What's new

PAF and A-10 Aircraft

Status
Not open for further replies.
CAS, usually means slower speed and more stability.
By design the wing profile (straight) of aircraft like A-10 is best suited.

Delta configuration wings are razor thing and are designed to provide speed more than lift. They make up by offering a larger wing area.


A JF-17 can never be an A-10, but it certainly can be "adapted" to serve the CAS role.
 
.
The GAU-8 can fire other types of rounds too, not just DU.

Peshawar is not all that far away from FATA.

A combination of A-10 and Cobras, (or Apaches) can work together quite well.

However, it is very hard to cure the after-effects of short-sighted policies of the past.



Adapting a JF-17 or a K-8 for CAS roles can certainly be done indigenously.

Negative, for CAS you need an air craft with considerable loiter time, sustained low altitude low speed flight, agility, and ability to take AAA and come back home alive. JFT is too fast for CAS as the F-16 is, K-8 is too light and wont take the beating. A-10 is the perfect choice but Americans wont sell because it will send Indian cold start dreamers back to the drawing board nor do we have the liberty to spend so much cash on them.
 
.
Negative, for CAS you need an air craft with considerable loiter time, sustained low altitude low speed flight, agility, and ability to take AAA and come back home alive. JFT is too fast for CAS as the F-16 is, K-8 is too light and wont take the beating. A-10 is the perfect choice but Americans wont sell because it will send Indian cold start dreamers back to the drawing board nor do we have the liberty to spend so much cash on them.

Like I said above, a JF-17 can never be an A-10, but it certainly can be "adapted" to serve the CAS role.
 
.
Like I said above, a JF-17 can never be an A-10, but it certainly can be "adapted" to serve the CAS role.

Too fast, not enough loiter time, single engine hence not very good survivability at low altitudes = Not good for CAS.
 
.
Too fast, not enough loiter time, single engine hence not very good survivability at low altitudes = Not good for CAS.

Adaptation is never quite perfect, is it?
 
.
The A-10 was offered to Pakistan in the 80s and rejected then because we had plenty of money but no insurgency to fight. Now we have an insurgency to fight but we don't have the money for a fuel guzzler like the A-10, not to mention the DU rounds don't exactly come cheap. Another important point to consider is that there is no airfield in FATA that can host an A-10, so if you want a reload or damage control, Peshawar is your best shot. Cobras on the other hand, make good use of fuel, use TOW or Baktar Shikan Missiles and 30mm rounds (plenty of both) and the best part, they can land on a road, field, or even a good given ledge and given a complete reload in 15 minutes by 4 technicians carrying missiles and rounds in a 4x4!

but same can be said for V22s too if they could be used as bombers
 
.
Pakistan should make its own version of A-10.

If it has the technology to make JF-17, it can make a ground support aircraft like A-10.

We should stop buying from the US and produce our own weapons as US is an unreliable supplier.

Besides if we produce a weapon system like that we can export it ot our friends and trade with them.

Apart from whether PAC can develop a CAS aircraft, the other important thing is, will it be feasible!!
we do not need to get CAS in large numbers. A couple of squadrons at best! It is not only the procurement cost that PAF have to think about, keeping large numbers flying involve flying costs, pilots training, infrastructure etc. In nut shell, if any, we require 40-50 CAS fighters at best (assuming that we do need these).
Now developing a new platform and building it, that too in such small numbers mean lots of $$ involved. That is not a feasible idea.
When you need small numbers, it is better to buy them from the manufacturer. Chinese also have some goodies to offer is CAS department.

All said, i still persist with the idea that we do not need any dedicated CAS fighter. A couple of squadron of JF-17, may be some K-8 and C-130 are all we need. Along side a decent Attack helicopter force, these assets will work perfectly fine. We need to get more attack helos
 
.
I think it makes sense for us to get either helicopter gunships or A-10 because the A10 can knock out Terrorist with a proper gun on board, the trainers we have would probbly have limited rockets/missiles

Its much cheapter to take out Terrorist with heavy gun and also the plane can easily circle around at low speeds ideal for ground support roles

If you are going for brain surgury you take tooks for brain surgery , and when you are doing dental work you need dentist equipment

You cannot take a F16 and use it for support to Army units ideally you need planes capable of using gunships and that means its best to use

a) Helicopter fleet 100 or 120 units
b) A-10 40-50 units specifically under army support

A_10_burning_tank.jpg


Alternatives are gunship helicopters
Russian-Mi-35-Attack-Helicopter-2.jpeg



The limitations of Pakistan Airforce has always been

a) No proper bombardment planes to cause havey damage
b) Not enough Helicopter Gunships for duel role support for army and supply/droping soliders
in/out
c) Lack of Transport planes
d) SAMs


Simply saying that a plane designed for speed can effectively do same duties as a plan that is for
moving slowly and providing ground support at slow speeds or attack ground targets

Yes JF17 can do the work but a better option is A10 or Helicopter gunships for ARMY
 
.
A-10 in my opinion would be the good option as it has got more range more speed and also it is more maneuverable. Also A-10 can strike deep whereas gunships have the limited strike capability.
 
.
How about buying 2 AC-130s from USA? They can do pretty good damage too...
 
. .
How about buying 2 AC-130s from USA? They can do pretty good damage too...

Or fitting a cannon in some existing c-130 . That will be cheaper...

Read my post in previous page of the very same thread:

3: Arming C130 is possible; That needs two things
  1. Permission/assistance of US
  2. X number of C-130 available to be spared from their traditional transport role. PAF already is employing enough such aircraft in low-level TA role, they can't afford to spare more.
 
.
^^^ Raises the Question of 1965 bombing runs by C-130.
Were they allowed by USA? Or things were different back then?
 
.
^^^ Raises the Question of 1965 bombing runs by C-130.
Were they allowed by USA? Or things were different back then?

That was different case. They rolled out HE bombs from the aircraft. Their targets in 65 are different from today, it was mostly tanks, fuel depot, artillery stations etc. For counter-insurgency role, they need more accuracy and cost worthy/affordable fire power too.

PS: A quote from C-130 in 1965 war:
20 missions as a bomber, a total of 22,000 lbs of High Explosive (HE) bombs were rolled out from these aircraft.
 
.
That was different case. They rolled out HE bombs from the aircraft. Their targets in 65 are different from today, it was mostly tanks, fuel depot, artillery stations etc. For counter-insurgency role, they need more accuracy and cost worthy/affordable fire power too.

PS: A quote from C-130 in 1965 war:

The Jordanians have contracted a US country to turn their CASA-235s into gunships. Check this:

Jordan orders CASA C-235 Gunship Conversion
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom