Thanx for your kind comments: "To Mr RA: The Tejas Mk2's internal EW suite will in fact be a generation ahead of what's on board the J-10/J-10A at the moment. Also, engine reliability of the F414-IN56 will be far more than what the AL-31FN can offer." This was some sort of heart soothing.
BTW what advantages/disadvantages the J-10 can derive out of singular air suction at bottom center, as in F-16, Lavi and EFT. I think it can work better for air entry at difficult angles. Please inform.
prasun da there have been reports that CAC has demonstrated its mediumweight 5th gen designs to the PAF and the PAF is expected to make a selection. what is your take on this?
Also, wasn't the twin engined carrier based j-10 was rejected by the PLANAF in favour of the j-15?
Hi Prasun, What's with Taiwan's F-16 Block 52requests
What does China get (military value)by hacking government sites apart from public's attention bcoz of the media? Any late attempts fter they hacked into LockheedM n/w
speculation as too wether they gained any avionics tech from their past attempts?
To Anon@9.57AM: The original J-10 and JT-10s were Block-1 tranche aircraft incorporating avionics technologies found in F-16 Block 30-type MRCAs. The J-10A/FC-20 subsequently built upon that to incorporate the IRST sensor and divertless air intakes to improve the aircraft's instantaneous/sustained turn rates and angle-of-attack rates. Also incorporated was the IRST sensor and helmet-mounted display (clones of Russian products like the OLS-30 and Sura-M) to enable AAMs like the PL-8 and PL-9C to engage off-boresight targets. The FC-20s won't get the PL-8, but the PL-9C and PL-12 AAMs. The FC-10/J-10A and the JF-17 Thunder will both be data-linked with the ZFK-03 AEW & C platforms only. But as of now, there is nothing to prove that the FC-20/J-10A will have either AESA- or PESA-based MMRs. The J-10B on the other hand is a revolutionary upgrade for aircraft carrier-based operations. The PLAN has also specified that this M-MRCA must be powered by indigenously developed turbofans, and not the AL-31FN. It now remains to be seen by when the indigenous WS-10B and WS-15 turbofans will be introduced into service for the JF-17, FC-10/J-10A and J-10B.
Mr RA: Have just explained above.
To kaustubh: The CAC has a growth roadmap for the JF-17, including a stealthy variant (see uploaded photo above) that would incorporate Gen 5 mission avionics. The twin-engined J-10B is still under development and therefore the J-15 is being built, al;beit in very limited numbers, not more than 20.
To Anon@7.07PM: The ROCAF F-16A/Bs are long overdue for mission avionics upgrades, especially with regard to beyond visual range air combat engagements. The PLA's cyber warriors do need to maintain their operational proficiencies and therefore from time to time there are periodic reports of hackings. China never gained much in terms of fundamental military R & D or design data simply because design data must always be accompanied by production engineering data in order to undertake bulk production of weapons and sensors. Therefore, China has found it much more convenient and speedy to just spend some money to buy out both design data and production engineering data from the former CIS republics, which anyway were available for a song throughout the 1990s. The frequent reports of China benefitting from industrial espionage conducted in North America, Europe and Scandinavia are often overstated and are not backed up by undeniable evidence.
speaking of JF-17, there's been no news of plaaf wanting to induct it.. IYO would they dump it for the better J-10 family and go against the deal with pak where they would purchase a fairly large number as well?
Dear Sir Could you please write about Divertless Air Intakes Because the Pakistanis FLAUNT this thing in their forums; which they claim will be available on JF 17/J 10 etc
The Gripen folks have released another ad on the MMRCA. It seems that the other (eliminated) contenders are still around. Is this because there is a realistic fear that the competition will run aground or is this just a street-smart negotiating tactic to make the two Euro-contenders play nice?
whats the hoo-hah about china's carrier? is it a joke or something? that varyag junk is not at all seaworthy and everyone knows that... your inputs pls pks?
To Anon@10.50AM: Neither the PLAAF nor the PLAN have any plans for inducting the JF-17 into service.
To VJ: No they are not. Ity is just a different design philisophy to cater to a particular type of airframe. If the divertless air intakes were that critical then by now the new-build F-16s from Lockheed Martin would all have sported such intakes.
