Air Force Question Thread

[Oruc]

Could anyone plz id this aircraft? Might be a f-7 with tail section missing. Or is it a mirage?
The single one parked at the back.
@Oscar

 

[syed_yusuf]

Could anyone plz id this aircraft? Might be a f-7 with tail section missing. Or is it a mirage?
The single one parked at the back.
@Oscar

One mirage and the rest are F-7

 

[khanasifm]

MKI BARS performance from the OEM

Radar control system "BARS" for Su-30MKI, Su-30MKA, Su-30MKM fighters

interesting MiG29 type detection 140km not 300 km as speculated, ground resolution 10...20 meters, comparison apg 68 SAR mode resolution is 3 meters detection not sure but speculated ~105-120km

300/400 km is perhaps for larger transport types.

APG 68 V9 has 6 on 6 processing power, 6 AMRAAMS on 6 different target simultaneously compared to previous version of APG 68. KLJ-7 currently has 2 on 2 capability

Keep in mind detection not tracking ranges, which is where u can launch weapons

 

[Manticore]

latest paf fighter crash rate / year or /10,000 flying hours
@Horus

 

[Donatello]

MKI BARS performance from the OEM

Radar control system "BARS" for Su-30MKI, Su-30MKA, Su-30MKM fighters

interesting MiG29 type detection 140km not 300 km as speculated, ground resolution 10...20 meters, comparison apg 68 SAR mode resolution is 3 meters detection not sure but speculated ~105-120km

300/400 km is perhaps for larger transport types.

APG 68 V9 has 6 on 6 processing power, 6 AMRAAMS on 6 different target simultaneously compared to previous version of APG 68. KLJ-7 currently has 2 on 2 capability

Keep in mind detection not tracking ranges, which is where u can launch weapons

Not sure about those figures for both APG or Mig29.......seems low for tracking range.

 

[khanasifm]

I think OEM/manufacturer of Radar would know their products and not advertise wrong data , they may exaggerate in their marketing material. APG 68 are from OEM site too if i remember correctly

 

[razgriz19]

Does PAC manufactures tires for our jets?
or do they at least retread them?

 

[A2Z]

Is PAF planning to get more ZDK-03?

 

[Drebin]

Hello all respected members. Hope everyone is doing well. I was hoping to gain a better understanding of what defines an air superiority fighter and, why Pakistan chooses multirole over air superiority fighter? Furthermore, what encompasses avionics suite?

An elaborate and detailed ans will be highly appreciated.

Peace.

 

[araz]

Does PAC manufactures tires for our jets?
or do they at least retread them?

No they have full level depot management for the tyres. They even have the khokha with phajja tyre puncture repair shop written on it.
Araz

 

[Taygibay]

I was hoping to gain a better understanding of what defines an air superiority fighter and, why Pakistan chooses multirole over air superiority fighter? Furthermore, what encompasses avionics suite?

An elaborate and detailed ans will be highly appreciated.

WOW? That's all? Would you like a dessert and coffee with that?

I'll attempt a sketch because a proper answer would take pages, Drebin.
( Good to see you again by the way! )

Fighter types run many missions hence the modern multi-role moniker.
The two most basic ones are air to air vs air to ground missions.
Ideally, a jet that bombs should be able to defend itself from other ACs.
But that depends a lot on its age of design and context of use ( local AF ).

Pure bombers on the other end ( long range types : the Ru Bears / US B2 )
may lack any ability to defend themselves, sometimes escorted to provide
it and sometimes to go far, unload and attempt to return but not expected to.

To face ground level threats and bomb ( air support ), a fighter should be
sturdy, even slow and with avionics favoring ground detection & targeting.
To protect the overall battle field, a fighter should stay higher with ability to
target enemy air platforms ( including slow helos & fast jets ) ideally from a
bit farther with avionics suited to finding and engaging such targets.
To allow the above types to operate safely and to ward off the long range
fighters, a fighter should stay a high as possible and fire from very far as
to keep the zone behind/below fighter free with avionics suited to that task.

The latest is the air superiority mission profile in its true sense.

The best example comes from the USA today :
The F-22 is made to down enemy planes at a distance, using its range to
get to them both over their own land or at least NOT over its own territory.
The F-35 is ( will have been ) made to face enemy fighters and air defense
above and around a contested zone, ground to air, wherever one happens.

Yes, modern electronics and designs mean that the Raptor will get decent
bombing capacity but it is a bonus.
The best way to see the differences in mission profiles uses layers thus :
20-50 km diameter area on the ground equals battlefield / meters high ceiling.
10 km diameter half sphere centered on the previous is the CAS bubble.
20 km and beyond half sphere is where the aircrafts from air support face off
with each other.
Outside of this is the realm of air superiority proper to keep clean from menace.

You do need to understand that what I said above mixes and matches though.
Air superiority can take place with and between different types inside the 20K.


To summarize, an air superiority fighter should : go high and fast with almost
only air to air weapons to secure interdiction of a high volume airspace, so that
it needs the best in radar, fuel, missiles all at max range available.

Geography ( country size ) is the biggest motivation to own a dedicated design
air superiority fighter. Thanks to the aforementioned modern day avionics and
engines, smaller lands can use multi-role fighters for the task relatively "safely".

Don't hesitate to ask for specific developments from this nutshell explanation,
Tay.

P.S. "Avionics" ( everything electronic needed to make the plane fulfill its job )
was used to shorten the answer, mission equipments is a better term from my
viewpoint since civilian aircrafts have avionics too & no war related electronics.

 

[Ankit Kumar 001]

Hi
I have got some questions.
1.Pakistan bought many Libyan mirages after 2000. Are they flying or being used as spares?
2.Does Pakistan actually operates gunships based on Puma helicopters?
I will be thankful for the answers.
Cheers
Thanks

 

[Taygibay]

Ankit Kumar 001

The Pumas ( IAR 330 ) exist :
Pakistan

S: Romania 4 SA-330 Puma Helicopter (1987) 1988 4 IAR-330 version
I have no correct information on their present state, sorry.

The Mirage from Libya were bought for parts from the onset though. The ones that saw the ROSE III upgrade
are those ( 40 - 1 = 39 ) gotten from France itself.
No direct confirmation exists of this save in checking numbers but you can cross-reference it with these sources :
PAF Falcons - Picture Gallery - Mirage III/V Pictures album
Delivery of Libyan Mirages begins - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
""The shipment of grounded Libyan Mirages (of type 3 and 5) has begun and the PAF will use their spares to keep its fleet operational," an air force spokesman told Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa)."

Have a great day, Tay.

 

[Drebin]

WOW? That's all? Would you like a dessert and coffee with that?

I'll attempt a sketch because a proper answer would take pages, Drebin.
( Good to see you again by the way! )

Fighter types run many missions hence the modern multi-role moniker.
The two most basic ones are air to air vs air to ground missions.
Ideally, a jet that bombs should be able to defend itself from other ACs.
But that depends a lot on its age of design and context of use ( local AF ).

Pure bombers on the other end ( long range types : the Ru Bears / US B2 )
may lack any ability to defend themselves, sometimes escorted to provide
it and sometimes to go far, unload and attempt to return but not expected to.

To face ground level threats and bomb ( air support ), a fighter should be
sturdy, even slow and with avionics favoring ground detection & targeting.
To protect the overall battle field, a fighter should stay higher with ability to
target enemy air platforms ( including slow helos & fast jets ) ideally from a
bit farther with avionics suited to finding and engaging such targets.
To allow the above types to operate safely and to ward off the long range
fighters, a fighter should stay a high as possible and fire from very far as
to keep the zone behind/below fighter free with avionics suited to that task.

The latest is the air superiority mission profile in its true sense.

The best example comes from the USA today :
The F-22 is made to down enemy planes at a distance, using its range to
get to them both over their own land or at least NOT over its own territory.
The F-35 is ( will have been ) made to face enemy fighters and air defense
above and around a contested zone, ground to air, wherever one happens.

Yes, modern electronics and designs mean that the Raptor will get decent
bombing capacity but it is a bonus.
The best way to see the differences in mission profiles uses layers thus :
20-50 km diameter area on the ground equals battlefield / meters high ceiling.
10 km diameter half sphere centered on the previous is the CAS bubble.
20 km and beyond half sphere is where the aircrafts from air support face off
with each other.
Outside of this is the realm of air superiority proper to keep clean from menace.

You do need to understand that what I said above mixes and matches though.
Air superiority can take place with and between different types inside the 20K.


To summarize, an air superiority fighter should : go high and fast with almost
only air to air weapons to secure interdiction of a high volume airspace, so that
it needs the best in radar, fuel, missiles all at max range available.

Geography ( country size ) is the biggest motivation to own a dedicated design
air superiority fighter. Thanks to the aforementioned modern day avionics and
engines, smaller lands can use multi-role fighters for the task relatively "safely".

Don't hesitate to ask for specific developments from this nutshell explanation,
Tay.

P.S. "Avionics" ( everything electronic needed to make the plane fulfill its job )
was used to shorten the answer, mission equipments is a better term from my
viewpoint since civilian aircrafts have avionics too & no war related electronics.

Hello Tay. . . Great to see you brother. How are you doing?

It's truly a great feeling that it's you who happen to reply me just like my first ever quarry/post you addressed on this forum . Although I'm sorry for my late reply to your ever so informative ans.

Now let me start by first thanking you for sparing time and energy for an excellent ans which was both, concise yet self explanatory. And now that I've a bit better understanding of aircraft type or role, let me ask you that why haven't PAF ever opted for such aircraft type? You said that the biggest motivation for a country to acquire such an aircraft is it's geography (size). By that I assume you meant a country with a larger land mass has a greater affinity or motivation to acquire an air superiority fighter versus the country with a smaller overall area. Yet, I see a country as small as Singapore boasting F-15s. I can't say educatedly about South Korea but, I'M ASSUMING HERE that it's geographically a smaller state compared to Pakistan and still, it also has F-15s as it's lead attack warplane. My point is, considering the threat perception of both the countries, I don't really see a threat which can't be tackled with relative ease with the F-16s the individual country possess and yet, they opted to go for an air superiority platform. Why? And here we've our so called arch rival India boasting Flankers - which were custom designed to take on F-15s - as their lead platform to cripple PAF and, establish an absolute air superiority to facilitate their war effort on ground. And this is a typical modern day war scenario that whichever country successfully establishes air superiority, war then tends to turn in their favor. And we've seen clear examples of this move starting with early U.S wars and then, being perfected by the time of gulf wars (both) and in Afghanistan in 2001 and now the latest in move to repel ISIS in middle east using their prized Raptors.

I understand that vipers and even Thunders with support of AEW&C airplanes can take on Indian Sukhois. But, the question is that what will be their survival chances versus if PAF had a dedicated air superiority platform like F-15?

Of course, I always here the same petty argument about PAF lacking funds. But that wasn't always the case, was it? Till the Soviet collapse, Pakistan was economically doing well then India. Even after Henery Kessinger's threat to Bhutto of making an example out of him - which they did BTW - pakistan successfully managed to build an atomic bomb right under CIA's noses - which they knew of course but, acted being oblivious of the fact - and even got it's first F-16s! Question is, PAF knowing full well of India's numerical majority and it induction policay of an air superiority fighters in it's air force in mid to long term, why did PAF stayed oblivious to it and never thought about inducting a similar platform in it's own ranks? I can understand that at that time India did not plan to attain Flankers and Vipers were more then an adequate ans to whatever India could throw at us but, isn't it shortsightedness on PAFs' behalf to see such a move coming? Or should I say that it was an intelligence failure which could not timely inform PAF of IAF's plans?

With these questions and scenarios Tay, I'm probably trying to get a better understanding of PAF's mind pent then anything else. Because, it's severely disappointing and disheartening to know that PAF has pinned our future to just 7 days of war making effort after which, it will be completely destroyed .

And now in any discussion, we repeatedly get told or scold by senior members that PAF is massively cash strapped. Not just that but, in older days PAF even though having a history of operating twin engine jets, now wouldn't because of expansive nature of such planes. That all seems a - I'm sorry to say - a bit ridiculous.

P.S, I'm sorry for any mistakes that I might have made in the entire reply because of my lack of knowledge. But your reply would be invaluable in helping me better understand the different aspects of topic at hand. And lastly, I'm indebted for your time, patience and resolve in helping noobs like me and answering our every quarry willingly and with smile. God bless you brother .

 

[Taygibay]

First, YVW ( you're very welcome )! It's always a pleasure to talk with someone as inquisitive and polite as yourself, Drebin my friend!

and yet, they opted to go for an air superiority platform. Why?

