Thunder Resonates as Modernization Inches Forward in Pakistan

[Donatello]

The article seems to have false information.. Quoting

"PAC produces 18 aircraft a year but has a capacity of 25."


PAC hardly produces 18 aircrafts every year at this point.. As I said, more like 9... May be I am missing something.. May be @Oscar can help clarify

It will always be low for the First batch of any combat aircraft.

In PAF's case, it's more so, as PAF needs to have infrastructure and pilots ready to take on these aircraft. 50 aircraft means you need 100+ pilots trained so they can actually fly the jets. Then you have to retire the old aircraft and modify the logistics at airbases to accommodate a new aircraft.

What's the point in producing 18 or 25 or 100 aircraft per year if you don't have the infrastructure ready to absorb the aircraft?

 

[MastanKhan]

Or maybe the gentleman is stuck with old notions, happens in all professions, people get stuck with a certain way of thinking

Hi,

That is absolutely agreeable---no doubt about that. But it happens in professions where you deal with ideas and resources that do not result in DEATH.

In war---the weapons of choice are weapons systems that have proven their battle worthiness over a period of time.

You may ask---if there has been no battle then how they have proven---well through regular daily training missions and war games. You then already know what kind of breakdown and maintenance issues you will have.

+ just because the weapons system is old---does not mean it is out dated. Take the engine for example---the engine from the firsat F16 that we got is still more powerfull and durable than the newest engine of the latest JF17. That old F16 can still out perform the JF in speed, maneavourability, G forces.

And the most important thing of all----your pilots already know the means and limits that they can strecth the F16 to.

For JF 17----it is just the bgeining----in another 10 years

lolz brother thats a mock up of tejas whats your point


well brother as i said it is HALs first attempt to design and make a advanced 4th gen fighter jet while chinese had been making fighter jets for more than 30 years before + Tejas is not the back bone of IAF but MKI is so no issues at least it prooved to be a good tech demonstrator and a vaible platform to develop owr own aviation industry + costed just 1.08 billion US $$s for the whole project of which 15 prototypes were made and 4 are under cunstruction

Hi,

There is big difference between the two----. The chinese were working on stolen technology---they had to learn through trial and error---.

Otoh---the indians had all the knowledge---blueprints---material and material support---engineers---and resources---.

 

[syedali73]

well brother as i said it is HALs first attempt to design and make a advanced 4th gen fighter jet while chinese had been making fighter jets for more than 30 years before

India is into jet fighter manufacturing business from mid 50s. HAL has made HF-24 Marut (first flight in 1961), assembled Ajeet (first flight in 1976), MiG21, Jaguar, MKI etc. So Indian aeronautical industry is almost as old as that of China. China is not working on 4th gen fighter jets from 30 years, it is pretty recent development.

In war---the weapons of choice are weapons systems that have proven their battle worthiness over a period of time.

Totally incorrect, otherwise USA wont have dropped little boy and enola gay on Japan. When did these systems prove their battle worthiness over period of time prior to their dropping? During the WWI and WW2, both the sides (axis, and allies) repeatedly fielded all sorts of weapon system (from armored vehicles to fighter jets, to missiles) designed and developed during war time.

The chinese were working on stolen technology---they had to learn through trial and error---.

This is what we call More loyal than the king. Even to work with the stolen technology, you have to have advanced (not basic or intermediate) understanding of the system. I for instance, cant reproduce a painting from Vermeer only because I can paint and somehow could get my hands on his work. For that to happen, I myself have to be an accomplished artist, so that I could understand the stroke style, pigments used in the painting, and the composition thereof. You think reverse engineering is a joke? Than why others couldn't do it? What is so special with Chinese?

US's standing in aerospace technology is also based on stolen technology, in fact worse than this, abducted technology. After WWII, thousands of German scientists, engineers, and technicians were abducted and brought into the USA under a clandestine operation called Operation Paperclip.

These are but the few known scientists/engineers worked for USA aerospace industry:

Rudi Beichel, Magnus von Braun, Wernher von Braun, Werner Dahm, Konrad Dannenberg, Kurt H. Debus, Walter Dornberger, Ernst R. G. Eckert, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Otto Hirschler, Hermann H. Kurzweg, Fritz Mueller, Eberhard Rees, Gerhard Reisig, Georg Rickhey, Werner Rosinski, Ludwig Roth, Arthur Rudolph, Ernst Steinhoff, Ernst Stuhlinger, Bernhard Tessmann, Georg von Tiesenhausen, Sighard F. Hoerner, Siegfried Knemeyer, Alexander Martin Lippisch, Hans Multhopp, Hans von Ohain, Kurt Tank etc.

Without their contribution, USA was not reaching to moon or elsewhere. Even the concept of US's most prized B2 bomber is based on German Horten Ho 229 (first flight in March 1944).

Shikwa beja bhi kare koi to laazim hai sha'ur

 

[MastanKhan]

India is into jet fighter manufacturing business from mid 50s. HAL has made HF-24 Marut (first flight in 1961), assembled Ajeet (first flight in 1976), MiG21, Jaguar, MKI etc. So Indian aeronautical industry is almost as old as that of China. China is not working on 4th gen fighter jets from 30 years, it is pretty recent development.

Totally incorrect, otherwise USA wont have dropped little boy and enola gay on Japan. When did these systems prove their battle worthiness over period of time prior to their dropping? During the WWI and WW2, both the sides (axis, and allies) repeatedly fielded all sorts of weapon system (from armored vehicles to fighter jets, to missiles) designed and developed during war time.

This is what we call More loyal than the king. Even to work with the stolen technology, you have to have advanced (not basic or intermediate) understanding of the system. I for instance, cant reproduce a painting from Vermeer only because I can paint and somehow could get my hands on his work. For that to happen, I myself have to be an accomplished artist, so that I could understand the stroke style, pigments used in the painting, and the composition thereof. You think reverse engineering is a joke? Than why others couldn't do it? What is so special with Chinese?

US's standing in aerospace technology is also based on stolen technology, in fact worse than this, abducted technology. After WWII, thousands of German scientists, engineers, and technicians were abducted and brought into the USA under a clandestine operation called Operation Paperclip.

These are but the few known scientists/engineers worked for USA aerospace industry:

Rudi Beichel, Magnus von Braun, Wernher von Braun, Werner Dahm, Konrad Dannenberg, Kurt H. Debus, Walter Dornberger, Ernst R. G. Eckert, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Otto Hirschler, Hermann H. Kurzweg, Fritz Mueller, Eberhard Rees, Gerhard Reisig, Georg Rickhey, Werner Rosinski, Ludwig Roth, Arthur Rudolph, Ernst Steinhoff, Ernst Stuhlinger, Bernhard Tessmann, Georg von Tiesenhausen, Sighard F. Hoerner, Siegfried Knemeyer, Alexander Martin Lippisch, Hans Multhopp, Hans von Ohain, Kurt Tank etc.

Without their contribution, USA was not reaching to moon or elsewhere. Even the concept of US's most prized B2 bomber is based on German Horten Ho 229 (first flight in March 1944).

Shikwa beja bhi kare koi to laazim hai sha'ur

Okay,

Be happy----YOU WIN---you the champion sir.

( can't argue with an idiot---he will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience ).

How big of an imbecile a person has to give an example of two nuc weapons----they have nothing in common with fighter aircraft or equipment that is used over and over again and again---day in day out----rain sleeet shine snow freeze thaw heat for years and years.

Comparing a one time usage item to those that are in full time service for 20 to 40 years----.

You have an amazing brain----keep it on

 

[Superboy]

India is into jet fighter manufacturing business from mid 50s. HAL has made HF-24 Marut (first flight in 1961), assembled Ajeet (first flight in 1976), MiG21, Jaguar, MKI etc. So Indian aeronautical industry is almost as old as that of China. China is not working on 4th gen fighter jets from 30 years, it is pretty recent development.

Totally incorrect, otherwise USA wont have dropped little boy and enola gay on Japan. When did these systems prove their battle worthiness over period of time prior to their dropping? During the WWI and WW2, both the sides (axis, and allies) repeatedly fielded all sorts of weapon system (from armored vehicles to fighter jets, to missiles) designed and developed during war time.

This is what we call More loyal than the king. Even to work with the stolen technology, you have to have advanced (not basic or intermediate) understanding of the system. I for instance, cant reproduce a painting from Vermeer only because I can paint and somehow could get my hands on his work. For that to happen, I myself have to be an accomplished artist, so that I could understand the stroke style, pigments used in the painting, and the composition thereof. You think reverse engineering is a joke? Than why others couldn't do it? What is so special with Chinese?

US's standing in aerospace technology is also based on stolen technology, in fact worse than this, abducted technology. After WWII, thousands of German scientists, engineers, and technicians were abducted and brought into the USA under a clandestine operation called Operation Paperclip.

These are but the few known scientists/engineers worked for USA aerospace industry:

Rudi Beichel, Magnus von Braun, Wernher von Braun, Werner Dahm, Konrad Dannenberg, Kurt H. Debus, Walter Dornberger, Ernst R. G. Eckert, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Otto Hirschler, Hermann H. Kurzweg, Fritz Mueller, Eberhard Rees, Gerhard Reisig, Georg Rickhey, Werner Rosinski, Ludwig Roth, Arthur Rudolph, Ernst Steinhoff, Ernst Stuhlinger, Bernhard Tessmann, Georg von Tiesenhausen, Sighard F. Hoerner, Siegfried Knemeyer, Alexander Martin Lippisch, Hans Multhopp, Hans von Ohain, Kurt Tank etc.

Without their contribution, USA was not reaching to moon or elsewhere. Even the concept of US's most prized B2 bomber is based on German Horten Ho 229 (first flight in March 1944).

Shikwa beja bhi kare koi to laazim hai sha'ur

India has not manufactured jet engines. China has manufactured turbojet engines with WP-6 which powers Q-5 / A-5 and WP-13 which powers J-7 / F-7. China has been manufacturing turbofan engines since the 1980s with WS-9 which powers JH-7 and is similar to Mirage 2000's engine. China has been designing war jets since the early 1960s with Q-5 / A-5, fighter jets since the mid 1960s with J-8. In terms of experience, China is way ahead of India.

 

[syedali73]

Okay,

Be happy----YOU WIN---you the champion sir.

( can't argue with an idiot---he will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience ).

Mastan, you don't know me, but I know you very well. You are the same person who once called Mohammed (PBUH) a bhagora, right? I am watching you on this forum for 6+ years and know your tactics. You can intimidate others with your foul mouthing but not me. Dont act stupidly, and stop calling others name. Counter an argument with an argument not by employing cheapness.

How big of an imbecile a person has to give an example of two nuc weapons----they have nothing in common with fighter aircraft or equipment that is used over and over again and again---day in day out----rain sleeet shine snow freeze thaw heat for years and years.

Comparing a one time usage item to those that are in full time service for 20 to 40 years----.

You have an amazing brain----keep it on

Dont chew words - My reply is in response to your comment as follows:

In war---the weapons of choice are weapons systems that have proven their battle worthiness over a period of time.

You may ask---if there has been no battle then how they have proven---well through regular daily training missions and war games. You then already know what kind of breakdown and maintenance issues you will have.

Nukes (or other ordnance for that matter) are immune to these issues?

• When was Messerschmitt Bf 109 designed? Pre-war? Wasn't it designed during the war and later proved to be a lethal system.
• When was P-47 Thunderbolt designed? Wasn't it in 1939? and first flown in 1941?
• What about legendary P-51 Mustang? Designed between 38-39, first flown in 1940?
• What about Russian Yak-3? Designed in 1940, first flight in 1941?
• What about Russian MiG-3? Designed in 1939, first flown in 1941?
• What about Italian Fiat G.55? Designed in 1939, first flight in 1942?

If they were were listening to you, they would have never fielded these legendary fighters.

In war, you throw everything at your enemy, tested or untested. That is the point that I am trying to make but for an arrogant person like you, it is too much to swallow. You think your words are engraved in stone, and you are always right. No, you are not, nobody is always right.

 

[Lil Mathew]

How advanced is Indian aeronautics compared to the West, especially in the 1990s when Tejas was designed? China has designed fighter jets since the 1960s starting with J-8. In terms of experience, India's aeronautics lags far behind that of China. JF-17 is a newer design than Tejas, having been designed in the early 2000s. JF-17 IMO has better aeronautics than Tejas. JF-17 is the world's first fighter having DSI. Tejas still does not have this feature.

According to your analogy (experience) your China never produce better aircrafts than Germany and Sweden (producing fighters from 1900's).. Read about HAL Marut... Also HAL's design consultant for Lca was Dassault..
JF17 design was newer than LCA, early 2000?? What you mean?? Jf17's conventianal aerodynamic (1950's design) with stable airframe is newer.. Come on man.. Your first flight in 2003 never make it a newer design.. According to your analogy it may be better than Rafale (first flight in 1986).. Which aerodynamic property is better in JF17.. Just point out that.. Our LCA's design is unique.. No other fighters in the world have this design..

DSI is only a air intake design.. Why you people making such a big hype for this? It may be gud for low speed fighters like JF17 (max 1.6 mach) and f35.. Also it is inexpensive.. Each fighter's designs are according to meet some criterias.. Your statement like "LCA still does not have DSI" makes no sense at all.. It has Y duct.. Jf17 still doesn't have Y duct.. ..

 

[syedali73]

Our LCA's design is unique.. No other fighters in the world have this design..

LCA design has nothing new. Fairly conventional delta wing. The low sweep edge that you see in the LCA wing design (if this is what you are referring to in terms of uniqueness) has been previously use in SAAB Viggen and F-16XL.

 

[Lil Mathew]

India has not manufactured jet engines. China has manufactured turbojet engines with WP-6 which powers Q-5 / A-5 and WP-13 which powers J-7 / F-7. China has been manufacturing turbofan engines since the 1980s with WS-9 which powers JH-7 and is similar to Mirage 2000's engine. China has been designing war jets since the early 1960s with Q-5 / A-5, fighter jets since the mid 1960s with J-8. In terms of experience, China is way ahead of India.

wp 6 -licenced version of russian RD-9

wp13- russian R-13

ws9- rolls royce rb168..

Do you want the licenced production list of engines by HAL??

 

[Lil Mathew]

LCA design has nothing new. Fairly conventional delta wing. The low sweep edge that you see in the LCA wing design (if this is what you are referring to in terms of uniqueness) has been previously use in SAAB Viggen and F-16XL.

SAAB viggen as a tailless delta and so have high set cannard foreplanes (tailless delta with canards like rafale, eurofighter,j10 etc).. But LCA even though a tailless delta have no cannards.. Both are diff designs..
F16xl is hevier and bigger than f16A\B with cranked arrow delta with a tail .. Diff design from lightest fighter Lca with compound delta with no tail but many similarities..
Also lca has double sweep angles.. Lesser sweep at root and higher later..

 

[Nishan_101]

We now hope that PAC will be able to produce about:
70-110 Super Mushak
50+ K-8s
110+ JF-17 Block-IIs

Also pay them according to the mark of $15 Million per piece for 50 JF-17s Block-I to Chinese and makes them agree not to take INTEREST from Pakistan.

Although further investment would be needed for K-8 Block-II and JF-17 Block-IIIs along with dual version of it.

 

[Bilal.]

Hi,

That is absolutely agreeable---no doubt about that. But it happens in professions where you deal with ideas and resources that do not result in DEATH.

In war---the weapons of choice are weapons systems that have proven their battle worthiness over a period of time.

But history is full of examples in which militaries got stuck with a certain way of thinking only to realise it on the field. So its not far fetched that military professionals too may behave in such a way.

You may ask---if there has been no battle then how they have proven---well through regular daily training missions and war games. You then already know what kind of breakdown and maintenance issues you will have.

+ just because the weapons system is old---does not mean it is out dated. Take the engine for example---the engine from the firsat F16 that we got is still more powerfull and durable than the newest engine of the latest JF17. That old F16 can still out perform the JF in speed, maneavourability, G forces.

And the most important thing of all----your pilots already know the means and limits that they can strecth the F16 to.

For JF 17----it is just the bgeining----in another 10 years

Actually I was pointing to his visible lean towards F-16 Block 50/52 while even calling new Chinese stealth fighters questionalble. I may understand someones agrument that Chinese 5th gens are not as capapble of their american counterparts but there is no doubt that the capability that they will bring will be beyond F-16.

Finally , all the parameters that you compared above, engine thrust, G loading, speed of F-16A/B are also superior to Gripen NG. Should we also conclude that F-16 A/B is a superior platform to Gripen, let alone Gripen NG?

 

[Gentelman]

According to your analogy (experience) your China never produce better aircrafts than Germany and Sweden (producing fighters from 1900's).. Read about HAL Marut... Also HAL's design consultant for Lca was Dassault..
JF17 design was newer than LCA, early 2000?? What you mean?? Jf17's conventianal aerodynamic (1950's design) with stable airframe is newer.. Come on man.. Your first flight in 2003 never make it a newer design.. According to your analogy it may be better than Rafale (first flight in 1986).. Which aerodynamic property is better in JF17.. Just point out that.. Our LCA's design is unique.. No other fighters in the world have this design..

