The JH7B---Rashid Minhas---Navy Frigates---Less Subs

[Basel]

Was on the table for sure, not sure about current status. PAF rejected it. I wish Bangladesh would buy the tooling, would really be a jump-start for the aerospace industry in BD.



I'd disagree. USAF red flag exercises show flying low can still be effective, albeit with increased losses. Flying over the sea is even harder to detect.
Maybe you can expand on what work experience you have that relates to flying strike missions at low level, for naval strike.

Kindly research what India is fielding and what Pakistan is doing to counter it, any low level mission in war will be suicidal one, if it was good to do then our Rose Mirages are better to perform it then JH-7, and for that role PAF could have bought Tornados which are very good in that role, low level role is now taken by standoff weapons. PAF will not through its men for suicide mission until there is no other way.

 

[LKJ86]

You need to do your research better. Low level flight has not become obsolete.



The production tooling is most probably still there, as is the needed labor. This was the last major weapon system for the town and region concerned. It the facility fails, a lot of jobs are at stake.

If Pakistan has bought JH-7A/B a few years earlier, that would be a good choice.
But at this moment, isn't it too late?

 

[Armchair]

If Pakistan has bought JH-7A/B a few years earlier, that would be a good choice.
But at this moment, isn't it too late?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Would need to query. Would be ideal for Bangladesh too actually. BD only has point interceptors at this point.

Kindly research what India is fielding and what Pakistan is doing to counter it, any low level mission in war will be suicidal one, if it was good to do then our Rose Mirages are better to perform it then JH-7, and for that role PAF could have bought Tornados which are very good in that role, low level role is now taken by standoff weapons. PAF will not through its men for suicide mission until there is no other way.

PAF uses Mirages for this - low level strike. It is a mission it trains for. To date. Unless you have information to prove otherwise.

IAF trains for this, has specific aircraft for this role, including Jaguars and MiG-27s. Again, unless you can prove otherwise, that's the position.

Your Rose Mirages are not better, that would be an oversimplification. You may want to read through some of @MastanKhan 's posts to see why. You may want to look at some of @gambit 's analysis of why naval strike missions at low level are even more effective.

 

[LKJ86]

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Would need to query. Would be ideal for Bangladesh too actually. BD only has point interceptors at this point.



PAF uses Mirages for this - low level strike. It is a mission it trains for. To date. Unless you have information to prove otherwise.

IAF trains for this, has specific aircraft for this role, including Jaguars and MiG-27s. Again, unless you can prove otherwise, that's the position.

Your Rose Mirages are not better, that would be an oversimplification. You may want to read through some of @MastanKhan 's posts to see why. You may want to look at some of @gambit 's analysis of why naval strike missions at low level are even more effective.

Maybe Pakistan can consider a stealthy one for that role from China in the near future.

 

[Basel]

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Would need to query. Would be ideal for Bangladesh too actually. BD only has point interceptors at this point.



PAF uses Mirages for this - low level strike. It is a mission it trains for. To date. Unless you have information to prove otherwise.

IAF trains for this, has specific aircraft for this role, including Jaguars and MiG-27s. Again, unless you can prove otherwise, that's the position.

Your Rose Mirages are not better, that would be an oversimplification. You may want to read through some of @MastanKhan 's posts to see why. You may want to look at some of @gambit 's analysis of why naval strike missions at low level are even more effective.

JH-7 is analyzed deeply by PAF & PN and both have rejected the aircraft in favor of other one, JH-7 is obsolete by 21st century standard and the threat faced by Pakistan, also Pakistani Mirages are netcentic birds with PAF pilots have lot of hours, although they are old but still capable. PAF still practice dog fighting although many consider it obsolete, it all depends on what you have and what threat you face, Mirage pilots are expert in low level missions but ever passing day is reducing utilization of that role due to evolution of enemy capabilities, Pakistan also have to update its ground based low level sensors and engagement capabilities to 21st century standard to mitigate enemy's low level threat specially from Rafael.

