What's new

New fighter for PAF Doctrine?

Bilal.

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 9, 2013
4,886
9
6,701
Ah I see, I dont think any one has said that the Mirage is Irreplaceable at least I yet have to come across such a statement but the fact is that PDF knows little about the Mirage and the Weapons deployed by the Mirage are strictly built around the Mirage hence the only proper replacement for the Mirage is another Mirage because that is how the Pakistan Air force Operates.
.
.
.
I have said the above on a few occasions, If your post/comment was indicative towards me then my friend at least have the heart to mention my name.
The only time I saw your post on the subject was the one above while this discussion has been going on much longer. And no, the post was not pointed particularly at you. If it was, rest assured it would have been a direct mention or a direct quote reply.

Your statement that a replacement of a Mirage is another Mirage because that’s how the PAF operates not only implies the contention that it’s irreplaceable but also that PAF is Mirage centric.
 

Nomad40

FULL MEMBER
Jan 3, 2020
1,048
0
1,183
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Spot on.

The PAF will not use the J-10CE for strike.

Rather, the J-10CE will shore up our air-to-air capabilities from an offensive standpoint. The way we used the F-16s in Swift Retort, the PAF needs more of that type of fighter to build up its offensive air capability.

As the PAF cannot get F-16s, the PAF sees the J-10CE as the next best option.

So, in future Swift Retort-type scenarios, the PAF will send Mirages and JF-17s to carry SOWs and PGBs, while the F-16 and J-10CE interdict enemy fighters. The PAF is certainly investing in SOW for the JF-17 -- e.g., REK-III and, potentially, the Ra'ad 2. But the JF-17 will share the attack role with the Mirages.

In the future, the PAF would want an incredibly strong offensive capability through a combination of J-10CE and AZM. The two would operate together. That said, AZM would likely be a multi-role asset too, especially for the maritime ops environment (where its size will help for range and endurance).

IMO, the PAF's force goal is likely 90+ AZM and 150 J-10CE.

I know it sounds like a lot of J-10CEs, but remember, the PAF (on paper) wanted 150 F-16s.

Prior to the F-16s, the PAF wanted 110 A-7 Corsair IIs, but squarely for the attack role. The U.S. said no because (1) it wanted to scuttle our nuclear program and (2) the risk of the PAF using the A-7 as a nuclear delivery platform. If not for a lack of cash, the PAF might have wanted both the F-16 and A-7 for a killer offensive combination.

The AZM and J-10CE combo would echo that original idea.
I think we should not bring AZM to the mix however credit is due because yes the logic is correct.

J-10C (If something happens) will be a Pure compliment of the Jf-17 (not to the JF-17) and doctrine will be revamped, this will balance out as there are force multiplier solutions already in place.

Well connected and situationally aware Pairs of 4th gen fighter will deliver better then an entire squadron which isn't.
 

Huffal

FULL MEMBER
Dec 27, 2020
1,279
0
1,335
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
People on pak def discussing how the PAF will use the J10c to replace their mirages, whilst the actual PAF personnel are here spectating thinking to themselves.... We haven't ordered anything... Dafuq?
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,888
73
22,972
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
I think we should not bring AZM to the mix however credit is due because yes the logic is correct.

J-10C (If something happens) will be a Pure compliment of the Jf-17 (not to the JF-17) and doctrine will be revamped, this will balance out as there are force multiplier solutions already in place.

Well connected and situationally aware Pairs of 4th gen fighter will deliver better then an entire squadron which isn't.
Yes, near-term, I think the J-10CE will cause the JF-17 to focus on strike.

It might sound weird given the limited range and payload of the JF-17, but it's actually quite developed. It can carry the C-802, REK/IREK, and LGBs, for a start. There's a REK-III (with comparable impact to the H-4) on the roadmap, and I think the Ra'ad-2 is being developed with the JF-17 in mind.
 

Nomad40

FULL MEMBER
Jan 3, 2020
1,048
0
1,183
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
The only time I saw your post on the subject was the one above while this discussion has been going on much longer. And no, the post was not pointed particularly at you. If it was, rest assured it would have been a direct mention or a direct quote reply.

Your statement that a replacement of a Mirage is another Mirage because that’s how the PAF operates not only implies the contention that it’s irreplaceable but also that PAF is Mirage centric.
The strike force was totally Mirage centric and a huge chunk of it is still today (still a large chunk of the Airforce is Mirage and this will Remain for some time) , There are larger problems which cannot be discussed atm.
 

Bilal.

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 9, 2013
4,886
9
6,701
The strike force was totally Mirage centric and a huge chunk of it is still today (still a large chunk of the Airforce is Mirage and this will Remain for some time) , There are larger problems which cannot be discussed atm.
Yes, that is quite evident. But for how long would it/can it stay Mirage centric? That is the question.

Any replacement when it happens would be a multi year endeavor. Even if it starts today.
 

Nomad40

FULL MEMBER
Jan 3, 2020
1,048
0
1,183
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Yes, near-term, I think the J-10CE will cause the JF-17 to focus on strike.

It might sound weird given the limited range and payload of the JF-17, but it's actually quite developed. It can carry the C-802, REK/IREK, and LGBs, for a start. There's a REK-III (with comparable impact to the H-4) on the roadmap, and I think the Ra'ad-2 is being developed with the JF-17 in mind.
JF-17 in-terms of STOW and attack is the PAFs most capable fighter far better than anything below the Viper.

The payload characteristics and the ranges are quite similar actually but at the end of the day the JF-17 is suppose to be a light Fighter.
 

Nomad40

FULL MEMBER
Jan 3, 2020
1,048
0
1,183
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Yes, that is quite evident. But for how long would it/can it stay Mirage centric? That is the question.

Any replacement when it happens would be a multi year endeavor. Even if it starts today.
As long as they have Paint for it.
 

DrWatson775

FULL MEMBER
Jul 26, 2011
265
0
240
Country
Pakistan
Location
New Zealand
A hurry to induct J10 is Because we are very much behind schedule at somewhere (not sure it's AZM or Block-3 or something else).
A few years back there were multiple statements in news ( including from defence minister I think) that PAF needs to replace 190 fighter aircraft by 2020. We are still way behind according to publicly available info. Probably one of the reasons.
 

PDF

STAFF
May 1, 2015
2,991
13
4,406
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
So in brief, we had deficiency in capability but somehow JF-17 might have continued to work. As the requirement was always there, we had done work and had eyes on J-10C to boost our strength and after 26th-27th Feb 19 episodes, any reluctancy vanished.

I feel JF-17 case is similar to our Shaheen missiles. We bluffed Shaheen 2 had 2500km range and it worked only to later reveal it was actually 1500km when the threat was neautralized with Shaheen 3. (Ha! In your face India!!). JF-17 is not a bad aircraft, but a light-weight aircraft has its limitations.

P.S: An indigenous radar for aircrafts is indeed in the works. And I think we got ToT for KLJ 7-A. (btw ToT is a very loose term).
 

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 28, 2011
52,171
85
59,662
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Spot on.

The PAF will not use the J-10CE for strike.

Rather, the J-10CE will shore up our air-to-air capabilities from an offensive standpoint. The way we used the F-16s in Swift Retort, the PAF needs more of that type of fighter to build up its offensive air capability.

As the PAF cannot get F-16s, the PAF sees the J-10CE as the next best option.

So, in future Swift Retort-type scenarios, the PAF will send Mirages and JF-17s to carry SOWs and PGBs, while the F-16 and J-10CE interdict enemy fighters. The PAF is certainly investing in SOW for the JF-17 -- e.g., REK-III and, potentially, the Ra'ad 2. But the JF-17 will share the attack role with the Mirages.

In the future, the PAF would want an incredibly strong offensive capability through a combination of J-10CE and AZM. The two would operate together. That said, AZM would likely be a multi-role asset too, especially for the maritime ops environment (where its size will help for range and endurance).

IMO, the PAF's force goal is likely 90+ AZM and 150 J-10CE.

I know it sounds like a lot of J-10CEs, but remember, the PAF (on paper) wanted 150 F-16s.

Prior to the F-16s, the PAF wanted 110 A-7 Corsair IIs, but squarely for the attack role. The U.S. said no because (1) it wanted to scuttle our nuclear program and (2) the risk of the PAF using the A-7 as a nuclear delivery platform. If not for a lack of cash, the PAF might have wanted both the F-16 and A-7 for a killer offensive combination.

The AZM and J-10CE combo would echo that original idea.
If J-10 C numbers remain only at 36 then yes it would mainly be used for Air to Air role. But if the number increases then yes it would be used for strikes.
A hurry to induct J10 is Because we are very much behind schedule at somewhere (not sure it's AZM or Block-3 or something else).
Everything is going according to schedule. Inducting a new plane whether J-10 C or some other jet was always part of the plan. It didn't happened a year or two ago that we realized that oops we need a new plane. The plan for J-10 C was made several years ago.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 1, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom