PAKISTAN’S MIRAGES: SPECIALISTS ENDURING OUT OF NECESSITY

[alphapak]

PAF should go for J10C, not only will it replace the Mirages but also
the old F16's.

 

[denel]

PAF should go for J10C, not only will it replace the Mirages but also
the old F16's.

no... old f-16s are ideal' they are free of issues imposed on newer blk52s. j10c is ok but power plant is the challenge and range is not adequate.

 

[MastanKhan]

SU-34

Hi,

The SU34 is a great strike aircraft---it is the first choice---but price and availabilty???

 

[Signalian]

Hi,

The SU34 is a great strike aircraft---it is the first choice---but price and availabilty???

I know PAF won't go for SU34.

Maybe PN should start being responsible for it's own arms:

1. Aviation
2. Marines

Since aircrafts are eXpensive to procure, A Naval version of JF-17 could have been pursued, not just a JF-17 carrying AShm's. A proper navalised version and designed plane, you know better.

 

[Shabi1]

PAF should go for J10C, not only will it replace the Mirages but also
the old F16's.

Please do google searches for J-10 combat radius Vs JF-17 combat radius. Surprising result

For PN a strike aircraft is not a priority, for now it has P-3Cs for the long range role and they can be escorted by JF-17s, whereas cover could be provided by Karakoram AWACs. Submarines will be it's main offensive punch and with a potent submarine threat it would be suicidal for any Indian aircraft carrier to play any role Vs Pakistan. Funds should be spent on replacing old surface ships and submarines and that is whats being done.

Don't have a confirmation for PN but P-3C armed with sidewinders so it can take out similar opponent patrol aircraft. They've had this ability since the mid 80s so a very good likely hood that PN has this capability.

For Mirages, one comment "Allah Khair Karai ga"

 

[Armchair-General]

Mira

Please do google searches for J-10 combat radius Vs JF-17 combat radius. Surprising result

Mirage should have similar radius as JF-17 despite larger size, due to turbo jet and old design. On other hand, J10 is larger than JF-17, has delta wing that carries more load and is a newer design compared to the mirage. Secondly the figures given on the net are for J-10A while there have been many improvements on the later models such as improved performance of WS-10 engine, DSI etc. plus short range can be overcome by use of mid air refueling.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Readerdefence]

Hi with the price tag of j10c my humble opinion is to go for j11-b with a AESA upgrade which
Is not with them at the moment with twin engine and enough payLoad they can be a force
Multiplyer for PN beside the airforce
Now folks will say about the Russian end user permission which can be taken on Chinese behalf
With the Russian latest AL series engines rest of the Chinese gadgetry is perfect
My prey is for j16 but it might be same like su35 kind of price tag on it
J11-b paf has already have a go on this fighter during the airforce exercises with China
Some more input from the learned members will be appreciated
Thank you

 

[Shabi1]

Mira

Mirage should have similar radius as JF-17 despite larger size, due to turbo jet and old design. On other hand, J10 is larger than JF-17, has delta wing that carries more load and is a newer design compared to the mirage. Secondly the figures given on the net are for J-10A while there have been many improvements on the later models such as improved performance of WS-10 engine, DSI etc. plus short range can be overcome by use of mid air refueling.
Just my 2 cents.

http://www.aviationanalysis.net/2018/04/j-10c-enter-service-with-chinese-plaaf.html
"According to Chinese analysts, with three drop tanks and air-to-air missiles, the J-10B/C could have a combat radius of 1,200 km, enough to perform air superiority missions over the Korean and Japanese airspace from its Yanji base in northeastern China"

Not a big difference from JF-17, only plus is it has more weapon stations.

 

[Armchair]

http://www.aviationanalysis.net/2018/04/j-10c-enter-service-with-chinese-plaaf.html
"According to Chinese analysts, with three drop tanks and air-to-air missiles, the J-10B/C could have a combat radius of 1,200 km, enough to perform air superiority missions over the Korean and Japanese airspace from its Yanji base in northeastern China"

Not a big difference from JF-17, only plus is it has more weapon stations.

JF-17 in all probability has a realistic combat radius of 600 km. Not sure about J-10.

Mirages lose a third of their fuel between takeoff and combat altitude.

I wonder what the price of a JH-7B would be. Would be interesting to get a fly away price and CPFH.

 

[Shabi1]

JF-17 in all probability has a realistic combat radius of 600 km. Not sure about J-10.

Mirages lose a third of their fuel between takeoff and combat altitude.

I wonder what the price of a JH-7B would be. Would be interesting to get a fly away price and CPFH.

]

The values are surprisingly higher. Stats from Dubai appearance. Officially AA combat radius is 1350km which is a contrast to J-10C 1200km. So a HHH antiship should be very decent too.

JH-7/FBC-1 was once a serious contender for PAF, I believe bottleneck was that production rate back then was just 6 aircraft per year and China had it's own orders to fulfill before export possibilities.

 

[Armchair]

]

The values are surprisingly higher. Stats from Dubai appearance. Officially AA combat radius is 1350km which is a contrast to J-10C 1200km. So a HHH antiship should be very decent too.
View attachment 473334

JH-7/FBC-1 was once a serious contender for PAF, I believe bottleneck was that production rate back then was just 6 aircraft per year and China had it's own orders to fulfill before export possibilities.

Hi Shabi, interesting comment about JH-7 production rate. They are desperate for sales just now though, as closing the factory means destroying the main industry of the town, and a strategic aircraft manufacturing capability in that particular region.

I seriously doubt this graph. I believe the AA configured combat radius is between 500-700 km.

Additionally, a general rule of thumb is dividing the max range by 1/3 to get the combat radius.

PS: someone seems to have superimposed 1400 km and 1000 km on that slide. The slide may not be realistic in the first place to begin with...

 

[MastanKhan]

I know PAF won't go for SU34.

Maybe PN should start being responsible for it's own arms:

1. Aviation
2. Marines

Since aircrafts are eXpensive to procure, A Naval version of JF-17 could have been pursued, not just a JF-17 carrying AShm's. A proper navalised version and designed plane, you know better.

Hi,

The bottomline over here is that our enemy has more assets than us---.

When we get an opportunity to get thru---we would want a strike capability of 2 AShM's just to be sure---that if one gets shot down---we have a second AShM that gets thru---.

I think Algiers or Morroco ordered some 36 SU34 if I am to be corrected---.

The truth to the matter is that a heavy strike aircraft of a naval version would create chaos in the enemy ranks---.

Why---because they have all their assets facing land incursions----.

Once the playing field conditions are changed and they have to pull back 30-40 % of their equipment from the land front to the ocean front----can you just imagine what that would do to the battle---.

Pakistan would be a winner if it procures heavy naval strike platform---.

As I have stated years and years ago---one successful strike on mumbai industrial complex thru aircraft would change the dynamics of the war---.

 

[Signalian]

For PN a strike aircraft is not a priority,

This type of thinking has effectively killed PN's potential in all spheres of combat.

 

[MastanKhan]

http://www.aviationanalysis.net/2018/04/j-10c-enter-service-with-chinese-plaaf.html
"According to Chinese analysts, with three drop tanks and air-to-air missiles, the J-10B/C could have a combat radius of 1,200 km, enough to perform air superiority missions over the Korean and Japanese airspace from its Yanji base in northeastern China"

Not a big difference from JF-17, only plus is it has more weapon stations.

Sir,

The most important factor of the J10 is that it fills up the hole---just like the 16 F16's we got from Jordan---which created an equivalent of an extra division strength of military power immediately---.

the truth to the matter is that almost all of the air superiority fighters have a very similar combat radius---the difference is in the loiter time----which is very very important.

 

[Basel]

Hi,

The bottomline over here is that our enemy has more assets than us---.

When we get an opportunity to get thru---we would want a strike capability of 2 AShM's just to be sure---that if one gets shot down---we have a second AShM that gets thru---.

I think Algiers or Morroco ordered some 36 SU34 if I am to be corrected---.

The truth to the matter is that a heavy strike aircraft of a naval version would create chaos in the enemy ranks---.

Why---because they have all their assets facing land incursions----.

Once the playing field conditions are changed and they have to pull back 30-40 % of their equipment from the land front to the ocean front----can you just imagine what that would do to the battle---.

Pakistan would be a winner if it procures heavy naval strike platform---.

As I have stated years and years ago---one successful strike on mumbai industrial complex thru aircraft would change the dynamics of the war---.

Pakistan should customize any bird it purchases for Naval role, if Su-34 is purchased then it should be next generation version of following bird of USN interns of capabilities.