Refuelling?

[Tariq Iqbal]

Looking at the current situation i dont think PAF needs refuellers at all. Just look at this recent news, a crash of F-7 aircraft, now tell me is it better to have the fighter line setup or go for refuellers, keep in mind that we are looking for another 4th generation fighter also, if we purchase refuellers than it will take much of the money.

We are not IAF we can't afford to have a large force because obviously our budget doesn't require us so. There are more important things, for example SAM, radars, AWAC capability more important.

Regarding the VERA radar which was recently bought on lease suggests that Pakistan is interested in it, and will get it soon. If you look at our situation currently Pakistan doesn't want to put its money on defence thus its spending slowly on things that we can get through indeginious capability and transfer of technology.

It is widely known that the whole Pakistan supports the capability to build military weapons on its own and focus on self reliance, and it is doing it so far. I have also read that the Pakistan has upgraded its defence system with the technology bought from the European countries.

 

[Bull]

Originally posted by Tariq Iqbal@Feb 22 2006, 04:40 PM
Looking at the current situation i dont think PAF needs refuellers at all. Just look at this recent news, a crash of F-7 aircraft, now tell me is it better to have the fighter line setup or go for refuellers, keep in mind that we are looking for another 4th generation fighter also, if we purchase refuellers than it will take much of the money.

We are not IAF we can't afford to have a large force because obviously our budget doesn't require us so. There are more important things, for example SAM, radars, AWAC capability more important.

Regarding the VERA radar which was recently bought on lease suggests that Pakistan is interested in it, and will get it soon. If you look at our situation currently Pakistan doesn't want to put its money on defence thus its spending slowly on things that we can get through indeginious capability and transfer of technology.

It is widely known that the whole Pakistan supports the capability to build military weapons on its own and focus on self reliance, and it is doing it so far. I have also read that the Pakistan has upgraded its defence system with the technology bought from the European countries.

[post=6044]Quoted post[/post]​

Too little money and way too much to be done.

Any western product other than f16 wont fit pakistani budget,PAF will have to go with JF 17 or J 10 when it is ready.

 

[Neo]

Tariq,

You have a point, we need to get rid of the obsolete types but I'm not sure what caused the crash.
For sure its not due ill maintenace as we keep good record and most spares are built locally. It could have been metal fatigueness or cracks in the airframe.

True, we don't have the luxury of deploying many systems simultaniously in our forces, but air refuelling capability can not be overlookd coz of the size of our frontline fleet.
Readiness of the jet and guaranteed multiple sorties will change the status quo in future conflict, we have to be prepared.

 

[Suffa]

well here people talk about tankers wow paf havent a classic multi role know and u ppl talk about tankers hahah first of all paf should get about 200 state of art multi role then think about tankers

 

[Zeeshan S.]

Nomi,

Well, Pakistan is indeed looking for more than 200 fighter planes which will be a combination of JF-17 and F-16, and we know it. What we are discussing here is how would the refuelling capability will effect PAFs capability.

Is it important to go with other things or does refuelling really gives a good advantage and is a good capability to have, even taking the consideration of the other things which are more important.

 

[ISI2003]

The refuelers can make 200 state of the art as more, as sorties can be increased
----------------
refuelers should be procured alongside, f-16 procurement

when 50% of the f-16 procurement is done, then 3 refuelers should be procured, when the f-16 deal is completed then another 3 should be procured, and finally as the jf-17 starts to reach the levels of 100, then the last 3 should be procured

refuelers to fit just in line with the forces, so that the air force is not logisitcs heavy, and force weak, balancing the two along the way

 

[Sid]

I, however, remain attached to the chain of thought that there is hardly any need of any refuellers at this point in time.

F-16s and Jf-17s would really start to be inducted in good numbers around 2008 at the earliest. Getting used to Jf-17s and getting logistics as well as infrastructure up and running for it, getting in to routine sorties and familiarizing with the system; then gaining experience on that system would take atleast another two years for the PAF.

Then it could start thinking about procuring any refuellers at all. If you ask me, I'd say, a maximum of three initially would be more than enough.

 

[Bull]

Originally posted by Sid@Feb 23 2006, 08:30 AM
I, however, remain attached to the chain of thought that there is hardly any need of any refuellers at this point in time.

F-16s and Jf-17s would really start to be inducted in good numbers around 2008 at the earliest. Getting used to Jf-17s and getting logistics as well as infrastructure up and running for it, getting in to routine sorties and familiarizing with the system; then gaining experience on that system would take atleast another two years for the PAF.

Then it could start thinking about procuring any refuellers at all. If you ask me, I'd say, a maximum of three initially would be more than enough.