To Anon@3.47PM: Issues like high AoA regimes and higher instantaneous/sustained turn rates are today of little consequence in either air combat or air-to-ground strike sorties. As I had explained earlier, the combination of AEW & C platforms, all-aspect AAMs for within visual range air combat, IRST sensors and helmet-mounted displays have today ensured that traditional dogfights are a thing of the past. Likewise, combat aircraft no longer are reqd to launch fumb bombs and unguided rockets by resorting to high AoA flight profiles.
To commonsense: It seems Saab Aircraft marketeers do not have commonsense after all. For everyone knows very well that India is trying to develop the Tejas Mk2 LCA as a viable and cheaper alternative to the JAS-39 Gripen NG. Therefore, it logically follows that a customer will not settle for two types of aircraft to achieve a single solution. It is about 'either or', and not 'this and that'.
To 5th Avenue & Anon@7.37PM: To be fair to the Chinese, they have spent more than what India is spending (on the INS Vikramaditya) on making the Varyag operational. Hats off to them for achieving this feat with Ukraine's help and it is a singular demonstration of the adage 'where there's a will there's a way'. The Varyag is not proceeding for sea trials, which will be a long drawn-out process lasting at least 18 months, but is now only undertaking harbour trials. As for posing a maritime threat to the US or even Japan in the western Pacific, not for the next 50 years.
The deal for hawk was for 66 nos +57 nos=123 nos. In first lot 24 to be acquired off shelf and 42 nos to be built at HAL for IAF. In second lot 40 more for IAF and 17nos for Indian navy ie, total OF 57 more to be built at HAL. Since induction 1 hawk of IAF had crashed leaving 48 in service at present of 24 nos direct and 25 nos HAL ie 49 inducted.
Mr.Sengupta,you mentioned previously that the "Prahaar" is an Indo-Israeli joinly developed product. Subsequent to the launch, the missile does not seem to bear resemblance to the Extra and Lora missiles of Israel. Do you still believe that the "Prahaar" is an Indi-Israeli JV instead of a DRDO developed product?
Also, regarding China's maiden Carrier, wasn't there an agreement signed between Chin Luck & Kiev that prohibited the former from refitting it for military use. Whether training or not, it is nonetheless being sent on harbor trials for an eventual military purpose. It is a known fact that the Chinese bought this carrier anyhow to learn more in this sphere, with Chin Luck being owned by elements in the PLAGF and PLAN and the fact tat Chinese government officials were actively persuading Turkey to allow the Carrier transit. But nonetheless, at the end of the day do you reckon the Chinese would actually commission this Carrier into service or merely use it as a training deck?
In addition, did China only get the stripped down vessel (which was badly damaged on arrival to China because of some incidents during while it was tugged to China), or did the receive the full set of documents (i.e. Issued for Construction drawings, Engineering Drawings, Structural layout plans, Wiring Diagrams & usage / maintenance logs etc) from Nevskoye Bureau
I think that picture posted is of a fan model rather than of any JF-17 version. It is simply not possible to have a stealthy version of such a small aircraft.
Indeed if US wants it can provide DSI and many other gadgetries of 5th gen aircrafts but why would they?
Their aircrafts are already selling like hotcake
They can save these new gadgetries for 5th gen aircrafts to ensure their sales.
What are the chances that DRDO & ADA will meet their targets this time and supply the IAF with real deal rather then something like half cooked LCA MK-I provided now after decades of promise?
@prasun: i find it surprising that you claim that the jf-17 can be turned into a 5th gen fighter. even the most die hard fanboys of this plane concede this to be infeasible. Further, as reported, the chinese 5th gen plane the PAF is going to induct has been termed as the AMF or advanced multirole fighter, and is differnt from the jf-17 block 2. Presumably, it is the product of an agreement signed in 2007/8 between the two countries to 'jointly' develop a 5th gen design. I was hoping you'd have information about this program, but you're coming up with the 'stealth' jf-17 news, which is nothing but the product of internet fanboys. what i really worry about is, given the pace of chinese development, the PAF may have its 5th gen platform in service before the IAF inducts the FGFA, same way as the PN is likely to complete its qing ssk acquisition before the IN's scorpene.
On a related note, do you have any information about the planned integration of the A-Darter/PL-10 on the jf-17. Also, what is the real range of the brazilian ARM the PAF is acquiring?
Also, you're the first person i've seen claiming that the J-15 will be superceded by a twin-engined J-10 variant. Almost all chinese sources claim SAC is developing a LO follow on to the J-15, presumably called the J-16 or the J-19. There's also talk of a separate SAC 5th gen aircraft that is close to first flight, and it might be carrier-capable.
One thing that is for sure is...no CAC plane is getting on a chinese carrier in this decade, and certainly not a j-10 variant.
To Anon@3.34PM: It will indeed be a folly to describe a missile as being indigenous purely in terms of external looks. What matters are the on-board avionics components and the warhead sections, plus the launch vehicle's land navigation systems--areas in which India has not yet gained self-sufficiency. The three-section design layout of the Prahaar as described by Dr Avinash Chander mimicks that of the LORA. Furthermore, the warhead section will carry sensor-fuzed munitions of the type not yet developed in-country by anyone and without which a conventional warhead-equipped NLOS-BSM like the Prahaar is pretty much useless. All these have been explained and in great detail in the August 2011 issue of FORCE magazine, which is now available on the newsstands. Regarding the Chinese aircraft carrier (ex-Varyag), there was no binding agreement between Beijing & Kiev about not rebuilding the vessel as an operational carrier. Therefore, there's nothing to prevent the PLAN from deploying this carrier as an operational vessel. Training vessels are always counted as being part of an operational fleet. And judging by the time taken by cChina to restore and refit this vessel, it is evident that along with the vessel, China also purchased the complete design and production engineering packages from Ukraine, especially those pertaining to the propulsion system.
To Anon@6.04PM: Presently, all we can do is expect the ADA to keep its word regarding the Tejas Mk2 and LCA (Navy) Mk2.
To kaustubh: The stealthy JF-17's artwork did not originate from fanboys. The illustration was displayed by CATIC as far back as November 2006 at the Zhuhai Air Show. The same goes for the J-14. Yes, there is a distinct possibility that the stealthy JF-17 could emerge before the FGFA. Furthermore, the Pakistan Navy is not acquiring the Qing-class SSK to counter the Scorpene SSKs of India and therefore the production rate of the Qing-class SSK is not related to those of the Scorpenes. The Pakistan Navy's undersea warfare capabilities are already far ahead of India thanks to the three AIP-equipped Agosta 90B SSKs. The Qing-class subs are meant to match India's projected deployment of Arihant-class SSBNs.
To kaustubh: There are no fifth-generation combat aircraft being developed in China. Even the J-20 is referred to as a fourth-generation design in Chinese parlance. What SAC is now developing is a stealthy replacement for existing JH-7A bombers. The PAF JF-17s will have PL-9Cs and SD-10As, and not A-Darter/PL-10.
1. " All these have been explained and in great detail in the August 2011 issue of FORCE magazine, which is now available on the newsstands."
Unfortunately FORCE magazine is not available in my country. Is it available online or could you reproduce important bits of concern of that article here if you're unable to reproduce the whole thing?
2. "And judging by the time taken by China to restore and refit this vessel, it is evident that along with the vessel, China also purchased the complete design and production engineering packages from Ukraine, especially those pertaining to the propulsion system."
I don't know how this makes sense because it's been almost 11 years since Varyag arrived in China. In addition, China hardly has the knowhow in Ship propulsion. At best they could only have got the engine layout and configuration / ancillary installation schematics and drawings; but not the blueprints (or in other words collision model) of the engine itself?
To Anon@11.18AM: "China hardly has the knowhow in Ship propulsion." --------------------------------- Is this a joke? Just visit the workshops at Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai plus other engine production workshops in Guangzhou, Tianjin, Qingdao and Suzhou and you will realise how wrong you are. China today ranks second in terms of shipbuilding and do you think this was possible if the country lacked know-how in designing and building propulsion systems? Ukrainian companies like Zorya and PUBLIC JSC "CONSTAR" TURBINE PLANT OF KRIVOY ROG at the maritime technologies SEZ in Tianjin have since the late 1990s been producing steam and gas turbines for both commercial vessels and warships.
To Austin: Regretably the IMDS 2011 show report was postponed to the next issue for want of space. It is a nightmare trying to negotiate the traffic snarls between Moscow and Zhukovsky. It takes at least 2 hours of driving time to reach the show site. In any case, it is not about having a good time, as time is always precious during such trade shows. I'm at the expo primarily to ink some sale-and-purchase agreements. The only interesting things to see at the expo this time are the booths featuring avionics companies. Still no word about the emergence of the definitive AL-41F turbofan for the FGFA/PMF. The aerobatics of the two T-50 PAK-FAs therefore don't mean much.
Prasun the present engine is good enough for the Mk1 batches , the new engine is still some years away and the current engine too is not a mature product.
I think they are working on a 18T engine for the later batches.
Prasun, are you seriously suggesting that Pakistan is acquiring 6 SSGNs for strategic detterence. That procurement makes no sense when their conventional attack submarine strength is just five boats(with only 4 operational). And i'm sure you do know that currently only one Agosta class sub is equipped with the AIP system.
Regarding the aircraft generation naming convention, the Chinese skipped one generation of aircraft development and so the western 5th gen is their 4th gen. Therefore, while we would call the F-22, T-50 and the J-20 as 5th gen planes, the Chinese term them as 4th generation aircraft. Now i'm using the western convention here and referring to the J-20 as a 5th generation aircraft, which it is. But you're calling it a 4th generation aircraft, as the chinese do, which is funny because then you'd also be referring to the F-22/T-50 as 4th generation planes.
Also, the 'stealth' JF-17, as you've said, is just a reduced RCS version, with some frontal stealth optimizations made to the airframe, and assorted upgrades to the sensors, avionics and powerplants which will only give it a 4.5 generation level capability. It does not feature any internal weapon bays, or all-aspect RF LO, and it is not a true 5th gen fighter as the term 'stealth' would imply. However, both CAC and SAC have 5th generation aircraft projects in development, apart from the J-20, and PAF will induct one of these to counter the IAF's procurement of the t-50/FGFA.
Further, both SAC and XAC are developing a replacement for the JH-7. SAC also multiple programs ongoing to upgrade the J-11B along the lines of the F-15E and the F-15SE.
Now, regarding the JF-17's A2A armament, i'm aware of the PL-9/SD-10. But i'm curious about is what wvraam/bvraam is planned for the future? iirc, both the A-Darter and the PL-10 are candidates for the future wvraam.
To kaustubh: The Pakistan Navy will not get SSGNs, but Qing-class SSKs equipped with fuel cell-based AIP systems and armed with CJ-10K LACMs. The Navy’s two Agosta 90B SSKs—PNS Khalid and PNS Saad—have been retrofitted with MESMA AIP modules (work on this began way back in 2009), while PNS Hamza was fitted from the start with the MESMA. Regarding generation classifications, I prefer to stick to classifications provided by the OEM. Regarding the stealthy JF-17, plans call for a conformal weapons bay of the type proposed by Boeing for the Super Hornet International Roadmap. In addition, as in the J-20’s case, extensive use will be made of radar absorbing composite materials for airframe construction. However, stealth is not just about low-observability, but also about supercruise and in this area the Chinese are well behind the rest of the world. The J-11B’s upgrade prospects are limited unless the Chinese come up with an AESA-based MMR and to date there’s no evidence to indicate the existence of even a homegrown passive phased-array airborne multimode radar, leave alone the AESA-based MMR. The same goes for the J-11B’s future powerplant prospects. Regarding the future WRAAM and BVRAAM for the JF-17 in future, there are no plans for the PL-10 or PL-21, but going for the PL-12 and that too if the PAF’s JF-17s are fitted with the Vixen 5000e AESA-based MMR.
Hi Prasun,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post. Could you please provide some information about how J-10 family grew. What new is added to it.
Thanx for your kind comments: "To Mr RA: The Tejas Mk2's internal EW suite will in fact be a generation ahead of what's on board the J-10/J-10A at the moment. Also, engine reliability of the F414-IN56 will be far more than what the AL-31FN can offer." This was some sort of heart soothing.
ReplyDeleteBTW what advantages/disadvantages the J-10 can derive out of singular air suction at bottom center, as in F-16, Lavi and EFT. I think it can work better for air entry at difficult angles. Please inform.
prasun da there have been reports that CAC has demonstrated its mediumweight 5th gen designs to the PAF and the PAF is expected to make a selection. what is your take on this?
ReplyDeleteAlso, wasn't the twin engined carrier based j-10 was rejected by the PLANAF in favour of the j-15?
Prasun Sengupta plaese you can explain on how about J-10 in India MMRCA compatition and also PAC Kamra collaboration in development J10.B?