 

[Armchair]

JH-7 is analyzed deeply by PAF & PN and both have rejected the aircraft in favor of other one, JH-7 is obsolete by 21st century standard and the threat faced by Pakistan, also Pakistani Mirages are netcentic birds with PAF pilots have lot of hours, although they are old but still capable. PAF still practice dog fighting although many consider it obsolete, it all depends on what you have and what threat you face, Mirage pilots are expert in low level missions but ever passing day is reducing utilization of that role due to evolution of enemy capabilities, Pakistan also have to update its ground based low level sensors and engagement capabilities to 21st century standard to mitigate enemy's low level threat specially from Rafael.

You haven't said anything that is not generally known. PAF also rejected the J-10, the Rafale, MiG-29s among many other aircraft. Doesn't mean that the PAF cannot be wrong. But you've branched out - your original contention was low level strike is obsolete. Now you've tempered it down to JH-7 being obsolete. After the JH-7, a JH-7A was built, and there is speculation of a JH-7B. Which was what Mastan Khan wrote about.

Since you are a professional in the field, and conduct low level strike missions, please do give us a more informative post about your role and technical information. Right now you've simply posted at the level of a newbie. Tell us, for instance, why the Rafale is so dangerous as a low level strike aircraft. Since you said that low level strike is obsolete, perhaps you can add the bit about how the Rafale was falsely designed with an obsolete role in mind, etc.

 

[randomradio]

No point buying the JH-7A, it's obsolete primarily due to its large RCS. It's fine for a country like China with their Flankers providing top cover and their JH-7s firing off expensive cruise missiles all over the place, but Pakistan will have to make wiser decisions since they can't afford to goof up due to their limited funds.

Gripen E is the best choice for the PAF given the current circumstances. Gripen E equipped with the Meteor and JSM will be a very frightening prospect for India, as along the Swedes and Norwegians will sell to Pakistan. This option is a generation ahead compared to the JH-7A option, but this will piss the Americans off.

Btw, low level will work only if the adversary doesn't know you are coming, typically possible at sea. On land, in the India-Pak context, you will have radars below you and above you. The distances involved are so small that something will pick you up. Plus the terrain is pretty flat, so there's really nowhere to hide during approach.

 

[Basel]

You haven't said anything that is not generally known. PAF also rejected the J-10, the Rafale, MiG-29s among many other aircraft. Doesn't mean that the PAF cannot be wrong. But you've branched out - your original contention was low level strike is obsolete. Now you've tempered it down to JH-7 being obsolete. After the JH-7, a JH-7A was built, and there is speculation of a JH-7B. Which was what Mastan Khan wrote about.

Since you are a professional in the field, and conduct low level strike missions, please do give us a more informative post about your role and technical information. Right now you've simply posted at the level of a newbie. Tell us, for instance, why the Rafale is so dangerous as a low level strike aircraft. Since you said that low level strike is obsolete, perhaps you can add the bit about how the Rafale was falsely designed with an obsolete role in mind, etc.

PAF will not risk low level missions against India till there is no option or their is window of opportunity there, period.

Ask PAF professionals about it.

@gambit is it possible for Pakistan to conduct low level missions in war against India?

 

[CHI RULES]

No point buying the JH-7A, it's obsolete primarily due to its large RCS. It's fine for a country like China with their Flankers providing top cover and their JH-7s firing off expensive cruise missiles all over the place, but Pakistan will have to make wiser decisions since they can't afford to goof up due to their limited funds.

Gripen E is the best choice for the PAF given the current circumstances. Gripen E equipped with the Meteor and JSM will be a very frightening prospect for India, as along the Swedes and Norwegians will sell to Pakistan. This option is a generation ahead compared to the JH-7A option, but this will piss the Americans off.

Btw, low level will work only if the adversary doesn't know you are coming, typically possible at sea. On land, in the India-Pak context, you will have radars below you and above you. The distances involved are so small that something will pick you up. Plus the terrain is pretty flat, so there's really nowhere to hide during approach.

The more realistic option is Euro fighter, though expensive one same is case with SU35

 

[randomradio]

low level missions in war against India?

Yes, this is the only option. Medium and high altitudes are no-go areas.

But you need a far more capable aircraft than the JH-7.

The more realistic option is Euro fighter, though expensive one same is case with SU35

I didn't bring the Typhoon in because it's too expensive. And Su-35, even if available, is not suitable. The Su-35 isn't exactly good at strike, the avionics are mainly suited for air superiority.

Gripen E is better than both aircraft for this role.

 

[Basel]

Yes, this is the only option. Medium and high altitudes are no-go areas.

But you need a far more capable aircraft than the JH-7.



I didn't bring the Typhoon in because it's too expensive. And Su-35, even if available, is not suitable. The Su-35 isn't exactly good at strike, the avionics are mainly suited for air superiority.

Gripen E is better than both aircraft for this role.

Nope, Stealth is the way to go, to tackle future threats.

The more realistic option is Euro fighter, though expensive one same is case with SU35

If Pakistan could afford EFTs (latest version with full weapons package) only 3 full squadrons then it will be big boost for Pakistan as it will add many new capabilities to PAF.

 

[randomradio]

Nope, Stealth is the way to go, to tackle future threats.

Gripen E is a stealth aircraft. Saab believes that it matches the F-35 in capability, including low observability capabilities.

It's one of the first aircraft around that will bridge the gap between 5th and 6th gen, at least avionics-wise. A 5+ gen if you will.

 

[LKJ86]

Gripen E is a stealth aircraft.

Unbelievable...

 

[Basel]

Gripen E is a stealth aircraft. Saab believes that it matches the F-35 in capability, including low observability capabilities.

It's one of the first aircraft around that will bridge the gap between 5th and 6th gen, at least avionics-wise. A 5+ gen if you will.

Kindly post pic and capabilities of Gripen-E compared to F-35.

 

[randomradio]

Unbelievable...

Kindly post pic and capabilities of Gripen-E compared to F-35.

The Europeans have worked around the drawback of not having shaping on their aircraft. Aircraft that have shaping divert impinging radar signals away from the source. The Europeans have chosen another stealth method using destructive interference where any impinging radar signal is deleted from existence. So no returns go back to the source, hence the Gripen won't get picked up on radar. Basically, the Gripen will be able to delete signals around it in a 360 degree sphere giving it all-aspect stealth. A major advantage to this is even low band radars can be covered by it. The F-35 is vulnerable to VHF, but the Gripen won't be as long as they have made the necessary investment.

As for other advantages over the F-35, if you are looking for something general, then it's easy to google it all. I will list some of them out.

-Superior performance. This is obvious. It can even supercruise. Although it's not at the level of the F-22, it still allows the Gripen to manage decent supersonic speeds without having to resort to minimum burner and can do it with a decent A2A payload.
-Superior range. Posted a chart already.
-Superior armaments like Meteor and ASRAAM for now, although European F-35s will also have the same stuff eventually.
-Superior avionics. Particularly electronic stealth, more advanced radar, IRST etc.

In some areas, there's parity, like datalink, SATCOM, cockpit etc.

Apart from that, being a small single engine aircraft, it's easier and cheaper to operate. And it can be used from highways and other similar infrastructure which gives it superiority over the F-35A and C models.

The two major drawbacks are a smaller payload (subjective to mission) and lack of IWBs, which means inferior supersonic performance when carrying heavy weapons.

Way better than the JH-7A, even if the payload is slightly smaller.

Overall, it will be a pretty important bridge between 5th and 6th gen in terms of avionics.

A very important IAF Air Marshal pointed out that Gripen will be the best A2A fighter in the world once it becomes available.

Of course, whether or not Sweden will make available the stealth capability for export, that remains to be seen. The version SAAB offered to the IAF was different and much more advanced compared to the Swedish/Brazil version. Regardless, even if they do not provide stealth capability to others, the avionics themselves are a step up compared to the F-35.