PAF F-16 mlu specifications and 36 blk 52+ prospects

[SQ8]

I really wish Pakistan would take the option of an additional 18 F-16 Block 52s and supplement them with HARMS. Would be the most beautiful sight ever

If you are referring to the AGM-88 ..why? You already have an excellent ARM in the MAR-1 missile.

 

[elitepilot09]

If you are referring to the AGM-88 ..why? You already have an excellent ARM in the MAR-1 missile.

I wanna start by saying that I'm typically very conservative with making defence acquisition proposals and I understand that we have the MAR-1 but quite frankly:

1. It is my understanding that the F-16 cannot be loaded with the MAR-1; but then you might say, "well we'll just give the SEAD role to the JF-17s then!", however..
2. the MAR-1 is not combat proven unlike the stress tested and highly successful AGM-88 HARM
3. The JF-17 does not have the mature enough, complex EW suite to deal with a high-threat SAM environment. It is noteworthy that we possess the ALQ-211 for the F-16 which is, in my opinion, one of the absolute best AIDEWS systems in the world and certainly the best in South Asia.
4. The MAR-1 also unfortunately lacks the range that the AGM-88 HARM possesses. This is a field in which the HARM can be fired a good 40-50km before the MAR-1. This sort of advantage can keep our pilots away from SAM while safely taking them out.

My worry is that we might become over dependent on the JF-17 and put all the eggs in one basket. By that I mean that we are relying on it to take the anti-ship role with C-802A's and replace the Mirage 5PA3s at Masroor, and we are also relying on the same platform to carry out SEAD. I understand it's supposed to be a multi-role plane, but it think it's a case of too much too early. Don't get me wrong though, it is definely the most cost effective option . As I said earlier, I don't normally like making "wishlist" posts, but this is most definitely my wishful thinking.

Thoughts @Oscar @Munir @Aeronaut @Donatello? Do you think that the F-16 should take some of the burden off the new birds wings? And would you, if funds allowed it, take the option of the additional 18 F-16s and allocate them for a dedicated SEAD role squadron?

Edit: One last question and alternative. OR would you request that the MAR-1 be implemented on the PAFs F-16s?

 

[SQ8]

I wanna start by saying that I'm typically very conservative with making defence acquisition proposals and I understand that we have the MAR-1 but quite frankly:

1. It is my understanding that the F-16 cannot be loaded with the MAR-1; but then you might say, "well we'll just give the SEAD role to the JF-17s then!", however..
2. the MAR-1 is not combat proven unlike the stress tested and highly successful AGM-88 HARM
3. The JF-17 does not have the mature enough, complex EW suite to deal with a high-threat SAM environment. It is noteworthy that we possess the ALQ-211 for the F-16 which is, in my opinion, one of the absolute best AIDEWS systems in the world and certainly the best in South Asia.
4. The MAR-1 also unfortunately lacks the range that the AGM-88 HARM possesses. This is a field in which the HARM can be fired a good 40-50km before the MAR-1. This sort of advantage can keep our pilots away from SAM while safely taking them out.

My worry is that we might become over dependent on the JF-17 and put all the eggs in one basket. By that I mean that we are relying on it to take the anti-ship role with C-802A's and replace the Mirage 5PA3s at Masroor, and we are also relying on the same platform to carry out SEAD. I understand it's supposed to be a multi-role plane, but it think it's a case of too much too early. Don't get me wrong though, it is definely the most cost effective option . As I said earlier, I don't normally like making "wishlist" posts, but this is most definitely my wishful thinking.

Thoughts @Oscar @Munir @Aeronaut @Donatello? Do you think that the F-16 should take some of the burden off the new birds wings? And would you, if funds allowed it, take the option of the additional 18 F-16s and allocate them for a dedicated SEAD role squadron?

Edit: One last question and alternative. OR would you request that the MAR-1 be implemented on the PAFs F-16s?

1.Well, there are good points raised.. however the issue is not of integrating the MAR-1 onto the F-16, its of having a SEAD platform. The F-16 is the best candidate for it but at this point the issue is with weapons release and integration. The US is not too comfortable with letting the HARM go.

2. The problem lies with many of the weapons operational with the PAF(or many other airforces around the world). That risk has to be taken by mitigating it with simulated and live tests.