ReplyDeleteHi Prasun,
ReplyDeleteWhat's with Taiwan's F-16 Block 52requests
What does China get (military value)by hacking government sites apart from public's attention bcoz of the media?
Any late attempts fter they hacked into LockheedM n/w
speculation as too wether they gained any avionics tech from their past attempts?
plz explain ...
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@9.57AM: The original J-10 and JT-10s were Block-1 tranche aircraft incorporating avionics technologies found in F-16 Block 30-type MRCAs. The J-10A/FC-20 subsequently built upon that to incorporate the IRST sensor and divertless air intakes to improve the aircraft's instantaneous/sustained turn rates and angle-of-attack rates. Also incorporated was the IRST sensor and helmet-mounted display (clones of Russian products like the OLS-30 and Sura-M) to enable AAMs like the PL-8 and PL-9C to engage off-boresight targets. The FC-20s won't get the PL-8, but the PL-9C and PL-12 AAMs. The FC-10/J-10A and the JF-17 Thunder will both be data-linked with the ZFK-03 AEW & C platforms only. But as of now, there is nothing to prove that the FC-20/J-10A will have either AESA- or PESA-based MMRs. The J-10B on the other hand is a revolutionary upgrade for aircraft carrier-based operations. The PLAN has also specified that this M-MRCA must be powered by indigenously developed turbofans, and not the AL-31FN. It now remains to be seen by when the indigenous WS-10B and WS-15 turbofans will be introduced into service for the JF-17, FC-10/J-10A and J-10B.
ReplyDeleteMr RA: Have just explained above.
To kaustubh: The CAC has a growth roadmap for the JF-17, including a stealthy variant (see uploaded photo above) that would incorporate Gen 5 mission avionics. The twin-engined J-10B is still under development and therefore the J-15 is being built, al;beit in very limited numbers, not more than 20.
To Anon@7.07PM: The ROCAF F-16A/Bs are long overdue for mission avionics upgrades, especially with regard to beyond visual range air combat engagements. The PLA's cyber warriors do need to maintain their operational proficiencies and therefore from time to time there are periodic reports of hackings. China never gained much in terms of fundamental military R & D or design data simply because design data must always be accompanied by production engineering data in order to undertake bulk production of weapons and sensors. Therefore, China has found it much more convenient and speedy to just spend some money to buy out both design data and production engineering data from the former CIS republics, which anyway were available for a song throughout the 1990s. The frequent reports of China benefitting from industrial espionage conducted in North America, Europe and Scandinavia are often overstated and are not backed up by undeniable evidence.
speaking of JF-17, there's been no news of plaaf wanting to induct it.. IYO would they dump it for the better J-10 family and go against the deal with pak where they would purchase a fairly large number as well?
ReplyDeleteare divertless air intakes better than traditional/ serpentile air intake?
ReplyDeleteDear Sir Could you please write about Divertless Air Intakes Because the Pakistanis FLAUNT this thing in their forums; which they claim will be available on JF 17/J 10 etc
ReplyDeleteWhat is it How is it beneficial
India doesnt has this feature in its fighters and
will it affect our fighters in war
Please do the needful
Hello Prasun,
ReplyDeleteI hope you have come across this before-
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2jIr9wv5yNQ/TkJXuqx9baI/AAAAAAAANhA/Q-0n5-J_-oE/s1600/IMG-20110810-00051-780847.jpg
The Gripen folks have released another ad on the MMRCA. It seems that the other (eliminated) contenders are still around. Is this because there is a realistic fear that the competition will run aground or is this just a street-smart negotiating tactic to make the two Euro-contenders play nice?
whats the hoo-hah about china's carrier? is it a joke or something? that varyag junk is not at all seaworthy and everyone knows that... your inputs pls pks?
ReplyDeleteHi Prasn,
ReplyDeleteSeems Chinese are having their Varyag Carrier undergoing sea trials
When do yo think china will start to threaten US's military capabilities in the pacific?
To Anon@10.50AM: Neither the PLAAF nor the PLAN have any plans for inducting the JF-17 into service.
ReplyDeleteTo VJ: No they are not. Ity is just a different design philisophy to cater to a particular type of airframe. If the divertless air intakes were that critical then by now the new-build F-16s from Lockheed Martin would all have sported such intakes.
To Anon@3.47PM: Issues like high AoA regimes and higher instantaneous/sustained turn rates are today of little consequence in either air combat or air-to-ground strike sorties. As I had explained earlier, the combination of AEW & C platforms, all-aspect AAMs for within visual range air combat, IRST sensors and helmet-mounted displays have today ensured that traditional dogfights are a thing of the past. Likewise, combat aircraft no longer are reqd to launch fumb bombs and unguided rockets by resorting to high AoA flight profiles.
To commonsense: It seems Saab Aircraft marketeers do not have commonsense after all. For everyone knows very well that India is trying to develop the Tejas Mk2 LCA as a viable and cheaper alternative to the JAS-39 Gripen NG. Therefore, it logically follows that a customer will not settle for two types of aircraft to achieve a single solution. It is about 'either or', and not 'this and that'.
To 5th Avenue & Anon@7.37PM: To be fair to the Chinese, they have spent more than what India is spending (on the INS Vikramaditya) on making the Varyag operational. Hats off to them for achieving this feat with Ukraine's help and it is a singular demonstration of the adage 'where there's a will there's a way'. The Varyag is not proceeding for sea trials, which will be a long drawn-out process lasting at least 18 months, but is now only undertaking harbour trials. As for posing a maritime threat to the US or even Japan in the western Pacific, not for the next 50 years.
sir how many BAE Hawk Mk 132 india has
ReplyDeleteTo buddha: 64 + 57, if I'm not mistaken.
ReplyDeleteThe deal for hawk was for 66 nos +57 nos=123 nos.
ReplyDeleteIn first lot 24 to be acquired off shelf and 42 nos to be built at HAL for IAF.
In second lot 40 more for IAF and 17nos for Indian navy ie, total OF 57 more to be built at HAL.
Since induction 1 hawk of IAF had crashed leaving 48 in service at present of 24 nos direct and 25 nos HAL ie 49 inducted.
Mr.Sengupta,you mentioned previously that the "Prahaar" is an Indo-Israeli joinly developed product. Subsequent to the launch, the missile does not seem to bear resemblance to the Extra and Lora missiles of Israel. Do you still believe that the "Prahaar" is an Indi-Israeli JV instead of a DRDO developed product?
ReplyDeleteAlso, regarding China's maiden Carrier, wasn't there an agreement signed between Chin Luck & Kiev that prohibited the former from refitting it for military use. Whether training or not, it is nonetheless being sent on harbor trials for an eventual military purpose. It is a known fact that the Chinese bought this carrier anyhow to learn more in this sphere, with Chin Luck being owned by elements in the PLAGF and PLAN and the fact tat Chinese government officials were actively persuading Turkey to allow the Carrier transit. But nonetheless, at the end of the day do you reckon the Chinese would actually commission this Carrier into service or merely use it as a training deck?
In addition, did China only get the stripped down vessel (which was badly damaged on arrival to China because of some incidents during while it was tugged to China), or did the receive the full set of documents (i.e. Issued for Construction drawings, Engineering Drawings, Structural layout plans, Wiring Diagrams & usage / maintenance logs etc) from Nevskoye Bureau
I think that picture posted is of a fan model rather than of any JF-17 version. It is simply not possible to have a stealthy version of such a small aircraft.
ReplyDeleteIndeed if US wants it can provide DSI and many other gadgetries of 5th gen aircrafts but why would they?
Their aircrafts are already selling like hotcake
They can save these new gadgetries for 5th gen aircrafts to ensure their sales.
When will Tejas Mk2 LCA be ready?
ReplyDeleteWhat are the chances that DRDO & ADA will meet their targets this time and supply the IAF with real deal rather then something like half cooked LCA MK-I provided now after decades of promise?
sir how good are our ka 31 helix aew aircraft as compared to other aew aircraf....
ReplyDeletehow far can its radar look...??
is it true that tejas is already overweight by a ton ??
whats the status of the indian awacs project.....last we heard about it was that they had got the fuselage ready....so any updats on that ??
how many il214/mmrta's are going to be procured by IAF and IA jointly....or i should say what will be the comined order no. for mmrta ??