You gave 2 main examples :
Singapore will have to fight feet wet ( over water ) and so will South Korea. The best way to do that is with long range fighters, customarily the case of sir superiority ACs.
Pakistan, by comparison would fight India over dry mountainous terrain. Up to a degree, considering the size of Pakistan and its geographical characteristics, it could almost rely solely on ground based missiles à la Iron Dome for Israel and stay secure from India that way. It costs less than fighters, you know?
Air assets in Switzerland come to mind, where the sole reason for jets is air policing i.e. checking stray jetliners. They don't even react out of business hours as pilots are home with family?!!? Their territory is so small anyhow that by the time their fast jets are up in the air, the "menace" has usually left their airspace in any case!!! Weird but all true!

Second, South Korea is geared to fight China but ( and it holds for Singapore too ) not alone!!! Their relationship with the USA is secure if it somewhat makes them indentured which they likely find a correct price to pay. In that respect, their choices are in big part dictated by help ( both technological and financial ) from America and by a desire to have weapons that will integrate as seamlessly as possible with the USN.
Pakistan is more autonomous and plays a bit of each power ( China, US, some Russian, some French ). The variations in reliability of each source ( mostly due to political shifts ) are more important and buying solely from one source would make it too dependent which I trust your country wants to avoid.

A lot of times, nations spend too much for capacities they'll never use, often just to look powerful! I'm thinking Middle-East here. And most air forces with lots of fighters are for making war away from your land. I trust Pakistan does not intend to invade either Liberia or Liechtenstein!

And we've seen clear examples of this move starting with early U.S wars and then, being perfected by the time of gulf wars (both) and in Afghanistan in 2001 and now the latest in move to repel ISIS in middle east using their prized Raptors.

It refers to image, politics and sales, brother!
A- Using the best fighter around is a symbol of supremacy.
B- Using the Cold War/WW III tailored Raptor helps convince Congress and the taxpayers that their money was put to good use ( regardless of whether this is true or not ).
C- If the Raptor bombs ISIL, by trickle down, those wanting a top notch fighter are more likely to invest in F-35s ( the F-22 line itself being shut down ).
Combat proven is an important label for commercial reasons, no matter how shallow that may sound and in fact be!

Because, it's severely disappointing and disheartening to know that PAF has pinned our future to just 7 days of war making effort after which, it will be completely destroyed .

Now, now, let's not over react, young Jedi! 7 days for the next wars is actually a long time. If all hell broke loose, Pakistan and India might well be radioactive long before their air forces run out of jets. You do have this deterrence thinghie called Nukes, remember? But even if the scenario was more limited in scope, again, it has to take into account alliances. If say India attacked first and for the conventional kill, China could take some edge off by closing the Nepal-
Bangladesh-Bhutan "strait" isolating Assam and Arunachal Pradesh while also intervening in Aksai Chin and Jammu&Kashmir and so on. If the situation called for it, it would not take Beijing a week to decide and act upon that!
So that it then depends on the relation and agreements or treaties between Islamabad and the PRC of which I am not privy and I surmise neither are you?
I'm not saying this reaction would automatically ensue but New Delhi certainly knows it could which is why the IAF format is geared towards a two fronts war?
To give you a far fetched but still applicable example, do you remember the AQMI et consorts attempt to nab Bamako?
Those *cough, cough* bright jihadis only forgot ( or possibly ignored ) that Paris had sworn to defend its ex-colony at independence time through a military accord. It cost them success of their endeavor, loss of gains made so far and a little over 2,000 men in a few months and by rebound created the Barkhane grouping of Mauritania, Burkina-Faso, Mali, Niger and Chad with France that now cuts their traditional sources of revenues by smuggling across the Sahel.
While most peeps forget about these things and some such agreements ( Ukraine CSCE/UN assurances come to mind again ) are truly not worth the paper they're signed on, sincere relations sometimes exists far beyond what was expected and ignorance of as over-reliance on this can be quite costly?

What I am saying is that while your questioning is perfectly valid, past a given point, it becomes conspiracy theory or at least day dreaming to read to much into a secret book in a code you can't decipher?
I understand your worries fully but they may ( hopefully for your country ) not be founded. Again, all nations that maintain huge air forces are either deeply paranoid or intent on conquest, very often both! Don't be too disappointed if it is not the case for Pakistan?

And lastly, in echo of up there, it is a pleasure to answer honest queries from someone wise enough to ask in order to learn. Your questions are uttered by a soothing voice amongst the noise of such things as Internet fora ( no disrespect of PDF in particular ). Talking with such a gentle soul as yourself is its own reward for time spent. I only hope to always be able to provide no matter how unlikely since I do not know all about all.

May God keep you and yours safe and may your spirit soar for a long time little brother, Tay.