Hence, in case of Tejas upon being loaded with full-internal fuel and 500 kgs of weapons (JF-17’s definition) it’s weight would be ~9,500 kgs only, which is in agreement with other fighters globally, that have similar empty weights notably, Gripen C, T-50 and JF-17.

that weight you quote with the full-internal fuel and 500 kgs of weapons sounds right.

Empty = approx 6,411
Fuel = 2,300
NTOW (including 2 wingtip missiles and hence the rails) = approx 9,072

Above are te figures I have seen for JF-17 (how accurate they are Im not sure even though they are from PAC’s website), and as Curious said if a Pylon (wingtip) weighs around (say) 60 Kg with 2 missile weighing around 220kg, ten all this does come up to NTOW figure. However, i would assume that lubricants/oils etc are included in this NTOW figure.

The JF17 would be ideal, but if the PLA don’t take JF17s, then J10s look like the only option, though that still feels like a bit of a waste of a very capable platform.

Displays can also attract more talent and used as selling points (to an extent…if you could afford) or simply showing off your achievement, and J-10 fits the first and third point to say the least.

Just a quick question people.

Empty weight for LCA (originally) was meant to be around 5,500 kg, though this seems to have gone up a notch as a result of newer requirements from IAF and the new figure floating around somewhere near 6,500 kg. Recently this topic was discussed in another thread, and if I remember correctly the general consensus was that this increase in empty weight has come from things like addition of IFR, avionics, strengthning of airframe for R-73 etc.

Now in his blog Ajai Shukla mentions that IAF’s demands for extra combat punch added two tons to the LCA’s original weight of 8 tons. Indeed, LCA’s (normal or clean?) takeoff weight was meant to be 8 ton originally (with empty weight of 5.5 tons), though this should have gone up by a ton only as a result nearly a ton increase in empty weight (or perhaps slight more cos it could perhaps carry slightly more fuel and heavier WVR missiles?). Or am I missing something here?

It’ll be interesting to see how the Kaduna and Vikas types react when their fav threads get spammed all over.

Hey uss novice, one major problems with most of our kind-read human species-is that we start believing in what we want to be, and as a result lose the ability to respect others’ (valid) opinion/s. I have probably done so on many an occassion, though each time I’d think that I’ve learnt a lesson.:)

I, for one believe that people like SOC and other mods are doing a very fine job indeed. I have been visiting (and posting) on this forum for a number of years, and yes it is a much better place to hold a constructive discussion than it used to be…all credit to these individuals. Finally, we all have our own complaints/grievances against individuals/groups, but we must realise that mods do this job voluntarily meaning they can only spend limited time doing so, and hence this is unlikely to be a perfect place ideal to our liking. Before blaming the mods for all the problems, however, we should ask ourselves if we as contributors on this forum have done anything constructive to improve the quality of this forum. Although I have never used the ‘ignore’ function, perhaps I personally would consider using it in the future (instead of trying to score my own cheap points cos of my sky high ego) when discussion is going astray.

OTOH, Pak fora talk of JSFs being inducted, a 200 strong F-16 fleet and what not – I find these unrealistic in the extreme.

I don’t understand your point? Do these ppl in any way influence the official policies of Pakistan or PAF? I despise Bharat Rakshak forum because of its vehemently racist attitude, but while I do not consider it a reliable source (in spite of the fact that some of its contributors are professionals) simply because of this, I’d b stupid to think of it as a representative of Indian armed forces’ policies.

Are you even serious to suggest that Pak will keep lowering its nuclear doctrine? What happens then, when India rescinds its NFU, is this a risk which any sane Pak security manager will take, surely not.

Second, even in the case of nuclear war, Pak comes out the loser – which is worse, to lose a brief conventional conflict & make political concessions or be wiped out? Any Pak military leader with a clear head, would make the rational choice.

Yes. I do seriously think that. Pak decided to conduct those nuclear tests in 1998 (for its own reasons) in spite of promise of modern weapons that would have gone a long way to bridge the gap vis-a-vis India. The more the conventional gap grows, the more Pakistan will rely on its nuclear weapons as the ultimate detterrent, and the lower will be the threshold.

As for rational choices, although im no pacifist I dont consider war to be rational to start with.

Given the PAK-FA project & the variety of projects planned w/Russian cooperation, I’d say that depending on “hopes” of “Russia will supply flankers/Migs to PAF in coming years either directly or through China” is moonshine to be honest.

A few Mi-17s and a few engines are one thing, to hope for export Flankers & MiGs, to add to the PAFs logistical menagerie is to stretch the currency of hope a bit too far.

India has so far managed to balance its relationship with the Russians & US- economic incentives allow the same. The Russians have been ok with it – most issues between India & Russia are on account of inflation & price disputes- and to date, all have been resolved.

Incidentally, this is why it is also rational that the J-10 wont come to Pak till the local Chinese engine ramps up to full scale production & acceptable standards of MTBF etc. Doubt whether AL-31FNs will head to Pak anytime soon. Given the trouble the PAF has had with the RD-93 export issue, I doubt they will want to go through the same pain again & years of wrangling via the PRC’s intervention.

Over past few years, there have been hundreds of negative news reports in media about US/Pak relations. So Im not sure what difference these new reports will make. WOT is in their mutual interests and they will collaborate as long as their interests ramain that…mutual.

As for Russians being ok, it was India who had to pay more money although it was Russians who did not stick to the their own contracts (regardless of the reason). Russia is indeed India’s strategic partner, but they thought of their own interests. In spite of billions of dollars India has poured into their market through MKI and potential of loads more, Russians asked for more. Nick, Pakistan is a small nation with fragile economy and easily arm twisted. India, I thought, was a totally different ball game. Can you say that all the issues have been resolved? Full ToT for T-90, engine for brahmos, Gorshkov etc?

And No, Im not relying on the worst case scenario. All Im saying is that India will not be able to deploy all of its major weapon systems on its western border, especially when India is moderinisng to face the (growing…as many put it) threat from China.

And ‘Given the trouble the PAF has had with the RD-93 export issue’, but Excuse me. If i remember correctly (and please feel free to correct me if Im wrong), PAF officials always maintained from the begining that there were no engine-related issues. Chinese, OTOH, mostly kept quite. It was mainly Indian newspapers that quoted umpteen sources about Russia not allowing the engine sale to PAF. So Im not sure who went to greater troubles. My personal opinion is that Russia was pursuing a wait and watch policy, and their decision to sell RD-93 to Pakistan was a message for India (their officials are on record saying that Russia will also find alternative markets if India does the same). And no strategic partnerships are not that easy to be balanaced. India used to call Iran its strategic partner only a few years ago, only to vote against them in IAEA under US pressure.

To be a deterrent, it will have to acquire capabilities which actually deter the IAF and IA not just pose the former, a challenge which they have already planned for & can meet. That was my simple point.

If so Nick, then fair enough. But I must say that people like us ought to give due consideration to our phraseology on such multinational forums.

2004 is recent?

Things change in a matter of days when it comes to threat perception.

Sorry Nick, but unfortunately I dont have unlimited time to spend on these forums and spell everything out. Briefly though, when you stated (in response to my statement about ‘the possibility’ of taking JF-17 units to 250) that Recent talk is just that forecasting for public consumption, I merely responded by saying that we have been hearing about this possible increase in numbers since 2004 or so, which is not very recent. However, I toally agree with you that threat perceptions change, and this is precisely why I had already said that ‘all is open for discussion and changeable‘. OTOH, if curtailing the numbers of JF-17 is your personal opinion based on your own thinking, then so be it. All I can say is that thus far PAF has firm committment for 150 machines…which is by coincidence quite close to 8 squadrons as you say.

I have always taken the IAF’s/ DRDO’s pronouncements as “indicative” – not the cent per cent, will be so, in this manner “onlee”!

OK, my mistake. But Nick, if i remember correctly this did not seem to be the case a few weeks ago when there was some discussion on LCA R&D dates. There was no talk of ‘public consumption’ or ‘indication’ there when people were quoting sources which had been involved in the programmes. For some reason all that was treated like the word from Bible.

Same applies to the PAF. Fact is that the JF-17 simply isnt substantial enough to combat a heavy + medium fighter force. 250 Gripen NG’s? Ok – you have a chance. 250 JF-17s with 2-3 squadrons of F-16s and a couple of J-10 squadrons, all inducted over two decades? Its not good enough.

I think Nick, you are making an assumption here (and I would like to know on what grounds) that PAF will remain stagnant over next two decades. They will more than likely buy J-10 (probably more advanced versions than the current one) and then move on to J-xx. The latter might be a paper plane right now, but it will materialise given time.

Read into the context. The Bisons are good when they operate to their strengths and when there are other fighters ie force, not just force multipliers to cover their weaknesses.

When there are Flankers to trade the long range BVR shots by F-15s for eg at Cope India.

Now where are your Flankers? How long can you keep your JF-17 in the air? How many IFR assets will you acquire to obtain similar ability? What happens when your “eye”, the Erieye has to move back out of ops because it has LRAAMs heading its way?

Well Nick, perhaps this is why PAF decided not to upgrade their PGs with chinese option of BVR. OTOH, IFR assets are already on order. As for LRAAMs, yes I have been hearing about them for quite a while now.

Or when the GBAD ADGES is degraded thanks to repeated Kh-31 strikes? The IAF, has numbers AND quality on its side. The PAF, in your example, will have to make do without BOTH. The Flanker vs JF-17. The Phalcon vs the Erieye.

No ARM’s vs ARM’s..who has the initiative? Start thinking in the total sense, where you are under threat from a quantitatively superior force, and with technology also on their side, and a network more comprehensive than yours – is it fair?

I guess, you have to make do with the best you have. Dont you?:) I think Pakistan has known for a long time that in terms of weapons, India will always have the edge…and this is precisely why they have their nuclear doctorine. Back in 1998, major countries promised them conventional modern weapons worth billions of dollars, yet they went ahead with their nuclear tests for their own reasons. I could only assume that with passing time the nuclear threshold on Pakistani side will come down further. But lets not talk about resulting destruction as its obvious to everyone.

For all my jibes at the IAF, for once they have managed to cover themselves despite the umpteen delays in the MRCA program. They did this, by ordering 37 new build Jaguars to DARIN2 standard, and 40 new MKIs, not to mention the new LCHs, and the extra force multipliers which are already inducted and more tranches are being procured. I wouldnt have believed they could manage it, and they still arent out of the woods fully, but they did get some quick fixes in place.

Nick, I think PAF realises that fully well, but I hope you also realise that in spite of its growing stature India is not exactly the most popular nation in its immediate neighbourhood. It has many other fronts to consider and Im not all that sure that all these new machine are solely for Pakistan in any conventional confrontation. Every other day we read about Chinese soldiers increasingly coming across LAC and what not. Do you think, IAF will be able to ignore all that? Right now PLAAF has hundreds of flankers, is updating them, and producing J-10s at 2-3 per month? I think a lot of IAF modernisation is intended for others besides PAF.

For one, nobody knows for sure how many F-16s of the original batch are fully ops, being refurbished & being brought up. Second, with the current political problems between the US & Pakistan, are these F-16s even guaranteed?

PAF will be getting 28 refurbished F-16s from US, and the contract is for 60 MLU kits. I think, this should give a good indication as to how many F-16s PAF will have.

Nothing is guaranteed Nick…but interests. Using this very logic though, does IAF have any guarantees that Russia will not supply flankers/Migs to PAF in coming years either directly or through China? Re-export of RD-93 for JF-17 is an indication, and why do you think that happened? I personally have no doubts that India will go ahead with signing the nuclear deal with USA in near future. Thereafter, it wont be all that easy for India to balance its strategic partnerships with both US and Russia at the same time when the latter two have such diverse interests.

Also consider the time that will be taken in bringing these upto a common standard. About 500 AMRAAMs- the IAF fleet is SPJ equipped and there is a towed decoy program underway. And at BVR exercises, undertaken at much closer ranges, ~20 nm, where the missile should have much more striking power, the F-16 hasnt exactly swept its opponents away in IAF eval. That apart, in terms of BVR rounds ordered, SIPRI has the IAF numbers & even the declared amounts, dwarf the PAF acquisition.

That is why I said 2015 to start with.
In addition to AMRAAMs, there will be SD-10 and most likely MICA, thought their present BVRAAM on Mirages is likely to have gone by then. As for numbers, I dont think any AF will be using them like normal ammo rounds. They are expensive weapons, and even IAF pilots wouldn’t use them unless they are quite reasonably sure about traget and success.

You cant find a picture of the ROSE with a Mica because it is not operational with the PAF. There was a demonstration picture of the Mica/ AASM with a ROSE Mirage at Paris for advertisement purposes, done up by Sagem. That was it, and the exhibitors admitted as such. Looks like you seem to have accepted it as fact, oh well.

Well, again you have come to the wrong conclusion about me ‘assuming’ something.:)

And coming to “negotiations”/”in advanced stages” – whats the point of shopping lists? I can start off with the Meteor being in IAF service since its on offer with the Gripen-NG, the EF and the Rafale per reports. This kind of speculation goes nowhere.

So lets end this discussion on a good note, and we will start it all again when IAF will have its full complement of MMRCA, Phalcons, LCA, LRAAMs and so on in operational service.:)

Recent talk is just that forecasting for public consumption. Everyone does that. They will have to be open minded about actual purchases given the way the IAF is bulking up. If the PAF even aims to have a moderate “defend itself” ability, it will have to look beyond the JF-17. It simply isnt going to be competitive enough against a revamped IAF which would have transitioned to a predominantly heavy force.

