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

[SQ8]

Interesting disconnect there. So essentially what you suggest is that an aircraft with the manoeuvrability of the F-4 phantom and the radar signature of it should JUST.. and I mean JUST on the basis of its load carrying capacity merit some place in the PAF force structure?

That too on the idea that somehow you agreeing with what literally everyone in the western air warfare think tanks was talking about or any sane person was saying?

The PLANAF is NOT just relaying on the JH-7s. It has Su-30MKKs and MK2s.. J-11s...and J-10s.
Yes, the JH-7 forms the core of its maritime strike fleet but that has to do with the fact that the PLAN can AFFORD to have a dedicated aircraft for that role.

Key word.. and one that is ALWAYS missing in your arguments MK is AFFORD.

We cannot AFFORD multiple types.. we CANNOT AFFORD single focus types.

Oh and air to air missiles have generally similar sized warheads as those are sufficient to destroy most aircraft, referring to your argument about 5lb civics and 25lbs Cadillacs elsewhere. Please do remember that given the real life situations of street driving.. the Civic Si can probably drive circles around a Cadillac CTS. If that analogy even has any relations to those exacting situations with missiles such as Pk, ECM and all the rest left out.. as much as I love using car analogies myself.

 

[Donatello]

Interesting disconnect there. So essentially what you suggest is that an aircraft with the manoeuvrability of the F-4 phantom and the radar signature of it should JUST.. and I mean JUST on the basis of its load carrying capacity merit some place in the PAF force structure?

That too on the idea that somehow you agreeing with what literally everyone in the western air warfare think tanks was talking about or any sane person was saying?

The PLANAF is NOT just relaying on the JH-7s. It has Su-30MKKs and MK2s.. J-11s...and J-10s.
Yes, the JH-7 forms the core of its maritime strike fleet but that has to do with the fact that the PLAN can AFFORD to have a dedicated aircraft for that role.

Key word.. and one that is ALWAYS missing in your arguments MK is AFFORD.

We cannot AFFORD multiple types.. we CANNOT AFFORD single focus types.

Oh and air to air missiles have generally similar sized warheads as those are sufficient to destroy most aircraft, referring to your argument about 5lb civics and 25lbs Cadillacs elsewhere. Please do remember that given the real life situations of street driving.. the Civic Si can probably drive circles around a Cadillac CTS. If that analogy even has any relations to those exacting situations with missiles such as Pk, ECM and all the rest left out.. as much as I love using car analogies myself.

What's that difficult of affording multiple types? You've got a lean F-16 and JF-17 fleet....a couple of squadrons of heavies won't dent the budget that much given the capability that it brings.

RCS has no relevance here whether that of a f-4, JH-7 or SU30 class, because given the capability of a modern Ship borne AESA radar (which is not constrained by electrical power limits or cooling systems unlike it's aerial counterpart) can classify a fighter sized target from a good distance away. The idea is to have an aircraft carry multiple C-400AKG type weapons....JF-17 can max carry two, that two with sacrificing two fuel tanks.

We need an aircraft that can strike the enemy out at sea beyond our EEZ.

 

[SQ8]

What's that difficult of affording multiple types? You've got a lean F-16 and JF-17 fleet....a couple of squadrons of heavies won't dent the budget that much given the capability that it brings.

RCS has no relevance here whether that of a f-4, JH-7 or SU30 class, because given the capability of a modern Ship borne AESA radar (which is not constrained by electrical power limits or cooling systems unlike it's aerial counterpart) can classify a fighter sized target from a good distance away. The idea is to have an aircraft carry multiple C-400AKG type weapons....JF-17 can max carry two, that two with sacrificing two fuel tanks.

We need an aircraft that can strike the enemy out at sea beyond our EEZ.

Au contrare.

The F-16 and JF-16 are exactly the solution to avoiding multiple types... and we are ALREADY struggling with keeping that fleet mix operational.

RCS does have relevance. AESA radars or not. The basic phenomenon of the Earth's curvature provides assistance to fighters in avoiding detection over the sea. This is why you have AEW regardless of AEGIS on American carriers.
The payload issue is a thorn.. yes. But at the same time, being able to get four JF-17s airborne instead of two JH-7s gives the advantage of varying the direction of attack. i.e more shooters to be able to get a shot off.

 

[Bossman]

Hi,

Have any of you people written anything that you do not understand or believe in? Myabe one time---maybe twice---maybe not too long of an article.

