Pakistan-A real market for the Mirage 2000-9 ?

[Basel]

For people who are comparing M2k9s with J-10B should know that PAF may take route of M2k9s as they don't have money to buy new J-10B other then that if you give them money and ask them to choose between two they will definitely go for J-10B (may be a hybrid of west + east avionics) as it offer more and can defend it self well specially in WVR and it will be much better in performance at all altitudes as compared to M2k9s.

PAF only want a used fighter around 15$ to 25$ million max higher than that they may be useless as that money can be used to make JF-17s much better.

 

[araz]

We have listened reason now that is unfair to say non listened, remember people are advocating J-10 and been told in official interview J-10 is not coming JF-17 is going to be worked upon for years to come.

Sames goes for J-10, will people stop bongiyan that J-10 perform miracles against as soon as it lands at baba multani air base. So maybe people should also look at what they have been suggesting instead of persecuting some, Thankyou.

Last what I or some other maybe saying is opinion not that we have leverage or power to change PAF's mind it is a discussing a logical one the time it would take for J-10 to be deployed doctrine and tactics created employed crew trained would take 2twice more time than Mirage 2000/-9, now no where did some one said 2-3 months did anyone it is said relatively quick it could be a couple of years compare to J-10s not less than 8-10 Years you have JF-17 infront of you where does it stand we know it [now don't accuse me of being blasphemous against it I like the aircraft and its importance]. Hence proven you people want to force your flawed logic upon some and segregate others and try to make them bow to you..not going to happen.

Marey bhai.
When you have been on this forum as long as I have(since 2006) and heard from people of the calibre of Muradk, pshamim and Xman and have heard from Mastan khan persist in his very compelling arguments which have all been answered by the very people who were actually involved in the setting up of the deal it gets tiring after a little while. Sometimes my own irritability due to over ripening(old age) comes into it.
My argument is that the very commonality that people are proposing exists between M3/ M5s and M2K9s is nonexistent and therefore a nonstarter. Similarly being a new plane your pilots will require time to get used to and develop its operationalenvelope in which to function. This will take time and flying the plane and perhaps running it out ofits re.aining life before you learn enoigh about it to use it effectively. Another myth about PAF pilots having experience with the platform is actually hilarious as such pilots canbe counted on your fingers a d perhaps would not exceed 20.
Secondly the Nishanisque view that somehow the whole of the middle East is waiting to give us Khairaat of M2K9s is another bongey which has no bearing on reality.
The third supposition that THE FRENCH will somehow Jeoperdise their Rafale deal by allowing the UAE to sell the M2K9s to PAF is again beyond comprehension.
The next theing to consider is how do you get the money for these planes as you will have to pay for them. Given the choice between them and MLUed F16s what would be preferred by PAF and the reasons for it. The other factor to consider is what cuts you make yo allow this purchase and to what detriment.
The final point to contend is what would be the impression you will give to the world whom you are trying to sell your JFT by buying a plane whose production line stopped working 8-10 yrs ago . Why not put the same money intoJFT to bring it upto the standard where you dont need to look left and right.
What I lament is tomorrow someone will again say we can convert the MRF to look after M2Ks and the commonality of M3 series with M2Ks. Lastly if my comments have caused people grief I am sorry but really people need to read the topic in depth before making comments.
Araz

 

[Basel]

@gambit @Munir @Pakistanisage @Windjammer @Aeronaut @Chogy please give your opinion on this issue, what will be better for PAF more used F-16 which don't allow HARM + HARPOON integration, used M2k9s spares supply not sure from OEM or J-10-B new which comes whatever PAF want but have more price tag as they are new?

 

[MastanKhan]

Oscar,

Do you really know what you want to say---or it is just out of habbit that you want to blast it out. Every new developing project has hurdles---even if the material comes from one source or from multiple sources---if there are sanctions or no sanctions---failure---successes.

F35 is a great examples---so many issues----Eurofighter----.

The horse's mouth's have been neighing and braying for a longtime---for 20 + years they screwed up---in the last 2 years they seemed to be more focused.

It was their screw up that they did not place an order after 9/11 for a suitable aircraft---their neglect has been on the level of treason.

I keep telling children & young people---and you too----there was life and things happening before you started learning things 20 years ago---considering that you are around 30 and me being close to 60----and there were things happening eons before that.

Al new machinery have similar problems of integration---cars trucks planes fighter aircraft---high end technology.

Now if the JF7 gets integrated in 7 to 8 years--it is within the parameters----if it takes around 12 years---it is getting long on the tooth but still within the parameter.

OSCAR----when you want to say something to me---please don't speak in Pakistani---please say clearly what your point is----.

When you get mad at my post---read it again----.

SENIOR MODERATOR----M2K9 HAS BEEN FLYING FOR MANY A YEARS. All its technical issues and quirks have been solved and resolved.

The J10 B is a brand new aircraft---it will have a brand new engine and brand new electronic and weapons package---everything will be new----and for a new item---the predictability level has to be ascertained----and specially a Chinese product at that---it will take time----.

That is simple common sense----. And you are wrong---it will not take the same time for integration between M2K9 and J10B----.

That is mathematically not possible.

 

[MilSpec]

@MastanKhan by predictability level, I hope you mean reliability analysis. Reliability analysis is part of PLM attached to most of bids in capital equipment procurement projects.

I do not think anyone here has the the information on reliability analysis for J10 and M2K. thus implying chinese product ( predictability which doesn't make sense to me, the closest viable comparative parameter might be reliability) might be inferior to a 35 year old airframe design needs to be substantiated with data.

You keep implying integration time between M2K and J10B will be different but do not provide any data on which the hypothesis is based on.

Your assertion is new engine will cause more time for integration? in the case of M2K an J10B, both the engines are new for PAF ground staff.

Your assertion is new weapons package will take longer, but you do not provide the reaons why? SD10 has been in production which implies it has gone through all the Dfmea, pfmea, launch containment, and test validation. If it has been inducted by the PLAAF and the PAF, it means it is ready to achieve it's objective when released from the FCM everytime. just like the aim120, r77, mica, meteor.

As most contributors here on the thread have been here for a while now, I think it would serve the cause of the discourse, if you can substantiate the claims in disparity i time for induction for both platforms with higher degree of detail.

thanks

 

[SQ8]

I think what he means with the time frame is two things:
1-There is the learning curve that each new plane comes with. Let's assume that PAF pilots learn their new plane and can fly it to a certain proficient level in 3 years. Now this 3 years figure is the same, whether it's the M2K or JF-17 or F-16 (because it's dependent on the pilot and not the plane, and since F-16/JF-17/M2K are all FBW, we can assume under ideal conditions that we can take that as as standard). Those pilots who transition from JF-17 to F-16 will need the same time. It's innate human capability, and as such the learning curve for a specific human will be same for all new aircraft he straps himself into.
It would naturally be less, if they are transitioning from F-16 BLK15 to BLK52, but it would still be there.

2-The second time frame is the fact if the plane itself is ready to be learned. You can learn to fly JF-17 in no time, we know that since pilots go from simulator to actual flying, then you can learn to fly with drop tanks and bombs, and then you can take it a step further to fly it with BVR weapons or say anti-ship missiles. The problem with JF-17 is that, this time frame is moving, because JF-17 still needs to test and integrate new weapons. Simply mounting an SD-10 doesn't make you BVR capable. You need to fly and refly to make sure you know the limitations, for example, at what range does the SD-10 offer the best kill ratio? At what altitude and range does the JDAM provide maximum effectiveness. At what range does the KLJ7 pick up, say, a destroyer sized target which is at sea? What happens if you are flying in bad weather and under night? Since JF-17 is a new plane, we have to learn how to fly it along with all the systems that are there and not there. In case of the M2K, you don't have to worry about the weapons tests and integration, because Dassault did that long time ago. They already know how the Matra 530/550 or MICA behave, so that part of the job is cut out for you. So from day one, the pilots can strap their Matras and Pods and learn to fly with them. You don't have that luxury with Jf-17 because it's a continuous process.
So that overall time frame, is at best not known yet. I am not sure if it's 10 years, but it will be certainly more than a tested weapons system. Think about it, SD-10 itself is a new weapon, so is JF-17. So you have to learn both. CM400AKG is a new weapon, you have no experience on it before. How does the JF-17 perform with or without it?

1. The learning curve with the M2K is not the issue, tactics integration and testing is. Flying and fighting with the aircraft are two different things. Just as they did not with the JF-17, the PAF knows jack about the M2K in their operational environment.

2. While the integration testing has been done before with the M2K, for the PAF it is still a new plane. looking at the MMRCA trials, one would think that the IAF would know from the get go with all the technical data provided as to how the aircraft would perform and any in country trials would not be needed. But they were, the aircraft's performance needed to be evaluated vis-a-vis factory claims. While that may not be needed for the M2K-9, what will be needed is to create an entire training process from the pilots to the Maintenance crews. The weapons that do come with it, pilots will still need a training primer, the logistic dept will need a course and so on.
The same goes for missiles. As such the MICA has not been tested in combat. But it has had extensive firing trials that have given a set of parameters that it has to meet. The AIM-120 saw its first kill only 11 months after achieving IOC with the F-16. By contrast, the SD-10 has had more time on the JF-17. However, one cannot compare or contrast whether the SD-10 with achieve its kills or not in a similar manner. Test fires are one thing, operational usage is another. So while the issues of integration and weapons release and fire tests are removed from the M2K. Usage of the weapons is not.

 

[SQ8]

Oscar,

Do you really know what you want to say---or it is just out of habbit that you want to blast it out. Every new developing project has hurdles---even if the material comes from one source or from multiple sources---if there are sanctions or no sanctions---failure---successes.

F35 is a great examples---so many issues----Eurofighter----.

The horse's mouth's have been neighing and braying for a longtime---for 20 + years they screwed up---in the last 2 years they seemed to be more focused.

It was their screw up that they did not place an order after 9/11 for a suitable aircraft---their neglect has been on the level of treason.

I keep telling children & young people---and you too----there was life and things happening before you started learning things 20 years ago---considering that you are around 30 and me being close to 60----and there were things happening eons before that.

Al new machinery have similar problems of integration---cars trucks planes fighter aircraft---high end technology.

Now if the JF7 gets integrated in 7 to 8 years--it is within the parameters----if it takes around 12 years---it is getting long on the tooth but still within the parameter.

OSCAR----when you want to say something to me---please don't speak in Pakistani---please say clearly what your point is----.

When you get mad at my post---read it again----.

SENIOR MODERATOR----M2K9 HAS BEEN FLYING FOR MANY A YEARS. All its technical issues and quirks have been solved and resolved.

The J10 B is a brand new aircraft---it will have a brand new engine and brand new electronic and weapons package---everything will be new----and for a new item---the predictability level has to be ascertained----and specially a Chinese product at that---it will take time----.

That is simple common sense----. And you are wrong---it will not take the same time for integration between M2K9 and J10B----.

That is mathematically not possible.

Perhaps I should ask you the same question, since you are the one jumping from tangent to tangent. You being around for 30+ years more does not mean that everything you say is .. as they say "Quran and Hadees".

Your post itself focused on how the J-10B and the JF-17 will take eons and the M2K-9 will be as easy as putting a key in and starting up. Then you went on the tirade on how you were "right all along" on the J-10B integration period. I remember your tirade and it was NOT about the J-10B, but it was about the JF-17. I agreed that the aircraft has its quirks and will have a gestation period but the pilot training will take exactly as much time as the next aircraft. More in part to the fact that the end user is the developer of the aircraft and a lot of the Industry delays associated with firms such as Lockheed and MiG to their end user take a certain percentage of delays.

There is no contention to your idea that the time take to integrate the M2K and J-10B(never the focus of my argument) will take different times. However, your idea that the M2K will take 5 years is also some serious optimistic folly. Even the F-16 Block-52 which has been flying much before the M2k in PAF service took 5 years to be declared ready to fight. Here is a platform that the PAF knows nothing about, has no idea about its maintenance and weapons...and you are suggesting that the very people you so easily dismiss as idiotic "horses" will make this work like some miracle?

What is good for the goose is good for the Gander Barrey Mian.

 

[gambit]

@gambit @Munir @Pakistanisage @Windjammer @Aeronaut @Chogy please give your opinion on this issue, what will be better for PAF more used F-16 which don't allow HARM + HARPOON integration, used M2k9s spares supply not sure from OEM or J-10-B new which comes whatever PAF want but have more price tag as they are new?

Weapons integration with the F-16 is rarely a technical issue, within reasons, of course. We cannot install something that could violate aircraft structural integrity, right ? So the debate on whether to use the F-16 in a maritime role, which would necessitate the Harpoon missile integration, is purely a political decision, meaning between Pakistan' leaders and between Pakistan and the US.

Getting the J-10B is also largely a political issue. As airmen, we will fly and fix whatever our political leaders say they will buy. We can input our thoughts into the decision making process, such as logistics, training, familiarity, longevity, and so on, and hope that the final decision will be a wise one for the country.

The F-16 is a proven platform with a global record that includes durability and versatility that is hard to match, let alone surpass, by any machine from any country. It set the standards for the taken for granted fly-by-wire flight control system that is mandatory for any warplane today and for the airline industry. As for its single engine, the F-16 is nothing new in the line of single engine fighters that proved themselves durable and survivable, for land and sea basing, so that debate is pretty much petty, in my opinion. For countries that do not have or need the geopolitical power extension and projection that we have, a single engine fighter is a wise economical choice for their countries. Ask any maintenance trooper and he/she will tell you that changing the engine in a single engine fighter is twice as easy and fast as any dual engine ones. And we have far more experience in that arena of aviation than any country in the world and under any environmental condition.

As an American, who have seen the world through the beautiful F-16 canopy from 30k+ ft altitude, who knows what is it like to merely twitch my right wrist and have the jet respond to 9g forces, and an abashed F-16 'fanboy', my opinion to go for the F-16 could be reasonably charged with being grossly biased. The most I can 'advise', as much as 'advice' from an anonymous Internet forum handle matters, is that Pakistanis will have to assess how much is the CURRENT level of dependency on the F-16 by Pakistani airmen, from pilots to maintainers to air doctrines, and guess the differences, if any, should Pakistan decide to get the J-10B. Make no mistakes and underestimations, the two aircrafts are obviously not the same, they will exhibit different behaviors at all flying conditions.

Take the A-10 and F-16 in CAS, for example. The F-16's faster speed will allow the pilot to exit the threat area faster but will also reduce his situational awareness (SA) compare to his A-10 brother, who will remain under threat longer but will have greater SA to better respond to ground troop's requests/instructions. Combat Controllers, and I have friends among them, prefers the A-10 over the F-16. These behavioral differences will inevitably produces different combat tactics and doctrines. Changing aircrafts and you will have to re-study and reformulate your current tactics and doctrines, hopefully not too radical as to require retraining.

Is the Harpoon and maritime mission worth such a change ? Perhaps Pakistan can negotiate with the US at a later date over this ? Is it possible that Pakistan can develop her own Harpoon-like missile ? Are there any differences in logistics for the J-10B, such as reliability of delivery of parts and quality of parts, comparable to what Pakistan currently have with the F-16 ?

The US, with our resources and experience, can afford to constantly question our current platforms, tactics, and doctrines, and change them if we deem necessary. Should Pakistan ? Yes. But can Pakistan and to what extent ? Would China sell Pakistan just a few J-10B to study and agrees to support them for X years ? Not likely. How about Pakistan agreed to buy a couple squadron's worth of J-10B then China will talk about long term support ? Then what if the J-10B fails to live up to Pakistan's expectations ? Keep in mind that I am not saying the J-10B is junk in anyway. But there are many many many reasons why countries who must purchase their defense needs convincing from sellers that their wares will meet buyer's needs and expectations. And just because the Chinese places no limitations on what they will sell you does not mean the J-10B will meet your needs and expectations. Once you bought those couple of squadron's worth of J-10Bs, you can rot them and Chinese does not care. They already have your money.

This is a debate that will have to remain between you guys as you figuratively places yourselves into your leaders' shoes. Again, you have to assess your CURRENT level of dependency on the F-16 and ask if the J-10B have anything in quantity that will convince you -- the buyers -- that your current level of proficiency of all aspects, from flying to maintenance, on the F-16 can be matched or even surpassed by the J-10B, to worth spending billions of hard earned cash.

 

[Kompromat]

Weapons integration with the F-16 is rarely a technical issue, within reasons, of course. We cannot install something that could violate aircraft structural integrity, right ? So the debate on whether to use the F-16 in a maritime role, which would necessitate the Harpoon missile integration, is purely a political decision, meaning between Pakistan' leaders and between Pakistan and the US.

Getting the J-10B is also largely a political issue. As airmen, we will fly and fix whatever our political leaders say they will buy. We can input our thoughts into the decision making process, such as logistics, training, familiarity, longevity, and so on, and hope that the final decision will be a wise one for the country.

The F-16 is a proven platform with a global record that includes durability and versatility that is hard to match, let alone surpass, by any machine from any country. It set the standards for the taken for granted fly-by-wire flight control system that is mandatory for any warplane today and for the airline industry. As for its single engine, the F-16 is nothing new in the line of single engine fighters that proved themselves durable and survivable, for land and sea basing, so that debate is pretty much petty, in my opinion. For countries that do not have or need the geopolitical power extension and projection that we have, a single engine fighter is a wise economical choice for their countries. Ask any maintenance trooper and he/she will tell you that changing the engine in a single engine fighter is twice as easy and fast as any dual engine ones. And we have far more experience in that arena of aviation than any country in the world and under any environmental condition.

As an American, who have seen the world through the beautiful F-16 canopy from 30k+ ft altitude, who knows what is it like to merely twitch my right wrist and have the jet respond to 9g forces, and an abashed F-16 'fanboy', my opinion to go for the F-16 could be reasonably charged with being grossly biased. The most I can 'advise', as much as 'advice' from an anonymous Internet forum handle matters, is that Pakistanis will have to assess how much is the CURRENT level of dependency on the F-16 by Pakistani airmen, from pilots to maintainers to air doctrines, and guess the differences, if any, should Pakistan decide to get the J-10B. Make no mistakes and underestimations, the two aircrafts are obviously not the same, they will exhibit different behaviors at all flying conditions.

Take the A-10 and F-16 in CAS, for example. The F-16's faster speed will allow the pilot to exit the threat area faster but will also reduce his situational awareness (SA) compare to his A-10 brother, who will remain under threat longer but will have greater SA to better respond to ground troop's requests/instructions. Combat Controllers, and I have friends among them, prefers the A-10 over the F-16. These behavioral differences will inevitably produces different combat tactics and doctrines. Changing aircrafts and you will have to re-study and reformulate your current tactics and doctrines, hopefully not too radical as to require retraining.

Is the Harpoon and maritime mission worth such a change ? Perhaps Pakistan can negotiate with the US at a later date over this ? Is it possible that Pakistan can develop her own Harpoon-like missile ? Are there any differences in logistics for the J-10B, such as reliability of delivery of parts and quality of parts, comparable to what Pakistan currently have with the F-16 ?

The US, with our resources and experience, can afford to constantly question our current platforms, tactics, and doctrines, and change them if we deem necessary. Should Pakistan ? Yes. But can Pakistan and to what extent ? Would China sell Pakistan just a few J-10B to study and agrees to support them for X years ? Not likely. How about Pakistan agreed to buy a couple squadron's worth of J-10B then China will talk about long term support ? Then what if the J-10B fails to live up to Pakistan's expectations ? Keep in mind that I am not saying the J-10B is junk in anyway. But there are many many many reasons why countries who must purchase their defense needs convincing from sellers that their wares will meet buyer's needs and expectations. And just because the Chinese places no limitations on what they will sell you does not mean the J-10B will meet your needs and expectations. Once you bought those couple of squadron's worth of J-10Bs, you can rot them and Chinese does not care. They already have your money.

This is a debate that will have to remain between you guys as you figuratively places yourselves into your leaders' shoes. Again, you have to assess your CURRENT level of dependency on the F-16 and ask if the J-10B have anything in quantity that will convince you -- the buyers -- that your current level of proficiency of all aspects, from flying to maintenance, on the F-16 can be matched or even surpassed by the J-10B, to worth spending billions of hard earned cash.

How about the 60 odd Norwegian F-16 MLU-MV (= Block-52) with the Penguin Anti Ship Missiles?

The MLU package we opted for did integrate the capability to carry Harpoons which we already have, should we make the call to use our F-16s for Maritime attack role.

 

[MastanKhan]

@MastanKhan by predictability level, I hope you mean reliability analysis. Reliability analysis is part of PLM attached to most of bids in capital equipment procurement projects.

I do not think anyone here has the the information on reliability analysis for J10 and M2K. thus implying chinese product ( predictability which doesn't make sense to me, the closest viable comparative parameter might be reliability) might be inferior to a 35 year old airframe design needs to be substantiated with data.

You keep implying integration time between M2K and J10B will be different but do not provide any data on which the hypothesis is based on.

Your assertion is new engine will cause more time for integration? in the case of M2K an J10B, both the engines are new for PAF ground staff.

Your assertion is new weapons package will take longer, but you do not provide the reaons why? SD10 has been in production which implies it has gone through all the Dfmea, pfmea, launch containment, and test validation. If it has been inducted by the PLAAF and the PAF, it means it is ready to achieve it's objective when released from the FCM everytime. just like the aim120, r77, mica, meteor.

As most contributors here on the thread have been here for a while now, I think it would serve the cause of the discourse, if you can substantiate the claims in disparity i time for induction for both platforms with higher degree of detail.

thanks

Hi,

J10B is still going thruthe development stage----. The engine that it has---cannot besold to pakistan----its chinese engine is not certfied yet---guys---I am not speaking any FARSI----. Once he chinese engine becomes operational then you will find out other issues that need to be overcome---amongst other issues.

The J10B would only be feasible with an aesa----otherwise pak can get the F16's.

OTOH---all the operational and maintenance aspects of the M2k9 have all been dealt with----big deal if they are not known to pakistan---they will be once the aircraft is acquired----as for the J10B---it is all up in the air---it is brandspanking new----still going thru testing----.

Am I suddenly atlking to brainless people now----. If it was me----I could say that I have started to lose my marbles----but you are young people---wha tother kind of reasoning do you want me to give you----.

Tis M2k9 has been deployed and been in actual military service for the last 10 + years----. OTOH---the J10B---isa brand new aircraft---whose engine that can be sold to pakitan has not even been certified yet. It is not done with the testing yet----.

Sandy---do you not see and read about the issues with the F35----does anything else needs to be said---.

As for PAF---F16 is still the best option---but if M2k(is available---it is a must buy---purely for psychological reasons----if paf pilots can beat the IAF m2k's---the psyche of the indian pilots will be shattered----but the most importat part would be that these potent aircraft won't be filling in a very much needed gap for te IAF.

 

[gambit]

How about the 60 odd Norwegian F-16 MLU-MV (= Block-52) with the Penguin Anti Ship Missiles?

The MLU package we opted for did integrate the capability to carry Harpoons which we already have, should we make the call to use our F-16s for Maritime attack role.

If you guys, in playing your leaders' roles, feels that there is a strong need for a fast maritime attack capability, and if you do not want to remove your airmen from their familiarity with the F-16, then any integration with any non-US anti-ship missile should be deemed worthwhile of investigation, if not acquisition.

By nature, I am a conservative. Am not talking American politics here. Being conservative does not mean resistance to change but rather to assess if the proposal's consequences are beneficial or not. Since nothing is 100% beneficial, we who are faced with a proposal to change must weigh the positive consequences versus the negative consequences and graduate the pace of the change. If the Penguin suits Pakistan's maritime defense need, get it.

Is the Penguin as good as the Harpoon ? That is a technical debate. Say that the Penguin is 85% as effective as the Harpoon under ideal sea conditions and degrades to 75% under higher, meaning rougher, sea states.

Douglas Sea Scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you wait for something that is 100% effective, thereby discouraging your adversary from making plans to you from the sea ? Or do you at least give him second thoughts via something that is less than 100% but can be executed immediately ? But again, you have to assess how dependent are Pakistan's airmen on the F-16. Giving them a maritime defense mission is not a technical issue because they are dedicated and they will execute. Assigning them a maritime defense mission on a weapons platform that they are familiar with for decades and they will execute sooner and faster.

 

[Kompromat]

If you guys, in playing your leaders' roles, feels that there is a strong need for a fast maritime attack capability, and if you do not want to remove your airmen from their familiarity with the F-16, then any integration with any non-US anti-ship missile should be deemed worthwhile of investigation, if not acquisition.

By nature, I am a conservative. Am not talking American politics here. Being conservative does not mean resistance to change but rather to assess if the proposal's consequences are beneficial or not. Since nothing is 100% beneficial, we who are faced with a proposal to change must weigh the positive consequences versus the negative consequences and graduate the pace of the change. If the Penguin suits Pakistan's maritime defense need, get it.

Is the Penguin as good as the Harpoon ? That is a technical debate. Say that the Penguin is 85% as effective as the Harpoon under ideal sea conditions and degrades to 75% under higher, meaning rougher, sea states.

Douglas Sea Scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you wait for something that is 100% effective, thereby discouraging your adversary from making plans to you from the sea ? Or do you at least give him second thoughts via something that is less than 100% but can be executed immediately ? But again, you have to assess how dependent are Pakistan's airmen on the F-16. Giving them a maritime defense mission is not a technical issue because they are dedicated and they will execute. Assigning them a maritime defense mission on a weapons platform that they are familiar with for decades and they will execute sooner and faster.

To be honest with you, the PAF would love to have as many F-16s as it can get from the surplus stock, put it through upgrades and integrate it in its fleet. PAF has been using the F-16s for almost 3 decades with deadly effect in actual air to air combat against the soviets, having shot down ~ 20 jets and for carrying out precision strikes against the Taliban.

PAF is a force that can integrate the F-16s faster than all other jets, simply because of the past experience it has built. The only big issue is the US political climate which may change as our relationship with the US is that of a client state not an ally.
As you pointed out correctly about integrating the Harpoons. I think, if there is such a need the PAF would be able to muster a team to carry out the maritime attack duties, using the F-16s. As of now, i am unaware of any such proposal from the Navy. However they have been looking for the JF-17 Block II with CM-400AKG and C-802AK missiles.

In my opinion, the PAF instead of buying up the J-10Bs, should go out and buy the UAE Mirage-2000-9s as well as collect the F-16s in numbers, upgrade both types, phase out Mirage-III/V, F-7Ps and PGs over time. Having a 100% netcentric 4th generation fleet should be the aim, since the costs are prohibiting us we ought to go out and buy the surplus jets as our airpower is something we cannot afford to compromise. A fleet of 200-250 JF-17 Block-II/IIIs - 65 odd Surplus Mirage-2000-9s and ~ 100 odd F-16s all upgraded to 4th generation specs, plus AWACs, EW aircrafts and refuelers we already have would surely be a reasonable deterrent for at least a decade and a half to come.

 

[Donatello]

To be honest with you, the PAF would love to have as many F-16s as it can get from the surplus stock, put it through upgrades and integrate it in its fleet. PAF has been using the F-16s for almost 3 decades with deadly effect in actual air to air combat against the soviets, having shot down ~ 20 jets and for carrying out precision strikes against the Taliban.

PAF is a force that can integrate the F-16s faster than all other jets, simply because of the past experience it has built. The only big issue is the US political climate which may change as our relationship with the US is that of a client state not an ally.
As you pointed out correctly about integrating the Harpoons. I think, if there is such a need the PAF would be able to muster a team to carry out the maritime attack duties, using the F-16s. As of now, i am unaware of any such proposal from the Navy. However they have been looking for the JF-17 Block II with CM-400AKG and C-802AK missiles.

In my opinion, the PAF instead of buying up the J-10Bs, should go out and buy the UAE Mirage-2000-9s as well as collect the F-16s in numbers, upgrade both types, phase out Mirage-III/V, F-7Ps and PGs over time. Having a 100% netcentric 4th generation fleet should be the aim, since the costs are prohibiting us we ought to go out and buy the surplus jets as our airpower is something we cannot afford to compromise. A fleet of 200-250 JF-17 Block-II/IIIs - 65 odd Surplus Mirage-2000-9s and ~ 100 odd F-16s all upgraded to 4th generation specs, plus AWACs, EW aircrafts and refuelers we already have would surely be a reasonable deterrent for at least a decade and a half to come.

If PAF can get F-16 numbers to 100, that would be great. 60 M2Ks would be 3 full sqaudrons (18 aircraft), with remaining 6 going to CCS as aggressor roles. That would be 154 jets, all state of the art. Add 150 JF-17s to the mix, you have 300 potent aircraft, more than enough to keep away any folly in our airspace. No need to buy additional JF-17s, since they will be costing 25-30million USD anyway, and i am sure we can convince the UAE to sell us their old jets for the same amount.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

J10B OR BUST

It makes absolutely no , reasonble sense , to let go of J10B which is a more Air-Air , role aircraft and instead go for Mirage 2000 which is slightly better then our Mirages

Getting spareparts of the Mirage 2000 would be a pain , seirously

J10B , would be nicely integrated with our AWACs platform , and also offer more air security its more agile and carrier more payload

In Todays warfare sometimes , you need to go for newer options.

J10B should be bought form China as was the origional plan for 2014

Mirage 2000 has no role in our airforce

 

[Kompromat]

J10B OR BUST

It makes absolutely no , reasonble sense , to let go of J10B which is a more Air-Air , role aircraft and instead go for Mirage 2000 which is slightly better then our Mirages

Getting spareparts of the Mirage 2000 would be a pain , seirously

J10B , would be nicely integrated with our AWACs platform , and also offer more air security its more agile and carrier more payload

In Todays warfare sometimes , you need to go for newer options.

J10B should be bought form China as was the origional plan for 2014

Mirage 2000 has no role in our airforce

PAF officials have repeatedly resisted the J-10B on grounds that are too technical for you to comprehend.