[post=6123]Quoted post[/post]​

:thumbsup:

 

[Suffa]

Originally posted by ISI2003@Feb 23 2006, 04:26 AM
The refuelers can make 200 state of the art as more, as sorties can be increased
----------------
refuelers should be procured alongside, f-16 procurement

when 50% of the f-16 procurement is done, then 3 refuelers should be procured, when the f-16 deal is completed then another 3 should be procured, and finally as the jf-17 starts to reach the levels of 100, then the last 3 should be procured

refuelers to fit just in line with the forces, so that the air force is not logisitcs heavy, and force weak, balancing the two along the way

[post=6122]Quoted post[/post]​

well nice but what about money?( yar hamari air force itni bari air force nai hay dear kay tankers lay or phir lambi lambi sorties kary ) well i think first of all paf should complete the combat fleet with up to 100 or 150 F-16 then an other multi role as CAM says Gripen or chines jet about 50 or 75 then think about refulers because it is a luxuary i think if u havent a classic mutli role or u havent good combat fleet in ur air force

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by nomi`in`falcon@Feb 22 2006, 09:22 PM
well here people talk about tankers wow paf havent a classic multi role know and u ppl talk about tankers hahah first of all paf should get about 200 state of art multi role then think about tankers

[post=6106]Quoted post[/post]​

Nomi,
You have to think about the perspectives aswell.
A war can not be won by front line fighters only, logistics and supporting are as important on modern warfare.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by Sid@Feb 23 2006, 05:30 AM
I, however, remain attached to the chain of thought that there is hardly any need of any refuellers at this point in time.

F-16s and Jf-17s would really start to be inducted in good numbers around 2008 at the earliest. Getting used to Jf-17s and getting logistics as well as infrastructure up and running for it, getting in to routine sorties and familiarizing with the system; then gaining experience on that system would take atleast another two years for the PAF.

Then it could start thinking about procuring any refuellers at all. If you ask me, I'd say, a maximum of three initially would be more than enough.

[post=6123]Quoted post[/post]​

Sid,

All you wrote is correct and makes sense except for the fact that if we order those refuellers now, it would probably take some time before FMS approval from the congress, then the units would have to be refurbished and modified to match PAF's requirement, we would need to install infrastructure and get trainings which brings us to the same time window as 2008 at the earlies.
My point is 'why wait and waist time'?

 

[Suffa]

Originally posted by Neo@Feb 23 2006, 07:43 PM
Nomi,
You have to think about the perspectives aswell.
A war can not be won by front line fighters only, logistics and supporting are as important on modern warfare.

[post=6147]Quoted post[/post]​

Neo,

Just listen what we need now is a multi role aircraft not a some other jet if we dont have a good fighter jets than what is the advantage of tanker first we should go for about up to 200 multi roles then think about tankers and i agree you are saying that (A war can not be won by front line fighters only, logistics and supporting are as important on modern warfare.)

I also agree AWACS PAF wants and PAF signed a deal to buy some so why not PAF go for tankers because tankers are good if we have good combat fleet.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by nomi`in`falcon@Feb 23 2006, 09:42 PM
Neo,

Just listen what we need now is a multi role aircraft not a some other jet if we dont have a good fighter jets than what is the advantage of tanker first we should go for about up to 200 multi roles then think about tankers and i agree you are saying that (A war can not be won by front line fighters only, logistics and supporting are as important on modern warfare.)

I also agree AWACS PAF wants and PAF signed a deal to buy some so why not PAF go for tankers because tankers are good if we have good combat fleet.

[post=6153]Quoted post[/post]​

Okay Nomi, point taken.
You're talking about getting a credible fleet of atleast 200 jests befor considering refuelling capability.
If we go for those 75 F-16's, they'll be delivered within 3 years, starting deliveries from late this year already. 24 of them are ex-Belgian AF F-16A/B's with MLU, only 50 orso will have to be built.
JF-17 will go into full production by mid 2007, PAF could receive 15-20 arframes a years. Then we have the option of adding a third fighter like J-10 or Jas-39, both types available from early 2008.

So by the end of 2008 we'll already have 110 F-16's, 40+ JF-17's and possibly a batch of J-10/Jas-39 (18+). Mirage III-Rose will remain in fleet till 2015.

So, there's enough to refuel, which bring me back to my predicted time window of 2008 to induct air tankers.

 

[melb4aust]

Well from my point of view Airborne refuelling system is not the pakistan's first priority, there are alot more other things to look after. To cope Indian airforce there is no need for tankers and that stuff, yeah to handle israel it is important to have 1.

Again i would say it depends on the requirements of pakistan.

 

[Suffa]

Originally posted by Neo@Feb 24 2006, 06:10 PM
Okay Nomi, point taken.
You're talking about getting a credible fleet of atleast 200 jests befor considering refuelling capability.
If we go for those 75 F-16's, they'll be delivered within 3 years, starting deliveries from late this year already. 24 of them are ex-Belgian AF F-16A/B's with MLU, only 50 orso will have to be built.
JF-17 will go into full production by mid 2007, PAF could receive 15-20 arframes a years. Then we have the option of adding a third fighter like J-10 or Jas-39, both types available from early 2008.


So, there's enough to refuel, which bring me back to my predicted time window of 2008 to induct air tankers.

[post=6206]Quoted post[/post]​

hay neo just listen ur to fast till 2008 (So by the end of 2008 we'll already have 110 F-16's, 40+ JF-17's and possibly a batch of J-10/Jas-39 (18+). Mirage III-Rose will remain in fleet till 2015.)

how u can says that? prove these are all ur indeas? isnt it