An Indian salute for President Musharraf

ROmair #552

A much more informative and realistic post, thanks :-)

Romair,

A man from the pak military can talk so much of crap is indicative of the bluster and sheer incompetance of the pak military. If you held any officer position in the pak militay is only indicative of the inevitability of 90,000 pows.

Yoy claim that pakistan has developed fuel pumps for the a/c engines. CFM engines powering the B737s, the GE engines are fitted with fuel pumps by Arkwin, the Trent engines of the Rols Royce are fitted with Lucas lumps, Pratts engines have Hamilton standard pumps. Why so many little suppliers, simply because no one wants to take the risk of tinkering with fuel pumps. If there is any cavitation in the pumps, the little metal particles will go and block the fuel nozzles, that will alter the spray pattern, it can spray fuel towards the sides, there will be a burn through and the a/c will catch fire. That is what precisely happened to an A320 when arkwin did not alter the design to accomodate the increaed frel nrrds of CFM56-5A! engines compared to CFM56-3B2 powering B737s.

Pakitan designing fuel pumps, my foot. If you like the military do not make a foll of yourself. Stick to left right, left right.

Romair, Alphanull

The first two prototypes of super 7 are ready - I passed on the photo as it appeared in ``Air Forces Monthly`` to a fellow Chowkie, several months ago.

All the stuff about technical delays, engines, etc - rubbish - As long as the funding can be generated, so will the engines and the technology transfer. The important aspect of any War aircraft is the avionics suite and knowing the capablity, training and weapons suite of the adversary.

Romair - send me an email address and I will send you the photo and info on Fc1 - for Feb. ``Air Forces Monthly`` is featuring Agra AFB - They finished doing a write on PAF Academy and Kamra, also they just did Peshawar and A5`s , last month they did Pakistan Navy Aviation.

Actually it doesn`t matter what kinds of technical problems or dealys of funding are incurred - each makes the facilities stronger - as the manufacture of Griffo has evidenced.

Detractors, we have many - but let the dogs bark, the caravan will continue to proceed.

Romair # 552.

This post is on the whole a good deal less objectionable; for one thing you didn`t invoke the authority of Brian Cloughley.

``Fighter aircraft are actually just weapons platforms. It is the avionics, missile systems and the reliability of the aircraft that is important. How fast it can go is secondary nowdays (the Pakistani F-7P is faster than the F-16, but is much inferior in capability).``

Granted.

``That is why aircraft with the same airframe are upgraded for decades (like the US B-52, F-16s etc.) becoming completely different aircraft which still look nearly identical to their original versions. So the Pakistani F-6 is far far superior to the Mig-19 it originally used to be. This is is different than taking a French aircraft and replacing a radar or two (which is what Pakistan does with the French Mirage).``

True in general, though I would add that the MiG-19, despite upgrades, will always have the limitations of the sweptback-wing design. Similarly the MiG-21 will always be limited in radar selection by its nose intakes; change that, as in the Chinese F-7 MF, and you arguably have a different configuration entirely.

However, your statement talks about continuing development and enhancement on a fundamentally sound, tried and trusted, platform. This is not (yet) the case with the Super-7, which hasn`t yet taken to the air (or for that matter with the LCA, which is still early in its flight testing phase).

``It is important to keep in mind that even the Chinese have just started the full end to end process of aircraft development. India has very unsuccessfully attempted it for 25 years, and has now given up on it by buying out and out systems from France (Mirage 2000), Russia (Su-series) and England (Hawk).``

The Chinese have been at it for about as long as India. They lost a whole decade to the Cultural Revolution, just as India lost a decade or more starting in the 70s, and had to restart laboriously in the mid-80s. The Mirage 2000s (and MiG-29s) were acquired in the 80s, around the time LCA feasibility studies were begun. The Su-30 is in a completely different class from the LCA; it will be the high end of the high-lo mix. The LCA, if viable, will be produced in numbers to replace the MiG-21s.

``So this brings us back to the original debate: will the Super-7 be successful. My guess is that, if there is enough money available, then it should be even more successful than the above.``

The original debate did mention something about a time-frame. It is wise to make projections from the date when the prototype makes its first flight, which so far as we know is still in the future. Apart from that, I don`t doubt that PAF is a knowledgeable, demanding end-user with experience, though not possession, of the best Western equipment that Arab money can buy. And I`d equally expect them to be quite resourceful in trying to integrate all the various systems that they have to make do with.

