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

[royalharris]

Wo

 

[HAIDER]

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

If China is offering latest state of the art stealth bomber to Pak, then why should they go for this old machine. Which been modified many times to make it air worthy . Chinese has money then can afford such modification and also have huge infrastructure . But not Pakistan.

 

[LKJ86]

If China is offering latest state of the art stealth bomber to Pak, then why should they go for this old machine. Which been modified many times to make it air worthy . Chinese has money then can afford such modification and also have huge infrastructure . But not Pakistan.

I can't agree with you.
You should know what Pakistan really wants, and what China can provide.
According to the past, Pakistan prefers mature things, and has many special requirements at the same time. So, Pakistan now chooses Type 054A which has served in PLAN for 10 years, while there are other better choices. And Pakistan refuses J-10 and develops JF-17 with CAC.
As we know, China has suffered the issue of engine for a long time, and make significant progress in recent years. What China can provide to Pakistan is not too much. The "latest state of the art stealth bomber" is not ready, and J-20 needs further improvement.
In the near future, things will get better.

 

[denel]

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.

Saab in terms of electronics is way ahead; but the challenge will be powerplant and other US components which could be held up. Plus Swedes may be challenged to get parliament approval to sell Gripen to Paf. Safari was a different thing in terms of low technology.

 

[randomradio]

Saab in terms of electronics is way ahead; but the challenge will be powerplant and other US components which could be held up. Plus Swedes may be challenged to get parliament approval to sell Gripen to Paf. Safari was a different thing in terms of low technology.

Yeah, the engine from the US and Sweden's govt approval are the main problems for PAF.

If enough numbers are ordered, the engine can be changed to EJ2x0. But I doubt that will happen.

But it's far more realistic than the JH-7A.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

If the strike takes off from Pasni---the enemy has no surface radars that would know that the aircraft are in the air---. Once over water---going straight down in low flight---the enemy awacs cannot see it either---.

The enemy would have to send out its awacs 250 plus miles out of their shoreline to be at the farthest edge of visibility---and still would be impossible to detect the aircraft flying low above the water---.

It order for the enemy to assert control---it would have to move a large number of air assets from the main front to protect the flank---.

It would have to step out of its way to meet that challenge and that might cost it dearly---.

 

[Armchair]

Hi,

If the strike takes off from Pasni---the enemy has no surface radars that would know that the aircraft are in the air---. Once over water---going straight down in low flight---the enemy awacs cannot see it either---.

The enemy would have to send out its awacs 250 plus miles out of their shoreline to be at the farthest edge of visibility---and still would be impossible to detect the aircraft flying low above the water---.

It order for the enemy to assert control---it would have to move a large number of air assets from the main front to protect the flank---.

It would have to step out of its way to meet that challenge and that might cost it dearly---.

The part that interests me most is that, just the threat of it means IAF diverts a portion of its assets to defending - not on offence. That is very valuable!

 

[The Accountant]

Hi,

If the strike takes off from Pasni---the enemy has no surface radars that would know that the aircraft are in the air---. Once over water---going straight down in low flight---the enemy awacs cannot see it either---.

The enemy would have to send out its awacs 250 plus miles out of their shoreline to be at the farthest edge of visibility---and still would be impossible to detect the aircraft flying low above the water---.

It order for the enemy to assert control---it would have to move a large number of air assets from the main front to protect the flank---.

It would have to step out of its way to meet that challenge and that might cost it dearly---.

Yes, but dont you think they have built aircraft carrier for this purpose ?

 

[randomradio]

Hi,

If the strike takes off from Pasni---the enemy has no surface radars that would know that the aircraft are in the air---. Once over water---going straight down in low flight---the enemy awacs cannot see it either---.

The enemy would have to send out its awacs 250 plus miles out of their shoreline to be at the farthest edge of visibility---and still would be impossible to detect the aircraft flying low above the water---.

It order for the enemy to assert control---it would have to move a large number of air assets from the main front to protect the flank---.

It would have to step out of its way to meet that challenge and that might cost it dearly---.

We have helicopter AEWS in the region. Not to mention the P-8s.

The part that interests me most is that, just the threat of it means IAF diverts a portion of its assets to defending - not on offence. That is very valuable!

The water is the IN's domain.

But the IAF has as much as 100+ fighter jets devoted to the region already. Pune, Jamnagar etc.

 

[MastanKhan]

Yes, but dont you think they have built aircraft carrier for this purpose ?

Hi,

Wouldn't you love to see that A/C carrier in your arena---.

Here you have a sqdrn strength of JH7A's flying out with 2 CM400AKG's per aircraft---.

Out of 16---8 aircraft will get thru and launch their AShM's---out of the 16 missiles---4 will hit---.

See---if the enemy puts it a/c carrier in this arena---it will have to shift other land based aircraft to this region---.

Now---if you don't have a potent heavy strike aircraft---then the enemy will come in farther in our region---.

 

[Armchair]

The last major naval conflict (I don't mean Iran-Iraq, Iraq-USA) took place between Argentina and the UK. The most potent weapon, by far, was combat aircraft with AShM. There is an entire navy lying underwater in the Falklands thanks to the Exosets. Finally the UK had to beg the French to give them the codes to the French missiles, whereby they were able to negate them. Its quite surprising that PN would not learn the lesson from that conflict.

 

[randomradio]

The last major naval conflict (I don't mean Iran-Iraq, Iraq-USA) took place between Argentina and the UK. The most potent weapon, by far, was combat aircraft with AShM. There is an entire navy lying underwater in the Falklands thanks to the Exosets. Finally the UK had to beg the French to give them the codes to the French missiles, whereby they were able to negate them. Its quite surprising that PN would not learn the lesson from that conflict.

The British ships were not sophisticated enough to stop the Exocets.

There are three problems with you said. One: We have more AShMs. Two: Our modern defences can stop pretty much all subsonic and supersonic missiles, including, and not restricted to, Brahmos. Three: We have more air support.

So the British experience is not useful against the IN.

 

[MastanKhan]

The last major naval conflict (I don't mean Iran-Iraq, Iraq-USA) took place between Argentina and the UK. The most potent weapon, by far, was combat aircraft with AShM. There is an entire navy lying underwater in the Falklands thanks to the Exosets. Finally the UK had to beg the French to give them the codes to the French missiles, whereby they were able to negate them. Its quite surprising that PN would not learn the lesson from that conflict.

Hi,

See---the examples are right in front of our faces---but for a different generation---. We read what happened and heard it on the news and we also tried to find out more about it---.

Younger people think that as they have not read about it---it does not exist---.

They simply do not have the intellect to learn and ask " how did it happen ".

The Exocet that almost sunk the british naval ship also had come on the wings of an aircraft flying low---as did the iraqi mirage that took out the american ship---.

With these modern Long Range supersonic AShM's---the naval vessels have their work cut out for them---.

 

[Armchair]

Hi,

See---the examples are right in front of our faces---but for a different generation---. We read what happened and heard it on the news and we also tried to find out more about it---.

Younger people think that as they have not read about it---it does not exist---.

They simply do not have the intellect to learn and ask " how did it happen ".

The Exocet that almost sunk the british naval ship also had come on the wings of an aircraft flying low---as did the iraqi mirage that took out the american ship---.

With these modern Long Range supersonic AShM's---the naval vessels have their work cut out for them---.

Let me tell you a secret I learned while working with some former US intelligence people - the number of British ships sunk was far greater than ever admitted. US submariners claim that the seabed is littered with British ships. Somehow they managed to keep a lid on it. Propaganda at its best, I assume. The Falklands was a disaster the British "won". Thanks to the French really.

 

[MastanKhan]

If China is offering latest state of the art stealth bomber to Pak, then why should they go for this old machine. Which been modified many times to make it air worthy . Chinese has money then can afford such modification and also have huge infrastructure . But not Pakistan.

Hi,

Why do you need a billion dollar stealth bomber---when a 25 million dollar aircraft can do the same job.

Just to talk to show your SARCASM does not mean that you may understand the function of a machine---.

To understand---you have to understand the purpose and utility of the machine on its own merits---.

You cannot make and elephant dance a foxtrot or a jitter bug---. And neither can you make marathon runner into a 100 meters racer---.

Let me tell you a secret I learned while working with some former US intelligence people - the number of British ships sunk was far greater than ever admitted. US submariners claim that the seabed is littered with British ships. Somehow they managed to keep a lid on it. Propaganda at its best, I assume. The Falklands was a disaster the British "won". Thanks to the French really.

Hi,

Some news leaks say that the whole might and technology of the british empire was used to save one of their ships from sinking---.