Air Commodore (R) Kaiser Tufail explains the Su-35S offer.

[Signalian]

How will SU35 get datalinked with AWACs

 

[PurpleButcher]

How will SU35 get datalinked with AWACs

telenor sim

 

[majid mehmood]

telenor sim

dont give some useless answer
it could be linked by zdk-03 (might be)
but it has its own powerful radar
375km for 5m2

 

[Econofpak]

well if we take a historical perspective air forces which adopt an aggressive approach tend to inflict more damage than defensive.
Israeli air force despite being much smaller completely decimated the arab air forces similar approach was taken by the PAF in 65 and it did fairly well
pakistan lack the geographical depth and many of our major urban centers are located very close to the border
thus PAF has no other option other than taking the initiative and take the fight into enemy territory

1. In '65 we had "element of surprise" to attack and destroy things on ground first.
2. Not available today, as enemy anticipates this strategy (doesn't mean we don't use it).
3. Arabs should have learned from our '65 War in '67, but they didn't, and paid the price.
4. We should prepare for long war bcz any one can fight a quick war, and we don't know if it's long or short.
5. In a war: planes lost / (day or week) matters.
6. Especially if we are on offense and enemy anticipates it with active air defense.
7. Pakistan can only maintain effective supply-chain with China in JF-17 context.
8. We don't overstretch our friends even in war. Third countries are always under pressure to appear neutral.
9. But if we have joint venture like JF-17, China will always have an excuse to provide us our own planes.
10. This is not possible with few expensive & fancy Su-35s in a longer war.
11. Every Su-35 is a loss of orders of magnitude more JF-17s.
12. China provides us with strategic depth & redundancy as we have JF-17 production facilities there.

 

[aliyusuf]

1. In '65 we had "element of surprise" to attack and destroy things on ground first.
2. Not available today, as enemy anticipates this strategy (doesn't mean we don't use it).
3. Arabs should have learned from our '65 War in '67, but they didn't, and paid the price.
4. We should prepare for long war bcz any one can fight a quick war, and we don't know if it's long or short.
5. In a war: planes lost / (day or week) matters.
6. Especially if we are on offense and enemy anticipates it with active air defense.
7. Pakistan can only maintain effective supply-chain with China in JF-17 context.
8. We don't overstretch our friends even in war. Third countries are always under pressure to appear neutral.
9. But if we have joint venture like JF-17, China will always have an excuse to provide us our own planes.
10. This is not possible with few expensive & fancy Su-35s in a longer war.
11. Every Su-35 is a loss of orders of magnitude more JF-17s.
12. China provides us with strategic depth & redundancy as we have JF-17 production facilities there.

Nice well thought out post.

I also have a theory on how the next conflict (should it be thrust upon us) be fought. But let me first warn you that my knowledge on the subject is that of a beginner and I would welcome corrections to any faults that may be in it. This way either I am reassured that my initial thinking was right or I will stand corrected of the flaws in it.

We cannot just fight an all out offensive war (numbers disparity is significant) and we cannot just plan to fight over our own air space (defensive) war ... because that way we totally lose the initiative and allow the enemy to feel safe and dictate how the air war is going to be fought in its own terms.

We must have a balanced approach in which we don't let them attain any superiority over home air space and over the main theatre of war. And, also inflict enough tactical losses behind the enemy lines over enemy air space ... which will have a more psychological impact to bring the enemy down a few notches from their sense of supremacy. We must endeavor to inflict more losses than we suffer. This is important. This will help keep the morale up and have a sobering effect on the enemy. Enough to make them assess that its going to cost them more than they thought, in order to achieve their objectives. But we will have limited opportunities to do so because the enemy is well defended and our numbers are few. We need to make each foray into enemy air space count.

This balanced approach however seems not entirely possible if we are just banking on SOWs and cruise missiles alone to do the telling damage without having to send our fighters too deep into enemy territory. Because it will not be enough. The enemy has the capacity and reserves to take more punishment than we can. We need to strike deeper than the extent to which our SOWs and cruise missiles can go and with greater destructive power.

For this, in my humble opinion, we need to have Air Superiority fighters because they can play both defense and offense. Currently we don't have anything that can help us to take the fight to the enemy. We need agility, range, endurance and firepower in a platform that can shake the enemy's sense of safety and supremacy over its own air space. Only then can we effectively create deterrence.

 

[Econofpak]

Nice well thought out post.

I also have a theory on how the next conflict (should it be thrust upon us) be fought. But let me first warn you that my knowledge on the subject is that of a beginner and I would welcome corrections to any faults that may be in it. This way either I am reassured that my initial thinking was right or I will stand corrected of the flaws in it.

We cannot just fight an all out offensive war (numbers disparity is significant) and we cannot just plan to fight over our own air space (defensive) war ... because that way we totally lose the initiative and allow the enemy to feel safe and dictate how the air war is going to be fought in its own terms.

We must have a balanced approach in which we don't let them attain any superiority over home air space and over the main theatre of war. And, also inflict enough tactical losses behind the enemy lines over enemy air space ... which will have a more psychological impact to bring the enemy down a few notches from their sense of supremacy. We must endeavor to inflict more losses than we suffer. This is important. This will help keep the morale up and have a sobering effect on the enemy. Enough to make them assess that its going to cost them more than they thought, in order to achieve their objectives. But we will have limited opportunities to do so because the enemy is well defended and our numbers are few. We need to make each foray into enemy air space count.

This balanced approach however seems not entirely possible if we are just banking on SOWs and cruise missiles alone to do the telling damage without having to send our fighters too deep into enemy territory. Because it will not be enough. The enemy has the capacity and reserves to take more punishment than we can. We need to strike deeper than the extent to which our SOWs and cruise missiles can go and with greater destructive power.

For this, in my humble opinion, we need to have Air Superiority fighters because they can play both defense and offense. Currently we don't have anything that can help us to take the fight to the enemy. We need agility, range, endurance and firepower in a platform that can shake the enemy's sense of safety and supremacy over its own air space. Only then can we effectively create deterrence.

Thanks, great read. Would add:

a. PAF has always maintained a "quality" edge over opponents in terms of training.
b. Man matters more than machine. Skills of pilot can compensate, superiority of plane.
c. Today, bcz of JF-17s, first time we can have matching "numbers".
d. WWII: Germans didn't win campaigns bcz of just strategy, they had numbers to back them up.
e. Pakistan is growing, 1 of the biggest countries, facing bigger enemies, thus need a bigger Air Force.
f. With China no one can match our cost of producing quality planes. It's just a beginning.
g. For Air Superiority too we should look Far East.
h. Today plane tech & specs are not much secret, that we must have it. We have a flavor in China.
i. Greatest art of war is to win without fighting. Quality & numbers will do this job.
j. Let India go for F-35 which is by experts a terrible plane. Must see:
- Runaway Fighter (Documentary Canada)
- Reach for the Sky (Documentary Australia)

 

[Mav3rick]

Thinking out of the box, wouldn't we be at a disadvantage, even with a superior fighter such as SU-35 in the air, because IAF has had 15+ years of experience on the SU-30MKI and Mig-29K?

 

[Viper 94]

CLEARLY NOT YOU

Thanks, great read. Would add:

a. PAF has always maintained a "quality" edge over opponents in terms of training.
b. Man matters more than machine. Skills of pilot can compensate, superiority of plane.
c. Today, bcz of JF-17s, first time we can have matching "numbers".
d. WWII: Germans didn't win campaigns bcz of just strategy, they had numbers to back them up.
e. Pakistan is growing, 1 of the biggest countries, facing bigger enemies, thus need a bigger Air Force.
f. With China no one can match our cost of producing quality planes. It's just a beginning.
g. For Air Superiority too we should look Far East.
h. Today plane tech & specs are not much secret, that we must have it. We have a flavor in China.
i. Greatest art of war is to win without fighting. Quality & numbers will do this job.
j. Let India go for F-35 which is by experts a terrible plane. Must see:
- Runaway Fighter (Documentary Canada)
- Reach for the Sky (Documentary Australia)

i would like to point it out that PAF has not only lost the qualitative edge over IAF but your point c. is just wrong IAF despite of its dwindling fleet maintains a much larger number of fighters than PAF
d. germans lost the war when they lost the battle of leningrad. they could have possibly matched the allied forces in numbers. France, U.S.A, Great Britain and Soviet Union completely outnumbers the germans
the only advantage germans had was their vastly superior technology but it came in too late and in number that couldn't match allied strength

 

[R@m-R@heem]

i would like to point it out that PAF has not only lost the qualitative edge over IAF but your point c. is just wrong IAF despite of its dwindling fleet maintains a much larger number of fighters than PAF
d. germans lost the war when they lost the battle of leningrad. they could have possibly matched the allied forces in numbers. France, U.S.A, Great Britain and Soviet Union completely outnumbers the germans
the only advantage germans had was their vastly superior technology but it came in too late and in number that couldn't match allied strength

@Econofpak
a. the ONLY time PAF had a technologically superior airforce was in the 1965 war, which was compensated to an extent by the 1971 war by the indains, since then, india has a much larger force aswell as a more superior fighter.
b. Ofcourse man is More important than Machine, but u cant hope to take out an indian flanker(with a pilot of more than 10 years worth experience) with an aging Mirage-V, f-5, f-6... or even a JF -17 (similar experience) as that matter!
e. Pakistan is one of the "biggest countries" ... really?? its the 35th largest country, and this is when u have illegally occupied Kashmirt.. even Peru and Angola is bigger than you!!!.. GeoHive - Countries with most surface area .... but you DO need a bigger airforce.. given that u cant maintain good relations with ANY of your neighbours (india, afghanistan, iran, china) Except the Chinese.. because U are Dependent on them and You offer them a Market to test their weapons!! and Pakistan hasnt seen a growth of more than 4.5%, in ages!!!
f. Yes , thats one way of accepting HOW DEPENDENT you are on china. what is ur fall back plan if they ditch you??? Ever thought about that?? (oh and now dont sing ballads about ur eternal mutual love.) nothing lasts for ever!!!
i. pakitan does not have the capacity to win without fighting.. it CANT AFFORD to FIGHT, nor does it have the international stature to put india to any pressure to "loose" without fighting! (if it HAD the Capacity, the ATLEAST ONE NATION would have heard ur sobbing at the UN over the past 50+ years)
j. INDIA IS NOT GOING FOR f-35, it NEVER WILL. we already have TWO 5th Gen paltforms for our future Navy and Air Force. why would we go for the Failed F-35??

 

[Viper 94]

Another sad human with myopia..... wait.. tell me, it is a common disease in your country?


@Econofpak
a. the ONLY time PAF had a technologically superior airforce was in the 1965 war, which was compensated to an extent by the 1971 war by the indains, since then, india has a much larger force aswell as a more superior fighter.
b. Ofcourse man is More important than Machine, but u cant hope to take out an indian flanker(with a pilot of more than 10 years worth experience) with an aging Mirage-V, f-5, f-6... or even a JF -17 (similar experience) as that matter!
e. Pakistan is one of the "biggest countries" ... really?? its the 35th largest country, and this is when u have illegally occupied Kashmirt.. even Peru and Angola is bigger than you!!!.. GeoHive - Countries with most surface area .... but you DO need a bigger airforce.. given that u cant maintain good relations with ANY of your neighbours (india, afghanistan, iran, china) Except the Chinese.. because U are Dependent on them and You offer them a Market to test their weapons!! and Pakistan hasnt seen a growth of more than 4.5%, in ages!!!
f. Yes , thats one way of accepting HOW DEPENDENT you are on china. what is ur fall back plan if they ditch you??? Ever thought about that?? (oh and now dont sing ballads about ur eternal mutual love.) nothing lasts for ever!!!
i. pakitan does not have the capacity to win without fighting.. it CANT AFFORD to FIGHT, nor does it have the international stature to put india to any pressure to "loose" without fighting! (if it HAD the Capacity, the ATLEAST ONE NATION would have heard ur sobbing at the UN over the past 50+ years)
j. INDIA IS NOT GOING FOR f-35, it NEVER WILL. we already have TWO 5th Gen paltforms for our future Navy and Air Force. why would we go for the Failed F-35??

in 65 the qualitative advantage was very slight not enough to compensate for the iaf numerical superiority
and pakistan is 6th largest population wise
some of your points are valid others are just typical moronic indian ranting

 

[aliyusuf]

Thinking out of the box, wouldn't we be at a disadvantage, even with a superior fighter such as SU-35 in the air, because IAF has had 15+ years of experience on the SU-30MKI and Mig-29K?

A valid point. But what else is available to us in this class? Even the Chinese J-11s/15s/16s are Flankers. Also we have been operating F-7s (modified MiG-21F) for more than 2 decades inspite of the fact that the IAF has been using them for more than 4 decades.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

Thinking out of the box, wouldn't we be at a disadvantage, even with a superior fighter such as SU-35 in the air, because IAF has had 15+ years of experience on the SU-30MKI and Mig-29K?

Thinking out of the box can also be done towards the west (Afghan border) SU-35 to protect Pakistan's TAPI project...

The other reason is protecting the coast line of Gawadar and all the shipping lanes against potential threats.

 

[New World]

Need to buy some Su 30 maybe along this Su 35 due to training reason since Su 35 is a one seat fighter.

I think there will be no need for su-30 to training as our pilots are already trained on su-30MKK, j-11 etc and there are talks to buy yak-130 trainer from Russia..

 

[batmannow]

I think there will be no need for su-30 to training as our pilots are already trained on su-30MKK, j-11 etc and there are talks to buy yak-130 trainer from Russia..

Pakistani official confirms Su-35 talks - IHS Jane's 360

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Of course, he is retired and doesn't speak on the behalf of PAF anymore. His analysis is his independent thinking. On a personal level he supports the idea of acquiring Su-35s.

im in regular contact with him.....he does certainly support the idea of inducting a twin engine aircraft like the aforementioned....especially to defend and project power along Arabian Sea where twin engine aircraft would be required for that role not to mention ability to carry more armaments, bigger radar and a good ECM suite. He gave me a good list of pros and cons about inducting new platforms, the pros outweight the cons

Retired for some time but he very much keeps up to date and his analyses are always bang-on point