vikasrehmanTrue, but remember recently there was a change of tides in the Kremilin. Moscow indicated it would follow the US’s South Asia tactic of supplying military-related equipment to both Pakistan and India. So those 100 RD-93 engines are for Pakistan. The initial 50 to 100 JF-17 still need be manufactured by CAC, as the PAC are only doing the assembly work, but its gains pace and get fully the know-how on completely manufacturing the FC-1.
This particular news is quite recent (though i must admit similar things have been said in past from time to time) yet RD-93 contract with China was signed a few months back and must have taken a while to be negotiated. If these engines are indeed solely for Pakistan, this forces one to conclude that there never was any significant problem with PAF getting these engines in spite of all the noises we heard from different quarters, and that a follow up order from Pakistan is a forgone conclusion.
Taking into consideration the latest news item (kindly posted by star49) which states “Now we have entered negotiations with the Chinese on the second contract for 100 more engines, “ its logical to assume that CAC probably already has other orders besides that from PAF. We have also heard from other reports in past that Russians hope to sell 500 or so RD-93 engines to China, which indicates they are quite certain about a chinese order.
PS. PAF top brass has always maintained that China would buy FC-1, while some have said that China has already committed to 200 odd machines. Also take a note that of first 16 machines, only 8 are destined for PAF while the remaining 8 would be going to PLAAF test & evaluation centre.
vikasrehmanThe PLAAF is unlikely to order the FC-1.
The article also says…Chengdu so far has only secured an order from Pakistan for 16 FC-1s. But then we do know from other sources that China has ordered 100 RD-93 while some sources maintain that Russia wont let china Pass these engines to Pakistan. Question thus arises…who these engines are for???
vikasrehmanThe 10 targets tracked and 2 targets engaged is believable, if not conservative.
If i remember correctly, PAF asked for the capability of 2 simultaneous engagements with any radar on JF-17. Some have commented in past that S7 lacked this capability (though Fiar promised to work on it), and hence PAF opted for chinese radar as a mid-term solution.
vikasrehmanGiving details about the meeting of National Command Authority, held with President General Pervez Musharraf in the chair, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said it allowed the purchase of F-16 aircraft from the US and high-tech aircraft from China.
He said the batch of F-16 aircraft would include “A & B” type (delivery of the same aircraft was denied by the US in 90s following Pressler amendments) and “C & D” modern versions.
The high-tech aircraft FC-10 type to be purchased from China would be in addition to the JF-17 (Thunder) aircraft being built jointly by Pakistan and China, he said.
vikasrehmanHere is a news that many have been waiting for.
Fed. Cabinet approves purchase of aircrafts from U.S., China
Islamabad: The Federal Cabinet has approved the purchase of F-16 aircrafts from United States and the multi-role combat aircrafts FC-1 from China on Wednesday.
vikasrehmanSome reports have, however, suggested that the Indian government might delay floating the RPFs till the India-US civil nuclear deal is cleared by the US Congress.
This would be done, sources said, to send out a message that the F-16 and F-18 could be dropped from the shortlist if the nuclear deal was not cleared.
Good tactic.
However, such a tactic may also tempt US of A to link purchaing of F-16/F-18 with the clearing of nuclear deal. This would leave some other rather unhappy contenders, which might have to be appeased through similar lucrative deals.
vikasrehmanThe J-10 option is a definite money saver and needed to replace the old obsolete planes like mirage-3/5 or A-5.
Vikraal, any AF with limited budget would logically want ‘biggest bang for buck’, and unless cost savings with J-10 are huge wrt F-16, i dont know why PAF would opt for the former. However, i really dont understand how J-10 would be a money saver for PAF? Its commone knowledge that when purchaing a fighter a lot of money has to be spent on on its complete integration, i.e. logisitcis, maintenance, training etc. With F-16s, PAF already has these facilities in place and needs only to upgraded them to accomodate the new block. With J-10, everything would have to start from scratch which would require time and a lot more money. Even if unit price for J-10 is only half as much as F-16 (which i personally doubt considering the number of units having been produced), complete integration of J-10 would be probably several times more costly than F-16…and i dont see that much money being saved. Perhaps, u know of something we on this forum dont???
vikasrehmanThe PAF must have been exposed to the J-10, so I don’t buy that they don’t know anything about it. I am sure if it was that good and could match the F-16’s PAF would have simply gone for J-10 alone which are politically and economically a much simpler option.
Vikraal, in post 228 Pinko has already presented a valid argument. In addition, i would like to draw your attention (once again) to Indian MMRCA programme. We all know that induction & integration of a new fighter type into IAF would be a costly & time consuming process. Yet, India has decided to follow this route instead of producing more MKI (can do almost everything that MMRCA would be able to do, and would be a much cheaper option). You only have to realise why, and PAF’s plans might make more sense to you.