3. The JF-17 is not going to be the main SEAD platform nor is it at the start. Currently older Mirages with extra ECM are tasked with it. The JF-17 will however have enough ESM on it to allow it to be risked for SEAD.

4. The Range advantage being there, the MAR-1 does have fairly similar capabilities to the AGM-88D. And the range on the HARM at 150 km is when launched from altitude, the same goes for the MAR-1.

However, the HARM cannot be fired from any other aircraft other than the F-16. While the MAR-1 is compatible with the Mirages and the JF-17s. along with any additional platform that the PAF wishes.

 

[TeesraIndiotHunter]

@Oscar

Do we have MAR-1 in PAF's stock or its acquisition is still "being decided?"

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar

Do we have MAR-1 in PAF's stock or its acquisition is still "being decided?"

The deal is sealed and missiles have been/ are being delivered.

 

[TeesraIndiotHunter]

The deal is sealed and missiles have been/ are being delivered.

Ye cheeezzzzzz!!!!

I technical question...Missiles like Mar-1 are specifically to be used against SAMs, anti-ballistic missile batteries, systems like Iron Dome and so on. And these missiles are called "anti-radiation" missiles.

What exactly does that mean? In other terms, "how" exactly are these missiles different from say regular air-to-ground missiles? Why can't regular air-to-ground missiles be used for destroying SAMs, Iron-Dome like system etc?

 

[Donatello]

Ye cheeezzzzzz!!!!

I technical question...Missiles like Mar-1 are specifically to be used against SAMs, anti-ballistic missile batteries, systems like Iron Dome and so on. And these missiles are called "anti-radiation" missiles.

What exactly does that mean? In other terms, "how" exactly are these missiles different from say regular air-to-ground missiles? Why can't regular air-to-ground missiles be used for destroying SAMs, Iron-Dome like system etc?

MAR-1 and HARM are called anti-radiation missiles, as they locate and fly in onto the source of electromagnetic radiation coming from sources such as jammers/RADARS. For our use, radars are to be the target since any SAM system must have an accompanying radar to track the target and then guide the missile towards it. These missiles are very expensive, and as such designed to take out high value high threat targets like SAMs, Jamming equipment, Communications equipment etc.

Air to Ground weaponary can be of all sorts of type, for example air launched cruise missile like Ra'ad that can carry conventional explosives, nuclear warheads.

I wanna start by saying that I'm typically very conservative with making defence acquisition proposals and I understand that we have the MAR-1 but quite frankly:

1. It is my understanding that the F-16 cannot be loaded with the MAR-1; but then you might say, "well we'll just give the SEAD role to the JF-17s then!", however..
2. the MAR-1 is not combat proven unlike the stress tested and highly successful AGM-88 HARM
3. The JF-17 does not have the mature enough, complex EW suite to deal with a high-threat SAM environment. It is noteworthy that we possess the ALQ-211 for the F-16 which is, in my opinion, one of the absolute best AIDEWS systems in the world and certainly the best in South Asia.
4. The MAR-1 also unfortunately lacks the range that the AGM-88 HARM possesses. This is a field in which the HARM can be fired a good 40-50km before the MAR-1. This sort of advantage can keep our pilots away from SAM while safely taking them out.

My worry is that we might become over dependent on the JF-17 and put all the eggs in one basket. By that I mean that we are relying on it to take the anti-ship role with C-802A's and replace the Mirage 5PA3s at Masroor, and we are also relying on the same platform to carry out SEAD. I understand it's supposed to be a multi-role plane, but it think it's a case of too much too early. Don't get me wrong though, it is definely the most cost effective option . As I said earlier, I don't normally like making "wishlist" posts, but this is most definitely my wishful thinking.

Thoughts @Oscar @Munir @Aeronaut @Donatello? Do you think that the F-16 should take some of the burden off the new birds wings? And would you, if funds allowed it, take the option of the additional 18 F-16s and allocate them for a dedicated SEAD role squadron?

Edit: One last question and alternative. OR would you request that the MAR-1 be implemented on the PAFs F-16s?

More f-16s should be welcome but only if we can get some sort of guarantee that they will not be sanctioned in a war. That can done in two ways : Diplomatically, just don't screw up with USA and secondly, buy enough spare parts that you can keep the fleet rolling even with the sanctions. PAF should go for used MLU f-16s via Jordan and/or any European airforces.

All JF-17 squadrons would not be doing SEAD roles or anti-ship roles. That's the beauty of the JF-17, that the same aircraft can complete a mission in one profile and then go back again on a different profile. We don't have any restrictions on the weapons we can mate on it, so JF-17 is the true swiss army knife for PAF. The Mirage ROSE platforms are potent enough to take on SEAD missions, as Oscar mentioned, and they will linger on for at least 5-8 years.

 

[airmarshal]

I wanna start by saying that I'm typically very conservative with making defence acquisition proposals and I understand that we have the MAR-1 but quite frankly:

1. It is my understanding that the F-16 cannot be loaded with the MAR-1; but then you might say, "well we'll just give the SEAD role to the JF-17s then!", however..
2. the MAR-1 is not combat proven unlike the stress tested and highly successful AGM-88 HARM
3. The JF-17 does not have the mature enough, complex EW suite to deal with a high-threat SAM environment. It is noteworthy that we possess the ALQ-211 for the F-16 which is, in my opinion, one of the absolute best AIDEWS systems in the world and certainly the best in South Asia.
4. The MAR-1 also unfortunately lacks the range that the AGM-88 HARM possesses. This is a field in which the HARM can be fired a good 40-50km before the MAR-1. This sort of advantage can keep our pilots away from SAM while safely taking them out.

My worry is that we might become over dependent on the JF-17 and put all the eggs in one basket. By that I mean that we are relying on it to take the anti-ship role with C-802A's and replace the Mirage 5PA3s at Masroor, and we are also relying on the same platform to carry out SEAD. I understand it's supposed to be a multi-role plane, but it think it's a case of too much too early. Don't get me wrong though, it is definely the most cost effective option . As I said earlier, I don't normally like making "wishlist" posts, but this is most definitely my wishful thinking.

Thoughts @Oscar @Munir @Aeronaut @Donatello? Do you think that the F-16 should take some of the burden off the new birds wings? And would you, if funds allowed it, take the option of the additional 18 F-16s and allocate them for a dedicated SEAD role squadron?

Edit: One last question and alternative. OR would you request that the MAR-1 be implemented on the PAFs F-16s?

Very good points.

JF-17 cant be compared or deem to replace or take some roles from F-16. F-16 is a mature, battle tested weapon with a very mature hierarchy of development and evolution. Also, HARM again is a battle tested weapon and has been used on other platforms like F/A-18 and F-4s. This type of interoperability doesnot exist for MAR-1.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

@Oscar i read somewhere that we got tot for Mar 1 ?

 

[Imran Khan]

@Oscar i read somewhere that we got tot for Mar 1 ?

only 100 we order boss and why TOT

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

only 100 we order boss and why TOT

dont know thats why i m asking a question i dont see any need for more though

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar i read somewhere that we got tot for Mar 1 ?

No ToT, only integration with our aircraft. essentially the engineers from Mectron were here to help integrate the system onto the JF-17.

 

[Imran Khan]

dont know thats why i m asking a question i dont see any need for more though

no tot sir we just buy load on C-130 and bring them home

 

[fatman17]

1.Well, there are good points raised.. however the issue is not of integrating the MAR-1 onto the F-16, its of having a SEAD platform. The F-16 is the best candidate for it but at this point the issue is with weapons release and integration. The US is not too comfortable with letting the HARM go.

2. The problem lies with many of the weapons operational with the PAF(or many other airforces around the world). That risk has to be taken by mitigating it with simulated and live tests.

3. The JF-17 is not going to be the main SEAD platform nor is it at the start. Currently older Mirages with extra ECM are tasked with it. The JF-17 will however have enough ESM on it to allow it to be risked for SEAD.

4. The Range advantage being there, the MAR-1 does have fairly similar capabilities to the AGM-88D. And the range on the HARM at 150 km is when launched from altitude, the same goes for the MAR-1.

However, the HARM cannot be fired from any other aircraft other than the F-16. While the MAR-1 is compatible with the Mirages and the JF-17s. along with any additional platform that the PAF wishes.

more like the AGM-88A.

and MAR-1 is a derivative of the US missile.

 

[TeesraIndiotHunter]

more like the AGM-88A.

and MAR-1 is a derivative of the US missile.

Whats the difference between AGM-88A and AGM-88D? Only range?