It is time for Navy Air Arm to take over from PAF and start flying JF-17's

[Tank131]

Well, I am not going to argue with you on opinions. I still think the aircraft is shit and PAF will not touch it with a 10ft pole thank goodness

I would diasagree with your assessment of the aircraft. I think you are only thinking in terms of it as an air defense and air superiority fighter. If that is the case, then yes, in close range it is likely dreck, but an air superiority fighter it is not It is a strike fighter, and it isa good one at that. While not super maneuverable, it is agile enough and it carries nearly as much ordinance as the Su-30, but with a better combat radius. It has 9 hard points (granted it could have more) and can carry a good amount of firepower. If you can imagine, this aircraft could carry 3 fuel tanks, 2 sd-10, and 4 A2G or 4 AShMs. If the radar is changed out from JL-10a for something like that on J-11D then PAF will have a formidable strike fighter on their hands.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

IMHO there is nothing called self-escord particularly in naval strike, as the munitions are so big that the aircraft cannot effectively do a2a. So at best, whether a FLANKER or a JH-7A, can defend itself, after launch, which isn't particularly useful.

Further, the heavy loads of an AShM or similar munitions would not only reduce maneuver but also range due to drag and decreased aerodynamic performance.

This means, whether a H-6 or a JH-7A or a Flanker is used to strike, would have little relevance to self-escort, except for higher speed and lower detection ranges.

But countries like Pakistan (and also my home country Bangladesh) cannot go for an aircraft like the JH-7A because they need to be escorted, and no meaningful escorts are available (perhaps for Pakistan F-16s can).

Which brings us to the problem that PAF is unlikely to be able to pay much attention to PN in case of a conflict. Which is what we saw in 1971 and Kargil. It will be too busy defending itself.

But naval strike and air defense is VITAL for a navy, particularly in the Pak-India scenario.

This means that PN needs its own fighters, even if they are trained and maintained by the PAF. Under PN control such aircraft would serve PN needs during war. This is something the PN is known to have been lobbying for.

BUT

What aircraft? The best aircraft available is the Su-35 which would be a major boost for PN and would seriously challenge the IN even with its aircraft carrier. Carrier operations would in fact become very hazardous with PN Su-35 flankers flying about. In effect significantly degrading IN capabilities and ability to project power.

BUT

Su-35 doesn't seem to be a choice available to the PN, either due to geopolitics or due to costs. Or both. While Chinese Flankers are not for export.

SO

The PN is stuck with looking for a heavy fighter with no real prospects. J-20 would be outside the budget (but even a few of those would turn the tables against IN). J-10s are a possible choice but sub optimal as they are medium platforms, not the heavy platform needed for the maritime role.

Project Azm, although most likely to result in a failed project and used by the F-16 Mafia / western boot lickers to sabotage local production, could in theory provide an ideal platform for PN.

Personally I feel though that a simplified J-20 would play this role better than any other aircraft. Ask china to produce a cheaper version for PN. Or negotiate with Putin for the Su-35.

 

[MastanKhan]

IMHO there is nothing called self-escord particularly in naval strike, as the munitions are so big that the aircraft cannot effectively do a2a. So at best, whether a FLANKER or a JH-7A, can defend itself, after launch, which isn't particularly useful.

Further, the heavy loads of an AShM or similar munitions would not only reduce maneuver but also range due to drag and decreased aerodynamic performance.

This means, whether a H-6 or a JH-7A or a Flanker is used to strike, would have little relevance to self-escort, except for higher speed and lower detection ranges.

But countries like Pakistan (and also my home country Bangladesh) cannot go for an aircraft like the JH-7A because they need to be escorted, and no meaningful escorts are available (perhaps for Pakistan F-16s can).

Which brings us to the problem that PAF is unlikely to be able to pay much attention to PN in case of a conflict. Which is what we saw in 1971 and Kargil. It will be too busy defending itself.

But naval strike and air defense is VITAL for a navy, particularly in the Pak-India scenario.

