Bilal Khan (Quwa)
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2016
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 97
- Country
- Location
To the PAF's credit, it tried getting HMD/S and HOBS earlier on. E.g., the PAF tried getting AIM-9X and IRIS-T for the F-16, but in both cases, the U.S. clogged the attempt. Likewise, getting an off-the-shelf HMD/S for the JF-17 was impossible, forcing the PAF to wait on the Chinese or someone else to come up with an entirely original solution.I can assure you back in 2011 PAF bosses were well aware of BVR tactics and knew the limitations. That being said this video is very biased and impartial to knowing the USAF tactics (which are the best in the world) and then applying them in a limited scenario. Aiming low and high is something practiced from the 80s when the old two ship formations were abandoned in favor of a more independent wingman.
you don’t dive down just to get the missile to follow you put it on the beam and then dive down to get it into thicker air(and increased friction/drag). However, that is where missiles that can loft themselves like the Amraam and others have the advantage that they don’t follow you immediately. Russian systems haven’t gotten the loft profile in yet but the Chinese are following that profile.
But
The caveat isn’t the PAF bosses knowing this but the new greenhorn in a JF-17. Learning and experience is everything which also applies to decisions made in the heat of battle and why Hassan Siddiquis su-30 claim is taken with lesser regard in terms of pilot understanding of weapons system than wgcdr Nauman’s takedown of the Mig-21.
Today’s PAF pilot has to be exceptionally smart and natural strategist. Both capable and enabled to make independent and collective decisions based upon merit of the decision rather than rank.
#2 &4 of a flight will be providing input into positioning for an attack as much as the lead and suggesting different strategies.
In a way the PAF has made the smarter decision to invest in BvR before weapons for the merge such as HOBS missiles and HMDs because they saw the chess game developing back then - and tested the SD-10 against the AIM-120C and found the performance equivalent.
It would be interesting since the push off system adds a bit of weight versus just sliding off a rail.
I think the PAF generally understands what it needs to do, but it's usually undercut by factors outside of its control.
The only thing I think the PAF had brushed aside (until now apparently) is IRST. However, even then, I think it was likely due to not seeing enough of a net-new benefit over TDL, BVR, et.al versus the cost of having to add it earlier in the pipeline.
Last edited: