What's new

New fighter for PAF Doctrine?

KaiserX

FULL MEMBER
Apr 6, 2019
1,334
-2
2,223
Country
United States
Location
United States
Misconceptions in this post.

F-16 Block 52+ have following technologies:

1. AN/APG-68(V)9 radar system



AN/APG-68(V)9 is the best radar system outside AESA options for F-16 variants (Block 60 and above):


LINK: http://fifthsun5.egloos.com/2900088

2. AN/ALQ-211 AIDEWS (with DRFM and SIRFC)
Related information in here.

3. Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS)
It provides high off-boresight weapons engagement capabilities among others benefits.

4. Secure communication technologies
AN/ARC-238 SINCGARS radios with HAVE QUICK I/II
MIDS-LVT Link 16
GPS

5. Conformal Fuel Tanks (to enhance range and reach)



There are different types of sophisticated pods in use as well. You can see one in the image above.

In case of military operations, F-16 Block 52+ will take cues from sophisticated AEW&C aircraft to partake in aerial engagements and deliver results in potential BVR engagements.

F-16 Block 52+ is also equipped with F100-PW-229 EEP engine which enable excellent kinematics and the jet fighter does not loose energy in case of prolonged battle-oriented maneuvers.

Payload capacity = very good
RCS = small

- - -

Even F-16 MLU (Block 40) were sufficient to counter Su-30 MKI of IAF which were armed with R77 munitions in Operation Swift Retort. I recall some conversations on PDF in which I pointed out that F-16 Block 52+ of PAF is more than capable of handling Su-30 MKI and a number of other Flanker configurations around the world but Indian fanboys were convinced otherwise. Now many are scratching their heads.

So hear me again. J-10C have its MERITS (sophisticated avionics and sensor systems) and limitations. It is not some kind of wonder weapon. Hype-driven comparisons of J-10 variants with the likes of F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block 2 (and above) are PREMATURE. J-10A is not even close. And what exactly you know about J-10C in personal capacity?

True heavyweight champions of PLAAF are J-16 variants and J-20 variants respectively. Remainder are force-multiplier options with distinct specializations in large part. PLAAF have SIMULATED strikes over Taiwan in 2020; have a look at the composition of the strike formation. Food for thought for you.
Why are you bringing the block 60 into discussion? PAF doesnt even have those nor is there any chance of procurement so none of your information is even relevant to the topic.
Simply logic and not wishful thinking which blinds or even made some guys delusional here since years. In fact it is the same simple logic that tells me that the German Luftwaffe will barely be taken seriously within the next years.

Or, asked in return. Please explain why the US should deliver Block 70 F-16s, why the Chinese against all contractual obligations shall deliver any of their Flankers ... who in Pakistan should pay fur such wet-dreams like any Russian fighters or why do you think there is a chance for any of the mentioned other Western types?

IMO there is none, not a single reason regardless whatever you hope or even pray: IMO there is only the Chinese option, if you like this or not.
Truest statement ive seen in a long time :D a lot of people on this forum have wishful thinking that Pakistan will somehow get free Block 60 f16s :D
 

Deino

INT'L MOD
Nov 9, 2014
10,496
14
17,207
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
Truest statement ive seen in a long time :D a lot of people on this forum have wishful thinking that Pakistan will somehow get free Block 60 f16s :D

Thanks for these words, truly appeciated.

And again even if some don't believe me, this is only my personnel opinion based on my maybe limited understanding the Chinese side. It is never meant as an insult or to belittle Pakistan or the PAF as some accuse me and in fact I would be happy if Pakistan would get J-10C, J-16C and later FC-31/J-35 fighters, but wishful thinking alone will not deliver one single fighter.
 

LeGenD

MODERATOR
Aug 28, 2006
11,850
63
13,678
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Why are you bringing the block 60 into discussion? PAF doesnt even have those nor is there any chance of procurement so none of your information is even relevant to the topic.
1. I noticed misconceptions in your post and addressed them.
2. I have provided information about Block 52+ in my post.
3. I did not discuss Block 60 in my post.

Following statements:

"Our F16s are severely limited due to their incapability to be refueled with our current aerial tankers. The J10 would not have that disability."

Fuel capacity of F-16 Block 52+ is about 3175 kilograms (internal) and 5443 kilograms with CFT.

Fuel capacity of J-10 variants is 4500kg (internal). I have not seen evidence of J-10C with CFT in actual operations. There is one image floating on the web depicting J-10C with CFT but it is "creative work."

"Lastly to even compare there electronics would be a joke. The J10 is atleast 2 decades ahead in AESA RADAR, EW SUITE, Pilot situational awareness, etc..."

This statement would make sense if you consider F-16 A/B Block 15.

"The US navy itself considered the J10A a major threat to its latest Super Hornet and your here telling me F16mlus are better than the J10C"

J-10A a major threat to latest Super Hornet? Give me a break.

J-10C is better than F-16 MLU. I give you this.
 

