What's new

JF 17 is The Wrong Omnirole Aircraft For PAKISTAN

Hi,

It is very simple----. The poster said to me---the JH7B would be vulnerable to the enemy aircraft---and my reply---so will the SU 27---. It has not stopped the enemy from using the SU 27 .

You cannot place ay of the fighter close to the border anymore----all these aircraft will be farthest from the border. With the current ranges of the MRL's and standoff weapons----closer air bases are toast.

Loiter time is the most important part of the combat----. 4 hours of loiter time for the Phantoms to the 30 minutes loiter time for the Mig 21's----we all know what happened in the 73 ramazan war with the Egyptian fighters----. The Israeli phantoms were waiting for them to go back to refuel and then pounce on them.

I am not talking about JH7A----it is the JH7B I am mentioning all thru the conversation----. If the paf could use the A5's and F7P's and PG's and make something out of them---they for sure can make the JH7B usefull----.

Now if they can get the J 11---I am all for it---now you have an air superiority fighter as well. But the JH7B in cae cost was a factor and the J11 type not available.

The U S air force the force the enemy to fight the way the U S air force wants them to fight---due to the numbers and technology----and not due to fact that they are some super studs.

Give the enemy the same resources as the U S has and switch the roles and assets---and the enemy would do the same to the U S.

It is very easy to make claims ON A FULL STOMACH.

Again I would absolutely Agree with @MastanKhan . People here should do some research about JH-7B, its different as compare to JH-7A. One member also raised Concern on its Radar. Well PAF can get better Radar if it want. When ever We Purchase anything from China, we do give it Modernization By installing Local or Western Components.

Secondly People are saying that JH-7B will be venerable, well it can Carry WVRs, with Better Radar it will surely carry BVRs. Has Modern EW with reduced Frontal RCS. We can send few of these with Thunders and few Vipers Cover. Once they Penetrate into Enemy's Territory, You should Expect a Big Bang Bang.
 
Much has been said in the favor and against the JF17. Regardless of people's opinion, JF17 is here to stay, and to replace most Mirage, A5, and F7 aircraft in PAF inventory. It is likely that PAF looks into buying a Gen 5 aircraft in the future, for deep strike low observable capability. However, the mix of MLU, Blk52, and JF17 batches satisfactorily meet the air defence requirement of Pakistan, the role of PAF. JF17 is more capable than many other aircraft in our theatre. The traditional issues are not capability, but supportability, which is typical of any Chinese origin program till it settles in. Indian Su, Bison, Rafaele, and Mig programs are only a threat to Pakistan if they are found serviceable, which is not so likely in the near future.
 
Mirages and Most F-7s are now History. We should Get Rid of them as Quickly as Possible. Only F-7 PGs will remain with PAF for sometime as they are relatively Newer and have better performance.
Regarding Mirages, The Machines Have Crossed their Last Point of Deliverance.
So its Better to Forget both.
We should Seriously think about Some Other Jet, Some new jet to which we can dedicate what was dedicated to Mirages. Means here I will Choose JH-7B, for Caring Ra'ad for Nuclear Strikes or Even Babar. JH-7B offers 9 Hardpoints with 10 k + Payload.
And For F-7s, JF-17 Thunder are their Direct Replacement.

I think we should also Think to Sell These Mirage Roses and F-7 Ps to get some money out of it.
That money can be utilized in Purchasing new Platforms.
Who will buy them as you said, if they have crossed their last point of deliverance ?
 
Who will buy them as you said, if they have crossed their last point of deliverance ?

About Some Mirages I have said in Particular !
Not about whole fleet !
And their are countries who want to have cheaper Birds for Some sort of Air Defense.
 
The poster above makes the SAME point I've made to @MastanKhan , that in the current scenario, the JFT fires a BVR missile from JUST as much distance as the SU-30 and the Mirage 2000 or the F-16 would, in the Indo-Pak scenario. So majority of the work is going to be depending upon missiles. In dog fight, JFT can take on all Indian strike platforms but SU-30 and Rafale (when it comes). The -16 can take on the SU-30 and Rafale. Starting 2018, you'll see orders on the table for more assets and much modern at that. You just have to wait.
Hi,

The BVR scenario is nothing new---I have stated that on this forum around 6-8 years ago when members here were clueless about how BVR air warfare would change the world-----. There was a lots of sarcasm at that time as well.

