PAF's possible answer to MRCA

[Chanakyaa]

@shanixee..

No one claims LCA to be equal to typhoon.
Its a Light Interceptor while typhoon is am Air dominance fighter.

India wants LCA and India wants MMRCA as well.. Both are needed, as per the present requirements.

India will have three class of fighters now...

1. Heavy : The MKI Fits Here, mainly as multirole air dominance

2. Medium : Mirages and MMRCA fit in here, Pur Multirole with best A2g CAPABILITIES.

3. Light : LCA fits here.. Primarily as Interceptor.

And in case of pakistan, Pakistan is Not depending on JF17 BUT BEING FORCED TO DEPEND ON IT WITHOUT CHOICE.

tHEY CANT HAVE F18, MIG AND COSTS MAKE rAFALE AND TYPHOON OUT OF REACH.

INDIA WILL GET AROUND 200 LCA, BLOCK.. i AND ii.

 

[mikkix]

Dude the answer is simple..like LCA, JF-17 is also in the category of light aircrafts and every air force needs a mixture of Light, medium and heavy aircrafts..thats why MMRCA[/QUOTE]

You are right in a way...
But Pakistan cannot afford expensive ones thats y they gone for Jf 17
India can aford to buy expensive ones,,,,so y wasting time in LCa..

 

[nForce]

You are right in a way...
But Pakistan cannot afford expensive ones thats y they gone for Jf 17
India can aford to buy expensive ones,,,,so y wasting time in LCa..

did u actually go through what XiniX actually posted??? A proper Airforce needs a mixture of various kinds of fighters to suit its needs...
Su-30MKI is a heavy height air superiority fighter,the mirages and Mig-29 fit in the category of medium weight fighters.LCA is a lightweight interceptor that will replace India's aging fleet of Mig-21.....Thats where it fits in

 

[Storm Force]

India Air Force MIX/BALANCE strategy,.by 2020

230-270 Heavey twin engined multi role su30mki. Long range massive load geared towards air superiority with TVC and 8 BVRs but can be great mari time strike plane and cruise missle carriers. Very useful when doubling up at sea with mig29k for carrier support operations and air defense over china,s long borders. (typical combat range 1200miles radius)

126 mmrca is a multi role plat form envisaged to be more geared towards strike capability but must have aesa radar and great bvr weapons. The mmrca will act like cricket captains directing operations from afar and stand off strike weapons are a must. This is why many think F18S/H will win mmrca. TOT upto 50% and access to western tech is important in the deal worth $10nbillion+
(typical range 800miles radius)

LCA TEJAS single engined multi role fighter but geared towards air defense. short range very agile very cost effective and good CAS capability. TO replace over 250 mig21s that currently perform the same role (typical range 400 miles)

 

[sancho]

PAF's decision to use single engine fighter is stragetic and a smart choice. It's not the idea to counter relatively far bigger India $ for $ to start with as many forummers here would untintentionally assume in such VS discussion. I can imagine that the decision is based on the geo location, financial resources, parts availability, maintainance, etc whole host of issues.

The fact that PAF was interested in Rafale shows that they would twin engine fighters if it would be possible, so there is no strategy behind using single engine fighters onle.
Single engine fighters are cheaper in unit and maintenance costs and should fit better in PAFs budget, also not every twin engine fighter is on offer for PAF, F15, Su 30s, J11?. However, the point was twin engine fighters does have advantages and it wouldn't be bad to have one for sure.

I think it's most efficient for Pakistan to fully absorb techs and large scale production of JF-17 (with continuous more indigenious upgrades, etc.), perfect operations of F-16 blk 52, and being fully commited to J-10B(JF-20),

This combo won't be bad, imo especially J10B has good potential, but the simple fact that PLAAF also is aiming for twin engine fighters in future too (J11B, maybe twin engine J10 and J-XX of course), proves that any major Air Force wants good twin engine fighters on the high end, while single engine fighters will mainly be used as work horses. That is not different with PAF, or those countries I mentioned before, if PAF gets the chance (and sooner or latter they will), they will buy twin engine fighters too, even in small numbers. For now J10/F16 and JF 17 combo has to be enough.

Nonetheless, as what a seasoned boxer walking into a ring would like to think, an elegantly intergrated, fully commited and well tested fighting platform, simple it may look, is almost always more deadly than a combination of a little bit of every tricks under the sun as IAF has, which looks fancy on paper yet remains unneccesarily complicated (a nightmare from both real-fight operation and maintainance POV) thus less effective on the contrary in reality.

Mh, then I would as myself why PLAAF has so many different single and twin engine fighters if such a simple mix would be enough?
And how good IAF is, belongs to a different thread I would say, imo they don't bother too much with PAF, but more keeps focusing on PLAAF.

 

[SBD-3]

 

[SQ8]

did u actually go through what XiniX actually posted??? A proper Airforce needs a mixture of various kinds of fighters to suit its needs...
Su-30MKI is a heavy height air superiority fighter,the mirages and Mig-29 fit in the category of medium weight fighters.LCA is a lightweight interceptor that will replace India's aging fleet of Mig-21.....Thats where it fits in

Then those Americans must be really stupid to go for a two fighter mix. The F-22 and the F-35.
So must be the Brits, and the Israeli's, and the French..my god.. what idiots. All trying to bring down the number of types they operate.
These guys at PAF are total idiots following these amateurs. bringing down their fleet to just three platforms.

An airforce needs operational effectiveness and not many things for many jobs. If the IAF could find a single fighter to do all those things it wants it would probably do it. So as a compromise it chose to do the smart thing and go for a heavy-medium mix. The LCA is a choke ball the DRDO and MoD is trying to shove down everybody's throat.
If they wanted a light interceptor they should have just asked for the T-50 trainer. nothing better than that for interception and I thought the MKI was multirole?? Buying a 45 mil jet just to use it for air superiority seems stupid.. unless it can do much more than that and it does. Its supposed to strike deep, clear the air, take out radars and defend airspace.
The whole concept of the MRCA was to provide a Multirole jet able to replace four different types in the IAF inventory. So eventually in the end the Mig-29's,M2K's and the Jaguars can be phased out when they reach the end of their shelf life without any loss in capability, by which time the FGFA should be ready and take the load off air superiority from the MKI. The MRCA should be good at DCA,CAS,Interdiction, Deep Strike and SEAD and DEAD. So while the MKI delivers the body punches the MRCA gives the knife cuts.
Having more types means more headaches in terms of logistics and type certifications for maintainers.

The JF-17 is supposed to be Pakistan's all round puncher. Its supposed to do DCA,CAP,CAS,BAI,Strike,SEAD and the Interceptions within its operational radius. So in essence we got everything our Mirages,A-5's,F-7's and even some stuff the F-16 does. Its a jack of all trades, what it was meant to be. Neat isn't it. It means that a Jf-17 from Peshawar can land at Sargodha for a problem and not worry about the technicians there not knowing what to do.
Seems being forced to do something was actually a good omen.
I think that was the Idea with the LCA too, and now its gone so bad there is already talk of a Mk2 with this one being labeled as an Interceptor..and I thought the idea of purpose built interceptors was a thing of the past.

 

[Skywalker]

i agree.... try to spend money wisely then spend on defence.
every year military comes out with these big budget items..... where is the money for that.
India can spend ..let them spend.They can certainly afford it.
Canada only has F-18's..... they dont go out and spend cause they dont have to.
Defence needs changes with time.......its time Pak military look at its defence differently.

Good joke, can you tell me how many enemies does Canada have???

 

[Storm Force]

Santro its good post and some useful posts.

With regards nos of combat types

PAF currently wil end up with 3 different single engined fighters ie J10 F16/52 & Thunder.

If the Thunder gets the AESA radar and euro weapons has they are looking for all 3 will be fairly comparable withy very similar mission profile.

WHY 3 TYPES.... ALL OF SAME CLASS WEIGHT RANGE AND WEAPONS. ???


At least with IAF which too will end up with just 3 types

SU30MKI MMRCA & LCA they are diffrent weights ranges and different technology/ giving variety of punches and costs.


For a very large air force of over 35 sqds and 650+ fighters you need minimum 3 combat types.

 

[SomeGuy]

WHY 3 TYPES.... ALL OF SAME CLASS WEIGHT RANGE AND WEAPONS. ???

Thunder because it's cheap and will make up the numbers and provide some quality.

F-16 because of their long history within PAF and the support and maintenance infrastructure already in place.

J-10B to provide quality and numbers and in case of any geopolitical problems associated with F-16.

 

[nForce]

Then those Americans must be really stupid to go for a two fighter mix. The F-22 and the F-35.
So must be the Brits, and the Israeli's, and the French..my god.. what idiots. All trying to bring down the number of types they operate. These guys at PAF are total idiots following these amateurs. bringing down their fleet to just three platforms.

the requirement of different countries are different.Requirements of Indian Air Force cannot be decided on the basis of requirement of Air Forces of other countries.The countries that u r talking about dont share hostile borders as vast as that of India.So,while we know that Su-30 MKI can perform as a potent interceptor,at the same time we also need to keep in mind that it has different tasks to perform.Its role is to perform as a primary strike fighter in the front row,while LCA will perform as a short range interceptor....The question is not why 3 type and why not two types...the question is what suits ur needs...And let us not talk about J-35 here ..It is specifically built to perform its multirole operations like close air support,tactical bombing and air defense missions.

An airforce needs operational effectiveness and not many things for many jobs. If the IAF could find a single fighter to do all those things it wants it would probably do it. So as a compromise it chose to do the smart thing and go for a heavy-medium mix. The LCA is a choke ball the DRDO and MoD is trying to shove down everybody's throat.
If they wanted a light interceptor they should have just asked for the T-50 trainer. nothing better than that for interception and I thought the MKI was multirole?? Buying a 45 mil jet just to use it for air superiority seems stupid.. unless it can do much more than that and it does. Its supposed to strike deep, clear the air, take out radars and defend airspace.

Obviously IAF thinks a mix of aircraft will suit it better...If u have a fighter that is costly,limited in number and can strike deep inside enemy territories(something that IAF needs),then it is foolishness to make it perform within short ranges.A dedicated system will always perform better for a specific need.
And trainer aircraft s are for training purpose.It cannot be employed to perform active duty in the line..was that an attempted case of cracking a joke???Anyways the PAKFA will take some more time before it finally gets inducted.

The whole concept of the MRCA was to provide a Multirole jet able to replace four different types in the IAF inventory. So eventually in the end the Mig-29's,M2K's and the Jaguars can be phased out when they reach the end of their shelf life without any loss in capability, by which time the FGFA should be ready and take the load off air superiority from the MKI. The MRCA should be good at DCA,CAS,Interdiction, Deep Strike and SEAD and DEAD. So while the MKI delivers the body punches the MRCA gives the knife cuts.
Having more types means more headaches in terms of logistics and type certifications for maintainers.

Quite true

The JF-17 is supposed to be Pakistan's all round puncher. Its supposed to do DCA,CAP,CAS,BAI,Strike,SEAD and the Interceptions within its operational radius. So in essence we got everything our Mirages,A-5's,F-7's and even some stuff the F-16 does. Its a jack of all trades, what it was meant to be. Neat isn't it. It means that a Jf-17 from Peshawar can land at Sargodha for a problem and not worry about the technicians there not knowing what to do.
Seems being forced to do something was actually a good omen.

PAF has entirely different requirements I think.Over the years,the PAF has concentrated mainly on building up a fleet that will help it to maintain air superiority over its own lands,and I think JF-17 can do that job.Though it lacks the range and maneuverability like the Su-30 MKI but again,a fighter doesnt really need these capabilities if its primary role is to defend the airspace...U see,the role is quite important...

I think that was the Idea with the LCA too, and now its go ne so bad there is already talk of a Mk2 with this one being labeled as an Interceptor..and I thought the idea of purpose built interceptors was a thing of the past.

Development is systematic and progressive,my friend.It never really stops in one place.The Americans developed the F-16,and did they actually stop there.NO!...They went ahead for the development of other jets like F-22 and F-35...New things will always come up,thats the way it is....what else did u expect???

 

[Parashuram1]

Good joke, can you tell me how many enemies does Canada have???

Sir, first of all sorry to intervene in this Pakistan vs India club, (but I do this to know more about South Asian dynamics). Since you highlighted Canada's virtually nil enemies, I'd be curious to ask; apart from New Delhi, who else is possibly your enemy in the region?

From reports posted on PDF, China seems to be a great strategic ally of yours, Afghanistan is not in a position to threaten you, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have no dispute with you, Iran is also unconcerned about what Pakistan does. Then why is there such a worry and concern with just one enemy?

Comparing this to states like Israel, I think your armed forces should be relatively comfortable that they have only one country to worry about. Isn't it?


Back to the topic: I'd say that Gripen NG would be a perfect addition to Pakistani arsenal (my favourite to be added on ChAF's inventory). Since your role is indicating a defensive role against any potential aggression, given by your country's geography, Gripen is a good choice. Powerful engine, neutral country's product, good armament and weapons package. Am I missing something?

And I don't think Americans can put a sanction on you through Gripen. Sweden (fiercely neutral like us) would do its nut to undo the sanctions on a client country.

 

[sancho]

Back to the topic: I'd say that Gripen NG would be a perfect addition to Pakistani arsenal (my favourite to be added on ChAF's inventory). Since your role is indicating a defensive role against any potential aggression, given by your country's geography, Gripen is a good choice. Powerful engine, neutral country's product, good armament and weapons package. Am I missing something?

And I don't think Americans can put a sanction on you through Gripen. Sweden (fiercely neutral like us) would do its nut to undo the sanctions on a client country.

Are you aware that the engine is from US as well as most weapons, also critical parts like radar, IRST, are from Italy/UK? So there are a lot of parts that could be sanctioned, be it for PAF, or IAF.
Gripen NG generally is a good fighter, but not a good choice for PAF, or IAF, because PAF already has enough similar fighters and IAF will have LCA for the same roles too.
Why should PAF pay $70-90 millions (system price depending on ordered numbers) for a Gripen NG, if they can simply by more J10Bs for way less money?
For Swiss instead it is for sure the most logical choice for air policing and replacing F5s, but still I think the Rafale will make it there too. Competitions like this will not decided by logic only, but by politics and economy too!

 

[hellofriends]

if india select Eurofighter than pakistan has no possible answer to MRCA. because eurofighter is best operational aircraft of the world.

 

[sancho]

if india select Eurofighter than pakistan has no possible answer to MRCA. because eurofighter is best operational aircraft of the world.

And IAF would have just another A2A fighter besides MKI, Mig 29, M2k, LCA and in future Pak Fa, not to forget at similar costs as a Pak Fa, so it does not really make sense.