vikasrehmanThe RD-93 is a 75 KN engine comparable to the Ge 404 (which currently powers the Gripen.)
81.4 KN to be precise for RD-93. Gripen’s RM12, which is based on GE F-404-400 delivers a thrust (AB) of 80 KN.
vikasrehmanChinese companies may provide consultancy, but till Pak makes the transition to a full fledged design & development based industry wrt aerospace, it will remain limited in terms of what it can contribute to the JF-17. Simply put- the Chinese side built this aeroplane, the Pak side observed. You learn from doing. And secondly, this plane will probably not cross the 150 side for Paks own requirements- simply put, there will be much better alternatives available from China itself.
U learn from doing. No doubt about this. But HF-001 (Marut) made its first flight in 1961. Why do u think next indian design LCA made its first flight almost after 40 years of that? Point being that while u learn by doing, u need to learn before you can actually do something.
vikasrehmanWhat would you say if I was show you a Boeing magazine article that openly states that keeping to original schedules for ANY fighter program is a difficult task ?? would you claim that they dont know what they’re talking about despite being at the forefront of aerospace technology ?
Even a novice should know this, and one does not need any articles to prove such ‘common sense’ logic. However, i totally agree with what cat1 said. Having admitted that LCA project would have many benefits for Indian aviation industry, let me ask you a very simple question. What was the primary objective behind LCA project?
Lets see- Pak AF, once, in AFM described the JF-17 as the first fighter designed by an AF if my memory serves me correct- hmmm. So how many windtunnel tests did the PAF engineers conduct? Did they design the airframe in detail?
Come on nick. I dont expect such stuff from u. A lot of sides claim all sort of things. Only because of personal opinions we tend to take such claims literally mainly to serve our own purposes.
PS. Do u mind sharing the whole paragraph with me? I also remember reading the article, but wouldn;t mind taking another peek at it.
The simple point is that license producing an existing type is a far easier job & does not qualify as codevelopment in anyway whatsover, despite whatever claims you make of it being a success vs an abinitio make effort. Which was the point & glad to see you concur.
U have used this word ‘license production’ throughout this discussion. So come on give me some previous examples, where a licensee has been as thoroughly involved in a fighter’s conception, design, and development as in JF-17.
Fair enough, but this entirely eliminates the JF-17 from any sort of joint development tag. Its a licensed manufacturing program which by its very nature will be a simpler affair for Pak then either developing its own fighter. On the negative side- this also means that Pak will continue to rely on China and other OEMs for product improvements.
Im sure u know how long it takes a country to establish infrastructure before there could be any seriously attempts vis-a-vis fighter design/development. Why do u think India decided to go for a huge number of licence produced Mig-21 instead of locally produced Maruts?
vikasrehmanEven if it were to be cancelled or a failure- the Israeli example with the Lavi shows the success a high visibility steamroller approach has towards aerospace development and building up of capabilities.
That’s a fine example. But then Israel did not have much to lose. The project was primarily funded by foreign money, and most countries would jump at such an opportunity. Also don’t forget American expertise that came along with the money.
Now compare this Israeli experiment in 80s with Indian experiment in 50s. Unless im mistaken India already had some design experience with HT-2 as well as licensed production of Vampire. Marut’s conception was indeed a bold and what u call high risk move. India had a massive lead on Israel. Yet 50 years on, can u honestly say that Indian aviation industry is as advanced as that of Israeli?
The evidence is that India has already achieved a far more substantial aerospace capability than Pakistan by pursuing a high risk/ high reward approach as compared to Pakistan which is merely undertaking a licensed manufacture program in which it has little input in terms of actual technology contribution.
Dont u think u r comparing Oranges with Apples now? By the time, India started work on LCA, it already had substantial experience in aircraft design (Marut) as well as manufacturing capabilities that came with locally built Marut and licensed production of Russian/Western fighters. Hence, India had a strong enough basis to initiate LCA programme.
Now compare this with Pakistan, whose aviation inductsry is yet in its infancy. Any project planner would teall u (based on simple observations) that What u describe as high risk/high reward strategy would have be totally unfeasible in this case. Marut did not succeed mainly because of India’s rather limited experience in aviation R&D, and even after 50 years of its conception they are still dependent on licensed manufacturing (MKI/MRCA). Pak totally realises their limitations in this regrad. However, instead of going for simple licensed production, they have been fully involved in FC-1 project throughou its conception, design/redesign, and development…something that is not normally associated with mere licensed production…and would remain so during its production. Experience Pak is gaining from this experiment is more than likely to result in good reward and (depending on funding) in shorter time than India’s experience.
vikasrehmanIts a licensed production program, pure & simple.
How many other similar ‘pure & simple licence production’ examples can u quote? India is licence producing flanker. Did they have similar sort of involvement in its R&D. What are the plans for MRCA’s production?
vikasrehmanHAL has done more with licensed manufacturing of Jaguar. Its not joint development.
What? They were flight testing the protoypes when the aircraft was being developed?
vikasrehmanHow is the testing of prototypes by pilots a big part of development ?
It is a part of development and not licence manufacturing…isn’t it? 😉
vikasrehmanThen lets be very clear – its not a joint development. At max, its a license manufacture.
Pakistani pilots are testing the prototypes, which is considered a big part of development. A number of Pakistani techncians/engineers have been involved in this project since early stages…although i have no idea regarding the true nature of their involvement. And u call it At max, its a license manufacture I wonder, what would your ‘at min’ entail? 🙂
vikasrehmanNow the Israeli Government never denied passing aircraft technology to China, niether not involved in the J-10 program, only denied passing all the Lavi technology to the J-10.
Did they actually confirm passing ‘some’ technology or simply ‘stayed quiet’ in response to a direct question?
Russia`s SIBNIA affirms that Israel passed more technology than basicly is acknowledged by Israel becuase in the statement it is more less a variant of the Lavi implies the direct Lavi ancestry of the J-10.
Based on what information?
The US made the same claim that SIBNIA made.
And did it have any negative impact on US-Israeli relations?
vikasrehmanWhy try to re-invent the wheel and try to contribute things which are going to stretch Pakistan’s limited aviation ability
Im surprised i had not used these very words.
But precisely my friends. 🙂
vikasrehmanA peer review for a blue sky project on a scale which BTW is impossible to attempt in Pak., if it leads to the project being completed is worth it. Plus going for such an ambitious project & learning along the way also ensures that you can absorb higher technology from elsewhere.
As a professional scientist I would never start a project unless im fairly certain that i have the means to carry it out and that it is likely to produce some results.
What you said would make sense, provided the disparity was not so vast as to make the comparison apples to oranges..basically what your CAS has said is that Pak is unable to even receive TOT for the Gripen since its aerospace industry lacks even the ability to recieve it. Now compare this to others who are actually making similar components of their own design!
ACM is right. Pak does not have an advanced aviation sector for Gripen ToT, and even for JF-17 it would come gradually. He recognises his country’s limitations in this sector and that’s why Pakistani scientist are learning from others’ experiences in established fields before they might experiment in years to come.
During my postgrad years, i optimised and validated a novel technique that was originally developed by one of my colleagues. I have since trained others in use of that technique. Of course, these others could have experimented and learnt as they went alson, but getting me involved saved them time and money.
More and more companies are joining hands to conduct aviation R&D. And the logic is to save time & money as well as increasing profit margin.
The speaker cant surely be suggesting that Pak developed the HUD and its application software- the latter comes with the HUD and neither was developed by Pak, since Pak is not the OEM. Pak could have customized the HUD software to match the F-7PG which is what I statedearlier- & you do appreciate the difference between the two (developing the HUD & its software from scratch), to just customizing the software.
If they could customise something to match their own needs, i think its not too far fetched to suggest that they might also provide some assistance in its R&D. Or is it?
vikasrehmanRemember how delayed the RFPs for 126 4th Gen MRCA are. Feel free to link the dots.
That was quick. Now try the same when u read Pakistani news. 🙂
Is this so difficult to say – no idea if any Pakistani subsystems are going into JF-17 or not ?
U quoted me, but did u read what i said…I personally have no ideas of type of involvement and/or subsystems. 😉
Regarding HUD, some information in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49B2qxCYAvg
Seriously, with your own ACM on record that Pakistan didnt have the technology base to even recieve TOT for the Gripen, is it really remarkable that Paks contribution to the CATIC FC-1 has been extremely limited? I think not.
Logic dictates that it probably (in fact most likely) is limited. But its a learning process for them and they intend to absorb tech gradually. Ask any project manager in any field. Its always better to recognise your own limitations before you start something instead of getting bogged down right in the middle of it and then seek peer reviews.
vikasrehmanDid Pakistan recognise these limitation while proclaiming Pakistani sats to be better than India’s or calling Babur better than Brahmos? Or when Pakistani armymen were labelled better than India’s ?
Politics my friend.
A fine example would be ACM Tyagi’s press conference couple of days ago and his comments vis-a-vis F-16 purchase by PAF and its effect on balance of power. If i remember correctly, a year or so back same man was saying something quite different.
I hope u understand the reasons. 😉
Thats an oxymoron since what China does has no bearning on what Pakistan does as Pakistan is not China. There is lots of publicity regarding FC-1 (which is not the case with J-10) but no information about Pakistan’s contribution.
That was an example. I hope u noted that.
All I have seen is Chewbacca defense – look at archives, we know but we wont tell you, oh look at China as we would keep it hush hush – but there has not been a peep about what Pakistani subsystems are going into JF-17.
I personally have no ideas of type of involvement and/or subsystems. But who knows. 🙂 For example just couple of days i learnt that PAF personnel had written the software of F-7PG Hud, something i had no knoweldge of.
vikasrehmanYes, we can see how posting information of subsystems produced by a country whose technological base can not absorb Gripen’s technology can be sensitive.
Im glad Pakistan recognises her own limitations. 😉
Yes. That also explains lack of information on net regarding Pakistans’ Satelite Launch Vehicles.
No two countries are same. Take a look at LCA and J-10 as an example. While tons and tons of information is available on the net about LCA and its subsystems, there are already probably 100? or so J-10s flying and no official confirmation yet. 😎
vikasrehmanindian armed forces are using the latest pkg for Munna to create a fear psychosis and push thru all their desired items quicker. this is an old game that military brass everywhere tend to play as in “usaf losing the edge, so we need 1000 f22”, “soviet alfa subs unbeatable so we need 100 Seawolf” “soviets working on carriers, give us more CVN”
WP…so very true. Not only military but political elites do the same.
PS. Remember these comments for future reference 😉
Sign In
