If an F16 Can Take Out an F35 WVR---Then a JF 17 Can as Well

[Immanuel]

Performing better is one thing
dominating the skies is another thing.

Having won some successful battles is one thing, loosing the war is completely another. PAF no doubt always began well but due to IAF responses and gradual ramp up hasn't been able to remain consistent in its ability. Also, people keep bringing up numerical superiority of the IAF but forget India has many other frontlines to guard and cannot deploy IAF's entire might against PAF in any war. If a war began today, IAF will at best press the Western, South Western air command & perhaps Central air command into war mode. The other two would remain on active high alert in case PN wants to expand the foot print. Hence we are looking at best 50% of the force being used on active combat, hence we would be fighting a war of numerical equals. IAF today is preparing is at worst if for a multi front war against Pak & China. and majority of the IAF is geared towards a confrontation against the dragon.

Also, apart from certain initial days of battle PAF never really had complete air superiority over IAF in any war. PAF did have a few hrs of air dominance in certain parts but was quickly retaken by IAF and then PAF just couldn't continue the momentum. Which is usually the trend in all our wars. Pak starts the fight with no clear long term strategy in sight, makes some quick gains, is countered effectively and disproportionately and then cannot continue the momentum and thus needs to raise the white flag. This usually happens because Pakistani political & military leadership has always undermined how disproportionate the response from India can be. I say this with no disrespect to the warriors at PAF. A true warrior will always fight to the heart's content and Indian troops in the air/land or sea don't underestimate any enemy. Sadly Its the dipshits in politics who make or break any war. In this day and age it would be utterly stupid for a IAF pilot to underestimate a PAF pilot and vice versa. Best to keep training, refine tactics & learn to fly the aircraft as an extension of the body, mind & soul.

 

[Tipu7]

Having won some successful battles is one thing, loosing the war is completely another. PAF no doubt always began well but due to IAF responses and gradual ramp up hasn't been able to remain consistent in its ability. Also, people keep bringing up numerical superiority of the IAF but forget India has many other frontlines to guard and cannot deploy IAF's entire might against PAF in any war. If a war began today, IAF will at best press the Western, South Western air command & perhaps Central air command into war mode. The other two would remain on active high alert in case PN wants to expand the foot print. Hence we are looking at best 50% of the force being used on active combat, hence we would be fighting a war of numerical equals. IAF today is preparing is at worst if for a multi front war against Pak & China. and majority of the IAF is geared towards a confrontation against the dragon.

Also, apart from certain initial days of battle PAF never really had complete air superiority over IAF in any war. PAF did have a few hrs of air dominance in certain parts but was quickly retaken by IAF and then PAF just couldn't continue the momentum. Which is usually the trend in all our wars. Pak starts the fight with no clear long term strategy in sight, makes some quick gains, is countered effectively and disproportionately and then cannot continue the momentum and thus needs to raise the white flag. This usually happens because Pakistani political & military leadership has always undermined how disproportionate the response from India can be. I say this with no disrespect to the warriors at PAF. A true warrior will always fight to the heart's content and Indian troops in the air/land or sea don't underestimate any enemy. Sadly Its the dipshits in politics who make or break any war. In this day and age it would be utterly stupid for a IAF pilot to underestimate a PAF pilot and vice versa. Best to keep training, refine tactics & learn to fly the aircraft as an extension of the body, mind & soul.

Non sense and lane excuses.
Also I am not interested in taking part in never ending discussions on topics which you tried to drag in...... admit the facts........

Sir,

After reading through your response, you have painted a very grim and misleading picture about the current state of the PAF. I will not try to argue the fact that Pakistan needs to invest in a heavy fighter platform, whether Chinese or Western origin, but some of your statements are pure speculations which causes a domino effect of panic in this forum.

Throughout the 1965 and 1971 war, the PAF on paper was always slated to loose against the IAF due the aircraft's possessed on each side. At the start of the 65 war, IAF contained 466 aircraft, 10 mig21 (K-13 capable), 80 Gnats, 96 Hunters, 80 Mystere, 48 Toofani, 80 Vampires,and 72 Canberra. The PAF at the time could only muster 203 aircraft. 12 f104(sidewinder capable), 116 f86 Sabres (25% Sidewinder capable), 32 Canberras, and the rest were training aircraft. During the 65 war, PAF lacked a true fighter bomber for ground attack, which the Indians made up for in the Toofani and Mystere in ample numbers. However, PAF pilots successful used the f86 as a ground attack aircraft along with the Canberras as a result of their skills. The Saber was no match for the Hunters and Gnats in air to air combat. The Hunter had many advantages over the Sabre, which include higher service ceiling, better armaments, and longer range. The only advantage the PAF had was the f104, which was not designed for air to air combat either, but rather shooting down enemy bombers, but we had limited numbers. Despite being a tiger on paper, the training and tactics used in inferior aircraft propelled the PAF to a shocking victory against the better armed but poorly trained IAF. Same story goes for the 71 war. It doesn't matter if we are in a modern age or not, man will always decided the faith of war. Being strong on paper is mere speculation, but having history to support you is another thing