Here is a fairly recent article (dated 2001) by John Fricker. The first half talks about recent Chinese developments to the MiG-21/F-7 platform; the second half addresses the prospects of the Super-7/FC-1. I`m sure you`ll agree that Fricker is a more credible aviation writer than Brian Cloughley!

http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/om/200103/om61.htm

``By your standards I could call the Mirage 2000 a joint Indo-French project :-)``

sure - why not, if that makes you happy :-) my info on the PAF is restricted to what i heard from relatives/friends in the air force. and i have been under the impression that pak involvement with A5 was a bit more than ordering adjustments to the cockpit - but then again, these fly boys do have a tendency of exaggerating - in any case pak-chinese collaboration on military projects is nothing new.



p.s. thanks for that url on pak military.

re: alephNull #553

nice job cutting our resident delusionist romair to pieces...in case you`re new to chowk, let me advise you that it gets boring and pointless after a while...this man has a lot of trouble dealing with reality, and then when he`s often caught LYING, he won`t even have the integrity to own up to it...

rjanjua/bong-dongs: The Pakistani Aircraft Development Process vis-a-vis China:

Chinese aircraft are the mainstay of the PAF now. These include FT-5, F-6, A-5, F-7P and K-8, and eventually the Super-7. Pakistan started this process in the late sixties when the US started imposing restrictions on US aircraft purchases. Since that time, Pakistan has slowly converted from being a US aircraft dominated Air Force to a Chinese and French aircraft dominated Air Force.

The procurment of these Chinese aircraft has progressed in four stages over the past thirty years:

Initially, Pakistan just purchased the aircraft outright (F-6, FT-5), and flew them.

In the second stage, Pakistan completely overhauled a major portion of the systems in the aircraft. This includes: 1) Fixing many of the design defects in the systems (fuel, hydraulics etc.). 2) Converting the avionics to US and British systems. This include installing and integrating HUDs, radars, radios, Tail Warning Systems, Missile systems etc. 3) Making additions to the airframe, engine (in some cases replacing it), and fuel systems (like adding indigenous fuel tanks internally and externally, redesignign fuel lines, pumps etc). By the end, the aircraft ends up being just the Chinese airframe, perhaps engines and a few systems, and cockpit instruments. All of this requires Pakistani refurbication and flight testing. The main combat weapon systems are all new.

Making airframe changes like adding boundary layer fences on the wings or adding the ability to carry external fuel tanks, or adding a new ejection seat (requiring a change in the canopy design) isn`t like adding a new radio. It requires extensive wind tunnel and flight testing, etc.

Fighter aircraft are actually just weapons platforms. It is the avionics, missile systems and the reliability of the aircraft that is important. How fast it can go is secondary nowdays (the Pakistani F-7P is faster than the F-16, but is much inferior in capability). That is why aircraft with the same airframe are upgraded for decades (like the US B-52, F-16s etc.) becoming completely different aircraft which still look nearly identical to their original versions. So the Pakistani F-6 is far far superior to the Mig-19 it originally used to be. This is is different than taking a French aircraft and replacing a radar or two (which is what Pakistan does with the French Mirage).

The third stage was the devlopment in China of two different versions of the same aircraft. This is what happened with the F-7 (and A-5, I believe). The F-7P was designed spefically for Pakistan (even a completely different cockpit layout) in China, with Pakistani assistance.

The fourth stage is the complete co-devlopment of a brand new aircraft, from end to end. This is what Pakistan has done with the K-8 and Super-7. Pakistani and Chinese engineers are involved from the blueprint stage. The Chinese are learning a lot from Pakistani on this also, as Pakistanis have far better knowledge of Western avionics and aircraft than the Chinese.

It is important to keep in mind that even the Chinese have just started the full end to end process of aircraft development. India has very unsuccessfully attempted it for 25 years, and has now given up on it by buying out and out systems from France (Mirage 2000), Russia (Su-series) and England (Hawk). The previous version of Chinese aircraft development were actually Russian designs. China will be using a Russian engine in the Super-7. Even the Russians have only recently mastered the art of building highly reliable engines. That is why the Mig-29 and Su-27 are finally in the same league as the best US aircraft systems (Mig-25s and Mig-21s were cheap, but not in the same league as their US counteparts like F-4s, F-15s etc.). There are actually only three or four countries that can develop every system of an aircraft. These are the USA, Russia, France, and England.

