f 16 and AGM 84

[Paksanity]

Why not F-18 ?

F-18 has shorter range. It isn't optimised for air combat either. My vote will be for F-15E. I think it is much suited for the role. If we can get it that is! And afford too....*sigh*

Something like this would be fine...

 

[Hell hound]

Why not F-18 ?

because we already have f 16 block 52 adding more jet will be cost effective and will need less training time while f 18 have same issues as su 35.we will have to incur cost regarding new infrastructure, supply chain, spares and training.

Newer Block 52+ have codes too, do you want to take that chance?

same will be the case with su 35 what makes you so sure that Russian wont do it

 

[majid mehmood]

guys
su 35 is better option for paf
f16 is price at 30 million dollar while su 35 is price between 50-60 million dollar which means 2 f16 cost 1 su 35 while su 35 offers unprecedented capabilities
su 35
have a pesa radar with range 450 km per 5m2 which means can detect mig 29 or mirage 2000 around range of 250-350 km while su 30 at 500 km
its range is awesome
missile capabilties are alot better than f 16
the best aerodynamic figther
can achieve supersonic speed without afterburner
it rcs 2-3 m2 almost similar to f16 which have 1.2 m2
one of the best jammer
its operating cost $14000 per hour while f16 is $6000
so if u compare then su 35 is best plane in all aspects

 

[Humble Analyst]

because we already have f 16 block 52 adding more jet will be cost effective and will need less training time while f 18 have same issues as su 35.we will have to incur cost regarding new infrastructure, supply chain, spares and training.


same will be the case with su 35 what makes you so sure that Russian wont do it

Well my understanding is Russian controls are less rigid but everything is subject to change.

because we already have f 16 block 52 adding more jet will be cost effective and will need less training time while f 18 have same issues as su 35.we will have to incur cost regarding new infrastructure, supply chain, spares and training.


same will be the case with su 35 what makes you so sure that Russian wont do it

The dynamics in the area and between countries are changing drastically. Russia has a lot more interests in Pakistan.

 

[Hell hound]

Well my understanding is Russian controls are less rigid but everything is subject to change.


The dynamics in the area and between countries are changing drastically. Russia has a lot more interests in Pakistan.

but still we cant ignore the fact that India is the biggest arm importer on planet and Russia is his number 1 supplier.they may sell us their weapon system but what guarantee there is that they wont put codes or block our spares in the case of war with India or give them sensitive information regarding their system.money talks bro and in our case our to be supplier is broke and our enemy has 7 times more money then we have.
so if and i am saying again if super powers want to screw us in war time we will be screwed no matter we buy Russian jet or american jet (but latter are cheaper to operate due to reason explained before) and if that day come only thing that will stand between our survival as nation and our nations total annihilation will be our nukes(unless we become totally self sufficient).so for this reason keep minimum possible deterrence, save money and invest in R&D.

 

[MastanKhan]

View attachment 268107
for past few months there have been many reports of Pakistan interest in su 35 for its anti ship role and many pdf members here are also supporting the purchase but i am unable to understand that why are we procuring and totally new jet and not using f 16 with harpoons for anti ship role. we know this platform inside out have spares and supply chain for it and we also have harpoons in our inventory. instead of purchasing new block harpoons and f 16 why are we going for Russian jet which will be extremely expensive considering support infrastructure and training cost of new jet.
if your argument is range then new block 52 with cft and drop tanks can provide enough range.
@Windjammer @Oscar @MastanKhan @Indus Falcon @gambit pls kindly enlighten us with your views on this matter.regards

Hi,

Thank your for your post. I am not in favor of SU35 for naval strike missions-----but for air superiority.

My choice for a naval strike platform is the Chinese JH7B----. It is due to its larger weight carrying capacity---dual seater----twin engine---with refueling---a longer strike radius than the SU35 or the J11D. It will have the aesa radar---a growler capability with the jammers----and also can be loaded up with the BVR missiles as well as the wvr---or any other mission specific capabilities.

It is the Chinese version of the F111 minus the swing wings-----.

We have generations more advanced AShM missiles than the Harpoon----. The harpoon is around 100 + km range----the C802 around150+ and CM400 around 250 km range----.

" the JH-7B, compared to the A, aside from the minor stealth improvements, also comes with new engines that are much more reliable and feature a boost of 15-20% (at peak) thrust without affecting the aerodynamics or weight significantly, which was a much needed improvement, a much improved avionics package, targeting computers/systems and mission computers and real time battle update equipment, active phased radar array, much more extensive use of lightweight, high strength composites and alloys in the frame, a full authority fly by wire system, adding the ability for a second hard point under the fuselage for a total of 10, improvements to the safety of aerial refueling, and, oddly enough, supposedly the ability to replace the 23x115mm Gast gun with a 30x165mm gun for certain missions ".

The PLAAF and Airborne: a look at the past, present, and the future. - Aerospace - Invision Power Board

 

[Humble Analyst]

but still we cant ignore the fact that India is the biggest arm importer on planet and Russia is his number 1 supplier.they may sell us their weapon system but what guarantee there is that they wont put codes or block our spares in the case of war with India or give them sensitive information regarding their system.money talks bro and in our case our to be supplier is broke and our enemy has 7 times more money then we have.
so if and i am saying again if super powers want to screw us in war time we will be screwed no matter we buy Russian jet or american jet (but latter are cheaper to operate due to reason explained before) and if that day come only thing that will stand between our survival as nation and our nations total annihilation will be our nukes(unless we become totally self sufficient).so for this reason keep minimum possible deterrence, save money and invest in R&D.

In that case Pakistan should get Chines planes.

 

[shah1398]

We are not casting any doubt on the capabilities of F-16s but the fact is that F-16 can not play the role of long range/long endurance fighter which is offered by the twin engine SU-35. Also in wake of any embargo by US we would not to worry that much in presence of SU35s.

 

[Hell hound]

Hi,

Thank your for your post. I am not in favor of SU35 for naval strike missions-----but for air superiority.

My choice for a naval strike platform is the Chinese JH7B----. It is due to its larger weight carrying capacity---dual seater----twin engine---with refueling---a longer strike radius than the SU35 or the J11D. It will have the aesa radar---a growler capability with the jammers----and also can be loaded up with the BVR missiles as well as the wvr---or any other mission specific capabilities.

It is the Chinese version of the F111 minus the swing wings-----.

We have generations more advanced AShM missiles than the Harpoon----. The harpoon is around 100 + km range----the C802 around150+ and CM400 around 250 km range----.

View attachment 268329

" the JH-7B, compared to the A, aside from the minor stealth improvements, also comes with new engines that are much more reliable and feature a boost of 15-20% (at peak) thrust without affecting the aerodynamics or weight significantly, which was a much needed improvement, a much improved avionics package, targeting computers/systems and mission computers and real time battle update equipment, active phased radar array, much more extensive use of lightweight, high strength composites and alloys in the frame, a full authority fly by wire system, adding the ability for a second hard point under the fuselage for a total of 10, improvements to the safety of aerial refueling, and, oddly enough, supposedly the ability to replace the 23x115mm Gast gun with a 30x165mm gun for certain missions ".

The PLAAF and Airborne: a look at the past, present, and the future. - Aerospace - Invision Power Board

sir jh 7b is a good option if it perform as advertised.but as of know we don't know about it performance as it is not in production phase all we have are promises we can evaluate it when it is available. while f 16 is readily available all we need to do is get few more and new harpoon block has great eccm capabilities which is much needed by missile to operate in today's dense ecm environment. most importantly we don't need to invest in a new platform.and as far as range is concerned it can be overcome by using cft and drop tanks

 

[Indus Falcon]

Hi,

Thank your for your post. I am not in favor of SU35 for naval strike missions-----but for air superiority.

My choice for a naval strike platform is the Chinese JH7B----. It is due to its larger weight carrying capacity---dual seater----twin engine---with refueling---a longer strike radius than the SU35 or the J11D. It will have the aesa radar---a growler capability with the jammers----and also can be loaded up with the BVR missiles as well as the wvr---or any other mission specific capabilities.

It is the Chinese version of the F111 minus the swing wings-----.

We have generations more advanced AShM missiles than the Harpoon----. The harpoon is around 100 + km range----the C802 around150+ and CM400 around 250 km range----.

View attachment 268329

" the JH-7B, compared to the A, aside from the minor stealth improvements, also comes with new engines that are much more reliable and feature a boost of 15-20% (at peak) thrust without affecting the aerodynamics or weight significantly, which was a much needed improvement, a much improved avionics package, targeting computers/systems and mission computers and real time battle update equipment, active phased radar array, much more extensive use of lightweight, high strength composites and alloys in the frame, a full authority fly by wire system, adding the ability for a second hard point under the fuselage for a total of 10, improvements to the safety of aerial refueling, and, oddly enough, supposedly the ability to replace the 23x115mm Gast gun with a 30x165mm gun for certain missions ".

The PLAAF and Airborne: a look at the past, present, and the future. - Aerospace - Invision Power Board

This has been floating on the web for quite some years:

But in reality this popped up more than a year ago, indicating a PESA or AESA radar, higher thrust engine, higher payload wings and IFR.

Secondly and most importantly, it has been my observation, that Europeans & Chinese, plus maybe some other countries, declare the range of a missile when fired at sea level, which is usually 40% ~ 60% less when compared to their range at 30,000ft ~ 40,000ft. Reason being MTCR.

@khafee since you were involved in procurement, can you shed more light on this?

 

[MastanKhan]

This has been floating on the web for quite some years:
View attachment 268541
View attachment 268542 View attachment 268543 View attachment 268544

But in reality this popped up more than a year ago, indicating a PESA or AESA radar, higher thrust engine, higher payload wings and IFR.

View attachment 268540

Secondly and most importantly, it has been my observation, that Europeans & Chinese, plus maybe some other countries, declare the range of a missile when fired at sea level, which is usually 40% ~ 60% less when compared to their range at 30,000ft ~ 40,000ft. Reason being MTCR.

@khafee since you were involved in procurement, can you shed more light on this?

Hi,

That streamlined design was to sort of throw away the snooping eyes. In the end they found out that a fewer modifications can give a bigger bang for the buck.

The biggest investment now is in the electronic warfare package---radar---jammers and other related sensors.

No one wants to talk about the Growler type capability of this aircraft---which is extremely important when leading the strike missions or protecting your assets in your ocean.

 

[untitled]

@MastanKhan

The only problem I have with the JH-7 is its lack of manoeuvrability. In a real war it is more than likely to be intercepted by the enemy on its way to the target. Once intercepted it will have two options after dumping its air to mud ordnance. 1) Make its way back to base on full after burner and hopefully avoid being shot down 2) Give the interceptors a fight.

In option two it can throw its bvrs at the enemy and if the surviving interceptors come too close then it then they will have kind of a turkey shoot with the JH-7. Plus take in to account that the JH-7 that will also be downed by surface to air defences of ships and land targets.

You often say that the Chinese will deploy this aircraft against American naval task groups. But they are also most likely to be escorted by long range fighters in such missions.

That is why if Pakistan needs to invest in a long range, long loiter time and large payload capacity aircraft then it should also have air to air capability.


-----------------------

On the other hand if we can secure enough JH-7s in sufficient numbers that even large losses are bearable than it will have served its purpose

 

[MastanKhan]

@MastanKhan

The only problem I have with the JH-7 is its lack of manoeuvrability. In a real war it is more than likely to be intercepted by the enemy on its way to the target. Once intercepted it will have two options after dumping its air to mud ordnance. 1) Make its way back to base on full after burner and hopefully avoid being shot down 2) Give the interceptors a fight.

In option two it can throw its bvrs at the enemy and if the surviving interceptors come too close then it then they will have kind of a turkey shoot with the JH-7. Plus take in to account that the JH-7 that will also be downed by surface to air defences of ships and land targets.

You often say that the Chinese will deploy this aircraft against American naval task groups. But they are also most likely to be escorted by long range fighters in such missions.

That is why if Pakistan needs to invest in a long range, long loiter time and large payload capacity aircraft then it should also have air to air capability.


-----------------------

On the other hand if we can secure enough JH-7s in sufficient numbers that even large losses are bearable than it will have served its purpose

Hi,

Thank you for your post---. My ideal number for the JH7B's would be 80 aircraft----.

I do not want to get into the tactical part of it----but if it can draw out a large number of aircraft over the ocean---then we have lesser number of enemy aircraft directed for land missions.

You have to look at the india Pakistan map again in distance-----Gwadar / pasni to Mumbai region----. By the time this aircraft is detected----it has a very good chance of sneaking thru and getting in range of the ground targets.

Secondly---the arsenal that it carries---and the range that it has----would keep the enemy naval flotilla way way out in the ocean. With air to air refueling---this aircraft has a range of 2000 miles radius.

When you look at the scenario----you need to have the distance calculator at hand as well to give you a better picture of the combat area.

JH7B is not the only aircraft needed---but also a J11D type aircraft as well.

Regardless of what happens----you have to be able to strike the Maharashtra coastline line. @silent hawk posted a scenario in one of these threads----.

If you think a mirage 3 or a jf 17 can sneak thru---the JH7B is much more capable than these two----not as capable as the F111---but very very close to that aircraft due to its electronics package.

 

[silent hawk]

Hi,

Thank you for your post---. My ideal number for the JH7B's would be 80 aircraft----.

I do not want to get into the tactical part of it----but if it can draw out a large number of aircraft over the ocean---then we have lesser number of enemy aircraft directed for land missions.

You have to look at the india Pakistan map again in distance-----Gwadar / pasni to Mumbai region----. By the time this aircraft is detected----it has a very good chance of sneaking thru and getting in range of the ground targets.

Secondly---the arsenal that it carries---and the range that it has----would keep the enemy naval flotilla way way out in the ocean. With air to air refueling---this aircraft has a range of 2000 miles radius.

When you look at the scenario----you need to have the distance calculator at hand as well to give you a better picture of the combat area.

JH7B is not the only aircraft needed---but also a J11D type aircraft as well.

Regardless of what happens----you have to be able to strike the Maharashtra coastline line. @silent hawk posted a scenario in one of these threads----.

If you think a mirage 3 or a jf 17 can sneak thru---the JH7B is much more capable than these two----not as capable as the F111---but very very close to that aircraft due to its electronics package.

AoA
Had discussions regarding comparison between JH-7B and Su-35 with a member in another thread.

The Su-35 with air to air refueling can match the distance of the JH-7B but not the load.
Su-35 however can defend itself and be used in multiple roles.
Considering financial restraints what should be the way forward?

Regards

 

[Humble Analyst]

@MastanKhan

The only problem I have with the JH-7 is its lack of manoeuvrability. In a real war it is more than likely to be intercepted by the enemy on its way to the target. Once intercepted it will have two options after dumping its air to mud ordnance. 1) Make its way back to base on full after burner and hopefully avoid being shot down 2) Give the interceptors a fight.

In option two it can throw its bvrs at the enemy and if the surviving interceptors come too close then it then they will have kind of a turkey shoot with the JH-7. Plus take in to account that the JH-7 that will also be downed by surface to air defences of ships and land targets.

You often say that the Chinese will deploy this aircraft against American naval task groups. But they are also most likely to be escorted by long range fighters in such missions.

That is why if Pakistan needs to invest in a long range, long loiter time and large payload capacity aircraft then it should also have air to air capability.


-----------------------

On the other hand if we can secure enough JH-7s in sufficient numbers that even large losses are bearable than it will have served its purpose

Or add Escorts (Air superiority types), so Karachi and near Gawadar base each should have 1 squadron each of the type (JH7B and Air Superiority) same as on Eastern Fronts so in all will need 8 squadrons (4 each type) minimum. Is it wishful thinking maybe but that is what is required. There should be a plan not only how to counter an attack but how to attack in order to prevent an attack by stand off weapons, SEAD, close and tactical air support, denial of tactical air support, protection of coast lines, air defenses, naval assets, shipping lanes and waters protection. It is a tall order and requires more than what we have. So let us stop the corruption, clean our system, cities/ country and if corruption stops we can have it all health, education, defense and self esteem.