The issue is not taking out an MKI, even an F-7PG can do that with the correct use of engagement tactics in air combat along-with other supporting factors. The issue is the role of MKI in IAF, which any aircraft in PAF cannot replicate or come close. When compared with MKI, F-16's payload and range is small, JF-17's payload and range is even smaller.
When talking about range, Pakistan has a small air space east-west, longitudinal. Still the F-16's belly pylon and JF-17's wet pylons are mostly seen with fuel tanks and the amount of fuel tanks define the combat radius for that particular sortie. PAF wouldnt even need a refueller tanker if PAF had heavy aircrafts like F-18's, F-15's, SU30's etc, or fighter aircrafts with buddy refuelling capability.F-16 Block 52+ have CFT's to enhance range, but these are only 18 in number and at any given time, its very hard that all 18 will be in air, probably 8 and out of necessity 12-14 at any given time. Its not easy to press hard one squadron and expect just this squadron to carry out missions 24/7.
Payload is another issue; volley of AAM's, a second strike capability after firing of 2-3-4 AAM's at 1 or 2 bogies is possible only if aircraft is already armed with 8 or more AAM's, but that's not the only issue. For strike role, ability to carry extra A2G missiles like ARM for SEAD, AShW for naval warfare, TV-guided like AGM-65 for supporting ground forces, PGM's, LGB's etc. Smaller formations, with decent payload for self defence and strike, 4-aircraft formations, using element of surprise, instead of bigger formations like 8 aircrafts or repeated strikes which loses element of surprise. If out of 7 pylons, 2-3 for fuel, 1 for Tgt/EW-pod...how many are left behind for ordnance and redundancy.
One more thing, a lot of factors practically matter, an aircraft (lets say JF-17) can stay in air for 45 minutes and experiences combat after 35 minutes, it will be low on ordnance (after firing off AAM's) and low on fuel too. Other aircraft in the FOB zone are maybe F-7's as alert fighters and take off for combat. The JF-17's need to get back in air again after re-fuelling and re-arming. Due to high enemy activity in the air, its risky to fly a refueller tanker in this air space. If there was an aircraft with more fuel capacity, and could stay in air for 20-25 minutes more, it will only be needed to re-armed, and infact if it could carry more ordnance, it wouldn't even need to land for refuelling or re-arming and only get complimented by F-7 or Mirages for air defence of the air space.
You are majorly confused about aerial warfare. You are basically repeating verbatim every single illogical argument that is oft repeated on this forum.
You see PAF aircraft loaded with fuel tanks because they are doing standard CAP duty, and want to maximize their flight time. This is not the configuration for flying a combat sortie. Neither the Thunder, nor the Viper need an 'air to air refuelling' in order to accomplish their interception missions. So much so, that the PAF does not even have a refuelling aircraft for the Vipers - to my knowledge, at least, but please correct me if I am wrong.
Next, increased internal fuel comes with an increased weight which lowers the T/W ratio. The T/W of SU-30 MK with a standard loadout is 1.004 IF USING ITS MAX THRUST. Any load above that will reduce the T/W further. The beauty of fuel tanks is that they can be ejected before entering combat. Any fighter pilot would prefer to dump any unneeded fuel and maximize performance rather than carry the burden in internal tanks, especially when intercepting over friendly airspace.
Now, the large weapons load out is a complete waste if the aircraft is taken out before using them. Let us assume a 1:1 kill ratio between Thunders and MKI, each having used 50% of its weapons load. Assuming a 2+2 configuration for Thunder and a 2+8 for MKI, with each loss of Thunder, we lose 2 perfectly good missiles, whereas the MKI loses 5 perfectly good missiles which could otherwise be used in combat.
The larger loadout also means a larger radar signature. The MKIs provide a nice big target for PAF BVRs. And if you read
@Windjammer you will realize that already there has been a situation where the larger MKI was locked by the smaller Thunder. And if you read
@Oscar you will know that even the Block-52 has trouble locating the Thunder.
Yes, the larger aircraft has advantage in a strike role, IF it has air superiority. In the face of dense air defence coverage, the bigger aircraft will be simply an easier kill. Forget about repeating a 65 or 71 scenario of deep penetrative strikes. With modern Indian air defence measures, it would be a months long campaign to systematically clear out the defences and pave way for deep missions. In the next war, deep penetration will be carried out by ballistic and cruise missiles. Such is the nature of war now. Accept this, and move on.
Finally, if India commits the mistake of sending over a horde of aircraft to overwhelm the PAF, the consequences will be unthinkable. It is not going to commit that folly.
Using different types of aircrafts against IAF is one of the tactics PAF will use, because MKI fighter may need to revise tactics in mind again and again when countering F-16, JF-17, F-7 and Mirage, all 4 aircrafts with different strong and weak points in air combat. This confuses the enemy pilot more when thoughts hopping in his head how to defend himself and then attack different types of aircrafts using separate tactics for every type, making decisions in milli-seconds time frame.
IAF will do the same with MKI and Rafale entering Pakistan airspace repeatedly, complimented with Mirage-2000 sometimes and other times with Mig-27 or Jaguar, if its assumed that Mig-29 will carry out air defence duty along with Mig-21.
I don't know where to start in criticizing this. I'll keep my language clean and just tell you to concentrate on tanks battalions. You clearly have a lot of potential in that area.
Coming to stealth factor; I wont go in much detail now,
Since you said that F-22 will have a hard time against a strong AD network (ground and air), then wouldnt the possibility of penetrating this air space and mission success for an F-22 will be greater than of F-15E or F-16C or F-18 E? These teen-series will be detected and shot down sooner than a the Raptor and the raptor just might make it.
Your point just strengthens the argument in favour of 5th gen; means that 4 and 4.5 gen hold no chance in this case, and a 5th gen is necessity for a possibility of success. Otherwise its just ground to ground strikes, don't send aircrafts, in-fact use ballistic missiles.
and this also brings a very important factor of an armed EW aircraft like EA-18G, and the use of such systems on a 5th gen aircraft making the 5th gen EW aircraft more lethal for the adversary with its stealthy profile.
[/QUOTE]
My point was neither to favour, nor criticize 5th gen. But here is simple common sense: when you spend upwards of 100 million dollar on an aircraft, it better give you a lot in return. And I think you failed to understand what I said earlier: against modern air defences, even the F-22 by itself will fail to achieve anything. Read that again: you won't get any benefit out of it. You need a support infrastructure to analyse the threats present, probe it for weaknesses, then devise a strategy that will utilize your strengths while leveraging the enemy's weaknesses. In some cases, this may even require utilizing special forces behind enemy lines. In other cases, it may utilize a saturation attack using cruise missiles. As a matter of fact, saturation attacks using cruise missiles are the best method for clearing a path for our fighters.
So please stop with this fanboyism, and don't misinterpret what I said. It is completely incorrect to say that 4 and 4.5 gen hold no chance. The reality of the situation is that the correct solution is completely different from sending in fighter jets. War planers are not the one solution to all problems you face on the battlefield. Again, your forte is armored battalions. Stick to them.
The utility and requirements of a 5th gen fighter are unclear as yet. We do not have knowledge of PAF's threat assessment, and what threats it is planning to counter with a 5th gen aircraft. As such, silence is the most prudent expression at this point. I wouldn't go out of my way to write such a lengthy response, but unfortunately you have some respect on the forum and newbies will be treating your thoughts with respect. Don't mislead people on topics you don't understand.
Interesting but remember the scenario - attacking Mumbai. If the 5th gen is say, the Azm or the J-31, what aircraft would be the 4th gen that does what you say it will do?
Or perhaps the 5th gen could fly high, alone and launch the attack themselves and return back to base... but this will depend on what munitions are used and whether the weapons bay fits.
Additionally, Chinese 5th gen are not likely to be as stealthy as American 5th gen. Which means they would be easier to detect, and the powerful radars on Indian warships may just be able to see the 5th gen flying high.
One problem maybe that BVR AAM pk's may be considerably lower in India-Pak scenario. NATO against Iraq and Serbia had a pk of 0.46. This was before MAWS, advanced EW, and generally against outnumbered, outgunned and relatively outdated aircraft.
What if in Pakistan vs India the pk goes down to 0.2? The massive barrages of IAF AAMs would put PAF at a disadvantage, as PAF has JF-17s that can only fire 2-4.
Other than having a heavy fighter - a "quarterback" so to speak, the other option in leveling the field would be:
1. LRSAMs. Doesn't need to be something expensive, could be something inhouse with a low pk. But a missile shot at an IAF fighter will force that fighter to take evasive action, considerably distracting it and reducing its kinetic and situational advantage. It may also have to drop certain stores in the process.
2. For strike, simply use UCAVs. Basically a reusable cruise missile. This means you don't have to put your expensive gear in harms way, or lose pilots.
Together, they can provide a meaningful capability substitute to F-16s or a future heavy fighter / stealth fighter.
Very good thoughts. The PAF's plan to overcome the PK is network centric warfare utilizing a swarm of Thunders. And if India commits the mistake of sending its own hoard to our borders... well, the unimaginable will happen.
