vikasrehmanFlogger
I dont think anyone is denying that what u r proposing or what u have read is in theory impossible. However, we are more concerned about its practicalities. From what i know (though i haven’t checked the dimensions) the difference between Al-31 and WP-13 should be quite big, which would mean extensive remodifications of either the J-10 or Al-31 or both to convert the former from WP-13 to Al-31. I skimmed through some of the above posts, and (please correct me if im wrong) PLAAF started receiving SU-27 sometime after 1992, while J-10/WP-13 made its flight in 1995 (???). The question is what were chinese trying to achieve by putting WP-13 in an air superiority fighter. Just take a look at the TWR for such a fighter. Chinese had already signed a contract for SU-27. So why couldn’t they simply use a more suitable engine?
vikasrehmanSince the Russians articles i have read claim the Chinese used the R-13/WP-13 to power an early J-10 prototype this does not mean is not possible, the MiG-23M and MiG-23ML are powered by very slim engines as slim as the WP-13, the latest upgrade accepts AL-31, this proves you it is possible to fit an early J-10 with an WP-13.
Of course its not impossible. But would such an effort be even worth it for an air superiority fighter (as it was intended to be initially) with WP-13 being a 6,000+ Kg thrust class engine (with AB), while J-10’s NTOW would have been around 10,000+ kg. What were chinese trying to achive?
Unless im mistaken Mig-23/27 that are/were planned to be upgraded with the engine have R29-300 and R29B-300 engines. I think it may be beneficial if you can post the relevant dimensions for some of these engines.
vikasrehmanMig-23MLD
Crobato’s argument is perfectly legitimate. A fighter is normally built around an engine with former’s outer body acting like a skin around the latter. While in theory u can put Al-31F in say J-7/Mig-21 which uses WP-13, modifications for such a change would be so drastic that J-7 may not be even recogniseable after that.
Its easy for anyone to argue such a point. For example, anyone can claim that first SU-27/Mig-29 protypes were flown with WP-13. But could this be proven?
vikasrehmanWhat’s the overall helicopter requirement in terms of numbers for IA and IAF?
vikasrehmanAccording to Pakistani foreign office spokeswoman, letter for acceptance for F-16 is currently under preparation.
vikasrehmanAccording to an Arab News report recently, Aeronautical complex Kamra will display JF-17 for the first time at Ideas 2006 (Nov 21-24). Lets see whether it’d b a mock up or real thing?
vikasrehmanAt the end of the day we r all responsible for our own personal actions. People of all races, backgrounds come to web for their own reasons, with some being more mature and others less. Its up 2 an individual to decide what pack he/she belongs to.
vikasrehmanNick
Sure, but now they’ll know whats been updated.
A lot of udates are common knowedge. Probably the secret programme involved upgrading their F-16s for nuke delivery, and i dont think PAF would have any intention whatsoever of modifying upcoming machines for that task under present circumstances.
Means that they’ll be checking to see whats going on with those planes at every level and making sure they arent being tampered with or modified (say for Nukes) etc
PAF has done that once. US doesn’t want them to do so again, and they dont want chinese to access these planes. Any monitoring package would basically deal with this, and it makes sense. But that does not cut down their performance.
They dont want China to exercise with the F-16s
They dont want anyone to exercise with China in this regard.
Subcontractors here= non LM / non PAF personnel. Say people who’ll need to put in new EW kit. So thats ruled out.
Once again u need prior US permission to do that. That is precisely why current PAF F-16s are still using the old radars and not newer Grifo 2000s.
Advanced SAMs, AWACs, Modern 3D radars…all of which the opponent is inducting
As u have mentioned in ur posts that these machines would be capable of A2A fights etc. If they were as many say neutered, i dont think PAF wasting all that money on JDAM and A2G munitions. Why not simply go for a complete A2A defence oriented machine which is PAF’s first priority?
A third of your combat fleet will now be in US hands reference spares…thats basically political power for them.
Considering American history, Indian political elite is still considering American machines for MRCA competition?
vikasrehmanNick
Time for one more post 😉
Facts- as u have outlines them.
– Pak cannot touch its own 5 Billion $ F-16s to put any new EW system
Which country can without prior approval from US? U simply require prior permission to modernise any machine of US origin, which makes perfect sense. From what i know, IAF wanted to go for an Israeli upgrade for Mig-21 but later decided to go for russian 21-93 under political pressure. What was all that hoo haa about protection of intellectual property rights? No manufacturer would allow the buyer to tamper with its product unless perhaps selling with ToT and/or extremely favourable circumstances to the buyer. Why do u think Americans never allowed Israel to use a domestic radar on ‘Sufas’? Do u think Israel will go for an unpgrade without prior Amercian approval?
– EW system obsolete
Compared to what? Just because it does not have DRFM, a relatvely new technology? AESA is already being used in American and UAE fighters. Does that mean all other packages are now obsolete?
– Aircraft monitored extensively by US
In what context?
– Spares cut off by US in time of war (which apparently the PAF knows and is stupid enough to go for it anyways)
Now let me use an example. Has India received any guarantees from US vis-a-vis supply of nuclear material if there the former has to test a nuclear weapon tomorrow? Name a modern western country which is stupid enough to keep supplying any warfare equipment to either Pak or India during a war which could so easily turn into a nuclear holocaust. Why the RFP for Gripen then or as matter of fact for F-16/F-18.
vikasrehmanOk guys…some very interesting points here, and i’d love to further such a constructive discussion. I’ll get back to it later once i have done some stuff.
vikasrehman• US government has done a “security site survey” of Pak bases and facilities, drawn up security plans of these sites where the F-16s will be located and it has been put in the deal that Pakistan will comply with the ‘‘approved security plans’’.
I would be surprised if US didn’t already have comprehensive knowledge of Pakistani facilities considering the fact that they had had their personnel at pakistani bases for a long time. Even Chuck Yaeger was a USAF advisor to PAF and played his role in integration of Amercian missiles on chinese systems.
• US presence to ‘‘monitor compliance’’ with the security plan and a ‘‘very enhanced end-use monitoring programme’’.
Only time would reveal the real meaning.
• Two-man rule for access to equipment and restricted areas, wherein Pakistan cannot use these F-16s in exercises and operations with third countries without prior approval of the US.
Can any other country, lets say Denmark used F-16 in exercises with another country which has become hostile to US of A?
• The planes are not equipped with technology that would allow them to carry out offensive action to penetrate airspace of another country that is ‘‘highly defended’’. They cannot deliver nuclear weapons.
Nuke delivery makes sense. But what is ‘highly defended’? Something that is defended with latest amercian gadgets or…?
• F-16 maintenance and parts storage has to be in dedicated facilities run by Air Force personnel—and not sub-contractors—which are part of the ‘‘overall surveillance plan.’’
To my knowledge, it is PAF personnel who carry out maintenance of their existing aircrafts in dedicated facilities at home and not the subcontractors. In an case this clause may be there to put a stop to any chinese involvement.
• No supply of the aircraft unless US finds Pakistan ‘‘fully compliant’’ with the security plan requirements.
Agreed.
• Routine access to F-16 aircraft also restricted to Pakistan Air Force personnel pre-approved by the US. And only the PAF can perform maintenance, no Pakistan contractors, industry or third countries to be involved.
Only thing i see here is the requirment of approval from US, and they are entitled to it since they don’t wants chinese coming anywhere close to these machines.
Finally lets not ignore another important bit. Unless im mistaken the same person during this hearing also argued that this sale would help further American influence in PAF/Pak. Now what sort of influence one can expect to buy with can so called ‘neutered’ and ‘unoffensive’ machines? Was US senate once again being manipulated or were these senators outrightly stupid to accept this line of argument?
vikasrehmanVikas, one could be that the JF-17 is still an unknown quantity and relying on it & its performance would be too risky, whereas for all its warts, the US supplied F-16 is more mature.
I doubt i very much Nick. Any airforce on this planet would prefer a new and unprovedn tech over mature yet neutered technology. That’s logical.
Also despite the severe lack of a quality EW system or RWR restrictions or whatever, its still useful for PGM strikes. I doubt whether the missiles & radar are also NATO standard given all the hoop-la over just the EW system.
PGM strikes on what though? Undefended targets? What’s the whole point?
There is also the factor that this is probably being purchased with US money given to Pak, so in effect this is sort of an agreed upon thing, plus usually French aircraft and munitions are far more expensive.
And US senate is not being told about this? Its being manipulated/deceived? All evidence shows that Pak would be paying from her own pocket, and u can get quite a few french machines for $5.1 billion, which would most definitely not be neutered.
vikasrehmanMost importantly it does not have supplier country restrictions in place- hence it can modify its MiGs and other planes without other issues– this is best in the IAF thread.
Sorry Nick, but are u saying that IAF can go ahead with modernising its equipment of lets say russian or french origin without consulting russians first?
vikasrehmanI guess the US senate must have been given wrong information, while the real stats were handed over to kasuri
Just few simple questions.
First of all the same US senate was told that Pak would be getting $3 billion dollar in aid with $1.5 of it going to military. Im sure u know that most of that money has already been spent, which means that a huge chunk of this $5.1 billion for F-16 package would be coming from Pakistan’s own pocket. Agreed?
If so, why would PAF purchase these so called ‘neutered’ machines when they have other options available? France has already approved Marlin sale to PN. With Indian decision to disregard M2K-5 for MRCA competition, Rafale has a close to nothing chance of winning this contract. Under these circumstances, dont you think France would be more than willing to sell M2K-5/Rafale and with considerable teeth to PAF if the latter wanted it? Lets even forget France for an instant. All indications are that FC-1 will be coming to Pakistan in near future and that J-10 discussions are already underway. Why would Pakistan prefer ‘neutered’ F-16 instead of spending all that money on one of these chinese machines. They would undoubtedly be much better than those ‘neutered’ F-16s, wont have any risk of sanction, and would come with various other advantages. Wouldn’t u agree?
I would certainly be waiting for a logical response.
vikasrehmanWith regards to Al-Khalid II, never heard of the 2nd Type, what differences will there be between the II type and the original one (currently being manufactured) + any news about the JF-17???
If i remember correctly Al-Khalid II would be an upgrade of current Al-Khalid with any present issues being resolved as well as more powerful engine and more advanced avionics.
Regarding JF-17, Pinko posted a pic of PT06 from World Aviation monthly on this forum a few days back, though no details were provided.
Sign In
