Pakistan Air Force | News & Discussions.

[django]

@Hell hound @Zibago @war&peace @Maarkhoor

https://twitter.com/x/status/1002600821949902848

 

[war&peace]

@Hell hound @Zibago @war&peace @Maarkhoor

https://twitter.com/x/status/1002600821949902848

That was an excellent feat. Though I guess these smart *** Yankees will have plugged that loophole in their defences but I'm sure PAF guys may have some tricks up their sleeves if a need ever arise.

 

[Hell hound]

@Hell hound @Zibago @war&peace @Maarkhoor

https://twitter.com/x/status/1002600821949902848

Yep I remember reading about it few years ago they flew too close to the waves and when they pop up and flew past the carrier to demonstrate that the mock attack was success the carrier commander was so astonished that everyone could look it on his face.

 

[Tps43]

@Hell hound @Zibago @war&peace @Maarkhoor

https://twitter.com/x/status/1002600821949902848

This man had attitude problem when he was air marshal.

 

[django]

This man had attitude problem when he was air marshal.

Perhaps,,,,, never the less he was a heck of a pilot.Kudos

 

[Tps43]

Perhaps,,,,, never the less he was a heck of a pilot.Kudos

True

 

[Sulman Badshah]

Painting was gifted by USS Abraham Lincoln administration

 

[CriticalThought]

Painting was gifted by USS Abraham Lincoln administration

@django @Hell hound do we know the security detail employed for the CBG? Was an AEWACS present when this feat was pulled off?

Edit: the exercise was conducted in the 1990s. Radar technology has since evolved.

 

[Hell hound]

@django @Hell hound do we know the security detail employed for the CBG? Was an AEWACS present when this feat was pulled off?

Edit: the exercise was conducted in the 1990s. Radar technology has since evolved.

In one of the "Inspired Alert" exercises, the PAF pilots were supposed to try to get "as close to the aircraft carrier" as possible without detection, and accomplish other tasks. USN was tasked to detect Pakistani intruders and USN fighters (F-14s) were to intercept them. Both sides had complete freedom in selecting their strategy. The USN was very confident that the PAF Mirages would not be able to get too close, mainly because their RADARs and other equipment were superior to anything Pakistan had. To their amazement, not only did 2 Mirage fighters get "as close as possible", they even flew low beside the aircraft carrier, "buzzing" the deck.

They stayed undetected by flying dangerously low over the sea under RADAR cover, and by creating diversions and fooling them into thinking the main intruders were coming from a different direction (other Mirages, I think). By the time they realized that 2 Mirages had made it close, it was too late to interecept them. This forced even senior USN pilots to react.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/worldarmedforcesforum/paf-vs-usn-exercise-t48154.html

 

[fatman17]

F16 Fighting Falcons in Pakistan Air Force have completed the land mark of 100,000 successful Flight hours!
F16s in Pakistan are operational from 3.5 decade and so far only 9 crashes have occurred making one of successful safety record in Aviation History. https://t.co/ac0m3xha3I

 

[Tank131]

will be flying ducks with lack of escort which PAF doesnt has(just 176 4th gen fighters vs 500+ of IAF/IN)

aand hence investment in land based systems

They will be 400km away from the front behind layers of SAMs and Fighters. Vectored by AWACs with ranges of greater than 400km as well as ground radars.Plus, this doesnt seem to be a concern for AWACS and Tankers. This talk of escorts and sitting ducks is convenient when they dont want to think of alternatives to fighter only solutions for the issues PAF faces.

 

[Windjammer]

F16 Fighting Falcons in Pakistan Air Force have completed the land mark of 100,000 successful Flight hours!
F16s in Pakistan are operational from 3.5 decade and so far only 9 crashes have occurred making one of successful safety record in Aviation History. https://t.co/ac0m3xha3I
View attachment 478066

Wrong information, PAF in fact achieved this milestone over a decade earlier.

