What's new

PAF Deploys to Northern Territories

PAF declined both the Flanker and Fulcrum in the 90s and J-10 more recently....what do you have to say about that genius.
Incorrect. They wanted the Su-27 Flanker. I personally know the man who evaluated both the Fulcrum and Flanker. The Indian government stepped into the Russian government's final decision to increase the unit price of the aircraft as damages to the Soviet Union....

Interesting article. But evaluation flights were done in Russia, no Flanker landed at Sargodha as far as I have been told....the author I believe got the testing part in Pakistan completely wrong.
 
.
No.
Is there a room for a separate fighter acquisition prior to going for a 5th generation fighter? If so what parameters would be of use in making that choice?
S

This is darkhole classified. Besides i do'nt have the entire picture.
a little elaboration on that " Agreed " would be much appreciated :angel:
 
.
Not denying the validity of your questions, I would put down for you the dilemma facing the PAF(purely my own assumptions so feel free to tear it to shreads).
A. PAF and Pak land is broke. Being a small economy at the best of times we face an adversary that will always bring superior numbers and now technology.
B. We sit at the cusp of technology change with changes occurring so rapidly that as soon as you have bought a plane it is outdated(A relative exaggeration for explanation only).
C. We have a dearth of sellers as the best tech providers are shying away from us because we cannot splash the money out.
So I the light of the above evaluate your platforms and see what you come up with. Essentially most EU and US products are out on that basis due to either expense or Sanctions. Then look at something that will bring you parity with
a. The platforms at the enemy's disposal.
b. Their buying power .
c. The technological superiority they are going to have with the Rafale induction.
To me it seems we will use a defensive strategy of guarding our own airspace as it gives us a certain advantage( you need a 3:1 advantage in offence to be successful).
If you see the matrix which faces the acquisition of the PAF you will realize
A. The current emphasis is on having superior pilot to plane ratio and training(again questionable as IAF is also advancing and growing in confidence).
B. Platforms (F16s being questionable for long term conflicts but JFT and others very relevant) that can be turned around rapidly for a sortie.
C. Quicker mobilization and deployment of existing strength to areas of need.
1. So for a war today(limited scale) we are OK ish as we have 120+76=196 BVR capable platforms as against 232MKIs +50Mirage 2K + ?100M29s=282 unit
2. For a war in 2023 we will have 170 units to their 362 units(36 Rafales plus 40 more MKIs).
I fully understand the numbers game does not take into account the complexity the Rafale brings to the threat matrix.
So if you look at that you need a platforms that would be superior to the Rafale and the Upgraded MKIs and M2Ks &M29s.
Evaluation of that platform is where our problem lies specially in view of our lean pockets.
We can get the EFT and it will bring us parity but not superiority.
We can look at the SU35/J11/16s again with possible parity but no superiority.
The same can be said for the 16 Bl.70s. We therefore need a 5th generation fighter which even in 2 squadron strength will give us a massive advantage at a high price but a superior outcome. There is an on going requirement debate for an additional late 4th generation fighter to do the donkey work. However my humble opinion remains that this sid3 of 2030 we can only afford to buy 1 fighter type.
You can see that jumping because you are worried aside, we are realistically not in a position to buy a suitable platform which will have a deterrent value high enough for the enemy to stay away.
A

Sir, in my humble opinion, there is a fundamental flaw in this calculus. Stealth against a combination of S-400 and Rafale is going to be of limited use. The days of ultimate air superiority are gone. I challenge anyone who made this decision whether they have actually flown a stealth aircraft, or fought against one in a modern system such as Rafale. Stealth provided air superiority in the 1990s, but since then, people have clued up.

What's needed against the Rafale + S-400 threat is:

1. Equivalent air defence. A multi-layered defence system that can withstand aircrafts, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.

2. A saturation attack to take out the enemy's systems.

3. A credible 360 degree attack profile that raises the cost of defence for the enemy and turns strategic depth into a liability.

The first volley of any Indian attack WILL NOT be Rafales. The first volley will be Brahmos in a saturation style attack on air defence and forward airbases. If we are caught unawares here, our position will be extremely weakened, and to rub insult to injury, there will be no advancing Indian armor to retaliate with Nasr. Once air defence is gone, the target will be our strategic infrastructure: PAC Kamra, Breeder reactors, HIT, POF, nuclear infrastructure. Without air cover, ground forces including tactical and strategic missile launchers will be at risk of identification and termination.

This is the sub-nuclear limited war designed to destroy our capability.
 
.
.
In that case, take your own advice. If JF-17 took from the J-10, then it not behind it in development either. So in future, don't go on harping how great it wouldve been for PAF to have had ordered an immature and defective product.

Him

It is more about 'integration'---. When you did not have the ability to understand that term---there is not much to say to you---.

I have no qualms about calling a spade a spade. J-10A was the first Chinese aircraft in the 4rd generation category with FBW, new gen engines and a host of new technologies etc, so it served as a test bed and immature in its development. PAF actually took a smarter approach in utilizing the experience the Chinese gained from their mishaps with the J-10 and got a product that delivered exactly what was needed in a much faster time frame, as is evident in the JF-17 development. However, most of the argument I've seen from him and others that like to harp on the PAF not buying that version first stem from the time when it was the only version available. The Chinese have obviously moved on and improved and sorted out the issues with the latest variant. But there is still a fallacy in his arguments and when his logic fails him, he hides behind his age and calling everyone "young man" as if somehow that shields him from criticism.
I bet you, had the PAF ordered the J-10A, today we would see him writing about how the corrupt and traitorous PAF wasted taxpayers money on a bad aircraft and lined their own pockets instead of developing the aeronautical industry in Pakistan.

Hi,

See---you are deceptive---. Musharraf ordered the J10B---J10A was never in question---.
 
. . . .
There you go again, JF-17 is design/develop by china especially for Pakistan/PAF, there are other reasons that they are not inducted by PLAAF, China is a huge country (4th largest by an area) they need to cover vast swath of their county so they need heavies and medium weight fighter jets with better payloads, better range, better electronics (avionics radars) etc etc, to petrol to their vast swath of their country @Roybot :hitwall::crazy::hitwall:


And their preferred choice for better payload range bigger and better radars we suites jammers is the flankers and J10.vanguards.

And guess what the backbone of the Indian air force is the Russian flankers IE mki.


So your thunders will be insufficient in a indo war scenario in half the situations
 
.
I don't think it was a big issue at that time.

There has to be some rational explanation behind the sudden U-turn. The FC-20 was part of the PAF Vision 2025. And PAF has been following it so rigorously, they repurchased the destroyed AWACS to keep the number at the level specified in the original plan. Why they would leave the grand plan is not obvious to me.
 
Last edited:
.
And their preferred choice for better payload range bigger and better radars we suites jammers is the flankers and J10.vanguards.

And guess what the backbone of the Indian air force is the Russian flankers IE mki.


So your thunders will be insufficient in a indo war scenario in half the situations
we did lot of exercise with Chinese Flankers, and knows their weakness, and its about tactics to how to utilize the infirior jets against superior jets @Storm Force :angel:
 
. . . .
If Pakistan had bought some J-10 at that tine, I don't think there are any sanctions on F-16.

Hi,

You are correct---. If Paf had bought the J10B's---the US could not have sanctioned the F16's---.

Because that would not have served any tactical purpose---.

we did lot of exercise with Chinese Flankers, and knows their weakness, and its about tactics to how to utilize the infirior jets against superior jets @Storm Force :angel:

Hi,

It does not work that way----. The tactics worked between the Sabre vs the Gnat---because they were similar category aircraft----.

They will not work for the JF17 against the SU30 thru the war---. The SU30 is a far superior heavy weight aircraft.

It may work a time or two between the first couple of skirmishes---.

But the SU30 would learn from its mistakes and change tactics---.

Crusaders wore heavy protection---they would get tired after awhile---then the lighter elements would hunt them down easy---that is the 'mindset' of most of the pakistanis---.

What has happened in this case of SU30 is---that it is heavy---it is stronger---has more stamina to outlast any lighter opponent---has more firepower---has larger and stronger jamming equipment---has higher survivability against a missile strike.

So---this aircraft is totally opposite of what the crusaders presented to the muslim armies---.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom