Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

PAF related discussion: November – December 2009

337 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

China’s fighter jets for Pakistan

Ananth Krishnan

BEIJING: In a move that could further add to the growing tensions between New Delhi and Beijing, China has agreed to sell up to 150 of its most advanced home-made J-10 fighter jets to Pakistan in a deal potentially worth $6 billion, according to reports.

The South China Morning Post reported on Tuesday that the two countries had agreed on the sale and that Pakistan wanted them delivered soon”. The paper quoted an unnamed official of the China Aviation Industries Corporation (AVIC), which manufactured the aircraft. The report was not immediately confirmed by authorities in Beijing.

China and Pakistan first began negotiating a deal over the sale of 36 J-10 in 2006 during Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s visit to Beijing. Reports said Pakistan would first purchase 36 aircraft, but the deal could eventually see Islamabad buying up to 150 aircraft.

The two countries were yet to agree on a price, with Pakistan offering $15 million less than Beijing’s $40 million asking price, the report said.

The development of China’s indigenous military capabilities is seen by defence experts as a statement of Beijing’s rising military power and influence in the region. The deal would be a watershed for China’s indigenous military manufacturing industry, and could herald its arrival as a major military supplier in the region, said analysts.

The J-10, or Chengdu Jian-10 to give it its full name, is China’s most advanced indigenously developed combat aircraft and is a third generation fighter, equivalent to an American F-16. The United States is the only country that has a more advanced fourth generation fighter in service, the F-22.

A Chinese official said on Monday that China would operationalise its very own fourth generation aircraft in the next eight to 10 years. He Weiriong, deputy commander of the Chinese Air Force said the planes were already in development and would “match or exceed the capability of similar jets in existence today”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I wondered this, as we have ordered Link 16 with our Block 52s and for our MLUs. I am assuming we ordered them as we need them? Obviously Erieye being NATO compatible will be able to talk to LINK 16 F-16s directly, but am I right in assuming to talk other assetts it will be relayed by ground stations?

Based on Pakistan's decision to go for Erieye and the chinese system, I used to think it would be through the ground station. However, based on some further evidence Im beggining to reconsider my earlier opinion. The evidence thus far available to us is;

1) (If I remember correctly) the former ACM Tanveer Mahmood has been quoted as saying (to the effect) that JF-17 will be linked to the Erieye. If so, its logical to assume that it could be done to all other fighters.

2) It seems that PAF top brass preferred to go for a single AEW&C platform, i.e. Erieye, and not a mixture of Swedish/Chinese platforms. Someone (on this forum) mentioned the other day (and rightly so) that PAF's reccomendation to go for the Erieye (alone) would have taken into account this AEW&C-fighter linking as only PAF know what avionics they already have in their fighter and what would be going into machines like JF-17/FC-20.

Although, based on the above alone its hard to say whether Erieye would be directly linked to all other fighters or through the ground based station, but it is logical to assume that PAF does have an acceptable (to PAF) and practical solution in place for this potential problem. May be PAF did not want to go for a second type of AEW&C not only because of the maintenance/logistics/resources issue but also because of the additional problems the chinese system would pose in terms of linking it to their fighters/ground stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I wondered this, as we have ordered Link 16 with our Block 52s and for our MLUs. I am assuming we ordered them as we need them? Obviously Erieye being NATO compatible will be able to talk to LINK 16 F-16s directly, but am I right in assuming to talk other assetts it will be relayed by ground stations?

That is my understanding with various variations:

F-16 --> Link 16 <--> Erieye --> Link 16 <--> Ground station --> unsecure or secure (?) data/Voice to other nodes.

OR

F-16 --> Link 16 <--> Ground station --> unsecure or secure (?) data/Voice to other nodes.

For Chinese aircraft: it may be as follows:

JF-17/FC-20 --> Chinese proprietary DL <--> Chinese AEW/Ground stations --> unsecure or secure (?) data/Voice to other nodes.

One thing that should be patently clear is that Erieye can communicate with *all* PAF aircraft over traditional voice channels. However, jamming resistance and secure transfer of data is the issue here.

=> All PAF fighter assets -- via VHF/UHF channels <--> all other AEW assets and ground stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

How many ground stations are there? Will we have Chinese as well as Western ground relay stations all over the country?

I understand PAF has fiber optic networking and they may be thinking of IPv6 with 10 or 100 GBit networking, but I think Vikas is right. JF-17 must have the ability to talk with Erieye. After all, Erieye is built using COTS. It must have a relatively open architecture to be able to talk with diverse systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"Talking" is a relative term. As I have said above, if we are talking about communications, then using VHF, JF-17 can securely communicate with the Erieye as well. However extending the Data linked network fleet wide is open to interpretation. What Vikas is saying could be right. I think one thing that is very clear is that no one is certain how this entire architecture will play out.

As far as how many ground stations, its just a Link-16 capable terminal that we are talking about. I am sure there would be redundant systems in place to face off any eventuality etc. Look up AN/URC-107 to get an idea as to what the terminal looks like that rx/tx data between Link-16 nodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

SSAAD - the ground station in my belief can be used to 'fuse' information being taken in via Chinese and Western AEW&C assets.

We're already doing this in case of information being relayed to PAF C2GEC from a variety of ground radars of Chinese and American origin, where information gets 'fused' together at the center itself, in order to give a comprehensive picture of aerial situation in Pakistan.

[F-16] <Link 16> [Erieye] <Link 16> PAF C2GEC <Chinese DL> [KJ-200] <Chinese DL> [JF 17, FC 20]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ali,

That is a moving map. I think you are mixing that up with the "Rahber" terminals on the Al-Khalids which are BMS (Battlefield Management Systems).

There seems to be some confusion about a few things here so let me put this forth to generate further discussion:

the army navy and airforce all work on the same system. all aircraft/ground units are interconected to one another, and also ground stations in someway or another. it is basicly a mesh topology.

following is from the air weopons complex website and proves my above claim..

"It is a compilation of data from all air defence sensors, combined with battle plan, projection overlays, and any other data that is available, including current locations and planned movement operations of ground, maritime and air units of friendly, neutral, and enemy forces generated features and projections (e.g. battle plans, operating zones)."

PS: that is indeed a moving map, but it also has information displayed wich is from the above mentioned system.so in essence it is a complete situation display

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I understand PAF has fiber optic networking and they may be thinking of IPv6 with 10 or 100 GBit networking, but I think Vikas is right. JF-17 must have the ability to talk with Erieye. After all, Erieye is built using COTS. It must have a relatively open architecture to be able to talk with diverse systems.

yes it is true the PAF/Army have a 100Gb fiber linking all their major cities and bases. also in time of war we can always expand this by using civilian infastructure, all major cellular phone providers as well as internet providers have their own independent 10-100gb fiber networks connecting all the major cities together. so in essence our country is very very well wired up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

… the ground station in my belief can be used to 'fuse' information being taken in via Chinese and Western AEW&C assets. …

It is much easier at the ground stations since much more powerful computers may be used but the real challenge is communication between the Chinese, French and US planes. For example:

An F-20 lights up a target with its radar and conveys this info to an F-16. The F-16 gets closer without using any of its active sensors and fires a missile at the target whose coordinates were provided by the F-20, etc.

Ground stations can do the same but using direct link is also desired to add redundancy and do things more efficiently. All sorts of ECMs, interference, noise, etc. are expected. They may try to achieve this using their satellites, planes, ground stations, etc.

Closer range/more powerful signal usually is a safer bet in a noisy environment. It becomes quite tricky if the noise becomes more powerful than the signal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It is much easier at the ground stations since much more powerful computers may be used but the real challenge is communication between the Chinese, French and US planes. For example:

An F-20 lights up a target with its radar and conveys this info to an F-16. The F-16 gets closer without using any of its active sensors and fires a missile at the target whose coordinates were provided by the F-20, etc.

Ground stations can do the same but using direct link is also desired to add redundancy and do things more efficiently. All sorts of ECMs, interference, noise, etc. are expected. They may try to achieve this using their satellites, planes, ground stations, etc.

Closer range/more powerful signal usually is a safer bet in a noisy environment. It becomes quite tricky if the noise becomes more powerful than the signal.

I think some underestimate the power of using the air assets, and particular the Erieye and ZK3, as linkgage... With three planes up in the air they pretty much have setup not only a coverage of whole Pakistan and 400 km into India... They also do link anything like UAV, UCAV's, Cruisemisiles and other guided weapons. The ground assets are just an extra as a safer backup or extra computer power.

