France - Pakistan , Avionics & possibly Plane deal revival, Post cancellation of MRCA

[ACE OF THE AIR]

What is this reason of Pakistani infatuation with TFX?

Granted, it is being part manufactured by Turkey, but most of its critical parts would be either made in USA or made in Europe, thus suffering from safe export control law that Pakistan wants to avoid.

If you want to go for TFX, why not go for the real deal? F-35.

It is too early to say that it will have critical parts made else where.

May be one day F-35 is operated by PAF.

a rafale is a force multiplyer in itself. the SU-30MKIs are force multiploers, you honestly think in a scanario they'll send there aircraft 1 at a time to give us a fair shot? your dreaming.

Where in my post did you read 1 on 1 between JF-17 and Rafales?
There are always pairs. If IAF lost 1 Rafale PAF can afford 4 times. Pakistan would never have 4 times to what IAF sends but still the numbers would be close to 1:2 unlike the previous wars where it was very high against PAF.

 

[Darth Vader]

Hi,

Senor---when you bring out RCS----it means that you are just repeating what you have read----.

With current radars---aesa---rcs does not mean much---smaller or larger unless it is stealth. An aesa will find you regardless of your size---.

Your saving grace is the potency of your BVR missiles---and your electronic jamming capabilities.

Just like pakistanis talk about the rcs of the su30-----. Paf can do nothing to the su 30 just because it has a large rcs----the su30 larger has a much much larger radar inside of its nose cone---.

That radar has a much longer range and will detect the JF17 before the JF17 detects the larger su30.

It was described very clearly by one our our very esteemed posters from the U S.

More I read your post---the more sillier it gets----cheap never solved the problem against quality.

Just because it is 4 times cheaper does not mean that you would be putting 4 times the numbers against each Rafale.

Any high tech engineers here----or Surgeons over here-----guys---can 4 draftsmen do your job ( to engineers )---to surgeons---( can an orderly / nurse ) do your job.

Your need to stop winging and start thinking----what does F2 mean-----it means Japan---and who is the enemy---China----what is the size of Japan---small---what is the size of china---big---.

Now how about pakistan---small---and india----do you get the drift---.

Why did Japan---one of the most technically advanced nation was not satisfied with the size of the F16 and why it had to build it around 20% larger?

It was to fly for an optimal time---to carry an optimal load---to be able to have an optimal sized radar---to carry optimal sized electronics package against a much larger enemy.

Other than that---the F16 was the perfect sized aircraft.



Hi,

They have superior aircraft---and they are already 3 times the number----.

Pakistanis have been fed a STUPID PILL by the paf for the last 46 years.



Hi,

Let me ride piggy back on your post---.

Do the pakistani fanboys really think that your JF17 can take on the prime fighter aircraft of the world number 2 super power in technology ( france )?

Air warfare isn't just some Street race if you have vast car you will win , the things you guys are talking about won't be used that much in India vs Pakistan as you have example of China big Japan small you forgot one many thing which is distance
That's not the case with India and Pakistan most fights will be wvr not the bvr
Yes if 17 isn't top of the line but awacs and tankers are the true force multiplier for Pakistan
Thunder is a nimble jet if paf keeps upgrading this bird to its maximum potential and saves money and add some numbers with f16 ( adding totally new platform will take time and waste money which paf doesn't have ) and then go straight for 5th gen bird till that time Chinese platforms and systems will be more matured because in that way you will keep adding new capable birds which can work in single network and act as single unit and this will also help in one other way you won't go too down against India in numbers
Because soon many jets will be no out of action in both forces that's what paf is also trying to do retire the old birds with more capable birds
Yes Rafale and sukhoi 30 is a beast but thunder won't be able to take down it on its on but when you have home ground advantage all assets are in single network with different platforms sams it could be Game changer what urgent need of time for Pakistan is more advance sams with modern radars which can counter jamming with good numbers of thunders f16 and some 5th gem birds you might not have giant force but you will have a capable force to counter any miss adventure

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

93 billion dollar for 190 plus rafale! Kuch zayada nahi ho gaya. Have dollars started growing on trees in Pakistan. Let me know how did you arrive at this 93 billion$ figure?

Although I think that your purpose may be actually to taunt and tease Indians rather than seriously vie for this. So in interest of furthering this discussion, I'll try to present an opposite opinion. So let look at it in a different way:

Force posture and availability:
190 plane with a 93 billion $ is too un-believable, lets cut it down to a believable size. Let say 50 rafales, each will cost 100+ million$, and purchasing relevant weapons, maintenance and services will cost about 150+ millions each (just a guesstimate, kept on the lower side, from looking at figures in media from egypt sale as well as indian proposal). That will translate into about 5+ billion$ for actual planes and 7.5+ billion$ in weapons, services etc. What this will translate in force availability in an intense week long campaign? Let us just make a raw estimate:

For each hour of flight it is quoted in different sources to have maintenance of 12-15 hours and as they will brand new let's suppose that 90% will be general availability at any time. For week long campaign that means
available fighter at any time to fly: 45
available sorties per day per fighter: (24*7/12)/7 = 2
sorties available in a week for force size of 50 fighters = 2 * 45 * 7 = 630

Now let us assume we ditch this option and spend 5 billion$ on purchasing JF 17 and the other 7.5 bn$ on raising squadrons and all associated staff and facilities to service those JF-17s. It will probably cost roughly 20 million$ a piece so we'll have about 250 additional fighters to add to the service.
Although I think no data is available in public about service time per hour of flight for JF-17 and they will also be brand new systems in start but lets handicap them assuming them to be low grade and roughly equilant to older F-16A/B in US service which are in some sources mentioned to have 20 hours service time per hour of flight and having same availability as rafales @ 90%.
Available fighters at any time to fly = 250 * .9 = 225
available sorties per day per fighter = 1.2
sorties available per week = 1890 sorties

A Jf-17 fighter force will have 3 times more sorties available for decision makers in a 7 days intense air campaign than a rafale based fleet to use for defensive or offensive operations.

Look , We need 190 planes , now will we get all planes in 1 day (NO)

Simmilar to our F16 contracts in 80's we can work it out slowly

First Batch: (2015-2020)

• Cost of RAFALE US$101,000,000 / Plane
• Cost of 45 planes , 4.5 Billion Dollars

Cost of Missiles Package:

• 500 Million

Whole deal 5.0 Billion dollars (Spread over 5 years)

Second Batch: (2020-2023) (Spread over 5 years)

• Option for 60 planes (5 Billion Range)

• Cost of Missiles Package:
  • 500 Million

We don't need all planes in 1 day

Depending on need we can increase numbers if Airforce needs it

(190 planes needed but even if we start with 105 RAFALE over 7-10 Years it is ok)

• There will always be the deal for JF17 thunder in as well as possibility may be 3 squadrons

There are other options in market as well

Obviously lot of options in market

 

[Blabla]

Something on
Finally, A Deal. India To Buy 36 Rafale Jets For $8.8 Billion

Finally, A Deal. India To Buy 36 Rafale Jets For $8.8 Billion
All India | Reported by Sudhi Ranjan Sen | Updated: April 15, 2016 20:52 IST

62COMMENTS

The first Rafale fighter jets will take at least 18 months to arrive in India

NEW DELHI:
HIGHLIGHTS

1. France had asked for $12 billion
2. First planes will take at least 18 months to deliver
3. French firms to invest $3billion in India in technology transfer

India's much-negotiated deal with France for 36 fighter jets is final - it will buy the French-made Rafale planes for 8.8 billion dollars, said sources to NDTV. The agreement is to be signed within three weeks and it will take at least 18 months for India to get the first lot of aircraft.

France initially sought nearly 12 billion dollars for the sale of 36 fighters complete with weapon systems. India has closed the deal nearly 3 billion dollars below France's asking price.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a visit to Paris last year confirmed India's order of 36 read-to-fly jets. Before that, the Defence Ministry had sanctioned the purchase of 120 planes, but the deal was scaled down dramatically after both sides were unable for years to agree on the unit price and the assembling of the planes in India.

The Rafales are made by manufacturer Dassault Aviation. During PM Modi's visit, the countries agreed that the deal would be handled between their governments.


