Used F16's - EDA 50 ~ 100 Available

[el nino]

Typhoons are more expensive than rafale

It would be a stunning move if Pakistan could buy typhoons

Other than su35 and typhoon which are both expensive fighters there is nothing suitable to answer the rafale threat

I am.assuming Pakistan never getting Usa top line fighters beyond f16/52

 

[HRK]

Raad would give us additional capability, and RAAD-2's additional range.

any such cooperation would be difficult as it will create many problems for us even for non-nuclear conventional version .....

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

With all due respect I disagree with this proposal as we not only have Airfoce needs to cater but now have a NASCENT aviation industry as well, so why should we always think as CONSUMER/COSTUMER why not we should adopt the psychology of a PRODUCER ... ??

if we have to go for any such aircraft which should bring many commonalities with JF-17 such as engine & avionics, but will only be different in its design then why not engage our own industry .... ?? task them to come up with some indigenous (or with as little as possible foreign help), in fact why the design should be all different try to bring as much commonalities possible in that venture take Mirage-2000 to Mirage-4000, or earlier F/A-18 to Super Hornet as examples

This will not only address the needs of Airforce but would the serve the local industry & would help in its growth as well ... IF we should necessarily be involved in any 4 or 4+ generation project then in my humble opinion we must try to adopt this path not just off-the shelf purchase unless number are ≤ 40...

The answer is simple. We don't have the time nor do we have the fiscal room to pull it off without eating into other priorities, which may also be of importance to the domestic industry.

There is a cost to just developing a new platform, which in the case of a medium-weight fighter could amount to $500 million to $1bn for development alone. This would then have to be distributed via production, which will result in a premium over the cost of manufacturing.

So now, we are accountable for two sets of cost, and it is highly doubtful that you'd come up with a flyaway cost as low as that of the MiG-35 (which builds upon of hundreds of prior MiG-29M/M2/Ks in the past decade). In addition, there is the cost of time - it took at least 10 years before the Super-7 went from an MoU to entering service with essential air-to-air capabilities.

Finally, Pakistan is in a zero-sum situation. Assume the money to engage in development is there, what about the human resources and infrastructure? Currently, these elements are being steered towards improving the JF-17 and to the next-gen fighter. You will have to remove from one or both of them to come up with a medium-weight fighter at this stage.

 

[HRK]

The answer is simple. We don't have the time nor do we have the fiscal room to pull it off without eating into other priorities, which may also be of importance to the domestic industry.

There is a cost to just developing a new platform, which in the case of a medium-weight fighter could amount to $500 million to $1bn for development alone. This would then have to be distributed via production, which will result in a premium over the cost of manufacturing.

So now, we are accountable for two sets of cost, and it is highly doubtful that you'd come up with a flyaway cost as low as that of the MiG-35 (which builds upon of hundreds of prior MiG-29M/M2/Ks in the past decade). In addition, there is the cost of time - it took at least 10 years before the Super-7 went from an MoU to entering service with essential air-to-air capabilities.

Finally, Pakistan is in a zero-sum situation. Assume the money to engage in development is there, what about the human resources and infrastructure? Currently, these elements are being steered towards improving the JF-17 and to the next-gen fighter. You will have to remove from one or both of them to come up with a medium-weight fighter at this stage.

Sir I am not into debate with you but as you said ...

For all intents and purposes, the MiG-29/35 could be a bigger and longer-range JF-17, and a beater for strike roles.

1- So in this purposed case most of R&D cost including cost related to avionic & weapon is already covered
2- What you are suggesting is an evolution of JF-17 program same as mirage-2000 to Mirage-4000, so why not look internally 'first' for our need in this case
3- For any new venture for 4 or 4+ gen option $ 1 billion should be the minimum financial bench mark so we have to decide either to spend the sum on off-the shelf purchase or internal solution & for this I already said

IF we should necessarily be involved in any 4 or 4+ generation project then in my humble opinion we must try to adopt this path not just off-the shelf purchase unless number are ≤ 40...

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Sir I am not into debate with you but as you said ...


1- So in this purposed case most of R&D cost including cost related to avionic & weapon is already covered
2- What you are suggesting is an evolution of JF-17 program same as mirage-2000 to Mirage-4000, so why not look internally 'first' for our need in this case
3- For any new venture for 4 or 4+ gen option $ 1 billion should be the minimum financial bench mark so we have to decide either to spend the sum on off-the shelf purchase or internal solution & for this I already said

There are several factors.

First, enlarging the JF-17 does not mean the cost of R&D is 'already covered.' This is incorrect. When you go back to a design and incorporate significant changes such as enlarging it for a large engine or two current engines, you are adding new R&D costs. This is a new development overhead that will stick to all fighters built moving forward.

Second, it's not fair to use the M2K and M4K as an example. The French aerospace industry at that stage was vastly more mature in terms of infrastructure, expertise and resources (fiscal and human) to carry out the development.

In fact, the M4K was actually a private venture of Dassault, it didn't cut into public expenditure, which is a factor Pakistan has to deal with in terms of development (PAC is state-owned). If there's a Pakistani company that wants to take a crack at developing an enlarged JF-17 and test-flying it on its own dime, then by all means, do it, but to ask the PAF to look inward means shifting funds from one end to the other. Something will lose.

Finally, the cost isn't just the $1bn.

It could just cost $1bn to actually develop the solution, the costs of manufacturing those fighters in numbers is a separate cost. This was the point I made in my last post: The cost = (1) cost of R&D + (2) cost of manufacturing + (3) cost of long-term maintenance. The buyer is accountable for (1), (2) and (3) in all cases, but the more units built, the lower the cost of (1). This is scale, which the MiG-35 has to the tune of hundreds, whereas this medium-weight JF-17 could have it to a few dozen? This isn't cost effective nor time-friendly.

Look, I am a supporter for indigenous development, but this should be done as a top-down plan with anticipation from at least 10-15 years. This was the case of the JF-17.

We'd be asking for a lot of trouble to spring a sudden indigenous *fighter* program for a need that needs to be resolved as soon as possible (to replace aged Mirage ROSE), and that too when there are other indigenous programs in the pipeline, e.g. advancing the JF-17 lightweight fighter and the next-generation fighter. Springing a third program could derail the current one (JF-17) and delay the future (next-gen).

 

[_NOBODY_]

@Oscar
Sir, although Rafale was over priced at that time but it was still a better option than F-16 as it was offering something that F-16 would never offer and that's French equipments for JF-17(such as radar, engine. electronic warfare capabilities etc). I don't remember seeing a JF-17 equipped with AIM-120, sniper targeting pod or Pratt & Whitney engine. If that would have been the case then JF-17 would be able to go head to head against M2K-9 and upgraded MIG-29.
Typhoon can offer the same benefits that I mentioned earlier.
@MastanKhan your views

 

[ghazi768]

Currently, I don't think the Consortium-aspect of the Typhoon will give the PAF problems. The UK, Italy, Spain and to an extent even Germany are going to need manufacturing work in these tough economic times.

Financing will be an issue, but the Typhoon line will be cold for 2 years, at which point they'll begin with Kuwait's order. I think we can add another 2 years before they can begin another order. In this case, Pakistan has four years to come up with a down-payment, and a mix of loans and term-financing could take them the rest of the course.

My main concern would be ancillary costs. The PAF has a solid air-to-air component with the F-16s and JF-17s, so the Typhoon - as-is - would add to air superiority more so than deep-strike. It has the payload and hard-points, but Pakistan would get maximum utility by integrating its own SOWs to the platform. So there'll be a cost to custom integration, or a cost to buying pricey munitions from MBDA (e.g. Exocet, KEPD 350E, etc).

Affordable customization for deep-strike might be a reason why I think the Su-35 is something worth pursuing. It cost the Chinese $83 million a unit with spare engines and parts, so it could be more affordable to procure up-front. The main issues are (1) is this actually a real factor for the PAF and (2) are both sides ready to level to make it happen.

A very nice analysis, thanks. As just a brainstorming exercise..

if we go for a squadron of EF of 18 (not taking in account 6 additional as a buffer) than it will cost roughly 2 billion USD just to induct aircraft excluding cost for training and may other support equipments. This excludes any additional spare stores and weapons also. We'll need sets of at-least 5 BVRAAM, SRAAM etc. which will add at-least another 1 bn to just induct.

A Su-35 induction will cost less for aircrafts but more for weapons stores as you cannot use already available AIM types. But it will also cost in neighbourhood of 2 bn.

A JF B version will cost about 700 mn plus to induct a squadron plus additional costs for increasing already available stores. And its squadron will be available sooner than others as well.

I prefer that the PAF look at the MiG-35 or MiG-29M/M2.

It's a medium-weight platform, but we could equip the RD-33MK to the JF-17 as well - the MiG-35 and JF-17 could share the same engine. In fact, one could go several steps further and have the MiG-35 and JF-17 share the same radar, avionics, EW/ECM and weapons too.

For all intents and purposes, the MiG-29/35 could be a bigger and longer-range JF-17, and a beater for strike roles. Egypt got its MiG-29M/M2s for USD $40m a fighter.

My apologies, I do not see an iota of a chance of Mig29/35.
It is bigger indeed but not longer ranged than JF. It is out-gunned, out-ranged, and 'out-radared' by a JF.

No
I am referring to people who bring up "fantastic" revelations as if they were there at the meeting.



If it is to be the Su-platform, then a su-35 like upgrade of the Su-30 makes more sense. None of the TvC, no canards, just a more rcs optimized airframe with a conformal bay. A silent flanker so to speak.
Development costs might be offset by the absense of any complex,heavy and generally redundant TVC.

Let me add to your reply that, TVC basically provides you a limitless alpha and therefore to write more relaxed FCS.

 

[Lord Of Gondor]

It is out-gunned, out-ranged, and 'out-radared' by a JF.

Nope.
The 29K/SMT can carry more, fly further and detect and engage targets farther.

The MiG-29K features a strengthened airframe and undercarriage suitable for landing on aircraft carriers. The airframe is made of about 15% composite materials. The aircraft is fitted with folding wings, arrestor hook and a catapult for carrier operations. The radar signature of the aircraft is reduced by four to five times over the basic MiG-29.

The MiG-29K is fitted with more powerful RD-33MK engines, replacing the RD-33K turbofan engines used in the early prototypes. The flight hours of the fighter are doubled, but the flight hour cost is reduced by about 2.5 times. The aircraft can operate without overhaul.

The single and double seat variations feature the same airborne equipment and weapons. The MiG-29KUB two-seat fighter is primarily intended for pilot training, but can also conduct combat missions similar to the single-seat fighter.

The glass cockpit of the MiG-29K aircraft accommodates one pilot. It is equipped with three multifunctional colour LCDs, a digital fly-by-wire flight control system and TopOwl helmet-mounted targeting system.

The airborne avionics based on open architecture are classified under MIL-STD-1553B standard. The open architecture allows the installation of new equipment and weapons according to customer requirements.

The fighter has multirole, multimode Zhuk-ME pulse doppler radar from Fazotron-NIIP Corporation. The radar with the slot array has wider scanning angle and longer target detection range. Zhuk-ME can track up to ten air targets while engaging four targets simultaneously.

The MiG-29K/KUB fighters have multi channel infra-red search and track (IRST) system with target designation system. The aircraft can also be installed with IR and laser sighting devices for ground targets illumination.

MiG-29K is armed with RVV-AE and R-73E air-to-air missiles, Kh-31A and Kh-35E anti-ship missiles and Kh-31P anti-radar missiles. Other armaments include guided aerial bombs, rockets and aerial bombs.

The aircraft is mounted with a 30mm GSh-30-1 cannon with 100 rounds. A wide range of weapons can be added upon the request of the customer.

MiG-29K/KUB is the only ship-borne fighter in the world to fire Kh-31A supersonic anti-ship missiles resistant to air-defence.

The MiG-29K is powered by two RD-33MK engines equipped with smokeless combustion chamber and new full authority digital engine control (FADEC) system.

The power plant provides a ferry range of 2,000km. The range can be increased to 3,000km with three underwing fuel drop tanks.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mig-29k-carrier-based-multirole-fighter-aircraft/

And the IAF MiG29 UPG(SMT) has even more teeth.

Avionics

- New databus 1553B standard to incorporate newer avionics

- New mission computers, navigation system (RLG-INS w/GPS + possible Glonass module - Sagem's Sigma95N), Stores Management System, new VRS (Video Recording System) plus DMG (Display Map Generator). VRS and DMG likely to be sourced from Israel or locally.

-Glass cockpit with new HUD, two MFDs, HOTAS

-Zhuk ME MultiFunction radar with A2A/A2G modes; new IFF; Zhuk variant for IAF is Zhuk M2E, with an improved signal processor over Indian Navy MiG-29Ks which received the Zhuk M1E (source:AWST Sharper Eyes for India's MiGs) The improved processor would allow for improved raid assessment, and NCTR (non cooperative target recognition).

Deputy Director (Phazatron) Yuri Goskov quoted:

Guskov said that Phazotron is already working on the next modification of its slot array radars, the Zhuk M2E. This version will have a faster processor, allowing it to classify targets by type (for instance, fighters, bombers and helicopters) and to break-out formation targets flying at 20-30 meters apart. The radar can also be programmed to identify aircraft by type – in the case of a new type, it can record its reflected signal and later use it for identification.
The Zhuk M2E should start flight testing this year. The modernized radar will equip 62 Indian Air Force MiG-29s that MiG is modifying to the MiG-29UPG configuration under contract to the IAF.

-NIPP OLS-UE (as on latest MiG-35 and MiG-29K). Has a TV channel. Also has an advanced IR matrix for increased range. For the MiG-35, MiG notes "The IRST system with infra-red, TV and laser sighting equipment has been developed using the space technologies which were not applied previously in aviation. The system distinctive features are the increased range, detection, tracking, identification and lock-on of air, ground/surface targets in the forward and rear hemispheres, at day and night measuring the distance with laser range-finder as well as the formation of target designation and laser illumination of ground targets. The IRST system and new helmet-mounted target designation system are integrated into the armament control system." The IAF SMT upgrade does not have the fuselage mounted pod, so it cannot track ground targets (IAF will use the Litening instead) but rest applies, for the forward facing IRST.

-D-29 EW suite: Developed by DRDO with inhouse high accuracy DF RWR fit which cues AESA jammers. Latter codeveloped with Elettronica. DARE developed a high performance EW system with a scalable, modular architecture. The system can receive signals from multiple channels, process them in an Indian developed signal processing suite, and then devise appropriate jamming countermeasures to be initiated by jammers linked to the output channels. The LCA & MiG-27 Upgrade, both feature conventional Transmitter based jammers but the MiG-29 has an AESA fit developed with Elettronica. This system combines high grade coverage with high ERP (Emitted Radiated Power) for effective countermeasures.

-Improved chaff & flares system: Likely to be the locally developed system by Bharat Dynamics Ltd.

-V/UHF radio fit + IAF datalink. Radios likely to be Software Defined Radios developed by HAL

-VOR/ILS/TACAN from HAL

Weaponry

-R73E,R77, KH-35UE, KAB-500/1500, Kh-31 A/P family missiles, Kh-29 L/T (see table below for complete list from Russian side)

Other systems to be added will be the local Astra BVR AAM (Mk1 and Mk2), and the Sudarshan family LGBs

Fuel

The IAF upgrade carries the typical SMT class humpback. Range is now increased by around 50% over original MiG-29, increasing endurance at typical operating radius. IAF MiG-29s can also carry both wing plus fuselage fuel tanks, 1500 L each. The new fit also includes IFR.

New Engines

Under a separate deal, HAL will supply new RD-33s manufactured under license from Klimov. These are RD33 Series 3 engines.

http://bharatrakshak.wikia.com/wiki/MiG-29

 

[ghazi768]

Nope.
The 29K/SMT can carry more, fly further and detect and engage targets farther.



http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mig-29k-carrier-based-multirole-fighter-aircraft/

And the IAF MiG29 UPG(SMT) has even more teeth.

http://bharatrakshak.wikia.com/wiki/MiG-29

Good for you..
My advance congratulations for, when you will add another set of Mig-29ks for the carrier you are building.
Also now that Mig-21s are on their last legs, it will be a good idea for you to replace them with Mig-29SMT, as you have already mentioned, you consider them very good.

 

[Lord Of Gondor]

Good for you..
My advance congratulations for, when you will add another set of Mig-29ks for the carrier you are building.
Also now that Mig-21s are on their last legs, it will be a good idea for you to replace them with Mig-29SMT, as you have already mentioned, you consider them very good.

Not a bad idea for the PAF too.

 

[ghazi768]

Not a bad idea for the PAF too.

Thanks but we'll go our way.. and prefer carrying an SD-10 than an RVV-AE..

 

[Blue Marlin]

just spoke to a friend who works at warton (eft final assembly) and he told me that bae systems was working on bringing the acquisition costs down to 85 million pounds Stirling to make it more attractive.

Thanks but we'll go our way.. and prefer carrying an SD-10 than an RVV-AE..

the sd-10 has a longer range than the rvv-ae. so when they (iaf) come close enough to strike, the chances of them being detected and pakistan would very likely would be first to fire (in theory)

but when the rafale comes with the meteor............

 

[MastanKhan]

@Oscar
Sir, although Rafale was over priced at that time but it was still a better option than F-16 as it was offering something that F-16 would never offer and that's French equipments for JF-17(such as radar, engine. electronic warfare capabilities etc). I don't remember seeing a JF-17 equipped with AIM-120, sniper targeting pod or Pratt & Whitney engine. If that would have been the case then JF-17 would be able to go head to head against M2K-9 and upgraded MIG-29.
Typhoon can offer the same benefits that I mentioned earlier.
@MastanKhan your views

Hi,

Price was of a lesser issue---the most important part would have been the sabotage---.

With Rafale in pak inventory---india would have not gone for the rafales---and would be left with very limited other options---.

Just like in the 80's---the top best---the F16 was not the answer---the M2K was the answer---.

India would never get the F16 at that time---and the M2k would be flying high in Paf colors---.

A tactical solution to a major major problem.

Sir I am not into debate with you but as you said ...


1- So in this purposed case most of R&D cost including cost related to avionic & weapon is already covered
2- What you are suggesting is an evolution of JF-17 program same as mirage-2000 to Mirage-4000, so why not look internally 'first' for our need in this case
3- For any new venture for 4 or 4+ gen option $ 1 billion should be the minimum financial bench mark so we have to decide either to spend the sum on off-the shelf purchase or internal solution & for this I already said

Hi,

That would be a totally different aircraft---from M2K to M4K.

The evolution of JF17 would be from a Gripen to a Gripen NG---which might be on the books already---.

That is a realistic approach---with not too expensive a price tag---.

But then it is better to go buy the J10 C / D rather than bring about a major change.

 

[denel]

There are several factors.

First, enlarging the JF-17 does not mean the cost of R&D is 'already covered.' This is incorrect. When you go back to a design and incorporate significant changes such as enlarging it for a large engine or two current engines, you are adding new R&D costs. This is a new development overhead that will stick to all fighters built moving forward.

Second, it's not fair to use the M2K and M4K as an example. The French aerospace industry at that stage was vastly more mature in terms of infrastructure, expertise and resources (fiscal and human) to carry out the development.

In fact, the M4K was actually a private venture of Dassault, it didn't cut into public expenditure, which is a factor Pakistan has to deal with in terms of development (PAC is state-owned). If there's a Pakistani company that wants to take a crack at developing an enlarged JF-17 and test-flying it on its own dime, then by all means, do it, but to ask the PAF to look inward means shifting funds from one end to the other. Something will lose.

Finally, the cost isn't just the $1bn.

It could just cost $1bn to actually develop the solution, the costs of manufacturing those fighters in numbers is a separate cost. This was the point I made in my last post: The cost = (1) cost of R&D + (2) cost of manufacturing + (3) cost of long-term maintenance. The buyer is accountable for (1), (2) and (3) in all cases, but the more units built, the lower the cost of (1). This is scale, which the MiG-35 has to the tune of hundreds, whereas this medium-weight JF-17 could have it to a few dozen? This isn't cost effective nor time-friendly.

Look, I am a supporter for indigenous development, but this should be done as a top-down plan with anticipation from at least 10-15 years. This was the case of the JF-17.

We'd be asking for a lot of trouble to spring a sudden indigenous *fighter* program for a need that needs to be resolved as soon as possible (to replace aged Mirage ROSE), and that too when there are other indigenous programs in the pipeline, e.g. advancing the JF-17 lightweight fighter and the next-generation fighter. Springing a third program could derail the current one (JF-17) and delay the future (next-gen).

I do concur with Bilal. Trying to saturate an existing fleet with another non prod model which is already burdened by obsolescence makes is counter productive. Stay the path of evolving jf-17 there is a very long way away. If RSA ties prove fruitful, there is a huge win in several arenas - there are already several areas where you have benefited already and carried it forward in Block 2. Jf-17b and Block 3 from what is being quoted will bring very significant improvements. THat is where the lines need to be drawn to what would become two seperate or three seperate lines e.g. Single/dual + export variant.
Main concern will be for your institutes to shed the plagurising/copying and spend time to kick start local R&D.
Look at us, we did not just wake up at once and decide this was to be. It was the foundation laid in the 50's knowing that we would be hit with sanctions and early work started. Educational institutions are tied to industries and it is a symbiotic relationship. For example, some of the early work we did which i took part in for our hf comms net later evolved into bluetooth; it is good to see always that my contribution is part of the framework which everyone uses now and does not think about it... sorry i digressed from the topic but wanted to highlight that without efforts and hard work, you cannot move mountains.

 

[MastanKhan]

I do concur with Bilal. Trying to saturate an existing fleet with another non prod model which is already burdened by obsolescence makes is counter productive. Stay the path of evolving jf-17 there is a very long way away. If RSA ties prove fruitful, there is a huge win in several arenas - there are already several areas where you have benefited already and carried it forward in Block 2. Jf-17b and Block 3 from what is being quoted will bring very significant improvements. THat is where the lines need to be drawn to what would become two seperate or three seperate lines e.g. Single/dual + export variant.
Main concern will be for your institutes to shed the plagurising/copying and spend time to kick start local R&D.
Look at us, we did not just wake up at once and decide this was to be. It was the foundation laid in the 50's knowing that we would be hit with sanctions and early work started. Educational institutions are tied to industries and it is a symbiotic relationship. For example, some of the early work we did which i took part in for our hf comms net later evolved into bluetooth; it is good to see always that my contribution is part of the framework which everyone uses now and does not think about it... sorry i digressed from the topic but wanted to highlight that without efforts and hard work, you cannot move mountains.

Hi,

Thank you for the post---.

I only wish that SA had waited a little longer and procured the JF17's rather than the Grippen---.

And then marketed it with their weapons & EW package as a whole. What a boost that would have given to the venture.

I don't know if the Paf ever targeted SA for that---.