I find it appalling to read and agree with even a sentence in your second statement. Owing a massive flight of fighter aircraft is no child's plays. Only in a fictional world are all your aircraft and equipment serviceable for combat. While the Su30 is a potent aircraft,but also a very fragile aircraft as well. According to India defence minister admits Su-30 serviceability issues - IHS Jane's 360 The IAF operates 200 Su-30MKIs, but of these only 110 or 55% were operationally. In a time of war Indian can not afford to send all there jets against Pakistan because India has to worry about its border with China and Bangladesh. On the other hand, Pakistan can afford to send all its aircraft towards India. Having a massive aircraft like the Mig29 or Su30 come with the consequence of a High RCS, as a result lack of surprise are lost as soon as take off. The debate whether the massive su30 radar will find a enemy target first or the high RCS gives away the su30 first is a thesis only provable in a war time situation. Your statement about not being able to bomb New Delhi can not be more false. For example in a strategic strike mission against New Delhi, PAF would most likely use Mirages and f16s. The distance from Karachi to New Delhi is 679.95 miles in a straight line. Both the mirage and f16 have combat ranges that exceed that distance. For a Strike, cruise missiles are also a option. Until the Rafael aircraft is operational, it is not a threat at the current stage but a counter-strategic should be available in the future.

The IAF always had a edge in quantity and quality against the PAF, but superior training and tactics showed who dominated the sky of the subcontinent. It will always be a mans war to fight not a machines. In the Vietnam War, the USAF removed cannons from fighter jets because they believed modern air-air missiles had replaced them, but the Americans learned the hard way from experience that skills are required in modern warfare. Relying entirely on modern equipment is a sure sign of lack of skills. Only a fool will repeat the mistakes of others, a wise person learns from history and improves himself.

That's correct I pictured a very grim picture of PAF.
But those were old times when Man factor was more prominent than Machine factor. In modern times situation is changed. We do have better men, but not better Machines. This was my point.
I don't expect Thunders to go toe on toe against MKI or Rafales and come back home in one piece.
There is need of heavy plate form too. Like F104 starfighter which even in small numbers can create havoc on enemy air force....
This policy of using single engine light aircrafts with limited hard points can cost us a huge price some day......

 

[MastanKhan]

Sir,

I agree with your statement that the PAF needs a heavy aircraft, no arguing that thesis. Contrary to your other statements, having heart and tactics is a critical part of warfare, as equipment do not win wars by themselves. However, i am not saying the PAF should stop acquiring new weapons to match surrounding neighbors. There are many examples in history that favor tactics and morale compared to technology.

The Germans during WW2 produced some the most impress weapons ever seen, such as the Tiger Tank, ME 262, and Sturmgewehr rifle, but they were crashed by the Soviets who lacked adequate equipment. Most Soviet Soldiers were sent to battle without rifles and were told to pick one up from the dead The Soviet T34 who was a sitting target for Panzers/Tigers. The Luftwaffe and the Soviet air force aren't even comparable. What propelled the Soviets to victory was the heart to fight and defend the motherland. On the other hand, the Germans with impressive equipment saw no motivation to fight other than surviving for food and retreating back to Germany

The Americans during the Vietnam War outclassed the Vietnamese in ever field expect morale and tactics. American support for the war so low that a draft had to implemented. Even with the draft many dodged the daft and headed towards Canada, due to a lack of will to fight. On the other side, Vietnamese civilians, aka Vietcong, fought a nuclear power successful with nothing more than sticks and stones. One the guerrilla tactics used by the Vietcong was Punji Stick, a hole camouflaged with leaves that contained sharp bamboo stick placed vertical into the hole. A primitive but effective tactic.the Vietcong would also use this method to force the wounded soldier to be transported by helicopter to a medical hospital for treatment, which was viewed as being more damaging to the enemy's cause than death. The Vietnamese air force was no match for the USAF on paper. The USAF had the numbers and quality edge, but the Vietnamese used tactics. Knowing the early F4 didn't carry cannons, mig17 and mig15 forced the heavier phantoms into a dogfight which favored the Vietnamese. Another example, the F-105 formations used to fly every day at the same time in the same flight paths and used the same callsigns over and over again. The Vietnamese realized that and would send mig21s to intercept that fighter bombers with great success. While the Vietnamese may not have defended their air space properly, it was a deep shock to American planers that relied on modern technology to win wars rather then tactics. Eventually, tactics and heart led to a Vietnamese victory.

It has been a honor talking a veteran member of this prestige forum, hope our interaction countiues in the future. Btw I have not served in the PAF, in fact I am still a minor.

Hi,

Thank you for your post----. We really appreciate the esteemed members of our forces here----minors---majors or sqdrn ldrs----.

The german offensive faltered at Moscow---not only for the fighting of the Russians---but for the weather---it was all about the timing---they missed the beat---.

Millions of Russians died----and off course they fought and died for their motherland---now if they had better weapons----the story would not be the same.

Now as for Vietnam----it was a drama created the American politicians that had tied both the hands of the American military behind its back---.

America the super power could afford to lose a few thousand troops---big deal---it also EXPERIMENTED a new doctrine of no machine guns on the fighter aircraft----it failed and they moved ahead

What did the U S suffer---a few more aircraft lost---a few more pilots lost big deal---hehn---in light of the bigger picture.

Now when it wanted to show its real might----then you see the Operation Linebacker 2----. Within 24 hrs of its beginning---the Vietnamese were begging the americans to stop----with 48 hours----they were licking the feet of the americans to stop.

All these little tactic of sticks and stones and tunnels did not do anything to stop the americans----. They just took ut the Vietcong when they wanted if they wanted---no one should ever believe otherwise---it would be on their own peril.

Never ever believe in the dramas and stories created against the Americans by anyone---. American planners were never shocked about anything----.

Sir----you have no clue about the americans about how they think and why they act the way they do---and if that is what you have been taught at your military academy and training----that is wrong and not productive.

Vitnam lost between 3---4 million people----and they have yet to recover from that war---and if was not for the help of the west---they would still be doomed.

The Americas spared the Vietnamese because they were a future candidates to be converted to Christianity.

The Vietnamese resisted---because they had the landscape to resist----jungles----.

Pakistan is flatland----you cannot hide anywhere except for the mountains farther away from india---and lastly----for the world---.

So---just to use your post---if both these countries had better weapons----they would have offered a better fight---.

Now---when that example is in front of us----why do we have to act stupid---why not to prepare for it right up front----.

According to you---we have heart---we have tactics---so if we can get some potent weapons---that will cover the base----.

I don't understand why would Pakistan military knowing this---would have suicidal thoughts going into a battle and basing their resistance or to go to fight with tactics and a bigger heart---rather than procure the right weapon up front---.

My man---there is an inherent problem with the mind set of the Pakistani air force---they have a suicidal tendency---and that never wins wars.

In a modern day warfare---anyone operating a modern day war machine----would be a capable and an able fighter by default---that is the function of technology.

Superior technology has a multiplier effect of showing increase strength just because it performs much better and automatically.

For your tactics to work---you have to bring the enemy into YOUR ZONE OF DEATH---what if the enemy refuses to play by your game plan????

 

[untitled]

Now as for Vietnam----it was a drama created the American politicians that had tied both the hands of the American military behind its back---.

I always have wondered why the US suffered more air to air losses in Vietnam than in any subsequent war. Why did they not just bomb the Vietnamese air bases like they did in the Gulf war?

 

[MastanKhan]

I always have wondered why the US suffered more air to air losses in Vietnam than in any subsequent war. Why did they not just bomb the Vietnamese air bases like they did in the Gulf war?

Hi,

Who knows what the American politicians were thinking during that war---. You have to remember----other than the first and the second world war and the Korean war---all other wars had been HIJACKED by the defense contractors and Vietnam war was the beginning of a war experimenting weapons systems.

You have to remember that the ultimate goal was to prepare for a war with Russia----so any conflict was a testing ground for war with Russia---how the equipment would perform and how would the weapons act.

Let me give you an example---they tested a rifle in Iraq----.17 caliber------smaller than a .22-----but with a muzzle velocity close to 4150 ft/sec----hit in the stomach area---it resulted in the total evisceration of the area----just literally cut the body in two.

A totally brutal and ruthless way to kill someone---but this round could not be used legally by a soldier---but only thru a contractor----.

So----any 3rd world country that brags about its victory against the U S---dream on----you were just the testing ground for up and coming weapons or you were just the victim of old ammunition to be utilized---first of all you would find the real shelf life of the ammo and secondly----you will utilize it as it would be more expensive to de-weaponize them.

 

[Providence]

F16 can never take out F35. PERIOD !

I always have wondered why the US suffered more air to air losses in Vietnam than in any subsequent war. Why did they not just bomb the Vietnamese air bases like they did in the Gulf war?

Depends on the intent which might be different from the goals. Eg. In vietnam war, goal was to defeat the communists which was being achieved but the intent was to prolong the war to test some advanced weapons and improve accuracies of platforms. So ..

 

[SQ8]

So a F-16 was able to (reportedly) have better kinematics than a F-35. Which somehow disregards that the F-35 will see the F-16 first, track the F-16 first.. shoot at it first... and even be able to shoot at it regardless of where the F-16 is coming from. Its EOTS will see the F-16 and tell the pilot from miles away where the F-16 is coming from and somehow that is ignored in this latest BS from supposed analysts who are losing their relevance after the cold war.

As for the JF-17, its better it not go against a F-35 otherwise it will have its spare parts distributed all over the area.

 

[N/A]

F16 can never take out F35. PERIOD !



Depends on the intent which might be different from the goals. Eg. In vietnam war, goal was to defeat the communists which was being achieved but the intent was to prolong the war to test some advanced weapons and improve accuracies of platforms. So ..

Last time I checked North Vietnam overran South Vietnam...what kind of objective was achieved

 

[gangsta_rap]

JF-17s aren't meant to deal with fighters ahead of its generation.

But just to let the pondering continue, in the past the PAF had made kills on a superior aircraft using jets that were a generation or so behind (F86 vs early MiG-21 variants)

 

[MastanKhan]

Last time I checked North Vietnam overran South Vietnam...what kind of objective was achieved

Hi,

So---whatever the purpose was or a lack of purpose---it was served----the U S military withdrew---south was left to be run over.

With the U S---there is hardly an objective in wars with 3rd world countries----. It is just the big cat playing with mice----. U S cared less about the casualties---they are just a part of the game---just to sharpen the blade----just that the soldiers don't lose the edge---something for the soldiers to do---they have been sitting idle for too long.

Spill some blood here some blood there---it is just to warm up the cockles of the heart---.

 

[Providence]

Last time I checked North Vietnam overran South Vietnam...what kind of objective was achieved

We did .. people tend to get confused since the war was prolonged and judge US over the entire period which is a fallacy

 

[N/A]

Hi,

So---whatever the purpose was or a lack of purpose---it was served----the U S military withdrew---south was left to be run over.

With the U S---there is hardly an objective in wars with 3rd world countries----. It is just the big cat playing with mice----. U S cared less about the casualties---they are just a part of the game---just to sharpen the blade----just that the soldiers don't lose the edge---something for the soldiers to do---they have been sitting idle for too long.

Spill some blood here some blood there---it is just to warm up the cockles of the heart---.

With all due respect I disagree with your statement. A country does not just go to war for laughs and pictures even if they are a superpower. All wars have a purpose to be fought.

The purpose of the Vietnam War was to stop the spread of communism and defend Saigon. The Truman Doctrine clearly stated that spread of Soviet influence and communism was to be met with force. The Korean War was a successful example of the Truman Doctrine. The American objective in Vietnam was met with failure, there's is no arguing that.

The Americans didn't care about casualties??? 58,151 dead, 153,303 wounded and 2,489 missing is no small number, if those numbers are your definition of spill some blood here and there, then your views are similar to Stalin and Pol Pot. Seeing the American deaths on tv, the biggest anti-war protests occurred in the US and many simply refused to severe in Vietnam as draftees. Details about the war’s conduct–caused more and more Americans to question the accountability of the U.S. government and military establishments. My friends during the 70s and 80s the US/Nato had the sharpest stick ever known to man followed by the Warsaw Pact, which was starting to crumble from within.

The Japanese and South Koreans haven't fought for decades, according to your thesis they should invade North Korea to sharpen the stick and so the soldiers have something to do because they been sitting idle for to long. If that was the reason for conflicts then the world wouldn't exist

 

[ZooZoo]

With all due respect I disagree with your statement. A country does not just go to war for laughs and pictures even if they are a superpower. All wars have a purpose to be fought.

The purpose of the Vietnam War was to stop the spread of communism and defend Saigon. The Truman Doctrine clearly stated that spread of Soviet influence and communism was to be met with force. The Korean War was a successful example of the Truman Doctrine. The American objective in Vietnam was met with failure, there's is no arguing that.

