Sir, to the best of your knowledge have any other foreign air arms evaluated the J-10? There also appears to be a disrepancy re: the PLAAF variant (J-10A) which we saw at Zhuhai and the "FC-20" PAF variant which may incorporate an unknown amount of non-Chinese components.
Sorry for losing track of this discussion. I tend to do that quite a bit. The only air arm to have checked out the J-10 is PAF currently. I am pretty sure about this.
Since both platforms are using the same base ordnance I suppose that is correct although assuming the same Chinese radar type (our desig 083C) then we figure the J-10A on paper has a detection capability somewhat greater since the introduction of the 083D MESA. We don't know exactly how well that compares to the Grifo or proposed RC400 though the Taiwanese are raising hell over the latter.
RC400 is good kit. However the nose of the FC-20 can incorporate a bigger radar than the RC400 which is suitable for aircraft with the dimensions of JF-17, LCA, F-16 etc. While its very much possible that the current Chinese AI radar maybe inferior to what is available on the western platforms, I believe PAF's options are open in terms of what we decide to do with the FC-20.
The Americans have observed SD-10 firings and they aren't breaking too much of a sweat. Personally I regard the J-10/JF-17 in their current config as clearly inferior to contemp. Eurocanard and US designs; "dogmeat" if you like but once Western avionics such as the RC400/MICA combination are factored into an uprated base design then the dynamics of engagement change.
Sir, I am sure that observing SD-10 firings without knowing or understanding the test parameters is not really relevant. There is no way that the Americans have any confidential insight into the capabilities of the SD-10. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, even if we assume the capabilities of the SD-10 to be in the league of the legacy AIM-7 Sparrow class, for the PAF its a very decent deterrence nevertheless. Also Chinese hardware, as simple and rugged as it is, is not to be underestimated. The Chinese also have new performance benchmarks established as they have been getting some fairly decent and up to date avionics from the Russians and their own radars (which we have actually evaluated against the performance of APG66/68/RC-400/GrifoS7 are not that bad and are constantly being improved upon. While I like the idea of integrating a Western avionics package (depending on its availability, we already know that PAF wants to do that with the FC-20), in the case where we may not have this luxury either due to cost or some other constraints, we can do alright with the Chinese avionics.
Again sir the timeframes (or lack of them) re: the FC-20 somewhat disturb me. You are basing your assumptions on past Chinese behaviour-I am not saying you are wrong for nay matter but the lack of concrete actions and documentation raises questions. Given past Chinese behaviour on the export market it has caused them all sorts of trouble-such as the Jordanians not wanting to deal with them again.
Timelines can change and delays could be incurred in the induction of FC-20. No denying that. However PAF will have to make do if they run across delays. By the way as you must be aware, delays are a universal phenomena when it comes to defence acquisitions. We experienced delays in the delivery of our ROSE Mirages by SAGEM of France (a non-Chinese, Western source). The Typhoon project is considerably delayed overall with deliveries picking up pace only now. Bottom line is that we have dealt with the Chinese in the past and continue to do so on a myriad of other transactions of military nature even as I write this. I think the Chinese will deliver. A bigger challenge would be to get our integration done in time for IOC to be achieved on the FC-20 by 2010/11.
You're thinking strategically whereas I am thinking along the lines of a tactical PAF theatre solution to the IAF's growing numbers, it reflects our roles (or past roles) in Pakistan
With limited resources I advocate a mix of Gripen and Falcon MLU offering maximum convergence with AEW assets and at the top of the optimumal performance curve however you too are correct with diversity of the fleet. In other words I am basing my fleet modernisation plan on the assumption that ties with the West will improve/status quo whereas you factor in status quo/deterioration of ties as geopolitical factors when planning.
In my opinion, IAF is also playing catchup currently. Their number of operational sqns is considerably lower than what they have been sanctioned. By the time their induction of MMRCA materializes, PAF would have attained IOC on the FC-20 by a considerable margin. Now what that IOC really looks like is yet to be seen.
I also think your assumption about things remaining stable in terms of Pakistan's relations with the West is a good one and I would want that to happen, however reality is as such that we cannot count upon the goodwill to be there always (regardless of how much we would want it to). While the decent relations may always exist, even ups and downs here and there end up eroding the capabilities of the PAF considerably. Therefore we will ensure in the future that we qualitatively upgrade what we get from China so our Air Force is not subjected to the neglect similar to that of the 90s.
I am assuming systems-wise you mean certain ground stations in that convergence grid that act as intermediaries between the Chinese and Swedish AEW assets? Certainly cost wise that's how I'd do it because of speed and bandwidth issues but it is very vulnerable to all sorts of threats.
Ground station relaying is definitely an option as even the first generation of the Erieye (Pakistani order does not need relaying to the ground station when communicating with DL equipped aircraft) did that and we can use it for relaying of info between the two platforms.
