Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for? [Recent F-16 deal news, etc]

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

Pathfinder, large defence purchases like that of fighter jets are paid for over a number of years, not within 1 year. A purchase of Rafale jets would probably be spread over anything up to 5 years. It would take a big commitment by PAF to acquire significant numbers of such a jet, but then they are attempting to deal with a very significant defence problem...

 

[A Khan]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

About the engine, according to sino-defence, the J-10 is using a russian one at the moment but the chinese are developing a home-made one. Read somewhere, cant really remember where, that with the nw chinese engine, the J-10 would have much improved manoeuvrability, that would surpass the US navys F-18E/F's. But no one is sure at the moment about when the new engine will be ready.

I'm hoping that once the chinese are done making J-10 for PLAAF and are about the start on the export versions, hopefully by then the new engine will be ready, and then PAF should buy it!

 

[SABRE]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

About the engine, according to sino-defence, the J-10 is using a russian one at the moment but the chinese are developing a home-made one. Read somewhere, cant really remember where, that with the nw chinese engine, the J-10 would have much improved manoeuvrability, that would surpass the US navys F-18E/F's. But no one is sure at the moment about when the new engine will be ready.

I'm hoping that once the chinese are done making J-10 for PLAAF and are about the start on the export versions, hopefully by then the new engine will be ready, and then PAF should buy it!

China is suppose to develop new engine & radar for J-10 which will put J-10 right on top & in the league of F-18E & Su-27 & probably make ir better than F-16 C/D 52+ Viper/Falcon & MiG-29 Fulcrun. I think both engine & radar are ready & are going through tests now. Ask Pathfinder-X on more about J-10 as he visits sinodefence probably more than any one else here & he is Chinese

 

[A Khan]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

If thats true, then i see even more reasons then before for PAF purchasing a large number of J-10's in the future something like 60-100!

And if Pathfinder X has more info on the J-10 then i would be more then happy to hear about its developments, and how it is compared to SU-27/30 and when the first export versions would be ready? the price tag if PAF buys them? thanx

 

[asaracen]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

Hi guys - this is my first ever post – so be easy!

In view of the following breaking news, I think the debate is over:
Panic Grips Pakistani Generals as US Agrees to Sell Patriot Missiles to India
http://www.satribune.com/archives/200502/P1_sss.htm>

There seems to be no alternatives for Pakistan, but to go for the best aircraft available with the best penetration / surviving chances against Patriot missiles. Rafael, specified with the best ECM/ electronics (at whatever the cost) will have to be the aircraft of choice.
Now the question is not about air superiority, but about the whole strategic deterrance being set aside by the presence of Patriots.

To deter India from any misadventure, Pakistan must continue to have MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) capability. Pakistan can no longer depend on missile delivery alone.

 

[SABRE]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

If thats true, then i see even more reasons then before for PAF purchasing a large number of J-10's in the future something like 60-100!

And if Pathfinder X has more info on the J-10 then i would be more then happy to hear about its developments, and how it is compared to SU-27/30 and when the first export versions would be ready? the price tag if PAF buys them? thanx

According to the the www.sinodefence.com the export version of J-10 will be available by the mid or the end of 2005. You may see the first few AirCrafts probably J-10B two seater for training arrive Pakistan either by the end of the yr 2005 or early in the yr 2006. Thats "PROBABLY".

I dnt think J-10 is any good compared to Su-30MKI....but it will be good one enough for air-to-air superiority along with JF-17.

 

[P.A.F]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

I personally think pakistan should go for the rafale no matter what it costs. i totally agree with asaracen

 

[asaracen]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

Why Rafale is aircraft of choice for Pakistan now
​

Rafale has got to be the most 'advanced & available' aircraft for Pakistan at the present. The COST will have to be re-calculated in terms of the new aircraft ROLE w.r.t. the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) strategy.

MAD strategy is the one that kept soviet tanks (vast superiority in numbers over NATO) from rolling down the West German plains. And this strategy is the one that will also keep peace in the sub continent. In view of the relentless arms build up across the border, Pakistan being smaller economy will go bankrupt if it joined the arms race with India.

The most effective option seems to be what Musharraf govt. has recently announced - strengthening the strategic deterrence. With a potent Indian air defence system including Patriots, there has to be 'potent / almost fail safe' penetration & delivery system from Pakistan.

I do not believe Typhoon would be made available to Pakistan, any time soon. For this role Gripen lacks spec. on the range account, and some others. Also, there is uncle Sam’s veto hanging over the American components used in Gripens. J10 is an unknown quantity at the present, and forget about the Russian kit. This is where the Rafale comes in – it meets the requirements, and is available now.

Americans still dragging their feet over a modest request for just 18 F16s (at the same time offering such a strategic weapon as Patriot to India) are hardly going to supply state of the art offensive delivery weapons to Pakistan. F16 block 50/52 would not be good enough for the new role.

Even if America were willing to supply such advanced delivery weapons to Pakistan - could we depend upon them, when it comes to such a strategic delivery system? With the alleged Israeli penetration into almost all spheres of American defence arena, it is quite conceivable that these very weapons will not work exactly at the moment of need. Are we then going to sue America after the event, or return defective goods for refund?? Untold damage would have been done, and those who run America would gloat with their mission accomplished – the only nuclear Islamic country neutralised.

Those trained in electronics should know that, at the design stage, adding a rogue circuit in a crucial integrated circuit (with the fabrication of a handful of transistors, amongst millions of normal transistors) could be done. These rogue circuits could respond to a specific, short, super secret satellite transmitted code. This could render the whole system useless. Even the Americans themselves might not be ware of this. Such is the level of alleged Israeli penetration. The reason why Israel uses its own avionics is not that these are necessarily more advanced than the American avionics; it is because, amongst other reasons, these systems are clean. Allegedly, the Israeli’s would not let Americans any where near their advanced crucial systems.
These would then be the modern day Trojan horses.

Role: The aircraft role has now escalated from air 'superiority, tactical air defence / offence' to a dependable strategic delivery of atomic weapons (as a second leg of MAD strategy - BM & A\C - 3rd naval leg is some way away, as Augusta’s will have to be modified and suitable sea launched missiles developed & tested) The chosen aircraft must overcome ECM and air defences to penetrate and be able to deliver. If at any time, the adversary thought that they could neutralise both, a/c and the BMs then a catastrophic war could follow, sooner rather than later.

COST: as the context and role has changed with expected deliveries of Patriots, $70m figure for a Rafale seems a lot more palatable now, than before. Acquisition of the Rafales could now be equated with the survival and existence of Pakistan.
Nations do pay the ultimate price for survival. The cost of a few $billion for say 50-60 Rafales now, will be much cheaper than loosing a war with India. Appropriately specified Rafales, together with strengthened and more intelligent BMs could ultimately save India from launching a costly war, and Pakistan, all that is precious above all else - the freedom and sovereignty.

If this lengthy discourse does not persuade Pak ACM and President Musharraf in placing an immediate order for 3-4 squadrons of Rafales, then what would??

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

asaracen, there are a few things that you seem to not be aware of when you made your own analysis.

I'll dot point them first rather than expand as it provides the other opportunities to debate:

1) Gripen is not subject to embargos as the engine is a modified commercial engine. as such its exempt

2) Gripens range is not available in the public domain. The swedes deliberately do not provide fuel storage specs to anyone except serious demonstrations of intent. They are extremely cautious of releasing any info re platform capability. Bear in mind that Gripen was the first operational combat jet to achieve realtime handoffs to other platforms and network in flight.

3) Rafale is an export orphan. To use India as an example, Rafale has been unofficially offered in the past - and with no luck. No export customer has demonstrated any willingness to buy Rafale - and that is after a concerted effort by Dass and the French Govt. The Singaporean assessment is far from concluded, and as much as France has been talking it up - there is no meaningful indicators either way. The Singaporeans actually do understand the issue of commercial confidence - so as much as it might be alluded to, they do NOT leak in matters such as this. As of today, France is the only buyer - and they have reduced their overall fleet buy as well.