KaiserX

FULL MEMBER
Apr 6, 2019
1,334
-2
2,223
Country
United States
Location
United States
1. I noticed misconceptions in your post and addressed them.
2. I have provided information about Block 52+ in my post.
3. I did not discuss Block 60 in my post.

Following statements:

"Our F16s are severely limited due to their incapability to be refueled with our current aerial tankers. The J10 would not have that disability."

Fuel capacity of F-16 Block 52+ is about 3175 kilograms (internal) and 5443 kilograms with CFT.

Fuel capacity of J-10 variants is 4500kg (internal). I have not seen evidence of J-10C with CFT in actual operations. There is one image floating on the web depicting J-10C with CFT but it is "creative work."

"Lastly to even compare there electronics would be a joke. The J10 is atleast 2 decades ahead in AESA RADAR, EW SUITE, Pilot situational awareness, etc..."

This statement would make sense if you consider F-16 A/B Block 15.

"The US navy itself considered the J10A a major threat to its latest Super Hornet and your here telling me F16mlus are better than the J10C"

J-10A a major threat to latest Super Hornet? Give me a break.

J-10C is better than F-16 MLU. I give you this.
I never even mentioned the CFTs I simply stated that the F16s are incompatable with the refueling tankers the PAF has and would procure in the future. No need to debate endlessly when the PAF WILL NOT PROCURE ANYMORE F16s to begin with.

Only viable options are limited orders of the J10C short term, and long term to focus on the Project AZM/J35 since that is easily compatiable with the JF-17s.
J10C is not coming either...
I wouldnt count that out. The PAF seems to be considering the J10C & SU35 very seriously at the moment. SU35 consideration may just be to add extra leverage in any negotiations with the Chinese for the J10C. That is unless the PAF feels it is viable to go with 30 J10C and maybe 24 SU35s. Dont forget they use the same engines. So if the PAF still prefers Russian engines then a limited order of SU35s makes sense so that we can also buy more russian engines for any future J10Cs.

Just my thought.
 

Deino

INT'L MOD
Nov 9, 2014
10,496
14
17,207
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
I never even mentioned the CFTs I simply stated that the F16s are incompatable with the refueling tankers the PAF has and would procure in the future. No need to debate endlessly when the PAF WILL NOT PROCURE ANYMORE F16s to begin with.

Only viable options are limited orders of the J10C short term, and long term to focus on the Project AZM/J35 since that is easily compatiable with the JF-17s.


I wouldnt count that out. The PAF seems to be considering the J10C & SU35 very seriously at the moment. SU35 consideration may just be to add extra leverage in any negotiations with the Chinese for the J10C. That is unless the PAF feels it is viable to go with 30 J10C and maybe 24 SU35s. Dont forget they use the same engines. So if the PAF still prefers Russian engines then a limited order of SU35s makes sense so that we can also buy more russian engines for any future J10Cs.

Just my thought.
Ähhm ... nope, they are not using the same engines even more since China can only offer the WS-10 equipped variant. And if if they would decide for an AL-31FN fitted J-10C, the Su-35 uses a completely different engine.

The AL-31FN for the J-10 is built by Salyut, the AL-41F-1S for the Su-35 with TVC by UMPO.
 

NA71

FULL MEMBER
Mar 27, 2009
1,738
1
2,307
Only one heavy weight contender ...tight money situation won't allow to have more thn one new platforms ....
 

Scorpiooo

FULL MEMBER
Apr 22, 2020
941
0
909
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I never even mentioned the CFTs I simply stated that the F16s are incompatable with the refueling tankers the PAF has and would procure in the future. No need to debate endlessly when the PAF WILL NOT PROCURE ANYMORE F16s to begin with.

Only viable options are limited orders of the J10C short term, and long term to focus on the Project AZM/J35 since that is easily compatiable with the JF-17s.


I wouldnt count that out. The PAF seems to be considering the J10C & SU35 very seriously at the moment. SU35 consideration may just be to add extra leverage in any negotiations with the Chinese for the J10C. That is unless the PAF feels it is viable to go with 30 J10C and maybe 24 SU35s. Dont forget they use the same engines. So if the PAF still prefers Russian engines then a limited order of SU35s makes sense so that we can also buy more russian engines for any future J10Cs.

Just my thought.
Why Pakistan will risk CAATSA from USA, by going for SU 35. No chances at all
 
Last edited:

Blacklight

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 9, 2017
2,145
8
6,586
Country
Pakistan
Location
Ireland
Simply logic and not wishful thinking which blinds or even made some guys delusional here since years. In fact it is the same simple logic that tells me that the German Luftwaffe will barely be taken seriously within the next years.
No not logic, you have been fishing for intel from day one, and propagating the same crap Hanumans do, there is an uncanny resemblance in both them and your twisted rhetoric.

Or, asked in return. Please explain why the US should deliver Block 70 F-16s, why the Chinese against all contractual obligations shall deliver any of their Flankers ... who in Pakistan should pay fur such wet-dreams like any Russian fighters or why do you think there is a chance for any of the mentioned other Western types?
Without divulging what I am privy to, I will ask you what are/ were nearly 3 dozen PAF officers doing in Greenville SC, and Texas? Buying corn and long horns?

IMO there is none, not a single reason regardless whatever you hope or even pray: IMO there is only the Chinese option, if you like this or not.
No hope and pray from my end. On the other hand, you better hope and pray that you dont end up with egg (or worse) on your face like the Hanumans, because there a lot more cats in the bag, than the expectation / speculation of the average joe.

Stick around, things are about to get real interesting.
 

spectregunship

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Aug 18, 2020
99
0
113
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
BTW, Indians are now anticipating Pak Russia Deal for SU35:

Eurasian times is among the least credible sources and the argument doesn't make sense either. A ceasefire for few fighter jets... how can one even think about this relation?
 

Abid123

FULL MEMBER
Jan 1, 2021
263
1
315
Country
Pakistan
Location
Norway
Err, the 6bn figure is not JUST for subs, it includes 4 Type 054a's. Alongside that, you are comparing apples to oranges, Submarines are literally Pakistans second strike weapon, its most survivable nuclear delivery platform and also its most feared A2/AD asset.

May i remind you that the navy is tasked with protecting a significant sum of the countries economy through the ports, without a well thought out A2/AD strategy like the PN is embarking on now, we would just have a repeat of '71 where the coastline is going to get hammered.

Alongside this, you are acting as if the country paid out of its pocket as opposed to taking on a loan from China. This is something that can be repeated again anyway, the Chinese will happily loan more money for Aircraft and SAMs. So your point is flawed.

Further, IDK where you get the need for 6 systems from TBH, having a well thought out IADS consisting of 3-4 Long range SAM batteries, which should be sufficient to provide coverage over the country, with shorter ranged coverage provided by HQ-16 and then FM-90/SPADA, that should be more than sufficient, especially when paired with a high concentration of fighters positioned on the border with sufficient supporting assets.

The need for "60 J-10s" also seems to be pulled out of thin air aswell, there IS a need for a platform capable of countering the Rafale through superior sensors and firepower, is the J-10 the answer? MAYBE, we have no idea in regards to its sensors and capabilities, we just know theyre probably better than the JF-17B3, not by a whole lot, but they are. The problem with the J-10C is where does it fit in the PAF though?? Do we want an IAF like situation where neither aircraft are able to communicate with eachother? Do we want to have the J-10s not be able to link to ERIEYES or other aircraft? Alongside this, an order of 60 aircraft- at almost $5bn usd is not a decision that can be taken as a 'stop gap' measure, thats a significant sunk cost and not the entire picture either, this does not include other costs that would need to be undertaken for the PAF to take on J-10Cs.

Payload wise, while YES, the J-10C CAN carry more munitions, its not certified for them and nor is there as wide of an array of munitions as there is for the JF-17 with the J-10, in terms of A2A loadout, thats something that CAN be replicated by the JF-17, with BOTH aircraft being CAPABLE of carrying 4 BVRAAMs with 2 SRAAMs, the JF-17 does this through dual racks which arent used as of now to preserve airframe life but CAN be employed as needed, as the JF-17 is certified for it. Certification and intergration of the munitions will add further cost and time to the J-10 induction.

At the end of the day, the best answer to the Mirages RIGHT NOW is the Mirages, yes, they are old, yes, theyre nearing the end of their life, but there is no PRESSING need to replace them, they are able to conduct their mission effectively and better than anything else available to the PAF. To draw parallels, the youngest B52s in USAF service are 55+ years old. Of course, there ARE other aircaft that can do their missions, BUT as of now, theres no PRESSING need to replace them, they fulfill their role sufficiently.

At the end of the day, the BEST mirage replacement is a 5th generation fighter which will naturally be the successor in the strike role due to its superior capability to penetrate airspace, at the cost of payload of course. The J-10C is IDEAL to replace F-16s, but even that is ONLY if other western fighters are off of the table, which is not something that we can say for sure. However, spending 2x the cost of a JF-17 B3 on one J-10 seems like a pretty poor value proposition especially when you wont really get significantly better performance from the J-10- presumably atleast, especially when it comes to sensors.

TL;DR

J-10s probably not an amazing idea, buy more JF-17B3s, alongside this, keep mirages in service and replace them with a 5th gen strike fighter when available, 6bn on 8 subs and 4 ships is not a waste of money and is infact a very important buy and should be expanded. SAM need is there but not to the extent as it is made out to be, IDK, just read what i wrote, its actually kind of useful tbh.
Where did you get that 5 billion USD for 60 J-10C's? 40 million US dollars is the unit price of J-10CE. So 60 J-10C's will cost you around 2.5 billion USD. You can easily get 60 J-10CE's at 3 billion dollars, including training support, bare metal and ammunition parts.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 21, Members: 5, Guests: 16)


Top Bottom