big shame for United States for having ties with it.
FarooqChinese news report:
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=381530
Pakistan to introduce 36 China-made fighter planes
By Li Xinran | 2008-11-21 | ONLINE EDITION
PAKISTAN plans to introduce 36 China-made FC-20 (or Fighter-10 in China) fighter planes by 2010, Beijing-based Global Times reported, citing Pakistan’s air force chief of staff.
The current world economic crisis won’t affect the Pakistan air force’s major projects, the general said on Wednesday.
A plan was being discussed to introduce two squadrons of FC-20s, Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed was cited as saying, according to the report.
Pakstan’s air force picked the FC-20 from dozens of candidates as it adapted Russian engines with the most advanced thrust vectoring technology, the general said.
Pakistan will also set up a squadron of JF-17 “Thunder” fighters by the first quarter of 2009. The JF-17 was jointly developed by China and Pakistan, which will expand Pakistan’s air force’s maximum battle radius to 650 kilometers.
Pakistan also signed a deal with China to import four sets of airborne warning and control systems, according to the newspaper.
Originally reported in Chinese at:
http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/p/2008-11-21/0927531201.html
FarooqDear Farooq, your illogical ranting continues.
I asked whether there was a more detailed report and if this was “corrected” or in fact an assumption by journalist to correct “reversed engine” – ergo, whether we could now take this report as true or if we again needed to wait. Instead you continue raving and ranting trying to defend some misplaced journalism, and fail to even acknowledge the fact that all reports are citing a beijing newspaper, and we have yet to see that papers report and what it actually said.
This sort of flawed stitchwork in media happens all the time, which is why it is necessary to see the original source and be clear of the veracity of the data.
Instead you are continuing to rant without cause or merit.
If you do not have any additional details, accept the same. No need to rant for the same.Please continue to be amused and also kindly try to get some help for your anger.
Dear Defexpo,
The news briefing took place at National Defence University. Two versions of story came out of it, one which was in brecorder (not posted here) and one which was posted by pakistan daily and chinese newspaper. The versions in chinese newspaper and pak daily are exactly same. But it won’t matter to you, since you have decided to accept the version which obviously makes no sense at all.
It’s certainly surprising that even though the version which makes more sense has been posted here you are stuck with the incorrect version and coming up with all sorts of insinuations and interpretations. Then you proceed to talk about Indian Orbat and what not while acknowledging in the same sentence that it is not the right place to talk about. I am not sure if it’s amnesia or some other condition, but i have heart felt sympathies for you . 🙂
Trust me i am not angry at all, just concerned over your reaction and statements. But then why am i not surprised, lol. Please carry on with your fascination with incorrect report and have it plastered all around your room. I bet it has special meanings in life for you. :p
FarooqDear Farooq,
All I asked was is this report corrected, ie the original correct report since all other report was mangled. Simple yes or no would suffice.
Instead you are raving and ranting and stating that it would have been “hard for me to bring in” – what are you ranting about?
That same mangled report is all over the place and I would be very interested in seeing something better with more detail.
There was one report by brecorder which had the incorrect non-sense in it. The part he bolded in red is not a correction that he made. He had copied it verbatim. I don’t know why it is so hard for you to click on the link he posted and see for yourself if it makes sense or not. The report you are raving and ranting about is just one report that appeared in brecorder. You made it sound like as if there are multiple accounts with same mangled verbage.
Jawads bolding implied the 36 FC-20 making a tangible difference to the PAF. Perhaps he meant the TVC was significant?
If the former, I disagree since it would require larger numbers (volume) or even more capable systems (EF/Rafale) to counter a numerically larger regional rival.
If I went into more detail it would be on PAF thread, but I am more interested in knowing what PAF plans are in areas like EW etc which can also assist.
If you have information, please do share.
hahahha.
if you thought of it as not the right thread to discuss effect of such acquistion on PAF, why did you in the same breath spill your conclusions? It’s simply amuzing.
FarooqDear Jawad,
Is that a correction. So far reports I have read include ludicrous comment of Russian engines with “reverse engine technology”.
He did not make any correction to the original text. All it takes is a click on the link he posted and you can verify it. But then it would have been hard for you to bring in that one “ludicrous” report. :dev2: Knowing how dorky news reporters are in Pakistan and India i think it’s no surprise you will come across such “gems”.
On a serious note that was the only one which talked about “reverse engine technology”. Can you please post other such “reports” (not the one by brecorder or the ones which copy pasted the same)?
Also, as this is not PAF thread, I will not comment, but 36 J-10 are hardly likely to have any effect on Indian OrBat.
Ironic isn’t it? You first said you won’t comment on it since it is not the right thread but in the very same sentence proceeded to do exactly that. 😀
FarooqOr so it seems. 🙂
The thing with dimensional shifts is that you can not see outside your dimension anyways. So we may well be hurtling towards another galaxy for all we know!
We are hurtling towards Andromeda which will “devour” our milkyway. Perhaps you meant Universe (as in Multiverse theory?).
FarooqOr so it seems. 🙂
The thing with dimensional shifts is that you can not see outside your dimension anyways. So we may well be hurtling towards another galaxy for all we know!
We are hurtling towards Andromeda which will “devour” our milkyway. Perhaps you meant Universe (as in Multiverse theory?).
FarooqAs per an interview by the ACM of PAF Mr. Tanvir Mehmood, the PAF is “dissatisfied” with the current RD-93 engine, because of it’s low thrust, besides it’s low life.
In my view, this may confirm that because the JF-17 is in the 6.4 ton class, it was underpowered by the 80 kN class of engines, in the same manner as the Tejas and Gripen were found earlier.
He did not even mention the word “thrust” once. Atleast not in the interview that i watched (the recent dawn TV interview).
Let me try to quote what he said
“It’s performing well but we are still not certain on it’s supportability and its performance in the long run.The other thing we know is that its life is lower than that of western engines. For example the engines on F-16s last 4000 cycles in technical terms…….”
So currently there is nothing wrong with the engine performance but they have concerns for future (most probably owing to future growth plans).
FarooqI believe this should answer question number 3. However i am not sure if it’s a reliable news source.
http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/business/2008/0804141038.asp?A=BUS&S=Business&T=News&O=ST
“The missile is known as the T Darter and is being designed to replace the R Darter (Radar Darter) currently in service with the SA Air Force (SAAF), where it is known as the V4. Cabinet, in 2003, decided to retire the V4 when the Cheetah fighter jet was withdrawn from service as the missile contained Israeli technology and required continued assistance from that country to remain operational.
Denel Dynamics CEO Jan Wessels says the T Darter will join their A Darter, currently under joint development with Brazil, under the wings of the Gripen, which has just started entering service with the SAAF. Last month SAAF started phasing out the Cheetah and the V4.
“
FarooqAccording to China defense blog, CCTV has reported successful completion of KunLun(WP-14) and Taishan (WS-13 engines). Kunlun is for JH-7 whereas WS-13 is for FC-1.
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/
http://bp2.blogger.com/_3wZSwFvZzqM/R_hTufpXpHI/AAAAAAAAAuU/UItYsybZdVU/s1600-h/28.jpg
http://bp3.blogger.com/_3wZSwFvZzqM/R_hTpvpXpFI/AAAAAAAAAuE/fZusCN6E5KM/s1600-h/20.jpg
http://bp1.blogger.com/_3wZSwFvZzqM/R_hThPpXpCI/AAAAAAAAAts/ZDC0no4Lp6E/s1600-h/10.jpg
http://bp0.blogger.com/_3wZSwFvZzqM/R_hTc_pXpAI/AAAAAAAAAtc/l4Iwxk8o7qY/s1600-h/5.jpg
http://bp0.blogger.com/_3wZSwFvZzqM/R_hTa_pXo_I/AAAAAAAAAtU/Fa-q9cP4zho/s1600-h/4.jpg
http://bp2.blogger.com/_3wZSwFvZzqM/R_hTYfpXo-I/AAAAAAAAAtM/ZccipHUSofU/s1600-h/3.jpg
It will be nice to see FC-1 with a better engine interms of efficiency and clean smokeless performance. 🙂
FarooqUsually, small aircraft like the LCA just don’t have the range vs payload to be effective in the naval role? Also, with the advent of the Mig-29K in Indian Service. What would be the point anyways?:confused: :confused: :confused:
I believe we have to look at the needs of IN and what role they want to deploy these planes in. IN has operated harriers and i havent seen any complaints regarding payload or range. IN is certainly not USN and they have very immediate areas of interest where LCA-N can definitely be useful and effective as a part of whole air defence network. Air refuelers come into mind as far as range goes and payload is not too bad if they plan on using the aircraft in larger formations.
My two cents.
FarooqAs long as IN is scratching it’s chin and looking at this plane it has a very good chance of entering service in decent numbers and improving over the years. I guess the only thing that could hinder that is air carrier issues.
Also, i have to agree with Vikas that if airforce is pushing for a true multirole aircraft from get to go then thats very odd.
A good strategy would have been to decouple airframe,engine and radar configurations and go for gradual inhouse solutions over the years.
Now my questions
1) Is LCA naval heavier than the airforce version? If so then by what margin?
2) Is there a plan for a seperate twin seater for both naval and airforce versions or a single twin-seater for both navy and airforce?
3)What are the weight figures and other characterstics for these aircrafts(naval + twin seaters) and when are they expected to fly?
FarooqThat is indeed not a valid statement. Either the chief is on an ego trip or the journalist is taking liberties.
Only related thing i can think of is the possibility that it would be the first aircraft able to carry Chinese, European, Russian and US weapon systems.
The news reporter indeed took huge liberties 😉
Here is some of what he said (not complete proceeding but it does include the paint part which has become quite popular with a certain segment 😀 .)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2788859590992063417&hl=en
He was actually refering to the paint scheme of sino-pak flags.
But then what do you expect from our news reporters :p
Sign In
