@rockstar08
Why do some members of the board (let me confess that I am among one of them) feel there is a need for some heavier platforms in PAF ??
Before to answer this question at this level I believe its more logical if I present at least my part of understanding step by step
Concept of Air Power:
It is such a wide concept which
covers every factor upon which Aerial warfare is dependent, but in its core this is a concept of "Projection of Power & Influence from Air to
achieve Strategic, Tactical or Operational objectives".
RAF in its Doctrine define this concept as under:
"The ability to project power from the air and space to influence the behaviour of people or the course of events"
Now here at this stage recall the inventory of IAF and PAF & compare not just the numeric size of both forces but the their technological gap and lethality, you & every other can easily can make a guess that which side is more likely to get influenced by opponent and which side is more likely to achieve Strategic, Tactical or Operational objectives, by employing their aerial assets.
Following is the table which classify the fighters on the basis of their technical capabilities
Now keep in mind that the basic nature of Air-power is Offensive & Aerial assets can be best utilized when employed offensively, though the extent of offence depend on the limitation of role of engagement ROE, I would like to remind you the strategy of offensive defence of PAF in the war 1965 and to an extent in the war of 1971.
PAF & IAF Inventory (Aircraft)
At this section of my post I will limit my discussion to the fighter aircraft inventory of both Air forces.
PAF: As we know PAF operates F-16MLU & BLK 52+ are 4th generation aircrafts while JF-17 is still a 4the generation aircraft but fall at the lower tier of 4th generation category, Mirage III/V, J-7 are 3rd generation aircafts
IAF: IAF operates SU-30 MKI (4+ gen), MiG-29 (4th gen), Mirage 2K5 (4th gen), MiG-21 (3 gen) while upgraded Jag would also fall in the category of 4th gen.
Operational Disparity
Here you can very easily observe the disparity of PAF against the IAF not just in terms of numbers but in terms of technology, somewhere at the forum I posted earlier that IAF (including Indian Navy Air Wing)
currently have
+400 BVR (4 gen or 4+ gen) aircraft while Pakistan have only 124 BVR capable aircraft & in next 3 years we will add only 50 more aircraft (JF-17 blk-II)
Now consider the role which these 124/174 (in three years) aircrafts would have to perform If wars breaks out today or with in next three years, these aircraft will be required to perform Counter Surface Operations (including Land & Sea), Combat Air Patrol, Close Air Support (including Maritime Duties).
what about Air Interdiction role inside Enemy Territory ? would they be able to perform this role in '
effective manner' with limited aerial assets at their disposal ???
In that role they would have to face
+400 BVR fighter including ~150 non BVR/ limited BVR capable fighter aircraft of the opponent (to keep the scenario simple I am not including SAM sys here).
Alternative Options
At this stage we hear the argument that
PAF is not an offensive force therefore it does not have the doctrine of power projection but here most of people forget that
PAF was never an Offensive Force and never had a doctrine of Power Projection in absolute terms but in 'limited' manner
Limited Air Interdiction inside enemy territory in terms of aerial depth does not comply with the concept of Power projection which required employment of aerial assets for longer period of time in or around enemy territory which cost not just financially but in terms of Human capital as well.
The second argument which is equivalently popular is the 'STANDOFF WEAPONS' which will be employed for any such operation, which raised some secondary questions.
-
Are we intended to employ Cruise (Air & Ground launch) and Ballistic Missiles (SRBM + Battle filled ) in that role ??
In my understanding which may or may not be wrong, because of the limited number of aerial platform we are bound to use these assets but the problem in the employment of these assets is that all of them are
nuclear capable, even
their employment in conventional role may raise unwanted signal, so this option seems effective but dangerous due to their high profile nature.
Conventional weapons such as H-2, H-4, C-802 (air launch version), Glide bombs, PGMs & others are available but their range are limited, so their role and impact would remain limited.
-
Do we have sufficient numbers Cruise and Ballistic missiles in our inventory?
They are expensive so their employment will remain limited to the High-value Targets only, but what would be the sufficient number which will required to eliminate the high value targets is another issue of debate.
So over dependency on Cruise or Ballistic Missile can prove a mistake which may attract some undesired consequences, Aircrafts (here I am not emphasizing for heavies) should be preferred option.
At this stage its quite evident that no matter how big our arsenal of Stand off weapons including Cruise or Ballistic missiles would be even then
Fighter Jet would be required to do the job inside enemy territory. So in that case the question arise about the survivability of the aircraft inside enemy territory
Survivability of the Aircraft
Survivability of 4 or 4+ generation is mainly dependent on two factors electronic warfare & Situational awarness which is dependent on the Networking & Avionics capabilities of the aircraft, I believe you do know the capabilities of our 'existing fleet' of PAF which would struggle against opponents inside enemy territory. Now tell me our JF-17 & F-16 offer better capability then Su-30 or Rafel or Euro fighter ?? if not then their chane of survival are limited.
If we are unable to pose threat to enemy (our current fleet does not pose any threat to India)
who would we able to influence the people (forces on ground+decision makers) and the course of events (war events) in other mean we will find it very difficult to achieve the our Strategic, Tactical or Operational objective.
In the word of General Erwin Rommel
“The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adopting compromise solutions”
So cut the long story short due to limited capabilities & numbers of PAF assets
we think heavies are needed to avoid a situation in which we are forced to adopt the Compromised Solution or find ourselves in situation in which we have to decide about 'ultimate decision'.