Capabilities of PAF Dassault MIRAGE-III/V.

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Kinda cryptic. I can guess what you are hinting at, but can not make the connection with PAF being brought down. Care to elaborate a bit more?

As @JamD said... India developed the FCS of the Tejas, which was a reason for delays in the Tejas program. That said, we didn't need to develop an FCS of our own, but we didn't learn as much as we needed to about the tech.

Saab didn't make the FCS of the Gripen, but it knows enough about it (and the tech) to integrate whatever it wants to the fighter. We need to get to at least that point for the JF-17 and our FGFA (especially if we opt for a consortium or off-the-shelf route).

I have a general point, but we have a culture of 'being up our butts' which we need to get out of... The naivete surrounding the Rafale, Tejas, S-400, etc, etc is comical, if not a little scary. I'd rather be weary, but courageous, than to be foolish.

 

[Readerdefence]

Yes you can but there is airframe refitment needed plus center of gravity changes significantly. If you want best bang for money - use Atar-9K.

Hi thanks for your reply so if let’s say PAF go for ATAR 9K is it a plug & play kind of attachment or one still need to do the other refinement beside what’s the ATAR specs as compare to the present engine of Mirages
If possible for you to enlighten me further
Thank you

 

[Readerdefence]

Changing fighter aircraft is a complicated process. Not worth with the 50 years old airframes. Why u want to use mirrages when thunders r available ?

Hi thanks for your reply but if we go through the jf17 engine inventories those were like PAF got around 500 advance engines from russia at the time through China now if we go through the present jf17 inventory and let’s say number of burn out engines all in all must not be more than 200 or 250 odd engines will be still around like wise if PAF in future looking for more powerful Chinese engines for jf17 isn’t it a possibility to use these extra stock of Russian engines somewhere else & im still optimistic phasing out Mirages to be around coz of their load carrying capacity as compare to jf17
Just a thought
Thank you

 

[ziaulislam]

Hi thanks for your reply but if we go through the jf17 engine inventories those were like PAF got around 500 advance engines from russia at the time through China now if we go through the present jf17 inventory and let’s say number of burn out engines all in all must not be more than 200 or 250 odd engines will be still around like wise if PAF in future looking for more powerful Chinese engines for jf17 isn’t it a possibility to use these extra stock of Russian engines somewhere else & im still optimistic phasing out Mirages to be around coz of their load carrying capacity as compare to jf17
Just a thought
Thank you

Doubt it..PAF will need those engines as spares

 

[The Accountant]

Hi thanks for your reply but if we go through the jf17 engine inventories those were like PAF got around 500 advance engines from russia at the time through China now if we go through the present jf17 inventory and let’s say number of burn out engines all in all must not be more than 200 or 250 odd engines will be still around like wise if PAF in future looking for more powerful Chinese engines for jf17 isn’t it a possibility to use these extra stock of Russian engines somewhere else & im still optimistic phasing out Mirages to be around coz of their load carrying capacity as compare to jf17
Just a thought
Thank you

First of all placing a new engine which itself will take 2 to 3 years at minimum.

Furthermore look at the capability gaps. Mirrage is more of a ground attack aircraft only with limited air to air combat capabilities. Thunder is an all rounder. Its not as much mature as mirrage in terms of use of SOW but if u want to invest time in development then why on mirrages which should be retired in 5 years? Better to invest this time in integrating those SOW weapons on thunder which will be working for us for atleast next 25 years.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Development (and complete ownership) of the flight control system.

As @JamD said... India developed the FCS of the Tejas, which was a reason for delays in the Tejas program. That said, we didn't need to develop an FCS of our own, but we didn't learn as much as we needed to about the tech.

Saab didn't make the FCS of the Gripen, but it knows enough about it (and the tech) to integrate whatever it wants to the fighter. We need to get to at least that point for the JF-17 and our FGFA (especially if we opt for a consortium or off-the-shelf route).

I have a general point, but we have a culture of 'being up our butts' which we need to get out of... The naivete surrounding the Rafale, Tejas, S-400, etc, etc is comical, if not a little scary. I'd rather be weary, but courageous, than to be foolish.

I had guessed that the post was about FCS. The context made that easy enough. I do recall DRDO being made fun of for taking so long in developing a simple FCS for a delta design. But I could not imagine PAF being brought down by not having it. I still don't. But I hope that PAF engineers have not been sitting idle all this time.

 

[araz]

I had guessed that the post was about FCS. The context made that easy enough. I do recall DRDO being made fun of for taking so long in developing a simple FCS for a delta design. But I could not imagine PAF being brought down by not having it. I still don't. But I hope that PAF engineers have not been sitting idle all this time.

