Pakistan totally failed to capitalize the technology transfer of the Agosta-90B Submarines.

[CriticalThought]

When someone’s arguments take the form of personal attacks and name-calling it’s a pretty clear admission that they don’t have anything valid or worthwhile to say.

Yes, what can one say about buffoons and their apologists? You need to present cogent arguments before I give them serious thought.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Yes, what can one say about buffoons and their apologists? You need to present cogent arguments before I give them serious thought.

I don't need your serious thought,what you just brag here i actually do that,i know Pakistan has very week AF as compared to enemy and very weak navy,now go and try to satisfy your false ego with any lolipop you desire.
In 80's west was on our side and we did nothing to get anything meaningful,what every body is trying to teach you is kid,that if we would have gone for MF1,F20 or M2000 in 1980's things would have been lot better.
Farewell

 

[Tank131]

Sir. A modern aircraft is literally designed around the engine. The engine manufacturer literally gets involved in the design itself. And for design you need things like wind tunnels and CAD/CAM software along with supercomputing resources.

Please, what you are describing is a fairy tale of ifs, buts, and could have been. This IS NOT how you start an aerospace industry. This is exactly how you become like India, with too many suppliers, and too little quality control, with no sense of proper integration. We WOULD NOT be creating Azm today, we would be running a circus.

To state that the collection of random parts does jot an aviation industry make is a gross oversimplification of what he is stating. If you state that acquiring the technology of the F-20 amor the Mirage F-1 would not have caused a significant step forward for Pakistan you are jot understanding history. If you look at the Israeli defense industry, they recieved a significant amount of tech from the US for sure, however they also reverse engineered a huge amount of tech. There is literally no difference between reverse engineering the tech when compared to receiving it outright amd digesting it. Pakistan would not have had a full fledged aviation industry for sure, but it would have had a jumpstart in the traits of manufacturing capabilities and knowhow. They would have learned how to build components and take them apart nut and bolt and understand the inner workings of the machine. With the proper understanding brought to bear by engineers that would be the starting off point for future R&D. Literally what Pakistan did for the JF-17 is pay China to develop a fighter for them and give them all the tech that went into it. That is the exact same thing as getting the F-20 or the Mirage F-1. They learned through,acquisition. If you think amy real Pakistani R&D went into the JF-17 then you are being naive. However with what PAC has learned from,acquiring chinese tech in the JF-17 and thr Burraq and possibly Wing Long (CH4) they are rumored to also have, they are going to put it to work in Project Azm. They could have started that process 20 years ago with these birds. One only needs to look at the Kfir block 60 so see what PAC could have done with the ability to produce such aircraft. They would still he flying today and you may not have had to deal with replacing so many 40tr old airframes

 

[CriticalThought]

From what i understand it wasnt just the stockpiled engines, but the right to build the 09k-50 in house. Were they willong to set up a parts manufacturing facility, im not sure. Likely PAC would have had to pay for it but . That is the way it works. Even with JF-17, China didnt just set up laiths and tool manufacturing out of its good will. PAC invested in it. From what i hace read and heard from former PAF officers is that they were offered both MF1 and F-20 much like Turkey bought the Mangusta. You own the technical specs and right to do what you want woth the design, but what and how u make use of it is your problem.

Regarding re-export, i never read much about it. My guess is they would not be able to export the tech they acquired without consent, but whatever derivatives came of it probably would not be able to have been restricted.

OK. But even then the fact remains that it was a turbojet. Probably helpful in making a cruise missile, but not enough to build a modern fighter jet around it. With a max thrust of 52 kN, it would have been a joke! And the transition from turbojet to turbofan is not easy at all. PAC would be well advise to go for something like RD-93 MA or the new Turkish engine. The more I read and think about this, the more I realize we avoided a "Hospital Pass".

I don't need your serious thought,what you just brag here i actually do that,i know Pakistan has very week AF as compared to enemy and very weak navy,now go and try to satisfy your false ego with any lolipop you desire.
In 80's west was on our side and we did nothing to get anything meaningful,what every body is trying to teach you is kid,that if we would have gone for MF1,F20 or M2000 in 1980's things would have been lot better.
Farewell

Hey, if you feel good by calling others 'kid', OK whatever floats your boat. The fact of the matter is that those projects would have created more liability than benefits.

To state that the collection of random parts does jot an aviation industry make is a gross oversimplification of what he is stating. If you state that acquiring the technology of the F-20 amor the Mirage F-1 would not have caused a significant step forward for Pakistan you are jot understanding history. If you look at the Israeli defense industry, they recieved a significant amount of tech from the US for sure, however they also reverse engineered a huge amount of tech. There is literally no difference between reverse engineering the tech when compared to receiving it outright amd digesting it. Pakistan would not have had a full fledged aviation industry for sure, but it would have had a jumpstart in the traits of manufacturing capabilities and knowhow. They would have learned how to build components and take them apart nut and bolt and understand the inner workings of the machine. With the proper understanding brought to bear by engineers that would be the starting off point for future R&D. Literally what Pakistan did for the JF-17 is pay China to develop a fighter for them and give them all the tech that went into it. That is the exact same thing as getting the F-20 or the Mirage F-1. They learned through,acquisition. If you think amy real Pakistani R&D went into the JF-17 then you are being naive. However with what PAC has learned from,acquiring chinese tech in the JF-17 and thr Burraq and possibly Wing Long (CH4) they are rumored to also have, they are going to put it to work in Project Azm. They could have started that process 20 years ago with these birds. One only needs to look at the Kfir block 60 so see what PAC could have done with the ability to produce such aircraft. They would still he flying today and you may not have had to deal with replacing so many 40tr old airframes

I contradict you on one basic point: our ability to assimilate that technology is questionable in the face of limited resources and sanctions. Let's look at this with evidence:

1. We have had the complete overhaul facility for Mirage engines for a long time. Did we build our own engine? No.

2. We have had the Mirage rebuild factory where we can literally rebuild any part from scratch. Did we build our own aircraft? No.

And that's because it is a totally different set of skills that is required to make the iteration of design/test/validation/prototype of a modern fighter jet. And no, I have no where implied that PAC has done any research on Thunder. I have only acknowledge Chinese help. What I am saying is that whereas the Chinese have actually taught us how to fish, these other projects very much look like somebody dumping fishing nets and trawlers on us and leave us to go learn deep sea fishing by ourselves. We are lucky in what we got from the Chinese and we should be looking to advance that further and take that learning forward, rather than wistfully reminiscing about past 'could have been'.

 

[amardeep mishra]

So let me make it very simple and clear what I am implying: the ToT of SU-30 MKI - even though you are making sub-system level components as you say - didn't give you any advantages in designing LCA, whose engine is American, avionics and missiles are Israeli, and airfrace has French inputs. That is, it is NOT the case, that after having spent billions of dollars on SU-30 MKI, India was able to design its own fighter aircraft from scratch.

Hi @CriticalThought
I guess I need to clarify it here that one cant simply siphon off technology from one project(ToT) to another(Indigenous venture). However what is plausible is the facilities created for one project(ToT) can be effectively utilized for something else. You need to keep in mind that LCA was being designed in late 80s to almost entire 90s. The wing design and the general layout had been frozen by mid 90s and Su-30 deal was still under negotiation in 90s-- Su-30 started arriving in India only in late 90s/early 2000s.
It is not entirely true that the creation of an eco system for sub-system level components for Su-30 did not in any way helped LCA. There are various areas where the very same companies provide sub system for LCA and Su-30. Avionics, composites, landing gear, tyres, wind tunnel facilities are just some examples.
What you are not getting is, Russia(for that matter even China wont really reveal their trade secrets to Pakistan) would never reveal things like-
1) Various aerodynamic coefficients ranging from stability, damping and control derivatives for their flanker. These derivatives are inherently linked to the design of a digital fly by wire system. If one knows these derivatives and their variation with respect to alpha(AoA) and beta(side slip angle) one can design the flight control laws based on either gain scheduling or MRAC(model reference adaptive control). These can then be deployed onto their own on board mission computer. This is what constitutes the source code for FBW. Any new weapon that is integrated to such an aircraft requires some change in the software to accommodate for changes in CG upon the release of the weapon. I can write elaborately on this subject as I have worked on it and still do.
2) The metallurgical process associated with SCBs and some other special alloys.
3) Source code of their radar

 

[CriticalThought]

