PAF's possible answer to MRCA

[Jigs]

PAF is doing everything they can it looks like. The Eurofighter and F-35 would be great but currently that is not possible since the focus is on the JF-17 and FC-20. Even with those though India will still be ahead with the MKI and the MRCA. Plus the PAK-FA in the Future.

 

[SBD-3]

wats wrong with you?

current pak budget is 8Bn.so we can afford 10 Rafale per year bt now we spend almost our budget on WOT.this is the reason we are nt inducting any heavy fighter soon

why are you getting so desperate....People in PAF are more concerned that you are my friend.....i don't know why did you thought of 5th Gen AC and that too indigenously. Look mate, we dont have either resources or the tech base for such an endeavor. Even India would not be able to do it domestically as you and some Indian posters think so. The real development of MCA is indirectly tied to FGFA (Russian Assistance). And since the first flight of PAK-FA I havent heard about any further developments. So until PAK-FA is not complete MCA's fate will be hanging in balance. In short don't get desperate. PAF will be more concerned about this than you

 

[hellofriends]

wats wrong with you?

current pak budget is 8Bn.so we can afford 10 Rafale per year bt now we spend almost our budget on WOT.this is the reason we are nt inducting any heavy fighter soon

1 rafale is cost around $67 mn. it's mean 10 rafale is around 670mn and include maintenance cost and if i am not wrong pakistan is introducing approx 10 f-16 per year and your defence budget is around $8000 mn it's mean if u r buying 10 rafale per year than u have to cancel all the f-16 orders. it's mean pakistan can not compete mrca in near future.

 

[hellofriends]

why are you getting so desperate....People in PAF are more concerned that you are my friend.....i don't know why did you thought of 5th Gen AC and that too indigenously. Look mate, we dont have either resources or the tech base for such an endeavor. Even India would not be able to do it domestically as you and some Indian posters think so. The real development of MCA is indirectly tied to FGFA (Russian Assistance). And since the first flight of PAK-FA I havent heard about any further developments. So until PAK-FA is not complete MCA's fate will be hanging in balance. In short don't get desperate. PAF will be more concerned about this than you

oh....is that ISI report ?????

 

[SQ8]

"And trainer aircraft s are for training purpose.It cannot be employed to perform active duty in the line..was that an attempted case of cracking a joke???"

Uhh no..read about the T-50 sometime and you will realize its potential as a point defense interceptor in its A-50 form.
I crack jokes like this; "A horse walks into a bar...."



"PAF has entirely different requirements I think.Over the years,the PAF has concentrated mainly on building up a fleet that will help it to maintain air superiority over its own lands,and I think JF-17 can do that job.Though it lacks the range and maneuverability like the Su-30 MKI but again,a fighter doesnt really need these capabilities if its primary role is to defend the airspace...U see,the role is quite important..."

Where did the MKi and JF-17 comparison start up again??
And thats why we have something called multirole or are we still in the 70's here with dedicated equipment for everything. And where did you meet the PAF operations man telling you the primary role of the JF-17 is to defend the airspace. Heck the should have bought the F-7MF then, dont you think?, saved a lot of cash in the process instead of getting something that an perform the functions of four different types of aircraft with different roles

"Development is systematic and progressive,my friend.It never really stops in one place.The Americans developed the F-16,and did they actually stop there.NO!...They went ahead for the development of other jets like F-22 and F-35...New things will always come up,thats the way it is....what else did u expect???"

Yeah..but Id be damned if the F-16A was a failure and nobody wanted it and by the time it entered serviceit changed from the original "day only" fighter into the benchmark for multirole aircraft.
And the last time a jet ran for limited production like that and a Mk2 was needed was the Fj-1 fury. So they went back to the drawing board and redid it using the airforce version.. What is DRDO going to use for "redoing" the LCA??.

 

[SBD-3]

oh....is that ISI report ?????

its my opinion.....if you have a better one then put it here

 

[ouiouiouiouiouioui]

typhoons are coming in south asia---

 

[flanker143]

It won't be the prime because we would have a lot more MKIs than Typhoons, but they would serve the same purpose as the MKIs.

why use an weaker aircraft for air superiority when u got a better jet for that role and also air sup are always less in no.s

also plzz tell if su 30 mki is gettin mlu , if yes then what is the proposed upgrade package ??? plzz tell... lukin frwrd tu ur rep...

 

[Parashuram1]

^^^ parashuram 1 ...i dont believe canada should have an airforce .....coz you guys come under NORAD net ...so you are pretty much covered up by the big bro

Tell that to the Canadians on this forum. . I believe it is more like in our case in Switzerland; policing and patrols rather than fighting full blown wars.

 

[jagjitnatt]

why use an weaker aircraft for air superiority when u got a better jet for that role and also air sup are always less in no.s

also plzz tell if su 30 mki is gettin mlu , if yes then what is the proposed upgrade package ??? plzz tell... lukin frwrd tu ur rep...

MKI is not a weaker aircraft. It is on par with the Typhoon but both have different pros and cons.

MKI has a powerful radar, more weapons and its more maneuverable but the datalinks and the interface of Typhoon is unmatchable. The counter measures too are good in Typhoon, and not to forget the very low rcs.

Typhoon, and MKI both will be used in case need arises.

And yes, MKI will be getting an MLU but it will happen after 7-10 years, when as AESA radar and Smart skin would be ready for it.

 

[nForce]

Uhh no..read about the T-50 sometime and you will realize its potential as a point defense interceptor in its A-50 form.
I crack jokes like this; "A horse walks into a bar...."

The KAI T-50 is a supersonic trainer aircraft,meant for training purposes only.I dont really see a point in buying a trainer aircraft and then again modifying it to suit a full fledged fighter.The A-50 is a light attack aircraft and IAF has options for that role in its inventory

Where did the MKi and JF-17 comparison start up again??
And thats why we have something called multirole or are we still in the 70's here with dedicated equipment for everything. And where did you meet the PAF operations man telling you the primary role of the JF-17 is to defend the airspace. Heck the should have bought the F-7MF then, dont you think?, saved a lot of cash in the process instead of getting something that an perform the functions of four different types of aircraft with different roles

An airforce builds up its inventory based on the immediate requirements.Analysis is not based upon some magically appearing aliens over the horizons.Thats where the comparison starts my friend..
A multirole fighter is a good idea and I dont doubt that,but at times we also need a dedicated system,because a dedicated system will be optimized for that particular role which will be its area of excellence.The idea is good enough.the cons part is u will have to maintain a lot of jets to do that.And I think the IAF has the capability as well as money to achieve that.

Yeah..but Id be damned if the F-16A was a failure and nobody wanted it and by the time it entered serviceit changed from the original "day only" fighter into the benchmark for multirole aircraft.
And the last time a jet ran for limited production like that and a Mk2 was needed was the Fj-1 fury. So they went back to the drawing board and redid it using the airforce version.. What is DRDO going to use for "redoing" the LCA??.

Redoing something is necessary when ur requirements change.The primary requirement for which LCA is needed is the necessity to replace the aging MiG-21 s.
Anyways systematic changes have been made in aerodynamics, electronics and engines to make it better.Obviously we will never get to know the trade secrets in its entirety,but some info about changes,and newer developments can be found here::

Link!!

 

[SQ8]

The KAI T-50 is a supersonic trainer aircraft,meant for training purposes only.I dont really see a point in buying a trainer aircraft and then again modifying it to suit a full fledged fighter.The A-50 is a light attack aircraft and IAF has options for that role in its inventory



An Airforce builds up its inventory based on the immediate requirements.Analysis is not based upon some magically appearing aliens over the horizons.Thats where the comparison starts my friend..
A multirole fighter is a good idea and I dont doubt that,but at times we also need a dedicated system,because a dedicated system will be optimized for that particular role which will be its area of excellence.The idea is good enough.the cons part is u will have to maintain a lot of jets to do that.And I think the IAF has the capability as well as money to achieve that.




Redoing something is necessary when ur requirements change.The primary requirement for which LCA is needed is the necessity to replace the aging MiG-21 s.
Anyways systematic changes have been made in aerodynamics, electronics and engines to make it better.Obviously we will never get to know the trade secrets in its entirety,but some info about changes,and newer developments can be found here::

Link!!

The A-50 is not just a light attack aircraft, post this question on either AFM forum, or look up the manufacturers website.
"KAI is developing a fighter version based on the T-50, called the F/A-50 for the RoKAF, which has a requirement for 60 aircraft to replace the F-5. It is planned that the F/A-50 will be fitted with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar."

Now if the whole concept of dedicated roles are to be taken into account then why on earth is almost every Airforce in the world replacing its inventory with multirole fighters?. The only exception to that rule being Japan which has a pacifist constitution or maybe the F-22 which is more akin to the MKI as an air dominance fighter with a secondary strike role. If the IAF is considered as an exception to that rule as well then it should be looking for aircraft to specifically replace the Jaguar, the Mig-27 and the Mig-21. Yet somehow it wants an aircraft that does the job of all three. And surprisingly even the MKI is capable of performing these tasks quite well.
So if a dedicated aircraft is the PAF's and IAF's modus operandi then they are going down the wrong road. One could argue that in some cases there are still dedicated interceptors going to be left in the PAF's inventory in the form of the PG's but that too is because we just bought them as a quick fix for the fighter gap and they are good close in dogfighters and so letting them stick around is simply cost effective(they are actually quite cheap).
Where does the same go for replacing an interceptor with another interceptor developed at a humongous cost when just buying another interceptor which was available would have done the same?
IF you are confusing dedicated aircraft with those that are slightly better at one job than the other your argument will stick.
Because then the Typhoon is still at its best fighting A2A, even though its a multirole fighter. But can the RAF be accused of buying a dedicated interceptor since the Typhoon F.2 is configured via software to be focused on A2A?.


So if aliens were heard for their advice then the only benefit of the mucked LCA program is the massive pool of engineers and technical knowledge gained in the development process. If redoing something is needed and if the requirement changes you do it well before pressing ahead with production and making your Air force buy something it really does not need.
The F-16 was designed as a lightweight fighter with just daytime air defense in mind, when it entered service it was much more than that. Even then the block 1 F-16 differed very slightly from the YF-16 prototype. And set the benchmark for maneuverability.

Again the aliens will still agree that the LCA is truly a one for one replacement for the Mig-21. It looks like a small mirage 2000, turns like one and can be seen falling out of the sky after pulling a tight G turn much faster than a mirage 2000 does( the aliens saw this on youtube). The only actual way of improving the LCA would be to fit canards on it reduce the sweep.. but wouldn't that make it look like the Gripen..?The Aliens are confused

 

[sancho]

MKI is not a weaker aircraft. It is on par with the Typhoon but both have different pros and cons.

MKI has a powerful radar, more weapons and its more maneuverable but the datalinks and the interface of Typhoon is unmatchable. The counter measures too are good in Typhoon, and not to forget the very low rcs.

More weapons in terms of variety, or numbers? Because even with 3 fuel tanks EF can carry 10 AAMs and I have some doubts about the maneuverability too.
The only fields where the MKI has a clear advantages at the moment is A2G and range.

 

[aliyusuf]

The Typhoon is designed to do sustained 9g maneuvers in combat. It also has super-cruise and has lower RCS than most 4th gen fighters.

It should be rated higher than the MKI in avionics and maneuverability.

It will be a quantum leap in technology in south asia.

However it is far better in A2A than in A2G roles.

But it was my understanding that one of the prime requirements for the MRCA would be to have TOT. Will that happen if the IAF goes the Typhoon route?

Also wasn't the IAF looking for something that would fall between the LCA (Teja) and HCA (MKI) in capability?

My own gut feeling would be that Rafael (will come with full TOT if selected) or SH foots the bill of requirements more than the Typhoon ... unless the requirements have been revised (then Typhoon makes more sense).

Sorry for going off topic ... just wanted to share my views on this.

Regards

 

[Nahraf]

I think Pakistan has to concentrate on JF-17 development and J-10B induction. Pakistan needs a light, easily manoeuvrable, agile and relatively inexpensive fighter that delivers every time, generates high sortie rates and is easy to maintain and train on a day to day peace time schedule. What counts in war is the number of fighters one can launch every hour, every day, day after day, with full confidence and ease of operation. F-16 Block 50 will be frontline fighter. In the future may be will induct JAS-39 NG Gripen or Rafale