Pakistan's new military posters

pride......of Pakistan....

Great Pics!

I wonder if they have very many of each of these examples?



[edit on 9/25/2006 by donwhite]

Just a reminder, here.

This IS the Weaponry forum on ATS, not US Politics.

Weaponry
Military weapons technology past, present, and future.

Please keep the responses focused On-Topic and Forum-related.

Thank you.

Good propaganda.

look carefully, these things are actually developed by china... but pakistan has put in their money for the development.

the plane is the FC-1 and the tank is Type-90, and both so far has been rejected by PLA.

just an observation, but the posters show the JF-17 carrying the chinese made SD-10 BVR missile - there has been speculation that PAF JF-17s would use some other AAM. If these posters are official )which I doubt), then this would be a clear sign that the PAF will buy the SD-10.


PS. Note how the JF-17 in the middle picture has the old style intake...

[edit on 25-9-2006 by planeman]

What were the other AMRAAMS proposed for the FC-1?
I thought it was the SD-10 all the way..

Originally posted by Daedalus3
What were the other AMRAAMS proposed for the FC-1?
I thought it was the SD-10 all the way..

The SD-10 is the obvious candidate but there was speculation that it doesn't meet the PAF's standards. Not sure what credible alturnatives there are for PAF but AMRAAM and MICA might have been in the frame. Personally I reckon SD-10 all the way.

I'd be highly surprised if the AMRAAM ever entered the equation, considering the Chinese involvement. MICA maybe. Or AA-12. Personally I think the SD-10 is a certainty as well.

Originally posted by Willard856
I'd be highly surprised if the AMRAAM ever entered the equation, considering the Chinese involvement. MICA maybe. Or AA-12. Personally I think the SD-10 is a certainty as well.

Actually anything other than the SD-10 seems unlikely for the same reasons the AMRAAM seems unlikely.
Although the F-16s offered by the US do have the AMRAAM as a part of the package if I'm not mistaken.
The AA-12 will have to come from China(or Ukraine?); Russia won't sell to Pakistan, the FC-1 has encountered enough problems with the engines(this still hasn't been resolved as far as I know) that China was aiming to acquire from the Russians for the FC-1. India cried fowl and Russia put 3rd party export restrictions on the engines meant for FC-1.
Also configuring the FC-1 for the Mica will have to be a totally pakistani affair as the French bound by the chinese arms embargo would be forced to put similar 3rd party restrictions.
As far as I know Pakistan has not mastered the ability to dissimilar mate weapons systems and platforms.

the configuration for air superioty would most likey be

2x Short range AAM (PL-8)
2x SARH medium range missiles (PL-11)
2x ARH medium range missiles (SD-10)

1x centre line drop tank

Sorry, just to clarify, I was talking about AMRAAM integration onto a Chinese jet. Ain't ever going to happen. The Pakistani Government have indeed requested AMRAAMs with their F-16 sale (C5s), though I haven't heard whether this has been approved or not. Agree with your AA-12 comments, considering there is little difference between the AA-12 and SD-10 other than some kinematics, this won't have much of an impact anyway.

As for the French honouring arms export restrictions...

Maybe off-topic but not really:
IAF to acquire 28 LCA jets by 2007, 8 serial production and 20 firm orders.

Initial Ops clearance for these a/c in 2007 and Final Ops Clearance in 2010.
PV-3 reportedly seen conducting taxi trials just a few days back and 5 test flight in the next 10-15 days.
Are the Indians flogging an already dead LCA horse?
Not really, and IMHO , keeping national bias aside, the LCA isn't such a shrug-off after all; except for the indigenous engine and indigenous radar that is.


Doesn't the AA-12 have a slightly better reported range than the SD-10?
80-90km vs. 70-80km?

Doesn't the AA-12 have a slightly better reported range than the SD-10?
80-90km vs. 70-80km?

Yep, that's what I meant by kinematic differences between the missiles.

China, why would you carry SARH missiles when you have access to active missiles? Unless there are significant range and speed advantages with the SARH missile? But I didn't think the PL-11 offered that much more.

Thats the chinese practise on the J-10, to presumerly cut cost. The PAF would probaly have four SD-10s instead of two.

Originally posted by Willard856
Yep, that's what I meant by kinematic differences between the missiles.
China, why would you carry SARH missiles when you have access to active missiles? Unless there are significant range and speed advantages with the SARH missile? But I didn't think the PL-11 offered that much more.

Wouldn't it completely depend on mission suites; i.e. threat capability assesment, CAP,CAS,deep strike etc. etc.?

what's the difference between a semi-active missile and an active missile?

A Semi-active missile needs the lanuching aircraft (host) to keep an lock on the enemy aircraft for the duration of the flight, which exposes it to counter fire and leavse it helpless until the other fighter is destroyed or the missile is destroyed

A active missile will track and lock unto the enemy aircraft at an certain range (20-40km). It still needs the host aircraft to locate the target, but frees it up so it can do evasive manuvers or re-poistion. It basically offers bigger tactical possibilties.

But then there are other things like the No Escape Zone (NEZ) which is between two thirds and one third of the missiles range.

ARH -Active Radar Homing
SARH - Semi Active Radar Homing

Daedalus,

Your comment on threat capability assessments is true, but the only reason I would load up SARH over ARH would be:

1. If I was certain I would get a valid track file to shot on before the adversary;

2. My missile will out-pole the adversary missile (for SARH, F-pole prior to him, or if he is an active shooter, my missile achieves F-pole prior to him achieving A-pole. But even then, there is a risk that the adversary missile will still jag a lock and kill me. This is where speed of the missile becomes important, and who acquires who first).

In most cases, it would be lunacy to go up against an active shooter with SARH (unless that was all you had, in which case good luck!). If the adversary is a heater only threat, then SARH makes sense because they are probably cheaper than the active missiles.

Air to surface roles don't really make a difference to whether you would carry active or semi-active AAM. But as you will probably be executing a defensive air to air gameplan when on an air to ground mission, active missiles will give you the ability to pickle off a rocket and runaway. You don't want to have to keep your nose pointed at the bad guy when you're heavy and he has offensive air to air loadouts.

Fc-1 is 3rd genration plane in fifth genration enviorment,