Hi @CriticalThought
I guess I need to clarify it here that one cant simply siphon off technology from one project to another. However what is plausible is the facilities created for one project(ToT) can be effectively utilized for something else. You need to keep in mind that LCA was being designed in late 80s to almost entire 90s. The wing design and the general layout had been frozen by mid 90s and Su-30 deal was still under negotiation in 90s-- Su-30 started arriving in India only in late 90s/early 2000s.
It is not entirely true that the creation of an eco system for sub-system level components for Su-30 did not in any way helped LCA. There are various areas where the very same companies provide sub system for LCA and Su-30. Avionics, composites, landing gear, tyres, wind tunnel facilities are just some examples.
What you are not getting is, Russia(for that matter even China wont really reveal their trade secrets to Pakistan) would never reveal things like-
1) Various aerodynamic coefficients ranging from stability, damping and control derivatives for their flanker. These derivatives are inherently linked to the design of a digital fly by wire system. If one knows these derivatives and their variation with respect to alpha(AoA) and beta(side slip angle) one can design the flight control laws based on either gain scheduling or MRAC(model reference adaptive control). These can then be deployed onto their own on board mission computer. This is what constitutes the source code for FBW. Any new weapon that is integrated to such an aircraft requires some change in the software to accommodate for changes in CG upon the release of the weapon. I can write elaborately on this subject as I have worked on it and still do.
2) The metallurgical process associated with SCBs and some other special alloys.
3) Source code of their radar

Sure, some subsystems may be shared. That's about it. Significant foreign inputs were required in the new design. And even after having gone through two iterations, tell me honestly, do you think India is in a position to design, develop, test, and manufacture its own fifth generation plane from scratch?

 

[amardeep mishra]

And even after having gone through two iterations, tell me honestly, do you think India is in a position to design, develop, test, and manufacture its own fifth generation plane from scratch?

@CriticalThought
Before "honestly" answering this question, I suggest you to rigorously go through volume of aerospace research, industrial capability and creation of intellectual property rights in India.
There are various things which India can design and there are certain other where India will need foreign consultancy. Things like general aerodynamic layout and wing design which are contigent upon mission requirement(ASQRs) can be designed as they need extensive wind tunnel tests. Once an optimal layout has been arrived at, control laws can then be written in either C or ada. In fact if you see, the optimal layout of AMCA is ready after having gone through numerous wind tunnel tests.

The thing India would need assistance would be a high thrust engine(for supercruise) and possibly AESA radar(but there are very good chances that LRDE's own AESA radar would have matured in next 4-5 years).
PS-
@CriticalThought I have edited this post to include pics from the design agency ADA that illustrates various aerodynamic layouts they tried before settling onto the final one.

 

[CriticalThought]

@CriticalThought
Before "honestly" answering this question, I suggest you to rigorously go through volume of aerospace research, industrial capability and creation of intellectual property rights in India.
There are various things which India can design and there are certain other where India will need foreign consultancy. Things like general aerodynamic layout and wing design which are contigent upon mission requirement(ASQRs) can be designed as they need extensive wind tunnel tests. Once an optimal layout has been arrived at, control laws can then be written in either C or ada. In fact if you see, the optimal layout of AMCA is ready after having gone through numerous wind tunnel tests.

The thing India would need assistance would be a high thrust engine(for supercruise) and possibly AESA radar(but there are very good chances that LRDE's own AESA radar would have matured in next 4-5 years).

Don't you think finding the right balance between aerodynamic efficiency and low observability should be on top of the list? Do you have a test range, and the expertise to come up with a stealthy design? The areas you listed above are usual 4th gen concerns.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Do you have a test range, and the expertise to come up with a stealthy design? The areas you listed above are usual 4th gen concerns.

@CriticalThought
Hi, I am afraid, you have no idea about the test facilities in India. Let me point out couple of them that were specifically used for low RCS measurement. Here are couple of facilities-

This one is about wind tunnel tests performed on various aerodynamic layouts of AMCA.

This one is about RCS studies that were conducted at RCI hyderabad.

Again this one is from the same lab wherein the RCS of serpentine intakes was carried out.
There are more such tests and experiments. And these tests build the foundation of any serious project. Now, If Pakistan wants their project Azm to succeed they would first have to create-
1) Requisite manpower
2) Requisite research facilities in all spheres of aircraft design and development.
To be quite honest, I have never seen any such pics of wind tunnel tests or RCS tests of JF-17 being performed in Pakistan.

 

[CriticalThought]

@CriticalThought
Hi, I am afraid, you have no idea about the test facilities in India. Let me point out couple of them that were specifically used for low RCS measurement. Here are couple of facilities-
View attachment 455944
This one is about wind tunnel tests performed on various aerodynamic layouts of AMCA.
View attachment 455945
This one is about RCS studies that were conducted at RCI hyderabad.
View attachment 455946
View attachment 455947
Again this one is from the same lab wherein the RCS of serpentine intakes was carried out.
There are more such tests and experiments. And these tests build the foundation of any serious project. Now, If Pakistan wants their project Azm to succeed they would first have to create-
1) Requisite manpower
2) Requisite research facilities in all spheres of aircraft design and development.
To be quite honest, I have never seen any such pics of wind tunnel tests or RCS tests of JF-17 being performed in Pakistan.

Well, neither have I. I understand very well that Pakistan needs to make a long journey.

But coming back to what's happening in India, all these designs look pretty similar to existing stealth designs. Can you point me to any indigenous Indian research which looks at the low level balance between the two conflicting aims of aerodynamic efficiency vs low observability? Just out of personal curiosity.

 

[amardeep mishra]

But coming back to what's happening in India, all these designs look pretty similar to existing stealth designs. Can you point me to any indigenous Indian research which looks at the low level balance between the two conflicting aims of aerodynamic efficiency vs low observability? Just out of personal curiosity.

@CriticalThought
My friend! No one will simply hand over the "optimal layout" that balances aerodynamics and stealth to Indian designers. The pics you saw was an effort to find that optimal layout and it was carried out entirely by ADA. If you notice carefully-- deeply-- you will find out that the early prototypes or the layouts were indeed quite different from anything you or I have seen so far. As they carried out more and more wind tunnel and RCS tests, they converged onto a design(read, refinement in design from 3B-01 to 3B-09) that looks similar to F-22. But does that mean US would have simply passed on their F-22 design to India? Of course No! This means the layout(3B-01 to 3B-09) has evolved based on aerodynamic and RCS studies.
And yes there are various aerodynamic and RCS studies that have been carried out at ADA-- one of my friend is actually involved in such a study. I dont think they will reveal it now. I am talking about the aerodynamic coefficients and RCS data.

 

[CriticalThought]

@CriticalThought
My friend! No one will simply hand over the "optimal layout" that balances aerodynamics and stealth to Indian designers. The pics you saw was an effort to find that optimal layout and it was carried out entirely by ADA. If you notice carefully-- deeply-- you will find out that the early prototypes or the layouts were indeed quite different from anything you or I have seen so far. As they carried out more and more wind tunnel and RCS tests, they converged onto a design(read, refinement in design from 3B-01 to 3B-09) that looks similar to F-22. But does that mean US would have simply passed on their F-22 design to India? Of course No! This means the layout(3B-01 to 3B-09) has evolved based on aerodynamic and RCS studies.
And yes there are various aerodynamic and RCS studies that have been carried out at ADA-- one of my friend is actually involved in such a study. I dont think they will reveal it now. I am talking about the aerodynamic coefficients and RCS data.

There are some fresh approaches to be considered that may lead to designs different from F-22. But, good work so far. Keep it up!

 

[BHarwana]

Hi,

My boy---you just winged it---.

TOT and fitting Babur cruise missile are two different things---.

Building a vessel and modifying a vessel are different sciences---.

lol seriously!

You want to discuss this topic with such a statement?

You need TOT to fire and cruise missile from the Sub. There is not one but many reasons for it.

This is where the TOT helped most.

 

[MastanKhan]

lol seriously!

You want to discuss this topic with such a statement?

You need TOT to fire and cruise missile from the Sub. There is not one but many reasons for it.

Hi,

You have no knowledge to discuss it---and that is evident from your comments---.

My background is in engineering---.

TOT of Agosta 90B has no relationship to Modification for a babur cruise missile installation---.

Modifications and up gradating is a totally different field---. Building a submarine thru transfer of technology is something different---.

Stop winging it by useless arguments---.

 

[BHarwana]

Hi,

You have no knowledge to discuss it---and that is evident from your comments---.

My background is in engineering---.

TOT of Agosta 90B has no relationship to Modification for a babur cruise missile installation---.

Modifications and up gradating is a totally different field---. Building a submarine thru transfer of technology is something different---.

Stop winging it by useless arguments---.

lol. Okay if you don't have TOT how will you make the firing mechanism for a cruise missile? Or how would you know the torpedo tube will handle the cruise missile weight? or how will you increase the pressure air flushing so that under water booster mechanism can be fired at safe distance from the sub.

Can you integrate the targeting system of a cruise missile without TOT because there is no terrain recognition over sea surface?

Your back ground is from engineering I can understand that clearly but the time when you studied engineering is past and world has advanced a lot from that time. The rules have changed and this is the new era. Try learning and gaining more knowledge from new technologies. There are many thing you don't know.