Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

[CriticalThought]

Yes because strike role is of mirrages and f16 are for air superiority or air cover ... So f16s can fly with fuel tanks and full fuel as anti air missiles are comparatively less heavy

Which was my original point. No need for refuellers for defence of the homeland.

 

[CHI RULES]

Yes but this will restrict your international transactions ... China is just one country but we have to trade with all countries of the world ... Most importantly if we are unable to buy oil which is only tradeable in dollars ...

This option is given only as an example moreover due to Chinese/Russian influence/cooperation USA will/shall never go for full restrictions on Pakistan. The defense related restrictions are already in process, but USA also has interests in Pakistan. The threat is only from moles within our key positions.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

@CriticalThought
Re: PAF F-16s IFR/AAR ... the PAF did seek KC-135s and other boom-capable options in the mid-2000s, but there were no willing suppliers. However, if it could, the PAF would pursue AAR/IFR for the F-16s. @Bilal Khan 777

This has been discussed and evaluated many times. There is no willing supplier, and now with probe drogue system, its out of the question, equation, and matrix. However, the PAF Falcons have been deployed to not require IFR.

 

[CriticalThought]

This has been discussed and evaluated many times. There is no willing supplier, and now with probe drogue system, its out of the question, equation, and matrix. However, the PAF Falcons have been deployed to not require IFR.

Very nice seeing you after a long time Sir!

 

[The Accountant]

This option is given only as an example moreover due to Chinese/Russian influence/cooperation USA will/shall never go for full restrictions on Pakistan. The defense related restrictions are already in process, but USA also has interests in Pakistan. The threat is only from moles within our key positions.

Agreed but we should consider all sorts of potential threats ... Plus trump is unpredictble and has no long term vision ... The best bet against such sanctions is to promote poitive image of Pakistan specially to europe so that diplomatically we can reduce the possiblity of such threat to negligible ...

 

[Signalian]

You are majorly confused about aerial warfare. You are basically repeating verbatim every single illogical argument that is oft repeated on this forum.

Thank you for your significant input and time, but i am very sure that i'm not confused. If anything opposes your ideas and grasp, doesn't mean its illogical.

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.

Going round in circles wont help, lets come to the point and keep it simple, JF-17 and F-16 do-not posses the range needed for long range missions.

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.

Taking risk is part of war, compromising should be an option, not necessity. I will not judge you here, but going by your logic, no aircraft should be fully loaded for combat, lest it gets show down and "expensive unfired missiles" are lost. and i will rest my case here as i see you now comparing loss of aircraft to loss of missiles. Good God.

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.

I have read posts of above stated gentlemen, very informative but could be more innovative. The trade off of larger RCS to what actually MKI can offer (not that im advocating MKI like an indian member), actually pretty much over shadows the RCS factor.

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.

You do know that most Indian SAM systems are mobile, can be used near FOB's apart from deep inside India. so going deep is not the only path in which SAMs will be encountered, and the addition of MAR-1 is there for a purpose. SAMs need to be destroyed or by-passed through safe way-points.

Secondly, the use of BM's and CM's will depend upon nature of war and these BM's CM's can take out SAM systems to pave way for PAF aircraft to operate in Indian air space, and at some point in war, that could be necessary, why? keep reading.

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.

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.

Dear Sir, thank you for your kind offer, but i shall pass.

Further on to tank battalions, now i will reply you why PAF may need to operate in Indian skies, Pakistan Army at any point in war could be operating in Indian territory and may need PAF cover in that region. This is the doctrine of Pakistan Army to take the war on the Indian side.

PS: please use whichever language you want with me, i will keep it civil, this i promise you.

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.

My friend, you are hopping left and right for your argument on 5th gen, you yourself proved through your post why 5th gen is necessary and when i re-iterated on your point, you now want to play with words.

Dear sir, please grow up. 5th Gen is the future and most countries are designing their own 5th Gen aircrafts, France is going one step ahead and concentrating on 6th Gen.
Secondly, in strategic warfare planning, options are opened up, not closed.
Thirdly, newer technology and weapon systems gives flexibility in planning and implementing new doctrines, tactics and strategies, as it can give an edge over the enemy.

Lastly my friend, i like discussing topics with members who bring ideas on the table like @Armchair and @Ulla , not confining themselves and their ideas, like yourself, so I may not be able to continue this discussion with you any longer as I can't learn anything from you and going in circles isnt helping.

Ciao.

 

[Armchair]

I take credit for bringing him back!

Reading between the lines, what he is possibly implying is that the F-16s have those extra large fuel tanks and the new ones have conformal tanks meaning refueling is to some extent redundant.

 

[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

 

[Signalian]

Maybe Pak can offer Venezuela some JF-17s as barter for their F-16s.

have u checked the conditions which could be enforced, starting from sale, delivery and then support, will USA allow?

 

[Armchair]

have u checked the conditions which could be enforced, starting from sale, delivery and then support, will USA allow?

US just might, its in their interest to ensure those F-16s don't get handed to the Russians or the Chinese.

The aircraft must be in reasonable condition as the Venezuela air force is not known to train hard, and these have largely been like hangar queens since the parts supply stopped. The climate is a bit humid and there is ocean flying so condition is probably not like what you would get from countries like Jordan.

 

[MastanKhan]

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.

Hi,

Buddy refuelling would be more appropriate in a strike on mumbai---.

By the time the opponents ships locate the 5th gen aircraft---they will be deep in range of heavy AShM's like the CM400 AKG---the cm400 would already be launched from the 4th gen aircraft---if such capability was available.

Naval vessels do not have long range missiles to challenge aircraft launching from a 100 + miles away---.

 

[Armchair]

Hi,

Buddy refuelling would be more appropriate in a strike on mumbai---.

By the time the opponents ships locate the 5th gen aircraft---they will be deep in range of heavy AShM's like the CM400 AKG---the cm400 would already be launched from the 4th gen aircraft---if such capability was available.

Naval vessels do not have long range missiles to challenge aircraft launching from a 100 + miles away---.

Problem is:

1. If you buy the, say FC-31, you won't have the money to by a 4th gen to accompany it for a strike to Mumbai.
2. The weapons bay of the FC-31 is shallow, it cannot carry a meaningful AShM or ALCM loadout.

So does this mean the purpose is defeated?

 

[MastanKhan]

Problem is:

1. If you buy the, say FC-31, you won't have the money to by a 4th gen to accompany it for a strike to Mumbai.
2. The weapons bay of the FC-31 is shallow, it cannot carry a meaningful AShM or ALCM loadout.

So does this mean the purpose is defeated?

Hi,

You don't need a 5th gen for that strike---. The JH7 is sufficient in itself---. We have to fight within our means---.

 

[Armchair]

Hi,

You don't need a 5th gen for that strike---. The JH7 is sufficient in itself---. We have to fight within our means---.

But -

1. It is very likely that if you afford a 5th gen, you won't have money left for yet another type - JH-7s
2. The point of using the 5th gen becomes moot if the JH-7 can get the job done...

Logically bringing us back to square 1...

 

[MastanKhan]

But -

1. It is very likely that if you afford a 5th gen, you won't have money left for yet another type - JH-7s
2. The point of using the 5th gen becomes moot if the JH-7 can get the job done...

Logically bringing us back to square 1...

Hi,

Technology is a stair step progression---.

You want a military---you have to by default move onto the next level up---.

But that does not mean that your lower tiered weapons have lost value---.

In the mumbai strike scenario---you are farther away from being detected all thru the flight---you turn and dash in---release your cargo and dash out---. You can manage without a 5th gen type aircraft---.

But then there would be other sites that you need to target---you may have a chance of being detected earlier on a conventional aircraft---. Here you can use the 5th gen to spearhead---lock onto the target and launch the munitions thru data link from aircraft flying far out---.