@prasun: i find it surprising that you claim that the jf-17 can be turned into a 5th gen fighter. even the most die hard fanboys of this plane concede this to be infeasible. Further, as reported, the chinese 5th gen plane the PAF is going to induct has been termed as the AMF or advanced multirole fighter, and is differnt from the jf-17 block 2. Presumably, it is the product of an agreement signed in 2007/8 between the two countries to 'jointly' develop a 5th gen design. I was hoping you'd have information about this program, but you're coming up with the 'stealth' jf-17 news, which is nothing but the product of internet fanboys. what i really worry about is, given the pace of chinese development, the PAF may have its 5th gen platform in service before the IAF inducts the FGFA, same way as the PN is likely to complete its qing ssk acquisition before the IN's scorpene.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, do you have any information about the planned integration of the A-Darter/PL-10 on the jf-17. Also, what is the real range of the brazilian ARM the PAF is acquiring?
Also, you're the first person i've seen claiming that the J-15 will be superceded by a twin-engined J-10 variant. Almost all chinese sources claim SAC is developing a LO follow on to the J-15, presumably called the J-16 or the J-19. There's also talk of a separate SAC 5th gen aircraft that is close to first flight, and it might be carrier-capable.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that is for sure is...no CAC plane is getting on a chinese carrier in this decade, and certainly not a j-10 variant.
To Anon@3.34PM: It will indeed be a folly to describe a missile as being indigenous purely in terms of external looks. What matters are the on-board avionics components and the warhead sections, plus the launch vehicle's land navigation systems--areas in which India has not yet gained self-sufficiency. The three-section design layout of the Prahaar as described by Dr Avinash Chander mimicks that of the LORA. Furthermore, the warhead section will carry sensor-fuzed munitions of the type not yet developed in-country by anyone and without which a conventional warhead-equipped NLOS-BSM like the Prahaar is pretty much useless. All these have been explained and in great detail in the August 2011 issue of FORCE magazine, which is now available on the newsstands.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Chinese aircraft carrier (ex-Varyag), there was no binding agreement between Beijing & Kiev about not rebuilding the vessel as an operational carrier. Therefore, there's nothing to prevent the PLAN from deploying this carrier as an operational vessel. Training vessels are always counted as being part of an operational fleet. And judging by the time taken by cChina to restore and refit this vessel, it is evident that along with the vessel, China also purchased the complete design and production engineering packages from Ukraine, especially those pertaining to the propulsion system.
To Anon@6.04PM: Presently, all we can do is expect the ADA to keep its word regarding the Tejas Mk2 and LCA (Navy) Mk2.
To kaustubh: The stealthy JF-17's artwork did not originate from fanboys. The illustration was displayed by CATIC as far back as November 2006 at the Zhuhai Air Show. The same goes for the J-14. Yes, there is a distinct possibility that the stealthy JF-17 could emerge before the FGFA. Furthermore, the Pakistan Navy is not acquiring the Qing-class SSK to counter the Scorpene SSKs of India and therefore the production rate of the Qing-class SSK is not related to those of the Scorpenes. The Pakistan Navy's undersea warfare capabilities are already far ahead of India thanks to the three AIP-equipped Agosta 90B SSKs. The Qing-class subs are meant to match India's projected deployment of Arihant-class SSBNs.
ReplyDeleteTo kaustubh: There are no fifth-generation combat aircraft being developed in China. Even the J-20 is referred to as a fourth-generation design in Chinese parlance. What SAC is now developing is a stealthy replacement for existing JH-7A bombers. The PAF JF-17s will have PL-9Cs and SD-10As, and not A-Darter/PL-10.
ReplyDeleteMr.Sengupta, I quote your comments:
ReplyDelete1. " All these have been explained and in great detail in the August 2011 issue of FORCE magazine, which is now available on the newsstands."
Unfortunately FORCE magazine is not available in my country. Is it available online or could you reproduce important bits of concern of that article here if you're unable to reproduce the whole thing?
2. "And judging by the time taken by China to restore and refit this vessel, it is evident that along with the vessel, China also purchased the complete design and production engineering packages from Ukraine, especially those pertaining to the propulsion system."
I don't know how this makes sense because it's been almost 11 years since Varyag arrived in China. In addition, China hardly has the knowhow in Ship propulsion. At best they could only have got the engine layout and configuration / ancillary installation schematics and drawings; but not the blueprints (or in other words collision model) of the engine itself?
Any response Mr.Sengupta to the above? Thanks
ReplyDeletePrasun , Hope to get an update on FGFA from you during your MAKS visit. Hope you have a good time out there.
ReplyDeleteDidn't see your IMDS report in latest FORCE issue.
To Anon@11.18AM: "China hardly has the knowhow in Ship propulsion."
ReplyDelete---------------------------------
Is this a joke? Just visit the workshops at Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai plus other engine production workshops in Guangzhou, Tianjin, Qingdao and Suzhou and you will realise how wrong you are. China today ranks second in terms of shipbuilding and do you think this was possible if the country lacked know-how in designing and building propulsion systems? Ukrainian companies like Zorya and PUBLIC JSC "CONSTAR" TURBINE PLANT OF KRIVOY ROG at the maritime technologies SEZ in Tianjin have since the late 1990s been producing steam and gas turbines for both commercial vessels and warships.
To Austin: Regretably the IMDS 2011 show report was postponed to the next issue for want of space. It is a nightmare trying to negotiate the traffic snarls between Moscow and Zhukovsky. It takes at least 2 hours of driving time to reach the show site. In any case, it is not about having a good time, as time is always precious during such trade shows. I'm at the expo primarily to ink some sale-and-purchase agreements. The only interesting things to see at the expo this time are the booths featuring avionics companies. Still no word about the emergence of the definitive AL-41F turbofan for the FGFA/PMF. The aerobatics of the two T-50 PAK-FAs therefore don't mean much.
ReplyDeletePrasun the present engine is good enough for the Mk1 batches , the new engine is still some years away and the current engine too is not a mature product.
ReplyDeleteI think they are working on a 18T engine for the later batches.
Hope you have a good trip
Prasun, are you seriously suggesting that Pakistan is acquiring 6 SSGNs for strategic detterence. That procurement makes no sense when their conventional attack submarine strength is just five boats(with only 4 operational). And i'm sure you do know that currently only one Agosta class sub is equipped with the AIP system.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the aircraft generation naming convention, the Chinese skipped one generation of aircraft development and so the western 5th gen is their 4th gen. Therefore, while we would call the F-22, T-50 and the J-20 as 5th gen planes, the Chinese term them as 4th generation aircraft. Now i'm using the western convention here and referring to the J-20 as a 5th generation aircraft, which it is. But you're calling it a 4th generation aircraft, as the chinese do, which is funny because then you'd also be referring to the F-22/T-50 as 4th generation planes.
Also, the 'stealth' JF-17, as you've said, is just a reduced RCS version, with some frontal stealth optimizations made to the airframe, and assorted upgrades to the sensors, avionics and powerplants which will only give it a 4.5 generation level capability. It does not feature any internal weapon bays, or all-aspect RF LO, and it is not a true 5th gen fighter as the term 'stealth' would imply. However, both CAC and SAC have 5th generation aircraft projects in development, apart from the J-20, and PAF will induct one of these to counter the IAF's procurement of the t-50/FGFA.
Further, both SAC and XAC are developing a replacement for the JH-7. SAC also multiple programs ongoing to upgrade the J-11B along the lines of the F-15E and the F-15SE.
Now, regarding the JF-17's A2A armament, i'm aware of the PL-9/SD-10. But i'm curious about is what wvraam/bvraam is planned for the future? iirc, both the A-Darter and the PL-10 are candidates for the future wvraam.
To kaustubh: The Pakistan Navy will not get SSGNs, but Qing-class SSKs equipped with fuel cell-based AIP systems and armed with CJ-10K LACMs. The Navy’s two Agosta 90B SSKs—PNS Khalid and PNS Saad—have been retrofitted with MESMA AIP modules (work on this began way back in 2009), while PNS Hamza was fitted from the start with the MESMA. Regarding generation classifications, I prefer to stick to classifications provided by the OEM. Regarding the stealthy JF-17, plans call for a conformal weapons bay of the type proposed by Boeing for the Super Hornet International Roadmap. In addition, as in the J-20’s case, extensive use will be made of radar absorbing composite materials for airframe construction. However, stealth is not just about low-observability, but also about supercruise and in this area the Chinese are well behind the rest of the world. The J-11B’s upgrade prospects are limited unless the Chinese come up with an AESA-based MMR and to date there’s no evidence to indicate the existence of even a homegrown passive phased-array airborne multimode radar, leave alone the AESA-based MMR. The same goes for the J-11B’s future powerplant prospects. Regarding the future WRAAM and BVRAAM for the JF-17 in future, there are no plans for the PL-10 or PL-21, but going for the PL-12 and that too if the PAF’s JF-17s are fitted with the Vixen 5000e AESA-based MMR.
ReplyDelete