It is time for Navy Air Arm to take over from PAF and start flying JF-17's

[Falcon26]

With Pakistan now manufacturing it’s own fighter jets, PN must have 2-3 JF-17 squadrons. During wartime, PAF will be too busy dealing with an enemy 3x bigger than it to seriously support PN. PN pilots can be trained with PAF & then handed over to the navy. This whole aversion to dedicated fighter wing under PN command shows the rigidity of Pakistani thinking which has shown hostility to common sense and which seems embedded throughout the Pakistani society.

 

[SipahSalar]

Would the Navy then also have to get their own AEW/AWACS, set up a air academy to train fast jet pilots and buy their own trainers etc? Or would it be cheaper and more effective to improve the coordination between the PN and PAF for combined operations?

No need for a new academy, Navy pilots are already trained at Army Aviation School, so I don't see why they cant be trained at PAF school. As for AWACS, if PAF is going to dedicate an AWACS to maritime operations, then they can simply transfer the plane to navy. Lets be honest, no matter how improved to coordination between PAF and PN, it wont be at the same level as PN operating its own aircraft.

 

[sparten]

Carrier is useless for Pakistan we have no global ambition for against any country and tell me what reason that you want carrier in PN

We need a small carrier to provide air defence to the fleet/some heavy ASW capability. Right now our ships are naked 1000 KM from shore. We need to be able to protect our trade and maritime assets.

 

[Ultima Thule]

We need a small carrier to provide air defence to the fleet/some heavy ASW capability. Right now our ships are naked 1000 KM from shore. We need to be able to protect our trade and maritime assets.

No we need a air defense Frigate/destroyer with a long range SAMs rather than a useless Carrier and b/w which carrier use long range SAMs with exception of Russian one and AD frigate/ Destroyer equipped with long range SAMs can do the same same job more effectively and Cheaply think logically @sparten

 

[hassan1]

 

[ziaulislam]

With Pakistan now manufacturing it’s own fighter jets, PN must have 2-3 JF-17 squadrons. During wartime, PAF will be too busy dealing with an enemy 3x bigger than it to seriously support PN. PN pilots can be trained with PAF & then handed over to the navy. This whole aversion to dedicated fighter wing under PN command shows the rigidity of Pakistani thinking which has shown hostility to common sense and which seems embedded throughout the Pakistani society.

question is whether there should be 2-3 sq dedicated for PN under training/ logistics of PAF or under PN?

the former would be cost effective, and for that person armed forces doctrine is joint forces and has a command structure( joint cheif of staff)..this ensure to avoid needless duplication and fluent inter operability

I don't think you can carry more than 2 AShMs on JF-17 conformal fuel tanks or not. Besides conformal fuel tanks cannot be dumped and effect a plane's dogfighting capability.

each c802 A weighs about 600kg, thunder is slotted to payload of 4.5 tones

if wing strengths are done thunder can cary 4 Ash, conformal fuel tanks are designed to minimize any aerodynamic problems

if gripen can do it so can thunder(if PAF wants it too and is ready to invest)

before images came online people were claiming it cant carry 2 even though the claim didnt make sense
but weight wise even with current engine a payload of 600--800x4 shouldnt be any issue, the range will be though an issue and so might the wing strength

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

in 71 air force destroyed it's own two ships.
Navy should have its own air force , bit pilots should be trained by PAF.

 

[YeBeWarned]

a whole Sq of Flankers is need of a time, dedicated for Anti Ship role ..

 

[SipahSalar]

in 71 air force destroyed it's own two ships.
Navy should have its own air force , bit pilots should be trained by PAF.

Yeah i remember reading about that, they misidentified a Pakistani destroyer as an Indian one as a fast attack craft which are much smaller in size.

 

[GriffinsRule]

How many Navys in the world have fighter jets as part of their armada that DONT operate aircraft carriers?

I can't think of any actually. Even countries with much larger navies and maritime borders don't see the need for jets. These include, Japan, Turkey, Australia, Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, Taiwan, S Skorea, etc.

That tells me that there is no empirical evidence that shows it is a requirement for most countries, and some of these have actual blue water capability (unlike Pakistan). The air forces of these countries would seem to suffice in providing them with the air power they would need against potential threats. All these navies operate their own maritime patrol and anti-ship/sub airplanes of course, just like PN.

But here is where I see a fallacy in the arguments presented in favor of PN having fighter jets. It is like somehow, they would be able to perform a function that PAF operated jets can not. That somehow there will be better coordination because they will be operated by PN. Even if you give in to this idea, I don't see why this coordination can not extend between PAF & PN, given that the any maritime minded PAF squadrons are based basically in Karachi. And if there is a gap in such, that should be what is improved as a practical solution.

The blue-on-blue incidents from 40 years ago is a poor example to use, not only because in war, such incidents can occur, but it also flies in the face of the professionalism of both arms. Are we to believe that they have not studied past mistakes and not taken any remedial action to address them in the future? This does not even include the fact that technology has changed over the years as well and having radars, IFF, secure comms etc, identification is not going to happen with pilots flying over a ship to get a visual. Their antiship missiles are of course going to be used from standoff ranges.

This all ignores the cost factor of course ... can PN actually afford to buy, operate and maintain fast jets or are those resources better used on increasing and updating its surface ship capability.

Now, here is another argument I can think of ... is a PN operated fighter squadron going to be only concerned with the IN? A: No. Are they going to face off against IAF and their aircraft in a conflict? A: Yes. If operating these expensive multirole aircraft, are they not going to take part in offensive missions against IA if PA is under threat in their sector? A: No, of course they will. So that means any potential squadron of PN would have the exact same roles as a PAF squadron.
So what will be different exactly from the role that is being filled by PAF at the moment. PAF is still going to provide top cover to the Navys P-3Cs and ATRs, and using its AShMs against IN ships.

Can any of the proponents offer any substantial benefits that maybe I am not seeing or are not able to be performed by PAF?
.
.
.
.
On a side note, these following countries have figther jets in their naval air arms but all of them also operate air craft carriers. Did I miss any?
United States (F-18s, F-35s),
United Kingdom (none until F-35 comes on)
China (Flankers),
France (Rafale),
India (Mig-35),
Russia (Flankers,
Italy (Harries, then F-35 later)

 

[sparten]

No we need a air defense Frigate/destroyer with a long range SAMs rather than a useless Carrier and b/w which carrier use long range SAMs with exception of Russian one and AD frigate/ Destroyer equipped with long range SAMs can do the same same job more effectively and Cheaply think logically @sparten

Just ask the Italians. Or the Argies. Everytime someone has tried to defend against an enemy with carriers, with land based airpower, they have suffered. Land based airpower has limitations which the sea based ones don't.

We need small carriers, 25-30,000 tonnes. 15-25 A/C. Not Ford class Supercarriers.

 

[Armchair-General]

How many Navys in the world have fighter jets as part of their armada that DONT operate aircraft carriers?

I can't think of any actually. Even countries with much larger navies and maritime borders don't see the need for jets. These include, Japan, Turkey, Australia, Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, Taiwan, S Skorea, etc.

That tells me that there is no empirical evidence that shows it is a requirement for most countries, and some of these have actual blue water capability (unlike Pakistan). The air forces of these countries would seem to suffice in providing them with the air power they would need against potential threats. All these navies operate their own maritime patrol and anti-ship/sub airplanes of course, just like PN.

But here is where I see a fallacy in the arguments presented in favor of PN having fighter jets. It is like somehow, they would be able to perform a function that PAF operated jets can not. That somehow there will be better coordination because they will be operated by PN. Even if you give in to this idea, I don't see why this coordination can not extend between PAF & PN, given that the any maritime minded PAF squadrons are based basically in Karachi. And if there is a gap in such, that should be what is improved as a practical solution.

The blue-on-blue incidents from 40 years ago is a poor example to use, not only because in war, such incidents can occur, but it also flies in the face of the professionalism of both arms. Are we to believe that they have not studied past mistakes and not taken any remedial action to address them in the future? This does not even include the fact that technology has changed over the years as well and having radars, IFF, secure comms etc, identification is not going to happen with pilots flying over a ship to get a visual. Their antiship missiles are of course going to be used from standoff ranges.

This all ignores the cost factor of course ... can PN actually afford to buy, operate and maintain fast jets or are those resources better used on increasing and updating its surface ship capability.

Now, here is another argument I can think of ... is a PN operated fighter squadron going to be only concerned with the IN? A: No. Are they going to face off against IAF and their aircraft in a conflict? A: Yes. If operating these expensive multirole aircraft, are they not going to take part in offensive missions against IA if PA is under threat in their sector? A: No, of course they will. So that means any potential squadron of PN would have the exact same roles as a PAF squadron.
So what will be different exactly from the role that is being filled by PAF at the moment. PAF is still going to provide top cover to the Navys P-3Cs and ATRs, and using its AShMs against IN ships.

Can any of the proponents offer any substantial benefits that maybe I am not seeing or are not able to be performed by PAF?
.
.
.
.
On a side note, these following countries have figther jets in their naval air arms but all of them also operate air craft carriers. Did I miss any?
United States (F-18s, F-35s),
United Kingdom (none until F-35 comes on)
China (Flankers),
France (Rafale),
India (Mig-35),
Russia (Flankers,
Italy (Harries, then F-35 later)

India does not have the Mig-35 but uses the Mig-29K and I think they also used Harrier until recent retirement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet

 

[GriffinsRule]

India does not have the Mig-35 but uses the Mig-29K and I think they also used Harrier until recent retirement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet

Thanks for the correction ... figured they would have similar lineage. And yes, their Harriers have been retired.

 

[SipahSalar]

I can't think of any actually. Even countries with much larger navies and maritime borders don't see the need for jets. These include, Japan, Turkey, Australia, Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, Taiwan, S Skorea, etc.

We don't need to imitate anyone. Pakistan Army Aviation became independent in 1958, US Army Aviation began in 1983. We are facing a massive threat to the east and are therefore in a unique situation so there is no point in not being creative.

Still quoting an example on that topic. Chinese Navy operates Su-30s. "But they have an aircraft carrier!" Their Su-30's don't operate from an aircraft carrier, they are deployed at ground bases.

But here is where I see a fallacy in the arguments presented in favor of PN having fighter jets. It is like somehow, they would be able to perform a function that PAF operated jets can not. That somehow there will be better coordination because they will be operated by PN. Even if you give in to this idea, I don't see why this coordination can not extend between PAF & PN, given that the any maritime minded PAF squadrons are based basically in Karachi. And if there is a gap in such, that should be what is improved as a practical solution.

PN already operates several aircraft armed with AShM missiles such as the Atlantic and P3- Orion. That means the Navy already knows its doctrine when it comes to flying air assets in anti-ship, ASW role. PAF and PN may not work together efficiently because of chain of command issues and military egos. You can pick up any history book where two services had to work with each other, and you will find a lot of damage being done due to clash of egos. Be it British soldiers being transported by British Navy during the European Colonization era or PAF and PN friendly fire incidents of 1971. Therefore, it is common sense to expect the PAF and PN operations to be less than optimal and less fluid if they work on their own.

This all ignores the cost factor of course ... can PN actually afford to buy, operate and maintain fast jets or are those resources better used on increasing and updating its surface ship capability.

Not asking for Navy to procure additional aircraft. Just to transfer the command of the JF-17's to PN. We already own those aircraft, we already have the Mehran airbase, so the infrastructure is already there so the costs would be minimal. PN pilots already train at Army Aviation school so i don't see why they can't train at PAF school. As for resources, just move the resources PAF is using to operate these aircraft to the PN.

Now, here is another argument I can think of ... is a PN operated fighter squadron going to be only concerned with the IN? A: No. Are they going to face off against IAF and their aircraft in a conflict? A: Yes. If operating these expensive multirole aircraft, are they not going to take part in offensive missions against IA if PA is under threat in their sector? A: No, of course they will. So that means any potential squadron of PN would have the exact same roles as a PAF squadron.

If PA is under attack in their sector? What is their sector? Karachi? Because Mehran Airbase is in Karachi. If PA is under attack in Karachi, then PAF has a base there and they can help them out. During war PAF will already be flying these squadrons in a maritime role so they won't be available for anything else anyways. Especially considering their armaments.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Always remember that the Paf had shown a treasonous attitude towards the army and the navy in the past---.

When did PAF show treasonous attitude towards PA and PN?