PAF's possible answer to MRCA

[Munir]

Not exactly the topic but still...

Indian Navy warned of submarine capability shortfall
India's Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has warned the Indian Navy (IN) that it faces the prospect of having to operate with less than half of its current submarine fleet by 2012, when two thirds of the IN's submarines will be due for retirement.

In a report tabled in parliament on 24 October, the watchdog CAG revealed that the submarine fleet had been as low as 48 percent operational between January 2002 and December 2006 as a result of prolonged refit schedules far short of the 67 per cent operational availability target set by the IN's 1985 plan.

According to the CAG, 83 percent of short submarine refits and 100 percent of "normal and medium refits" fell behind schedule, since many of the Sindugosh (type 877) 'Kilo'-class boats ad to be sent to Russia to be retrofitted.

"With serious slippages in the induction plan, the navy is left with an ageing fleet, with more than 50 percent of submarines having completed 75 percent of their operational life and some already outliving their maximum service life," the CAG said.

At present, the IN operates 12 Sindugosh 'Kilo"-class boats, four Sishumar (HDW 209 Type 1500) boats and two Soviet-era 'Foxtrot' (Project 641) submarines, which are used largely for training and are well beyond their retirement date.

Six Project 75 Scorpene submarines are under construction at Mazagon Dockyard Ltd in western India, with the first boat due for induction in 2012 or early the following year.

The IN recently issued a fresh request for information for six more diesel-electric submarines with air-independent propulsion systems to overseas manufacturers such as Russia's Rosoboronexport, Armaris of France and Germany's HDW.

Holding the Ministry of Defence (MoD) responsible for not adhering to the IN's submarine construction and induction plan, the CAG also said that the missile-firing capability of three submarines was functioning at "sub-optimal levels" owing to the erratic performance of the inertial navigational system. The IN has experienced problems with the Novator Alfa Klub SS-N-27 (3M54E1) land-attack cruise missiles recently fitted to three Project 877 EKM 'Kilo'-class diesel-electric submarines at a Russian shipyard.

The performances of the new sonars fitted to the 'Kilos' was "not satisfactory", while delays by the MoD in acquiring deep submergence rescue vessels had led the IN to remain dependent on a foreign navy for rescue operations, according to the CAG. It recommended that the MoD "take all possible" measures to expedite the acquisition and construction of submarines and maximize combat readiness by maintaining operating standards and refitting submarines on time.


Related link: :The Daily Star: Internet Edition

 

[daredevil]

Well, in that case, you should be very happy. But, be warned, don't be complacent. And we will leave it at this. Nice talking to you. Cheers.

 

[Munir]

>>>What did china did so great apart from copying all the russian models?. Only time will tell if Chinese Aviation is world class or not, in battle field. They don't even have capability to make engines to equip JF-17s, J-10 etc etc and still depending on Russians for that. Probably they need some more time in copying the engines (which I think they are doing well with WS-13).

I agree they bought copied but I add... They evolved. Let us focus on the engines. Unfortunately an engine needs more time then other parts. But indeed they either developed or copied a well known Tumansky or Saturn. Matter of time before it gets mass production. India is still busy with Kaveri.

The problem is often the same. India wants a total new super duper Indian products and fails. China looks, buys, copies and improves. But isn't that how Japan,Taiwan or many other nations started?

 

[BATMAN]

^^^good discussion by Jliu and Blain2. for whatever its worth if the PAF dosnt resolve the radar and BVR issues very quickly, then i am afraid the JF-17 is just another F-7!!! and this is coming from a PAF source.

Well respected sir, it can be a nice topic for discussion.
Let's analyse on basic facts.
1- F7PG's are not bad at all and can evenly match to the best of dog fighters like F-16 and they need to be replaced owing to their life so from this point of view it is nothing to be affraid off to replace those with JF-17.
2- JF-17 have more power ful engine and more payload, have advanced maintenece infrastructure and overhauls can be done at forward bases. +
3- KLJ radar is assumed to be more powerful than the current italian grifo on F-7s. +
4- It has modern cokpit of 4th generation so pilots will have better situational awareness. +
5- It is FBW and have best airframe incorporating the best of technologies and definately more manuverable, if you see its functionality and airframe +
6- Jf-17 carries more fuel as compare to F-7 and will suerly have in air refuling +
7- JF-17 will have potential of improvement and is manufactured in localy +
8- JF-17 will be data linked with AWACS +
9- If F-16 and mirrages can carry balisitc weapons than JF-17 will also.

We strongly hope JF-17 will incorporate sd-10 (see no hinderence)
I think above plus points are enough to differentiate an aircraft from one generation to other.
JF-17 in present shape can out perform F-16/A so it is a better interceptor than F-7.

 

[fatman17]

Well respected sir, it can be a nice topic for discussion.
Let's analyse on basic facts.
1- F7PG's are not bad at all and can evenly match to the best of dog fighters like F-16 and they need to be replaced owing to their life so from this point of view it is nothing to be affraid off to replace those with JF-17.
2- JF-17 have more power ful engine and more payload, have advanced maintenece infrastructure and overhauls can be done at forward bases. +
3- KLJ radar is assumed to be more powerful than the current italian grifo on F-7s. +
4- It has modern cokpit of 4th generation so pilots will have better situational awareness. +
5- It is FBW and have best airframe incorporating the best of technologies and definately more manuverable, if you see its functionality and airframe +
6- Jf-17 carries more fuel as compare to F-7 and will suerly have in air refuling +
7- JF-17 will have potential of improvement and is manufactured in localy +
8- JF-17 will be data linked with AWACS +
9- If F-16 and mirrages can carry balisitc weapons than JF-17 will also.

We strongly hope JF-17 will incorporate sd-10 (see no hinderence)
I think above plus points are enough to differentiate an aircraft from one generation to other.
JF-17 in present shape can out perform F-16/A so it is a better interceptor than F-7.

i admire your enthusiasm and confidence but i strongly suggest u read up what blain2 and Jliu have been discussing.

JF-17 will need the Thales/MBDA deal to come through very quickly for the JF-17 to do the things u are suggesting.

pls answer, why would PAF look for the french option mentioned above if the KLJ-7/SD-10 were meeting their ASRs. apparantly this combo is not!

further there is now talk of a western powerplant as the RD-93 is not satisfactory and there is no new news on the chinese WS-13!

finally the statement i have quoted is coming from a PAF source not me, so he must know something!

just being realistic!

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Before pointing fingers at others, you should look at how big hole you find yourselves in.

Talking about LCA, we took 25 years, but it was started with a clean slate. Do have anything equivalent to show for yourselves?.

indians are by far the biggest credit chor in the world! they have huge ego satisfying problem. LCA is a dassault development which the credit chor bloodily claim to be indigenously becuase some indian guys in DODO says so. the indian claim arjunk and dhruv aka bk-117 to be indigenously produced but recent reports reveal that 99% of Dhruv is actually foreigner made and i mean just about anything is foreigner! the arjunk is a down graded version of LEO A4.

 

[Quwa]

We should forward investment in some light-fighter AESA projects offered by Thales or Galileo-Selex...in a sense have a joint-venture with one of those companies. Call on their assistance in local avionics & ECM/EW development as well...also continue cooperation with South Africans in weapons-systems such as T-Darter BVR & A-Darter WVR. Time the projects as closely as possible and create a lot of fluidity between the different organizations involved in development - to ease end integration.

 

[daredevil]

indians are by far the biggest credit chor in the world! they have huge ego satisfying problem. LCA is a dassault development which the credit chor bloodily claim to be indigenously becuase some indian guys in DODO says so. the indian claim arjunk and dhruv aka bk-117 to be indigenously produced but recent reports reveal that 99% of Dhruv is actually foreigner made and i mean just about anything is foreigner! the arjunk is a down graded version of LEO A4.

If they were really copied, they should be up and running now, just like the copied versions of China. JF-17 is no indigenous effort either it seems.

 

[Munir]

If they were really copied, they should be up and running now, just like the copied versions of China. JF-17 is no indigenous effort either it seems.

In percentages seen the LCA is more Israeli or French then Indian. About JF17, they did use some tech but I do not think that is anywhere near LCA.

The fact remains that getting so fast new technology to be part of a few nations that can produce it means getting foreign technology and consultants. There is no shame for that. But the result should be that you have a working product in short time. Otherwise it is a lost investment.

 

[Awesome]

PAF needs to go for JF-17... Improve it. PAF needs J-10... Improve it. PAF needs anything else that China makes and improve it.

We need to be assured that any platform we get its supply won't run out.

 

[blain2]

Sir, to the best of your knowledge have any other foreign air arms evaluated the J-10? There also appears to be a disrepancy re: the PLAAF variant (J-10A) which we saw at Zhuhai and the "FC-20" PAF variant which may incorporate an unknown amount of non-Chinese components.

Sorry for losing track of this discussion. I tend to do that quite a bit. The only air arm to have checked out the J-10 is PAF currently. I am pretty sure about this.

Since both platforms are using the same base ordnance I suppose that is correct although assuming the same Chinese radar type (our desig 083C) then we figure the J-10A on paper has a detection capability somewhat greater since the introduction of the 083D MESA. We don't know exactly how well that compares to the Grifo or proposed RC400 though the Taiwanese are raising hell over the latter.

RC400 is good kit. However the nose of the FC-20 can incorporate a bigger radar than the RC400 which is suitable for aircraft with the dimensions of JF-17, LCA, F-16 etc. While its very much possible that the current Chinese AI radar maybe inferior to what is available on the western platforms, I believe PAF's options are open in terms of what we decide to do with the FC-20.

The Americans have observed SD-10 firings and they aren't breaking too much of a sweat. Personally I regard the J-10/JF-17 in their current config as clearly inferior to contemp. Eurocanard and US designs; "dogmeat" if you like but once Western avionics such as the RC400/MICA combination are factored into an uprated base design then the dynamics of engagement change.

Sir, I am sure that observing SD-10 firings without knowing or understanding the test parameters is not really relevant. There is no way that the Americans have any confidential insight into the capabilities of the SD-10. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, even if we assume the capabilities of the SD-10 to be in the league of the legacy AIM-7 Sparrow class, for the PAF its a very decent deterrence nevertheless. Also Chinese hardware, as simple and rugged as it is, is not to be underestimated. The Chinese also have new performance benchmarks established as they have been getting some fairly decent and up to date avionics from the Russians and their own radars (which we have actually evaluated against the performance of APG66/68/RC-400/GrifoS7 are not that bad and are constantly being improved upon. While I like the idea of integrating a Western avionics package (depending on its availability, we already know that PAF wants to do that with the FC-20), in the case where we may not have this luxury either due to cost or some other constraints, we can do alright with the Chinese avionics.

Again sir the timeframes (or lack of them) re: the FC-20 somewhat disturb me. You are basing your assumptions on past Chinese behaviour-I am not saying you are wrong for nay matter but the lack of concrete actions and documentation raises questions. Given past Chinese behaviour on the export market it has caused them all sorts of trouble-such as the Jordanians not wanting to deal with them again.

Timelines can change and delays could be incurred in the induction of FC-20. No denying that. However PAF will have to make do if they run across delays. By the way as you must be aware, delays are a universal phenomena when it comes to defence acquisitions. We experienced delays in the delivery of our ROSE Mirages by SAGEM of France (a non-Chinese, Western source). The Typhoon project is considerably delayed overall with deliveries picking up pace only now. Bottom line is that we have dealt with the Chinese in the past and continue to do so on a myriad of other transactions of military nature even as I write this. I think the Chinese will deliver. A bigger challenge would be to get our integration done in time for IOC to be achieved on the FC-20 by 2010/11.

You're thinking strategically whereas I am thinking along the lines of a tactical PAF theatre solution to the IAF's growing numbers, it reflects our roles (or past roles) in Pakistan With limited resources I advocate a mix of Gripen and Falcon MLU offering maximum convergence with AEW assets and at the top of the optimumal performance curve however you too are correct with diversity of the fleet. In other words I am basing my fleet modernisation plan on the assumption that ties with the West will improve/status quo whereas you factor in status quo/deterioration of ties as geopolitical factors when planning.

In my opinion, IAF is also playing catchup currently. Their number of operational sqns is considerably lower than what they have been sanctioned. By the time their induction of MMRCA materializes, PAF would have attained IOC on the FC-20 by a considerable margin. Now what that IOC really looks like is yet to be seen.

