PAF Deploys to Northern Territories

[CriticalThought]

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---.



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---.

Really? Because you have flown against it? The above thoughts are incorrect and go against all principles of aerial warfare. Pointwise:

1. The crusaders argument is of your own making. Why are you inventing arguments?
2. Stamina - the Thunder has a stamina of more than 1+ hours. Given the intensity of dog fighting, which pilot is going to survive 1+ hours of high G maneuvers?
3. Firepower - This firepower will light it up on the radar, increase drag, and provides no realistic advantage: if 1 flanker has 12 hardpoints then two Thunders have 14. The Thunder has a better take-off time, thus a better sortie rate. And this is not Iraq where 700 allied aircrafts flew at once. In any case, the solution isn't to buy a 'heave strike fighter', but rather, having even higher number of Thunders.
4. Jamming will be irrelevant under Radar silence where Thunder is backed by AEWACs. And high levels of jamming are an invitation for anti-radiation seekers.
5. Survivability - No aircraft is going to survive with a missile up its backside. Or any side. This is a ridiculous notion that doesn't even deserve to be refuted.

 

[messiach]

Yes. lo-hi SAM project runs under different arms & is under active indigenous development.

So i guess IAF is up for a Nasty surprise if they venture into PA Air Space .

 

[SQ8]

Hi,

You are being silly---. Your post is completely thoughtless and totally senseless and without direction---.

A major major weapons system is not a gradient or a one meter pillar---. It is a system that is used to counter the enemy's system.

Neither it is a 787 or an A380---.

The fighter aircraft has to do battle against another fighter aircraft---and not with itself---.

Secondly---your choice fighter aircraft needs to make the enemy cringe to make the fight---.

And as for experience---the right experience is only right---till another right experience comes into force---.



Hi,

No---disrespect---.

When a mother is sick you don't look for a company that has just started making the medicine---. You go after a proven and tested name---unless you don't know any better and are ignorant of the fact---.

Whether I am silly and immature or you are an arrogant old fool who has zero experience in the field he discusses is always debatable; but I for sure know more about project management than you and so does the PAF.
Any project, be it a weapons system or a toffee wrapper is built on needs and finding exact requirements . Most of your post reflects a child like thought process of wanting the flashiest things instead of knowing what your requirements are and what your budget is.

 

[araz]

What if they been offered , , , News came out India not interested in S-400 and (or) deal is not working out … then.. News came out Pakistan will buy S-400 …. LOL yesterday you sign that S-400 deal . . . . All happened in less then 2 dam years … LMAO .

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

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.

There are many ways to read the picture. The problem is the first sight of missiles coming towards Pak land will get a nuke response for the simple reason there can be no confirmation that the missiles are not nuke tipped. This in my view will be a big step towards a no hold barred war between the 2 nations which will have horrifying consequences for the region and indeed the world.
That aside please understand our limitations in the 3 or 4 parameters I have alluded to. For Instance we neither have the money for the S400 or the 300/Chinese equivalent at least for "countrywide" coverage. Secondly other than China who will sell the missiles to us? How good are the Chinese LRSAMs? So we have very fine balance of countering the enemy with compatible defence without busting the bank. A 250 billion economy with 100 billion reserves might be nice but we are not getting there anytime soon.
A
A

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Really? Because you have flown against it? The above thoughts are incorrect and go against all principles of aerial warfare. Pointwise:

1. The crusaders argument is of your own making. Why are you inventing arguments?
2. Stamina - the Thunder has a stamina of more than 1+ hours. Given the intensity of dog fighting, which pilot is going to survive 1+ hours of high G maneuvers?
3. Firepower - This firepower will light it up on the radar, increase drag, and provides no realistic advantage: if 1 flanker has 12 hardpoints then two Thunders have 14. The Thunder has a better take-off time, thus a better sortie rate. And this is not Iraq where 700 allied aircrafts flew at once. In any case, the solution isn't to buy a 'heave strike fighter', but rather, having even higher number of Thunders.
4. Jamming will be irrelevant under Radar silence where Thunder is backed by AEWACs. And high levels of jamming are an invitation for anti-radiation seekers.
5. Survivability - No aircraft is going to survive with a missile up its backside. Or any side. This is a ridiculous notion that doesn't even deserve to be refuted.

The primary constraints for the PAF here are (1) having a sufficient number of advanced fighters (let's baseline this to JF-17 Block-III) and (2) AEW&C with enough radar range to operate well, well beyond the IAF's BVR envelope (as well as long-range SAM umbrella). However, both can be addressed by the PAF by -- simply -- manufacturing more JF-17s (and further scale the existing overhead) and working with China to upgrade the Karakoram Eagle with new, longer-range radars. On AEW&C, the option to get the Saab Erieye ER might also be there (probably a much more affordable route than buying a new fighter platform).

