See, that's the thing. I just don't agree with that. The JF-17 isn't heavy, nor advanced enough to counter the flankers, even if the PAF tried. They'd just be sent out to their deaths, nothing more. The only effective anti-flanker fleet that PAF has is the F-16s.
Tactics are all fine and well, but when the enemy can detect you before you even know they're even there, no amount of maneuvering will save you.
This is why the PAF is still buying F-16s, the Flankers are just too advanced, same thing with the Rafales.
As for the Fulcrums, the JF-17 can deter it, but it currently won't stand much of a chance in the long term.
With advanced fighters such as the flankers and, perhaps soon, the Rafales, India no longer has to rely on the zerg-rush strategy to overwhelm enemy forces with sheer numbers. Also, I don't know why you added the US, as they don't rely on mainly using numbers to fight their wars, they rely on tech and logistics to do so.
I disagree with the "heavy" or "light" assertion in this argument. Aircraft need not be light or heavy to be a threat... the ACEVAL/AIMVAL evaluations showed that light aircraft will continue to remain a pertinent threat as long as an effective level of situation awareness is maintained.
This mentality of JF-17 vs x or F-16 vs x has to be ditched in the context of modern aerial warfare. Its never a singular system engaging but an entire network in these times that ensures that pilots get the best picture possible. Whether the enemy detects you first or not, what is important is whether you know he is there via other offboard sensors such as AEW and radar coverage. Once that information is there, what matters is your tactics in avoiding their weapons engagement envelope and ensuring that yours achieves its envelope first.
The question is less of which aircraft will match what..since the radar systems on the JF-17 are comparable to the newer APG-68 in terms of air to air capability, hence if you are expecting the JF-17 to fail at deterrence.. so will the F-16.
Yes,the IAF is now moving to a thoroughly modern force and the days of zerg rush are over. Even then they relied on very smart tactics of embedded escorts and decoy attack profiles. Yet, at the same time it still has to face a force that is also being equipped for modern warfare. The PAF has little chance of survival and the days of yesterlore of having favourable kill ratios are long gone.
Today the IAF is clearly poised to perhaps end up be in the top 5 most advanced aerial warfare units in the world. But there is still a long way to go for this. The MKI as potent a fighter it is, is not the juggernaut it is made out to be by either side's fanboys. More so than the PAF, the IAF is aware of its limitations.. people think the thrust vectoring and advanced aerodynamics make it an excellent dogfighter..but that is essentially only so when the fighter is not fully loaded with fuel and weapons, fill it up and hang only air to air weapons off it..and its handling will rival that of the F-4(but that is not how its deployed operationally). Its advantage are its fantastic avionics, which in the end still depend on interlinking with others and data fusion from off board sensors to be effective.
It is the driving force behind the IAF's need to go net centric which allows it to fully exploit the MKI's considerable abilities.
That also ends up being the same imperative for the PAF, its network is undergoing upgrades so that it can fully exploit the assets under its disposal. It is not whether the JF-17 will not be able to match the MKI or not, but whether the combination of assets deployed within that battlespace will be able to deter the IAF from meeting its objectives.
What matters is the ability to prevent the enemy from meetings its objectives from day-1. This will mean losses especially to the defending side.
However, this scenario focuses a lot more on the idea of total war. Considering the completely vague nature of the nuclear threshold within Pakistan's doctrine, any major conflict is off the table for good. What is possible are surgical strikes and counter strikes that lead to a cool down. There the idea of overwhelming numbers or otherwise does not rest with one side, but rather those that are able to get their assets to the battlespace on time quicker. With Both air forces having air bases literally minutes of flight time from each other.. it is easily possible that the IAF may be facing an equal or larger PAF force in its offensive operations.
