vikasrehmanSure NG has been cleared to go to India. But has it received IOC? Is it ready to be used in any operational sense? So it has had only a few changes. How do you suppose its range/radius have gone up by xx% in spite of the more powerful engine? What about its weapon load and so on?
NG demo was a concept. Now that its proven, a PT would soon appear.
SBP started flying almost a year after PT4 and not immediately. May be you are just not able to comprehend the simpler reason and always have to go for something that hardly anyone else appears to believe. e.g. SBP were dumped onto PAF, MMRCA should be cancelled to let LCA in, PAK-FA should be abandoned for MCA, and so on. Come on Abhi. How many people have you really converted over the years you have been posting on these fora? Has the thought ever crossed your mind that may be – just may be – others might be right? Or it might be ADS.
ps. Sorry, i got a bit personal there. Just had to say it before leaving this not so interesting now debate. 🙂
vikasrehmanSo you needed a direct quote from PAF chief to admit that an online agency might have got it wrong? Numerous articles from other sources as well as pieces written by world famouse aviation experts were not good enough vis-a-vis earthtimes piece? Come on mate!
Regarding NG, who told you its been certified? Unless im mistaken, it still only exists as demo, & 1st PT will appear next year. Its almost a new design from C/D with a lot of improvements, unlike PT4 where certain modifications were introduced to addres certain issues such as smoke.
vikasrehmanAbhi, see it wasnt all that difficult. Most of the refs i gave, you could have found them on net. I just cant copy/paste on the phone.
As for IOC, remember the whole starting point was whether it has or not? No one was sure, & we were just playing a guessing game. Then you jumped in, & based on flimsy evidence made a firm conclusion.
Finally, PT04 had a redesigned intake, Lerx, and larger fin as its main structural modifications. Doesnt mean they had to repeat everything they had already done with PT1 & 3. But mainly those parameters that were causing problems in the first case. First SBP made its first flight around 11 months after PT4, meaning CAC & PAF were satisfied with the basic design parameters. It was not rushed or dumped.
vikasrehmanAbhi, this phone of mine is almost useless for any detailed stuff, but i managed to do a real simple google search. Only looked at a few sites, but came across three items. The one from deagle.com mentions 2004 as J-10 IOC year. Another item in AIonline? by David Donald? from singapore airshow 2008 states the same. Another piece from china defence? quotes xinhua and states 2006 to be the year when FOC was achieved-as tp mentioned earlier. Wish i could do a more detailed search. Hope, you wouldnt mind verifying wot i have stated.
ps. In IAF thread you mentioned-to the effect-that it is likely PAF doesnt know what is required for IOC. Made me think if you need photographic evidence to convince you that tons and tons of chinese experts from relevant chinese institutions are working on this project inside pakistan-read at PAC etc? Do you think those people are there for fun? Or have CAC lot set up an IOC assignment (What IOC testing involves) for PAF+PAC, and asked them to work it out themselves? Chinese have an equal financial stake in this project that has already costed so much & has the potential to generate billions. Would they just leave such a project unattended? I really dont have a word to describe such thinking & the habit of jumping to assumptions/conclusions based on abs zilch evidence.
vikasrehmanAbhi, hopefully this would end the PT-related argument. All this info comes from June 2007 AFM issue based on PAF chief’s interview. Remember at the time, only 2 machines were in pak. Another 6 arrived in Feb/Mar 2008.
The first para (pp 36) states that first two machines were AIRFREIGHTED to pak and ASSEMBLED at PAC.
pp 39 has a table of CURRENT JF-17s & the dates of their first flights. It has 6 PTs with 4 of them for flight & 10 mar 07 as the first flight date for 07-101 & 07-102 (first 2 SBP machines). Remember PT-4 & 6 made their first flight in 2006.
But the most interesting piece of info (FOR YOU) is a direct quote from the chief himself. ‘we have produced six prototype aircraft since sept 03 – two of them are ground test and the other four are flying. In the three and a half years that have passed, WE HAVE FLOWN SIX AIRCRAFT, INCLUDING TWO FROM A SMALL SERIAL PRODUCTION BATCH.’ He goes onto say all EIGHT SBP machines (and a PT – this was PT4 which was stil in china in sept 2008) will participate in phase 2….. So what would you prefer. A DIRECT QUOTE FROM PAF CHIEF or SOME FLIMSY ARTICLE FROM EARTH TIMES?
ps. I hope you recognise now why hardly anyone ever falls for your tejas for MMRCA etc stuff. 🙂
vikasrehmanAbhi dear, AFM caption EXPLICITLY mentions PT-4. Happy? 🙂
First 2 SBP were assembled at PAC. Nothing major though considerin the date. Check wiki.
As for Mk.2, my dear, we dont even know if EJ will be selected. What if its F414? How long to selection? Lets assume its selected tomorrow, how long would the negotiation would take? I dont think the integration would start on the its selected but wait for the signing of the deal. So 2 yrs to integration. Does that include testing & certification. And coming back to your fav payload-range spec, if Mk.2 would be a true rival, then im sure the internal fuel has to be increased to rival the range, airframe, landing gear have to be strengthened to increase the payload, not forgetting the RCS reducing measurements etc etc. To someone like myself all that means CONSIDERABLE modifications. I think EJ people are only concerned about engine. Its YOU who has to explain your theory of NG equiv-in terms of range/payload by 2014 certification.
vikasrehmanAbhi, its fun. 😉 Huitong’s site also mentions that flight tests for J-10 were COMPLETED by the end of 2003. First unit was OPERATIONALISED around mid 2004. Hope it means something to you.
AFM Sept 08 issue (pp 68) clearly states that PT04 is still in china. Your beloved wiki cites tons of articles mentioning that PAF received 8 SBP machines. The first two had tail numbers 07-101 & 07-102, and were Partially assembled at PAC. Janes article (Jan 08) clearly states that JF-17 will receive IOC by end 2008-read before the start of serial production. PAF operationalises first in 2009.
So lets leave it that. Hope it was fun.
ps. Im still waiting for your opinion on how MK-1 would be turned into NG equivalent (your fav range-payload specs of courese) without considerable structural modifications, and receive certification within 4 years from now? Please enlighten us with your theories on this fav topic of yours.
vikasrehmanHuitong’s site clearly states that first OPERATIONAL J-10 unit was ACTIVATED in 2004. But since it wasnt covered by media, its unlikely to be enough. Maybe those J-10 were just ‘dumped onto PLAAF’. 😉
vikasrehmanThey can take a look at it at the airshows. 🙂 But im sure all AFs get a chance to take a ‘look’ of aircraft from friendly AFs.
vikasrehmanInsig, how can you argue with our friend Abhi, when he ignores tons of info including that from reputable aviation magazines (regarding PAF order of 8 SBP machines & their delivery, that PT04 was still in china according to sept 08 AFM) and gives precedence to a flimsy item most like written by someone who could not tell the difference b/w JF17 & LCA? How can one argue with him when he starts with an IOC date of 2007 of J-10 and has come down to 2005 based on unknown sources (when at least one rather reliable HT’s site says that J-10 flight tests were completed in mid 2003. We know that by then J-10 was already being tested with radar & other avionics)? How can you do it when gripen demo (prototype ready) to NG certification would take Saab 5-6 years, and he thinks that MK-2 (NG equivalent) from MK-1 (gripen c/d equivalent) would take only 4 years (when only The Almighty knows when or which engine will be selected)? How can you? Samsara is right! 🙂
vikasrehmanI dont think IAF has ever bought anything for DACT??? Multinational exercises is something different. As fo FC-1, i think PAF being the partner in the project might have a thing or two to say. But if so, they might as well include a few J-10 in the shopping list. 🙂
vikasrehmanThanx tp. But since PLAAF or CAC did not feel compelled to tell newspapers about the deadline for initial certification, or for that matter did not announce the initial accomplishment to the entire world in 2004, its not good enough for our good friend Abhi. The fact that by the time they revealed it in 2006, there already 50+ production model in active service does not say much, and its still only simple IOC similar to lets say what LCA would achieve soon- coz according to some hot shot it depends on the actual flight parameters- cos there are no newsreports or hoo haa parties.
vikasrehmanThe ease with which you guys speak of the use of nuclear weapons or war or resulting destruction sends a cold chill through my spine, though i know im rather safe sitting thousands of miles away. They all have their doctorines, counter doctorines, counter counter doctorines & so on. Lets hope these work and are never put into real practice. Everyone would only lose out as a result of any war, some more than others. Period.
vikasrehmanAbhi, on surface it surely does seem that CAC/PLAAF/PAF operate differently than say HAL/IAF. As tp mentioned before, may be their definition of IOC is different. To someone like myself IOC is minimal capability required for op service it is intended for, & JF taking part in recent exercises as well as live firing indicates it has. But ven if we assume that J-10 was given IOC in 2006-then we dont know what the certification in 2003/2004 was all about-by then PLAAF had 50 or so serial production models in op service with a lot of op doctorine, tactics, logistics, maintenance lines well established. All this well established & practiced stuff, I think, comes under FOC, not IOC, if one considers induction only after IOC certification from designfr. An AF has to establish all the above to declare it FOC.
ps. I dont know what changes would be in MK-2. Last i heard, they were studying 3 designs & even considerin changes to reduce RCS. But sure you would agree that to become NG equivalent-have to improve range/payload specs-there would have to be changes to increase fuel, physical strengthning etc. Then consider advanced data linking, AESA, and so on. Its all stil on paper. It wil take around 2 yrs or so for engine selection, negotiations, & delivery. Then comes the integration. Then comes testing-flight envelope will have to be expanded since better performance is the objective. In spite of all this 2013/14 is all that you throw around.
vikasrehmanAbhi, im glad you are learning. As for your earthtimes article, well its up to you whether you choose to believe the words of some journalist from some online news agency or those coming from a world leading authority-outside pak-on PAF/JF-17. Btw, if you do another search, you will find out that PAF’s first order was for 8 SBP machines, and not 6+2 as you keep insisting.
Regarding IOC, check sinodefence again (also check huitong’s site for some good info). Neither mentions anything about a 2006/07 date for IOC as you implied earlier. In fact both mention that the J-10 was certified end 2003/start 2004. The way i understand it, first SBP were INDUCTED into PLAAF in 2002. Both PLAAF & CAC kept their T&E going, IOC given in 2003/2004-within 6 years of 1st PT flight. Serial production started in 2004 only after initial certification and by 2006-date for final certification-there were dozens of operational machines.
Lets take a look at JF-17. Sure its all to do with the parameters and not number of flghts. Sure there were certain shortcoming, hence the structural changes in PT04 which incidently also included a full set of avionics. Sure some tests would have had to be repeated but NOT all. An example is twin seater J-10 which required only two years for certification. Now SPB machines, all with avionics, started to arrive in pak from 2007. Testing continued both in china and pak, and if we take a leaf from J-10 book, its not too far fetched to assume that JF-17 also might have received initial certification prior to the start of serial production in 2009- approx 5.5 years after its first flight.
ps. One thing does not make sense. You say 4 years isnt enough-from first flight of modified JF-17-to complete tests for IOC. If so, why do you keep insisting that LCA MK-2- God knows what modifications it would need to include a new engine, AESA radar, other improved avionics etc to become NG equivalent and in likely hood first PT to be ready in 2012 or so-will be ready for certification by 2013/2014?
Sign In