Do I remember the fights that I had on this board---off course I do----an elephant never forgets.

Now everyone is riding the wave of bvr---suddenly they woke up to it.

An su 30 carries 8 BVR's---a JFT---2 BVR's-----------------. At 100% of the range of the BVR missile---the Pakistani and indian---the kill ratio is 25% okay---which means 1 our of 4 indian missiles would strike and both of Pakistani bvr's will miss.

The JFT's will have to get much closer than the Indians to make a hit and as close they get---the more losses they will suffer----. With a larger aircraft and with massive jammers----we got a problem of getting a lock on at first---.

You are talking about the 19 billion dollar assets now----. During Musharraf's time we had reached 16 billion dollars---which if compared to the current exchange rate is like having 25 billion dollars----.

Nations fortunes are not built on will have---but with what have you done with what you had----and that is where the paf has failed . It is all about the timing.
 
Last edited:
This I agree with but it is in addition to the JF17. Two squadrons of SU 34 Platypus should be enough.
I think we are saving money for j31. And may be we are not much worry due to our nuclear bombs, and we can threaten them with nuclear weapons, as it doesn't matter even if India purchases 200 billion dollar worth weapons .
 
I think we are saving money for j31. And may be we are not much worry due to our nuclear bombs, and we can threaten them with nuclear weapons, as it doesn't matter even if India invest 200 billion dollar for weapons .

J-31 are not coming before a Decade. In mean while you do need something as a Stop Gap.
Idea is to Purchase Less Numbers of Capable Platform to Boost over all Capability of Airforce.
We don't need to buy Big numbers.
2 Squardons of JH-7B, 24-30 Su-35 will prove Very Vital and act as a Perfect stop Gap.
 
I thought about all this and wrote the argument. Here's the current situation, Pakistan due to its air force undergoing modernization and the Army being stretched too thin, KNOWS that if a full scale war starts,it won't last for more than 2-3 weeks in it current scenario. Advancing IBG's will require a response and the Nasar will be used.

What you are missing is, the fact that if India decides to put all of the IAF, or 75% of her air assets in a war against Pakistan, you can NOT win. Its simple a much bigger and overwhelming force and PAF's 150 BVR able jets with 200 or so point defense or limited strike fighters like the Mirages, won't cut it. so the answer is......the Nasar unfortunately due to what it brings to the table.

There is a reason why multiple independent military analysts and organizations call this little tiny missile, the MOST dangerous missile developed in the South Asia. Its purpose is one and its lethality is unchallenged and it'll ruin the area. Results would be a terrible region with half the population gone and NEITHER side being able to "WIN" the war.

If you are fighting with me and I have a small Revolver with six bullets in it, and you have two machine guns with 500 bullets each, the chances are, I'll try to survive and will use my six bullets at you as soon as the conflict starts. This is the most dangerous YET real notion in Indo-Pak's scenario. And that's where your military's at!!!!

Now back to the topic of acquiring new air assets, if Pakistan has 400 4th or 4.5th gen jets, a mix of 250 JFT's (block II or III), about 100-120 F-16's and about 44 J-11D's (or 44 SU-30's or 60 FC-20's) dedicated to the PAF, your total comes to around 440+ jets, all 4th gen, (leave out the J-31 for now) + add SAM coverage to it.

This represents a quantum leap in your defensive capability. The area-denial is the name of the game. With the above Mix, IAF can not use its strike platforms through using the SU-30's, Mirages and Rafale's to provide serious ground support or air superiority.

Dealing with 400+ PAF's multi-role air-crafts', India knows that using 400 jets against Pakistan means losing 150-200 of those. THAT by itself, will push out India's regional power goals by a decade, and will make it look like a "Fake and Weak" military soup-o-powa. The cost-benefit ratio in this case is so high that it would be insane to do this and become very weak in-front of the Chinese, for the next 5-10 years, not to mention economic damage incurred worth billions!!

Now, add the Naval air arm, about 40 JFT's + 40 FC-20's (or 40 J-11D's) and serious SAM capability, you've nicely deterred the IN from doing any serious damage to Pakistan.

Also, for strike platforms, you can use non-nuclear Nasar's and Abdalis and cruise missiles with Cluster and other munitions. But a strong intercepting force would make sure the IAF never get anything close to air superiority or dominance. That will ensure serious losses to the IAF and will prolong the war in Pakistan's favor, forcing both to sit on the table.

India's objectives will always be to do large strikes and damage as much as they can, in a short fight before all world raises hell, so the "RED button" is never pressed. So a larger multi-role and interception capability would provide that. So if in a small conflict like a week long, India couldn't do successful larger scale damage, and still lost over 100 of its jets......what good was the assault to begin with? And the cost SO high??!!!!

Pakistan needs serious multi-role and interception capability, IMO, with between 400-450 advanced 4th or 4.5 gen jets. That would restore the conventional air arm balance and would stop any serious air superiority and all. Ground support can be done through standoff munitions. The world has moved on from traditional warfare.

If this was the 65, I'd be supporting strike platform needs. But with so much standoff and other missile capability, its needed to a much lower level, than interceptors to stop and damage the attacking IAF.
I somehow knew you will mention the missiles. they are an element of the arsenal not the the wholesome answer. all three arms of the military complement each other and support each other. India will always have numerical advantage from us whether or not we have committed part of the army in the west. when the Indians wanted to play in 2008 we recalled our units in no time from tribal areas and they are deployed well ahead of any possible Indian advance.

PAF wont survive by simply playing a defensive war within its territory, not only it will diminish itself but also the fail to safegaurd the defending forces of Pakistan army. it will have to take fight to Indian forward bases which will mean taking our the Indian eyes in the sky and any ground based systems that will hamper its operations including the airbases themselves.

since you are a civilian let me share some important aspect of reaction time for us when an Indian aircraft is airborne .. it is less than 10 minutes on average (real number is much less) . for the self preservation and survival we will like to take out the enemy'd ability to do that to us which will eventually open another set of challenges.

we are trained with the fact that we are weaker and smaller in number but we are prepared for that. trust me, pure defence within your borders is a failed concept from word go .. you will not only loose your forces and their capacity to defend but also loose your territory dynamic and aggressive defence is the key.. key term is still defence but is aggressive in a way that it is blunting the enemy's offensive capability. rest is all window dressing and concepts

deviated from subject too much .. will continue somewhere else..
now have to clean-up Indian insecure posts.
 
Last edited:
we are trained with the fact that we are weaker and smaller in number but we are prepared for that. trust me, pure defence within your borders is a failed concept from word go .. you will not only loose your forces and their capacity to defend but also loose your territory dynamic and aggressive defence is the key.. key term is still defence but is aggressive in a way that it is blunting the enemy's offensive capability. rest is all window dressing and concepts

Sir, may I point out that the main strategies to conduct warfare against foes in a post-nuclear world are economic. How do we fare economically now, and in the next few decades, will make all the difference, not the hardware and the platforms.
 
Sir, may I point out that the main strategies to conduct warfare against foes in a post-nuclear world are economic. How do we fare economically now, and in the next few decades, will make all the difference, not the hardware and the platforms.
absolutely agree my dear
but like I pointed out its the wrong thread and wrong department.

I will like to quote the American 101 airbourne phrase.... " we are always supposed to be surrounded"
since they land inside the enemy territory. I guess they would defer the economic war to their countrymen in Wall street
 
absolutely agree my dear
but like I pointed out its the wrong thread and wrong department.

I will like to quote the American 101 airbourne phrase.... " we are always supposed to be surrounded"
since they land inside the enemy territory. I guess they would defer the economic war to their countrymen in Wall street

Yessir, an entire nation fights the war, not just its military. I am back to lurking as you clean up.
 
Lets not shoot the messenger. Having a critical outlook vis a vis our defence procurement may help us rake up opportunities which we otherwise might have missed. I am no expert but I don't think we should deflect criticism of the JF 17 with typical boorishness. We have multiple options, we may have differing views over what may be the best fighter or multirole aircraft for Pakistan but at the end of the day we should agree that we should do what is best for Pakistan.

Actually the JF17 in many roles is supposed to be superior to the F16. It signals perhaps an end to dependency on the US which has given us nothing useful but sanctions. We were in trouble when the Pressler Amendment came through and it proved European and American companies were not reliable partners.
 
I somehow knew you will mention the missiles. they are an element of the arsenal not the the wholesome answer. all three arms of the military complement each other and support each other. India will always have numerical advantage from us whether or not we have committed part of the army in the west. when the Indians wanted to play in 2008 we recalled our units in no time from tribal areas and they are deployed well ahead of any possible Indian advance.

PAF wont survive by simply playing a defensive war within its territory, not only it will diminish itself but also the fail to safegaurd the defending forces of Pakistan army. it will have to take fight to Indian forward bases which will mean taking our the Indian eyes in the sky and any ground based systems that will hamper its operations including the airbases themselves.

we are trained with the fact that we are weaker and smaller in number but we are prepared for that. trust me, pure defence within your borders is a failed concept from word go .. you will not only loose your forces and their capacity to defend but also loose your territory dynamic and aggressive defence is the key.. key term is still defence but is aggressive in a way that it is blunting the enemy's offensive capability. rest is all window dressing and concepts

deviated from subject too much .. will continue somewhere else.. now have to clean-up Indian insecure posts.

No one said that Pakistan will just have to play "defense". What I wrote, is actually DIRECTLY inline with your GHQs strategy. If a war breaks out (I hope it never does), you won't see PAF venturing into the Indian territory much, may be a few dozen miles.

This isn't the 65 or the 71, you are in an EM, ELINT, SIGNIT, HUMINT era of warfare. Any jet airborne from Pakistan OR Indian basis will be immediately identified, by both GC and by AWACS. Technology has advanced so much that you can even identify the kind of payload the jet is carrying, in terms of missiles and even which kind of missiles, such as BVR vs. WVR, from hundreds of miles away!! India is fielding significant numbers of SAM's, and in tiers, such as Israeli systems, Russian and then Indian made systems. Getting identified the second you take off even flying low (in Punjab's and Sindh's territory), will get you identified by the AWACS as its beam is coming from upside down, vs. the azimuth scanning capability of ground based radar, that can be avoided by flying very low and mix small planes with ground clutter. You could avoid detection on the Kashmir side, but there is what one or two airbases near vicinity? Majority of the action will take place towards Punjab and Sindh's side as these the are two areas the IBG's have done significant training in, within the past few years. So the PAF, with its limited numbers, will have to remain defensive. Like I said, you take down, over 100+SU's and Mirages, etc, you'll negotiate an end very quickly. The way escalates, its anyone's game due to serious risks involve using Flash lights, if you know what I mean!!!


The missiles are actually THE wholesome answer right now and has been for the past 15 years. And it will be so for the next 5 at the least. You simply don't have the numbers to match the IAF and be able to then attack inside Indian airspace as nicely as you did back in the 65 and 71. The best way to lose aircrafts, is to send them onto missions inside India. There is a reason why so much focus has been given on acquiring and building standoff munitions.

Let's take a financial / cost related example. If it takes say $ 200,000 to make 1 Raad or whatever cruise missile, in 1 million, you made 5. In $ 20 million, you made 100 cruise missiles (cost of a JFT). 100 Cruise missiles are FOR SURE a LOT more impact-full than ONE JFT with offensive weapons of what? 2000KG or 3000 KG max??? So based on this theory, within $ 100 million, you could have a large arsenal of stealthy 500 cruise missiles.........do you see where I am going with this? If I fired 4 missiles at a target, I can cover over 120 targets with ONLY @ 20 million.

Now imagine sending PAF jets on over 120 missions, you'll FOR SURE lose about 1 aircraft per mission (just taking a very low number for this example). So that's 120 jets. Average cost of JFT / PAF jet is around $10-15 million (even old ones). So that means, $ 10 million (again taking a MUCH lower cost figure for this example), the number of money lost in jets at 1 jet per mission at 120 missions is: $ 10 million * 120 = $ 1.2 BILLION worth of plane. Now replace the $ 10 million and use a real F-16 or the JFT's price tag.......do you really think Pakistan has $ 2-3 billion to lose in jets that could easily be avoided through using cruise missiles??? Or do you think Pakistan REALLY has even 100 jets to lose, even if today, you had 400 4th Gen jets comprising of JFT block II and F-16's and J-11's????