 

[Dazzler]

Yes. lo-hi SAM project runs under different arms & is under active indigenous development.

Should i name the missile that is being evaluated will likely form the basis of the indigenous SAM?

 

[Thorough Pro]

you had the same attitude when you got your might SU30's ...... There is no defensive / offensive system that can not be countered.

What if or what not, but one thing is for sure. One of India's adversaries just become a missile (air) force (Air will be gone) after yesterday's Indo-Russian deal since there very little to no chance of escape for fighter plains from S-400 umbrella. They can forget thinking about air superiority (which itself is highly unlikely) and better find a good scenarios for the survival of their birds.

 

[LKJ86]

For Instance we neither have the money for the S400 or the 300/Chinese equivalent at least for "countrywide" coverage.

HQ-9 is intermediate between S-300 PMU1 and PMU2.
HQ-9B is better than S-300 PMU2, but more expensive.
HQ-9C is better than S-400, but more expensive too.
HHQ-9C ~ SM-6
HQ-19 ~ THAAD-ER
HQ-26 ~ SM-3
HQ-29 ~ PAC-3MSE

 

[YeBeWarned]

Should i name the missile that is being evaluated will likely form the basis of the indigenous SAM?

A-darter ?

 

[Dazzler]

HQ-9 is intermediate between S-300 PMU1 and PMU2.
HQ-9B is better than S-300 PMU2, but more expensive.
HQ-9C is better than S-400, but more expensive too.

That's a tall claim to begin with. Share specs like overall range, TWS tracking etc.

 

[messiach]

No.

Should i name the missile that is being evaluated will likely form the basis of the indigenous SAM?

 

[MastanKhan]

Whether I am silly and immature or you are an arrogant old fool who has zero experience in the field he discusses is always debatable; but I for sure know more about project management than you and so does the PAF.
Any project, be it a weapons system or a toffee wrapper is built on needs and finding exact requirements . Most of your post reflects a child like thought process of wanting the flashiest things instead of knowing what your requirements are and what your budget is.

Hi,

Project management don't win wars---but that experience does keep a secure job---. So---don't dwell on it---.

Just because you hang out with a few---does not mean you have experienced it---.

You may discuss as much as you want to---historical precedence shows that you have no substance when discussing the needs and utility of major weapons systems---.

A consistant---superior---larger---quick maneuverable heavy fighting force has always decimated a smaller---lighter fighting force---.

 

[Tom M]

you had the same attitude when you got your might SU30's ...... There is no defensive / offensive system that can not be countered.

Sure there is nothing in this world that can't be countered, but all that comes with a cost. And we exactly want you to counter us.

 

[GriffinsRule]

Hi,

Project management don't win wars---but that experience does keep a secure job---. So---don't dwell on it---.

Just because you hang out with a few---does not mean you have experienced it---.

You may discuss as much as you want to---historical precedence shows that you have no substance when discussing the needs and utility of major weapons systems---.

A consistant---superior---larger---quick maneuverable heavy fighting force has always decimated a smaller---lighter fighting force---.

By that analogy, F-15s have always defeated F-16s when the USAF and USN train in DACT?
Of course not ... infact both said planes have even been defeated by F-5s in aggressor roles.

 

[War Thunder]

Bhai Jan.
Did you bother to read what I wrote or responded off the cuff.I wrote and copy verbatim "Naa bhai, you deploy forces and only initiate vigorous defensive maneouvers on being subjected to offense." This was in response to your statement again quoted verbatim "What I want is for us to go and do a real strike and show them the proof and show them how its done." So now when you say"When some one hits you then you hit them back and let them know its not that simple, and when you don;t then you make yourself look like nothing but a joke." is it just me or does someone else see you changing tunes. All I have said and quoted is that adventurism cannot be afforded(ie, adventurous aggressive strikes without provocation). However a vigorous response to any aggression is our right and a matter of national dignity. In the current times there is a need to remain politically correct and understand that even within the realms of international laws and norms there is enough maneouvering space to let it be known to your adversary that you mean business. However political isolation and ostracization is not in Pak land interest. If you look at the two statements cooly you will realize that you are actually saying what I said earlier.
Regards
A

Well perhaps you forgot to ascertain the right context from my original post then.

(IF) "Even if they start going la la over a "fake surgical strike" "again"."
(THEN) What I want is for us to go and do a real strike and show them the proof and show them how its done.