4) All export platforms are "detuned" Hence why the only way beyond this is to get a full transfer of technology. I can assure you right here and now, that France will not dio a full ToT of Rafale - to anyone. They've just rejected a full ToT on some military equipment for India, and this is when India is about to spend a few billion $'s with them. Money does not always buy everything.

5) For all of the hoo har re Rafales stealth capabilities, whats ignored is that these results are on clean platforms. When the Rafale is clean, it's range is acceptable, as soon as it goes dirty (ie with weaps and the 3 long range tanks needed to meet Su-27, Su-30 or F-15 ranges) then she not only loses weaps load outs, but she also magnifies her RCS considerably. No amount of RAM or RAP will reduce the RCS.

IMV, any country that decides to be the export initiator is at risk, especially when the evidence is there that other countries have rejected the overtures to buy "said" platform. This is even with significantly modified unit prices and the offer of other platform inducements.

I can't see it happening. India is a far bigger customer for France, with a few billion dollars tied up in future subs, aircraft and surface vessels (as well as electronics). Sweden on the other hand, has no major procurement opportunities to jeopardise.

Finally, France will never do a ToT with Rafale, and that means that you get export "detuned" platforms.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

In saying all that gf, those things you mentioned apply equally to every other 4th gen fighter on the market. Rafale is probably still the stealthiest 4th gen fighter around. It is at least is the only one that appears to have stealth considerations in the shaping of the airframe. The Gripen's true range is not publicly known, but it's likely to be significantly less than other 4th gen fighters, due to it's small size.

In addition it's equipped with a mere 7 external hard points meaning it will carry a very small warload if external tanks are carried, or a reasonable one, but with only it's internal fuel and tankers (though none of the Countries that operate or have ordered Gripen, operate tankers) to rely upon.

Rafale may not have been ordered by anyone else, but it's been shortlisted quite a few times. I personally think just 1 additional "significant" order would open the "floodgates" to some degree.

As to Rafale's weapons loadouts, it possesses 13 external hardpoints. Even 3 drop tanks would still leave more hardpoints than most other fighters possess. It also possesses the thrust to handle a heavy warload. The engine upgrade and CFT's planned for Rafale C should improve this situation futher as it will it's range... How doesthe Rafale A/B's publicly known range compare to a non-CFT equipped F-15E? A bit of an unfair comparison, otherwise if you ask me...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

In saying all that gf, those things you mentioned apply equally to every other 4th gen fighter on the market. Rafale is probably still the stealthiest 4th gen fighter around. It is at least is the only one that appears to have stealth considerations in the shaping of the airframe. The Gripen's true range is not publicly known, but it's likely to be significantly less than other 4th gen fighters, due to it's small size.

In addition it's equipped with a mere 7 external hard points meaning it will carry a very small warload if external tanks are carried, or a reasonable one, but with only it's internal fuel and tankers (though none of the Countries that operate or have ordered Gripen, operate tankers) to rely upon.

Rafale may not have been ordered by anyone else, but it's been shortlisted quite a few times. I personally think just 1 additional "significant" order would open the "floodgates" to some degree.

As to Rafale's weapons loadouts, it possesses 13 external hardpoints. Even 3 drop tanks would still leave more hardpoints than most other fighters possess. It also possesses the thrust to handle a heavy warload. The engine upgrade and CFT's planned for Rafale C should improve this situation futher as it will it's range... How doesthe Rafale A/B's publicly known range compare to a non-CFT equipped F-15E? A bit of an unfair comparison, otherwise if you ask me...

Ok. I'll wear some of that

But, the 3 hardpoints required to extend the range also take up critical wingloading points that might be used for heavier loadouts such as AShM. ie they're "inner cord" points. In effect reducing the airframe to interceptor load outs.

I agree its probably the best of the 4th gen interceptors - but then again you'd have to work out what your primary role is.

If the role is mudding, then I'd argue that the Typhoon is a better platform, if it's A2A then possibly its the Rafale.

If the doctrine requires short strike, then possibly (for Pakistan) its the Gripen.

It all gets down to doctrine in the end. I guess my bias lies towards maximum range and maximum travel - as the longer the legs, the greater the loiter and engagement time on shorter runs. If you have less aircraft in your frontline which are fit for engagement, then you need to make sure that they're in the air as long as possible and with max weaps to bring to bear.

OTOH, outside of Singapore - I don't see too many large customer opportunities left for Rafale. They've "shat" on their Euro customers to the extent that it looks like Gripen and F-16/JSF still hold the colour cards in the deck. Countries have been bitten before by what appears to be low entry price on french aircraft, and then high maint and parts. I also think that on "bang for buck" quotients, the M2K is keeping its stable mate out.

On top of that (finally!) I can't see France selling Spectra with any export Rafale. and that makes it a good 4th gen airframe but not an uber platform.

 

[SABRE]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

Before pursuing PAF on buying RAFALEs first lets have a look at the price & the cost.

Dassault Rafale B 1996 $64.4
Dassault Rafale C 1996 $60.6
Dassault Rafale M 1996 $65

Dessault Mirage2000/5 price $35

PAF favorite the F-16s price $25.67

It seems that one Rafale cost almost what one F-16 & one mirage2000 cost togather. Rafales r expensive. If we buy Rafales we'll have the quality but lose the quantity. If suppose PAF has enough funds to buy 40 Rafales, they can buy 80 aircraft (80 F-16s or 80 Mirage2000 or 40 F-16s & 40 Mirage2000s) instead. Mirage2000-5 & 9 have some Rafale technologies. So If PAF buys F-16s & Mirages it will have both modern technology, Moderate Modern quality & the quantity.

Rafales will cost alot in the long run as well. We can ignore the cost of inventory & maintainance.

Although I would love to see Rafales in Pakistani colours but it would be better to buy Mirage2000 & F-16s instead as PAF has alot of experiance on F-16s & previous Mirage 3 & 5 versions.

If US agrees to F-16 sells than PAF should consider Block 60 in the long run. They'll be able to match the almost all the modern needs. They'll be able to counter most of the IAF AirCrafts (Mirage-2000/N, MiG-29, MiG-21, Jaguar + can engage Su-30) , they can also go against IN sea harriers.

So in the long run F-16 C/D block 50/52+/60 & Mirage2000-5/9/D are better option for PAF.

 

[aaaditya]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

i beleive that the mirage2000-5 costs 45million dollars.

 

[P.A.F]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

the only dam problem with the f-16 is that pakistan is having to scream and screach over it. i think we should stop now. enough is enough. if the US wants to give it to use then your welcome. but if not then why waste the PAFs time. my options for PAF are rafale, mirage 2000-5&9, gripen. i see no other aircraft unless the US is prepared to treat us like as if we have that so called Nato status we have been given. but if not then PAf should immediately open a bulk order of at least 60 aircraft from rafale, mirage or gripen.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

I wasn't trying to get too "heavy" back there gf, just trying to "defend" the Rafale which I think is rather an underrated fighter. I actually made a mistake back there, the Rafale has 14 external hardpoints, with the centreline and 2 inboard wing pylons (on each wing, giving 5 tanks in total) plumbed for external tanks.

The Typhoon Tranche 2 "may" be better at air to ground, but neither the Rafale or Typhoon have been fielded in their air to ground incarnations yet, so it's a bit hard to say which is "better"... The Rafale is being built with an internal IR/EO, IRST and laser targetting/designation system though, whereas the Eurofighter has been designed for a podded system!

Both aircraft are being equipped extensively for air to air and air to ground, so the difference between the 2 would probably be marginal...

I'm not sure about Spectre, I guess it would depend on the customer. Spectre has been incorporated into the airframe though and is probably the greatest survivability measure the Rafale possesses. I can't really see any customer being interested in the Rafale without it, so maybe that's part of it's sales problems...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

I wasn't trying to get too "heavy" back there gf, just trying to "defend" the Rafale which I think is rather an underrated fighter. I actually made a mistake back there, the Rafale has 14 external hardpoints, with the centreline and 2 inboard wing pylons (on each wing, giving 5 tanks in total) plumbed for external tanks.

The Typhoon Tranche 2 "may" be better at air to ground, but neither the Rafale or Typhoon have been fielded in their air to ground incarnations yet, so it's a bit hard to say which is "better"... The Rafale is being built with an internal IR/EO, IRST and laser targetting/designation system though, whereas the Eurofighter has been designed for a podded system!

Both aircraft are being equipped extensively for air to air and air to ground, so the difference between the 2 would probably be marginal...

I'm not sure about Spectre, I guess it would depend on the customer. Spectre has been incorporated into the airframe though and is probably the greatest survivability measure the Rafale possesses. I can't really see any customer being interested in the Rafale without it, so maybe that's part of it's sales problems...

nah, thats ok matey, no foul at this end. I guess my issue with French product is coloured by my dealings with some of their "gear". Although historical examples are somewhat valid in my own interaction with them I should have tempered my response a bit.

I've just dealt with too many pieces of French kit which looked like "wonder weapons" and were promoted as such, but failed dramatically (from my perspective)

c'est le vie, c'est le guerre.

 

[highsea]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

...I'll dot point them first rather than expand as it provides the other opportunities to debate:

1) Gripen is not subject to embargos as the engine is a modified commercial engine. as such its exempt

You sure about this GF? I know 60% of the engine is built in the US, and I understood that it was still subject to export approval. Some of the electronics are also US made- the HUD is built by Hughes, FBW by Lockmart/BAE, the main missiles are the AIM-9 and AMRAAM, which certainly have some restrictions, though I think other missiles could be used (MICA, S225X, ASRAAM, Meteor).

I had heard that the US initially vetoed the sale of the engine and avionics to South Africa, and this was a sticking point for Chile when looking at Gripen. Not sure about this part though, it may just be rumor...

Edit to add: apparently that was rumor, since the SAAF has ordered 28 Gripens for delivery starting 2007.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

You sure about this GF? I know 60% of the engine is built in the US, and I understood that it was still subject to export approval. Some of the electronics are also US made- the HUD is built by Hughes, the main missiles are the AIM-9 and AMRAAM, which certainly have some restrictions, though I think other missiles could be used (MICA, S225X).

I had heard that the US initially vetoed the sale of the engine and avionics to South Africa, and this was a sticking point for Chile when looking at Gripen. Not sure about this part though, it may just be rumor...

Edit to add: apparently that is rumor, the SAAF has ordered 28 Gripens for delivery starting 2007?

I'm pretty sure I read it in one of the assessments put out earlier this year. Except now I'm beginning to doubt my sanity as I can't find the original link.

I might have to defer on this until I can find supporting data. My clear impression was that the Swedes had promoted one of the selling points on the fact that it's engine (as a key component) was off the embargo schitt list as SAAB/Volvo were using fundamentally a commercially modified unit.

Maybe I'm starting to look like a delerious putz.

 

[sobank]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

if pakistan has a choice of GF then they might chose to get GF even for its range problem (im not sure what is this problem or how serious is it). but if GF is any good as f-16s or su27 then they will certainly get it.(remember paf is mainly defensive force and their launch pads are very close to borders)

I dont know much about GF so feel free to fill me in.

 

[SABRE]

Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?

if pakistan has a choice of GF then they might chose to get GF even for its range problem (im not sure what is this problem or how serious is it). but if GF is any good as f-16s or su27 then they will certainly get it.(remember paf is mainly defensive force and their launch pads are very close to borders)

I dont know much about GF so feel free to fill me in.

GF???? whats that ?
We only knw one GF here & thats gf0012-aust.

I think u have gotten confused GF (gf0012-aust) is not an AirCraft but one of the most senior members & a moderator here.

Hay GF, Congrats ! ur an AirCraft now. How many external drop tanks u carry? Whats ur range ? Plus how good r u compared to Su-30MKI. If ur good we ll buy u.