This is a HECK of a price tag and many European nations won't be able to afford this much loss, let alone India or Pakistan!!! That's why I was saying, if you could JUST focus on using the PAF in the most advantageous way you can, against the IAF, and bring down about 50 SU-30's plus whatever other planes, the "ceasefire" would happen VERY quickly as like the above example, the price tag just from air force's standpoint is unfathomable. In India's case, replace the $ 10 or 20 million with $ 35-40 million as that's the cost of their SU's and advanced Mirages. So you are talking 100 lost jets accounting for over $ 3 billion!!! At $ 30 billion total defense budget, that's 10% gone in a few days with leaving a HUGE black hole in power projection and moral and everything else.

In 65 and 71 and all the way till 1990, the PAF was considered a better trained and posseses better technology, due to Western fighters and tactics. From the 90's, the PAF is no longer there. The IAF is now very well trained. So you have to keep all that in perspective. Their fighters just scored 6 kills against the EFT in the UK (no, the 12-0 was bullshiit and propaganda). So their pilots are much ahead then where they were, last time you met them!!!

Just my advise with my little knowledge, these defense related issues are extremely sensitive. You can't just use feel good statements like "we are trained", you need to back that up with numbers, weapons and tactics too. Similarly, just because you or I or MK wants the PAF to have a dedicated strike platform, does it make sense? If you hit the enemy where it hurts the most (with PAF's limited number), the short war would be over before any crazy head thinks of using the Flash Light on either side. And how do you do this? Take down enemy air assets as much as you can.

Don't lose your jets under the assumption that you could fly 50 feet above the air and hit their bases under such heavy EM frequencies monitoring small birds (like India picked up that Pigeon), let alone actual jets. So back to the core, Pakistan needs about 400-450 multi-role, included heavies to intercept and provide ground support. There are other means for hitting the FOB's and all.

I will like to quote the American 101 airbourne phrase.... " we are always supposed to be surrounded"

since they land inside the enemy territory. I guess they would defer the economic war to their countrymen in Wall street

You are missing the MOST important lesson taught in the US for warfare and military training "War is an extension of politics". To your post above, the Economic sanctions come first (like Iran), if they aren't useful, then the President (democratically elected Commander In-Chief) will order the US military to strike. So economic sanctions go hand in hand with the military action to produce desired results!!!

Tell Iran to boycott the 6 country negotiation pact and back out of the deal tomorrow. Watch what would happen and actually, extremely quickly. Just like the US president has already mentioned many times.
 
There are other means for hitting the FOB's and all.

Indeed there are, be very very careful when you advice using them as whatever you have we have.

Just my advise with my little knowledge, these defense related issues are extremely sensitive. You can't just use feel good statements like "we are trained", you need to back that up with numbers, weapons and tactics too. Similarly, just because you or I or MK wants the PAF to have a dedicated strike platform, does it make sense? If you hit the enemy where it hurts the most (with PAF's limited number), the short war would be over before any crazy head thinks of using the Flash Light on either side. And how do you do this? Take down enemy air assets as much as you can.


This is a HECK of a price tag and many European nations won't be able to afford this much loss, let alone India or Pakistan!!! That's why I was saying, if you could JUST focus on using the PAF in the most advantageous way you can, against the IAF, and bring down about 50 SU-30's plus whatever other planes, the "ceasefire" would happen VERY quickly as like the above example, the price tag just from air force's standpoint is unfathomable. In India's case, replace the $ 10 or 20 million with $ 35-40 million as that's the cost of their SU's and advanced Mirages. So you are talking 100 lost jets accounting for over $ 3 billion!!! At $ 30 billion total defense budget, that's 10% gone in a few days with leaving a HUGE black hole in power projection and moral and everything else

The above statements makes sense and is the prime reason you won't see two well matched countries indulging in actual warfare post WW2, the cost is too hight in absence of sheer overwhelming qualitative and quantitative superiority.
 
Indeed there are, be very very careful when you advice using them as whatever you have we have.

If you read the topic, the posts were related to a specific topic in hand. This post above, is irrelevant. We are talking about a war, and obviously its a given that India will use whatever it has. However, that wasn't the topic.......or the purpose of the post you responded to.


The above statements makes sense and is the prime reason you won't see two well matched countries indulging in actual warfare post WW2, the cost is too high in absence of sheer overwhelming qualitative and quantitative superiority.

I agree with you there. Now you are making sense. I hope there is no war as it would be detrimental for a region that has close to a billion people living under below average conditions already. There should be 100 year ceasefire and economic cooperation like the EU started. $$$$ and people doing business, will overwrite ALL this animosity.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom