Pakistan Air Force | News & Discussions.

[SABRE]

Most NATO countries are buying F-35 so your argument that European stay away from American countries does not hold true.

It's not about buying a complete system or joint-ventures with the Americans, it's about incorporating American technology on what they are producing/developing indigenously. The advance Europeans states tend not to acquire anything from the Americans for that. Anything they plan on exporting in the future would not have American technology onboard.

 

[New World]

And not to forget sir political influences on PAF purchasing, especially for Mirage-2000 sega @MastanKhan

Political influence or corruption in the deal?
Either way that thing happened in F-16, Augusta A90 and some extent to Rose Program.
Imagine 40 Mirage 2000-5 of 1990s with used M2K of France and that technologies and missiles would have been used in JF-17 in its early phases of development and new F-16 of 2000s with used ones.

In 2010s PAF would have 60-80 upgraded M2K, 80-100 more advanced JF-17 with french technologies and 80-100 upgraded F-16.

 

[MastanKhan]

In Vietnam they removed gun from F4 phantoms due to Aim 7 and sparrows no body can come close but they proved wrong again put the gun back. In war u never know what gonna happen so gun is as important as missiles r

Hi,

In vietnam era---when the phantom came out---there was no telephone in a pakistani house---maybe not a single land line phone in a small town---. One had to go to the telegraph office to book time to make a call---and look what everyone has now---.

When discussing about weapons---please give tactical explanations and reasoning for inclusion or exclusion---.

Can you define how an air to air gun battle would take place and what is involved in it---?

The americans are masters of deception when it comes to weapons---.

They have added a redundant weapon in the system---that they know---will not be used---but will confuse the enemy---.

The only reason the gun is on the F35 / F22 is because there are many in the congress and senate who saw the vietnam war---. They are illiterate of modern technology and need a lots of help from their younger workers to help them use that technology---so they have in grown prejudices or preferences---.

Things have changed as these old dogs are dying out---.

The USAF put the gun in the aircraft to please the old crowd to get its funding---. The USAF already knew that gun was outdated---even though they do practice with it---but for air superiority---they won't use it.

Being put in a position to use a gun---is like entrapment by the enemy---like the Paf did on the 27th---.

It created a scenario to trap the enemy to do something---so that the Paf would shoot it down with its assets---. The enemy fell for it and Paf shot 2 of them down---.

No USAF pilot will fall for that trap during the air superiority air war---.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Hi,

In vietnam era---when the phantom came out---there was no telephone in a pakistani house---maybe not a single land line phone in a small town---. One had to go to the telegraph office to book time to make a call---and look what everyone has now---.

When discussing about weapons---please give tactical explanations and reasoning for inclusion or exclusion---.

Can you define how an air to air gun battle would take place and what is involved in it---?

The americans are masters of deception when it comes to weapons---.

They have added a redundant weapon in the system---that they know---will not be used---but will confuse the enemy---.

The only reason the gun is on the F35 / F22 is because there are many in the congress and senate who saw the vietnam war---. They are illiterate of modern technology and need a lots of help from their younger workers to help them use that technology---so they have in grown prejudices or preferences---.

Things have changed as these old dogs are dying out---.

The USAF put the gun in the aircraft to please the old crowd to get its funding---. The USAF already knew that gun was outdated---even though they do practice with it---but for air superiority---they won't use it.

Being put in a position to use a gun---is like entrapment by the enemy---like the Paf did on the 27th---.

It created a scenario to trap the enemy to do something---so that the Paf would shoot it down with its assets---. The enemy fell for it and Paf shot 2 of them down---.

No USAF pilot will fall for that trap during the air superiority air war---.

the first part was savage and expert level 1000
nicely explained

re having or not having gun I have read and saw arguments from both sides and I am now leaving towards the no gun side because thats how modern battle is evolving.
there is a video on the web used many times in discussion here on forum where the guy is criticizing F 35 and insists that a merge in air combat is inevitable and thats were the guns will come handy
the counter arguments I have seen a lot or heard so I dont need to be sold again, the modern air war is such that you want to see an enemy before hand and deploy an appropriate weapon well before he knows you and he is done for .. so having a cannon becomes redundant. the weight and space saved from removing cannon and ammo can be used for an additional missile(s) or further sensors etc.

 

[CriticalThought]

the first part was savage and expert level 1000
nicely explained

re having or not having gun I have read and saw arguments from both sides and I am now leaving towards the no gun side because thats how modern battle is evolving.
there is a video on the web used many times in discussion here on forum where the guy is criticizing F 35 and insists that a merge in air combat is inevitable and thats were the guns will come handy
the counter arguments I have seen a lot or heard so I dont need to be sold again, the modern air war is such that you want to see an enemy before hand and deploy an appropriate weapon well before he knows you and he is done for .. so having a cannon becomes redundant. the weight and space saved from removing cannon and ammo can be used for an additional missile(s) or further sensors etc.

At the cost of being derided, the case being presented by Indians about F-16 downed by MIG is theoretically valid. Everything has a blind spot, including F-35. If it is passing a mountain range, its sensor fused HMDS cannot show what lies behind the mountain range. If an enemy is flying in tight formation, it cannot see fighters hidden by the leading ones. There are no technological solutions to this. These are constraints placed by the laws of physics. Which means even the F-35 can find itself in a dog fight in the thick of battle.

War in unpredictable. Don't try to fight its unpredictability you will only end up getting bitten.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

At the cost of being derided, the case being presented by Indians about F-16 downed by MIG is theoretically valid. Everything has a blind spot, including F-35. If it is passing a mountain range, its sensor fused HMDS cannot show what lies behind the mountain range. If an enemy is flying in tight formation, it cannot see fighters hidden by the leading ones. There are no technological solutions to this. These are constraints placed by the laws of physics. Which means even the F-35 can find itself in a dog fight in the thick of battle.

War in unpredictable. Don't try to fight its unpredictability you will only end up getting bitten.

if such extreme scenario happens then anything is possible.
such airforce is not worthy of flying F 35.

if we look in such cases in isolation then yea everything is possible to F22 even

when it comes to America there is a wast list of assets at the disposal of the Americans that even the jets are a sensor nodes in there. yes if F 35 itself is blinded then there are other assets in air and space that will help it out.

 

[CriticalThought]

if such extreme scenario happens then anything is possible.
such airforce is not worthy of flying F 35.

if we look in such cases in isolation then yea everything is possible to F22 even

when it comes to America there is a wast list of assets at the disposal of the Americans that even the jets are a sensor nodes in there. yes if F 35 itself is blinded then there are other assets in air and space that will help it out.

Read my last para again.

 

[Humble Analyst]

I have various times mentioned all the following points in favor of the guns on fighters and especially multirole planes.
I will put them all together just in case they present all aspect, or they may go through the barriers of thought process.
1- In countries who share borders a WVR combat cannot be ruled out.Try to imagine various situations and it is not hard
2- There are limited number of points for missiles and EW. Once missiles are out either you break or you use your gun. If you do not have gun obviously you will break away. Same can happen to the interceptor. No weapons he breaks away. In future electronic jamming can result in WVR combat. Will you say I am out if missiles so bye.
3- Depending on the size of Air Force and resources, so many sorties can be flown so you want to have force multipliers, gun is a force multiplier. Ask those who are already loaded with EW pods or bombs and now they are in WVR and short on missiles.
4- Small to medium size air forces cannot dedicate too many planes to exclusive missions and will use the gun for tactical support.
5- The type of gun may evolve and maybe different from today’s cannon so please open the brain barrier.
Below is a link which I am posting again. Open you mind or you can keep on praising each other who think gun will disappear in air combat or tactical support.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...eneration-fighters-firing-laser-weapons-55587

 

[MastanKhan]

if such extreme scenario happens then anything is possible.
such airforce is not worthy of flying F 35.

if we look in such cases in isolation then yea everything is possible to F22 even

when it comes to America there is a wast list of assets at the disposal of the Americans that even the jets are a sensor nodes in there. yes if F 35 itself is blinded then there are other assets in air and space that will help it out.

Hi,

Most posters just want to talk---but do not want to create an actual scenario where guns could be used.

When using a gun---just before---you focus on the target that come within your focus---now you are chasing and trying to get behind at and then trying to reduce the distance around 500 meters---and you are about to pull the trigger when you see red hot searing heat all around you before you get obliterated after your aircraft had explode---.

What had happened was when you started to chase that aircraft to line him up for a gun short---the intensity of the chase and the energy required you to keep focus on the target made you oblivious any any threat---you had grown tunnel vision---you had lost your hearing ability during that chase and in the heat of the moment you did not hear the missile lock and missile launch warning coming from the console to your ears---even though the warning were blaring in your ears---the enemy SU30 had locked & launched a volley of 2 bvr missiles at you from a distance---.

In a similar scenario---close to the border---the enemy could launch a SA missile at you---while you chase a gun shot target---.

The TIME that is needed to chase a target---get it in your gun's range lock and shoot is too long in an environment where an enemy can shoot fro 20-30-40 miles away---.

 

[Thorough Pro]

That is where AWACS come in to play, flying high and far, seeing and showing the big picture to friendly fighters.
USAF does not send in their fighters without first knowing what lies ahead and to the sides, they don't jump in to action thinking "will cross the river when we reach there", they do their homework, gathering intelligence from all available sources, building the big picture and planning ahead making sure no surprises pop out in their faces and that is the secret of their success.

At the cost of being derided, the case being presented by Indians about F-16 downed by MIG is theoretically valid. Everything has a blind spot, including F-35. If it is passing a mountain range, its sensor fused HMDS cannot show what lies behind the mountain range. If an enemy is flying in tight formation, it cannot see fighters hidden by the leading ones. There are no technological solutions to this. These are constraints placed by the laws of physics. Which means even the F-35 can find itself in a dog fight in the thick of battle.

War in unpredictable. Don't try to fight its unpredictability you will only end up getting bitten.

 

[CriticalThought]

That is where AWACS come in to play, flying high and far, seeing and showing the big picture to friendly fighters.
USAF does not send in their fighters without first knowing what lies ahead and to the sides, they don't jump in to action thinking "will cross the river when we reach there", they do their homework, gathering intelligence from all available sources, building the big picture and planning ahead making sure no surprises pop out in their faces and that is the secret of their success.

The US comprises humans who are every bit as prone to making mistakes, as prone to falling for deception as the next guy. Drop this mentality where you see them as super humans. If your fundamentals are strong, you can give them a bloody nose. The real power of the US comes from their depth. You can beat them in a battle, but they will simply keep coming at you until they defeat you in the war. You need depth and a global reach to take on the USAF, not to mention you would be contending with their army and navy at the same time along with economic sanctions. What PAF pilots have achieved in Red Flag and other bilateral exercises is significant. It is living proof that tactics work and the US is just as prone to them. Our Mirage pilot buzzing their carrier is hard evidence of this.

Hi,

Most posters just want to talk---but do not want to create an actual scenario where guns could be used.

When using a gun---just before---you focus on the target that come within your focus---now you are chasing and trying to get behind at and then trying to reduce the distance around 500 meters---and you are about to pull the trigger when you see red hot searing heat all around you before you get obliterated after your aircraft had explode---.

What had happened was when you started to chase that aircraft to line him up for a gun short---the intensity of the chase and the energy required you to keep focus on the target made you oblivious any any threat---you had grown tunnel vision---you had lost your hearing ability during that chase and in the heat of the moment you did not hear the missile lock and missile launch warning coming from the console to your ears---even though the warning were blaring in your ears---the enemy SU30 had locked & launched a volley of 2 bvr missiles at you from a distance---.

In a similar scenario---close to the border---the enemy could launch a SA missile at you---while you chase a gun shot target---.

The TIME that is needed to chase a target---get it in your gun's range lock and shoot is too long in an environment where an enemy can shoot fro 20-30-40 miles away---.

This is a very single minded world view and ignores the huge variability present in any war. There are two steps to discredit this view. Step 1 shows how two aircrafts can end up within WVR range on a modern battle field. Step 2 considers what happens once you are out of ammo. Do you turn tail? In that case you face an increased risk of being shot down. If you have a cannon, it gives you the option to keep fighting.

In detail, consider the case where enemy fighters are escorting a HVT which you are tasked with taking down. It could be a cargo plane, a VIP movement, or even an AEWACS. If you consume all your missiles fighting off the escort, you are in the ridiculous situation where you have a sitting duck that you can't shoot.

 

[Raider 21]

Hi,

In vietnam era---when the phantom came out---there was no telephone in a pakistani house---maybe not a single land line phone in a small town---. One had to go to the telegraph office to book time to make a call---and look what everyone has now---.

When discussing about weapons---please give tactical explanations and reasoning for inclusion or exclusion---.

Can you define how an air to air gun battle would take place and what is involved in it---?

The americans are masters of deception when it comes to weapons---.

They have added a redundant weapon in the system---that they know---will not be used---but will confuse the enemy---.

The only reason the gun is on the F35 / F22 is because there are many in the congress and senate who saw the vietnam war---. They are illiterate of modern technology and need a lots of help from their younger workers to help them use that technology---so they have in grown prejudices or preferences---.

Things have changed as these old dogs are dying out---.

The USAF put the gun in the aircraft to please the old crowd to get its funding---. The USAF already knew that gun was outdated---even though they do practice with it---but for air superiority---they won't use it.

Being put in a position to use a gun---is like entrapment by the enemy---like the Paf did on the 27th---.

It created a scenario to trap the enemy to do something---so that the Paf would shoot it down with its assets---. The enemy fell for it and Paf shot 2 of them down---.

No USAF pilot will fall for that trap during the air superiority air war---.

What about the Navy and the Marine Corps. What is their justification behind having a gun on the aircraft.

 

[MastanKhan]

What about the Navy and the Marine Corps. What is their justification behind having a gun on the aircraft.

What type of aircraft---?

 

[Thorough Pro]

No, I don't think they are super humans, read my comments in light of the post i responded to.

The US comprises humans who are every bit as prone to making mistakes, as prone to falling for deception as the next guy. Drop this mentality where you see them as super humans. If your fundamentals are strong, you can give them a bloody nose. The real power of the US comes from their depth. You can beat them in a battle, but they will simply keep coming at you until they defeat you in the war. You need depth and a global reach to take on the USAF, not to mention you would be contending with their army and navy at the same time along with economic sanctions. What PAF pilots have achieved in Red Flag and other bilateral exercises is significant. It is living proof that tactics work and the US is just as prone to them. Our Mirage pilot buzzing their carrier is hard evidence of this.



This is a very single minded world view and ignores the huge variability present in any war. There are two steps to discredit this view. Step 1 shows how two aircrafts can end up within WVR range on a modern battle field. Step 2 considers what happens once you are out of ammo. Do you turn tail? In that case you face an increased risk of being shot down. If you have a cannon, it gives you the option to keep fighting.

In detail, consider the case where enemy fighters are escorting a HVT which you are tasked with taking down. It could be a cargo plane, a VIP movement, or even an AEWACS. If you consume all your missiles fighting off the escort, you are in the ridiculous situation where you have a sitting duck that you can't shoot.

 

[GriffinsRule]

What about the Navy and the Marine Corps. What is their justification behind having a gun on the aircraft.

CAS