F-60 / J-31 stealth fighter aircraft for Pakistan Air Force?

[rockstarIN]

govt memo only said about 10b and 11b configuration fighters means fighter produced Line year 2010 -2011.and general overhaul of fighters

Yes, only one-two batches

 

[SQ8]

Govt memo just shows the problem, but the news site saying it as it affected by whole MKI fleet and 50% is grounded.

That is news site. Suggest one followes the government memo for reference to the problem.

govt memo only said about 10b and 11b configuration fighters means fighter produced Line year 2010 -2011.and general overhaul of fighters Problems are reported and hal monitoring actions i dont understand what is so Fuzz about it

How do you know 10b and 11b configuration mean 2010 and 2011.. and if they do.. how many aircraft were produced during that time. Also, please dont be hypocritical.. if this was about the JF-17 or F-16 you and your ilk would be making a bigger fuss out of it. So if I or anyone else makes a fuss.. you cant do jack to stop them about it.

 

[MilSpec]

I just posted a post from another thread about your SU-30 (50% of the IAF force) going through issues. So that should give you some peace about my knowledge about the Russian tech. Next, from the above, YOU (nopes) and I used the word contracrors and you went with it just as much as I did. Now you'd turn around and tell me there are inernal IAF employees doing the work? Fine. But how does it change anything? Whether contracrors or IAF or yoru BJP employees right, the point was, they CAN'T make a decision for the governemnt. They just evaluate and submit their reprots on 3 or 5 or 10 many contenders. The Indian Government makes the call on WHAT to BUY and from who....from within the contenders evaluated. That was the point. Whtether contractor or full time employees......don't make a difference. Let's not stupid argue like a child over a fact based sensible discussion where you are ignorng the most important facts

Absolutely, such posts do highlight knowledge based discussions.... no argument there...

How do you know 10b and 11b configuration mean 2010 and 2011.. and if they do.. how many aircraft were produced during that time. Also, please dont be hypocritical.. if this was about the JF-17 or F-16 you and your ilk would be making a bigger fuss out of it. So if I or anyone else makes a fuss.. you cant do jack to stop them about it.

This is a comm loss issue from the adcs/mission comp to mfd. The issue is of grave concern but the way it's being spun is slightly out of proportion... Some of the fault lies here with HAL too, on occasion of first reported failure, they should have treated this as a quality escape and done the root cause analysis, but they want the russians to do it for them... I'll say that is the main issue here.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

they should have treated this as a quality escape and done the root cause analysis, but they want the russians to do it for them... I'll say that is the main issue here.

seperated for over 60 years but still so much in common

 

[SQ8]

Absolutely, such posts do highlight knowledge based discussions.... no argument there...



This is a comm loss issue from the adcs/mission comp to mfd. The issue is of grave concern but the way it's being spun is slightly out of proportion... Some of the fault lies here with HAL too, on occasion of first reported failure, they should have treated this as a quality escape and done the root cause analysis, but they want the russians to do it for them... I'll say that is the main issue here.

Basically, they would rather save the effort.. typical desis.

 

[MilSpec]

Basically, they would rather save the effort.. typical desis.

couldn't agree more.... the attitude is for due diligence they expect a cookie....

 

[NKVD]

How do you know 10b and 11b configuration mean 2010 and 2011.. and if they do.. how many aircraft were produced during that time. Also, please dont be hypocritical.. if this was about the JF-17 or F-16 you and your ilk would be making a bigger fuss out of it. So if I or anyone else makes a fuss.. you cant do jack to stop them about it.

Yellow Journalism Yet Again : against Su-30MKI

 

[SQ8]

couldn't agree more.... the attitude is for due diligence they expect a cookie....

Reminds me of a particular issue with a Chinese system.. it could be tackled at home.. but then where was the fun not making Mr Yang(or Ying).. come over on a flight just to meet the boss over how his QC needed work.

Yellow Journalism Yet Again : against Su-30MKI

Your word only. Other voices should be heard.

 

[MilSpec]

Reminds me of a particular issue with a Chinese system.. it could be tackled at home.. but then where was the fun not making Mr Yang(or Ying).. come over on a flight just to meet the boss over how his QC needed work.

Awacs?

 

[Viper0011.]

Again extremely amateurish report by a reputed news site and even by all pages stating 50% of the IAF’s Su-30MKI fleet remains grounded because of multiple cases of repeated failure of Mission Computer-1 and blanking out of Head Up Displays (HUD) and all Multi-Function Displays. This is not all true and let us separate truth from fiction.

Firstly, it must be noted that the malfunctions are not across-the-board or affecting the entire fleet of Su-30MKIs, but only a limited number. At most, therefore, no more than 40 Su-30MKIs will be affected by such avionics-related malfunctions. (Two batches are affected)

There was nothing amateurish about this. This just backed my up claim that the Russian technology is inferior in quality. The entire world knows it but since it is the SU-30 or the PakFa, of course, the Indian community would have an ego problem with that.
Let's see, per you ONLY 40 SU-30 planes would be effected. 40 like Four Zero. You think from a manufacturer's standpoint, isn't it low quality and bad press that SO MANY (total 40) planes are out of service or awaiting repairs at ONE given time? I don't want to get into another egoistic silly argument but this shows the quality right there. And I will NOT be responding to emotional and egoistic posts trying to change the reality. Some countries have air forces less than 150 aircraft total and even 20 planes out of service is a huge number at one time.

