vikasrehmanDidn’t the AVM say that PAF found Chinese avionics crappy and that PAF will only go for Western stuff? Now all of a sudden with Pakistan’s “guidance” and magic it is a wonder weapon?
Give me the precise words from the article where it says what u r claiming, i.e. AVM said PAF found Chinese avionics crappy and that PAF will only go for Western stuff.
BTW since we talking of claims, would u like to share with us your source of information regarding significant (now that we know wot u mean by serious/significant) intake changes in FC-1? 🙂
Why is the production starting? Did you read the part about bluster and the air force in question?
Please refer me to this particular part…i seem to have missed something of grave importance 🙂 Also allow me to rephrase the question i asked earlier. According to you, RD-93 is not coming to PAF (please correct me if i have misunderstood ur previous posts in this regard). To the best of my knowledge, no other engine has been tested on FC-1, and if they do it would take years. Yet the initial batch JF-17 production is starting this year. Do u have an explanation for all this?
vikasrehmanSomething like, say design and development of atleast a few subsystems, design of previously unavailable components/technology, new material, etc
I assume U mean something on a grander scale or major?
The same ones they said were unsatisfactory and will be replaced with Western systems. I guess unsatisfactory rechnology is still better than the IAF’s BVR capability
Would it be possible for you to refer us to the precise paragraphs/sentences etc.? I have a hard copy of this mag, and i might be missing something.
I never said that there was a lack of an engine. My position is that if PAF had some foresight, it would not plump for the RD-93. But hey, if you think unsatisfactory BVR is great, then nothing is beyond you.
Right…i get it now. There is not a lack of engine for JF-17, but PAF was not foresighted enough to have gone for RD-93. Well, latest information news reports tell us that small batch production of JF-17 is to start later this year with serial production in 2007. PAF also hopes to get first 4 JF-17 in 2006. Do u have any idea what engines would these JF-17s be using or Y pakistan is starting the small btach production later this year if engine issue is not yet resolved? Could u also please further explain ur comments about unsatisfactory BVR?
vikasrehmanGA
Okay, now that our Pakistani forum members have agreed that the “joint” in the JF-17 is not a serious title and that the FC-1 is basically a CAC show with PAC playing a “learn and copy” role, we can move on
What is your definition of serious or significant?
The plane doesn’t have a radar, avionics and missile and this guy talks of a superior BVR ability than India
It was sometime back in 2004 when we learnt that PAF had already chosen a chinese avionics package (including a radar) for first 50 or so JF-17. Dont tell us u didn’t know that? BTW, what’s your opinion regarding PAC charman and JF-17 project director’s latest statements that ‘The small batch production of JF-17 would begin in the second half of this year’ and that ‘The first four JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft are expected to be introduced into the air force some time in 2006‘? Is all this happening in the absence of an engine?
vikasrehmanRegarding Pakistani involvement in FC-1 R&D, we know that several pakistani engineers/technicians have been working on this project along their chinese counterparts. As to what specific contributions they have made, i dont think any of us can say much for that. My personal assumption would be nothing too significant, since fighter R&D is a new thing for Pakistani engineers. However, as someone mentioned before in this thread what matters most is not what Pakistan has put in but what it will get out. Besides getting an affordable BVR capable fighter, these Pakistani engineers would be involved in local manufacturing FC-1, and experience gained in china would certainly add to Pakistan’s future fighter aviation industry. Individuals may make one claim or another on such forums, but PAF personnel certainly realise that in science/technology world one has to learn to walk before starting to run. Otherwise u get too many failed projects
As far as Golden Arrow’s comments are conncerned…Pakistan has no role in the plane other than applying a coat of paint. It’d be cheaper for RMAF to buy it from the source – China. But given that MY wants to have appearance of good relationship with other Islamic countries, they may throw Pak a bone.…one can only smile at such sarcasm. 🙂 May be he would like to express his opinion about Alexey Fedorov (president of Irkut Corporation)’s comments that in future Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will be active in cooperating with the Malaysian Air Force in providing their Sukhoi fleet with spares and technical service. I mean, was Irkut chief throwing bones? Recently french ambassador to India also talked about the possibility of giving india the right to sell indian manufactured M2K-5 fighter to countries in the regions. Could that also be considered as another bone? Finally, AVM Sahid Lateef’s comments that Pakistan would achieve fifty per cent target of its local manufacturing which will be followed by 100 cent indigenous production of the aircraft with the help of transfer of technology from China should definitely account for more than mere paint job.
vikasrehmanCompare this with the mockup pic from HT’s site.
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/attack/JH-7A1.jpg
vikasrehmanYet some seem to think that Russia will forsake all this just to allow the sale of 100 odd engines to Pakistan
Lets assume russia goes ahead with the sale 100 odd engines to PAF, would India be willing to drop all these collaborative projects just for this reason? Who would be willing to sell them tanks as good as T-90 or planes as good as MKI/Mig-29K or missiles as good as S-300 for the sort of prices russians are offering them? IAF wants to expnad in future, while both IN and IA want to modernise. Could they do so at the pace they anticipate without Russian help?
vikasrehmanGA
You dishonestly use quotes from Ivanov. The Russian def min said that in the context of India signing an IPR agreement with Russia. The Indian Defence Secretary is in Moscow today to finalize that same agreement. So does that mean that RD-93 for Pak is dead?
First, the quote i used was not from Ivanov’s statement (as i had clearly stated in y post), but rather a separate statement from russian defense department. Second, my own understanding was that it applied to general military equipment instead of IPR, since the word strategic interest was used there. Third, one shouldn’t start jumping to wild conclusions (such as accusing others of being dishonest) based on flimsy evidence. For example, a s simple piece of info by Usman Shabir (as quoted above) was taken out of context and distorted into a piece of evidence for engine…but its only a sign of lack of understanding not dishonest. Hope, u get the point.
Moving to another point, dont u find the statement somewhat surprising (in whatever regard), especially coming from a country traditionally considered as a strategic partner by India? What do you think would be the implications of signing a protection of IPR contract with Russia (my current understanding is that it would apply to all russian tech currently in indian military service…i haven’t seen any details so please correct me if im wrong before accusing me of being dishonest)? Unless im mistaken, around 60-70% inventory of indian armed forces is of russian origin. Could India go to, for example, an Israeli upgrade package after this without Russian consent, and would russians be willing to let them do so?
You also ignore that India has a lot of pending buys from Russia – Amur class subs, Smerch, T-90s, 155mm arty guns – every one of which has a value that pales into comparison with a couple of hundred RD-93 engines. That is a lot of buying power.
By your argument it is up to Russia to please or displease its top customer – China while its other top customer India has to please Russia – How very convenient
No that was not my argument, and u’d have realised it if u tried to absorb the content of my post. In extremely simple words, what i said was that whereas both China and India do/will have the capacity to move away from Russia, neither of them in reality can do so (considering their large russian inventory in particular india), and that Russia realises this fact. OTOH, since china has replaced India as russia’s top arms customer, russians can no longer afford to ignore their chinese counterparts’ wishes/demands either. Hopefully, this would help to see the difference between ‘what i said’ and ‘what u thought i had said’.
There’s nothing today that stops France from selling to Pakistan. It is Pakistan which has chosen not to buy the Mirage because it cannot pay for them with American aid and cannot afford them otherwise.
Please help me to understand, what brought ‘pak buying mirages’ into this discussion?
vikasrehmanUnless im mistaken, the info regarding intake changes came from Usman Shabir and his brief post simply said…’Some JF-17 bits. It is getting new intakes, semi-circular and canted (tilted as seen from the front) instead of rectangular like on Mirage and these will give better performance at > M1.5‘. Now how this was turned into as an evidence for engine change is a question.
As far as russian decision to sell or not to sell RD-93 for re-export to Pakistan is unlikely to be simple ‘indian-oriented’. China now spends more money for weapon purchases from Russia than India (correct me if im wrong). With EU arms embargo close to be lifted (its a question of when not if) Russia wouldn’t be in much of a hurry to displease their chinese counterparts. OTOH, same can be said of Russian-India relations as India with its economic growth and availability from west can afford to go for modern hi tech weapons from west. Considering the large russian made inventories both countries operate (in particular India), the main question, however, is whether either can really afford to stop buying from Russia if latter decide to sell RD-93 to China for re-export to PAF. I dont think so. So, i guess Russia would make its own decision.
Moving away from this, concurrent with Ivanov’s statement, another russian defence dept statement said to the effect that ‘russia would only look after indian interests if india does the same’. For years, everyone simply assumed that 126 Mirages would be purchased by IAF. This was suddenly changed after Putin’s visit to India as Mig-29 also appeared to be a serious contender. This whole RD-93 issue may simply be a russian effort to convince indian officials into buying Mig-29. One thing is clear…India cant and wont buy a mix with ToT, i.e. both Mirages and Mig-29. Its simply not worth it. If IAF suddenly changes its mind from Mirage to Mig-29 (in particular after M2K-5 buy from Qatar) just to stop PAF from getting RD-93, i’d be so very surprised. If this was to happen, French companies would be more than willing to do business with PAF (as US has also decided to sell them F-16s), and JF-17 may end up getting a french engine. To be realistic, i cant imagine india making too much fuss over this RD-93, and though we may see quite a bit in newspapers, my personal opinion is that JF-17 would fly with either Russian RD-93 or a chinese WS-13.
vikasrehmanAfter you tell me explain why your info min says the FC-1 needs European engine for which sanctions need to be lifted soon.
My question was based on the assumption that PAF would have to go for an alternative engine, i.e. ur line of argument was right. I have already given u one possible explanation regarding info minister’s statement, which i admit may be totally wrong. Since ‘Intake size changes significantly’ was a link in ur proposed chain of events (and u have been defending this line of argument with quite a bit of enthusiasm), im simply looking for further clarification. 🙂
vikasrehmanGA
VR, Don’t bother replying. We’ll know abt the engine soon enough.
We sure would 😉
However, in the meantime, please do tell us more about ur hypothetical link between structural changes and engine change, and answer the simple question i asked above.
PS. The article linking WS-13/FC-1 is suppose to be from China aerospace News. I wonder if anyone has access to it or if they have a website.
vikasrehmanThe F-16/Harpoon comment is nonsense. The State department itself said that the F-16s are not for the war on terror but to give a sense of security to Pakistan. And in the same interview Rashid was asked if the F-16s came with the condition of not using against India and he said that the F-16s were for security against India and the US knows it. So don’t bring in BS and that other joker who is not worth replying to.
I repeat, can you tell me why a Pakistani official spokesman would say that the FC-1 has engine supply troubles if everything is hunky dory?
I did not realise that this official spokesman’s words carried so much wight for you. In past, the same official spokesman has said that sale of F-16s has nothing to do with pak’s nuke programme and/or Iran. Do u agree?
The difference is that I’m giving you direct evidence and a chain of events for which the engine change is the most likely explanation while you come up with **** and bull stories.
Unfortunately, this chain is somewhat broken with some missing links. For example, if structural changes to intakes mean an engine change, does this imply they already have an aternative available which they r testing or are they testing these changes with the same old engine, and in this case what do they hope to learn?
vikasrehmanGA
Can you tell me one good reason why Pakistan’s information minister would officially say that the FC-1 is dependent on China getting engines from a European source and there is uncertainty about the engine supply?
If you want I’ll share the audio snippet with you.
This is News to me. I had come across his general comments about engine, but not these specific. However, i have no reason not to believe u in this regard…so no need to share audio. As to why he said this, well as star mentioned…one possibility is that PAF also needs AMRRAM equipped F-16s as well as Harpoon equipped P-3s to combat terrorism. Introduction of a few F-16s into PAF (be it old ones from Belgium or new ones from US) would also have drastic affects on regional stability and creat an imbalance. Need i say anymore?
Please If you’re going to “decouple” major subsystems then doesn’t it make it more possible that the engine could also be changed, especially when you see significant structural changes being made?
Of course, its a possibility…but with alternative possibilites. As for significant structural changes being an indication of engine change, i assume it would happen only (on a prototype) is the alternative engine choice was already there (I dont know much about engineering side of FC-1’s development, so please correct me if im wrong)? If so, what engine are/will they (be) using? Or is it possible that in spite of significant structural changes to airframe, they are still using the same old RD-93? If so, what do they hope to learn by this?
For everything you keep coming back to “Faactory was inaugurated, so all other reports are false”
No. Im merely trying to draw your attention to alternative possibilities?
vikasrehmanYes Vikas, bravado and false claimsare totally alien to your culture isn’t it?
I guess mind rays from Mars made your info min say that officially…
Neither any country is alien to false claims nor anyone is receving any mindrays are coming from Mars. Im simply asking u a few questions. Just a few days ago, u claimed that intake changes in FC-1 mean that JF-17 wont be using this engine no more. Then we suddenly get this news that China has already placed an order for 100 RD-93. Now u r saying that china may have bought these for ‘clonning’ or ‘borrowing’ subsystems from them? How do u fit all these claims into one? I mean, i admit that much of what i say is based on ‘assumptions’ or ‘non-specific’ information. Do you?
BTW, AFAIK, aviomics, radar and weapons are still to be sorted out but I guess the inauguration of the factory is proof enough that PAF has arranged for AESA Radars and F-22 level avionics for $0.01
Didn’t you know that JF-17 design R&D and other projects, i.e. avionics/weapons etc. were ‘decoupled’ a few years back???
vikasrehmanGA
THe number China has ordered could mean a lot of things. They may need a lot of RD-93s to break apart and figure out how to clone them or “borrow” subsytems from them. For example, the few production versions of even fighter planes in the US typically include a few that are deliberately broken apart, so that crews get hands on experience in repair.
100 engines for that purpose??? I mean i can understand when a country orders ‘a few’ for that particular purpose, but 100? Nevertheless, i have to give u at least some credit for one thing…ur habit of not stating the most obvious but rather keep going round the corners, is quite unique. 😉
If PAF wants 150 FC-1s, why didn’t China order 150 RD-93s?
My questions were based on the assumption that PAF wouldn’t get these engines. So Y bring PAF into this? BTW, didnt china also order 50 or so AL-31s in the first bact for their J-10? Did this mean that chinese dont plan to produce more than 50 J-10? OTOH, how many GE engines has India ordered for their first 40 LCAs?
Anyway, at the end of the day, it is amazing to see Pak have its so called main fighter totally dependent on illegal or backdoor acts by China to get the engine and associated spares.
Rather amazing…isn’t it? I mean, how stupid one can be to organise a highly publicised inaugration of JF-17 factory, while some of its main components are not yet sorted. But wait a second…is it possible (even remotely) that things may not be as bad for JF-17 project as YOU seem to be think? 😉 BTW, do u think russians also realise that chinese r buying these engines for the purpose u stated above or they r not bothered with such things?
vikasrehmanGA
Besides PAF’s order of 8 units from pre-production batch that should be delivered in 2006 (though PAF has a requirement of upto 150), only other order i can think of is that of china’s 8 units that should also be delivered in 2006. Lets suppose-for argument’s sake-that China would have to find an alternative engine to sell this fighter to PAF. If so, what does this order of 100 engines mean to you? Would u agree that either china has finally placed an official order for FC-1 to equip PLAAF/PLAN, or some other foreign AF (besides PAF) has already signed a contract for FC-1? Finally, why do you think that ‘The possibility for further purchases of up to 500 RD-93 was also discussed during the negotiations’. 😉
PS. Just couple of days u were talking about changes in intake design. Based on this new info., do u think there would be more than version of FC-1?
Sign In