The Colonel did mention Bison behaviour systems wise but conclusions do spring to mind re: what he said. The Americans and we know for a start that at least 2 Bisons have been DL'd to plug into the MKI and Phalcon convergence grid (the Indians have a Phalcon "simulator module" that allows a theoretical picture of a functional grid to be tested prior to actual delivery). They were around during Malabar 07. We don't know whether how many units have been converted or whether this a large scale update-or even whether such plans have been shelved in light of ordering 80 more MRCA.
Again BISON DL has never been confirmed and as far as I am aware, their BISON fleet is flying GCI intercepts to get a better situational awareness over extended ranges (they use the Kopyo AI radar but are limited by the detection range of the said radar to under 100km). While it would make sense for all of their fleet to have a common DL, they are some ways off from getting this capability. Currently, their MKI fleet cannot conduct DL communications with any other type except by way of relay. The same goes for the overall IAF fleet. Plenty of work to be done here by them before getting everyone on an integrated digital grid.
Detection range of 350km is highly wishful in my opinion-in heavy clutter and jamming? The Swedish must be exaggerating in their brochures as usual. The Phalcon system as the Israelis admitted under heaving grilling by us has a detection/lock/track range ~350km (wouldnt give us exact figure) under simulated attack by 8 F-18A, Counter Air CAP of 4x F-15C, optimal weather at cruising altitude (other factors classified). Admittedly they've improved it somewhat but hardly what we were looking for with requirements for CM defence and saturated ordnance battlespace.
Sir the instrumented range on the Erieye is actually much greater than the 350 km range but as per the Swedes, in dense jamming environment, the aircraft can still track targets at the ranges I have quoted above. While performance degradation is a possibility, even a 200km range provides sufficient time to the Pakistani air defences to put up aircraft in the air. (We do this with GCI connected Radars, what will be offered to us by OTH capability is a luxury for us).
As I've said, system v system....in light of the above there is a big lot of IFs-what worries me is that the IAF have set up a 'plug and play' system with the Phalcon, Green Pine, MKI, SPYDER and/or possibly the F-18E/F and/or Bison???. By itself the system already has a qualitative overmatch over comparable PAF 'mixed' system in bandwith and integration. I suppose the JF-17 with French hardware would improve the equation somewhat but in my opinion Gripen A/B (C/D) would be a improvement over the FC-20/J-10 as it is proven.
Well you cannot compare system vs system all the time in my opinion. I believe (others can disagree) that PAF runs a tighter, better integrated Air Defence system that can counter some of the issues that would arise out of a singular system vs system comparison. Secondly, while the list of IAF assets as quoted above sounds fairly impressive, they have issues with interoperability that would need to be worked out. Their MKIs use proprietary Russian Data Links which their other aircraft don't so they have to converge to a Common architecture or they have to rely on the relay. With a supposed induction of Super Hornet, they would have to deal with interop of Link16 with their Russian solution on the MKI. It remains to be seen what they would do to equip the Bisons (I suspect the Mirage2000-5 upgrades that they are going for will give them a Link16 capability), however I think you understand the point I am trying to make. As formidable as the array of Indian capabilities may look on paper, they also have various challenges and integration issues like the PAF. I think our response in the form of upgraded Pakistan Air Defence System (PADS-77) - built around TPS-77, YLC-2, in the near future Erieye integration and tied to Crotale4000/NG and SPADA2000 is a very credible one.
As for the bandwidth and integration is concerned, being heavily involved in this side of the work for a while, I know that Chinese can come up equally good stuff as the West (a lot of the commercial stuff for the US companies in this field is already being done in China).
As you probably can sense, I don't place too much of an emphasis on extensive close in WVR tactics or doctrine with the intro of high AoA, offboresight WVRs in the market. I believe that any air arm with a numerical advantage yet (relatively) limited funds (like the IAF) should be able to achieve statistical air superiority (confining the opponent to point counter-air) using the above and large quantities of Fire and Forget BVR AAMs in a all seeing optimal awareness NCW information grid which statistically renders extensive close in training obsolete provided the AF in question is willing to take casualties. I think the Indians seem to have been a big fan of my writings but I don't think a war do validate them is preferable-peace should be the striving of mankind.
I see your point, however PAF would barely be lacking in terms of BVR capability. We have some very potent as well as dependable programs in the works comprising of AIM-120 and SD-10. You must also be aware of the discussions around MICA and there are one or two more programs of a similar nature afoot. IAF definitely has the numerical advantage, however our modernization plans ensure that we continue to field a considerable deterrence in the face of the IAF.
In terms of quantity and resupply you are right. Quality may be improved although I still have my reservations about the two tiered system (Western/Chinese)and I did forget about the friendship rates
Great Discussion with you Sir.
Its always good discussing things with you.