vikasrehmanIndia does want M2K-5, and i assume IAF has already selected this for their new fighter programme. The reason why they have asked for proposals from other firms include;
1. Having other options on the table for leverage purpose when it comes to negotiations with the French.
2. A Precaustionary measure; IAF would be able to say it was a competition to all…if any scandals arise in future.
That said, Gripen simply does not fit within IAF’s pre-requisites for this new fighter programme. They would want to use this new platform as a part of their nuclear triad, and im not sure how forthcoming the Swedes would be in this regard. Gripen’s range is also a big disadvantage (though aerial refuelling would help), but having LCA and Gripen together does not make much of sense. OTOH, though F-16 does have the range, it comes from US, and i think it would take a few years for US-Indian relations to get to that stage. Upgraded Mig-29s are also another option, but that would go against IAF’s plans for diversification. This leaves M2K-5 as the hottest contender, which meets IAF’s requirements; almost all of them.
vikasrehmanAs to Congress, they will not block this one now for sure. What might happen is that once the deal is done, they are likely to hold up delvieries contingent on specific actions by Pakistan, such as access to A.Q.Khan, Pakistan’s warheads being secured etc.
US always and i mean ALWAYS puts her own interests before than those of the rest…be it strategic partners or challangers. 🙂
vikasrehmanBut which protype? It definitely not 03.
As for BVR, i assume SD-10, and hence the Pakistani decision to go chinese radar for at least the first 50 aircraft.
vikasrehmanRemember recent flight international article, which mentioned that 3 protypes are now flying. We have been told that 05 will be used for avionics integration, but that it’d be out in 2005.
Could all this mean that 05 is already out???
vikasrehmanLimited options.
Wot else do u think they could have gone for?
vikasrehmanUnless, im much mistaken, US would be paying for these P-3Cs through the military aid ($1.5 billion over 5 years). So whether its costing PN 80 million, 100 million or 100 million per aircraft, it does not really matter…as Pak does not really have many other options. OTOH, US would try her best to look after her own interests.
PS. Hope it makes sense.
vikasrehmanCrobato, HT, and/or anyone else
The latest article about FC-1 from flight International raises some intriguing questions, in particular about radars and dates. Since yous are quite familiar with chinese projects, may shed some further light can be shed on these.
Chengdu Aircraft is on schedule to deliver the first FC-1/Super-7 light fighter to the Pakistani air force next year, having already racked up over 300 flight test hours on three prototype aircraft.
Yet the common belief (PAF officials r on record for this) thus far has been that first aircrafts (4 assembled at CAC) will be delivered to PAF in mid-2006, with the second batch coming in Pakistan during 3rd/4th quarter of 2006 to be assembled by PAC.
Pakistan is the only country to have placed an order for the FC-1, having agreed to take 16 aircraft equipped with Chinese radars. Eight of these will be assembled by Chengdu and eight by the Pakistani Aeronautical Complex (PAC).
Even HT’s site mentions dat 8 of these are for PLAAF, while 8 are for PAF. Unless, im mistaken, June issue of AFM also says the same.
Do yous think that some plans have been changed???…considering PAF’s urgent need for this fighter.
The FC-1 and F-7MF offer a leap in capability over the existing Chengdu F-7MG because they can accommodate more weapon systems and support four engagements simultaneously compared with two on the F-7MG.
Does the radar on MG (superky ranger or a chinese equivalent) has the capability for 2 simultaneous engagements? And if so, does china have any plans to equip these with pl-11/fd-60?
Le says four FC-1 prototypes, “three flying and one test article”, are now being tested and the flight envelope should be completed by next October. “We plan to complete all of this by next year, maybe the third quarter,” he says.
Does this mean dat protype 04 is already flying???
Thanks in advance!
vikasrehmanGolden_Arrow
BTW, here’s a testimony by Ambassador Teresita Schaffer, South Asia expert, to the Senate in July. The topic was Pakistan.
