Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Nov 2010 12:19

Austin wrote:
shiv wrote:If 3rd gen is such a big threat to us how come we are not able to mass produce 1000 3rd gen to counter that? We are now talking 6th gen while we shiver in our dhotis about 3rd gen in Paki/Chinese hands.
Shiv , any BVR capable fighter is a challenge doesn't matter the so called gen labelling , it will boil down to situational awareness and how they can link it with AWACS and their ADGES , which will gradually happen and if you have read the AW&ST J-10/AESA/Wide Band EW development all these will eventually trickle into JF-17 in the next decade.

Correct Austin. If JF-17 can be such a big threat to India it only means that the constant arguments made by some on this forum that the gen number is so important that we can only counter X gen number by X+1 or X+2 gen is complete nonsense. This is what I am trying to say.

When India makes 3rd gen it is called obsolete and useless. When China or Pakistan use the same 3rd gen it becomes a potent threat. Nobody explains why.

But what is clear is that low tech 3 plus gen can be made in huge numbers by China and supplied to Pakistan. India still cannot do that and we are importing 4th gen and talking about 6th gen. Why?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Nov 2010 13:28

The main issue as i see it is the scientific ( ADA/DRDO ) lobby dictating the terms and leading the forefront of development , which means they define and enforce what the next gen fighter tech should be like supercruise , stealth,extreme agily, internal weapons bay ,6th gen cockpit etc.

All great and futuristic technology on paper but all have inherent high risk approach , but this ensures that they have something great to do and talk about in the next 10-20 years , ensures funding and keeps personality cult and institutions they head in the limelight.

There are intra agency rivalary for eg look at Dr Prahlada statement in reference to FGFA and HAL where he states that they(HAL) know we are good at avionics sensors etc , so there is good deal of rivalry between agency to get their share of stake.

The IAF on the other hand have their own say in such matter , they may not be able to completely sway the scientific lobby to toe their line for future fighter , but being the defender they have their say with GOI on the next BIG deal thats badly needed due to urgent operational reasons and non availability of indiginous system on said time frame , hence the next big mother of all deals takes a life of its own.

Ocourse there is the perpetual import lobby omni present from Russia.Israel.US and GOI/Defence/Bureaucrats that want to make the most buck from mother of all deals before their retire and their sons/daughter in US/Europe well funded.

My thinking is to get to an operation fighter inducted in a time frame is to let IAF lead these scientific institutions and define ,mitigate risk at early stage and know what they cannot do , its good to spread risk in different tranches over many years. its good to define technologies in

Must Have ,Good To Have ,Sound Great but lets have it at a later stage.

The JF-17 succeeded to what it is today is because the Chinese/Paki knew what they couldnt do and just stuck with what they could , so no fancy FBW ,no AESA ,no great composite but its does the job at cost effective prices and is available.

It is important to know ones limitation and work within it and deliver with no flights of fancy and tall promises.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Nov 2010 13:37

^last line above is the key to timely product delivery.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 21 Nov 2010 15:13

'Chinese AWACS will revolutionise air defence'

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Nov 2010 16:11

Jamal K. Malik wrote:'Chinese AWACS will revolutionise air defence'

Didnt we have reports that PAF was forced to buy Chinese AWACS over Swedish offer although PAF was unhappy but Mussharaf went with the deal to please his chinese master.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Nov 2010 18:00

PAF will be onlee af around with two awacs one for each type of a/c - chinese and american.

Don · Post by **Don** » 21 Nov 2010 20:46

shiv wrote:If 3rd gen is such a big threat to us how come we are not able to mass produce 1000 3rd gen to counter that? We are now talking 6th gen while we shiver in our dhotis about 3rd gen in Paki/Chinese hands.

Btw, I think the Chinese also called the SU-27 and SU-30Mk as third generation fighters.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Nov 2010 22:45

^^^ The Chinese have a different counting system than the rest of the world. They consider the 4th generation of the world as 3rd generation. F-22/PAK-FA/J-XX/F-35 is 4th gen for them.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 22 Nov 2010 09:09

I hope this is relevant to this thread.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 40321.html

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Nov 2010 09:48

indranilroy wrote:^^^ The Chinese have a different counting system than the rest of the world. They consider the 4th generation of the world as 3rd generation. F-22/PAK-FA/J-XX/F-35 is 4th gen for them.

If this logic was to be applied to the IAF the LCA will be gen 2 onlee.

Gen 1 HF 24
Gen 2 LCA
Gen 3 AMCA.

So will always stay behiend one gen when compared to the PRC

and by extention the TSPAF

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Nov 2010 09:56

Jamal K. Malik wrote:'Chinese AWACS will revolutionise air defence'

Very good news.

Only now will India get really serious about a real long range missile. K-172 or whatever.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 22 Nov 2010 12:00

which will be a game changer against Pakistan considering their geographical restrictions. Even a range of 200 Km means that an AWACS from PAK territory will not be able to look inside India without the risk of being shot down.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Nov 2010 12:12

Nihat, But if it places its escorts 150 kms off the threat axis. Then the long range of AAM can be neutralised. The Tactics will have to be worked out by the Pros. But some thing like that ought to be possible.

Hypothetical senerio;-

The AEW is 200 kms from the border. The BVR equiped escort is 50 kms from the border in the direction of the threat. The Su 30 guided by Indian phalcon tries to make a run for the AEW. It will have to take a 172 shot at every thing in the air. In order to get the job done & not get in the AIM 120 range. The Weight and dimensions of the weapon (172)will make sure that the numbers carried by the MKIs will be limited.

Now if the DRDO can come up with some thing like the ASTRA. With the range of the 172. The numbers of missiles can go up and the Pakis will have no place to hide.

JMT

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Nov 2010 15:31

Better Video of JF-17 doing its manouvers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lybGW18 ... re=channel

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 22 Nov 2010 16:15

Pratyush wrote:Nihat, But if it places its escorts 150 kms off the threat axis. Then the long range of AAM can be neutralised. The Tactics will have to be worked out by the Pros. But some thing like that ought to be possible.

Hypothetical senerio;-

The AEW is 200 kms from the border. The BVR equiped escort is 50 kms from the border in the direction of the threat. The Su 30 guided by Indian phalcon tries to make a run for the AEW. It will have to take a 172 shot at every thing in the air. In order to get the job done & not get in the AIM 120 range. The Weight and dimensions of the weapon (172)will make sure that the numbers carried by the MKIs will be limited.

Now if the DRDO can come up with some thing like the ASTRA. With the range of the 172. The numbers of missiles can go up and the Pakis will have no place to hide.

JMT

I don't know if an Aim-120 can intercept another A@A missile travelling at nearly Mach 3. It's different incase of intercepting sub sonic cruise missile as they can be easily tracked but I don't think that once a KS-172 flies off the MKI any A@A missile can intercept it and with a IIR seeker it cannot be fooled by chaff (like most modern missiles).

Assuming 3 172's launched towards a single erieye from different directions at a minimum range of 200Km. I guess with modern seekers the probability of atleast 1 hit is pretty good , especially against a non combat sub sonic aircraft which has manouvering limitations.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 22 Nov 2010 16:21

i think the bandar is shaping up to be a credible Mig19 successor. Not the most advanced or clever, but able to do a job and needing to be treated with a modicum of respect. it will raise the cost but will not prevail

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Nov 2010 16:36

well they got what they wanted - a replacement for Mig19, Mirage-III, F-7 (Mig21FL) - it is nowhere near the ef/rafale/mki/f-16 class in raw aerobatic performance but will soldier on and get some jobs done.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Nov 2010 16:50

Nihat wrote: I don't know if an Aim-120 can intercept another A@A missile travelling at nearly Mach 3. It's different incase of intercepting sub sonic cruise missile as they can be easily tracked but I don't think that once a KS-172 flies off the MKI any A@A missile can intercept it and with a IIR seeker it cannot be fooled by chaff (like most modern missiles).

Assuming 3 172's launched towards a single erieye from different directions at a minimum range of 200Km. I guess with modern seekers the probability of atleast 1 hit is pretty good , especially against a non combat sub sonic aircraft which has manouvering limitations.

See, the counter that you have developed has required that the IAF approach the PAF AEW from multiple directions. It supposes that the IAF will have the ability to approach the AEW from the three directions. More often then not the AEW will be operating in conjuction with other ground based Early Warning assets. So the multi vector attack will be known to it.

Second all it has to do in case of being under attack is to pull back and direct its escorts at the attackers where available. So the attacker has to deal with the escort and then will reach the AEW.

The complication in this case for the IAF will be that the BVR equiped defender. If it gets in the engagement envelop of the SU 30 it will get a shot. Simple as that, now, in order to deal with the defender the IAF will have to take out the escort and then take the shot at the AEW. The size of the 172 reduces the numbers that can be carried even by the MKI on a single sortie. Therby limiting the numbers of weapons that can be thrown at the PAF formation.

Which is the reason I have asked for an astra sized weapon with a 172 range.

However, if the IAF had a FGFA in place of the MKI making a run at the AEW. The picture will be diffrent.

JMT

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 23 Nov 2010 10:33

JF-17's Maneuverability !

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 23 Nov 2010 10:34

Let's hope they have a LCA doing similar stuff at Aero India 2011.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 23 Nov 2010 10:41

Looks like the aircraft is already equipped for high AoA scenarios

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 23 Nov 2010 10:49

Pratik_S wrote:JF-17's Maneuverability !

Pretty consistent vortices as if stuck to the wing with glue.

Cheers....

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 23 Nov 2010 10:53

neerajb wrote:Pretty consistent vortices as if stuck to the wing with glue.

Cheers....

Yup, thats probably because the video showed the JF-17 constantly turning, probably to its max. Such constant vortices could also be seen on the F-22.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 23 Nov 2010 12:04

Pratik_S wrote:JF-17's Maneuverability !

But I felt differently. I remembered this video of Inzamam. The aircraft seems very good for target practice even for ack-ack guns.

anupamd · Post by **anupamd** » 23 Nov 2010 13:00

Pratyush wrote: See, the counter that you have developed has required that the IAF approach the PAF AEW from multiple directions. It supposes that the IAF will have the ability to approach the AEW from the three directions. More often then not the AEW will be operating in conjuction with other ground based Early Warning assets. So the multi vector attack will be known to it.
Second all it has to do in case of being under attack is to pull back and direct its escorts at the attackers where available. So the attacker has to deal with the escort and then will reach the AEW.

You are assuming the Su30 working alone. For a dedicated "kill awacs" mission they will be assisted by the Phalcon and ground/ other airborne based assets which will be game changers. Such preplanned mission will have to consider multiple direction approachs and "shock & awe" tactics with different configurations (for escorts and AEW).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Nov 2010 20:42

the JF17 shape looks similar to F-18C except the f18 has its vertical tail further ahead up the fuselage. it might have the same pros and cons as the f18c.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 24 Nov 2010 02:19

I find it very similar to T-50 Golden Eagle

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Nov 2010 02:39

I don't know if this has been posted here before.

It is an article from 2007. But factually it is quite right. (It got he Pak-FA shape almost right then!)

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/ ... detail.asp

Speaks of
1. Twin seat JF-17
2. Much of the Russo-China engine saga which we see playing out today and will see in the fighters in our neighborhood soon.

Its an interesting read.

Also there seems to be a memorandum signed by Pak -China for stealth improvements on JF-17 in the future. Called the Block II or J-17X or whatever.

Most speculate it to look this

with the following features (take it with a pinch of salt

)

Stealth-type YFC-1E Xiaolong fighter 3 views
YFC-1E Xiaolong fighter key data:
A wingspan of 9.18 meters
Captain of 15.16 meters
Machine 4.65 meters high
Main Track 2.71 meters
Track 5.12 meters before the main
Normal takeoff weight of 10,000 kilograms
Maximum take-off weight of 13.8 thousand kilograms
Plug-in capacity of 3800 kilograms
2500 liters of fuel machine
Maximum Maximum Mach M1.72
Maximum utility ceiling 17.5 thousand meters
Take-off roll distance of 435 meters
Landing roll distance of 680 meters
Range of 2500 km
Limited overload 8G

Others speculate it to look like the F-16 block 60

Funniest of all, this is what they said at Farnborough about this variant

China and Pakistan have reportedly signed a memorandum of understanding to develop a stealth version of a light-weight fighter aircraft being jointly produced by them to match MiG-21 warplane, a work horse of the Indian Air Force.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2010 06:15

Pratik_S wrote:JF-17's Maneuverability !

