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.
Not in this manner.. the cost effectivness being referred to out there is to be able to achive the most in the limited budget available to the PAF.
sure.. the F-35 and the F-22 are also supposed to be cost effective..but are they really?
Those jets were designed to push the boundaries.. the JF-17 was designed to match existing ones as frugally as possible.
different.
correction to secur
2 SQDS today
And less than 40 planes delivered in 3 years IS NOT a rapid rate of delivery for JFT
PAF has 400 fighters and 300 of those are F7 & mirages & A5...
India needs its badleY TO REPLACE 125 MIG21 bison
But jaguars re being retained not phased out BUT upgraded nearly 100 of them.
India needs to replace Mig -21 for obvious reasons but cant find a replacement , so the up gradation to Bison standards , but how is it different for Jaguars if I apply the same logic ? They have lived their operational life too , the airframe is aging ... In my opinion , it is not wise to operate so many different aircraft of different kinds - maintenance issues , logistic problems etc ... Why IAF is upgrading Jaguars is beyond me ! Is it just to fill the numbers and keep the strength of the squadrons to sanctioned numbers - 39 the last time I heard ?
Actually mate , they need it badly ... Those good old Jaguars and Mig-21 need to be replaced immediately hence the frustration on the constant extension of deadline on LCA Tejas ... Remember , a domestic product is relatively low cost , less hassle and easier to field in large numbers than a foreign aircraft ... You can get an idea by looking at MMRCA deal , took more than 7 years and it hasn't been signed yet ... Agreed , you have replacement to some extent but they aren't enough ... You always have to keep PLAAF in mind ...
Oscar
I would love to have a chat with you that would hopefully educate me on the nuances or consequences of PAF using this strategy. If you want we can have this on PM as well lest the topic gets distracted.
My question is that all through the history, India has enjoyed numerically superior forces compared to Pakistan. However it has never been able to utilize those superior numbers in her favour.
The reasons are:
1. IAF employed a ridiculously large number of types of and subtypes of aircraft. All these aircrafts of previous years required a very heavy maintenance approach and consequently, each airbase of India was geared to only a couple or maybe 3 types effectively.
That meant that different aircrafts had different staging points and could not use other bases half as effectively and efficiently that they could. So you had some coming from Agra who could only be used and repaired and turned around from Agra, some from Rajasthan, etc, etc.
2. India had very bad logistics network. Spares for one type of aircraft available only at one base and hard and very timeconsuming to move to another.
3. India's and Pakistan's geography provide each a different set of advantages and disadvantages. Pakistan can owing to very small width, mobilize and bring to battle its forces very very quickly whereas IAF OTOH had to bring it from central India.
4. Pakistan's communication infrastructure was much better than anything IAF could field.
5. The gap between the number of qualitative fighters which have an advantage of PAF's force was always low or negative.
Now, in today's and in the next 10 years scenario:
India has made some changes. These are:
1. It is a declared policy now that all bases are being made to cater to all types of fighters in IAF inventory. This is still work in progress. That means all spares, dedicated weapons, etc will be stocked at each base.
2. IAF's communication infra is far better than it used to be. Pakistan's is stil further ahead. But i'll come to this point again.
3. IAF is reducing the number of aircrafts it had. Relatively less types, though still more than ideal.
4. Fighters today in IAF are less maintenance intensive than before and the newer ones coming in like Rafale and FGFA are based on american philosophy. Their technological superiority allows for much more than was possible for older gen planes.
5. The number of planes that IAF has which are technologically equivalent at the very least and mostly superior to PAF is today very high.
Now, i understand that in terms of mobilization and all, PAF would still be better. But my point is that it doesnt matter if PAF stays ahead as it has always stayed ahead in that. Today it would hurt PAF if the IAF were to lessen that gap of yesteryears even if the PAF stays ahead. This is kind of like the awacs example. Even though iaf might field a better one it doesn't make a difference as paf will also have one to fill their needs. Reverse this in fighter scenario. Paf maybe better in mobilizing but as long as iaf is also able to do it enough to field an advantage in numbers that could not be used before.
Secondly, the quantitative and qualitative advantage enjoyed by IAF fighters is unparalelled in Indo-Pak history. For example if i were to just compare the 4th generation fighters of IAF and PAF, the ratio is very lopsided.
And unlike previous years, the bulk of IAF's fleet are technologically superior to PAF's best fighters. This scenario is unprecedented.
Now, does building low cost fighters make sense assuming that even if they justify their cost and shoot down IAF planes disproportionately, the loss of even one of PAF's top fighter - F-16 would mean a significant reduction in PAF's capability.
Thus while having more number of technologically equivalent aircraft (not superior) like F-16 will give more offensive options. From the numbers and technology stacked, it appears PAF will hardly be able to go offensive.
My thoughts are a little hazy and hard to put down. Would appreciate if you could kind of go beyond the words!
Lets keep the first four out.. since there are varying accounts of it that would disagree and actually bust that myth of technological superiority or communications network.
Starting with 5, Currently.. the IAF is already a decade ahead in its fleet when compared to most PAF fighters save the F-16 fleet and JF-17..and this will translate into a numerical increase in terms of the number of effective multirole platforms the IAF will have by the decades end.
By contrast.. once the F-16 upgrade is complete.. the PAF too will have a fighter that has survivability in a strike role with good self defence capabilities.. although inferior to the Rafale.
In the JF-17.. the PAF will have an air Defence asset capable of engaging most IAF fighters on an even level ON ITS OWN TURF.
The C4I capabilities of both nations are fairly at par at this stage w.r.t their operational environments.
So what will matter in the end will be the IAF's sortie generation rate vs the PAF's..and the effectiveness of Pakistans Air Defence network since currently it lacks any actual potent Sam coverage for its defined areas.
The question is not of quantity.. but rather of fielding that quantity.. and the IAF has finally caught up in that regard..
and apparently.. is the only AF that is applying lessons effectively.
you have a perception that pakistan na d india were equal in previous war in quality and only different in quantity ..Fair enough. My point wrt this was that for the first time, bulk if IAF's fleet will be superior to the bulk of PAF's fleet. In earlier days, bulk of both PAF and IAF"s fleets were fairly equivalent. This IMO is new.
You stated it in 4 lines better than i could in 2 paragraphs! My post was geared towards this only. That IAF though always enjoyed numerical superiority, it could never exploit it as it should have because it could never field that quantity. What has changed that could allow IAF to do this and how does it affect the overall war strategy for both nations?
What has changed that could allow IAF to do this and how does it affect the overall war strategy for both nations?
Infrastructure, Infrastructure.. Infrastructure!
The difference will come not in A2A combat.. but rather the effectiveness of the strike assets.. which the IAF has clearly a LOT more of. Since shooting aircraft down is a tedious task when compared to simply blowing them on the ground.
Actually, take an example of Israel here. A VERY small country with no matching quantity to its neighbors, limited space to defend and fewer bases.....BUT, can the neighbors with mass flow of all kinds of planes penetrate Israel that easily (conventional)?
Yes, the Infrastructure plays a role. BUT in today's world, the electronics play a MUCH bigger role. In the scenario of PAF vs. IAF, it'll be up to the level of the electronics. The fighters will not be seeing each other a lot. So if Pakistan can create a two tier air defense network with long range SAMS, with human and electronics based network for information gathering and processing, combined with cruise missiles, standoff missiles, etc;....
The reason many routine posters of this thread are vanished and not to be see.this JFT thread has gone haywire! its a free for all now.