In the case of CM... You just fire the Babur 1000 km away but till the max range the Erieye could guide the CM through the most hostile area... Most of the time that is the border. I doubt the defending is better if you are 400 km away from the battlefield. In the case of UAV/UCAV the Erieye will scan all the movement during night and day and control the airassets so they can be used over a bigger area. And some area that need extra attention can be monitored specificly. With the absence of no sats Pakistan can use airlinks to do the same so the max range of UAV will be increased exrtemely. You can guide them from Islamabad and with three linkages in the air you can control area over the Indian Ocean... The CM or UAV's are small an do not have to use their active sensors so they will be a hige problem for any opponet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think SSAAD is right in that no one is certain how this entire architecture will play out. What we all would like is as Saeed Khan put it that An F-20 lights up a target with its radar and conveys this info to an F-16. The F-16 gets closer without using any of its active sensors and fires a missile at the target whose coordinates were provided by the F-20, etc. instead of an FC-20 lighting up a target, sending that info to ZDK or straight to the ground stations and the info. going to the F-16 via Erieye or the ground station. The first method (what I call direct linking) is obviously more efficient as it could save precious seconds and is less less prone to the jamming etc.) than the second. But for the moment we simply don't know how this entire architecture will play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Good discussion.

If we crack this networking challange, it will give us a massive leap over IAF, irrespective of how many fighters they buy.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Thanks for the discussion. When I had first heard about fiber optic links for PAF, I was thinking that such networks are really an overkill. 100 Gbit networking for what?

I think I get it now. We are talking real time info from a sensor going through a number of nodes to get to the weapon being fired. The delays need to be measured in milliseconds, not seconds. At Mach speeds, if an F-16 fires a missile at a bandit located by an FC-20 or Chinese AEWC, every millisecond delay in coordinates means a lot of distance.

I find all this very exciting. If network latencies are small, IAF will have a heck of a surprise waiting for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I remember in a youtube clip former CAS Tanvir mentioning PAF were working hard to reduce time between sensor to shooter. I think this was during induction of TPS-77.

I think he must have been talking about our networking capability.Once we get this to a minimum.

The we can imagine all sorts of scenarios.

6 F-16s and 6 FC-20s on low level CAP with radars off flying undetected, with enemy cordinates being relayed in real time from TPS-77s and Erieyes...

Then firing off a mixture of 24 AMRAAMs and SD-10s at an invading IAF Strike package.

Thats what we should be aiming for.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I remember in a youtube clip former CAS Tanvir mentioning PAF were working hard to reduce time between sensor to shooter. I think this was during induction of TPS-77.

I think he must have been talking about our networking capability.Once we get this to a minimum.

The we can imagine all sorts of scenarios.

6 F-16s and 6 FC-20s on low level CAP with radars off flying undetected, with enemy cordinates being relayed in real time from TPS-77s and Erieyes...

Then firing off a mixture of 24 AMRAAMs and SD-10s at an invading IAF Strike package.

Thats what we should be aiming for.......

It would be great to see PAF achieving such netcentric capability, though it would take time, patience, and a lot of resources.:) But the key is to remember that the adversaries are also working towards achieving similar capabilities, and have a lot more resources and options. So probably the most important thing would be the development of better tactics as and when new capabilities come online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think Pakistan should go for a smaller force but one that is much more modern and can be sustained. Actually, our current size can be sustained but we must do better economically, the revenue situation from taxes MUST improve.

This is already happening. A-5/F-7/Mirages being retired.

In 5 years we will only have 3 fighter types (F-16, JF-17 and FC-20).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I remember in a youtube clip former CAS Tanvir mentioning PAF were working hard to reduce time between sensor to shooter. I think this was during induction of TPS-77.

Network optimization is a heck of a job. I would think that, at least for the PAF, target coordinates would need time stamps on them. That way the final node node can project the expected location of the target if the latency is long compared to the speed. If the weapon is a missile, rather than an anti-aircraft gun, terminal homing would be required for the kill.

Network latency for real time data probably also explains why the PAF has invested in such a high speed network, and not the Army. Tanks don't move very fast.

TPS-77 incorporates COTS technology. That would probably make networking much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think SSAAD is right in that no one is certain how this entire architecture will play out. What we all would like is as Saeed Khan put it that An F-20 lights up a target with its radar and conveys this info to an F-16. The F-16 gets closer without using any of its active sensors and fires a missile at the target whose coordinates were provided by the F-20, etc. instead of an FC-20 lighting up a target, sending that info to ZDK or straight to the ground stations and the info. going to the F-16 via Erieye or the ground station. The first method (what I call direct linking) is obviously more efficient as it could save precious seconds and is less less prone to the jamming etc.) than the second. But for the moment we simply don't know how this entire architecture will play out.

if you read between the lines of the specifications, the system technically allows for a JF-17 pilot on top of the chinese border to see on his screen which sam battery is tracking which enemy aircraft over karachi!! what saeed khan put can be accomplished by fc-20 detecting a target and passing the data to air/ground station which then fuse that with data from awacs, ground radars, radars of other fighters, IRST, relays all of this to the f16 which can then fire its aim120 very precisely to the target. and it all happens in real time. everything is connected to everything...

this is from the specifications of the system from 2005, the mere fact that they released them means they had already upgraded it by 2005 to add more capabilties. now the year 2010 is soon uproaching. 5 years is a Lot of time in the digital world. all i can say is, by 2015 when we have most of our new toys, we will be USN/USAF proof!!! the greatest gift of Musharraf era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I honestly don't believe this capability is yet operational in the way it is being described by some members. If this was the case we would be hearing a heck of a lot more about it! I will be happy the day all 3 forces are interconnected by a network, sharing data and information. For example, even having data sent to an Al-Khalid tank!

i agree, the backbone is up, but were still waiting for most of the assets to be delivered, so still about half a decade left before it can be fully operational. but let there be no doubt the capacity is all there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

if you read between the lines of the specifications, the system technically allows for a JF-17 pilot on top of the chinese border to see on his screen which sam battery is tracking which enemy aircraft over karachi!! what saeed khan put can be accomplished by fc-20 detecting a target and passing the data to air/ground station which then fuse that with data from awacs, ground radars, radars of other fighters, IRST, relays all of this to the f16 which can then fire its aim120 very precisely to the target. and it all happens in real time. everything is connected to everything...

this is from the specifications of the system from 2005, the mere fact that they released them means they had already upgraded it by 2005 to add more capabilties. now the year 2010 is soon uproaching. 5 years is a Lot of time in the digital world. all i can say is, by 2015 when we have most of our new toys, we will be USN/USAF proof!!! the greatest gift of Musharraf era.

I would remind those that discussion about Musharraf nog going for more Erieye etc was not logical cause the otherwise our assets JF7, FC20 would have been incomplete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

i second munirs statement, 110% true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This is already happening. A-5/F-7/Mirages being retired. In 5 years we will only have 3 fighter types (F-16, JF-17 and FC-20).

InshaAllah but also note that most of these planes are Chinese; plus some US planes. French made a lot of money keeping our mirages operational or by upgrading them. They will soon be loosing a large market unless they are planning to now provide some of the subsystems for these new planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I personally think we have seen last days of major orders for France and Britain.

Britain sanctioned us andscrewed us (Lynx fiasco)

France screwed us financially and sometmes witheld equipment (Mirage and Agosta).

I think apart from major sub systems and avionics we are moving away from our traditional European suppliers and veering towards Sweden and Italy more. These countries have less pretensions about being players on global stage.

It seems like now we will base our weapons purchases less on politics and more on quality.

German subs instead of French for example.

Also, it seems Sweden and Italy may be more willing to not only share tech, but also integrate more with third parties like the Chinese.

In fact I predict when EU embargoe on arms sales to China is over, countries like Italy, Sweden , Germany and Spain will be main benefeciries instead of UK and France.

China will not lose any sleep over UK and France losing global power and prestige......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That same conclusion has Alan Warnes. A very important journalist. Particulary France has been neglecting customers and has taken them for granted. Maroc, Algeria are some examples that did not like the attitude. Pakistan is no different. UK is never been reliable. With more and more copying of Indian mentallity we better move away from them. The major factor is China that has been rapidly improving. Some parts can be added from less hostile partners. In the end both UK and France will have a dead industry. Good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Network latency for real time data probably also explains why the PAF has invested in such a high speed network, and not the Army. Tanks don't move very fast.

Momin,

I think network latency is important for all arms. Data linked tracking of targets and then passing this tracking info for another platform to lock and launch an attack is only one aspect of the deal.

The bigger issue is that commanders on the ground have to have real-time information. This goes for all three services. For Army commanders, if their small units are connected to the network grid then this allows the troops to be able to send information (recce, coordinates for arty fire, FAC etc.) to the commanders and planners so missions can be planned more effectively and in a timely manner.

During the GWI, USMC had a Banyan VINES network using which, front line USMC troops were able to send emails to their HQs pinpointing Iraqi vehicular and troop concentrations. This information was sent off to the aircraft in the air for interdiction. This would be the type of stuff that can be had if the netcentricity is achieved in all arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0