 

[Viper0011.]

If you look at the losses, it includes both low tech and high tech jets. Lost specifically bcause the aircrews were not prepared to fight the migs. . .. that the US made a mistake in relying too much on missiles and doctrine.. underestimated the enemy.. and suffered losses due to it.

Actually incorrect Oscar. Here is why. Underestimation is when I know what my enemy has but I don't estimate the quantity or seriousness of it. And I get in and get beat up. But then, there is the element of surprise, the unknown that the enemy has and I may have heard about it. But have never actually dealt with it. Now THAT was the issue. It was the capability or agility and higher speed thrust of the Migs. Frankly speaking, Migs in their high times, still couldn't take a better shot than the F-86. Ask any USAF (or even PAF pilot actually). The American technology was radar guided guns even then and still much better. Our pilots didn't know the agility of Migs. When we came to find out, the F-86's temporarily and the F-16's permanently fixed the gap. You also have to realize, initially, the USN was involved. Historically, the USN operates twin engine jets or single engine for recon, etc. So dealing with the one engine high agility wasn't a normal thing. It was really an element of surprise. The F-86's in short term dealt with the Migs JUST fine as they were used to the single engine. Later, the aggressor squadron of the USN always included single engine highly maneuverable fighters for training so that the element of surprise could be removed. The F-16 took that single engine element out like it never existed and it still rocks.

 

[SQ8]

Actually incorrect Oscar. Here is why. Underestimation is when I know what my enemy has but I don't estimate the quantity or seriousness of it. And I get in and get beat up. But then, there is the element of surprise, the unknown that the enemy has and I may have heard about it. But have never actually dealt with it. Now THAT was the issue. It was the capability or agility and higher speed thrust of the Migs. Frankly speaking, Migs in their high times, still couldn't take a better shot than the F-86. Ask any USAF (or even PAF pilot actually). The American technology was radar guided guns even then and still much better. Our pilots didn't know the agility of Migs. When we came to find out, the F-86's temporarily and the F-16's permanently fixed the gap. You also have to realize, initially, the USN was involved. Historically, the USN operates twin engine jets or single engine for recon, etc. So dealing with the one engine high agility wasn't a normal thing. It was really an element of surprise. The F-86's in short term dealt with the Migs JUST fine as they were used to the single engine. Later, the aggressor squadron of the USN always included single engine highly maneuverable fighters for training so that the element of surprise could be removed. The F-16 took that single engine element out like it never existed and it still rocks.

The US was aware of the Mig-21 much earlier.. and the other migs. What it did not suppose was the unreliability of its missile systems and the training of its pilots. I am still not sure how the F-86 or F-16 is relevant in terms of ACM training and tactics since the USN took the F-4 which was essentially not much of a turner against the Migs and came out on top with tactics.

Awacs?

Nope.. something else.. but the point being that shifting the blame or task on someone else is a very desi habit...

 

[Viper0011.]

The US was aware of the Mig-21 much earlier.. and the other migs. What it did not suppose was the unreliability of its missile systems and the training of its pilots. I am still not sure how the F-86 or F-16 is relevant in terms of ACM training and tactics since the USN took the F-4 which was essentially not much of a turner against the Migs and came out on top with tactics.

Awareness and combat contact are two VERY different things Oscar. No matter how 'aware' one can be, the entire fligth profile is only observed when you encounter that specific jet. Back then, the first gen of AAM's have had misses and that's just technology being born and tested.
But overall, it was the element of surprise that went in Mig's advantage initially. As the US pilots learned more about how Mig operated, its problems and where it was best to engage at, the advantage in the SAME war went down significantly.

Top Gun or other training didn't just train already deployed pilots. These pilots were already on the front lines and they learned to handle these Migs later on. This is what I refer to as learning the hard way. However, since then, that 'one instance' of learning the hard way meant that the US familiarized and trained its pilots against all kinds of potential enemy systems. Take a look at the Top Gun and the Red Flag. The point behind the F-86 was that within a few years of the Vietnam deal, the knowledge about the Migs had matured that pilots flying F-86's were able to tackle the Mig 21 and the knowledge was transferred to partner nations too. I think the PAF had some success in that area too but I don't remember the details. And the Mig 21's rise was entirely demolished when the F-16 came into service.
So it was a two-tier approach, contain the threat first and then produce a much superior weapon system that takes the advantage away from the getgo.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Awacs?

I see what you tried doing here

 

[danger007]

There was nothing amateurish about this. This just backed my up claim that the Russian technology is inferior in quality. The entire world knows it but since it is the SU-30 or the PakFa, of course, the Indian community would have an ego problem with that.
Let's see, per you ONLY 40 SU-30 planes would be effected. 40 like Four Zero. You think from a manufacturer's standpoint, isn't it low quality and bad press that SO MANY (total 40) planes are out of service or awaiting repairs at ONE given time? I don't want to get into another egoistic silly argument but this shows the quality right there. And I will NOT be responding to emotional and egoistic posts trying to change the reality. Some countries have air forces less than 150 aircraft total and even 20 planes out of service is a huge number at one time.

actually you had ego problem. .. Russians were not inferior. .. it just they don't have enough money for R n D... as well if they are inferior. .. why would china copy Russia's weapons... still china dependent on Russia's engine... you just don't want to accept the fact....