MRCA tender effect on FC-1 development

[zoolander]

no i dont think they get the J-10 "soon". They are going to have to wait until they use the WS-10A engine because the Al-31 is russian and they don't sell to Pakistan. and where are they going to get the money to buy the planes. The missiles themselves cost a fortune.

The only reason the Mirage 2000 was taken out is because Dassualt Aviations, the company that make the mirage and rafale series, is diverting all their resources to Rafale. Their plants will no longer make mirages. India's order will take a couple of years and dassault aviations want to divert all their resoruces to Rafale in the next couple of years. Mirage 2000s are out of the question unless they buy second hand.

 

[asaracen]

It's just unbelievable how certain Pakistanis think that they have enough budget to compete with India. In the JF-17 project, Pakistan paid for like 58% of the development cost, but it actually didn't do much in terms of design and such. It was pretty much a CAC project that got funding from the Pakistanis. The Al Khalid tank is just the Pakistani version of MBT-2000. For some reason, it became this super indigenous tank when I hear Pakistanis talk about it. Do you think pakistan would've developed nuclear capability that cheaply without China's help?

Honestly, stop dreaming about having an air force better than that of India. You have probably 1/4 of India's resources if you are lucky. Build a cheap defensive air force that can support your ground troops.

As for the other 4th generation fighters for Pakistan most likely will be J-10. The recent comments by Musharraf makes it sound like PAF will get J-10 pretty soon.

tphuang
if your post is directed at my earlier post, then I suggest you read my post carefully. Had you done that in the first instance, you would have saved yourself from throwing a volley of unwarranted rebuke in such an inarticulated manner.

throughout my post I have been at great pains to say that:
1) Pakistan has a small defence budget, but it serves well Pakistan's stated policy of effective deterrance.

to illustrate why Pakistan's small budget of approx. $4 billion has managed to provide Pakistan with such an effective deterrance, without entering into a damaging arms race

2) Pakistan does not suffer from self deceiving ideas of grandiose, and instead seeks collaboration with others when it is prudent or cost effective:

Hence, all projects are planned and executed within realistic frame work of available capabilities within Pakistan. Where prudence, cost effectiveness and efficiency calls for foreign collaboration or resources, it is readily sought. This is how the rest of the world operates. And this is how Pakistan avoids bitter and very expensive experiences like Indian Arjun, LCA and others.

3) I'll stand by my statements about Al-Khalid, and disagree with your statement that Al-Khalid is Pakistani version of MBT-2000. It is a result of collaboration between Pakistan China and Ukarine. Pakistan has competently used suitable technologies from wherever they were available. Like Ukaranian Engines gearboxes / suspension, French and Pakistani electronics, and now German 1400 hp engines for Saudi Arabia.

4) Pakistani participation in JF-17 project is a lot more than providing funds. The whole project was driven by Pakistani requirements. China was quite happy with manufacturing licensed copies of SU-27 and pursuing its worthy J-10 project. Pakistan's collaboration goes a long way, not only with JF-17, but with J-10 too. Just look and spot similarities between J-10 and F-16 - no prizes for guessing Pakistani connections there.

5) nuclear capability has been a two way process. China was pursuing plotonium route, whereas Pakistan, thanks to Dr. Qadeer Khan, had just introduced a brand new uranium enrichment method through centrifuges, that had just been perfected in Eurpe in the early 70's. True china helped with bomb design initially, but then Pakistan was able to miniaturise uranium based weapons, and hence pay back to China.

6) Pakistan has a stated policy of having an effective deterrance, and no dream of matching India. If we could do that with 1/4 of India's budget then we need not spend a penny more, as most of the world poor live in the Indian sub continent.

I am at loss - how ever did you get this idea that Pakistan was trying to get better airforce than India's. Please quote a single sentence from my post that gives this impression.

Note - I do not know where you are from, but China is a good friend of Pakistan, and Pakistan feels truely indebted to all the help it got from China over the years. Thats why Pakistanis love China and its people. Now, with your inflamatory remarks, I am not going to get involved in a Pakistan v. China debate.

 

[asaracen]

no i dont think they get the J-10 "soon". They are going to have to wait until they use the WS-10A engine because the Al-31 is russian and they don't sell to Pakistan. and where are they going to get the money to buy the planes. The missiles themselves cost a fortune.

The only reason the Mirage 2000 was taken out is because Dassualt Aviations, the company that make the mirage and rafale series, is diverting all their resources to Rafale. Their plants will no longer make mirages. India's order will take a couple of years and dassault aviations want to divert all their resoruces to Rafale in the next couple of years. Mirage 2000s are out of the question unless they buy second hand.

J-10 should be in Pakistan within 5 years, as WS-10A would be ready later this year.

Just checkout Musharraf's recent comments and watch his body language. I think he is in love with this bird!!

 

[tphuang]

tphuang
if your post is directed at my earlier post, then I suggest you read my post carefully. Had you done that in the first instance, you would have saved yourself from throwing a volley of unwarranted rebuke in such an inarticulated manner.

throughout my post I have been at great pains to say that:
1) Pakistan has a small defence budget, but it serves well Pakistan's stated policy of effective deterrance.

to illustrate why Pakistan's small budget of approx. $4 billion has managed to provide Pakistan with such an effective deterrance, without entering into a damaging arms race

2) Pakistan does not suffer from self deceiving ideas of grandiose, and instead seeks collaboration with others when it is prudent or cost effective:

Hence, all projects are planned and executed within realistic frame work of available capabilities within Pakistan. Where prudence, cost effectiveness and efficiency calls for foreign collaboration or resources, it is readily sought. This is how the rest of the world operates. And this is how Pakistan avoids bitter and very expensive experiences like Indian Arjun, LCA and others.

3) I'll stand by my statements about Al-Khalid, and disagree with your statement that Al-Khalid is Pakistani version of MBT-2000. It is a result of collaboration between Pakistan China and Ukarine. Pakistan has competently used suitable technologies from wherever they were available. Like Ukaranian Engines gearboxes / suspension, French and Pakistani electronics, and now German 1400 hp engines for Saudi Arabia.

4) Pakistani participation in JF-17 project is a lot more than providing funds. The whole project was driven by Pakistani requirements. China was quite happy with manufacturing licensed copies of SU-27 and pursuing its worthy J-10 project. Pakistan's collaboration goes a long way, not only with JF-17, but with J-10 too. Just look and spot similarities between J-10 and F-16 - no prizes for guessing Pakistani connections there.

5) nuclear capability has been a two way process. China was pursuing plotonium route, whereas Pakistan, thanks to Dr. Qadeer Khan, had just introduced a brand new uranium enrichment method through centrifuges, that had just been perfected in Eurpe in the early 70's. True china helped with bomb design initially, but then Pakistan was able to miniaturise uranium based weapons, and hence pay back to China.

6) Pakistan has a stated policy of having an effective deterrance, and no dream of matching India. If we could do that with 1/4 of India's budget then we need not spend a penny more, as most of the world poor live in the Indian sub continent.

I am at loss - how ever did you get this idea that Pakistan was trying to get better airforce than India's. Please quote a single sentence from my post that gives this impression.

Note - I do not know where you are from, but China is a good friend of Pakistan, and Pakistan feels truely indebted to all the help it got from China over the years. Thats why Pakistanis love China and its people. Now, with your inflamatory remarks, I am not going to get involved in a Pakistan v. China debate.

I'm from a Chinese Canadian. I don't care whether you are Pakistani or Indian. If I think your ideas sound a little out there, I'm going to debate it.

The comment about Pakistanis is not directed at you specifically, but a general trend I get from reading posts of many Pakistanis. As for your post, isn't your entire point about Pakistanis can manage a deterrence toward Indians through better management of resources? For your post, I simply disagree with it, that's all.

And don't bring the entire J-10 and Pakistan F-16 stuff in here. If you want to know what J-10 is based on, read some articles on it and take a look at its structure vs some of the other 4th generation fighters. This includes its delta wing, canards, intake and other parts. As for JF-17, just read this http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1.asp
As for Al Khalid, read this http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type90.asp

 

[mysterious]

'tphuang', for a moderator, some of us members would expect you to take ample time and then reply to a post. I still think you are confused about what 'asaracen' said in all of his posts up till now. It, actually does make sense!

If 'asaracen' had said that Pakistan with its smaller budget and effective resources management can 'match' or 'compete' with India, you would've been right in your reply to his posts. But 'clearly' he hasn't said that at all. All he is talking about is 'deterrence' and I'm sure we all can differentiate between the two/three terms here. Cheers


P.S. My reply to your following post seems to have been deleted so to make it clear I was referring (above) to this statement of yours:

It's just unbelievable how certain Pakistanis think that they have enough budget to compete with India.

Hope that clarifies the misunderstanding here and yes I do agree with you about some of the far-fetched scenarios being discussed on less technical forums but what 'asaracen' said was not far-fetched at all.

 

[tphuang]

'tphuang', for a moderator, some of us members would expect you to take ample time and then reply to a post. I still think you are confused about what 'asaracen' said in all of his posts up till now. It, actually does make sense!

If 'asaracen' had said that Pakistan with its smaller budget and effective resources management can 'match' or 'compete' with India, you would've been right in your reply to his posts. But 'clearly' he hasn't said that at all. All he is talking about is 'deterrence' and I'm sure we all can differentiate between the two/three terms here. Cheers

I wrote
"As for your post, isn't your entire point about Pakistanis can manage a deterrence toward Indians through better management of resources?"

Which part am I unclear about? If you want to know why I sounded so harsh. The reason is that I've been reading too many far fetched scenarios about how PAF can match IAF in the near future.

 

[asaracen]

I wrote

"As for your post, isn't your entire point about Pakistanis can manage a deterrence toward Indians through better management of resources?"
Which part am I unclear about? If you want to know why I sounded so harsh. The reason is that I've been reading too many far fetched scenarios about how PAF can match IAF in the near future.

tphuang
mysterious has already responded to your comments so succintly, however I shall labour on once again so that you might get the point!

There is no question about whether Pakistanis can manage a deterrence toward Indians through better management of resources?" It is a fact that Pakistan has managed to do it already. Had it not been the case, India would not have re-called its huge army from the borders in 2002 without drawing blood. And Pakistan has done it on a meager budget of approx. $4 billion. All I tried to ilustrate in my previous emails was that the mechanics involved in achieving this feat are multi faceted. And this has not been achieved just through better management of resources:

1) that Pakistan approaches weapons development with realistic apprehension of its capabilities. And where prudent, it readily seeks help or collaboration from others. Hence, Pakistan does not suffer from delusions of grandiose, which is not backed up by indigenous resources, capabilities or the know how. This saves Pakistan from being bogged down in projects like Arjun and LCA.

2) Due to the military personnel involvement, there is a lot more and better accountability. Hence, the projects are completed mostly on time and within budget. Pakistani armed forces (the end users) are an integral part of the design, development, production and of course final acceptance processes. Therefore, no surprises would spring up 25 years hece, after hundreds of millions have been expended - like Ajun's rejection.

3) Pakistani defence budget like that of Chinese is more complex. There are costs of military personnel born by other outwardly commercial and profit making organisations like HIT and POF etc.There are off budgent sums like over $1 billion / annum being paid to Pakistatan by US for Pakistani military effort on the Western front. There are a lot of highly trained personnel on secondment to the Gulf region and beyond. We all know, how expensive it is not only to train pilots, but to keep them current. Well, Pakistan has all these personnel not only being maintained current by Gulf states, but they earn a lot of foreign exchange for the country. This is one of the reasons why Pakistan has more pilots per plane than India does. Do not forget, in a fast moving war, in order to fly several sorties per plane each day, you would require 2-3 pilots for each plane - and the required ground staff. This is where India has shortfalls, due to their recruitment / retention and training difficulties.

 

[ajaybhutani]

tphuang
mysterious has already responded to your comments so succintly, however I shall labour on once again so that you might get the point!

There is no question about whether Pakistanis can manage a deterrence toward Indians through better management of resources?" It is a fact that Pakistan has managed to do it already. Had it not been the case, India would not have re-called its huge army from the borders in 2002 without drawing blood. And Pakistan has done it on a meager budget of approx. $4 billion. All I tried to ilustrate in my previous emails was that the mechanics involved in achieving this feat are multi faceted. And this has not been achieved just through better management of resources:

1. what pakistan can manage has been seen in 1999 kargil. i dont think codition of paksitani military has changed much after that.
2. theres a difference between nuclear deterrence and conventional balance/deterrence.
a full scale war isnt possible due to nuclear deterrence. as india clearly knows anything that hurts paksitan too much will just tempt its military govt to react via nukes. and we dont have a missile defence system yet.
you should realize that a full scale war with a country of 7 times the economic will hurt paksitan.. Paksitan doesnt have a no first use policy. its a deterence for paksitan but we all know how indigeneous is paksitans nuclear programme.. be it AQ khan.. or the fact that pakistan managed to react to indian nucelar blasts in such a small span of time( next to impossible unless it actually imported the weapons illegally..)..

1) that Pakistan approaches weapons development with realistic apprehension of its capabilities.

i fully agree with you on this .. a country with economy of the size of paksitan cannot affort to spend in indigeneous development of fighter jet.. and so the colaboration with china.

And where prudent, it readily seeks help or collaboration from others. Hence, Pakistan does not suffer from delusions of grandiose, which is not backed up by indigenous resources, capabilities or the know how. This saves Pakistan from being bogged down in projects like Arjun and LCA.

its unfair to compare JF17 with lca .. a real comparison will be with su30 in this case. paksitan gave china money to make jf17 and for ToT.. in the same way india gave russia money to develop su30MKI and its complete ToT.
comparing LCA effort by india to JF17 effort by paksitan isnt a fair comparison.. its more like a LCA vs J10 that makes sense.

2) Due to the military personnel involvement, there is a lot more and better accountability. Hence, the projects are completed mostly on time and within budget. Pakistani armed forces (the end users) are an integral part of the design, development, production and of course final acceptance processes. Therefore, no surprises would spring up 25 years hece, after hundreds of millions have been expended - like Ajun's rejection.

arjuns rejection itself shows how much indian army wants.. it wont compromise even if its a local product..and thats why not much arjuns unless a product better than foreign products is made and lower prices. indian military just buys things.. looking at their performance and and price.. they dont care about wether the product they select if local or foreign.. and thats why arjun is still getting improved to get in the military product.

3) Pakistani defence budget like that of Chinese is more complex. There are costs of military personnel born by other outwardly commercial and profit making organisations like HIT and POF etc.There are off budgent sums like over $1 billion / annum being paid to Pakistatan by US for Pakistani military effort on the Western front.

US money is short lived.. and again it even costs to have a military effort in the west.. a lot of this 1 B $ is actually indirectly being spent by paksitan in running war on terror..

There are a lot of highly trained personnel on secondment to the Gulf region and beyond. We all know, how expensive it is not only to train pilots, but to keep them current. Well, Pakistan has all these personnel not only being maintained current by Gulf states, but they earn a lot of foreign exchange for the country.

are they officers to PAF?? if they are not they dont count.
if they are then tell just one thing.. how would u expect a pilot fliying a M2k/F15/ other planes of totally different types to all of a sudden come to paksitan and fight with planes like F7 etc for which they dont have experience... if you are expecting to get the planes of these gulf countries too then do a recheck do u think gulf countries will be ready to compromise their relations with a country of size of india for helping paksitan..

This is one of the reasons why Pakistan has more pilots per plane than India does.

can u please give me support for this statement. and also the details if in case u are including some paksitani pilot in gulf. as to which plane he will fly..

Do not forget, in a fast moving war, in order to fly several sorties per plane each day, you would require 2-3 pilots for each plane - and the required ground staff. This is where India has shortfalls, due to their recruitment / retention and training difficulties.

do u intend to say that condition in india is worse than that in paksitan .. please give numerical proofs to support ur statement ..

 

[webmaster]

This better not turn into a mudslinging contest.

And while we are talking about proofs and evidence, let's EVERYONE on BOTH sides follow that rule.

( next to impossible unless it actually imported the weapons illegally...)

 

[tphuang]

tphuang
mysterious has already responded to your comments so succintly, however I shall labour on once again so that you might get the point!

There is no question about whether Pakistanis can manage a deterrence toward Indians through better management of resources?" It is a fact that Pakistan has managed to do it already. Had it not been the case, India would not have re-called its huge army from the borders in 2002 without drawing blood. And Pakistan has done it on a meager budget of approx. $4 billion. All I tried to ilustrate in my previous emails was that the mechanics involved in achieving this feat are multi faceted. And this has not been achieved just through better management of resources:

1) that Pakistan approaches weapons development with realistic apprehension of its capabilities. And where prudent, it readily seeks help or collaboration from others. Hence, Pakistan does not suffer from delusions of grandiose, which is not backed up by indigenous resources, capabilities or the know how. This saves Pakistan from being bogged down in projects like Arjun and LCA.

2) Due to the military personnel involvement, there is a lot more and better accountability. Hence, the projects are completed mostly on time and within budget. Pakistani armed forces (the end users) are an integral part of the design, development, production and of course final acceptance processes. Therefore, no surprises would spring up 25 years hece, after hundreds of millions have been expended - like Ajun's rejection.

3) Pakistani defence budget like that of Chinese is more complex. There are costs of military personnel born by other outwardly commercial and profit making organisations like HIT and POF etc.There are off budgent sums like over $1 billion / annum being paid to Pakistatan by US for Pakistani military effort on the Western front. There are a lot of highly trained personnel on secondment to the Gulf region and beyond. We all know, how expensive it is not only to train pilots, but to keep them current. Well, Pakistan has all these personnel not only being maintained current by Gulf states, but they earn a lot of foreign exchange for the country. This is one of the reasons why Pakistan has more pilots per plane than India does. Do not forget, in a fast moving war, in order to fly several sorties per plane each day, you would require 2-3 pilots for each plane - and the required ground staff. This is where India has shortfalls, due to their recruitment / retention and training difficulties.

hmm, I think you are getting a little too upset over a discussion like this. If you agree with my interpretation of your views in this matter (the sentence that you and I quoted), then that means there is nothing wrong with what I said.

Now, if you think Pakistan has managed to do what you said it has, then I think you need to examine the situation a little more carefully. Look at PAF's strength vs IAF's strength. Look at the near future, what IAF is about to get and what PAF is about to get. If you don't agree with my assessment, fine. Don't give me this threatening tone.

If anything, the recent trip by Bush to Pakistan and India should be an indication that you shouldn't put too much faith in that 1 billion dollar in aid.

As for the stuff on Arjun and LCA, India gained a lot of experience in these projects. They would only be wasted projects if India abandons those experience after all of this.

Anyway, Webmaster is right. I got too far off topic with this. Back to FC-1.

imo, MRCA's effect on FC-1's development is present, but not the most important one. The main driving factor is the F-16 deal. Sure, PAF might have wanted more on FC-1, but CAC would not have made all those changes unless PAF had other sources to purchase from.

 

[asaracen]

1. what pakistan can manage ................
2. theres a difference between nuclear deterrence and conventional balance/deterrence.
a full scale war isnt possible due to nuclear deterrence. as india clearly knows anything that hurts paksitan too much will just tempt its military govt to react via nukes. and we dont have a missile defence system yet.
you should realize that a full scale war with a country of 7 times the economic will hurt paksitan.. Paksitan doesnt have a no first use policy. its a deterence for paksitan but we all know how indigeneous is paksitans nuclear programme.. be it AQ khan.. or the fact that pakistan managed to react to indian nucelar blasts in such a small span of time( next to impossible unless it actually imported the weapons illegally..)..

......................................

The Pakistani detrrence policy ultimately boils down to exactly the same as NATO had, for decades, during cold war years. And NATO being an organisation of some of the richest nations on earth at that time. The ultimate Western answer to 5000 Warsaw pact tanks rolling down the German plains were Pershings rather than Leoprds and Abrams.

I would not go any further as it would be futile to enter into meaningful dialogue with someone who believes (as a fact) that Pakistan could quickly borrow / import 4-5 nuclear devices from another country , and organise to explode them within a short span of time!!

I shall leave it to readers to judge for themselves, the insanity of above statement.

 

[pshamim]

they techniqually didnt import it. They rechieved pretty much as a gift from china. If they accaully paid that would be importing

Zoolander, Always please give a source to support your assertion. If it is a personal opinion, please state your reasons for it and stop giving your one liners. Does not help anyone.

 

[lakhani]

Tphaung, though you sound very harsh, but I agree that Pkaistan cannot match Indias capability with our $4bn budget and we never intended to do that.

I think that you didnt understand what asaracen tried to say, He never said that pakistan can match Indias capabilty with in $4bn. He said that Pakistan can maintain minimum deterence(there is a different btw minimum deterence and matching) with India, which can prevent them from attacking us.

Also Pakistan defence budget is not just $4bn, it does not include the following the spendings made on Rangers which is more than 500mn$ + pensions and benifits of retired army officers which are deducted from civil budget + the buisnes which army does in cities of pak(i-e, in real estate+mills+insurance companies+road contruction, as most of the roads are build by them+ education sector and alot more) +aid which we recieves frm USA + exchange for serving gulf countries+ frm our defence exports + alot more. adding this doubles the amount.

One thing is that Indias geographic size is also 7 times that of us so their requirement is much more than that of ours.

[Admin edit: not related to the topic ]

 

[SATAN]

Is Pakistan importing equipment from Sweden for its FC-1 manufacturing facility? Since Sweden refused to sell the JAS Gripen...they seem to be open to the idea of selling non-lethal equipment like Radar/Avionics. This development was reported in Janes Weekly, i'll try to find the link and post it on here.

 

[hovercraft]

Is Pakistan importing equipment from Sweden for its FC-1 manufacturing facility?

i too heared this news, that PAc kamra is building more sophisticated facilities with the help of sweden.

 

[BilalK]

PAC has been using manufacturing machines from the West since the 1980s - so it should be no surprise that it is acquiring Swedish and other Western machinery for JF-17. And even if Gripen was ever offered to PAF, Pakistan will not likely buy it because of the likelihood of sanctions, high unit price of the aircraft, and of course other competetors offering same technology at lower costs.

 

[aaaditya]

well guys check out this article ,it shows the likely direction that the mrca will take:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1455797.cms

NEW DELHI: Young IAF pilots prefer Mirages over F-16s. But the Mirage assembly lines are now being shut down.

Though French defence minister Michele Alliot-Marie told her Indian counterpart Pranab Mukherjee last month that the lines could be kept open if India gave "firm indications", France itself is pushing the Rafale now.

"If not the much-cheaper Mirage, go for Rafale. At more than $70 million per jet, Rafale is no doubt very expensive but it’s of the latest generation and packs a mean punch. If not 126, we can go in for a lesser number of Rafales," says a Wing Commander.

But what about the American jets? The US is even promising spin-offs from its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F\A-22 Raptor programmes, as also the AESA radars, in the deal.

Pilots do not seem too keen on F-16s, which they say haven’t fared too well either "across the border" or in joint exercises with India.
But they feel the much-more expensive F/A-18s, if equipped with AESA radars which make fighters much more lethal, could provide India with a decisive technological edge.

Russia, in turn, is also hardselling its MiG-29M2s. Russian PM Mikhail Fradkov’s visit last week saw Moscow telling New Delhi that MiG-29M2s were "1.5 times cheaper" than new entrants in the race like Rafale.

 

[BilalK]

Well what do you know...young IAF pilots aren't so keen on F-16 and young PAF pilots aren't so keen on Mirage 2000! I bet it has more to do with the fact that your enemies accross the border have one of your contending aircraft - and thus it would be a bit of a disadvantage to acquire the same type.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Well what do you know...young IAF pilots aren't so keen on F-16 and young PAF pilots aren't so keen on Mirage 2000! I bet it has more to do with the fact that your enemies accross the border have one of your contending aircraft - and thus it would be a bit of a disadvantage to acquire the same type.

I would imagine aircraft recognition for all services would be a bit of a problem if you were looking for the same aircraft!

 

[aaaditya]

well guys,here is an article comparing the later build mig29's to the f16c and the f18c.

check out this link:

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/News/SHARENEWSbulletin.html

it also highlights the modifications of the mig33 and the mig35 with respect to the mig29's.