If---basically---all your writings are based on what you understand---on what you see---or what you think it is going to be---or what you think it is supposed to be---or your experience has made you believe in----or you follow the direction of certain authors and writers---what you learnt in college, school or university---or what you learnt at your job------

Then---why is it that if I write something from my perspective---from my view---from my vision---from my readins and understanding that you feel is outrageous and is different than what you believe in and that you will have a problem with it.

A few examples of serious disagreement over the years:---

1. about 7---8 years ago---I discussed that everything is focused towards the BVR combat---it will be shoot and scoot kind of mindset----trying not to get into a merge----. I cannot count the number of people who jumped on the train to discount my observations----oh well---

2. 8--9 years ago---people were eager to have a conflict with the U S---Pakistanis wanted to fight the U S military and air force--and I stated---pak military is no match. Pakistanis were itching for a fight to tell the americans that they are no Iraqis---.

That argument lasted for years---and again there was a bandwagon of those who jumped on my case----. Oh well----Salala check post incidence popped the bubble and released the steam out of everyone.

3. About the JH7B aircraft---I have written about it---and you guys will see this version upgraded for the Chinese navy----with its total fly by wire system--composite material usage---anti radiation paint---and a massive aesa radar----and witt is the Chinese navy preparing it for---for the U S navy. It may not be much of a match there---but against the indian navy---this aircraft would be a beast.

There was so much absurdity with the think tank that one day I resigned my position many a years ago---and my nay sayers are still there.

So----as long as I am here---I will write my piece as I see fit---I do not write anything to please you.

Everyone on this forum is an amateur. If we were professionals we would not be here. We would be making real decisions in a real organization. So lets not take ourselves too seriously. It is OK to have superficial understanding of matters being discussed here, it is OK to be ill informed, it is even OK to be stupid. But it not OK to go around with a sticker on one's head and back saying I am stupid. You are doing exactly that to yourself. Please show a little self respect and consideration to your age. Please get real. I can live with your comments on technical matters but you were totally out of line on Rashid Minhas. You owe the forum an apology.

 

[MastanKhan]

Everyone on this forum is an amateur. If we were professionals we would not be here. We would be making real decisions in a real organization. So lets not take ourselves too seriously. It is OK to have superficial understanding of matters being discussed here, it is OK to be ill informed, it is even OK to be stupid. But it not OK to go around with a sticker on one's head and back saying I am stupid. You are doing exactly that to yourself. Please show a little self respect and consideration to your age. Please get real. I can live with your comments on technical matters but you were totally out of line on Rashid Minhas. You owe the forum an apology.

Hi,

There absolutely is no shame in making an apology----my apologies for offending members by my comments regarding Rashid Minhas.

 

[untitled]

Hi,

There absolutely is no shame in making an apology----my apologies for offending members by my comments regarding Rashid Minhas.

Once again you have proved you are the bigger man (heavy fighter) here

 

[rockstarIN]

MK - I don't know about others. But I like reading your posts. T


So 45 or 90 degree offset is good but you also have two Mig-29's headed your way right after you took off with 2-4 BVR's being fired at you from 75+ KM's away. And a SAM tier waiting right behind the Migs.

How do you deal with it? If you are intercepted withing 20-30 miles post take off....what's the point in losing a plane this easily? Its a great plane, I am talking about IN's response.....these serious risks outweigh the investment in this case.

Dude first of all, nobody fires BVR at 75 km away.(may be some Eritrean/Ethiopians). BVR range varies at different attitudes. Your missile will get 25 km range if you fire it sea level. you can fire 80 k.m away at 45000 feet above to a large non maneuvering target, it might hit. It is a common knowledge that an away shoot from 45 km can be outmaneuvered by a jet in case both are 4th generation.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Hi,

Have any of you people written anything that you do not understand or believe in? Myabe one time---maybe twice---maybe not too long of an article.

If---basically---all your writings are based on what you understand---on what you see---or what you think it is going to be---or what you think it is supposed to be---or your experience has made you believe in----or you follow the direction of certain authors and writers---what you learnt in college, school or university---or what you learnt at your job------

Then---why is it that if I write something from my perspective---from my view---from my vision---from my readins and understanding that you feel is outrageous and is different than what you believe in and that you will have a problem with it.

A few examples of serious disagreement over the years:---

1. about 7---8 years ago---I discussed that everything is focused towards the BVR combat---it will be shoot and scoot kind of mindset----trying not to get into a merge----. I cannot count the number of people who jumped on the train to discount my observations----oh well---

2. 8--9 years ago---people were eager to have a conflict with the U S---Pakistanis wanted to fight the U S military and air force--and I stated---pak military is no match. Pakistanis were itching for a fight to tell the americans that they are no Iraqis---.

That argument lasted for years---and again there was a bandwagon of those who jumped on my case----. Oh well----Salala check post incidence popped the bubble and released the steam out of everyone.

3. About the JH7B aircraft---I have written about it---and you guys will see this version upgraded for the Chinese navy----with its total fly by wire system--composite material usage---anti radiation paint---and a massive aesa radar----and witt is the Chinese navy preparing it for---for the U S navy. It may not be much of a match there---but against the indian navy---this aircraft would be a beast.

There was so much absurdity with the think tank that one day I resigned my position many a years ago---and my nay sayers are still there.

So----as long as I am here---I will write my piece as I see fit---I do not write anything to please you.

bless you and I stand corrected in the first point re merge vs BVR combat. re second I had no illusion about where we stood against the Americans, I used to shake my head over the immature comments of some clueless posters.

I still have difference of opinion on some other subjects but I welcome that since the quality or difference of opinion and argument is refreshing and addictive.
you have continued to contribute to this forum and educate people despite having no title which must be appreciated.

 

[syedali73]

Hi,

Have any of you people written anything that you do not understand or believe in? Myabe one time---maybe twice---maybe not too long of an article.

If---basically---all your writings are based on what you understand---on what you see---or what you think it is going to be---or what you think it is supposed to be---or your experience has made you believe in----or you follow the direction of certain authors and writers---what you learnt in college, school or university---or what you learnt at your job------

Then---why is it that if I write something from my perspective---from my view---from my vision---from my readins and understanding that you feel is outrageous and is different than what you believe in and that you will have a problem with it.

A few examples of serious disagreement over the years:---

1. about 7---8 years ago---I discussed that everything is focused towards the BVR combat---it will be shoot and scoot kind of mindset----trying not to get into a merge----. I cannot count the number of people who jumped on the train to discount my observations----oh well---

2. 8--9 years ago---people were eager to have a conflict with the U S---Pakistanis wanted to fight the U S military and air force--and I stated---pak military is no match. Pakistanis were itching for a fight to tell the americans that they are no Iraqis---.

That argument lasted for years---and again there was a bandwagon of those who jumped on my case----. Oh well----Salala check post incidence popped the bubble and released the steam out of everyone.

3. About the JH7B aircraft---I have written about it---and you guys will see this version upgraded for the Chinese navy----with its total fly by wire system--composite material usage---anti radiation paint---and a massive aesa radar----and witt is the Chinese navy preparing it for---for the U S navy. It may not be much of a match there---but against the indian navy---this aircraft would be a beast.

There was so much absurdity with the think tank that one day I resigned my position many a years ago---and my nay sayers are still there.

So----as long as I am here---I will write my piece as I see fit---I do not write anything to please you.

Lagey raho Munna Bhai.

So long you kept writing with immense 'Mastani' conviction, members will be compelled to take note of your posts, whether they agree with the contents or not is of secondary or even tertiary importance.

 

[Viper0011.]

Dude first of all, nobody fires BVR at 75 km away.(may be some Eritrean/Ethiopians). BVR range varies at different attitudes. Your missile will get 25 km range if you fire it sea level. you can fire 80 k.m away at 45000 feet above to a large non maneuvering target, it might hit. It is a common knowledge that an away shoot from 45 km can be outmaneuvered by a jet in case both are 4th generation.

When was the last time you personally fired a BVR? What you are referring to, were the 2nd gen BVR missiles, which bled more energy and weren't accurate as they needed to be. The more recent modification to Russian, American, Israeli and Chinese BVR now allow over 38+G turns (some even say 42+G's).

The speed and flight control have become much better. 75KM = 45 miles. The ideal kill zone from AMRAAM (C5 and above versions) is between 40-60 miles. A 38 or a 40 G missile doesn't care about how "maneuverable" the aircraft is. You can give the pilot a brain hemorrhage or a cardiac arrest b going beyond 11 G trying to outmaneuver a 38G missile or even try to disintegrate the aircraft's chassis going beyond that.

The only defense you might have at this point with 4 gen BVR's, is to use Chaffs and Flares and frequency jamming. That's it and hope that you'll confuse the missile and it's locking calculations will change due to decoys in front of it.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Here is a picture of the new upgraded re-furbished B52 Bomber-----. Look at the middle---this rotary AShm launcher will go in the belly where it carried the cruise missiles. The look at the 3 BVR's hanging on the wings close to the fuselage---then farther outside you have LR missiles on the wings---a plethora of smart bombs and so much more----.

A dead horse has been given a new life for another 40--50 years. That tells you that technology is king----a solid block of concrete loaded with technology and smart weapons is king---no ifs and buts----no reasoning---.


It is as simple as that---if it works for the U S---it will work for china and Pakistan as well. Capable old work horses will be given new life with modern engine upgrades and technology.

 

[Viper0011.]

View attachment 249727 Here is a picture of the new upgraded re-furbished B52 Bomber-----. Look at the middle---this rotary AShm launcher will go in the belly where it carried the cruise missiles. The look at the 3 BVR's hanging on the wings close to the fuselage---then farther outside you have LR missiles on the wings---a plethora of smart bombs and so much more----..

The B-52 when flying doesn't have top line fighters to intercept it and no air cover or escort provided. Its a great plane and concept but you think it'll be successful in Pakistan?? How many miles will the B-52 go before the enemy will fire a few missiles on it dozens of miles away? If you want to launch standoff weapons, then why not do so with the current platforms like the JFT and expand the production and add more hard points? Its much easier than spending money on acquiring a new platform and risking billions of investment........

When B-52 flies, it either has empty airspace to launch stand off missiles to the target or it flies when the USAF and USN have establish total air superioity and there is minimal threat if any. Can that happen in Pakistan's case? If the answer is YES, then JF-17 Block III or JH-7, or B-52 are all great options.

Rotating missile launchers are being used elsewhere too. I tagged you in the F-18L thread. Check it out on here:
F-18L

 

[MastanKhan]

@Viper0011.

B52 is just an example that what can happen with the new upgrade and re-furbishing of an aircraft with state of the art technology---that is all. I did not say anything about being for Pakistan.

This B52 also carries massive jammers---it will be flying at night and launching missiles from around 200--250 miles away---. It will launch before it becomes visible---from a distance that no ship to air missiles can reach it. Plus its heavy duty jammers will negate any missile locks.

And similiarly---the JH7B is valuable because it can launch Ashm missiles that the JF 17 may not be able to carry---like the YJ12----. Again it can launch them from a distance of 250 Km away---after being refuelled---its combat radius is around 2500 miles as compared to JF17's at around 800 miles after refuel---.

Not only Pakistan needs air superiority fighters---it desperately needs a long legged heavy strike platform----.

If the Jh7B is going to be the backbone of the Chinese navy against the U S----it will be perfect for the Pakistan navy against the Indians.

Our arsenal is going to be primarily from china----air to air---air to ship---air to surface missiles---.

 

[Viper0011.]

@Viper0011.

B52 is just an example that what can happen with the new upgrade and re-furbishing of an aircraft with state of the art technology---that is all. I did not say anything about being for Pakistan.

This B52 also carries massive jammers---it will be flying at night and launching missiles from around 200--250 miles away---. It will launch before it becomes visible---from a distance that no ship to air missiles can reach it. Plus its heavy duty jammers will negate any missile locks.

And similiarly---the JH7B is valuable because it can launch Ashm missiles that the JF 17 may not be able to carry---like the YJ12----. Again it can launch them from a distance of 250 Km away---after being refuelled---its combat radius is around 2500 miles as compared to JF17's at around 800 miles after refuel---.

Not only Pakistan needs air superiority fighters---it desperately needs a long legged heavy strike platform----.

If the Jh7B is going to be the backbone of the Chinese navy against the U S----it will be perfect for the Pakistan navy against the Indians.

Our arsenal is going to be primarily from china----air to air---air to ship---air to surface missiles---.

I get that MK. I truly believe that JH-7B is a much evolved strike platform. No doubt about it. Where we keep going in circles is when I try to explain that the JH-7B or the B-52 are NOT applicable in Indo-Pak theater.

The area is very small. The idea that somehow a JH-7 or a B-52 type of a strike platform can be launched and it can go in deep over the ocean or inside Indian airspace (in case of an airbase target), it will be able to launch standoff munitions from 200-250 miles away either "undetected", and can return to the base "unharmed". This is where we are disconnecting.

Let's run this scenario, IAF and PAF have a numerical ratio of 2:1 as is (jet to jet). Since the PAF has less 4th gen planes, this ratio goes to 3:1 (4th gen jets vs. 4th gen jets). That tells you that the limited quantity of the PAF jets that may be able to provide air cover, can not do that. It may have been possible if the ratio been better, and there were more numbers of 4th gen jets. Now that we know, there won't be an escort, let's analyst JH-7 on its own as a trike package.