So these are the four stages. One could make a good argument that the FT-5 (being purely a training aircraft in the PAF, with no weapon systems) hasn`t really had too many additions made by the PAF, apart from the addition of a newer air conditioning system and a few other odds and ends systems. It is thus no better than the original Mig it was designed after. So the FT-5 isn`t really a co-development. I will give you that one. Primarily because it is ancient and Pakistan does not want to redesign anything in it.

However, aircraft like the F-7P are far superior to the original Mig-21 which they grew out of, and with which they now just share the airframe (even in that, I believe Pakistan has installed its own flap system).

I hope this clarifies the query. All the above have been big successes. So this brings us back to the original debate: will the Super-7 be successful. My guess is that, if there is enough money available, then it should be even more successful than the above. Pakistan will end up with a partly indigenous aircraft, with performance close to the F-16, at a fraction of the cost.

If someone in India would like to feel it will be a failuire, they are more than welcome to feel that way. But they would only be underestimating joint Pakistani-Chinese development.

bong-dongs #539/550: In the first reply you state, `` thought we had a discussion on this and there is abosuletly no evidence that Cloughley was a consultant on the Hawk deak.``

In the second reply, you state, ``His reply evaded the question completely.``

If, in your opinion, he evaded the question, then I am not sure how you could initially state that there is absolutely, ``no evidence.`` At best, it means he may or may not have been a consultant. Wouldn`t you agree?

I remember reading that he was. Maybe he wasn`t. But I think from the information you have, you cannot tell one way or the other.

Romair # 536

``I have worked on fighter aircraft that are Pakistani hybrids of Chinese designs in Pakistan. So I am going to assume I know quite a bit more about them than you, and that this is only your emotion talking.``

I wrote # 528 to briefly indicate why hobbyty`s hopes in #502 that the Super 7 variants might start being manufactured within the next 2 or 3 years are, shall we say, wildly unrealistic. It seems to have touched a raw nerve in you, judging by your lengthy response. You do say:

``All the technical areas and challenges you have mentioned are accurate.``

which is the only acknowledgement of the difficulties and unavoidable delays involved.

It is typical in the US for half-a-dozen or more years to pass between the first flight of the prototype of a new fighter/attack aircraft and the entry of initial variants into squadron service. This is despite the unparalleled wealth of design expertise and production resources available to the US, the proven system integration and project management skills, the ability to multiple-source various components, the deep pockets to build a dozen full-scale development aircraft to cover the various aspects of a flight-test program and if necessary to lose a few in testing mishaps. It is normal for flight testing to uncover various problems which even today cannot be accurately predicted in wind-tunnel testing or through computational simulation; these may require modifying the shapes of various surfaces, strengthening structural members, changing the position of store racks, etc. Engines are often sensitive to conditions of disturbed airflow such as result at high angles of attack or when weapons are fired. Even an apparently mundane procedure like the release of external fuel tanks need to be verified to ensure that they separate cleanly. All this takes years to test and make the necessary modifications. Readying production tooling takes still more time.

It isn`t even clear that the first prototype of the Super 7 has been fabricated, though a full-scale mockup has been displayed. To expect manufacture in 2 to 3 years requires a large-scale willing suspension of disbelief.

``Easily the most successful technologoy devleopment in military aircraft in South Asia is the co-operation between Pakistan and China. There is one success story after another. F-6, A-5, F-7, K-8, FT-5 (not to mention the nuclear missiles) etc. Can you name one joint PAk-China project that has failed due to technical reasons (the only delays and stoppages have been due to finances; and nearly all of these were started up and completed successfully, once the finances were available)? If you cannot (which you will not be able to), then how can you make an assumption that Super-7 will fail?``

Let`s see. The F-7 is the unlicensed reverse-engineered Chinese version of the MiG-21, which the Chinese have been tinkering with for 40-odd years, because for decades they had no better options available. The F-6 is a Chinese copy of the MiG-19; the A-5 is an attack version of the same aircraft. The FT-5 is a two-seat trainer based on the MiG-17. All of these are based on sound Soviet designs from the early 1950s; they were not designed from scratch by the Chinese, but incrementally modified for decades, integrating the capability to fire Western missiles, etc. The K-8 is a basic jet trainer.

Completing a fresh design of a frontline fighter aircraft in the same ballpark as the F-16, is an entirely different proposition.

``But China (and China in cooperation with Pakistan) have an extremely strong track record of success in joint developments in these areas.``

The Pak-China relationship is clearly symbiotic, in that Pakistan has provided access (often illicit, as with the F-16 and the Stinger) to leading-edge Western technology for the Chinese to attempt to reverse engineer. But is there any reason to believe that Pakistan`s role in `joint development` is anything other than that of a knowledgeable end-user?

``China does not develop aircraft for Pakistan. It primarily develops these aircraft for its own Air Force.``

Bingo! So much for `joint development` of the F-7 etc.

`` ... If China is willing to fly ancient aircraft like A-5s (without the Pakistan upgrades), why in the world would it reject something state of the art like the new Super-7? Could you please answer that quesiton.

Most the development of the Super-7 is being done in China, while a smaller amount is being done in Pakistan. Why in the world would China put so much money into this project, if it was going to reject the aircraft? Pakistan only wants 150 of these aircraft, what is China going to do with the rest of investment, if it doesn`t want to fly these aircraft or export them? ``

The Chinese seem to have pinned their hopes for a replacement to the J/F-7 and Q/A-5 on the Israeli Lavi-derived J-10, which seems actually to have been test-flown. Meanwhile they are buying/building the Su-27 (J-11) in numbers of several hundred (unfortunately for the PAF, they have not been granted an export license). That would provide them with a viable high-low mix of fighter/attack aircraft. It makes little sense for them to waste their scarce design and production resources on yet another aircraft whose niche in their own air force is uncertain. That would explain why they countenanced the various delays and changes in specifications for the Super-7, and why funding has been so uncertain. Pakistan of course insists that the PLAAF also buy the FC-1, to lower unit costs. If it happens, it will mean that the Chinese are subsidising the PAF to the tune of billions of dollars.

``I have a feeling that you are not going to believe me, since I am a Pakistani. So I would like to direct your attention to Brian Cloughley, ...``

I don`t believe you, not because you are a Pakistani, but precisely because you quote Brian Cloughley. He plays the role of house-gora adding his byline to newspaper articles designed to boost morale and lend support to the official Pakistani line. He seems to have this lucrative market cornered. I have never seen a keener student of the Indian CAG reports. Quite a nice racket, if you ask me. If you see him as `neutral`, you will no doubt regard Eric Margolis as similarly impartial.



``Ten ruppees bet with you that India will not dare attack Pakistan, and that the Super-7 will be flying the PAF inventory as a replacement for the F-16 and F-6 roles, and that the LCA is the project which will never see the light of day. Put your money where your mouth is, my friend.``

The diabolically cunning baniya may not attack for reasons other than `successful projects` like the F-7, having achieved his aims in other ways. I am sure that the FC-1, if it finally fructifies, will readily outperform the F-6 (a MiG-19, for crying out loud!). As to the rest, I`ll believe it when it finally happens.

Hey ROmair,

Since any westerners word is the word of god how about swallowing this one (From LA times):

Despite its denials, Pakistan controls most Kashmiri insurgent groups. On May 29, 1999, shortly after the Pakistani army launched its offensive across the cease-fire line at Kargil, Indian intelligence intercepted a revealing international telephone conversation between then-Gen. Musharraf, who was in Beijing, and his deputy, Lt. Gen. Mohammed Aziz. CIA sources have validated the authenticity of the intercept. Nawaz Sharif, then prime-minister, had expressed concern, Aziz said, that Kashmiri insurgent groups fighting with the army might get out of hand and force an escalation, but that ``there need be no such fear, since we have them by the scruff of the neck and whenever desired, we can regulate the situation``

The author is a S Asia expert by any standards:

By SELIG S. HARRISON, Selig S. Harrison has reported on South Asia since 1951 and written five books on the region. He is director of the National Security Project at the Center for International Policy and a senior schola

ROmair

``If you recall, you were the one who had stated that Brian Cloughley was not a consultant on the Hawk deal, on your own. I had then taken the trouble to actually corresponding with Brian Cloughley, and posted his email response to your question``

My assersion: ``there is no proof that Brian Cloughley was a consultant to the Indian government on the Hawk deak``

His reply evaded the question completely.

From:

http://pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/ac/a5.html

A-5C/A-5III

``Export version for Pakistan Air Force (and later customers), involving 32 modifications from Q-5 I, notably upgraded avionics, Martin-Baker PKD10 zero/zero seat, and adaptation of hardpoints for 356 mm (14 in) lugs compatible with Sidewinder missiles and other PAF weapons; three prototypes preceded production programme; in service with Nos. 7, 16 and 26 Squadrons of PAF, by whom designated A-5-III. Ordered also by Bangladesh and Myanmar.``

So the A-5C/A-5III is the PAF version modified to carry sidewinders, Martin Baker ejection seats and some western avionics. So the A-5C development can be called a ``joint`` development (as I guess PAF was involved in designing this upgrade) but not the original A-5 development.

rajanjua

AFAIK, only the last version of the A5 (A5III?) had some modifications according to PAF specs. This is very standard when any country buys aircraft. There was no design input or no shared manufacturing. By your standards I could call the Mirage 2000 a joint Indo-French project :-)

regards

bd

(PS this is from open literature, maybe you know something which isnt there in which case i would love to be enlightened)

DISARMAMENT AND MORE INVESTMENT IN HEALTH

AND EDUCATION AND WELFARE - INDIA AND PAKISTAN.

We need to work jointly towards reducing tensions and curtailing defense related expenditures in both countries. More money for the social sectors will bring more prosperity and happiness. There are too many fat Generals in both countries wanting to spend and spend and waste resources...

bong-dongs #540: I have only quoted Brian Cloughley in my reply. Pak news and Piad are the sites that presented his article. These sites did not write the article themselves. The other source I quoted was www.fas.org (The federation of American Scientists). I did not quote a single Pakistani source to avoid biases. Yet you have mysteriously found these non-Pakistani sources to be biased also, without providing a single source of your own. I am amazed at your tenacity at not accepting obvious facts, without providing any counter facts :-) You are arguing a subject (pakistani-chinese joint aircraft production) about which you have absolutely zero knowledge. Yet you are unwilling to accept facts provided by non-Pakistani sources.

If you recall, you were the one who had stated that Brian Cloughley was not a consultant on the Hawk deal, on your own. I had then taken the trouble to actually corresponding with Brian Cloughley, and posted his email response to your question. At which point I believe you accepted the fact that he was a consultant. Now you seem to have flipped back to the other side, when I have quoted him from an article of his, as a counter argument to incorrect information that had been presented.

In either case, he is a neutral source, whether he was on the hawk deal or not. Not to mention the fact that he is a widely consulted source on Indo-Pak military affairs by bbc and other sources.

You do not believe Pakistanis, and you do not believe neutral sources. You only believe Indian sources. This is quite unfortunate. It is thus not worth my time to convince you but I will make one more attempt. So I have sent another email to Mr. Cloughley. Let`s see if he responds.

Let`s assume for the fact that Brian Cloughley is actually a Pakistani in disguise. Let`s go to the extreme and assume he is an agent of the ISI, and was actually the person who planned the Indian parliament attack. So lets disregard what he says. I would still like to ask you one simple question: Why do think some form or hybrid of the Super-7 induction will fail, when all the previous inductions of hybrid Chinese aircraft have been so successful in the PAF? Do you even know how this induction process works? I have detailed knowledge of it. If you do not understand this process, (which I doubt you do), then aren`t you the one blowing hot air?

``A-5, FT-5 joint Pak-China projects, really now :-``

Don`t know about FT-5, but A-5 can be characterised as a joint project. Why are you so skeptical about this. Pak-Chinese collaboration on joint defense projects is nothing new.

From the latest AFM (air forces monthly), are the following observations about Pakistani naval aviation after 3 years of sanctions:

1)2 Seakings have been grounded and are being cannibalized for parts.

2)Of the 3 Lynx helicpters for the Type-21 frigates only 1 is operational.

3)The P3C fleet is serverly affected by sanctions and is partly operational.