Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Nov 2010 11:58

Is a dog fight still relevant today. When the high angle off boresight weapons will be present along with large quantities of the BVR AAMs.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 24 Nov 2010 12:26

Yes it is and will be relevant always. The problem with technology like HOBS missiles is that there will always be a counter technology, modern missile seekers may not be fooled by flares but technology like DIRCM will make it an even game again and in-turn put the emphasis back on the turning dog-fight.

A good dog-fighter can always be integrated with new technology and sensors but a bad dog fighter will always be a bad dog fighter.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 24 Nov 2010 12:54

Pratyush wrote:Is a dog fight still relevant today. When the high angle off boresight weapons will be present along with large quantities of the BVR AAMs.

Good candidate for FAQ thread

Cheers....

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Nov 2010 13:19

I very clearly remember reading the comments of Typhoon test pilot (who was showcasing the a/c at Paris Air show) when the SU-27 was showcased first time. The Sukhoi demo pilot had invited him openly for one-on-one over the sea. While the request was declined for obvious reasons, the Typhoon test pilot said that he'd give 15%-20% more weight to Su-27 in a dog fight.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Nov 2010 13:23

On the JF-17 and aerodynamics - one needs to remember that while ability at dog-fight remains important, the way air warfare has progressed, the aircraft is one part of the larger system;albiet an important one. For example, as per the EAC Commander, it would be understatement to call AWACS a passive sensor platoform - as per him, it is as good as any aggressive weapon system - for example, it allows one to control an air-battle or undetake interdiction missions with far more superiority (his words).

So, we need to see the evolving nature of warfighting as a whole in the IAF and our adversaries.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Nov 2010 13:24

indranilroy wrote: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.

It would indeed be great to see the LCA with the F-414; a low wingloading and a solid twr, should make it a very sprightly performer, probly help in the STR dept. too. However, as a arm chair type layperson, I don't see too much of an advantage for the JF-17, esp. not at higher speeds/altitudes. And even at lower speeds, the 17 will need to have an exceptional TWR to gain some real advantage. This is somewhat like a MiG-29 vs. M2k situation, only the JF-17 does not have the fulcrum's greatest advantage - insane amounts of power.

But the LCA would make a v.nice BVR performer, in terms of manevering as well as sensors vis a vis the thunda. Bigger radar, delta design, tiny rcs and internal EW/jammer all results in a very potent package. Of course, all this is when they give it a BVR missile!

CM

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Nov 2010 13:25

Pratyush wrote:Is a dog fight still relevant today. When the high angle off boresight weapons will be present along with large quantities of the BVR AAMs.

Yes infact and so are the gun fights , you can beat the missile via countermeasures and manouvering , but there are no known countermeasure for 30 mm bullet.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Nov 2010 03:02

Austin,

I was speaking of the OVT too

. In AI 07 the OVT often took to the skies for the aerial display.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2010 06:08

Comparison of the LCA, J-10 and JF-17 in airshows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX4W-goLSIo

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Nov 2010 08:37

^^^ +1 very cool comparison video Shivji. Was I seeing things or did the Jf-17 seem to turn markedly faster than the J-10 and LCA, which seemed neck and neck?

CM.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 25 Nov 2010 08:47

Cain Marko wrote:Was I seeing things or did the Jf-17 seem to turn markedly faster than the J-10 and LCA, which seemed neck and neck?

CM.

Ignoring other factors like altitude/speed of the aircraft, altitude of the airshow location etc, the video suggests:

1) Roll rates : Tejas ( way ahead of the rest two) > J-10 > JF-17.
2) Sustained turn rate : JF-17 ( much better than the rest two) > J-10 > Tejas.

It could be Maya only.

Cheers....

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2010 09:01

Cain Marko wrote:^^^ +1 very cool comparison video Shivji. Was I seeing things or did the Jf-17 seem to turn markedly faster than the J-10 and LCA, which seemed neck and neck?

CM.

No you are seeing things. There is not much difference in the LCA and JF-17 tight turn, but the LCA is way faster in roll.

Will provide screen grabs from the original.

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Nov 2010 09:02

Nah its not that straight forward, the difference in the zoom setting and the frame rate of the video capture alone would cause an apparent change in speed and agility of the aircraft . I for one cannot tell anything except for the fact that Bandar did not even do a loop and the vertical charlie attempt was half hearted , rolls were pathetic.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Nov 2010 09:18

In I have not found a single complete video of a Bandar or J-10 doing a loop.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 26 Nov 2010 06:43

Pakistan gets six more F-16 aircraft

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Nov 2010 08:08

there is a youtube video of jf17 where its compared to a F-16 in sustained turn and a suggestion put fwd that it does it faster the PAF F16.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 26 Nov 2010 08:51

Singha wrote:there is a youtube video of jf17 where its compared to a F-16 in sustained turn and a suggestion put fwd that it does it faster the PAF F16.

sir, If i have the software tools & video clips, i can make any plane as good as F-16.

I have seen those clips, to my naked eye, it seems that particular clip was edited.

Important issue in these comparison is, Sustained turn rate at what speed? At higher speed, with STR, a plane takes more time to complete a loop/circle that the one that can do the same STR at lower speed. Its means one with lower speed can point the nose at the target very easily that the higher one.

So the most desired feature of air superiority fighters are how manoeuverable they are at lower speed. Thats where the planes like Mig-29 and Su-30mki score. Su-30mki turns on a dime at near zero air speed. Can F-16 do that? Any plane with low wing loading can do that compared to one having high wing loading. As you know Tejas having larger wing size is a low wing loaded.

Every thing is not straight as you see in clips. In Shiv saar clip check the arc each plane is making while completing the loop/180 turn. Tejas against others. You may understand the low wing loaded Tejas potential. Tejas is still not in its full potential. Let Tejas Mk2 arrives at the scene, then the real fun begins.

Too much is talked about lerx and vortex. Too much vortexes increases drag.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 26 Nov 2010 09:45

indranilroy wrote: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!

I agree with you that the HF-XX

Tejas is better than the JF-17 even with the underpowered engine. There is no point in comparing the LCA with the JF-17 because it beat it outright in all most all aspects. LCA is also much lighter and has better FBW system making it more agile and maneuverable. What I am trying to say over here is that JF-17 is performing extremely good considering Paki and Chini ability and out preconceived notions. We should not forget that combat rarely takes place at extreme specifications of the aircraft (In the Jet era esp. 4th Gen+). So considering that the JF-17 can cause serious attrition with this kind of maneuverability and low force level the IAF pilots could have to work overtime.

In my mind I believed that the JF-17 will have decent maneuvering capability comparable with the F/A-18. I will also confess that I didn't consider the JF-17's LERX up until now.

@Mr. Shiv
Nice video, can we have the Mirage-2000 in comparison too ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Nov 2010 09:54

I heard of something called 'corner velocity' - the speed at which the plane achieves its quickest/smallest radius sustained 360' turn (?) - the higher it is the better as the plane has more energy coming out of the turn to climb or run.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Nov 2010 10:15

Why compare JF 17 with more advanced aircraft. First compare with MiG 21, the father of JF 17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24ggPqbarOo

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Nov 2010 10:41

Mig-21 seems to engage afterburners quite a few times during those maneuvering but for a fighter designed and developed in 50's its agility and maneuverability is quite good.

Wasnt Mig-21 designed as more of an interceptor then a fighter ?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 26 Nov 2010 10:49

Singha wrote:I heard of something called 'corner velocity' - the speed at which the plane achieves its quickest/smallest radius sustained 360' turn (?) - the higher it is the better as the plane has more energy coming out of the turn to climb or run.

I'm comparing between planes. Every modern 4th gen fighters are designed to sustain 9G load only, na?. Max G that any aircraft can pull being the same, corner velocity is the minimum velocity at which it can pull max G.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 26 Nov 2010 10:55

Austin wrote:Mig-21 seems to engage afterburners quite a few times during those maneuvering but for a fighter designed and developed in 50's its agility and maneuverability is quite good.

Wasnt Mig-21 designed as more of an interceptor then a fighter ?

Correcto mundo onlee IIR ze 21 was built to zoom and shoot up incoming high altitude bombers me thinks...also recall during Vietnam the Farmers, Frescos and Fagots/Midgets used to try and engage Khan phighters in the low to medium altitude and the Fishbeds would be waiting high up to pounce on em when they would try and get away from the Farmers in theory of course

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 26 Nov 2010 10:57

Austin wrote:Mig-21 seems to engage afterburners quite a few times during those maneuvering but for a fighter designed and developed in 50's its agility and maneuverability is quite good.

Don't say just good, its too good for that time. Just as Su-27 beat the Americans in manoeuverability in 90s, MiG-21 did the same in its era and is still proving its prowess as late as Cope India . And it is still a force to reckon with.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 26 Nov 2010 10:59

Austin wrote:Mig-21 seems to engage afterburners quite a few times during those maneuvering but for a fighter designed and developed in 50's its agility and maneuverability is quite good.

Wasnt Mig-21 designed as more of an interceptor then a fighter ?

In a sense. It was always an Point Defence Fighter/interceptor. Hence it has superb agility which many times exceeds that of some modern fighters.

Even though point defence fighters can technically be called interceptors, that term is more freely used for aircrafts with emphasis on quick dash speed, long range aams with sacrifices in agility. Some good examples of that would be Mig-25 and Mig-31.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Nov 2010 10:59

Austin wrote:Mig-21 seems to engage afterburners quite a few times during those maneuvering but for a fighter designed and developed in 50's its agility and maneuverability is quite good.

Wasnt Mig-21 designed as more of an interceptor then a fighter ?

Austin - check the musharraf of JF 17 when visible. The after burners are burning bright - but the flame may not be visible externally.

The F-16 was designed as a counter to the MiG 21.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Nov 2010 11:05

^^^ Andy Indeed and thats what I have read a delta designed to fly high and fast , it probably gained the reputation of a fighter in the hands of good pilot with tactics to match from countries like Vietnam, India ,ME.

Suprisingly the Bison from first hand account of Pilots in IAF does well in close combat against most modern types , although with R-77 and the interceptor that it is BVR will be its forte.

Gaur I think the Soviets gradually realised that a PD interceptor like Mig-21 with agility was also a good fighter and if one looks at its successor in Soviet Air Force it was .

Mig-21-->Mig-23----> Mig-29

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Nov 2010 11:11

Shiv is it possible that the burners were then partially engaged in JF-17 , a fully burner engaged should be quite visible something seen on Mig-21.

The Mig-21 did to Soviet AF what F-16 did to USAF , both classic great fighters of all times and mass produced one.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 26 Nov 2010 11:32

Austin wrote:Mig-21 seems to engage afterburners quite a few times during those maneuvering but for a fighter designed and developed in 50's its agility and maneuverability is quite good.

While watching a documentary ( Polish MiG-21s training video) which showed lots of cockpit footage, I encountered a comment made by a person which said that because of the underpowered engine most of the combat took place at 91% or 93% of max engine RPM. Now with such a narrow margin of engine operation what other option a pilot is left with during maneuvers.

Cheers....

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Nov 2010 12:08

Austin wrote:Shiv is it possible that the burners were then partially engaged in JF-17 , a fully burner engaged should be quite visible something seen on Mig-21.

The Mig-21 did to Soviet AF what F-16 did to USAF , both classic great fighters of all times and mass produced one.

Austin there is no such thing as partial afterburner and there is no rule that it should be visible for any particular distance behind the musharraf.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 26 Nov 2010 12:19

shiv wrote:Austin there is no such thing as partial afterburner and there is no rule that it should be visible for any particular distance behind the musharraf.

Actually it is quite common.

R-25 is a two-spool axial-flow turbojet featuring a new compressor with increased overall pressure ratio and airflow, variable two-stage afterburner, and greater use of titanium.

The R-25 jet engine's specialty was the addition of a second fuel pump in the afterburning stage. Activating this "CSR" booster feature allows the engine to develop 96,8 kN of thrust under 4000 meters of altitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumansky_R-25

Cheers....

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Nov 2010 13:30

No reference exists that I can find suggesting that the Klimov RD 93 of the JF 17 has this feature. Other than the R 25 can you point me to engines that have this feature?

Also from your link you have not quoted the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumansky_R-25

Activating this "CSR" booster feature allows the engine to develop 96,8 kN of thrust under 4000 meters of altitude. The limit of operation is 1 minute for dogfight practice and 3 minutes for an actual wartime emergency, as further use causes the engine to overheat and potentially explode. Use of CSR requires engine take-out inspection upon landing and every minute of its use counts as one full hour of engine runtime on the logbook.

It's not really "common" as you have indicated. It is distinctly uncommon. A one-off in fact, so my contention stands.

neerajb wrote: Actually it is quite common.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 26 Nov 2010 13:47

Shivji this feature is quite common even in older jets like MiG-21s, only the earlier examples had ON/OFF style afterburner. Tried google chacha but getting no results but IMHO RD-93 should have this basic feature. I do remember reading about variable afterburner somewhere but unable to recollect the source right now.

Cheers....

Added later : Saar google throws this.

Aircraft thrust is provided by two axial-flow turbo jet engines with variable stators and variable afterburner.

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/post_war/f4/f4_en.htm

J-79 powered aircrafts : F-104 Starfighter, F-4 Phantom II, A-5 Vigilante, B-58 Hustler.