Any Navy operating expensive ships, SPECIALLY an aircraft carrier, knows the drill and has the SAM doctrine. A defensive ring outside of the enemy's weapon's max range. In this case, the CM-400 or ASM's may have a range of 300 KM. The Indian outer ring will be probably out to over 400 KM. As they'd want gap between the Actual defensive circle and the CAP based defensive circle.

In a war, you'll have all sensors working. The second JH-7 takes off, it'll be identified. Its very reasonable that India would put half of her carrier based force to protect her carriers, plus there will be ongoing sorties around Karachi or Pakistan's coastline. The second a JH-7 can take off and travel 20 KM....it'll get fired upon from a Mig or a Mirage.....I see a JH-7 going down with two BVR chasing after him. IF the JH-7 PASSED this outer ring somehow, the next meeting will be 400 KM's before the carrier, I see it going down again.

If the risks are so high that we can't even come up with some confidence that this plane will even make it to the firing range, why invest billions into a high risk platform??

 

[rockstarIN]

When was the last time you personally fired a BVR? What you are referring to, were the 2nd gen BVR missiles, which bled more energy and weren't accurate as they needed to be. The more recent modification to Russian, American, Israeli and Chinese BVR now allow over 38+G turns (some even say 42+G's).

The speed and flight control have become much better. 75KM = 45 miles. The ideal kill zone from AMRAAM (C5 and above versions) is between 40-60 miles. A 38 or a 40 G missile doesn't care about how "maneuverable" the aircraft is. You can give the pilot a brain hemorrhage or a cardiac arrest b going beyond 11 G trying to outmaneuver a 38G missile or even try to disintegrate the aircraft's chassis going beyond that.

The only defense you might have at this point with 4 gen BVR's, is to use Chaffs and Flares and frequency jamming. That's it and hope that you'll confuse the missile and it's locking calculations will change due to decoys in front of it.

I'm quite sure either you did not also fire any BVRs. It is a well documented fact that the lesser the altitude the lesser the range. You will get 25+ km range if it is sea level. How come the kill zone will be 40-60 miles Gosh! I'm aware that kill zones are increasing adding new technology but its rubbish to say 40-60 miles kill zone! You need a lock-on(mostly) to fire a BVR and 60 mile kill zone mean 96 km which means you will have a lock-on at distance of 96 km on the enemy.

Which radar have such lock-on range left alone 'kill zone' range. Do some research before tying such fan boy non-sense.
Or ask some experts @Oscar, @500 @MilSpec

Any Navy operating expensive ships, SPECIALLY an aircraft carrier, knows the drill and has the SAM doctrine. A defensive ring outside of the enemy's weapon's max range. In this case, the CM-400 or ASM's may have a range of 300 KM. The Indian outer ring will be probably out to over 400 KM. As they'd want gap between the Actual defensive circle and the CAP based defensive circle.

In a war, you'll have all sensors working. The second JH-7 takes off, it'll be identified. Its very reasonable that India would put half of her carrier based force to protect her carriers, plus there will be ongoing sorties around Karachi or Pakistan's coastline. The second a JH-7 can take off and travel 20 KM....it'll get fired upon from a Mig or a Mirage.....I see a JH-7 going down with two BVR chasing after him. IF the JH-7 PASSED this outer ring somehow, the next meeting will be 400 KM's before the carrier, I see it going down again.

If the risks are so high that we can't even come up with some confidence that this plane will even make it to the firing range, why invest billions into a high risk platform??

@MastanKhan
nd similiarly---the JH7B is valuable because it can launch Ashm missiles that the JF 17 may not be able to carry---like the YJ12----. Again it can launch them from a distance of 250 Km away---after being refuelled---its combat radius is around 2500 miles as compared to JF17's at around 800 miles after refuel---.

Again, here you go without understanding 'Radar range' Your missile have 400 k.m range but you need a radar lock-on to fire it at the ship. Now whats your look-down radar range? I'm not aware of JH-7 radar, but ELTA/2032 have a range of 105 A2A and 75 km A2G. Suppose JH-7 has same radar range (IsaF wanted their F-16 Sufa with ELTA/2032 replacing APG series radar as they felt that 2032 is good than F-16 Blk 52 APG radar!). you need to come to as close as 50 km close to the jet which will put you well under the SAM coverage)