The Air Force has stressed it needs to start replacing its ageing jet fleet from 2017 to effectively check the capabilities of Pakistan and China.
As the negotiations stretched - and a deal was not reached during French President Francois Hollande's visit to India in January, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said he is "a tough negotiator" and needed time to ensure a good bargain. The Air Force has repeatedly been asking for its ageing warplane fleet to be urgently modernised.

Sources say that as part of the government's push to develop and support military manufacturing at home, in exchange for selling India off-the-shelf Rafales, French companies including Dassault will have to invest three billion dollars in India to help firms here with stealth-capability and radar technologies. France had initially agreed to a 30 per cent offset obligation to be invested in India, while India had sought a minimum of 50 per cent. France has now agreed for 50 per cent offset obligation.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

Hi,

Senor---when you bring out RCS----it means that you are just repeating what you have read----.

With current radars---aesa---rcs does not mean much---smaller or larger unless it is stealth. An aesa will find you regardless of your size---.

Your saving grace is the potency of your BVR missiles---and your electronic jamming capabilities.

Just like pakistanis talk about the rcs of the su30-----. Paf can do nothing to the su 30 just because it has a large rcs----the su30 larger has a much much larger radar inside of its nose cone---.

That radar has a much longer range and will detect the JF17 before the JF17 detects the larger su30.

It was described very clearly by one our our very esteemed posters from the U S.

More I read your post---the more sillier it gets----cheap never solved the problem against quality.

Just because it is 4 times cheaper does not mean that you would be putting 4 times the numbers against each Rafale.

Any high tech engineers here----or Surgeons over here-----guys---can 4 draftsmen do your job ( to engineers )---to surgeons---( can an orderly / nurse ) do your job.

Your need to stop winging and start thinking----what does F2 mean-----it means Japan---and who is the enemy---China----what is the size of Japan---small---what is the size of china---big---.

Now how about pakistan---small---and india----do you get the drift---.

Why did Japan---one of the most technically advanced nation was not satisfied with the size of the F16 and why it had to build it around 20% larger?

It was to fly for an optimal time---to carry an optimal load---to be able to have an optimal sized radar---to carry optimal sized electronics package against a much larger enemy.

Other than that---the F16 was the perfect sized aircraft.



Hi,

They have superior aircraft---and they are already 3 times the number----.

Pakistanis have been fed a STUPID PILL by the paf for the last 46 years.



Hi,

Let me ride piggy back on your post---.

Do the pakistani fanboys really think that your JF17 can take on the prime fighter aircraft of the world number 2 super power in technology ( france )?

Sir,
RCS does matter otherwise Boeing is not stupid in reducing this on F-15 Strike Eagle and F-18 Super Hornets.
http://www.boeing.com/defense/fa-18-super-hornet/#/capabilities

http://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15-strike-eagle/#/advanced-capabilities

Now if we see what is Stealth then it is nothing but a way to bounce the radar waves in a direction where the return does not reach back to the transmitter. The Smaller the area the harder is to detect and easier to deflect. RAM coating is still too expensive hence it is not possible for PAF to apply on JF-17's. Still the method of deflecting the radar signals is very much possible.

As fas as AESA is concerned it is developing at a fast pace and maturing in the progress. The range has been significantly increased close to what the SU-30 MKI PESA radars currently have. The only missing link is the ECM and advance missile. One can over come these through AWAC's and ground based equipment.

One does not achieve quality in expensive things often cheep are equally good or even better. One should not always be slave to designers (brands).

If you recall F-16Blk 52 package that PAF procured was stated by the USAF that is is superior to the ones they have flown.

Japan opted for F-2 because they wanted a fighter that could deny PLAAF air superiority till the US came for their support. The deciding aircraft the the Japanese Air Force want was the F-15 but they could only get a limited number because of the surrender.

Radars on both sides Pakistan and India are capable to monitor all aircraft well within each other's territory so any time any misadventure is planed both would have ample of warning and time to do the needful. Then there is also an other distinction between Pakistan and India they have a land border where as Japan does not have this it has a Maritime border which is far more difficult to protect. To over come this difficult the Japanese decided to go for F-2's as they would provide air cover for the NAVY.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well our need is for our planned , plane replacement unlike India we don't make up stories they got 300 Russian planes why would they need to buy planes hahahahaa

But we on other hand have to replace planes

 

[ghazi768]

Look, if you are infatuated with Rafale and consider getting it at any cost than its another matter.

First cost of weapons, maintenance and services will be much higher than what you have quoted. Western (and even Russian) manufacturers now treat jet fighters they sell more like the way HP sells its printers, cost of actual machine is much less than the parts and services required during its long service. Even Indians are groaning under the weight of "service charges" they have to bear to keep their SU-30 fleet in air e.g. for every tiny issue in an engine they need to send it back to Russia and receive a brand new engine as "courtesy" while the actual jet sits in a hanger. what ends up being charged for such "courtesies" only indians know. Now what happens when a war starts up and french decide to remain "neutral" and withdraw their service staff and refuse to provide any spares or services during war time.

Now about the other options you mentioned:
- Typhoon in cost and performance is very similar to Rafale, no chance of getting inducted.
- Gripen provides almost no major benefit over Jf-17 such that you give up your own home grown ability to manufacture and enhance your own fighter. Also remember that grippen and its previous incarnations are the result of a strong desire of Swedes to retain their ability to manufacture their own fighters.
- Su-35, even worse than above options. I think, Its availability is extremely low by PAF standards, indian keep talking about raising it to 65% but are rumoured to only manage about 50%. It service hours per flight hour are said to be between 30-35 and again for every god damned spares and service work you either need Russian staff or need to send your fighter/engine to Russia. Its engine also have much lower MTBO, only at 1000 hours. Even JF-17 juiced up MK-93 is quoted to have MTBO of 2500 hours (and rumoured to be above it).

 

[MastanKhan]

93 billion dollar for 190 plus rafale! Kuch zayada nahi ho gaya. Have dollars started growing on trees in Pakistan. Let me know how did you arrive at this 93 billion$ figure?

Although I think that your purpose may be actually to taunt and tease Indians rather than seriously vie for this. So in interest of furthering this discussion, I'll try to present an opposite opinion. So let look at it in a different way:

Force posture and availability:
190 plane with a 93 billion $ is too un-believable, lets cut it down to a believable size. Let say 50 rafales, each will cost 100+ million$, and purchasing relevant weapons, maintenance and services will cost about 150+ millions each (just a guesstimate, kept on the lower side, from looking at figures in media from egypt sale as well as indian proposal). That will translate into about 5+ billion$ for actual planes and 7.5+ billion$ in weapons, services etc. What this will translate in force availability in an intense week long campaign? Let us just make a raw estimate:

For each hour of flight it is quoted in different sources to have maintenance of 12-15 hours and as they will brand new let's suppose that 90% will be general availability at any time. For week long campaign that means
available fighter at any time to fly: 45
available sorties per day per fighter: (24*7/12)/7 = 2
sorties available in a week for force size of 50 fighters = 2 * 45 * 7 = 630

Now let us assume we ditch this option and spend 5 billion$ on purchasing JF 17 and the other 7.5 bn$ on raising squadrons and all associated staff and facilities to service those JF-17s. It will probably cost roughly 20 million$ a piece so we'll have about 250 additional fighters to add to the service.
Although I think no data is available in public about service time per hour of flight for JF-17 and they will also be brand new systems in start but lets handicap them assuming them to be low grade and roughly equilant to older F-16A/B in US service which are in some sources mentioned to have 20 hours service time per hour of flight and having same availability as rafales @ 90%.
Available fighters at any time to fly = 250 * .9 = 225
available sorties per day per fighter = 1.2
sorties available per week = 1890 sorties

A Jf-17 fighter force will have 3 times more sorties available for decision makers in a 7 days intense air campaign than a rafale based fleet to use for defensive or offensive operations.



1. You are wrong, AESA radars for same power input has lesser range than even ordinary planar array radars. The benefit they provide is LPI.

2. You are wrong again, if SU-30 is using its radar it will be visible on RWRs and other ground and air based receivers hundred of kms before it even may have any chance of detecting a Jf-17 which does have a smaller RCS. It may not provide a direct fire control track to a JF-17 but may end up getting this generated from other assets in air and ground.

3. Your are wrong again using some stupid useless analogies irrelevant to air war tactics and doctrines. A professional force with a higher availability, sorties rate and even equivalent depletion rates will win the day.

4. Yes indeed a JF-17 can take on a Rafale even in a one to one fight. Rafale had better instant turn rate and can maintain a higher alpha but ends up depleting much more energy in doing this. Also it has higher drag to thrust and lower thrust to weight ratio.

Hi,

We are only talking about 24-30 rafales---and the rest of them JF17 with french paclkage.

So either it is conventional to conventional or aesa to aesa---the jf 17 would be on su30's rad sooner.

You have have three times lesser number of aircraft in the first place---your sortie count would means diddley sh-it.

All your bases will be under the strike of surface to surface missiles or air to surface missile---your only saving grace would be quetta---dalbandin---air bases.

JF17 take out the Rafale---again that man behind the machine myth---. The rest of the world is fcking stupid---they all should have bought he JF17 and sent their pilots to pakistan.

Sir---please allow us this leeway that we do know when the aircraft turns its radar on---it gives its position---. My example was just used to to give a simple comparison of non stealth aircraft.

That's not the case with India and Pakistan most fights will be wvr not the bvr
Yes if 17 isn't top of the line but awacs and tankers are the true force multiplier for Pakistan

Hi,

Do you really think that the indians are that stupid to vacate their position of strength and fight from a position of weakness.

Most of the fights will be BVR by the indians---one target a salvo of 4-6 missiles launched---2nd target 4-6 missiles launched---at 60-70% kill range---the aircraft turns around and is gone----.

Why would they want to merge?

And awacs and tankers----where is the air space for paf to utilize tankers with immunity---only over baluchistan.

 

[thrilainmanila]

Look, if you are infatuated with Rafale and consider getting it at any cost than its another matter.

First cost of weapons, maintenance and services will be much higher than what you have quoted. Western (and even Russian) manufacturers now treat jet fighters they sell more like the way HP sells its printers, cost of actual machine is much less than the parts and services required during its long service. Even Indians are groaning under the weight of "service charges" they have to bear to keep their SU-30 fleet in air e.g. for every tiny issue in an engine they need to send it back to Russia and receive a brand new engine as "courtesy" while the actual jet sits in a hanger. what ends up being charged for such "courtesies" only indians know. Now what happens when a war starts up and french decide to remain "neutral" and withdraw their service staff and refuse to provide any spares or services during war time.

Now about the other options you mentioned:
- Typhoon in cost and performance is very similar to Rafale, no chance of getting inducted.
- Gripen provides almost no major benefit over Jf-17 such that you give up your own home grown ability to manufacture and enhance your own fighter. Also remember that grippen and its previous incarnations are the result of a strong desire of Swedes to retain their ability to manufacture their own fighters.
- Su-35, even worse than above options. I think, Its availability is extremely low by PAF standards, indian keep talking about raising it to 65% but are rumoured to only manage about 50%. It service hours per flight hour are said to be between 30-35 and again for every god damned spares and service work you either need Russian staff or need to send your fighter/engine to Russia. Its engine also have much lower MTBO, only at 1000 hours. Even JF-17 juiced up MK-93 is quoted to have MTBO of 2500 hours (and rumoured to be above it).

this situation could have been completely avoided with some level of responsibility and intellect, the enemy has the S-400, the SU-30MKI and now the rafale. what the hell do we have?, You need to understand the buffoonery, immaturity and ridiculousness that exists in the high ranks of the PAF and on this forum, People praise the JF-17 for being a milestone in some ways it is but its primary role is to defend the pakistan airspace against the main threat on the east, its incapable of doing this against the elite, we hear this bullshit oh the bulk of the IAF is made up of mig-21/23/27/jaguars yet the jokers who sing this nonesense dont realize the same aircraft won't be at the frontlines it will be the SU-30s and Rafales causing all the mayhem. The answer to the problem was the J-10 since day 1 the J-10 represented the fighter PAF needed, a ifighter which met its requirements as a single engined multirole fighter as capable as the F-16s in range and payload and with the ability to be upgraded, had the PAF chose to engage in this project rather then the JF-17 we wouldn't be hear arguing about the F-16, as the Upgrades recieved via the J-10 would overshaddow this, instead we would be having a true multirole fighter jet capable of defending the airspace and being a high threat to the rafale and SU-30, Instead the PAF chose to embark on the JF-17, because it was cheap and easy, most importantly they could get a quick buck through sales pitches thats why they paraded this in paris and elsewhere, so that corrupt PAF officials could get kickbacks, they sacrificed natiional security and would rather bow and beg for F-16s from Uncle sam, the same uncle sam which left 28 of your own f-16s you paid for with hard earned cash rotting in the navada dessert instead gave f-ucking soya beans as compensation, the people in charge of the PAF need a *** whopping many of the members on this forum also need an *** whopping by there fathers for being so naive and stupid, thinking things would be under control.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

this situation could have been completely avoided with some level of responsibility and intellect, the enemy has the S-400, the SU-30MKI and now the rafale. what the hell do we have?, You need to understand the buffoonery, immaturity and ridiculousness that exists in the high ranks of the PAF and on this forum, People praise the JF-17 for being a milestone in some ways it is but its primary role is to defend the pakistan airspace against the main threat on the east, its incapable of doing this against the elite, we hear this bullshit oh the bulk of the IAF is made up of mig-21/23/27/jaguars yet the jokers who sing this nonesense dont realize the same aircraft won't be at the frontlines it will be the SU-30s and Rafales causing all the mayhem. The answer to the problem was the J-10 since day 1 the J-10 represented the fighter PAF needed, a ifighter which met its requirements as a single engined multirole fighter as capable as the F-16s in range and payload and with the ability to be upgraded, had the PAF chose to engage in this project rather then the JF-17 we wouldn't be hear arguing about the F-16, as the Upgrades recieved via the J-10 would overshaddow this, instead we would be having a true multirole fighter jet capable of defending the airspace and being a high threat to the rafale and SU-30, Instead the PAF chose to embark on the JF-17, because it was cheap and easy, most importantly they could get a quick buck through sales pitches thats why they paraded this in paris and elsewhere, so that corrupt PAF officials could get kickbacks, they sacrificed natiional security and would rather bow and beg for F-16s from Uncle sam, the same uncle sam which left 28 of your own f-16s you paid for with hard earned cash rotting in the navada dessert instead gave f-ucking soya beans as compensation, the people in charge of the PAF need a *** whopping many of the members on this forum also need an *** whopping by there fathers for being so naive and stupid, thinking things would be under control.

Well Mr Thriller , thanks to our smart military , we have a potent JF-17 Thunder Block 2 , in Pakistan airforce.

Plus we have expanded other areas of defence (US Airforce uses it mainly for defensive needs)

The need for RAFALE is a supplementary improvements, like any good customer we obviously examine different products the RAFALE is a such candidate

But it does not means to be discontent of Thunder platform

Now your criticism is a bit harsh

Now a missile does not distinguishes between a Jaguars , MiG or any platform. A missile shares the love equally against any foe it encounters just needs a wonderfully gifted pilot to spread the good will to all adversaries

Plus we also have F16 for our defensive needs

Ab no need to get so emotional , this buying and selling business is part of militarizes world wide

Well I hope you understand the Thunder has a different purpose and audience it is 100% suitable for the purpose it was made or inducted (i.e Workhorse )


RAFALE: Would offer perhaps another option in air for slightly different role (Special Purpose)

• 40-45 Plane batch for RAFALE
  
• Avionics deal for Block 4 , Thunder would be good for us (3-5 squadrons) for future
  Block 1/2/3 would not get effected by the deal will remain 100% Chinese , we got more plans for this

 

[ghazi768]

Hi,

We are only talking about 24-30 rafales---and the rest of them JF17 with french paclkage.

So either it is conventional to conventional or aesa to aesa---the jf 17 would be on su30's rad sooner.

You have have three times lesser number of aircraft in the first place---your sortie count would means diddley sh-it.

All your bases will be under the strike of surface to surface missiles or air to surface missile---your only saving grace would be quetta---dalbandin---air bases.

JF17 take out the Rafale---again that man behind the machine myth---. The rest of the world is fcking stupid---they all should have bought he JF17 and sent their pilots to pakistan.

Sir---please allow us this leeway that we do know when the aircraft turns its radar on---it gives its position---. My example was just used to to give a simple comparison of non stealth aircraft.




Hi,

Do you really think that the indians are that stupid to vacate their position of strength and fight from a position of weakness.

Most of the fights will be BVR by the indians---one target a salvo of 4-6 missiles launched---2nd target 4-6 missiles launched---at 60-70% kill range---the aircraft turns around and is gone----.

Why would they want to merge?

And awacs and tankers----where is the air space for paf to utilize tankers with immunity---only over baluchistan.

Jf-17s would not need to be on the Su-30 radars at all. You do not get it actually, its not about who has got a bigger radar, it is more about who has got better Situational Awareness. And the one who has got better SA will land himself in an advantageous position.
You do not understand BVR combat or are too much influenced by marketing hyperbole surrounding it. Now in sixties, 50+ km BVR kills were claimed by US but the pk during those times was what? I remember reading it in journals to be 2% or 0.2%. It was so abysmally low that all proponents of BVR theory in US went into hiding, a very long hiding. Only surfacing back after first gulf war in strength, and now what is the longest BVR kill in modern times i.e. during and after first gulf war, that if I remember correctly to be 35 km during the kosovo operations when an F-16 fired two AIM-120 against a Mig-29, a Mig-29 which was actually dysfunctional with its RWR and MWS not working, kept flying straight oblivious of the threat coming towards it. I also remember that during the same campaign an another serbian Mig-29 was reported successfully to avoid three missiles in the same sortie when its pilot knew that its being tracked and being shot at.
Before claiming such grandiose scenarios of massive BVR trucks coming, launching salvos of BVR missiles in access of 30+ kms ranges and turing back and going home. Please better consult someone who actually knows this stuff. BVR missiles were and still are area denial weapons unless you are facing a rag tag airforce flying monkey models.
I am not saying that Man behind the machine is the only thing that matters. Jets you are flying, your systems and network are also important as well, more important when it come to SA. But ask any fighter pilot, whether Pakistani, US or indian or any other and you will know how much important this factor is. I think, every junior pilot find it out when he gets his a$$ kicked again and again and again by his instructors who are flying in lower performance fighters than what he is flying in. May be you are too much influenced by bull crap these western marketers keep churning out but let me know whether Rafale has some gravity defying warp hole class engine with wings to make it turn at 90 degrees without losing any effing energy and than we'll discuss this matter. Otherwise please first get some lessons in basic BFMs.

You base strike argument is of no use, once Surface to Surface missiles start flying, we both nations should hurriedly start preparing for a long and dark nuclear stone age.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

I am afraid in a battle scenario , no one picks and chooses their favorite platform, it generally is decided by fate and luck of the draw

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

It is too early to say that it will have critical parts made else where.

May be one day F-35 is operated by PAF.


Where in my post did you read 1 on 1 between JF-17 and Rafales?
There are always pairs. If IAF lost 1 Rafale PAF can afford 4 times. Pakistan would never have 4 times to what IAF sends but still the numbers would be close to 1:2 unlike the previous wars where it was very high against PAF.

The way things are progressing in Turkey, InshaAllah all the critical parts of TFX will be ultimately manufactured locally with full R&D having potential to extensively modify for improvements. Export to Pak will be a matter of honor for good acts done with Iman, Ihlas and Uhuvviyet have thousand Berekets in them. Distractors with negative mindsets won't understand this..

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Look, if you are infatuated with Rafale and consider getting it at any cost than its another matter.

First cost of weapons, maintenance and services will be much higher than what you have quoted. Western (and even Russian) manufacturers now treat jet fighters they sell more like the way HP sells its printers, cost of actual machine is much less than the parts and services required during its long service. Even Indians are groaning under the weight of "service charges" they have to bear to keep their SU-30 fleet in air e.g. for every tiny issue in an engine they need to send it back to Russia and receive a brand new engine as "courtesy" while the actual jet sits in a hanger. what ends up being charged for such "courtesies" only indians know. Now what happens when a war starts up and french decide to remain "neutral" and withdraw their service staff and refuse to provide any spares or services during war time.

Now about the other options you mentioned:
- Typhoon in cost and performance is very similar to Rafale, no chance of getting inducted.
- Gripen provides almost no major benefit over Jf-17 such that you give up your own home grown ability to manufacture and enhance your own fighter. Also remember that grippen and its previous incarnations are the result of a strong desire of Swedes to retain their ability to manufacture their own fighters.
- Su-35, even worse than above options. I think, Its availability is extremely low by PAF standards, indian keep talking about raising it to 65% but are rumoured to only manage about 50%. It service hours per flight hour are said to be between 30-35 and again for every god damned spares and service work you either need Russian staff or need to send your fighter/engine to Russia. Its engine also have much lower MTBO, only at 1000 hours. Even JF-17 juiced up MK-93 is quoted to have MTBO of 2500 hours (and rumoured to be above it).

From the outset both Indians and Russians appear to be the cleverest folks on the earth. How come they get duped?!? Fox is the cleverest guy in the animal kingdom, but is always hungry and has to use every bit of its cleverness 24/7 to gather lunch or dinner. On the other hand, fish has little cleverness but is well fed as food comes automatically to its mouth with little efforts..

 

[MastanKhan]

Jf-17s would not need to be on the Su-30 radars at all. You do not get it actually, its not about who has got a bigger radar, it is more about who has got better Situational Awareness. And the one who has got better SA will land himself in an advantageous position.
You do not understand BVR combat or are too much influenced by marketing hyperbole surrounding it. Now in sixties, 50+ km BVR kills were claimed by US but the pk during those times was what? I remember reading it in journals to be 2% or 0.2%. It was so abysmally low that all proponents of BVR theory in US went into hiding, a very long hiding. Only surfacing back after first gulf war in strength, and now what is the longest BVR kill in modern times i.e. during and after first gulf war, that if I remember correctly to be 35 km during the kosovo operations when an F-16 fired two AIM-120 against a Mig-29, a Mig-29 which was actually dysfunctional with its RWR and MWS not working, kept flying straight oblivious of the threat coming towards it. I also remember that during the same campaign an another serbian Mig-29 was reported successfully to avoid three missiles in the same sortie when its pilot knew that its being tracked and being shot at.
Before claiming such grandiose scenarios of massive BVR trucks coming, launching salvos of BVR missiles in access of 30+ kms ranges and turing back and going home. Please better consult someone who actually knows this stuff. BVR missiles were and still are area denial weapons unless you are facing a rag tag airforce flying monkey models.
I am not saying that Man behind the machine is the only thing that matters. Jets you are flying, your systems and network are also important as well, more important when it come to SA. But ask any fighter pilot, whether Pakistani, US or indian or any other and you will know how much important this factor is. I think, every junior pilot find it out when he gets his a$$ kicked again and again and again by his instructors who are flying in lower performance fighters than what he is flying in. May be you are too much influenced by bull crap these western marketers keep churning out but let me know whether Rafale has some gravity defying warp hole class engine with wings to make it turn at 90 degrees without losing any effing energy and than we'll discuss this matter. Otherwise please first get some lessons in basic BFMs.

You base strike argument is of no use, once Surface to Surface missiles start flying, we both nations should hurriedly start preparing for a long and dark nuclear stone age.

Hi,

Compare the computer of the 60 to the computing power in the cellular phone----. That is what the difference is in the BVR missiles of the 60's to those f the 21st century.

That is what the U S has been training since 2002---launch your BVR's and turn around----WVR combat levels the playing field---there is no reason to level the playing field---.

So---why would Iaf level the playing field----?

Why is there so much effort being put into long range high kill ratio missiles with thrust vectoring----?

Why is there so much effort being put into smarter BVR missiles.

WVR combat is not the priority anymore for leading air forces---. If paf is living in the frame of mind---it is their loss.

It is not saying that WVR training is not important---it is extremely important---but is not on the top of the list as it used to be----BVR combat is.

Why is the range of radar detection getting farther and farther---why are nations manufacturing BVR missiles costing 100's of thousands of dollars---.