F-16 Fighting Falcon News
Pakistani F-16s reach 100,000 accident free flight hours

October 4, 2005 (by Asif Shamim) -
A three-member delegation of Pratt & Whitney called on Air Chief Marshal Kaleem Saadat, Chief of the Air Staff Pakistan Air Force at Air Headquarters to present a plaque to the Chief of the Air Staff in recognition of flying the F-16, for over 100,000 accident-free flight hours.


Lloyd W. "Fig" Newton, executive vice president, presented a plaque to the Chief of the Air Staff in recognition of flying the F-16, for over 100,000 accident-free flight hours.

They also commended the maintenance, quality control and flight safety standards of the PAF, which made this achievement possible.

Retired Gen. Lloyd Newton, along with Gen. (R) William J Begert, Vice President and Warren Boley, Vice President, remained with Air Chief Marshal Kaleem Sadaat, Chief of Air Staff for some time and discussed matters pertaining to mutual and professional interest.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article1468.html

 

[Shabi1]

Something which gets overlooked alot that I would like to bring to attention.

S400 detection range is roughly 400km (370km to be precise). It is a real threat but nothing is 100% effective and against a fighter that is severely less, which is why they can still be taken out by salvos of ranged or anti radiation weapons. And detection can be avoided by using terrain advantage.

Actual threat to aircraft from the S400 will be from it's 9M96/9M96E2 (max range 120km) and 9M96E (max range 40km) missiles which can engage maneuvering targets. The higher ranged missile are for fixed trajectory targets. Both these missiles by the time the aircraft is in it's range, the aircraft will also be able to fire it's standoff weapons or anti radiation missiles.

And then there is curvature of the Earth, one of many factors to limit long range missile range.
https://www.foi.se/report-search/pdf?fileName=D:\ReportSearch\Files\e1539f62-de49-421b-93ad-f4e960e0eacc.pdf

"One long-range weapon that has attracted considerable attention in Sweden is Russia’s S-400 SAM system. Its nominal range of 400 km means that the S-400 could theoretically reach Swedish territory. However, the actual range of a SAM is limited by a number of factors. An obvious factor is the curvature of the earth. Figure 11.1 shows that at a distance of 400 km, an aircraft needs to be at an altitude of 12 000 metres to be visible from the ground. Conversely, anobserver needs to be at an altitude of 12 000 meters to be able to detect an object on the ground from this distance. Another limiting factor is the flight time of the SAM. It takes about ten minutes for a SAM to travel 400 km, which is enough time for a fighter aircraft to fly more than 100 km in any direction. Consequently, a longrange SAM would need to receive real-time updates of the target’s position and velocity in order to adjust its trajectory. This would require airborne or surface-based sensors to track the target and transmit data to the missile via a data link. All of this requires line of sight between the target and the sensors, as well as between the data-link transmitters and the missile. Terrain masking poses an obvious challenge for detecting and tracking targets at low altitude. Furthermore, the missile has a limited supply of velocity, which would be quickly drained as the target manoeuvres. All of this means that while a long-range SAM system such as the S-400 would certainly be a threat at a very long range to an airliner cruising at 36 000 feet, the actual effective range against a fighter at low altitude could well be under 20 km, depending on the terrain. Figure 1. Required altitude for visibility of objects at a distance. Hence, long-range SAMs constitute only a limited and to some extent manageable threat to fighter aircraft. For a SAM system to reach its full potential, it needs to be an integrated part of a network of sensors, command and control functions, and weapons. To be effective at long range, airborne sensors are required. Thus, the threat posed by a long-range SAM system in Kaliningrad or on Gotland, for example, cannot be described as a circle on the map with the nominal range as the radius. An aircraft taking off from an airbase in Sweden could not be shot down by SAMs based on the other side of the Baltic shortly after it left the runway"

PAF routinely practices 500(152m)-1000ft (304m) low altitude flight and from interviews of pilots I gather the routine is 500ft.

So remaining undetected and taking out the S400 threat is not a impossibility, it will be difficult and risky but then again it's what our fly boys train day and night for.