I have been watching and (in the last 3 years) uploading (on YouTube) Aerobatic displays from 1996 onwards. People who have never seen aerobatic displays before are seeing this JF 17 display and dhoti shivering and getting impressed. One needs to see a few serious displays before getting "impressed". If visible vapor trails from vortices are "impressive" then yes this is impressive. Even if those vortices were invisible - trust me they have to be there or the plane would stall. What's with this vortices talk that has become a BRF fashion?

Let's not try and pass of ignorance as expertise.

See this video - of a Mirage 2000 in Aero India 1996 - 14 years ago. That JF 17 comes nowhere near doing some of the things the Mirage does. Incidentally - for some reason neither the JF-17 nor J-10 are shown doing a complete loop. Maybe the wings will break off while levelling off after the loop?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTzhAwci_hY

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Nov 2010 07:57

if one looks at EF/Rafale/MKI displays its obvious these birds will eat a JF17 alive in aerobatic moves - much more fluid in rolls, pitches and skid turns.
one cannot say anything vs Tejas until full envelop is opened and they decide to showcase it in a airshow per-FOC.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2010 08:40

Singha wrote:if one looks at EF/Rafale/MKI displays its obvious these birds will eat a JF17 alive in aerobatic moves - much more fluid in rolls, pitches and skid turns.
one cannot say anything vs Tejas until full envelop is opened and they decide to showcase it in a airshow per-FOC.

You will soon see a video that shows that in airshow performance there is hardly any difference between Tejas, J-10 and JF 17. All 3 seen simultaneously in 3 windows in one frame. Am working on that right now.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2010 08:46

indranilroy wrote:
China and Pakistan have reportedly signed a memorandum of understanding to develop a stealth version of a light-weight fighter aircraft being jointly produced by them to match MiG-21 warplane, a work horse of the Indian Air Force.

Reminds me of my golden decade in the UK - 1980s. AIR news on the radio said: "India and Boputhatswana signed an accord on Electronics and Space exploration"

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Nov 2010 09:05

anupamd wrote: You are assuming the Su30 working alone. For a dedicated "kill awacs" mission they will be assisted by the Phalcon and ground/ other airborne based assets which will be game changers. Such preplanned mission will have to consider multiple direction approachs and "shock & awe" tactics with different configurations (for escorts and AEW).

I am assuming that the PAKI AEW will bring a symmetry to the air battlefield. ie remove the advantage the Indian AEW gives the IAF as long as it (PAF AEW)exists. The only way to gain an advantage is to kill the other guys AEW.

I am mearly presenting the challanges inherent in Killing an AEW even with the weapon like the 172. What I am asking for is some thing the size of Astra with the range of 172. So that not just the MKI but any platform of the IAF can do the job.

Also the MKI despite its capabilities can only carry a limited numbers of the 172s, but if the IAF got what I am asking for 6 to 8 could be carried by a single MKI.

That will be the game changer.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Nov 2010 09:51

for AWACS killer role perhaps something like EF/F22/Mig31 with higher 'zoom climb' rates, higher top speed and higher ceiling is better than Su30 ideally. Mig31 unleashing 6 KS172 from 70000ft and Mach2 would be awesome. ....a screaming Mach5 missile dive down to the 25000ft level of the Ereyie....the Meteor would also be a credible weapon albeit sub optimal in range.

just the mere signature of the Zaslon radar in look down mode sweeping for juicy targets would be a brown pants moment.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Nov 2010 10:00

shiv wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTzhAwci_hY

Oh ho ho! Param anand!

You know Shiv sir the best thing about the maneuvers. Kauwa biriyani for every guy who keeps saying a tailless delta can't have control authority at low speeds.

Aha those outer loops !!! So slow and so smooth.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2010 10:21

indranilroy wrote:
shiv wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTzhAwci_hY

Oh ho ho! Param anand!