This means that PN needs its own fighters, even if they are trained and maintained by the PAF. Under PN control such aircraft would serve PN needs during war. This is something the PN is known to have been lobbying for.

BUT

What aircraft? The best aircraft available is the Su-35 which would be a major boost for PN and would seriously challenge the IN even with its aircraft carrier. Carrier operations would in fact become very hazardous with PN Su-35 flankers flying about. In effect significantly degrading IN capabilities and ability to project power.

BUT

Su-35 doesn't seem to be a choice available to the PN, either due to geopolitics or due to costs. Or both. While Chinese Flankers are not for export.

SO

The PN is stuck with looking for a heavy fighter with no real prospects. J-20 would be outside the budget (but even a few of those would turn the tables against IN). J-10s are a possible choice but sub optimal as they are medium platforms, not the heavy platform needed for the maritime role.

Project Azm, although most likely to result in a failed project and used by the F-16 Mafia / western boot lickers to sabotage local production, could in theory provide an ideal platform for PN.

Personally I feel though that a simplified J-20 would play this role better than any other aircraft. Ask china to produce a cheaper version for PN. Or negotiate with Putin for the Su-35.

Hi,

Your post shows that you are not familiar about the design of the JH7 and what its purpose was / is---.

Other than the F111----there is no other aircraft in the industry that has the wing design to fly low.

And F111 was the most feared aircraft by the russians---.

The J11 / 15 /16---the SU33 /35/30 cannot compete with the low flight capability of this aircraft---. None of these aircraft have the wing design needed for low flight----skimming above the waves---.

And at 15-20 million a pop---nothing beats it.

Young fools over here argue about the G factor---and lack of protection by missiles---.

For protection---you have ECM's---jammers---planning---.

You have to know---if the aircraft flies 300 feet above the waves---how close the radar has to be to locate the aircraft---.

If an awac has to detect it---how high does the enemy awac flies and how far it needs to be to detect this aircraft---.

If you kids have the ability to calculate the numbers for a JH7 flying from Pasni---goes straight down 250 miles---then makes a quick left turn----you will find out that it would be next to impossible for the enemy to detect the incursion of this aircraft till the aircraft is within strike distance of its target.

For you kids---the talk is cheap---@Khafee did a route map of the strike one time---you need to look it up---.

 

[ziaulislam]

IMHO there is nothing called self-escord particularly in naval strike, as the munitions are so big that the aircraft cannot effectively do a2a. So at best, whether a FLANKER or a JH-7A, can defend itself, after launch, which isn't particularly useful.

Further, the heavy loads of an AShM or similar munitions would not only reduce maneuver but also range due to drag and decreased aerodynamic performance.

This means, whether a H-6 or a JH-7A or a Flanker is used to strike, would have little relevance to self-escort, except for higher speed and lower detection ranges.

But countries like Pakistan (and also my home country Bangladesh) cannot go for an aircraft like the JH-7A because they need to be escorted, and no meaningful escorts are available (perhaps for Pakistan F-16s can).

Which brings us to the problem that PAF is unlikely to be able to pay much attention to PN in case of a conflict. Which is what we saw in 1971 and Kargil. It will be too busy defending itself.

But naval strike and air defense is VITAL for a navy, particularly in the Pak-India scenario.

This means that PN needs its own fighters, even if they are trained and maintained by the PAF. Under PN control such aircraft would serve PN needs during war. This is something the PN is known to have been lobbying for.

BUT

What aircraft? The best aircraft available is the Su-35 which would be a major boost for PN and would seriously challenge the IN even with its aircraft carrier. Carrier operations would in fact become very hazardous with PN Su-35 flankers flying about. In effect significantly degrading IN capabilities and ability to project power.

BUT

Su-35 doesn't seem to be a choice available to the PN, either due to geopolitics or due to costs. Or both. While Chinese Flankers are not for export.

SO

The PN is stuck with looking for a heavy fighter with no real prospects. J-20 would be outside the budget (but even a few of those would turn the tables against IN). J-10s are a possible choice but sub optimal as they are medium platforms, not the heavy platform needed for the maritime role.

Project Azm, although most likely to result in a failed project and used by the F-16 Mafia / western boot lickers to sabotage local production, could in theory provide an ideal platform for PN.

Personally I feel though that a simplified J-20 would play this role better than any other aircraft. Ask china to produce a cheaper version for PN. Or negotiate with Putin for the Su-35.

you need to understand reason for 1971 wasnt unavailability of PAF but unavailability of detection system till it was too late, secondly Pakistan was outnumbered far more than what it is today especially on eastern front

PN needs to get assests upgraded to early detection and PAF would need to back it up with its assets, each thunder can easily perform a 2X2X2X1 configuration with stand off range of 250KMs, so as soon as its up from Karachi, it can let go its arsenal for any threatening vessel way before it even reaches Pakistani waters, IF IT CAN BE DETECTED AND TRACED VIA LONG RANGE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS

i would take a jf-17 self escorted in above configuration rather than expensive JH-7, the long range detection will be possible with AWECS(400+ range for detection)

what PN and PAF need is excercises for strong co ordination, and what PAF needs is support from PN and pak army to expand its fleet rather than duplication of same arsenal, this will decrease cost..we have chief of joint staff for same reason which for example isnt a post in india where you see an odd duplication of same system which will mean more cost..something depsite what people say we cannot afford

look at bengaldesh with almost same econmy as us and than us and compare our arsenal

 

[MastanKhan]

you need to understand reason for 1971 wasnt unavailability of PAF but unavailability of detection system till it was too late, secondly Pakistan was outnumbered far more than what it is today especially on eastern front

PN needs to get assests upgraded to early detection and PAF would need to back it up with its assets, each thunder can easily perform a 2X2X2X1 configuration with stand off range of 250KMs, so as soon as its up from Karachi, it can let go its arsenal for any threatening vessel way before it even reaches Pakistani waters, IF IT CAN BE DETECTED AND TRACED VIA LONG RANGE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS

i would take a jf-17 self escorted in above configuration rather than expensive JH-7, the long range detection will be possible with AWECS(400+ range for detection)

what PN and PAF need is excercises for strong co ordination, and what PAF needs is support from PN and pak army to expand its fleet rather than duplication of same arsenal, this will decrease cost..we have chief of joint staff for same reason which for example isnt a post in india where you see an odd duplication of same system which will mean more cost..something depsite what people say we cannot afford

look at bengaldesh with almost same econmy as us and than us and compare our arsenal

Hi,

Don't wing it---.

1971 happened because Paf refused to re-act when the PIA pilot gave the information about the in coming missile boats being towed behind a frigate / destroyer.

Air Chief Marshall A Rahim is known to have stated on record---" Let the navy take care of its problems "---.

As soon as it is up from karachi and can shoot at 250 kn range---at that range the enemy can destroy the land assets in karachi as well---.

The aircraft needs to be at 200 miles out and keep the enemy 450 miles away---.

Nobody teaches you kids any common sense---.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Why would you want to attack the enemy ships 450-500 miles away from your soil---because if your mission fails the first time---you still have the time to send a secondary batch of aircraft after the enemy---.

But if you have the enemy already in the 250 Km zone---your battle is already lost---.

You launch the AShM and the enemy launches a volley its ASM---and land assets are toast---.

You can never allow the enemy to get so close to your soil---from the sea---.

With so much discussion going about aircraft---the kids should have realized by now that each aircraft design has a function of its own---the nose---the fuselage---the tail---the wings---the design of the wings in case of the F111 / JH7 / Tornado---the location of the wings---the location of the engine in case of the A10---and so many other things that go into designing the frame for it to perform the way it is designed to.

Most aircraft are multi mission capable---but three of them are very unique for their very low flight capability---th F111---the Tornado---and the JH7---these aircraft are designed for stable flight while skimming the waves---and the designs of the last two are based on the best of the all---the F111.

 

[syed_yusuf]

Jh7 is not a swing wing fighter , I am not too sure it is based or ideas from f111

 

[ziaulislam]

Hi,

Don't wing it---.

1971 happened because Paf refused to re-act when the PIA pilot gave the information about the in coming missile boats being towed behind a frigate / destroyer.

Air Chief Marshall A Rahim is known to have stated on record---" Let the navy take care of its problems "---.

As soon as it is up from karachi and can shoot at 250 kn range---at that range the enemy can destroy the land assets in karachi as well---.

The aircraft needs to be at 200 miles out and keep the enemy 450 miles away---.

Nobody teaches you kids any common sense---.

sir you are my elder, so i cant disagree with you

but 1971 PAF didnt even have decent anti ship missiles, even Exocet acquired later had range of less than 40kms

how can it hit land assest from that far..? cruise missiles?, that can be fired from indian rajastan at 250km, they dont need to fire from sea


key would be detection, you need strength navy surveillance for that with orions, AWECS, and another plateform for subs, followed by reaction for which stand off weapons and thunders are effective

 

[Ultima Thule]

Jh7 is not a swing wing fighter , I am not too sure it is based or ideas from f111

yes it was bro it was design based/principles on F-111/Tornado/ Su-24

key would be detection, you need strength navy surveillance for that with orions, AWECS, and another plateform for subs, followed by reaction for which stand off weapons and thunders are effective

But sir with 2 C-802 2 BVR, 2 SRAAM thunder has much less range, and also sir enemy ships launching its own LACM with better range earlier than thunder so @MastanKhan is on the spot, we need dedicated maritime jet like JH-7/F-18 or Su-32 type jet with range of 4500+ km think logically @ziaulislam

 

[ziaulislam]

yes it was bro it was design based/principles on F-111/Tornado/ Su-24

But sir with 2 C-802 2 BVR, 2 SRAAM thunder has much less range, and also sir enemy ships launching its own LACM with better range earlier than thunder so @MastanKhan is on the spot, we need dedicated maritime jet like JH-7/F-18 or Su-32 type jet with range of 4500+ km think logically @ziaulislam

it should be able to protect your maritime exclusive zone which means 300km from shore(this is still international waters, your actual boarder is 30 -40 miles it think)...this idea that ship will launch cruise missile form 500km is absurd because india can launch cruise missiles from its boarders why bother a ship, besides india doesn't has any such missle in first place in its inventory!!

i support jh-7, j11 and all sort of planes but can you afford it..as of now we cant even afford the jf-17, its been produced with loans, you are going to IMF again in 2018....
now dont tell me about corruption adn bring money from outside, as jiyalas and matwalas is the will of the people

 

[MastanKhan]

sir you are my elder, so i cant disagree with you

but 1971 PAF didnt even have decent anti ship missiles, even Exocet acquired later had range of less than 40kms

how can it hit land assest from that far..? cruise missiles?, that can be fired from indian rajastan at 250km, they dont need to fire from sea


key would be detection, you need strength navy surveillance for that with orions, AWECS, and another plateform for subs, followed by reaction for which stand off weapons and thunders are effective

Hi,

In 1971---the missile boats being towed by the indian frigate / destroyer came within 40 miles of karachi to launch their missile---.

You did not need anti ship missiles at that time---a nice couple of straffing runs by the mriage could have done the job---.

The straffing run that the Paf mirages did on the pakistan navy frigate---a similar attack was all that was needed to.

There were no shoulder launched missiles on those missile boats and neither did they have ship to air missile against aircraft.

My God---I have to teach everything---. It is called the unpredictability of the strike---where it is coming from---when is coming from---what are we going to do. The strike coming from land is predictanle---but from the ocean---who knows

Strikes from the ocean are the deadliest and the most unpredictable---because you cannot predict the ANGLE of ATTACK.

Have you ever heard the term---" strike the enemy in the flanks "---any concept what that means---.

 

[SipahSalar]

Hi,

Why would you want to attack the enemy ships 450-500 miles away from your soil---because if your mission fails the first time---you still have the time to send a secondary batch of aircraft after the enemy---.

But if you have the enemy already in the 250 Km zone---your battle is already lost---.

You launch the AShM and the enemy launches a volley its ASM---and land assets are toast---.

You can never allow the enemy to get so close to your soil---from the sea---.

With so much discussion going about aircraft---the kids should have realized by now that each aircraft design has a function of its own---the nose---the fuselage---the tail---the wings---the design of the wings in case of the F111 / JH7 / Tornado---the location of the wings---the location of the engine in case of the A10---and so many other things that go into designing the frame for it to perform the way it is designed to.

Most aircraft are multi mission capable---but three of them are very unique for their very low flight capability---th F111---the Tornado---and the JH7---these aircraft are designed for stable flight while skimming the waves---and the designs of the last two are based on the best of the all---the F111.

You are definitely over-rating the JH7's importance to Pakistan. With our limited resources I don't think we can invest in a dedicated strike platform. With training, JF-17's too can perform low altitude flights, its not an other-worldly task. Low altitude strike missions are part of training for any airforce worth its salt, because the same tactics are used over land when you need to avoid land based radars. Airforces the world over train their pilots for these missions.
JF-17s won't be as easy to control as the JH7 at low altitudes, but they can certainly do it and with a smaller RCS than JH7, they'll do it better and more safely.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

Well, I am from Bangladesh but I thought I would just add a bit more anyways. I think before planning defense against IN ships, one has to consider the IN and IAF air component as well, who will be bringing in Brahmos and other such missiles. Air defense is most critical and the white elephant in the room.

JF-17s do not have meaningful operational range for meaningful air defense out in the maritime environment. One needs something like the Su-35.

Without meaningful air defense, your strike aircraft, ships, ports, etc will all be in imminent danger. Does PN have any AAW frigates? Didn't find any. Any medium sams on ships? I am sure these must be there just I don't know about it.

Just a thought - British Tornadoes / German ones are being retired. One could in theory use these as they would be ideal platforms for for air defense and strike out at sea. Would potentially be cost effective as well.

 

[ziaulislam]

You are definitely over-rating the JH7's importance to Pakistan. With our limited resources I don't think we can invest in a dedicated strike platform. With training, JF-17's too can perform low altitude flights, its not an other-worldly task. Low altitude strike missions are part of training for any airforce worth its salt, because the same tactics are used over land when you need to avoid land based radars. Airforces the world over train their pilots for these missions.
JF-17s won't be as easy to control as the JH7 at low altitudes, but they can certainly do it and with a smaller RCS than JH7, they'll do it better and more safely.

if vintage mirages could do it, jf-17 is quantum leap over it...
it easily has >500 radius with 2 ASM, though not ideal its adequate considering our resources

with over the horizon radars, unpredictable era of attacks is over, today the talk is about decoys ..we living in the era of 5th gen ACs..its not nazis era radio guided bombs era

 

[The-Hack]

Hi,

Why would you want to attack the enemy ships 450-500 miles away from your soil---because if your mission fails the first time---you still have the time to send a secondary batch of aircraft after the enemy---.

But if you have the enemy already in the 250 Km zone---your battle is already lost---.

You launch the AShM and the enemy launches a volley its ASM---and land assets are toast---.

You can never allow the enemy to get so close to your soil---from the sea---.

With so much discussion going about aircraft---the kids should have realized by now that each aircraft design has a function of its own---the nose---the fuselage---the tail---the wings---the design of the wings in case of the F111 / JH7 / Tornado---the location of the wings---the location of the engine in case of the A10---and so many other things that go into designing the frame for it to perform the way it is designed to.

Most aircraft are multi mission capable---but three of them are very unique for their very low flight capability---th F111---the Tornado---and the JH7---these aircraft are designed for stable flight while skimming the waves---and the designs of the last two are based on the best of the all---the F111.

Don't you think sir, if we want to keep our enemy away from our zone at 450 km or greater, than we have to acquire air craft carrier???