DSI is only a air intake design.. Why you people making such a big hype for this? It may be gud for low speed fighters like JF17 (max 1.6 mach) and f35.. Also it is inexpensive.. Each fighter's designs are according to meet some criterias.. Your statement like "LCA still does not have DSI" makes no sense at all.. It has Y duct.. Jf17 still doesn't have Y duct.. ..

who told you JF-17 has stable airframe??
mach 1.6 was of PT-01 while production line was based on PT-03 which is mach 1.8...
first try getting some knowledge on JFT design before comments and showing your concerns.

We now hope that PAC will be able to produce about:
70-110 Super Mushak
50+ K-8s
110+ JF-17 Block-IIs

Also pay them according to the mark of $15 Million per piece for 50 JF-17s Block-I to Chinese and makes them agree not to take INTEREST from Pakistan.

Although further investment would be needed for K-8 Block-II and JF-17 Block-IIIs along with dual version of it.

you should kindly take your a$$ away from here.
people like you should use comment box on websites to show their illusions and lost.
or here you should create a new thread naming Only For Nishan rather than ruining every thread!!

 

[MastanKhan]

But history is full of examples in which militaries got stuck with a certain way of thinking only to realise it on the field. So its not far fetched that military professionals too may behave in such a way.



Actually I was pointing to his visible lean towards F-16 Block 50/52 while even calling new Chinese stealth fighters questionalble. I may understand someones agrument that Chinese 5th gens are not as capapble of their american counterparts but there is no doubt that the capability that they will bring will be beyond F-16.

Finally , all the parameters that you compared above, engine thrust, G loading, speed of F-16A/B are also superior to Gripen NG. Should we also conclude that F-16 A/B is a superior platform to Gripen, let alone Gripen NG?

Hi,

In a battle---you have to have something that can match one on one to the enemy's strike capability---. Then you also need to have something that concerns the enemy. War is a mind game as well alongwith the weapons---.

F16 in itself is an extremely superior platform---in an equivalent package---it is superior to the GRIPEN.

But the gripen has that certain finess to it that its addition is a complement---so it is an either the F 16 or a gripen---two systems with a great pedigree behind them.

Only if the PAF had known that how dependant the u s would be on pakistan---they would not have spent time analyzing the gripen and rafale in early 2000---but would have taken the F 16 blk 52 right away. Paf wanted to punish the united states but in the end decided that the F 16 was still the best option they had other than the rafale---.

Even though pak military does not have enough funds---so they have learnt to survive in a way dissimilar to our neighbors---. Whereas the neighbors want to re-invent the wheel everytime---pak military consortium take the best they can get or afford and then work on it to get the best out of it. And this has proven to be a successful compromise between the haves and have nots.

 

[SQ8]

SAAB viggen as a tailless delta and so have high set cannard foreplanes (tailless delta with canards like rafale, eurofighter,j10 etc).. But LCA even though a tailless delta have no cannards.. Both are diff designs..
F16xl is hevier and bigger than f16A\B with cranked arrow delta with a tail .. Diff design from lightest fighter Lca with compound delta with no tail but many similarities..
Also lca has double sweep angles.. Lesser sweep at root and higher later..

The LCA wing is EXACTLY the same concept as the 1970's viggen.

Nothing new about this sort of compund delta or revolutionary for that matter. It is a good design philospohy to rectify performance issues with the delta wing and coupled with FBW makes for a potent fighter.. but not some starfighing spaceship. The F-16XL was a FAR more advanced wing design concept to the LCA.. employing both a compound delta and cranked arrow shape,

That being said, dont start whining or going on pointless defensive insecurity on the Tejas.. it is still a very potent design and possibly the best that could come out of that configuration.

ALSO, this thread is on the JF-17.. any further derailment will not be tolerated.



On the topic.

Trying to argue on Chinese 5th gen capabilites which are as such unknown and untested is pointless. As much as the old hags here and the new fanboys like to argue left and right as to whats what while(laughingly) trying to construe plain english of ACdre Tufails small statement by equating it with the F-16 and so on. The Simple fact is what he stated: we do not know about the capabilities of the Chinese 5th gen fighters .. whether they are actually able to do "what it says on the tin". Hence just buying those fighters without knowing its full capabilities is folly(as is buying anything without knowing what it does).

the rest about Chinese 5th gen being inferior to the F-16 or American superiority or otherwise are total brain farts and nothing more. The F-16 is still in my view perhaps the best designed piece of equipment in the past 40 years... and will continue to be relevant ahead. Any force with F-16s in its arsenal is feared simply because of the perfect balance it is between air-to-air and air-to-ground capability.