BVR capabilities of PAF

[Jliu]

Shebazi,

It is intresting to read but is shows onesided pr. Their mig29 is the oldest version still operational. The MKI is real combat needs to be evaluated yet. We know it cna serve as a bomb truck but I need to see how well it performs against agile small fighters. Mig21 lancer has no range. Their Mirage 2000H are one of the oldest in service and still need to be updated. JAguars is hardly in service. No potent ugrades sofar. Mig27 is antique. LCA will never fly.

You observe these platforms from a performance/capability perspective while I see them simply as assets in a NC system designed for one purpose: to enable the IA to conduct a major operation unhindered. From a systems analysis I see a disrepancy in PA/PAF operating doctrine and a complete lack of procedure for coordinating integrated joint ops together (merely exercising together does NOT equal Joint Operations) in support of an strategic objective.

Nobody, given the statistical number of WVR kills these two decades, in a credible NATO compatible military would deny that the individual platform performance of every PAF aircraft is superior to corresponding IAF platforms in similar roles including the LCA (or what we can see of it) with the possible exception of the Flanker MKI. However all IAF assets are networked into a system that enables BVR strikes, multirole tasking and what we call "surge strikes"-rapid reaction interdiction and ordinance delivery on designated targets well within NATO STANAG and Soviet PVO/AF guidelines achieved in the Cold War era. We're talking network enabled masses of fighters achieving battlespace dominance over a theatre here-no small matter because the IAF retains a large quantitative advantage over the PAF here. Doesn't matter here whether the IAF loses a few old/"new" Mig21Ls or Mig-21M Bisons or whatever-only that the Python 3/4/AA-10/AA-12s they manage to fire off bag a PAF fighter in return or the ordinanace delivered crater a runway, airfield etc so badly it degrades its ability to contribute to the defence of battlespace, compromise a PA formation's options for maneuver AND most importantly, keep the PAF off the IA's own formations as they penetrate into Pakistan proper. A purely expendable war of attrition that only favours the one with the numbers and the sensors to exploit the situation.

I believe the PAF is moving in the right direction with implementing NCW doctrine but the lack of inter-service operability and the introduction of JF-17/J-10/Y-8? and F-16s/Erieye into the force structure is troubling precisely because the PAF will be possessing two different systems with many different logistical networks as opposed to one Israeli sourced system that emphasises
C3 over all assets and ties them all together regardless of losses simply because the IAF can afford them. A better bet would have been Gripen/F-16/Erieye to achieve what I call "multirole based dominance" in my opinion but naturally the PAF brass have theri own reasons for their decision and I will respect it.

 

[fatman17]

Look AIM-7 is BVR missile.

And PAF chief's repeatidly said that induction of JF-17 and F-16 Blk 52+ will give Pakistani AirForce the ability of BVR.

When in late 90's our Mirages got upgraded fom Sagem, lot of people saying that these planes have ability of firing BVR missiles , but we never heard such thing about mirages even after a decade.

why would the PAF divulge all its information? just so enthusiants like us can feel better!

Jane's is a well regarded source of information which is accepted world-wide and people pay a lot of money (me included) to get the latest information.

 

[Nomi929]

why would the PAF divulge all its information? just so enthusiants like us can feel better!

Jane's is a well regarded source of information which is accepted world-wide and people pay a lot of money (me included) to get the latest information.

can u give any solid proof.

Tell me why PAF always says that it Lacks BVR capability???

Check kargil incident on Wikipedia, it states that PAF F-16 doesn't have BVR capability that time !

 

[fatman17]

can u give any solid proof.

Tell me why PAF always says that it Lacks BVR capability???

Check kargil incident on Wikipedia, it states that PAF F-16 doesn't have BVR capability that time !

i have given proof! and i am still waiting for yours? and as far as wikipedia goes it is a lot of rubbish which a lot of senior forum members will agree!

further i dont want to get into a slanging match with you. i know some senior PAF pilots (base commander level) who have confirmed jane's information. i will go further to say that what if i told you that PAF has access to JSOW-154!

 

[Munir]

At the moment Pak has already fused all sensors. Even sensors from different producers and countries. All they missed was deep look into enemy territory. Deep means 450 km into Indian side... Since the bases are a few hundred miles from echother I doubt that a lots of time advantage will be gained. Just count how much different it makes if planes start rolling... It is minutes and not more. Now we will see them taxi in the runway and in the past we would have to rely on other assets.

If quatity makes such impacht then India would have won the past wars in a big way. It didn't. And the wars at the moment show that small forces can do a better job then thought. If quantity makes such impact then Israel would never won a war. Do uderstand that even Irac was not a homerun though the allies would love to present that way. Iraci army was as dead as possible and Sadam had lots of enemies. Still it took more then a few seconds to get to the target.

The Indians will not be seen als helpers but as invaders. And if they get low they hardly will survive locall produced sams. That did work superb in Kargil... If they fly high we will see them.

And nukes are not lost assets. The Indians will not risk flying over Islamabad. You cannot counter ballistic misiles or Babur... And playing with that risk is a bit danerous cause it might end as MAD or even total world destruction...

PAF added BVR and AEW+C and IFR... It is defensive force. It made the Pakistani territory more difficult for IAF. But it already was a bit like hel for IAF. Only NKI represents some impressive force but in practive it needs to be seen how well a big footbalfield will do in a hostile environment. Sams would probably love MKI cause with two huge engines and impressive big RCS it is something easy to hit. You do remember that IAF lost some planes on the border? All they could do in return is shoot down unarmed nacal prop training aircraft on the border...


IAF is not an arab force but still the text is way beyond realistic world.

 

[Jliu]

At the moment Pak has already fused all sensors. Even sensors from different producers and countries.

No they havn't and I can say that from personal experience. If they had at this stage you may reliably see another Kargil-esque incursion.

All they missed was deep look into enemy territory. Deep means 450 km into Indian side... Since the bases are a few hundred miles from echother I doubt that a lots of time advantage will be gained. Just count how much different it makes if planes start rolling... It is minutes and not more. Now we will see them taxi in the runway and in the past we would have to rely on other assets.

Whatever are you talking about?

If quatity makes such impacht then India would have won the past wars in a big way. It didn't. And the wars at the moment show that small forces can do a better job then thought. If quantity makes such impact then Israel would never won a war. Do uderstand that even Irac was not a homerun though the allies would love to present that way. Iraci army was as dead as possible and Sadam had lots of enemies. Still it took more then a few seconds to get to the target.

The year is 2008. Not 1968 or wherever you are. ODS revealed the absolute impotence of Iraqi forces in the face of a integrated system of interlinked assets with minimal sensor-shooter reaction times. In short it was a bloodbath and every military in the world with some cash is attempting to replicate what the Americans did as best they can.

The Indians will not be seen als helpers but as invaders.

Goes without saying.

And if they get low they hardly will survive locall produced sams. That did work superb in Kargil... If they fly high we will see them.

You know, if everything was so rosy then why do air forces have to buy more than 1 of every aircraft? If you have a pair of eyes then of course you can see them. So can I.

If you even bothered to read and understand my last post then you wouldnt be posting crap like this. I'm going to say this again: the Indians can afford losing a couple of dozen aircraft including MKIs because they have calculated in order to achieve the standing objective they MUST lose a certain number X of aircraft to Y PAF aircraft. It's called attrition.

Second Point: Nothing works exactly as advertised. The probability (pK) of MANPADS/SAMs killing IAF assets vary according to type of aircraft and the type of AAW used. More often than not something will get through and then sheer numbers will tell. The more informed members of the forum will understand this perfectly. That's all.

And nukes are not lost assets. The Indians will not risk flying over Islamabad. You cannot counter ballistic misiles or Babur... And playing with that risk is a bit danerous cause it might end as MAD or even total world destruction..

Munir, this is full of crap and you know it. I am not going to respond.

Sams would probably love MKI cause with two huge engines and impressive big RCS it is something easy to hit. You do remember that IAF lost some planes on the border? All they could do in return is shoot down unarmed nacal prop training aircraft on the border...


IAF is not an arab force but still the text is way beyond realistic world.

Yes Munir, SAMS would love it-assuming those SAMS (not counting MANPADS) can a) Identify, Track, Engage MKI assets among the ordinance and aircraft from both sides covering the battlespace and b) even exist as a coherent fighting force after the first two days of conflict. The battlespace is not static.

I will give a detailed analysis as is my custom when you decide to post something intelligent.

 

[Munir]

No they havn't and I can say that from personal experience. If they had at this stage you may reliably see another Kargil-esque incursion.



Whatever are you talking about?



The year is 2008. Not 1968 or wherever you are. ODS revealed the absolute impotence of Iraqi forces in the face of a integrated system of interlinked assets with minimal sensor-shooter reaction times. In short it was a bloodbath and every military in the world with some cash is attempting to replicate what the Americans did as best they can.



Goes without saying.



You know, if everything was so rosy then why do air forces have to buy more than 1 of every aircraft? If you have a pair of eyes then of course you can see them. So can I.

If you even bothered to read and understand my last post then you wouldnt be posting crap like this. I'm going to say this again: the Indians can afford losing a couple of dozen aircraft including MKIs because they have calculated in order to achieve the standing objective they MUST lose a certain number X of aircraft to Y PAF aircraft. It's called attrition.

Second Point: Nothing works exactly as advertised. The probability (pK) of MANPADS/SAMs killing IAF assets vary according to type of aircraft and the type of AAW used. More often than not something will get through and then sheer numbers will tell. The more informed members of the forum will understand this perfectly. That's all.




Munir, this is full of crap and you know it. I am not going to respond.



Yes Munir, SAMS would love it-assuming those SAMS (not counting MANPADS) can a) Identify, Track, Engage MKI assets among the ordinance and aircraft from both sides covering the battlespace and b) even exist as a coherent fighting force after the first two days of conflict. The battlespace is not static.

I will give a detailed analysis as is my custom when you decide to post something intelligent.

unfortunaly you end with assumption that the other is not posting something intelligent... Not worth to reply...

 

[shehbazi2001]

Size of Fighters

Size has become a controversy here and I decided to shed some light on this issue.

F-14, F-15, Su-27, Su-30 all are/were heavy fighters. A heavy fighter has long range and greater endurance because it carries more fuel.

A heavy fighter can carry a large and powerful radar, not only in terms of increased size and weight but also in terms of supplying more power that is needed for operation of radar and cooling of electronics.

A heavy or medium weight fighter carries much more payload than light weight fighters. So heavy fighter has plus points on range,endurance,payload and radar.

Now come to flight performance like climb rate, diving, turn radius, turn rates and ceiling etc. Almost all dual-engine fighters have better performance than single-engined fighters because the total weight of dual-engine aircraft is less than the weight of two single-engine aircrafts and thrust-to-weight ratio is better. F-22, F-15, Su-27, Su-30, F-14, Mig-29, Eurofighter all have impressive flight performance.

Jaguar and Tornado are not heavy fighters but still have got two engines because the power supply to all actuators and avionics is cross-linked to both engines. If one engine fails, all avionics and flight controls shall still function. Obviously with one engine, the aircraft can continue flying and come back safely.

A smaller fighter is hard to detect by eyes and radar alike but in the presence of AWACS, this point is losing its importance.

Only with stealth technology can we avoid early detection, but stealth can be applied to heavy fighters too and no stealth fighter is of small size. All US stealth fighters are heavy weight or medium weight.

Another plus point of small fighters is that mostly they are cheap to aquire and operate.

In summary, no Air Force is made up of only heavy fighters. All good air forces are a mix of heavy and light fighters to combine all the advantages and use the aircrafts which are more suited to the mission.

 

[Nomi929]

i have given proof! and i am still waiting for yours? and as far as wikipedia goes it is a lot of rubbish which a lot of senior forum members will agree!

further i dont want to get into a slanging match with you. i know some senior PAF pilots (base commander level) who have confirmed jane's information. i will go further to say that what if i told you that PAF has access to JSOW-154!

Those darn f-16's - Sepia Mutiny

A Boost for the PAF and French Relevancy | The Insider Brief

 

[Keysersoze]

Right AM has already made this clear.....can all members refrain from personal slanging please. Final warning! I am going to give this thread a 24 hr break to allow people to cool off.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Please - don't just call someones points 'crap' or 'nonsense', when you can actually argue and illustrate how they are incorrect ( I have been guilty of dong the same from time to time, and I regret it each time after the fact).

Do I really have to spell this out?

We obviously have members who strongly believe in their opinions ...

 

[blain2]

Without BVRs, the air arm of Pakistan cant be called as Air Force. It may be called as Military Flying Club of Pakistan or Pakistan Flying Corps.

The main role and objective of an air force is to establish air superiority and for that purpose air superiority fighters are needed.

Its since 1970s that air superiority fighters carry BVR missiles for long range shots. But in 1980s, every air superiority fighter carried BVRs in addition to WVR missiles. Now in 2000s, it seems extremely difficult to establish air superiority without BVRs.

If Pakistan's air arm cant establish air superiority, even its existence as a separate force is in question. The tactics that PAF can devise against BVRs are useful for self-defence but air superiority is not all about self-defence, its more on offense.

The battlefields are always on the border areas, where you need to establish air superiority and its not all defensive only.

Pakistan does not have a single air superiority fighter at the moment. New F-16s may perform this role in future. In this era, Point defence fighters or Interceptors or Ground attack fighter bombers cant establish air superiority.

I would stress that Pakistan not only accelerate the acquisition of AMRAAMs but also acquire another BVR so that an invader's task of countermeasures is made complicated.

The integration of AMRAAMs should be a prime consideration for MLU of F-16s, so that AMRAAM equipped F-16s become available as soon as possible.

While not disagreeing with the overall gist of your posting, I think the following statement is one that I would slightly disagree with :

"The main role and objective of an air force is to establish air superiority and for that purpose air superiority fighters are needed."

Not every single Air Force can establish air superiority. For many Air Forces, the objective was/is "Denial" of air superiority to the other side while attaining temporary air superiority over theaters and that too for a period of time. This temporary ability allows other secondary roles like BAI and CAS to be performed in support of the ground forces. At least in the Indo-Pak case, PAF cannot maintain air superiority for the duration of the entire conflict. We have never had this luxury and we will not have it in the future either.

It is this denial capability that allows PAF, and indirectly PA, to be able to conduct operations and attain certain goals.

 

[Keysersoze]

Thread re-opened! Now be warned any bickering will be dealt with!

 

[Munir]

While not disagreeing with the overall gist of your posting, I think the following statement is one that I would slightly disagree with :

"The main role and objective of an air force is to establish air superiority and for that purpose air superiority fighters are needed."

Not every single Air Force can establish air superiority. For many Air Forces, the objective was/is "Denial" of air superiority to the other side while attaining temporary air superiority over theaters and that too for a period of time. This temporary ability allows other secondary roles like BAI and CAS to be performed in support of the ground forces. At least in the Indo-Pak case, PAF cannot maintain air superiority for the duration of the entire conflict. We have never had this luxury and we will not have it in the future either.

It is this denial capability that allows PAF, and indirectly PA, to be able to conduct operations and attain certain goals.

Yep, PAF will be happy to have certain sectors cleared so ground forces can execute attack. I doubt that PAF will first destroy IAF in western sectors first and then start groundwork. The war will be over i a few days and with nukes on both sides no one will wait till the other gets its airforce decimated.

 

[fatman17]

referring back to the thread topic i came across an article in AFM 2004 where PAF participated in Excercise Anatolian Eagle (Turkish version of Excercise Red Flag). i will concentrate on details of the PAF from this very detailed article:

the pakistan airforce (PAF) was taking part in its multi-national excercise for nearly 30 years.

the pakistan airforce paid a welcome visit to AE, returning to the multi-national excercise arena after an absence of 30 years. every morning mission included four F-16s and one of the two seat F-16Bs was also present, complete with a AN/ALQ-131 jamming pod. all the a/c and most of the pilots were from 9 Sqn "Griffins" based at Sargodha.

Air Battle:
all the a/c taking part are fitted with ACMI pods, enabling them to be tracked when they enter the ACMI range....the ability to train in all these roles gives some airforces - such as those of pakistan, jordan and UAE - the chance to become involved in sophisticated multi-national operations where they can pick up new working techniques...the AE command is also made aware of any restrictions the foreign nationals fly under: the PAF for example does not fly very often in IFR so it would have stayed on the ground, although in practice this seldom happens.

ANATOLIAN EAGLE 04/3 ATTENDEES:
PAF 9 SQN 6 X F-16 OCA-G BLUE FORCE KONYA.

Red and Blue Forces:

....unlike the turkish and US jets, the dutch a/c like the pakistani F-16s, do not have their integrated jammimg systems. these pods help the aircrews detect threats from the ground and can jam the frequencies on which the SAMs are operating in an effort to stop them being shot down.

....then it was the turn of four PAF F-16s (one F-16B and three F-16As). three of the PAF F-16s were equipped with AN/ALQ 131s, and during two missions witnessed by the author, the PAF equipped both F-16Bs with the jamming pod. clearly the PAF F-16Bs which have undergone an Operational Capability Upgrade, are more than merely trainers. they were equipped for the OCA-G role

SEAD:

....if the SAMs are tracking the a/c, and lock their missiles onto them, this can be detected by the ACMI system. the pilots then have to rely on their electronic warfare (EW) training to outwit the missile. some of the PAF and dutch F-16s were equipped with AN/ALQ 131 ECM kits on the center-line stations for this purpose. the level of threat from the SAMs was increased over the two weeks of the excercise in order to allow pilots fulfilling an OCA-G mission to progressively improve their practical skills.

PAKISTAN:

pakistan's appearence in a major multi-national excercise for the first time in nearly 30 years did not overwhelm its contingent which brought six F-16s (two F-16Bs and four F-16As). these being flown to konya via stops at masroor (near karachi), dhahran (saudi arabia), jyanklis (egypt). although the F-16s are capable of being refuelled by a tanker, the a/c's interior plumbing required attention and it was felt that it would be easier to "land-hop" than attempt to sort it out.
Pakistan's detachment comprised 14 pilots and 63 ground-crew from 9 "Griffin" Sqn, based at sargodha and led by its OC, Wg Cdr Jawad. he told the author: " analatolian eagle provided the PAF with a great chance to see how well they could operate with other air forces. four F-16s flew every day and despite our enforced absence from such excercises (due to sanctions) we found we were not out of place here. we knew our strengths and weaknesses before we arrived and we will go away happy with our performances".
two PAF pilots had the opportunity to lead 40 a/c mission packages into 'war' during the second week of the excercise. Sqn Ldr Ghazanfar Latif and Sqn Ldr Amir flew as mission ccommanders and according to personnel i spoke to they acquitted themselves well. fellow pilots and technicians found the PAF to be a thoroughly professional outfit, and always willing to learn.

....the PAF is likely to have enjoyed the chance to learn new anti-Beyond Visual Range (BVR) tactics (it does not deny or confirm whether it currently possess a BVR) as well as working with an AWACS which one assumes must have been a new experience to the PAF crews as the PAF does not possess such an aircraft.