Wingman
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 719
- Reaction score
- 0
PN naval air arm is a closed case as mentioned in a earlier post!
Yeap, then Navy would need full fledge base as well....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
PN naval air arm is a closed case as mentioned in a earlier post!
Yeap, then Navy would need full fledge base as well....
but navy needs its dedicated ACs to support on sea like the world over practice of having Twin Engines PN would need JH-7A or something like it but it contradicts the PAF doctrine of Single engine
09-110
It contradicts the PAF doctrine, not PN or standard naval doctrines.
When we talk about PN requirements then definitely we have to see PN requirements and what standard is being followed internationally for other world navies.
Naval requirements are for twin engined aircrafts, becoz they can fly for longer period of type, so would be on the target area for more, plus they can carry more Anti Ship missiles then a single engine, we see our Mirage armed with only one Anti Ship missile under the belly, as two hard points are for fuel tanks and two i gues for WVR missiles. But a twin engine aircraft like chinese built J-11B can carry 9,000+KG of weapons and equipment. Meaning 2 or 3 anti ship missiles, firing more missiles at a single target will increase the chances of hitting the target or may even score one hit at least, reason being the CIWS of today are very good and one CIWS can easily take down 2 anti ship missiles, and nowadays modern ships are coming with 2 CIWS systems, meaning they can easily take out 3 or 4 incoming missiles.
So wht chance does our single Exocet or Harpoon missile will have against the ship ???? None i guess.
We need at least a squadron of 20 or so double engined aircraft just to protect our maritime routes, as IN is large and would definitely go for a blockage, and their latest naval ships have state of the art russian CIWS.
09-110
J-11s are air superiority fighters not PN supports JH-7A is the ideal platform
Sir, kindly check the latest articles about the chinese developed J-11B & Tandem seat variant J-11BS fighter aircraft, they have now surface strike capability, which also means Anti Ship capability, the chinese radar fitted in it has a sea target acquisition range of 350KM. J-11BS would be similar in performance to the Su-30, specially designed for surface strike capability, and SU-30MKK version is being used by PLA Naval Air Force.
Chinese have made J-11 from an air superiority aircraft to a Multi-Role aircraft.
I know very well about JH-7A, but J-11B or J-11BS is recommended due to its heavier pay load & becoz future version of J-11s are going to be fitted with WS-10A engines, which most probably will also be used in the PAF FC-20 aircraft, as JH-7A uses another kind of engine, WS-9 turbofan engine, a copy of Rolls Royce Spey Mk engines, so there would be commonality of engines, instead of using a totally different engine for just one or two SQs of J-11.
J-11C (or J-11BJ)
A yet-to-be-built aircraft carrier version, speculated on due to the success of the Russian Navy Su-33. The first mock-up of J-11C was displayed in public at airshows and defense exhibitions in China in late 2002, and the mock-up is shown to be able to be armed with all currently available Chinese anti-ship missiles, as well as air-to-air missile including PL-12.
As people debate how the JF-17 is compared to the F-16, we are slowly getting information and clues that it is better. One thing I was thinking last night was the fact that PAF is transferring pilots from F-16s to JF-17. Normally you dont get pilots trained in your best fighter and send them to a less capable aircraft. I there deduce/reason from this that the JF-17 is superior.
sir,J11BJ≠J11C
Training aircraft carrier