Besides multirole capability of F-16, in the light of old F-16 deal saga, PAF would never again want to put all her eggs in the same basket, be it american or chinese. J-10 not noly allows them to diversify their sources, but also gives them leverage when dealing with US for F-16 or vice versa. Finally, if you go through PAF articles/interviews over last couple of years, there is increasing evidence that on fighter front PAF has plans to operate mainly three types in future; JF-17, F-16 and a third (options range from J-10 to any other 4th gen fighter).
vikasrehmanPoint being? Are you agreeing with me that J-10 in all probability is no match for a modern flanker or F-16 blk 50+?
May be not as good (based on lack of available info about J-10) and certainly not as mature. But i most definitely would not use words such as ‘No Match’ without knowing much about it. Primary reasons why PAF would prefer F-16 over J-10 would be ‘ease of integration’ and ‘mature technology’.
vikasrehmanI am not denying that PAF will buy J-10, just that it seems to be checking out the aircraft first and I seriously doubt they would prefer it over F-16 blk 50+ if available without string and hefty price.
Would IAF prefer MKI over Pak-FA or say F-22?
vikasrehmanYa sure J-10 beats flankers, got any more jokes to share?
Vikraal, didnt Mig-21 (i think it was Bison version) perform rather well against F-15s? Which is a better plane on paper?
If the J-10 had all the gizmo and tech pakistan wouldn’t be running after russia, and US for other planes.
MKI most definitely has those gizmos? Why does India want to introduce other types such as LCA/MMRCA?
Also why not use the avionics of J-10 for Jf-17? why look for grifo and other sources for avionics.
Unless, i mistaken, current chinese radar for JF-17 is a derivative of J-10’s radar?
Yes the J-10 would make an excellent replacement for Mirage3/5, it wouldn’t stand upto a F-16blk 50+ or modern flanker.
This was probably the most sensible comment in ur post. 🙂
vikasrehmanvikasrehmanthat’s quite interesting, I didn’t think JF-17 had IRST. I guess that would mean J-10 also has IRST. Now, I just need to get that issue of JDW.
tphuang…according to an interview of JF-17 project director, The aircraft will also be equipped with IRSTS, CLDP, and Helmet Mounted Display
http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/index.html
click on aircraft on the left hand side, and then on ‘PakDef Special: Q & A with Chief Project Director, JF-17 Project, PAF’ at the bottom.
9L/P have been flying on F-7PGs from the day those jets got into operation units…..we dont have any other AAM in service rite now….rails that hold the sidewinders on F-6,F-7P/PG are manufactured at AWC…intergration is also done by them n PAC at Minhas…
denlopviper…point was that integration can be and is performed locally. BTW, what do u mean by we dont have any other AAM in service rite now? Is your point exclusive to F-7PGs?
you hear alot of things in the news paper lolzz…south african AAMs were evaluated….and chances are we might buy them as a last resort
Well mate, most of us (probably?) dont have cousins or uncles working in AFs or defence factories, and our knowledge is based upon newspapers. 🙂 Having said this, defence related magazines are ‘generally’ more credible than ordinary newspapers when it comes to defence related news. Finally, let me rephrase the question…if this news of simulating R-Darter turns out to be true, then why did PAF did so?
vikasrehmanif it was that easy to intergrate a weapon to a jet….dont you think our R-530/550 would have also flown on F-16s as well???….who u kidding man….btw R530z are still in cold storage
denlopviper…No doubt that such integrations are not easy. However regarding R-530s integration on F-16s, I assume PAF would need advanced permission from US and France for such a task. Would US allow it? Would PAF have access to source codes for the equipment? It was only last year (i think) when China offered pl-11 for Pakistani F-16s. Yet i cant imagine PAF being able to get permission from US for such a thing. OTOH, if i recall correctly, Alan Warnes of AFM in his aritlc on PAF did mention a combination of Aim-9L and Grifo on F-7PG while PAF F-6s were also equipped with sidewinders during their era.
BTW, what do u think of PAF fighters simulating R-Darter (reported in the latest edition of Air International) during High Mark 2005 Exercises???
vikasrehmanhe was saying it is high tech aircraft (that high tech word was reserved for Western aircraft like blk 52 and J-10 in PAF) thats why they associate medium tech with FC-1. so something has changed.
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to his use of such words here. They were for general media consumption from an army man. Remember ACM sadaat’s interview in AFM couple of years back. By then, PAF had already settled for chinese avionics for first 50 JF-17, and yet ACM and others referred to it as med tech. In addition, its more than likely that sooner or later, Pak/US would announce the deal for F-16s (used and new ones). If JF-17’s performace was really as good as F-16 blk 52/52’s operational envelope, then PAF would be extremely stupid to be pushing of these aircrafts instead of much cheaper, home grown, sanction proof JF-17. Hope, u get the point.
Sign In