The Americans didn't care about casualties??? 58,151 dead, 153,303 wounded and 2,489 missing is no small number, if those numbers are your definition of spill some blood here and there, then your views are similar to Stalin and Pol Pot. Seeing the American deaths on tv, the biggest anti-war protests occurred in the US and many simply refused to severe in Vietnam as draftees. Details about the war’s conduct–caused more and more Americans to question the accountability of the U.S. government and military establishments. My friends during the 70s and 80s the US/Nato had the sharpest stick ever known to man followed by the Warsaw Pact, which was starting to crumble from within.

The Japanese and South Koreans haven't fought for decades, according to your thesis they should invade North Korea to sharpen the stick and so the soldiers have something to do because they been sitting idle for to long. If that was the reason for conflicts then the world wouldn't exist

You sound logical.. I will follow you and your post...

Though I may or maynot agree with you views here, but you put things very logically.

Its hard to find such member on PDF..

+ve rating from my side.

 

[MastanKhan]

With all due respect I disagree with your statement. A country does not just go to war for laughs and pictures even if they are a superpower. All wars have a purpose to be fought.

The purpose of the Vietnam War was to stop the spread of communism and defend Saigon. The Truman Doctrine clearly stated that spread of Soviet influence and communism was to be met with force. The Korean War was a successful example of the Truman Doctrine. The American objective in Vietnam was met with failure, there's is no arguing that.

The Americans didn't care about casualties??? 58,151 dead, 153,303 wounded and 2,489 missing is no small number, if those numbers are your definition of spill some blood here and there, then your views are similar to Stalin and Pol Pot. Seeing the American deaths on tv, the biggest anti-war protests occurred in the US and many simply refused to severe in Vietnam as draftees. Details about the war’s conduct–caused more and more Americans to question the accountability of the U.S. government and military establishments. My friends during the 70s and 80s the US/Nato had the sharpest stick ever known to man followed by the Warsaw Pact, which was starting to crumble from within.

The Japanese and South Koreans haven't fought for decades, according to your thesis they should invade North Korea to sharpen the stick and so the soldiers have something to do because they been sitting idle for to long. If that was the reason for conflicts then the world wouldn't exist

Sir,

I understand your answer ---and I don't mean to be disrespectful. You are going to write what you know of and I am going to share what I experience and learnt.

It is easy to bash the U S---I do it quite often---its screw up are royal----but so what---where is the big deal in it!

Japan and korea may decide whatever they want to---I am not getting into that discussion.

We are talking about America---60000 dead---people dogding the draft or whatever---over 150k wounded----it was just like a seasonal flood in the river Indus---.

So---4 million dead Vietnamese----their nation destroyed---their lands destroyed---agent orange still wreaking havoc----

Life in the mainland U S went on like there was no tomorrow---. So what if the American troops have to be pulled out of Vietnam----.

As I mentioned---it took Operation Linebacker 2----just 24 hours for the north Vietnamese to start begging to stop the strikes. What did the U S do------took 7 days-----brought the north Vietnamese to a pulp-----complete and total destruction of their capital---that was jus a whiff of the might of the U S military---.

Why the U S politicians did what they did in Vietnam---to tie the hands of their armed forces---only they know better.

Or why they refused armor ( tanks ) to the American troops being deployed in Somalia---knowing very well that they will be vulnerable to the enemy firepower.

Okay--agreed the the U S failed in Vietnam----but then where is communism in Vietnam---they are ready to align with the U S again----.

Truman had a doctrine----but after he left---it changed with changing times---the threats that were visible---just dissipated into thin air---.

Off course all wars when started have a purpose---but where they end up is a different story. Like Afghanistan---like Iraq---like Libya----like Syria----they all had a purpose----.

In Afghanistan it disappeared after the first 30 days---in Iraq---it disappeared in the first year----in Libya---it never started---in Syria----it just lasted for a few days and backfired----.

Citizens may have questioned and wanted accountability---but then what happened---it all fizzled out----.

As for the dead bodies of soldiers coming in----there is a solution to that as well----you don't allow it to be photographed and the media won't show the caskets coming in---.

The world always had conflicts---with a much higher number of casualties in the 19 century and before----.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Let me give you an example---they tested a rifle in Iraq----.17 caliber------smaller than a .22-----but with a muzzle velocity close to 4150 ft/sec----hit in the stomach area---it resulted in the total evisceration of the area----just literally cut the body in two.

With due respect sir velocity of bullet is 2350-2550fps,but still it has same effect as you mention but Practically it has some disadvantages that's why not even special forces use it.
Regarding Topic i agree with you,we need heavy bomber we need to keep our skills and Tech both equal.