What's new

JY-27A radar spotted in Pakistan

As I say 2 + 2 =4 ,,, You are claiming 2 + 2 = 3 so you need to provide the proof not me.
Re read my original post.
RCS on loaded 4th gen or below fighters are not that decisive.
A Su 30 with weapons will be picked up on radars just as likely as any other 4th gen fighter with weapons.

That is basic common sense. No need to prove anything
So you have no proof.
 
.
Re read my original post.
RCS on loaded 4th gen or below fighters are not that decisive.
A Su 30 with weapons will be picked up on radars just as likely as any other 4th gen fighter with weapons.

Su-30 is a much bigger platform and has more capacity to carry more weapons then any of PAF 4th gen fighters. So what logic are you using to come with with your conclusion?

guys why does PK buy more weapons from China i mean look at Iran she is giving advanced weapons to its allies like for free in mass numbers why China do not do that it serves her interest to limit India by all means? i think Iran should invest in PK military heavily giving you guys anything you need even if its free of charge.

NO thanks, Pakistan should stay the hell away from Iran specially its military. They are nothing but backstabbers (roots go back to hassan sabbah) who allows its territory to be used by India for espionage and terroistic activities against Pakistan.
 
.
Iran can start by decimating Indian Intelligence Networks operating throughout Iran's Eastern regions, bordering Pakistan. How can we buy weapons from Iran when we see Iranians being complicit in tackling anti-Pakistani forces operating from its soil. That's why we have decided to fence our border with Iran as well.

Hindus hate all Muslims, and Iranians are no different for them. Go to Indian Twitter someday and search for Israel-Iran topic. They are all for Israel, and anti-Iran. Indians were making laughable memes on Gen. Soleimani when he was assassinated while Pakistanis were trending pro-Sulaimani trends. Hopefully Afghans, Iranians, GCC etc learns from Hindu vile hate for Islam soon enough.
Very well said, thanks.
 
.
Doesn't prove your claim. The only thing article claiming is that the external weapons add to the RCS. However, it will increase the RCS of all the aircrafts. As MKI already have a huge RCS and having alot of external harpoints therefore, a loaded MKI will have much higher RCS than a loaded thunder.

In simple words 2 plus 2 will be 4 it will never be 3.

Indian point of view
Su-30: 4+2=4
JF-17: 2+2=4
 
.
Re read my original post.
RCS on loaded 4th gen or below fighters are not that decisive.
A Su 30 with weapons will be picked up on radars just as likely as any other 4th gen fighter with weapons.


So you have no proof.

RCS not being decisive : Agreed

But how does that transform into RCS of MKI is just like other 4th generation aircraft? RCS not decisive means it has different value from different angle in different conditions but all those angles and conditions are directly related to size of the aircrafts unless an aircraft (except for VLO designs).

If you keep on insisting then no one can help u. Keep on day dreaming.
 
.
If you can prove that the loaded JF is harder to detect than a loaded Su30, I will accept your argument.
No point going further.
 
.
If you can prove that the loaded JF is harder to detect than a loaded Su30, I will accept your argument.
No point going further.

PDF should have basic IQ test before letting these indiots post here.

JF-17 has 7 hard points while su-30 has 12. so which is going to have more RCS when fully loaded? Do you have common sense?
 
.
With 270 MKIs fielded, that is a huge barrage of AAMs that PAF will have to face. Their large RCS makes them giant blips and prone to ambush but in a large formation faceoff, they will be like MBRLs.

Food for thought!
270 Su-30MKI *75%=203(Approximately)- count pilot to aircraft ratio then consider multiple waves..IAF will find hard to replace losses of pilots on each wave..that will leave more fleet then enough pilots to fly them..1st and 2nd wave always have CAT "A" pilots..as losses mount quality degrades...pilot to aircraft ratio also counts..

I hope you would understand...in very simple words..
 
.
Food for thought!
270 Su-30MKI *75%=203(Approximately)- count pilot to aircraft ratio then consider multiple waves..IAF will find hard to replace losses of pilots on each wave..that will leave more fleet then enough pilots to fly them..1st and 2nd wave always have CAT "A" pilots..as losses mount quality degrades...pilot to aircraft ratio also counts..

I hope you would understand...in very simple words..

Yes. However, I think the availability rate is 50% or 55%. Let's be generous and give them 60% - 270*0.6 = 162. There is also the issue of the WSO which I am not sure how to paint into a scenario.

In similar vein:
MiG-29 65*0.75 = 49
M-2000 51*0.8 = 40 (Mica penalty /2) = 20
Rafale 4 = 4

The M-2000 is hard to estimate as the Mica is outclassed and outranged, making them barely useful. Let's still give them useful equivalence of half their strength.

Rest of the junk is pretty useless and while the Bison has some use, due to 27th Feb they will not be used meaningfully (or so I think given 1965 event equivalence).

This brings their skirmish-able equivalence to 235 jets.

On the Pak side:

JF-17 - 122*0.85 = 104
F-16 - 76*0.8 = 61
Blk 3 - 25 = 25

PAF - 190

If there are sustained skirmishes, then pilot ratios will come into play and this would be to PAF's advantage. As you noted, quality of IAF pilots thins out after top tier, which may not be true to the same extent for PAF, in addition to PAF having a much better pilot to aircraft ratio (2.5 - 3 range ??)
 
.
Yes. However, I think the availability rate is 50% or 55%. Let's be generous and give them 60% - 270*0.6 = 162. There is also the issue of the WSO which I am not sure how to paint into a scenario.

In similar vein:
MiG-29 65*0.75 = 49
M-2000 51*0.8 = 40 (Mica penalty /2) = 20
Rafale 4 = 4

The M-2000 is hard to estimate as the Mica is outclassed and outranged, making them barely useful. Let's still give them useful equivalence of half their strength.

Rest of the junk is pretty useless and while the Bison has some use, due to 27th Feb they will not be used meaningfully (or so I think given 1965 event equivalence).

This brings their skirmish-able equivalence to 235 jets.

On the Pak side:

JF-17 - 122*0.85 = 104
F-16 - 76*0.8 = 61
Blk 3 - 25 = 25

PAF - 190

If there are sustained skirmishes, then pilot ratios will come into play and this would be to PAF's advantage. As you noted, quality of IAF pilots thins out after top tier, which may not be true to the same extent for PAF, in addition to PAF having a much better pilot to aircraft ratio (2.5 - 3 range ??)
Yes. However, I think the availability rate is 50% or 55%. Let's be generous and give them 60% - 270*0.6 = 162. There is also the issue of the WSO which I am not sure how to paint into a scenario.

In similar vein:
MiG-29 65*0.75 = 49
M-2000 51*0.8 = 40 (Mica penalty /2) = 20
Rafale 4 = 4

The M-2000 is hard to estimate as the Mica is outclassed and outranged, making them barely useful. Let's still give them useful equivalence of half their strength.

Rest of the junk is pretty useless and while the Bison has some use, due to 27th Feb they will not be used meaningfully (or so I think given 1965 event equivalence).

This brings their skirmish-able equivalence to 235 jets.

On the Pak side:

JF-17 - 122*0.85 = 104
F-16 - 76*0.8 = 61
Blk 3 - 25 = 25

PAF - 190

If there are sustained skirmishes, then pilot ratios will come into play and this would be to PAF's advantage. As you noted, quality of IAF pilots thins out after


Once upon a time air forces commonly had more aircraft than pilots. A first-line fighter of World War II cost about $50,000. Today’s top-of-the line fighters cost much more. After allowing for inflation on a generous scale, there is still probably a 15 times increase. So today there are more pilots than aircraft. Each aircraft lost for combat or combat related reasons, even if the pilot is lost or badly hurt, which, is not always the case, means another one or two pilots without an aircraft.


New aircraft are very difficult to come by because manufacturers produce only on firm order, and take two years or more for delivery.

The only way to get fast replacements is from friendly nations.

The PAF has much smaller pool of fighter pilots, being a much smaller air force. This may not matter in a short war. In a long war, however, one lives off the fat till new pilots are trained, and as India has ample fat, the advantage is theirs. Admittedly the replacement pilots may not be as good as the first-line ones. But as the best ones disappear, or survive to get better, the not-so-good pilots become adequate in comparison to the enemy, who is also losing his good pilots.
 
.
Once upon a time air forces commonly had more aircraft than pilots. A first-line fighter of World War II cost about $50,000. Today’s top-of-the line fighters cost much more. After allowing for inflation on a generous scale, there is still probably a 15 times increase. So today there are more pilots than aircraft. Each aircraft lost for combat or combat related reasons, even if the pilot is lost or badly hurt, which, is not always the case, means another one or two pilots without an aircraft.


New aircraft are very difficult to come by because manufacturers produce only on firm order, and take two years or more for delivery.

The only way to get fast replacements is from friendly nations.

The PAF has much smaller pool of fighter pilots, being a much smaller air force. This may not matter in a short war. In a long war, however, one lives off the fat till new pilots are trained, and as India has ample fat, the advantage is theirs. Admittedly the replacement pilots may not be as good as the first-line ones. But as the best ones disappear, or survive to get better, the not-so-good pilots become adequate in comparison to the enemy, who is also losing his good pilots.


Hi PK, PAF has more pilots per plane than IAF. Practically, this means PAF can sustain sortie rates and faster and for longer periods of time. So PAF has the fat here while IAF is running lean like a super model. Pilot retention is actually a problem for the IAF.
 
.
Hi PK, PAF has more pilots per plane than IAF. Practically, this means PAF can sustain sortie rates and faster and for longer periods of time. So PAF has the fat here while IAF is running lean like a super model. Pilot retention is actually a problem for the IAF.

ahan, nice....lets hope you are right.
 
.
The other issue we are all ignoring that was learnt from WWII of large scale aerial warfare was - a larger air force has an exponential increase in combat effectiveness against a smaller air force.

So, while my above analysis indicates 235 to 190, actual impact is calculated (according to WWII air combat mathematics) by using an exponential for these figures.


Another factor in play is forces deployment. MKIs are deployed farther away from the border, meaning sustaining sortie rates is harder.
 
.
Another factor in play is forces deployment. MKIs are deployed farther away from the border, meaning sustaining sortie rates is harder.

That shouldnt be an issue. During exercises, it is always practices that these aircraft can be relocated to forward bases within a very short time. Its something normal. The main reason for keeping them away from the border during peacetime is to reduce their vulnerability to a lethal opening surprise strike.
 
.
That shouldnt be an issue. During exercises, it is always practices that these aircraft can be relocated to forward bases within a very short time. Its something normal. The main reason for keeping them away from the border during peacetime is to reduce their vulnerability to a lethal opening surprise strike.

The problem with the MKI is that it cannot be deployed from a number of FOBs because the runways aren't long enough. These gigantic beasts need a bit more runway that the MiG-29s, M2000s and Bisons, etc.

That was one of the reasons the IAF gave for needing an MRCA and not getting say Su-35s... back then in those hot headed days when the MRCA was still running (for a very long period of time).
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom