Im a novice in ABM, and have a question or two regarding this test.

Were the teacjectories for tow missiles pre planned in order for them to meet up somewhere along their pathway? If yes, then this successful testifies to the fact that Prithvi is capable of delivering its load with accuracy. If not, could it really be interpreted as part of ABM system since any anti-missile system would first have to determine the trajectory of any hostile missile itself instead of it being fed into it?

If this deal indeed resulted from a ‘viable threat’ Vera posed to Amercian stealth technology, shouldn’t this prove to be an incentive for similar companies, i.e. develop something that US considers a threat and offer it to ‘unfriendly’ countries?

I think F-16 should be left out of the discussion. thats because good, bad or indifferent there are some “psychological” reasons why pakistan will go for them.

Some practical reasons 2, of which u are likely to be aware of. Besides ease of integration, training, facilities being already in place, PAF surrently operates 34 F-16. LoA for another 18 new and an unspecified number (possibly 26?) of old F-16s has already been signed. Old ones are to be upgraded by TAI (?), MoU for which would be signed soon (possibly tomorrow?). If PAF decides to exercise the option for remaining 18 (and its very likely they would) that would give them around 96 very capable machines armed with a lethal AIM-120c5 contract for which (500) has already been awarded.

that leaves a triangular contest between M2K-9 , FC-1 and J-10. a A2A oriented design thats a bit dated but with a good rep overall, a lowbrow all-metal A2G high wingloaded newbie and a unknown that looks like EF from the outside but no comparative open src data available.

No contest. FC-1 is a done deal, whicle negotiations for J-10 are already in progress.
PS. What’s the wingloading for FC-1 in comparison with say F-16?

[quote]MIG-21 can only compete against FC-1 when the former is supported by radar of some other aircraft. 57km search radar is serious short coming in air to air fight.[quote]

This is precisely what is to happen over next few years. Both India and Pak would be equipped with aerial advanced warning systems and their fighters well linked to aerial and ground detection assets. Under these circumstances most present day fighters should-in theory at least-be able to take on each other. As retired IAF ACM Krishnaswamy said after cope India 2004…American forces had acknowledged that the MiG-21s and their operational capabilities, as they had witnessed during the exercise, were equivalent to the US F-15 fighters.

PS. Although 57 Km search range is a short coming indeed when compared to modern radars, i dont know whether its such a serious problem. If u pitch a bison or FC-1 (radar range quoted as >100Km) against say MKI on its own the formers would have a serious disadvantage for obvious reason. However, presence of other aerial assets would negate such an advantage-to MKI-to a large extent. OTOH, most aerial BVR fights in Ind/Pak scenario at alest can be expected to occur within 10-35 Km enevelope, and any fighter should be able to make effective use of its own radar.

With a good negociator and as a “export launcher” customer, between 15-20 (15 if there is a large amout of spare and munitions.

I would stick to the lower figure and wouldn’t include spares/munitions. But i assume over couple of decades overall costs for Rafale would be cheaper in comparison with flankers.

The papers quoted are from reputed journals and are technically competent rather than the brochures/magazine reports. Any person with a technical background will give a higher weightage to an article in a journal than a magazine/brochure.

I second this.
Even for someone like me with absolutely no background in physics, its not difficult to comprehend the point being raised. In addition to above article, i have seen various other reports from different sources (mainly magazines) which mention this drawback with 2 sided array arrangement. Unless im mistaken, even Israeli phalcon suffers from limited angular resolution in these sectors due to smaller array size associated with these areas. Various possible solutions have been proposed, which include use of supergain arrays, 4 sided rhombic configuration, and use of conformal active arrays (embedded in aircraft skin). I dont know whether any of these have been implemented in Erieye (and if yes to what degree???) since many reports mention ‘compensated’ 360 degrees coverage.

In India-Pak scenario where PAF does not expect an aerial threat from all around, Erieye is probably good enough? Even if they require such coverage, multiple aircrafts could be used to patrol in different orbits to provide overlapping coverage.

There is an IEEE paper about ERIEYE antenna published in May, 2000, around the time the Greek Erieyes were being made. There is NO MENTION about ANY REMARKABLE technology in that document either. If Ericsson had done the wonder, wouldn’t they mention it in that paper?

Do u have a link or scanned version?

Would it be out of the question for Pakistan to buy the JF-17 from China and put French made engine like the M53-P2 match with Thales RC400 radar in it? Are there any restrictions placed on Pakistan currently that would block them from this type of request. It seems Pakistan could almost be flying this aircraft right now if they had an engine and radar basically. Going with an M53-P2, a well proven engine and the RC400/ MICA combo might be better then a Chinese made unknown radar and matched with the SD-10. I’m sure the cost would go up but Pakistan likes western style technical i.e. F-16s. There might be better radar out and maybe a more powerful engine but times wasting. Wouldn’t a setup like this or something like it still is better then Mirage-5 or Mig-21 copies the PAF currently operates? I was wondering how much the cost would go up and what re-design trade-offs might be involved in an adventure like this or could it even be possible. Thanks

-FC-1 was designed around RD-33/93, and any changes would have required considerable time.
-During its early development phase, a lot of western stuff was not available as a result of sacntions on Pak (nuclear tests) and China.
-PAF had a requirement for 150 of these machines. Any significant increase in its price, which would undoubtedly accompany an expensive combination like MICA/RC 400 and M53-P2 might have compromised their ability to afford it in adequate numbers.
-RD-93 and SD-10/Chinese radar combo seem to meet their initial requiremetns at least for the time being.
-Decoupling airframe development from avionics leads to the logical conclusion that future customers would have the liberty to take on whatever they deem meets their requirements.