R-25 is a similar case which is used in Su-15 and MiG-21.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Nov 2010 13:52

neerajb wrote:Shivji this feature is quite common even in older jets like MiG-21s, only the earlier examples had ON/OFF style afterburner. Tried google chacha but getting no results but IMHO RD-93 should have this basic feature. I do remember reading about variable afterburner somewhere but unable to recollect the source right now.

Cheers....

No I am sure you are mistaken

Most afterburners are on/off only. Not on/low-power/hi-power. Not variable. The R 25 appears to be a one off.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 26 Nov 2010 14:06

Check my above post. The throttle is pushed all the way forward till the military power detent and then pushed forward for variable burner selection. Check this:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-11172.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Nov 2010 19:49

For the doubting Thomases

JF-17 Bundaar and MiG 21 comparison

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvsVxwv79U

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 26 Nov 2010 19:49

I guess at present Mig 21Bis are enough to make bundars dance

arun · Post by **arun** » 01 Dec 2010 20:46

X Posted.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan comes down to earth by setting aside its much hyped claims of marital vigour and admits that its Army is inferior to India‘s:

P.R. China Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs He Yafei to US Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher on the margins of the P5 Conference on Confidence Building Measures Towards Nuclear Disarmament, Sept 4-5 2009 :

Indeed, a Pakistani military leader said his army was no match for the Indian army.

Read it all:

US embassy cables: Pakistan 'needs nuclear weapons because of inferior army'

arun · Post by **arun** » 02 Dec 2010 07:27

X Posted.

The Army of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan returns to the practices that it perfected against its erstwhile citizens of Bengali origin in what is today Bangladesh.

Is this what the “Jihad in the Path of Allah” part of its motto of “Faith, Piety and Jihad in the Path of Allah”, in Urdu “Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi sabilillah”, means?

A growing body of evidence is lending credence to allegations of human rights abuses by Pakistan security forces during domestic operations against terrorists in Malakand Division and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

Read it all:

US embassy cables: US concerned about massive human rights abuses by Pakistan army

Be sure not to miss the lame response of that self appointed policeman of freedom, the US, owing to the expedient need of maintaining “goodwill within the Pakistan military”.

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 02 Dec 2010 10:29

Pak Army covertly supports four terror groups: WikiLeaks
http://www.zeenews.com/news671570.html

London: Four militant groups, including India focussed Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), receives covert support from Pakistan's influential army and "no amount of money" from America will change the policy, according to WikiLeaks.

Pakistan's army is covertly sponsoring four major militant groups, the US ambassador in Pakistan warned in a frank critique revealed by the US state department cables, the Guardian reported.

Pakistan, it said, had received more than USD 16 billion in American aid since 2001, but "there is no chance that Pakistan will view enhanced assistance... as sufficient compensation for abandoning support to these groups", US Ambassador Anne Patterson wrote in a secret review of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy in September 2009.

Secret cables, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, show that US diplomats and spies believe Pakistan army and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) continue to quietly back four militant groups -- the Afghan Taliban, its allied Haqqani and Hekmatyar networks on the western Afghan frontier, and LeT on the eastern border with India.

Some ISI officials "continue to maintain ties with a wide array of extremist organisations, in particular the Taliban, LeT and other extremist organisations," US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009.

Resolving the 63-year-old Kashmir conflict "would dramatically improve the situation", Patterson said.

"We need to reassess Indian involvement in Afghanistan and our own policies towards India, including the growing military relationship through sizeable conventional arms sales, as all of this feeds Pakistani establishment paranoia and pushes them closer to both Afghan and Kashmir-focused terrorist groups while reinforcing doubts about US intentions," she said.

The British daily reported that Pakistan army chief General Ashfaq Kayani had been "utterly frank" about the consequences of a pro-India government coming to power in Kabul, according to a 2009 briefing in advance of his visit to Washington.

"The Pakistani establishment will dramatically increase support for Taliban groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which they see as.. an important counterweight."

Alarmed by the links with Haqqani, whose fighters kill American soldiers in Afghanistan, and fearful that policy towards LeT could trigger nuclear war with India, US officials have urged Kayani to change course.

"The biggest single message Kayani should hear in Washington is that this support must end," said one dispatch.

In a March 2009 briefing to FBI director Robert Mueller, the embassy noted that ISI chief General Shuja Pasha, "continues to profess a determination to end ISI's overt and tacit support for proxy forces".

The cables, The Guardian said, betray much American frustration and anger at alleged Pakistani duplicity.