Refuelling?

[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 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.

[post=6206]Quoted post[/post]​

well these are all asumptions i think because till 2008 only we can get may be not sure about 50 + F-16+ 20 + JF-17 not sure may be 50 + J-10 or Gripen but when ever our air force have up to 100 F-16+50 or 75 JF-17+50 or 75+ Gripens then at that time we are in good possion to get Tankers yes and this could happn after 2010 indeed so can ask how u know that know listen

serial production of JF-17 stars from 2007 yet till 2010 we can get round about 35 to 40

about F-16 wel well wel we are always not sure about american polices when our why they change so we are not sure about F-16 either we can get or not so yill 2010 may be or may be not

Gripen yes we can get there is a chance but as a support multi role for F-16 because Gripen cant be our Primer front line jet

J-10 yes we have another option as a support multi role for F-16 but if pakistan cant get F-16 then realy we are in trouble


so till 2010 or after we cant get Tankers for our air force true :?:

 

[Bull]

without refuelling the theatre of war will remain at the Pakistan -india border.

 

[Zeeshan S.]

Originally posted by bull@Feb 27 2006, 10:12 AM
without refuelling the theatre of war will remain at the Pakistan -india border.

[post=6318]Quoted post[/post]​

Well bull as far as i can see with that comment i dont see a need for refuelling capability if your talking about that refuelling capability is only needed for long ranges. As we have discussed in this thread. The refuelling capability can really and i mean really increase our sorties during the war time. PAF must keep its air planes up in the air, and far as range is concern with the current aircrafts in PAF inventory. I dont see them going deep inside the Indian terrirtory because of the lack of the max range in the aircrafts such as F-16, JF-17, Mirage and all the other aircrafts which are in the PAFs inventory.

Su-30MK/I has a long range and will be able to stay up in the air for a long time with the advantages of having a superior detecting/tracking capability and possible advantage of beyond visual range fights. So i am guessing that we will be needing tankers to support front line fighters to stay up in the air longer, cut the maintenance cost, cut the fueling cost, refuel AWACs if needed, and other supporting aircrafts. However, there are other major priorities which must be done before we go for this.

 

[ISI2003]

I just read an article on the M2 motorway and the refueling points on it

The government seems to be going for refuelers, but ground based ones, on the motorway, probabl all along the entire motorway system, but for now just the M2 motorway

600 Million could be better spent this way, build the motorway refueling points, and save all the money you can

 

[Sid]

Did I miss something here? How did 'motorway refuelling' come in to an aviation refuelling thread??

 

[ISI2003]

Originally posted by Sid@Feb 27 2006, 06:14 PM
Did I miss something here? How did 'motorway refuelling' come in to an aviation refuelling thread??

[post=6336]Quoted post[/post]​

I became pragmatic, and decided to drop air refueling :?:
because we can have 30 sites spread out across the country, and the money saved on planes, can go for more fuel (to make up for fuel used in decent and ascent)

The question becaome what is pragmatic, for a defensive and limited offensive doctrine

 

[Sid]

I think its better we keep the mid-air refuelling option open and on the ground we should establish more temporary airfields (dirt strips or a little better than that) that can be brough in to use in times of hostilities.

Some more permanent airfields should be brought up in areas farther away from our border with India while our highways should be made capable of handling aircraft in times of need.

 

[melb4aust]

Originally posted by bull@Feb 27 2006, 08:12 PM
without refuelling the theatre of war will remain at the Pakistan -india border.

[post=6318]Quoted post[/post]​

:hrr: Thats what iwas trying to say :thumbsup:

Tankers can come handy cope nation like Israel not India because war is not gonna go away from border area. Keeping tankers in the inventory is an offensive and aggressive strategy.

 

[Sid]

Suffa, no offence, but I'd advice you to please preview your posts before posting them. They contain so many spelling and grammatical errors that its hard for one to concentrate on what the post is actually trying to say. Thanks.

 

[melb4aust]

Come on guyz, stick with the topic, be like brothers and cheer up!

Suffa, Ofcourse our 1st priority is to get the fighters 1st then anything else. But what people are saying is make our airforce a lethal force against the enemy, so the enemy think twice before attacking what they are up against. Pakistan can have psychological advantage over the enemy as well.

But again as i said, there alot more other things to look after 1st.

 

[Suffa]

Originally posted by melb4aust@Feb 28 2006, 06:03 AM
:hrr: Thats what iwas trying to say :thumbsup:

Tankers can come handy cope nation like Israel not India because war is not gonna go away from border area. Keeping tankers in the inventory is an offensive and aggressive strategy.

[post=6360]Quoted post[/post]​

well i think may be few people know that our moto is (OFFENCE IS A BEST DEFENCE) only two air forces in the whole world says that one PAF and other IDF/AF and it is true offence is a best defence but simple is that there is aloot much difference between IDF/AF and PAF the most common is technological gap yes they can offence but we cant know because know we in possition only to defend and it is opposite to our policy so simple first get a good combat fleet about 200 multiroles can then come to tankers with out tankers we can defend and if paf want to be a offencive one then go for EF-2000 or Rafael so as
melb4aust said
hrr: Thats what iwas trying to say :thumbsup:

Tankers can come handy cope nation like Israel not India because war is not gonna go away from border area. Keeping tankers in the inventory is an offensive and aggressive strategy.)


well its ok listen as we know our air force is not in good possition so these all are luxuries ya i agreed thats what i want to say in my post with out TANKERS we can servive but with out good combat fleet .we cant but when ever may be about 2010 INSHA ALLHA our air force is in good possition if PAF is succeded to get about 100 F-16 along with about 40 JF-17 and one an other multi role as X cheif says the our next candidate is Gripen and J-10 about 75 J-10 or Gripen or 50 at that time we have allot to refule then we should go for tankers show offence and ***DELETED***

 

[Bull]

Originally posted by melb4aust@Feb 28 2006, 10:03 AM
:hrr: Thats what iwas trying to say :thumbsup:

Tankers can come handy cope nation like Israel not India because war is not gonna go away from border area. Keeping tankers in the inventory is an offensive and aggressive strategy.

[post=6360]Quoted post[/post]​

taking on Israel !!! :huh:

 

[melb4aust]

Originally posted by Suffa@Mar 2 2006, 01:57 PM
hmm i agreed people here always compare our self with israel hahah :wall: :wall:

[post=6500]Quoted post[/post]​

Im not comparing Pakistan with any1. You should understand what i said above there. Offcourse there is huge difff in technology and economy plus the world support. Im not sure whether ur aware, that during Kargil war and back in 80's Israel made the cruel plan to attack pakistan's nuclear facilities. If india is against pakistan in everything then Israel is the father. So we cant neglect Israel's presence as an enemy.

"then we should go for tankers show offence and **** what PAF want to ****"

And Plzzz watch ur language. I mean ur above statement>>> Plzz dont use these words again.

 

[Sid]

The conspiracy theory that Israel planned to attack Pakistan's nuclear facilities with Indian support are unconfirmed rumours so far. There has been no evidence to support these claims. Besides Israel has its hands full of enemies that are in closer proximity to it for it to start worrying about Pakistan. Pakistan doesn't even consider Israel an enemy which can also be said about Israel with how it regards Pakistan.

In simpler terms, they both have a rather neutral view of each other and there have been reports that they have cooperated with each other before behind the scenes.

 

[melb4aust]

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 4 2006, 02:29 AM
In simpler terms, they both have a rather neutral view of each other and there have been reports that they have cooperated with each other before behind the scenes.

[post=6605]Quoted post[/post]​

How would u like to claim this fact? :shocked:

It is not only said by many experienced army personnels, but i have gone through different books as well, where they have mentioned all about this Israel's Plan of attcking Pakistan. Plus they have kept these things confidential from public, as nothing happened at all to not to get embarrassed infront of world media and people.

You may be able to find the wordings of General Zia-ul-Haq's speech on the web, where he has clearly mentioned Israel for the worst circuimstances it can face for such attack. That was happened in 1983 after the Israeli attack on Iraq's atomic reactor.