But the United States should be selective about military supply. For many years we provided generous military supply on the theory that a robust conventional force would reduce Pakistan’s perceived need to depend on nuclear weapons. There is something to that argument, but it is also true that Pakistan has periodically undertaken reckless policies that were strongly contrary to U.S. interests. The incursion into Kargil is a case in point; so is Pakistan’s unwillingness to abandon the option of returning to active support for the Kashmir insurgency. Because the possibility of war between South Asia’s two nuclear rivals is a major issue for the U.S., I believe that U.S. supply of major weapons systems should only proceed if we are confident that Pakistan’s foreign and security policy is compatible with U.S. interests. Some of the items Pakistan would like to buy, such as the F-16 aircraft that were denied it in 1990 (and for which we finally reimbursed the funds Pakistan had spent in 1998), would currently be inadvisable.
Please try to note the use of words wreckless and strongly contrary to U.S. interests in the same sentence. What one considers wreckless may not necessarily be viewed in the same light by others. For example, if Pakistan decides to send a division of its army to Iraq to help US out of current situation, it may be seen as an excellent move by Bush et al., but many others wouldn’t appreciate it much. Wot sort of impact do u think such moves-and others like this one-by pakistan would have on US policy towards Pakistan? In addition, do u really think dat US provided aid to Pakistan in 80s to reduce Pakistan’s dependence on nuclear weapons?
vikasrehmanThe question is less about “balance” than about preventing war. The smaller nation here is also the more adventurous and has recently initiated a reckless incursion almost leading to full scale war. It also is reluctant to abandon sub-state actors who can provoke a war any time with a reckless attack.
According to the latest available figures, 171 soldiers have been killed in current WANA ops. Do u consider this a sign of reluctance? OTOH, how many strategic partners does the more responsible nation has to show on her very own borders?
AS a superpower with interests in preventing war, the US will strive to prevent an impression that it will support reckless adventures.
Where do u fit Iraq?
You can start wars with your own money, but not expect others to pay for your adventures.
Which american weapons has Pakistan used in its adventures…in recent history of course?
vikasrehmanAlso, with reliable allies like Israel and Russia, there will be no dearth of AGMs and AAMs available for the MMR to control. The Europeans have no qualms too given India’s buying clout. There are no sanctions or anything like that.
Both nations, i.e. Israel/Russia are also helping china with various projects; an example being the SD-10 project. One can imagine that a chinese radar on FC-1 should be able to handle most (if not all) weapons that come into being as a result of such cooperation…its a matter of opinion if one refers to these weapons as chinese (hence automatically inferior to some) or western.
vikasrehmanThere are not many in public domain who have even the most basic comrehension of strategic balances. Hence, such statements-arms race, strategic balance etc-r for general consumption without having any real meaning.
vikasrehmanNo i wasn’t suggesting the possibility of PAC technicians trying to reverse engineer this engine-they dont have the required expertise though they perhaps can learn a thing or two-but just rather surprised at russian generosity. 😉
vikasrehmanyerna1
err… why should Russia have any objections if PAF pilots fly FC-1 in China? The objection, if I understood the report correctly, is over export of engines to a third country.
Its PAF PILOTS (not employed by CAC) flying the machine. PAC technicians have also been involved with the project for some time. May be Russians don’t mind these guys taking a very detailed look at an engine type which forms the backbone of their Mig-29 fighter??? Or is it that russian r hoping to get something out of it??? Well, at least Chernyshev Plant Director-General Aleksandr Novikov seems quite hopeful for a rather large deal…500 engines.
vikasrehmanOn this very forum, i have come across news reports quoting sources dat china has already decided to buy a large batch of FC-1. In any case, (unless im mistaken) according to the original contract signed between china-pak, china is (legally) bound to match the order from pakistan. How many FC-1 PLAAF/PLAN end up with depend on the future plans…whether they want a larger AF with hi-med-lo/hi-lo tech or a smaller AF with hi-med tech. Considering the size of their present AF, i personally cant imagine china losing the lo end of its fighter force…at least not for the next decade or 2.
vikasrehmanPAF pilots have been flying RD-93 powered FC-1 since April 2004. To the best of my knowledge, these r pilots straight from PAF and not the employees of CAC or PAC. Has russia raised any objections regarding this matter thus far???
Sign In