And then there are terrain hugging cruise missiles in Pakistan's inventory for a saturated attack.

So things are not grim for PAF.

 

[MastanKhan]

Something which gets overlooked alot that I would like to bring to attention.

S400 detection range is roughly 400km (370km to be precise). It is a real threat but nothing is 100% effective and against a fighter that is severely less, which is why they can still be taken out by salvos of ranged or anti radiation weapons. And detection can be avoided by using terrain advantage.

Actual threat to aircraft from the S400 will be from it's 9M96/9M96E2 (max range 120km) and 9M96E (max range 40km) missiles which can engage maneuvering targets. The higher ranged missile are for fixed trajectory targets. Both these missiles by the time the aircraft is in it's range, the aircraft will also be able to fire it's standoff weapons or anti radiation missiles.

And then there is curvature of the Earth, one of many factors to limit long range missile range.
https://www.foi.se/report-search/pdf?fileName=D:\ReportSearch\Files\e1539f62-de49-421b-93ad-f4e960e0eacc.pdf

"One long-range weapon that has attracted considerable attention in Sweden is Russia’s S-400 SAM system. Its nominal range of 400 km means that the S-400 could theoretically reach Swedish territory. However, the actual range of a SAM is limited by a number of factors. An obvious factor is the curvature of the earth. Figure 11.1 shows that at a distance of 400 km, an aircraft needs to be at an altitude of 12 000 metres to be visible from the ground. Conversely, anobserver needs to be at an altitude of 12 000 meters to be able to detect an object on the ground from this distance. Another limiting factor is the flight time of the SAM. It takes about ten minutes for a SAM to travel 400 km, which is enough time for a fighter aircraft to fly more than 100 km in any direction. Consequently, a longrange SAM would need to receive real-time updates of the target’s position and velocity in order to adjust its trajectory. This would require airborne or surface-based sensors to track the target and transmit data to the missile via a data link. All of this requires line of sight between the target and the sensors, as well as between the data-link transmitters and the missile. Terrain masking poses an obvious challenge for detecting and tracking targets at low altitude. Furthermore, the missile has a limited supply of velocity, which would be quickly drained as the target manoeuvres. All of this means that while a long-range SAM system such as the S-400 would certainly be a threat at a very long range to an airliner cruising at 36 000 feet, the actual effective range against a fighter at low altitude could well be under 20 km, depending on the terrain. Figure 1. Required altitude for visibility of objects at a distance. Hence, long-range SAMs constitute only a limited and to some extent manageable threat to fighter aircraft. For a SAM system to reach its full potential, it needs to be an integrated part of a network of sensors, command and control functions, and weapons. To be effective at long range, airborne sensors are required. Thus, the threat posed by a long-range SAM system in Kaliningrad or on Gotland, for example, cannot be described as a circle on the map with the nominal range as the radius. An aircraft taking off from an airbase in Sweden could not be shot down by SAMs based on the other side of the Baltic shortly after it left the runway"View attachment 478084

PAF routinely practices 500(152m)-1000ft (304m) low altitude flight and from interviews of pilots I gather the routine is 500ft.

So remaining undetected and taking out the S400 threat is not a impossibility, it will be difficult and risky but then again it's what our fly boys train day and night for.

And then there are terrain hugging cruise missiles in Pakistan's inventory for a saturated attack.

So things are not grim for PAF.

Hi,

Oh---gee---thanks for the post---.

There was a reason for me regarding the naval strike missions and JH7 A aircraft---.

 

[ziaulislam]

They will be 400km away from the front behind layers of SAMs and Fighters. Vectored by AWACs with ranges of greater than 400km as well as ground radars.Plus, this doesnt seem to be a concern for AWACS and Tankers. This talk of escorts and sitting ducks is convenient when they dont want to think of alternatives to fighter only solutions for the issues PAF faces.

a simple rocket boaster and some more fuel in current babur can be done if you are going to use it for crusie missles!!