Possible steps to counter the rising threat from IAF ?

[SQ8]

Hi,

F 15 was not available to pakistan but F18 was---. But pakistan needs to focus on Blk52 and upgraded aim 120---.

Here is a great read for those who believe that MY chicken little will do better than their Master blaster.

Enjoy

The Russian Philosophy of Beyond Visual Range Air Combat

Those reading it should also remember that the article was written by a man who is generally not taken with respect by other western experts on the subject. Specifically because Mr Kopp has an agenda after being shunned by the Australian ministry of defence when he offered to upgrade the F-111C's and instead found himself sidelined in favour of the F-35.

 

[dexter]

Well Quality > Quantity , no doubt'
Thatswhy i always said that going for F-60(after acquiring all blocks of JF-17) is far much better than acquiring J-10s

 

[janon]

Hi,

F 15 was not available to pakistan but F18 was---. But pakistan needs to focus on Blk52 and upgraded aim 120---.

Here is a great read for those who believe that MY chicken little will do better than their Master blaster.

Enjoy

The Russian Philosophy of Beyond Visual Range Air Combat

When was F-18 offered and why wasn't it taken? Lack of money? Also, is there any other reason why F-15 wouldn't be available to Pak (other than money)?

I agree with some of the posters here that PAF needs an air superiority or heavy fighter in small numbers.

 

[MastanKhan]

When was F-18 offered and why wasn't it taken? Lack of money? Also, is there any other reason why F-15 wouldn't be available to Pak (other than money)?

I agree with some of the posters here that PAF needs an air superiority or heavy fighter in small numbers.

Hi,

Pak had a chocice between F16 or F18 or both---the money was there till the earthquake hit in 2005. I don't know if the F15 was available or not.

PAF analysts decided before 2005 that there was no threat left from india as peace deal would be signed----so the purchase option was never pursued. It was considered a wastage of money---. For that reason PAF was jumping around checking the Grippen, Rafale.

PAK should have ordered the Rafale in 2003----the non order really pissed off the french who were extremely keen to make a sale of this aircraft---as did the non order of Grippen.

The moment the earthquake hit pakistan---and all of paks funds were drained for rehab and no further funds were available to procure any weapons---indian attitude towards peace changed as well when it saw pakistan down one more time.

 

[janon]

Hi,

Pak had a chocice between F16 or F18 or both---the money was there till the earthquake hit in 2005. I don't know if the F15 was available or not.

PAF analysts decided before 2005 that there was no threat left from india as peace deal would be signed----so the purchase option was never pursued. It was considered a wastage of money---. For that reason PAF was jumping around checking the Grippen, Rafale.

PAK should have ordered the Rafale in 2003----the non order really pissed off the french who were extremely keen to make a sale of this aircraft---as did the non order of Grippen.

The moment the earthquake hit pakistan---and all of paks funds were drained for rehab and no further funds were available to procure any weapons---indian attitude towards peace changed as well when it saw pakistan down one more time.

Well, maybe it wasn't the earthquake, but events like 26/11 and the embassy bombing that changed India's attitude. It's not like Pak's availability of funds before the earthquake was scaring India into signing peace accords. Let's not get carried away, even before the earthquake, Pak was not so rich as to match India conventionally and ensure peace through deterrant firepower.

On topic, Rafales would have been way too expensive for Pak, judging by the costs being talked about today. F-18s may have been the best bang for buck, unless there was an option for second hand F-15s. Both those could have made a big difference to the possible doctrine of the PAF.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Those reading it should also remember that the article was written by a man who is generally not taken with respect by other western experts on the subject. Specifically because Mr Kopp has an agenda after being shunned by the Australian ministry of defence when he offered to upgrade the F-111C's and instead found himself sidelined in favour of the F-35.

Are we (I wonder)

as aeronautical enthusiasts able to give a definite verdict about something so complex (when talking technology of the modern times) that too when we are only equipped with varying degrees of comprehension of the subject.


for all its worth I wonder.

if I go for quality (a western 4.5 generation jet ) I say, at any given time how many places can a limited number of these jets be when facing an adversary in the air, ground and sea that is much larger in number?

on the other extreme I say, what good would a third generation derivatives do against an adversary that is few generations ahead of it. they would be like turkey shoot.


my response? taking Pakistani example, our lower tier shouldn't be below J-17s and top "should" be at par with block 52+ or whatever equivalent there is from our seemingly only willing vendor in our North.

 

[MastanKhan]

Well, maybe it wasn't the earthquake, but events like 26/11 and the embassy bombing that changed India's attitude. It's not like Pak's availability of funds before the earthquake was scaring India into signing peace accords. Let's not get carried away, even before the earthquake, Pak was not so rich as to match India conventionally and ensure peace through deterrant firepower.

On topic, Rafales would have been way too expensive for Pak, judging by the costs being talked about today. F-18s may have been the best bang for buck, unless there was an option for second hand F-15s. Both those could have made a big difference to the possible doctrine of the PAF.

Hi,

26/11 happened afterwards---the public attitude changed afterwards---. The indian govt's attitude had changed earlier.

The thing is that india never wanted peace with pakistn----india was never sincere in its efforts of peace. India wanted to either militarily defeat pakistan or defeat it politically on the world forum---india wanted to rub pakistan's face in the dirt.

If india was bent on peace with pak---26/11 or embassy bombings would not have mattered---as it did not matter to the british govt when IRA bombed 10 downing street----britain wanted peace with IRA---no amonut of terrorist activity would deter it from making peace---because they knew that peace would over shadow IRA activities and the irish would turn on the IRA themselves---and jointly they would progress and the world saw it happen that way.

IRA succumbed / got crushed by the weight of the committment of the peace deal between two committed adversaries.

Rafale was not expensive for what it offered---it gave parity to pak air force---it gave total control of the skies over pakistan---it gave air superiority over pak space.

The most important thing was the timing----PAF would have been ahead of itself in 2006-2007 than it would be in 2016-17. We are going to be 10 years behind in what we would have had---and then also an inferior aircraft to the Rafale.

And to top that off---we have a pissed off france---now how hard is it to piss off the french----very very hard---.

Those reading it should also remember that the article was written by a man who is generally not taken with respect by other western experts on the subject. Specifically because Mr Kopp has an agenda after being shunned by the Australian ministry of defence when he offered to upgrade the F-111C's and instead found himself sidelined in favour of the F-35.

Hi,

Mr Kopp may have an agenda----but when 4 bvr's are launched at you and the adversary still has another
4---8 BVR's left to launch on its racks---that is not too much of a confidence building scenario for a pilot who is at the receiving end of it.

 

[Donatello]

Well, maybe it wasn't the earthquake, but events like 26/11 and the embassy bombing that changed India's attitude. It's not like Pak's availability of funds before the earthquake was scaring India into signing peace accords. Let's not get carried away, even before the earthquake, Pak was not so rich as to match India conventionally and ensure peace through deterrant firepower.

On topic, Rafales would have been way too expensive for Pak, judging by the costs being talked about today. F-18s may have been the best bang for buck, unless there was an option for second hand F-15s. Both those could have made a big difference to the possible doctrine of the PAF.

The actual deterance was achieved in 1998 with the possession of nukes. However, Pakistan needed conventional weapons to make sure that any adversary (India in this case) would not be able to come in and attack Pakistan.

If a staged attack like Mumbai were to happen today, India would still be at odds on how to deal with the situation. Doesn't matter whether Pakistan has Rafale or not. Pakistan will go all in to thwart Indian attack.

 

[elitepilot09]

Well, maybe it wasn't the earthquake, but events like 26/11 and the embassy bombing that changed India's attitude. It's not like Pak's availability of funds before the earthquake was scaring India into signing peace accords. Let's not get carried away, even before the earthquake, Pak was not so rich as to match India conventionally and ensure peace through deterrant firepower.

Oh cmon. That's a very naive thing to say. Pardon me if I sound confrontational at all (I dont mean to), but India fumes even when frigates from the 80's are transferred to us with little cost (PNS Alamgir), let alone an air force platform. I'm sure if you do a quick google search you'll also find the article in which a transfer of 2 F-16's provoked a whining, feckless response from your congress. I'll admit that India might not be scared into signing peace accords, but it would certainly be more reluctant to employ any sort of "surgical strike" as proposed in the 2008 crisis.

The matter is not so much about being "rich", thats poor thought. We don't have to look too far from our borders, nor too deep in history to know that the "rich" with its "deterrant firepower" doesn't always win. And yes, I'm citing the US loss in Afghanistan and further back in Vietnam as well.

You're sadly mistaken if you believe that any aggression to our country won't meet it's "match", as you say, my friend...

 

[ziaulislam]

most of people see MRCA as a problem for us but imagine what would have happened had IAF opted for american proposal of f-35s. that would have been a very big headache for us. the price would probably been the same for IAF, even cheaper.

i think PAF will try to get around a total of 100 f-16s with some 150-250 thunders till 2025. that should keep PAF strengthened enough to avoid any conventional war.
India will not go into war these days its too expensive and problematic, they would continue their proxy war, where our govt inefficiency has led to terrorism now at different fronts both religious and regional

 

[Storm Force]

Depends on What Pakistanis face in terms of relationships ESPECIALLY india and lesser extent USA

PEACEFUL nation embracing the new world order no terrisom or fanatical ideas LIKE Kargil etc i think quality would be more efficient for long term .

However a NATION an military preparing for conflict YOU NEED both QUALITY & NOS.. ESPECIALLY if the opponents has one of largest and most powerful air forces in the world. ie india

 

[Chak Bamu]

Depends on What Pakistanis face in terms of relationships ESPECIALLY india and lesser extent USA

PEACEFUL nation embracing the new world order no terrisom or fanatical ideas LIKE Kargil etc i think quality would be more efficient for long term .

However a NATION an military preparing for conflict YOU NEED both QUALITY & NOS.. ESPECIALLY if the opponents has one of largest and most powerful air forces in the world. ie india

India is neighbor to two air-powers, not one. And those two are close and strong allies of each other.

All Pakistan needs is security of its own skies and an ability to strike into India.

All of Pakistan's air assets have higher serviceability, faster turn-around, and lower cost of operation (for sustainability). We do not lack any serious ability. Early warning, BVR capability, SAMs (though not as many as necessary), stand-off weaponry, cruise missiles - you name it and we have it.

So, India may be a regional power, but Pakistanis are not much concerned. We have our bases covered. India can do its best or worst. It would not accomplish any serious aim that it might have.

 

[MastanKhan]

Well, maybe it wasn't the earthquake, but events like 26/11 and the embassy bombing that changed India's attitude. It's not like Pak's availability of funds before the earthquake was scaring India into signing peace accords. Let's not get carried away, even before the earthquake, Pak was not so rich as to match India conventionally and ensure peace through deterrant firepower.

On topic, Rafales would have been way too expensive for Pak, judging by the costs being talked about today. F-18s may have been the best bang for buck, unless there was an option for second hand F-15s. Both those could have made a big difference to the possible doctrine of the PAF.

Hi,

It is not a matter of being rich---. It is a matter of being in a position----when the opponent thinks it is futile to have any further conflicts. To have parity---pak don't need to match india.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well Pakistani Air-force is in dire need of Technological upgrade

That is all I will say

• Pakistani forces need the JF17 Block 2 , and J10B 36 planes
• Military needs the Helicopter TOT project
  
• Air Defenses need locally made SAM
• Navy needs 8 ships and 6 submarines
• Soldiers need more technology integration @ unit level and better Fitness levels
• Military needs Engines Manufacturing capacity , JEEP, Trucks , Tanks , JF17
• Space & Satellite program

We are in 70's level capacity

Only thing we can be proud of is
a) Nuclear achievement (Over Achievement)
b) Missile program (Over Achievement)

We are Just so FAR in term of Technology in various fields , the difference is almost to level
where one soldier was fighting with Gun and other had bow and arrow

 

[Zarvan]

Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

Please express your views. Thanks

I think both when you don't have money you have to focus on only quality but when you have money and lot of money you should go for both quality and quantity @fatman17 @Oscar @Aeronaut