I also think your assumption about things remaining stable in terms of Pakistan's relations with the West is a good one and I would want that to happen, however reality is as such that we cannot count upon the goodwill to be there always (regardless of how much we would want it to). While the decent relations may always exist, even ups and downs here and there end up eroding the capabilities of the PAF considerably. Therefore we will ensure in the future that we qualitatively upgrade what we get from China so our Air Force is not subjected to the neglect similar to that of the 90s.

I am assuming systems-wise you mean certain ground stations in that convergence grid that act as intermediaries between the Chinese and Swedish AEW assets? Certainly cost wise that's how I'd do it because of speed and bandwidth issues but it is very vulnerable to all sorts of threats.

Ground station relaying is definitely an option as even the first generation of the Erieye (Pakistani order does not need relaying to the ground station when communicating with DL equipped aircraft) did that and we can use it for relaying of info between the two platforms.

The Colonel did mention Bison behaviour systems wise but conclusions do spring to mind re: what he said. The Americans and we know for a start that at least 2 Bisons have been DL'd to plug into the MKI and Phalcon convergence grid (the Indians have a Phalcon "simulator module" that allows a theoretical picture of a functional grid to be tested prior to actual delivery). They were around during Malabar 07. We don't know whether how many units have been converted or whether this a large scale update-or even whether such plans have been shelved in light of ordering 80 more MRCA.

Again BISON DL has never been confirmed and as far as I am aware, their BISON fleet is flying GCI intercepts to get a better situational awareness over extended ranges (they use the Kopyo AI radar but are limited by the detection range of the said radar to under 100km). While it would make sense for all of their fleet to have a common DL, they are some ways off from getting this capability. Currently, their MKI fleet cannot conduct DL communications with any other type except by way of relay. The same goes for the overall IAF fleet. Plenty of work to be done here by them before getting everyone on an integrated digital grid.

Detection range of 350km is highly wishful in my opinion-in heavy clutter and jamming? The Swedish must be exaggerating in their brochures as usual. The Phalcon system as the Israelis admitted under heaving grilling by us has a detection/lock/track range ~350km (wouldnt give us exact figure) under simulated attack by 8 F-18A, Counter Air CAP of 4x F-15C, optimal weather at cruising altitude (other factors classified). Admittedly they've improved it somewhat but hardly what we were looking for with requirements for CM defence and saturated ordnance battlespace.

Sir the instrumented range on the Erieye is actually much greater than the 350 km range but as per the Swedes, in dense jamming environment, the aircraft can still track targets at the ranges I have quoted above. While performance degradation is a possibility, even a 200km range provides sufficient time to the Pakistani air defences to put up aircraft in the air. (We do this with GCI connected Radars, what will be offered to us by OTH capability is a luxury for us).

As I've said, system v system....in light of the above there is a big lot of IFs-what worries me is that the IAF have set up a 'plug and play' system with the Phalcon, Green Pine, MKI, SPYDER and/or possibly the F-18E/F and/or Bison???. By itself the system already has a qualitative overmatch over comparable PAF 'mixed' system in bandwith and integration. I suppose the JF-17 with French hardware would improve the equation somewhat but in my opinion Gripen A/B (C/D) would be a improvement over the FC-20/J-10 as it is proven.

Well you cannot compare system vs system all the time in my opinion. I believe (others can disagree) that PAF runs a tighter, better integrated Air Defence system that can counter some of the issues that would arise out of a singular system vs system comparison. Secondly, while the list of IAF assets as quoted above sounds fairly impressive, they have issues with interoperability that would need to be worked out. Their MKIs use proprietary Russian Data Links which their other aircraft don't so they have to converge to a Common architecture or they have to rely on the relay. With a supposed induction of Super Hornet, they would have to deal with interop of Link16 with their Russian solution on the MKI. It remains to be seen what they would do to equip the Bisons (I suspect the Mirage2000-5 upgrades that they are going for will give them a Link16 capability), however I think you understand the point I am trying to make. As formidable as the array of Indian capabilities may look on paper, they also have various challenges and integration issues like the PAF. I think our response in the form of upgraded Pakistan Air Defence System (PADS-77) - built around TPS-77, YLC-2, in the near future Erieye integration and tied to Crotale4000/NG and SPADA2000 is a very credible one.

As for the bandwidth and integration is concerned, being heavily involved in this side of the work for a while, I know that Chinese can come up equally good stuff as the West (a lot of the commercial stuff for the US companies in this field is already being done in China).

As you probably can sense, I don't place too much of an emphasis on extensive close in WVR tactics or doctrine with the intro of high AoA, offboresight WVRs in the market. I believe that any air arm with a numerical advantage yet (relatively) limited funds (like the IAF) should be able to achieve statistical air superiority (confining the opponent to point counter-air) using the above and large quantities of Fire and Forget BVR AAMs in a all seeing optimal awareness NCW information grid which statistically renders extensive close in training obsolete provided the AF in question is willing to take casualties. I think the Indians seem to have been a big fan of my writings but I don't think a war do validate them is preferable-peace should be the striving of mankind.

I see your point, however PAF would barely be lacking in terms of BVR capability. We have some very potent as well as dependable programs in the works comprising of AIM-120 and SD-10. You must also be aware of the discussions around MICA and there are one or two more programs of a similar nature afoot. IAF definitely has the numerical advantage, however our modernization plans ensure that we continue to field a considerable deterrence in the face of the IAF.

In terms of quantity and resupply you are right. Quality may be improved although I still have my reservations about the two tiered system (Western/Chinese)and I did forget about the friendship rates Great Discussion with you Sir.

Its always good discussing things with you.

 

[VENO]

DEAR PC,
Indian's are not credit chors.....please mind Ur language.

Why hasn't China inducted JF-17 in its fleet ? May be bcoz it is not up to the mark. PAK should not rely heavily on this reverse engineered machine and should look out for a better option.

 

[Keysersoze]

DEAR PC,
Indian's are not credit chors.....please mind Ur language.

Why hasn't China inducted JF-17 in its fleet ? May be bcoz it is not up to the mark. PAK should not rely heavily on this reverse engineered machine and should look out for a better option.

Reverse engineered from what exactly? It's funny but I have the feeling that you are going to repeat the rubbish we have been hearing for a Loooooooooong time now....

Lets face it......I doubt you know anything about the JF-17 other than some jingoistic tripe you have read on other Indian websites. Lets get back to the topic

 

[Myth_buster_1]

DEAR PC,
Indian's are not credit chors.....please mind Ur language.

-composite wings are italian
-LCA designed in europe "France" and "UK"
-FBW made in Europe, and IAI
-EW systems made in europe
-Kavir is more likely to be foreigner engine.
-Radar none indian
-only tires, and wheels are indians heck even the brake system is non indian

Basically the indian input in LCA is parallel to HF-24 which was not even designed in india.

Why hasn't China inducted JF-17 in its fleet ? May be bcoz it is not up to the mark. PAK should not rely heavily on this reverse engineered machine and should look out for a better option.

errrrrrrr.... because JF-17 and FC-1 are still going under test evaluations and since china has big budget they can afford more high tech systems and thus FC-1 may not fit their higher requirement. now tell me why hasnt russia placed any order for "BAHRAMOS" CM? and plus China has not made any decision yet, they could place well over 150 orders or just wait for a new variant.

 

[araz]

What did china did so great apart from copying all the russian models?. Only time will tell if Chinese Aviation is world class or not, in battle field. They don't even have capability to make engines to equip JF-17s, J-10 etc etc and still depending on Russians for that. Probably they need some more time in copying the engines (which I think they are doing well with WS-13).

May I most humbly remind you that Sweden; Saabs manufacturer, inspite of a history of a century of aviation production, does not produce the engine for the Gripen. There are a number of reasons and the most important one is money. For the amount of money it takes to manufacture an engine, you can buy an off the shelf one(Ala HAL Tejas).the reason China wants to develop engines with limited success with a lot of help from Russia is their philiosophy of total independance somewhat similar to India.
I think, contrary to most posters that the Indian effort is laudable , although a bit premature in their development history. They are at least a decade of development behind China, and will achieve their aims in a decade or so eventually.However, they could have done so by taking help from Russia like China and PAkistan. Whether it would make any difference in the long run is something that needs to be seen.
I hope You will not think me a racist, but it is my experience that the chinese work a lot harder than either the Indians or the Pakistanis, for reasons which I can not analyze.
regards
Araz