Recent talk? It was as early as July 2004, Alan warnes of AFM quoted JF-17 Chief Project Director talking about the possibility of increasing the number of JF-17 beyond 150. If PAF has to cut its requirements due to financial/other crunches, i.e. J-10/F-16, I think it would make more sense for them to make it up with more JF-17. However, what i find surprising is that ‘coming from a PAF official its for public consumption (which is plausible)’, but ‘coming from an IAF official, its always from the horse’s mouth’. Speaking frankly, have you have uttered the very words when quoting IAF/DRDO officials?

With regard to ‘defend itself’, well if Bisons (when was the upgrade contract signed exactly and have they been continuously upgraded) can hold their own against F-15Cs/F-16 blk 50s (one of IAF former ACM called them equivalent of F-15), I dont understand why JF-17 won’t be able to defend itself when operating in the presence of Erieye, refuellers and SAMs etc.

So there you introduce your caveat- which was exactly my point. From the IAF’s POV, the PAF only relying on JF-17s is good news. But I doubt PAF will play so easily into the IAFs hands. Lets see.

Being flexible…this is what some call it.:) They are keeping all their options.

BVRAAM “capable” is not equal to BVRAAM carriage. Technically speaking the Jaguar IMs in IAF service are “BVRAAM capable”- but do they carry the same?

And I dont what you are speaking of when you say by 2015, most of PAFs fleet will be BVRAAM capable- the F-7s will remain w/o BVR, a handful of F-16s- 3/4 squadrons and a few of JF-17s will have BVR, but the rest? Also, the choice of Chinese radar was because, in part, the Chinese didnt want to let away their IP by integrating the SD-10 w/ the Grifo-2000/etc radars planned originally for the JF-17. That rules out the SD-10 for the ROSE -1 Mirages, which by 2015, will definitely be hitting the end of their lifetimes, even with refurbishment. So the only choice left is the R-Darter, which too iirc is being phased out. And besides which, it makes little sense to put a BVR missile, a third type, on a plane destined for decomissioning within the decade. In the IAFs case, all the Bison weaponry can still be used on the MKI, Upg MiG-27 and LCA fleet.

Handful? They had 32+2 F-16s (excluding the 4 recent arrivals). If you add 18 new ones with 28 refurbished ones (all will arrive before 2015 and upgraded), that takes the total to 80, and I think the option for 18 Blk 50s would also be exercised at some timepoint in future. All in all they will have 5-6 squadrons of F-16s, which will roughly speaking be a quarter of PAF’s strengh. Although this might be handful for IAF, that is not the case with PAF. All these machines will be AMRAAM capable (and HMD compatible…yes the cueing systems have been ordered), and Im sure you are aware that PAF has already ordered 500 AMRAAM for these.

In addition, PAF is already in negotiations with Chinese for 300 SD-10 (I think that would be for their first batch of JF-17s), and their talks with French for RC-400/MICA are already in advanced stages. A lot of this will materialise before 2015. As for Rose Mirages, well they are already carrying a certain type, but lets keep everyone guessing (I wont say no more on this topic).:) BTW Have you ever seen a picture of a Rose Mirage with Mica (i tried to find it, but cosuld not)…though Im not saying it is or isnt MICA. As for the logic of putting new BVR type on Rose Mirage, well wasn’t I saying the very same thing about datalink on Bison?

The issue is and was of “defensive deterrence”- the PAF quite simply doesnt have the ability to deter the IAF today. The rapid decline in IAF squadron strength could have given PAF its breakthrough after a long decade, but it does seem that the PAF hasnt planned for it. With the MRCA, MKI & LCA inductions the IAF would have regained the edge. Which begs the question, what exactly is the PAF for? If it cant defend the PA against Enemy Air, and fights to survive, its impact on the overall war is limited.

I could only smile.:)
But Im so glad that sane minds in both countries seem to be getting the upper hand for the time being at least.

Please research the topic. PAF never received Sparrows for their F-16s, let alone exercise with them. As late as 1999, IAF MiG-29s locked onto F-16s across the LOC, but werent targeted in turn & the F-16s retreated. No ambiguity there either.

OK I will. But If i get sometime, I will also try to find an article containing a Mig-29 pilot’s experiences of its radar. May be you could then shed some light on superiority of the radars on IAF Mig-29. In the meantime, I could only salute IAF’s love for peace as they let those rogue F-16s get away.