Army Aviation should get fighter planes!

[fatman17]

I am aware of this as well, but part of the problem is that not all aircraft were upgraded with MB 0/0 ejection seats because of the US embargo. Otherwise it is still pretty rugged (as was the case with F-6).

In any case, the sooner we get JF-17s rolling, the better off will be PAF.

yes quite true - i think PAF has now selected a chinese replacement for the MB 0/0 ejection seat. by the way isnt MB a UK based company?

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Sometimes we get carried away in a discussion and start writing irrelevant stuff---JF-17 possibly cannot be a dedicated ground attack aircraft---ground attack and troop support planes need bigger wings to provide stability at lower speeds--why--because they operate at lower speeds---there is not enough space to mount a titanium armoured tub for the the protection of the pilot either---.

This aircraft is built for a totally different purpose--I believe troop support missions were not a part of the agenda when the final design was laid out.

 

[x_man]

Fighters for Army!!...I think it’s neither feasible nor affordable, that’s the reason that probably no Air or Army staff has ever considered implementing it.

Operating fighters is a cultural thing and needs a mindset where whole force is thinking on the same lines. The culture of PAF (and all other airforces of the world) has everything in place ,in order and trained in an environment for years that is fighter orientated. From a junior most technician to people on helm of affairs ,everyone understands the sensitivities, difficulties and are geared up to work in unison in fighters/jets environments.

Also consider the effects in terms of cost of acquiring new systems, training (air/ground crew) , infrastructure, support elements etc etc. Where will these guys be jet trained?? In Airforce academy?...I don’t think so. PAF cannot generate such huge effort with its existing resources.

The biggest question that still lurks around is that even if we imagine that Army has got few squadrons of A-37 or K-8 or some other slow speed aircraft, then who will protect them in theatre against the formidable Indian BVR threat? With top speeds under 300 Knot, these aircrafts will be sitting ducks with nowhere to run. What and how much load they will be carrying?, with one small gun and few rockets how much punch they can generate in a single mission? So they cant protect themselves, they cant run either and carry very limited ammo !! That’s no good.

Someone might suggest a fighter escort for them but it means we are back to square one. If you have to employ fighter escorts then why not use fighters for this role from the start. Consider the load carrying capability and air-ground configuration of a single A-5 :-

* 2 x AIM 9 P air to air missile
* 2 x 760 lt Fuel Tanks ( for long range and endurance)
* 2 x 500 lb bombs ( in its under belly hard points)
* 2 x 8 , 57 mm rocket pods
* 2 x 23 mm guns ( 100 rounds each!!!)
* Self protection suite in terms of Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), Chaffs, Flares.
* Top speed : Mach 1.3

Now compare this load with e.g A-37 or K-8 or any other aircraft of this category! Using such aircrafts is neither operationally nor economically viable option. Why to send 12 or 15 vulnerable and slow movings for a job that can be done by a formation of 4 x A-5 or Mirages. What if these guys are intercepted by enemy fighters? Are we going to train Army pilots on air to air combat also?? Again, not an option. It takes years to master aerial combat tactics, and PAF pilots are trained for each and every situation/mission and with a flick of single switch, go into air to air mode and vice versa. In a conflict, situations can change in a second, It happened a lot in previous wars that formations that got airborne for air to ground missions, ended up flying air combat after being intercepted.

I strongly believe that fighters and missions like Close Air support, interdictions and strikes should remain with airforce. PAF has number of dedicated Squadrons that will not only support Army operations but Navy's as well, as they did in past. What we really need is that we understand each others operations well, respect limitations and increase the number of Ground attack squadrons whenever possible to further enhance the efforts for Army.

 

[sohail_shah]

I guess Pakistan Army should procure more advance Helicopters both transports and gunships rather than aircrafts. Indeed we have some helicopters, but much more in numbers are required.

 

[Contrarian]

I am of the opinion in the Indian context atleast, that tactical transport should be given to the army, with strategic transport in the Airforce.

As such again i speak in the Indian context, as IA was also demanding fixed wing planes recently, and this discussion happens with every country. The planes like the MTA, a couple should be deployed with each command of the army, so that the army when it needs transport in a hurry, must have it, while the rest of the MTA's and Il's should be with the IAF.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

For the Army ... the best option always is the Gunship Helicopters...

PA should complement its arsenal of AH-1s Cobras, and procure something in league with AH-64 Apache Longbow, if not Apache itself. My feeling is PA is going to go for Augusta A-129 or the Rooivalk in near Future. 40+ of these are required immediately.

 

[EagleEyes]

I am of the opinion in the Indian context atleast, that tactical transport should be given to the army, with strategic transport in the Airforce.

As such again i speak in the Indian context, as IA was also demanding fixed wing planes recently, and this discussion happens with every country. The planes like the MTA, a couple should be deployed with each command of the army, so that the army when it needs transport in a hurry, must have it, while the rest of the MTA's and Il's should be with the IAF.

Does IA plans to get any multirole transport planes officially as of yet? I do know that India is looking for a joint venture with Russia in that field. Isn't it for air force only?

 

[fatman17]

Fighters for Army!!...I think it’s neither feasible nor affordable, that’s the reason that probably no Air or Army staff has ever considered implementing it.

Operating fighters is a cultural thing and needs a mindset where whole force is thinking on the same lines. The culture of PAF (and all other airforces of the world) has everything in place ,in order and trained in an environment for years that is fighter orientated. From a junior most technician to people on helm of affairs ,everyone understands the sensitivities, difficulties and are geared up to work in unison in fighters/jets environments.

Also consider the effects in terms of cost of acquiring new systems, training (air/ground crew) , infrastructure, support elements etc etc. Where will these guys be jet trained?? In Airforce academy?...I don’t think so. PAF cannot generate such huge effort with its existing resources.

The biggest question that still lurks around is that even if we imagine that Army has got few squadrons of A-37 or K-8 or some other slow speed aircraft, then who will protect them in theatre against the formidable Indian BVR threat? With top speeds under 300 Knot, these aircrafts will be sitting ducks with nowhere to run. What and how much load they will be carrying?, with one small gun and few rockets how much punch they can generate in a single mission? So they cant protect themselves, they cant run either and carry very limited ammo !! That’s no good.

Someone might suggest a fighter escort for them but it means we are back to square one. If you have to employ fighter escorts then why not use fighters for this role from the start. Consider the load carrying capability and air-ground configuration of a single A-5 :-

* 2 x AIM 9 P air to air missile
* 2 x 760 lt Fuel Tanks ( for long range and endurance)
* 2 x 500 lb bombs ( in its under belly hard points)
* 2 x 8 , 57 mm rocket pods
* 2 x 23 mm guns ( 100 rounds each!!!)
* Self protection suite in terms of Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), Chaffs, Flares.
* Top speed : Mach 1.3

Now compare this load with e.g A-37 or K-8 or any other aircraft of this category! Using such aircrafts is neither operationally nor economically viable option. Why to send 12 or 15 vulnerable and slow movings for a job that can be done by a formation of 4 x A-5 or Mirages. What if these guys are intercepted by enemy fighters? Are we going to train Army pilots on air to air combat also?? Again, not an option. It takes years to master aerial combat tactics, and PAF pilots are trained for each and every situation/mission and with a flick of single switch, go into air to air mode and vice versa. In a conflict, situations can change in a second, It happened a lot in previous wars that formations that got airborne for air to ground missions, ended up flying air combat after being intercepted.

I strongly believe that fighters and missions like Close Air support, interdictions and strikes should remain with airforce. PAF has number of dedicated Squadrons that will not only support Army operations but Navy's as well, as they did in past. What we really need is that we understand each others operations well, respect limitations and increase the number of Ground attack squadrons whenever possible to further enhance the efforts for Army.

what u say makes sense but i believe we r talking about COIN operations against miltants hiding in mountains and hilly areas where a slower a/c can have a better kill ratio then a high speed jet.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

A-10 thunder Bolt will do exactly that!

Maximum speed: 450 knots (517 mph, 833 km/h)
Cruise speed: 300 knots (340 mph, 560 km/h)

Combat radius:
On CAS mission: 250 nm (288 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour single-engine loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat

On anti-armor mission: 252 nm (290 mi, 467 km), 40 nm (45 mi, 75 km) sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat

Ferry range: 2,240 nm (2,580 mi, 4,150 km) with 50 knot (55 mph, 90 km/h) headwinds, 20 minutes reserve
Service ceiling 45,000 ft (13,700 m)

Armament
Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger gatling gun with 1174 rounds
Hardpoints: 8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations holding up to 16,000 lb (7,200 kg)

 

[Contrarian]

Does IA plans to get any multirole transport planes officially as of yet? I do know that India is looking for a joint venture with Russia in that field. Isn't it for air force only?

Yep. India has already signed the JV with Russia. Its the MTA(Multirole Transport Aircraft). It will be the in the 20tons category, same as the C-130'J'.
Infact you can call this the Russian C-130'J'.

Presently, India's transport fleet was SEVERELY lacking and antiquated. For short lift capability there were An-32's !

And Heavy transport, the Il-76's!

There was practically nothing in between, and IAF already felt short of the Il-76's. Anything that needed to be carried, which was more than the AN-32's capacity, had to be taken by the Il's, which is very expensive. Not to mention that the An32's themselves are bloody old. So the lift capability was limited.

Now this will fill the operational void quite beautifully. India plans to buy a whole bunch of them. The transport fleet of IAF is set to increase dramatically.

FYI: India has already purchased 6 C-130'J's. But they are for the Special Forces, I believe the version is called MC-130J 'Talon'.

Here is a video of the MTA...
oRZ6oZcx8Q8[/media] - Multirole Transport Aircraft

Presently it is only for the Airforce, as IAF operates all the fixed wing aircrafts,but the Army was demanding something like this a while back. The Navy does too, but thats different.

 

[Blackpearl]

Hello there everybody

Just joined, and hav interest in aircraft and helicopters.

What all we are discussing, we are focusing on 2 points
1. COIN operations against terrorists.
2. Use of Helicopters as gunships against insurgents.

well, i think the best helicopter is MI-24/35 Hind. Successfully tested by Soviets in 1980s in Afghan war, equally feared by mujahidin.

It can carry a good load of weapons and also transport 8 troops. Its rugged, reliable and fearsome!!!

 

[KENT]

Hello there everybody

Just joined, and hav interest in aircraft and helicopters.

What all we are discussing, we are focusing on 2 points
1. COIN operations against terrorists.
2. Use of Helicopters as gunships against insurgents.

well, i think the best helicopter is MI-24/35 Hind. Successfully tested by Soviets in 1980s in Afghan war, equally feared by mujahidin.

It can carry a good load of weapons and also transport 8 troops. Its rugged, reliable and fearsome!!!

In today's modern warfare armed MI-24/MI-35 are obsolete since they are higly vulnerable to Hand held Stingers, but they are very ideal for Troop and logistics transport.

During Afgan warfare, Taliban negated the advantage of MI-24/MI-35 gunship with US provided hand held stingers, in other words use of this helicopters proved to be disasteres for Soviet.

If total Air-superiority achieved over battlefield, then use of this gunships would definetly work wonders.

 

[JK!]

In today's modern warfare armed MI-24/MI-35 are obsolete since they are higly vulnerable to Hand held Stingers, but they are very ideal for Troop and logistics transport.

During Afgan warfare, Taliban negated the advantage of MI-24/MI-35 gunship with US provided hand held stingers, in other words use of this helicopters proved to be disasteres for Soviet.

If total Air-superiority achieved over battlefield, then use of this gunships would definetly work wonders.

Aquire the latest issue of Air Force Monthly and check out some of the Hind variants available these days.

They could be on par with any of the latest generation attack helicopters like Apache.

 

[Contrarian]

Mi 35 is no longer the obsolete gunship. Its completely modernized and excellent in its role.

 

[KENT]

Aquire the latest issue of Air Force Monthly and check out some of the Hind variants available these days.

They could be on par with any of the latest generation attack helicopters like Apache.

Could you feed me any source or link for above issue? I haven't been able to make it to it.