I disagree with the above. The RD-93 is also of the 79 kN class, as mentioned earlier. Thus, the JF-17 required a change of engine because it’s empty weight is 6.5 tons.

This is similar to the ‘pre-emptive’ switch from the 80kN GE-404 to the Volvo Aero F414G in case of Gripen-A —- also of the 6.4 ton class. The same “tradition” is being repeated with Tejas i.e. when it’s weight “ballooned” from 5.7 tons to 6.5 tons (another media “scandal”), the 79 kN GE-404 was deemed insufficient. It’s current speed specs are similar to the T-50, which too weighs 6.4 ton and uses a GE-404.

You are not getting the point. Take a look at some examples.

F-16/F-18/Flanker/Mig-29 etc: Earlier versions powered by one engine. Later upgrades included a more powerful engine for a number of reasons, i.e. increased weight, better performance etc.
Gripen has followed the suite.
JF-17 is likely to follow this path with earlier versions being powered by RD-93 and (if successful in operational service) upgrades are likely to include a more powerful engine (if one is available from Russia) or an engine change (depends on geostrategic situation).

LCA is different. It was meant to be powered by Kaveri from the beggining…right? Of course they used GE-404 as an established engine to test the airframe and so on, but Kaveri was meant to be there on time. Did anyone contemplate back in 80s/90s for the need of GE-404IN? Unlike all the above mentioned fighters which installed more powerful engine/s as part of an upgrade (logical way of further developing these fighters), we already know that even GE-404IN is not good enough for LCA…is it not? And hence the need for a more powerful engine. I hope you see the difference.

Again, Tejas was designed around the GE-404 since the outset when a contract was entered with GE in the 1980s (under Rajiv Gandhi’s regime) and the first Tejas rolled out in 1995 with GE-404 installed. In contrast, the Kaveri has till date, never been installed/tested in any fighter plane, leave alone Tejas.

Please explain. If Tejas was designed around GE-404, what was Kaveri being developed for? How similar is Kaveri to GE-404?

If a bought-in foreign engine is to be installed in the LCA, what is the JV engine for?

For the first 60-80 LCAs I guess.

21Ankush, so first 8 or so LCA/protypes are powered by F-404, and the next 20 or so will be powered by the more advanced version,i.e. IN20. Then comes in a more powerful EU/US engine to power another batch of LCA, and by the end of this JV engine should be ready to power the last batch. Bearing in mind that engine replacements are constly and do not get changed within a few years time (take a look at IAF’s present fleet), what sort of timeframe do you think IAF has in mind to switch to one single for the entire LCA engine.

The Mirage-2000s are due to be upgraded and the negotiations are in a very advanced stage on this between HAL, IAF and Dassault. They won’t be retired till 2020 at least. The first IAF aircraft to be replaced after the MiG-21s will be the oldest in-service MiG-27s. Approx. 40-60 MiG-27s will be upgraded and will serve till 2020 by when the MRCA will be fully absorbed and then they can be retired as well. Then we’ll see the oldest Jags retire and then the MiG-29s since their airframe life is shorter than the Mirages.

They are still negotiating. After this, prototyping will take place before the start of series upgrade. All this would take you into the next decade. Taking into consideration the price tag of $1.5 billion or so and all sorts of delays that usually occur with such programmes I think we will see these modified Mirages in IAF fleet till 2025-2030.

Yeah well. I wonder when it is that the US wakes up to the biggest con job perpetrated on its troops fighting in on Afghanistan and reads the law to Pakistan.
I ain’t hoping though, ‘coz like its gonna happen.

Nick, do not lose hope. May be the evolving strategic partnership with India would give US a bit of wisdom, and they will be able to see ‘real’ Pakistan which (i guess) is only possible through Indian eyes.

We just had our umpteenth attack in India, traced via forensic evidence & intel to their handlers back in Pak.

Everytime there is an attack, its always Pakistan. Ok, for the sake of argument lets say it is Pakistan and ISI. Then may be you would like to enlighten us which particular forensic techniques Indian scientists have been using that yield such quick results to pinpoint blame with such accuracy?. Take a look at Madrid bombings, London bombings and so on. We in the west have access to most sophisticated forensic technologies and have massive network of interlinked cameras. Yet it took our highly trained agencies weeks and months to find the culprits (who were not even highly trained professionals). OTOH, ISI must be a very professional organisation indeed considering the simple fact that Indians/US and many others have not been able to stop them carrying out their terrorist activites in spite of spending billions. So please do tell us on what grounds are you suggesting that such a professional organisation would leave such easy traces for primitve (compared to west) Indian forensic scientists to detect so easily? Lets talk about intel now. Why is it that intel sources always seem to blame Pakistan AFTER and attack has happened and that so quickly? Take a look at UK/US and so on. Of course there have been terrorist attacks but our agencies have worked their butts off to stop them from re-occurring. Its high time Indian agencies look at their basic organisation and structure so they could also thwart these attack before they are actually about to happen. They should be taught not to go into that hyper mode straight after an attack and blame Pakistan – I mean if the India intel is so good that they could pinpoint the culprit so quickly after an attack, the question is where on earth was that intel prior to an attack?

Look, every nation has a right to its own territorial sovereignty, including Pakistan. But what exactly are they going to gain from this move? Let’s say that this actually happens and Americans are killed. The media over here is going to go into supercharge mode and describe it as Pakistan killing Americans to defend terrorists. Which they would be doing, sure, but not necessarily overtly. Then the President will scrap all of the US-Pakistani ties, put them back on the sanction list, withold their F-16s, and declare Pakistan a supporter of terrorism. Which they are obviously, but again not necessarily overtly. Play this game for six months to a year and the US forces in Afghanistan will be relocating in a southerly direction.

SOC, I dont think I would have even bothered responded to such a post if it was not by you…a mod on this forum.

Pakistan has over 100,000 troops deployed on its border with Afghanistan? How many NATO/Afghan troops are currently based on Afghan side of the border?

Hundreds of Pakistani troops have died in battles against Taleban and their tribal supporters over the recent years? Hundreds of terrorists have been killed or arrested and handed over to US by Pakistan. Would you label that as overt or covert support of terrorism?

Terrosists are using suicide bomber against military facilities in Pakistan killing hundreds and causing muh damage in materials? Is that overt support or would you call it covert?

Despite of ever increasing Anti-American sentiment amongst Pakistani public, Pakistani establishment is still pursuing a very unpopular war in the region against terrorists/militants? Is that covert or overt support of terrorism by Pakistan?

Pakistan has always had deep insecurities about every Afghan govt’s stance about Durand line. How much pressure has US govt exerted on President Karzai with regard to that? Has US openly supported Pakistan’s stance on fencing that border, in spite of the fact that any such fencing would help to stop the inflow of terrorists?

While its easy for anyone to say this or that, please know that It is as much in Pakistani interests as in American for Pakistan to fight against these extremists in that region. However, Pakistani establishment has to be extremely wary of the local sensitivities and US (unfortunately) does not appear to give a damn about that. For the sake of argument lets suppose Taleban are enjoying 100% Pakistani support. Pakistan is a small country and US thus far has spent hundreds of billion in this war against terrorism (war in Iraq was a part of the wider WAT if you may recall). Yet if you believe US, Al-Qaeda still appears to have its hand in everything and is still as big a threat to western world as it was prior to 9/11. So the question is what have those hundreds of billions alongside the most advanced technology the world has ever seen have achived against terrorists and their supporter, i.e. Pakistan? Only valid conclusion is that there is something wrong with the present strategy used against these terrorists. Take a look at Iraq. It was not the surge (merely a few thousand troops) which brought the levels of violence of down in Iraq, rather USA’s active attempts to talk to moderate sunnis (Saddam’s people who had provided active support to the insurgents involved in the killing of thousands of US troops in Iraq). Only a similar approach in Afghanistan/Pakistan would yield the results in that region, not a trigger happy approach.

What I want to know is why they’d be this overtly belligerent. Yes, their territorial sovereignty should be respected. But aren’t there far more effective avenues they can pursue? Go to the UN with evidence that it was America. Or better yet, since that organization is totally incompetent, turn to China. With the US economy trying to go into the toilet, and probably succeeding, why not covertly inquire to China as to applying further economic pressure in return for access to information or technology stemming from Pakistan’s US ties?

How do we know that this is not happening…covertly i mean? OTOH, why would China want to get involved in such a mess when their primary concern is their economy. On another note, if US does not back off (elections or any other reason) this might prove to be enough to Push Pakistan more deeply into Chinese camp. Obviously that is something that US would not mind (in the long run at least) to strengthen ties with India even furthet – read using India to keep China in balance.

Anyway, good on Pakistan for actually deciding to try and defend itself and those under its protection. I just wonder what the end result will be, given that any potential issue can be made into a massive incident thanks to the elections in the USA and/or a new President wanting to make a statement: Obama to show he is strong on defense and the war against Islamic extremism, or McCain to show that he is not abandoning the GOP’s position regarding the same issues.

Having said the above, I dont think either US or Pakistani establishment is stupid enough to let things get out of hand. US has its own interests and uses different tactics to get more out of Pakistan. OTOH Pakistani establishment has to be wary of local sensitivities and hence such statement. I think both sides will continue to support each other keeping in mind their own interests. Having said this, it is these self interests that are probably more harmful to WAT (and hence no results in spite of hundreds of billions being poured into it) as they cause mutual distrust.

Everybody wants a new Cold War, Britain adopts Sharia law, Russian satanists are eating teenagers, and now this. Who would’ve thought things would get so interesting towards the end of this year? I certainly didn’t.

All I can say SOC, start reading a bit more on geostrategic issues and cultural difference (and not only defence, rockets, missile related stuff) and by the end of next year you might start to anticipate a bit more.:)

US will have to find new ally shortly.. no other go..

Unlikely.

actually, unlike you I’m not as confident of LO tech.

I believe it is only a matter of time before people start fielding radar systems
that have physically separated emitters and transmitter stations in order to catch the away reflections of a stealth aircraft, thus negating its LO qualities to a considerable extent. no reason why a couple of AWACS can’t do the same up in the air with some SW mods.

Agreed. For example Kolchuga.
But then why countries like Russia are still interested in expensive machines like PAK-FA (probably will be deployed in 2020 or so), when US has already been operating similar platforms for nearly 2 decades?

Anyway, even if a k-100 is detected by an AWACS and it shut downs emissions and moves away, the parent fighter can still guide the k-100 thru’ datalinks to a position where it can activate its on-board seeker.

An AWACS is likely to have heck of lot more powerful avionics, ECCM equipment, and decoys than a fighter’s radar.

unless the escorts of the AWACS can activate some hard-kill options, I can’t see how the AWACS can survive if the k-100 doesn’t goof up. anyway, an AWACS would likely see saturation attacks against it, don’t think opposing AFs
would be too miserly in that regard !
also, this assumes that the fighter escorts themselves aren’t being targeted at the same time. if that happens……

An AWACS is more likely to have tracked down the opponent long before the fighter was able to fire its KS-172.
It all hypothetical.

btw, even from 200 miles, would the reaction time be enough for what is essentially a civilian airliner/transport to get away from the missile altogether.

not a very easy question to answer.

When one takes into consideration the problems with detection, IFF, attaining optimal conditions for max range, ECCM measures etc, indeed it is not a very easy question to answer.

What is the logic behind putting KS-172 on PAK-FA? RCS reduction on PAK-FA would reduce the range at which it is detected, meaning it will be able to make use of the gaps and get a lot closer to the AWACS (without being detected) than other 4th gen fighters. If so, it could make use of its normal long range BVR missiles.

As for KS-172, ok its range is given at 400 Km. How about its NEZ? The actual range of its seeker? Although it is said that it will be able to engage targets manuevring at 12G…to do so it will have to be able to manuever itself at 40 odd Gs…and I wonder if a missile of such size and deimensions could actually do this? I wonder how similar the idea is to that of AIM-54, though obviosuly the technology is a lot more advanced now.

Before this thread niw turns into a virtual battle zone, lets stop right here, and go no further.