I think the JFT was a means to get to the end line without the least hassle. Once the race is over, we can retrace our steps and slowly incorporate technology as we get a grasp of it. This is a novel way of doing things, and I think they have partly followed a hybrid of Chinese and Western pathways towards development. I remain uncertain as to how it will effect subsequent progress as we still lack critical technologies and skills. I suspect we will slowly incorporate these as we go along. But at least we have a product to show for it. The next project may still not be 100% ours but may well be 60-70% ours. I would love to see us taking over the building of the whole fuselage of the JFT block 3 to show progress.
A

 

[araz]

First of all placing a new engine which itself will take 2 to 3 years at minimum.

Furthermore look at the capability gaps. Mirage is more of a ground attack aircraft only with limited air to air combat capabilities. Thunder is an all rounder. Its not as much mature as mirage in terms of use of SOW but if u want to invest time in development then why on mirages which should be retired in 5 years? Better to invest this time in integrating those SOW weapons on thunder which will be working for us for at least next 25 years.

You cannot change the flight characteristics of a plane just by changing the engine. A legacy fighter will remain a legacy fighter. What PAF has done is recognize the limitations of the platform as well as its strengths and utilized it for one role(land attack) at which it is very good. They have used it as a means to an end not the end. Trying to do too much with it will turn into a disaster. If we need a Delta we will incorporate the J10s once we have inducted block 3. The timelines for retirement of M3/5s is 2025 giving us plenty time to induct the block 3 and then reevaluating our needs. My own thought is Block 3 maybe the last 4th generation fighter we get, barring newer/MLUed F16s. If there is a 5th generation offering from China or our own engineers design and induct a new platform that will be the next induction in my humble opinion.

 

[The Accountant]

You cannot change the flight characteristics of a plane just by changing the engine. A legacy fighter will remain a legacy fighter. What PAF has done is recognize the limitations of the platform as well as its strengths and utilized it for one role(land attack) at which it is very good. They have used it as a means to an end not the end. Trying to do too much with it will turn into a disaster. If we need a Delta we will incorporate the J10s once we have inducted block 3. The timelines for retirement of M3/5s is 2025 giving us plenty time to induct the block 3 and then reevaluating our needs. My own thought is Block 3 maybe the last 4th generation fighter we get, barring newer/MLUed F16s. If there is a 5th generation offering from China or our own engineers design and induct a new platform that will be the next induction in my humble opinion.

I think there is still more room of 4th generation fighters specially due to very limited capacity to carry weapons by fifth generation. Atleast for close Air Support, Strike roles (other than deep strike) and Naval roles 4th generation still offer alot in comparison to fifth generation.

I feel either we will go for a block 4 of thunder with focus on its additional weight carrying capacity or buying more vipers.

No country in the world except for USA (even China) has planned for all 5 plus generation aircraft's yet.

 

[ziaulislam]

I think there is still more room of 4th generation fighters specially due to very limited capacity to carry weapons by fifth generation. Atleast for close Air Support, Strike roles (other than deep strike) and Naval roles 4th generation still offer alot in comparison to fifth generation.

I feel either we will go for a block 4 of thunder with focus on its additional weight carrying capacity or buying more vipers.

No country in the world except for USA (even China) has planned for all 5 plus generation aircraft's yet.

With evolution of small diameter bombs and cluster ammunition and imporvement of SOW one would wonder whether jf-17 especially the new block with better rd93ma and it 8000lb isnt enough?

After all i doubt mirage 5 has any payload /range benefit on jf17 let alone after rd93ma inclusion

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I had guessed that the post was about FCS. The context made that easy enough. I do recall DRDO being made fun of for taking so long in developing a simple FCS for a delta design. But I could not imagine PAF being brought down by not having it. I still don't. But I hope that PAF engineers have not been sitting idle all this time.

Unfortunately, without a CAG-like office of our own in Pakistan, actual mistakes can slide. Folks like us aren't given an actual say on these matters, or even the legislated right to question/account.

 

[JamD]

I had guessed that the post was about FCS. The context made that easy enough. I do recall DRDO being made fun of for taking so long in developing a simple FCS for a delta design. But I could not imagine PAF being brought down by not having it. I still don't. But I hope that PAF engineers have not been sitting idle all this time.

In my opinion it took them so long because they were setting up the infrastructure along the way. The actual FCS is just a bunch of software, but there's an entire industry you need to be able to write your own FCS. You need extensive wind-tunnel setup (extremely well-instrumented), expertise in flight dynamics, expertise in (ruggedized) electronics, system architecture, list goes on. To India's credit, they now have all of these facilities/tech for their next project (whatever that may be). For us, however, we have giant holes in our knowledge base, especially since we're supposed to be embarking on Project Azm.

Obviously, we would not have had the JF-17 in service today had we taken the Indian route, but I disagree with the somewhat popular perception that we can develop a modern fighter BECAUSE we (partially) developed the JF-17. We have giant holes in our capability that will need to be eventually filled.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

In my opinion it took them so long because they were setting up the infrastructure along the way. The actual FCS is just a bunch of software, but there's an entire industry you need to be able to write your own FCS. You need extensive wind-tunnel setup (extremely well-instrumented), expertise in flight dynamics, expertise in (ruggedized) electronics, system architecture, list goes on. To India's credit, they now have all of these facilities/tech for their next project (whatever that may be). For us, however, we have giant holes in our knowledge base, especially since we're supposed to be embarking on Project Azm.

Obviously, we would not have had the JF-17 in service today had we taken the Indian route, but I disagree with the somewhat popular perception that we can develop a modern fighter BECAUSE we (partially) developed the JF-17. We have giant holes in our capability that will need to be eventually filled.

That's why the right approach is to:

(1) Settle our FGFA needs by signing onto the FC-31 as-is. No customization. Just take the fighter as-is from China with a domestic support base to keep them flying. Ideally, we'd pair it with a massive offset package that benefits our private sector, especially small and medium-sized businesses (boost employment, exports, etc).

(2) Defer all development work to an indigenous technology demonstrator untied to any near-term requirement. We use this project to develop our own FCS, composites, radar tech, EW/ECM, etc. Once we're comfortable, we develop a 6th-gen fighter on our own.

 

[Materialistic]

In my opinion it took them so long because they were setting up the infrastructure along the way. The actual FCS is just a bunch of software, but there's an entire industry you need to be able to write your own FCS. You need extensive wind-tunnel setup (extremely well-instrumented), expertise in flight dynamics, expertise in (ruggedized) electronics, system architecture, list goes on. To India's credit, they now have all of these facilities/tech for their next project (whatever that may be). For us, however, we have giant holes in our knowledge base, especially since we're supposed to be embarking on Project Azm.

Obviously, we would not have had the JF-17 in service today had we taken the Indian route, but I disagree with the somewhat popular perception that we can develop a modern fighter BECAUSE we (partially) developed the JF-17. We have giant holes in our capability that will need to be eventually filled.

That's why the right approach is to:

(1) Settle our FGFA needs by signing onto the FC-31 as-is. No customization. Just take the fighter as-is from China with a domestic support base to keep them flying. Ideally, we'd pair it with a massive offset package that benefits our private sector, especially small and medium-sized businesses (boost employment, exports, etc).

(2) Defer all development work to an indigenous technology demonstrator untied to any near-term requirement. We use this project to develop our own FCS, composites, radar tech, EW/ECM, etc. Once we're comfortable, we develop a 6th-gen fighter on our own.

Finally, someone who voiced this opinion otherwise this forum is full of posts which make one think like developing a 5th gen aircraft is peice of cake while in the same breath ppl mention how we lack skills and finances to evolve jf17 further than block 3. In layman's terms its like jumping off to PHD when you haven't even finished your bachelors yet.

I beleive instead of venturing into 5th gen we should simply buy few squadrons of FC31 off the shelf from China (if and when available). When countries like US, China and Russia are not fully relying on 5th gen and the true backbone of their fleet is going to be 4.5 gen then how come Pakistan go with a full focus on 5th (not to mention the associated price tag).

It would make sense for Pakistan to have thunders together with some decent medium weight 4.5gen aircraft (or thunders evolved further into a medium weight category in parallel with the likes of f16Vs/j10C, strike varients, indigenously developed mission pods, avoinics etc) to compliment the limited fleet of 5th gen forming the spear head.

 

[denel]

Hi thanks for your reply so if let’s say PAF go for ATAR 9K is it a plug & play kind of attachment or one still need to do the other refinement beside what’s the ATAR specs as compare to the present engine of Mirages
If possible for you to enlighten me further
Thank you

Atar - 9K is plug play very little mods required. but the improvement overall is very good.

For cheetah - the consideration was to get a better engine but we had to scale back and go with 9K vs 9C; licence for 9k was already in place locally so it was easy; plus minimal effort as SAAF F1AZ were already on 9K.