Pakistan Air Force | News & Discussions.

[litman]

Yes, that's what they are sent there for, to become "bridges of unity". This is the core problem in PAF imho.

You need to send diplomats to build such "bridges". Not compromise your national security by creating a block of your military personnel whose ultimate loyalty will be effected by such "bridge building" exercises.

its not only in PAF but in every pakistani department. they always consider USA as boss. the previous PAF chief ot the award from USAF at the time of his retirement.

 

[MastanKhan]

PAF is stronger today than at any time in the past.

There are 100 JF-17s armed with BVR
almost 80 F-16s armed with AMRAAMs
150 odd Mirages, out of which about 60 are BVR capable with R-Darter and now this is possibly replaced with AMRAAM.
F-7PG has BVR - R-Darter and now possibly replaced with ???

R-Darters in PAF service had 60 km range according to Prasun Sengupta (they were improved from the regular R-Darters). They are being phased out or have already been phased out (???)

that's a total of nearly 300 BVR capable aircraft!

Hi,

Off course----but in relation to what---?

It is simple math---Paf has 100 JF17's---so by default they are stronger.

 

[Armchair]

Hi,

Off course----but in relation to what---?

It is simple math---Paf has 100 JF17's---so by default they are stronger.

Hi MK,

Stronger in relation to the past. also in relation to the 1990s, 2000s, and more recent history, stronger compared to what they were against the IAF, relatively speaking. What seemed to be an irrevocable lead by the IAF, with projected buys of 124 MRCA, petered out. LCA failed to be meaningful. Squadron strength with the IAF has only gone down.

Meanwhile, PAF now has a national network with a large number of radars and AWACS, and about 300 BVR capable fighters.

If my speculation that the Mirages can now fire AMRAAMs is correct (and this makes perfect sense for the 500 AMRAAM buy, PAF airspace has some serious capability build up.

The IAF FLANKERS have very long spool up times, meaning they have to be based further inland, forward airbase usage will not be meaningful for them. MiGs of all shades and varieties are now in poor shape and many are outdated.

Entering Pakistani airspace at low level for Jaguars, MiG-27s, is going to be very costly.

PAF does seem quite unassailable and very capable of protecting Pakistani airspace.

Let us consider the effective force utilization capabilities, using some basic rule of thumb:
IAF
Aircraft # Availability effective force utilization
MiG-21 244 50% 122
MiG-29 66 60% 40
Mirage 2000 41 80% 33
Sukhoi Su-30 240 60% 144

For BVR air combat, IAF only has, at any given time, this total of 239 aircraft that can meaningfully engage in air combat.

PAF would obviously have fewer, but I do think that the gap is now smaller than anytime in the recent past.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi MK,

Stronger in relation to the past. also in relation to the 1990s, 2000s, and more recent history, stronger compared to what they were against the IAF, relatively speaking. What seemed to be an irrevocable lead by the IAF, with projected buys of 124 MRCA, petered out. LCA failed to be meaningful. Squadron strength with the IAF has only gone down.

Meanwhile, PAF now has a national network with a large number of radars and AWACS, and about 300 BVR capable fighters.

If my speculation that the Mirages can now fire AMRAAMs is correct (and this makes perfect sense for the 500 AMRAAM buy, PAF airspace has some serious capability build up.

The IAF FLANKERS have very long spool up times, meaning they have to be based further inland, forward airbase usage will not be meaningful for them. MiGs of all shades and varieties are now in poor shape and many are outdated.

Entering Pakistani airspace at low level for Jaguars, MiG-27s, is going to be very costly.

PAF does seem quite unassailable and very capable of protecting Pakistani airspace.

Let us consider the effective force utilization capabilities, using some basic rule of thumb:
IAF
Aircraft # Availability effective force utilization
MiG-21 244 50% 122
MiG-29 66 60% 40
Mirage 2000 41 80% 33
Sukhoi Su-30 240 60% 144

For BVR air combat, IAF only has, at any given time, this total of 239 aircraft that can meaningfully engage in air combat.

PAF would obviously have fewer, but I do think that the gap is now smaller than anytime in the recent past.

Hi,

Modern warfare has proved that inferior aircrafts would be decimated by the superior aircraft---that is one thing you cannot take away from a superior aircraft.

A pilot flying a superior aircraft would be default would be a superior pilot playing on the strengths of his aircraft---.

When the enemy's primary aircraft can carry 4 to six times the number of BVR missiles than yours---have massive jammers---the equation is not the same---.

It would be embarrassing to consider the mirage 3's in any league at all in the offensive role.

 

[Armchair]

Hi,

Modern warfare has proved that inferior aircrafts would be decimated by the superior aircraft---that is one thing you cannot take away from a superior aircraft.

A pilot flying a superior aircraft would be default would be a superior pilot playing on the strengths of his aircraft---.

When the enemy's primary aircraft can carry 4 to six times the number of BVR missiles than yours---have massive jammers---the equation is not the same---.

It would be embarrassing to consider the mirage 3's in any league at all in the offensive role.

You're right. Of course the FLANKER is in a class of its own in offensive counter air.

BUT

The Mirage and JF-17s will not be engaging in offensive counter air. They will be fighting a defensive battle. One where in fact IAF MiG-21s would not have the legs to have effective impact.

In the 1990s, PAF had a handful of barely operational F-16s with BVR (Sparrows). In the 2000s, PAF had R-Darters with F-7PG and Mirages, while IAF had a huge, massive lead. In the early 2010s, PAF only had a small number of JF-17s.

IAF FLANKERS, lets assume that for offensive counter air they use 8x BVR and 2x WVR. This is actually being very optimistic of a meaningful loadout. Still, they will face JF-17s with 4x BVRs and F-16s with 6x BVR That's definitely not four to six times the number as you are quoting.

And IAF is not made up of only FLANKERS, there are legions of MiG-21s, then Mirage 2000s with the range-challenged French BVR. Then there are MiG-29s that have serious limitations in their use of BVRs.

Old airframes such as Mirage are excellent for interception, where you need fast climb to altitude, a good radar to lock with, and with AMRAAMs, a game changer.

This is not like WVR dogfights, its a very specific and technical capability.

But you are right MK, not meaningful for offensive counter air ops.

 

[messiach]

Interesting.

Yes, that's what they are sent there for, to become "bridges of unity". This is the core problem in PAF imho.

You need to send diplomats to build such "bridges". Not compromise your national security by creating a block of your military personnel whose ultimate loyalty will be effected by such "bridge building" exercises.

 

[MastanKhan]

You're right. Of course the FLANKER is in a class of its own in offensive counter air.

BUT

The Mirage and JF-17s will not be engaging in offensive counter air. They will be fighting a defensive battle. One where in fact IAF MiG-21s would not have the legs to have effective impact.

In the 1990s, PAF had a handful of barely operational F-16s with BVR (Sparrows). In the 2000s, PAF had R-Darters with F-7PG and Mirages, while IAF had a huge, massive lead. In the early 2010s, PAF only had a small number of JF-17s.

IAF FLANKERS, lets assume that for offensive counter air they use 8x BVR and 2x WVR. This is actually being very optimistic of a meaningful loadout. Still, they will face JF-17s with 4x BVRs and F-16s with 6x BVR That's definitely not four to six times the number as you are quoting.

And IAF is not made up of only FLANKERS, there are legions of MiG-21s, then Mirage 2000s with the range-challenged French BVR. Then there are MiG-29s that have serious limitations in their use of BVRs.

Old airframes such as Mirage are excellent for interception, where you need fast climb to altitude, a good radar to lock with, and with AMRAAMs, a game changer.

This is not like WVR dogfights, its a very specific and technical capability.

But you are right MK, not meaningful for offensive counter air ops.

Hi,

Paf has no choice but to fight a defensive war---.

Defensive war is for a loser---.

In the past---there was a myth attached with the Paf pilots and muslim warriors---.

That myth has been busted by the americans---.

When you talk of the mirage 3's---you sound like selling the enemy short---please don't---.

 

[GriffinsRule]

You're right. Of course the FLANKER is in a class of its own in offensive counter air.

BUT

The Mirage and JF-17s will not be engaging in offensive counter air. They will be fighting a defensive battle. One where in fact IAF MiG-21s would not have the legs to have effective impact.

In the 1990s, PAF had a handful of barely operational F-16s with BVR (Sparrows). In the 2000s, PAF had R-Darters with F-7PG and Mirages, while IAF had a huge, massive lead. In the early 2010s, PAF only had a small number of JF-17s.

IAF FLANKERS, lets assume that for offensive counter air they use 8x BVR and 2x WVR. This is actually being very optimistic of a meaningful loadout. Still, they will face JF-17s with 4x BVRs and F-16s with 6x BVR That's definitely not four to six times the number as you are quoting.

And IAF is not made up of only FLANKERS, there are legions of MiG-21s, then Mirage 2000s with the range-challenged French BVR. Then there are MiG-29s that have serious limitations in their use of BVRs.

Old airframes such as Mirage are excellent for interception, where you need fast climb to altitude, a good radar to lock with, and with AMRAAMs, a game changer.

This is not like WVR dogfights, its a very specific and technical capability.

But you are right MK, not meaningful for offensive counter air ops.

PAF Mirages should not even be counted as a threat to IAF. Maybe they will succeed in shallow attacks on their armored formations etc but that is about it. Unless Mirages in question are -2009, leave them from the equation. And they are not equipped with BVR missiles. Yes their radar might be decent upgrade when considering it dates from the 1990s, it is only speculation that PAF actually has any missiles on them to use at BVR ranges.

And if you are counting the IAF at 60-80% serviceability, you should do the same with PAF. After all, we know we have jets coming in and out of overhauls and servicing just like anyone else, we are not immune to jets that would not be battle ready.

 

[CriticalThought]

Interesting.

Welcome back Madam. Nice to see you on the forum.

 

[Tank131]

You're right. Of course the FLANKER is in a class of its own in offensive counter air.

BUT

The Mirage and JF-17s will not be engaging in offensive counter air. They will be fighting a defensive battle. One where in fact IAF MiG-21s would not have the legs to have effective impact.

In the 1990s, PAF had a handful of barely operational F-16s with BVR (Sparrows). In the 2000s, PAF had R-Darters with F-7PG and Mirages, while IAF had a huge, massive lead. In the early 2010s, PAF only had a small number of JF-17s.

IAF FLANKERS, lets assume that for offensive counter air they use 8x BVR and 2x WVR. This is actually being very optimistic of a meaningful loadout. Still, they will face JF-17s with 4x BVRs and F-16s with 6x BVR That's definitely not four to six times the number as you are quoting.

And IAF is not made up of only FLANKERS, there are legions of MiG-21s, then Mirage 2000s with the range-challenged French BVR. Then there are MiG-29s that have serious limitations in their use of BVRs.

Old airframes such as Mirage are excellent for interception, where you need fast climb to altitude, a good radar to lock with, and with AMRAAMs, a game changer.

This is not like WVR dogfights, its a very specific and technical capability.

But you are right MK, not meaningful for offensive counter air ops.

You are making strong assumptions regarding the mirage fleets equipment based on rumor amd conjecture of the early 2000s. While the grifo m radar may have had the range to host a BVR missile, there is no definitive proof that PAF ever had R-darter. Furthermore PAF was never sold sparrows for F-16 (despite what Wikipedia reports). The only bvr aircraft in PAF arsenal are the 100 JF-17 and 85 F-16. The mirages are not likely to carry the AMRAAM and im not sute if you expanded on that theory but how did you come up with that conclusion? Now there may be a way for PAF to create BVR capacity among the legacy fleet using datalinks much like erieyr does for gripen. If ZDK and ERIEYE can utilize Link17 to guide missiles then the robust AWAC fleet of 7 (soon to be 10 i believe) could theoretically enable Mirages and F-7 to host BVR missiles in a pinch.

 

[Armchair]

PAF Mirages should not even be counted as a threat to IAF. Maybe they will succeed in shallow attacks on their armored formations etc but that is about it. Unless Mirages in question are -2009, leave them from the equation. And they are not equipped with BVR missiles. Yes their radar might be decent upgrade when considering it dates from the 1990s, it is only speculation that PAF actually has any missiles on them to use at BVR ranges.

And if you are counting the IAF at 60-80% serviceability, you should do the same with PAF. After all, we know we have jets coming in and out of overhauls and servicing just like anyone else, we are not immune to jets that would not be battle ready.

We will just have to agree to disagree on "PAF having or not having BVR AAMs" on Mirages.
What is obvious though, that if PAF Mirages are wired with R-Darters, or even better, with AMRAAMs, they are a very serious threat.

We will also have to agree to disagree about serviceability. I do believe that given the nature of the IAF fleet, and the PAF fleet, PAF's serviceability is better. This doesn't mean they aren't immune to jets being overhauled or serviced.

Its not speculation alone, many senior forum members have admitted R-darters on this forum. Prasun Sengupta, a well established Indian analyst, also notes this. Not only that, but he writes that the PAF R-Darters have longer ranges - 60 km.

Him along with other sources also note that F-16s originally came with Sparrows. These are my sources. I didn't come up with all this out of my own imagination.

And I am not sure why AMRAAMs won't be wired in, given Sidewinders are. And now the MAA-1 Piranhas too.

There are numerous sources online that note R-Darters (I guess they are all speculation for some), but let's just say we agree to disagree.

Except for the AMRAAM bit, which is my speculation, as I have stated before on this thread, everything else I have said has been said by senior members on this forum, members known to have a solid reputation on this forum.

I'm not going to go through all the myriad of evidences for the R-Darter, including Indians observing PAF exercises in the 2000s, where they noted that R-darters were being simulated.

Of course the PAF won't admit it because the R-Darter is intertwined with Israel.

Again, I'll let you do your own research and come to your own conclusions. I've presented mine.

@Tank131 please read the above, this should also answer your query.

Hi,

Paf has no choice but to fight a defensive war---.

Defensive war is for a loser---.

In the past---there was a myth attached with the Paf pilots and muslim warriors---.

That myth has been busted by the americans---.

When you talk of the mirage 3's---you sound like selling the enemy short---please don't---.

Hi MK,

Good thoughts but with the presence of layered SAMs on both sides, offensive operations are going to be a bit of a problem. I once read a long paper by a serving PAF officer on the possible utilization of UCAVs. He suggested that a simple UCAV that can penetrate enemy airspace, use precision munition, and return to base, may be the way forward.

This reminds me of something you recently wrote - that when you go for a deep penetration strike, sometimes its best to get the attacking asset stripped of any weapons to counter enemy air assets. I think we were having a conversation about the Osirak strike.

So, basically, can we imagine a new form of warfare? Can we think of something beyond what we know from GW1 and GW2?

Who will meet that challenge? I seriously doubt South Asian airforce personnel of any country can have that open minded breadth of vision to come up with it. I do however expect that from people like yourself.

Let me share some of my thoughts:

To win an air war against a peer, and that too a peer that is generally superior to you, one has to take advantage of:
1. Disruptive technologies
2. Innovative doctrine

The key disruptive technologies before us are:
1. Jamming
2. Lasers
3. UCAVs

Do UCAVs really have to be super-expensive? There is a paper out there that suggests otherwise. Messiach would probably really like this idea because the paper claims:

1. Because robots don't need to train like humans, they can be built to much lower standards of durability. This means easy to build, lighter weight, and most importantly, considerably lower costs.
2. Such UCAVs in the Indo-Pak scenario do not need to have satellite bandwidth, they can be used autonomously (like strike UCAVs, basically a reusable cruise missile) or in similar fashion to fox hunting - riders and hunting dogs - the manned fighters being the riders and the UCAVs acting as hunting dogs.

A host of other ideas... I hope you enjoy:

PAF is not some magical airforce of superheroes, and IAF isn't a banana republic air force. If you look at the formulas for air warfare developed in WWII, quantity has an exponential-like advantage. This isn't Israel vs twiddly arabs. Going on the offensive would be suicidal for PAF, unless yo take advantage of the ideas outlined.

 

[MastanKhan]

We will just have to agree to disagree on "PAF having or not having BVR AAMs" on Mirages.
What is obvious though, that if PAF Mirages are wired with R-Darters, or even better, with AMRAAMs, they are a very serious threat.

We will also have to agree to disagree about serviceability. I do believe that given the nature of the IAF fleet, and the PAF fleet, PAF's serviceability is better. This doesn't mean they aren't immune to jets being overhauled or serviced.

Its not speculation alone, many senior forum members have admitted R-darters on this forum. Prasun Sengupta, a well established Indian analyst, also notes this. Not only that, but he writes that the PAF R-Darters have longer ranges - 60 km.

Him along with other sources also note that F-16s originally came with Sparrows. These are my sources. I didn't come up with all this out of my own imagination.

And I am not sure why AMRAAMs won't be wired in, given Sidewinders are. And now the MAA-1 Piranhas too.

There are numerous sources online that note R-Darters (I guess they are all speculation for some), but let's just say we agree to disagree.

Except for the AMRAAM bit, which is my speculation, as I have stated before on this thread, everything else I have said has been said by senior members on this forum, members known to have a solid reputation on this forum.

I'm not going to go through all the myriad of evidences for the R-Darter, including Indians observing PAF exercises in the 2000s, where they noted that R-darters were being simulated.

Of course the PAF won't admit it because the R-Darter is intertwined with Israel.

Again, I'll let you do your own research and come to your own conclusions. I've presented mine.

@Tank131 please read the above, this should also answer your query.




Hi MK,

Good thoughts but with the presence of layered SAMs on both sides, offensive operations are going to be a bit of a problem. I once read a long paper by a serving PAF officer on the possible utilization of UCAVs. He suggested that a simple UCAV that can penetrate enemy airspace, use precision munition, and return to base, may be the way forward.

This reminds me of something you recently wrote - that when you go for a deep penetration strike, sometimes its best to get the attacking asset stripped of any weapons to counter enemy air assets. I think we were having a conversation about the Osirak strike.

So, basically, can we imagine a new form of warfare? Can we think of something beyond what we know from GW1 and GW2?

Who will meet that challenge? I seriously doubt South Asian airforce personnel of any country can have that open minded breadth of vision to come up with it. I do however expect that from people like yourself.

Let me share some of my thoughts:

To win an air war against a peer, and that too a peer that is generally superior to you, one has to take advantage of:
1. Disruptive technologies
2. Innovative doctrine

The key disruptive technologies before us are:
1. Jamming
2. Lasers
3. UCAVs

Do UCAVs really have to be super-expensive? There is a paper out there that suggests otherwise. Messiach would probably really like this idea because the paper claims:

1. Because robots don't need to train like humans, they can be built to much lower standards of durability. This means easy to build, lighter weight, and most importantly, considerably lower costs.
2. Such UCAVs in the Indo-Pak scenario do not need to have satellite bandwidth, they can be used autonomously (like strike UCAVs, basically a reusable cruise missile) or in similar fashion to fox hunting - riders and hunting dogs - the manned fighters being the riders and the UCAVs acting as hunting dogs.

A host of other ideas... I hope you enjoy:

PAF is not some magical airforce of superheroes, and IAF isn't a banana republic air force. If you look at the formulas for air warfare developed in WWII, quantity has an exponential-like advantage. This isn't Israel vs twiddly arabs. Going on the offensive would be suicidal for PAF, unless yo take advantage of the ideas outlined.

Hi,

For some f those very reasons---the flank---ie---the space over the ocean leaves a wide space to conduct offensive strike missions---because you can fly down from pasni without the fear of SAMS---.

Any eneny ships with lrsams are within the range of your ashm's first---you can fight air to air battles on somewhat "equal" grounds without fear of SAMs targetting you upto a certain distance---.

The thing is what if the enemy is able to destroy your primary defensive layers of sams---and with no offensive capability---you cannot divert the war to a different region---.

 

[messiach]

For a short-while only.

Welcome back Madam. Nice to see you on the forum.

 

[CriticalThought]

Hi,

For some f those very reasons---the flank---ie---the space over the ocean leaves a wide space to conduct offensive strike missions---because you can fly down from pasni without the fear of SAMS---.

Any eneny ships with lrsams are within the range of your ashm's first---you can fight air to air battles on somewhat "equal" grounds without fear of SAMs targetting you upto a certain distance---.

The thing is what if the enemy is able to destroy your primary defensive layers of sams---and with no offensive capability---you cannot divert the war to a different region---.

India will deploy at least a carrier battle group's strength in the Arabian Sea. And to protect it, they will leave no stone unturned. From space based assets to ship based Sam, it will be a veritable killing field. More than aerial assets, sub surface combatants will have a higher chance on survival.

And what people completely fail to realize is that the next war will be fought with complete American backing to India. I expect America to try to enforce a non nuclear mandate by stationing Arleigh-Burke class ships and shooting down nukes. Then there is the Indian base in Oman to take into account.

All in all, you get a 0 out of 10 in your analysis.

 

[ziaulislam]

India will deploy at least a carrier battle group's strength in the Arabian Sea. And to protect it, they will leave no stone unturned. From space based assets to ship based Sam, it will be a veritable killing field. More than aerial assets, sub surface combatants will have a higher chance on survival.

And what people completely fail to realize is that the next war will be fought with complete American backing to India. I expect America to try to enforce a non nuclear mandate by stationing Arleigh-Burke class ships and shooting down nukes. Then there is the Indian base in Oman to take into account.

All in all, you get a 0 out of 10 in your analysis.

it would be impossible to shoot a battle blastic missle or all of aircatfts..there aretoo many delivery systems and which side its gpinf to shoot..