You know Shiv sir the best thing about the maneuvers. Kauwa biriyani for every guy who keeps saying a tailless delta can't have control authority at low speeds.

Aha those outer loops !!! So slow and so smooth.

And check out the really slow high AoA slow flight, the "hammer stall" (Tail slide) and that wacko "rock 'n roll" at 5 min 27 sec.

Who was that moron on the blog who was "impressed" by the JF 17 and thought that was better than Mirage 2000? Pah. The internet has empowered a lot of cretins.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Nov 2010 10:24

Singha,

I dealy I would prefer the stealth approach, but cant be implimented for another 15 years. In the mean teme we will have a battle of atrition with the PF where the AEW has made the battlefield symmetric and the IAF is unable to bring its numerical superirorty to bear due to the PRC factor.

I come bact to my original refrain. Build up the IAF numbers.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 24 Nov 2010 10:30

Shiv wrote:I have been watching and (in the last 3 years) uploading (on YouTube) Aerobatic displays from 1996 onwards. People who have never seen aerobatic displays before are seeing this JF 17 display and dhoti shivering and getting impressed. One needs to see a few serious displays before getting "impressed". If visible vapor trails from vortices are "impressive" then yes this is impressive. Even if those vortices were invisible - trust me they have to be there or the plane would stall. What's with this vortices talk that has become a BRF fashion?

Let's not try and pass of ignorance as expertise.

See this video - of a Mirage 2000 in Aero India 1996 - 14 years ago. That JF 17 comes nowhere near doing some of the things the Mirage does. Incidentally - for some reason neither the JF-17 nor J-10 are shown doing a complete loop. Maybe the wings will break off while levelling off after the loop?

Sir, I have seen loads of videos for some time now and let me tell you that the JF-17 was certainly not the best one of them. What I am pointing out is that the capability of JF-17 is certainly a lot better than what we all were expecting. To my eyes the simple turning ability of the JF-17 seems better than the Mirage-2000 and also the JF-17 is much quicker in the loops. Also the Aero-India 96 video of the Mirage is spectacular but it seems like it was much better planned where as the JF-17's video seemed a bit restrictive. Clearly the JF-17 has much more in stores and do believe that it can perform the Mirage-2000's maneuvers (in the video) better.

Writing off the JF-17 is ignorance !

Vortices are visible due foggy weather conditions which are very common in polluted China. No biggie !

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Nov 2010 10:52

Pratik,

The JF-17 will have better sustained turn rates and that's what they keep showcasing. But the Mirage 2000 and LCA will have better instantaneous turn rates, roll rates and agility. It is basic aerodynamics of the wings. So pilots and strategist think of what one must do in a duel to keep the upper hand. JF-17 will try to take it to higher sustained turn rates. Mirage 2000 and LCA will try to keep it within their forte.

Nobody is writing of the JF-17. I don't know what you expected from the JF-17, but it is doing what it's airframe was supposed to do. It is actually not doing anything surprising for me. Actually nothing very substantial has been showcased except its sustained turn rate. With such huge LERXs that was a given.

But I can't get over those outer loops. I mean think of the aerodynamics, you are sideways, creating almost zero lift, The lift you are generating is trying to throw you out, the thrust is trying to throw you at a tangential you have only your ailerons and flaps to turn your nose and fight your own lift and thrust! To do that maneuver with such authority and at such slow speed id mind boggling!

Shiv sir: nobody beats the Russians in stall maneuvers. I can't express the expression on the pilots of Gripen and F-16 standing next to me at AI07 after the Mig-35 had gone up. These pilots at 2000 hours and 3000 hrs flying batches on their shoulders. We all had gaping mouths. That plane had done maneuvers which I could not think of earlier. The other maneuvers that the others did was childs play for it. till today I maintain the Mig-35 would be the best dog fighter of modern times

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Nov 2010 11:22

indranilroy wrote:Mig-35 would be the best dog fighter of modern times

Very true and more so if she gets the new 3D nozzle from Klimov with RD-33MK engine , she would be a tough nut to crack in dogfight , except perhaps by PAK-FA

Back to JF-17 , I have heard of they planning to have a full FBW for JF-17 at a later stage thats something in works, though right now they are better of having a good BVR capability then engage in knife fight.