What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

Just imaging pairing a twin-engine WS-10/AL-41-powered F-15-sized fighter (AZM ASR) with Ra'ad-2 and ASMPA-type missiles for the strategic role. Yikes.
IMO this will take our third strike capability to whole new level.Even if India intercepts supersonic nuclear cruise missile,it will explode in their own air space which is not a case with Ballistic Missiles.
 
.
All I wanted to say was that numbers would matter when it comes to PAF vs. IAF. I made this point because it was said that Transport wing should revceive preferential funding. My point was that number of combat jets matter in order to blunt an IAF saturation attack (worst case scenario). In this transport planes would not matter. I also related this with higher sortie rate of PAF combat aircraft and pointed out that beyond a possible massive first wave, PAF would be in an advantageous position due to a much lower turn-around time & higher sortie rate. In my mind, the whole scenario rests on numbers. I am not discounting other factors (SAMs, SOWs, HVAA). I am just saying that teeth to weight ratio should favor teeth. This is not to say that transport aircraft could or should not be given teeth (LRAAMs, MRAAMs, even conceivably lasers), but that they would not matter if PAF ignores actual combat assets as was suggested. Logistics won't work without transport aircraft, I know. But to make combat assets out of transport aircraft would probably not be the best use of resources.

I also did say that PAF needs funding for all the things we want it to have & that could happen if Pakistan could grow its economy & tax base. In other words, spend sensibly now & invest in economic growth (preferrably via HDI improvement since infrastructure spending can only do so much). This would necessitate using diplomacy, improving scope & quality of existing programs (JF-17, for example), & conserving resources instead of wasting them on white elephant programs. All the attention must focus on economy to be able to afford all the goodies we think we need.

I hope that India would realize the futility of trying to squeeze Pakistan & would rethink its approach. South Asia could then usher in a golden era of development via peace & cooperation. The ultimate purpose of a weapon is to ensure peace, not perpetuate a forever-war.
 
.
Pakistan will not spend a dime on a capability it can purchase.

Why would Pakistan just "pay" and not establish it's industrial base in AAM/SAM? Once mass produced, you could field these on aircrafts as well as on land and ships........ there is a lot more that goes into SAM systems so it would create a whole new industry base as well.

@araz @Chak Bamu ; Your input on the scenario above for Pak to build it's own SAMS derived from SD-10 and also produce SD-10 ER locally?
 
Last edited:
.
1632830366272.png
 
. . . . . . . . .
I know that Qatar AF has taken a lot of inrerest and visited PAC repeatedly. I understand there is a lot between interest and signed contracts or even expression of interest but wanted your thoughts on Qatari interest in JFT.
A
Well the first thing you need to do is look at their inventory and or orders (Rafales,Eurofighters, and F15QAs)
I cannot see where the JF17 will fit.
I think Qatar might buy a few aircraft as Political gesture. (A bit like the Mushak when they bought a PC21 "Training system")
 
.
I understand where you are coming from but given a full blown war your strategy requores redundency of such platforms, prior conversion for the purpose ( therefore time, money and effort plus skillsets which may or may not be there). The other thing none of us have factored in is the willingness of uncle Sam to let us modify the C130s for the purpose. I am uncertain of the clauses in the C130 sale which allow/do not allow us to do so. There can be other platforms (C235 comes to mind) but then again the same restricyions remain.

I am proposing buying transports instead of J-10s.
 
.
Being able to put up assets in the sky can blunt a massive attack. They lob SOWs, so do we; they fire BVR missiles, so do we; they come in, we meet them head-on. The next iteration would be on more favorable terms because I think our one-engine birds can be turned around much faster than their's. That is why numbers matter in my view, & that is why we have JF-17 as it is. Transport planes are certainly important, but if we can not blunt a massive attack then those transport planes would hardly matter.

But then, I am no expert & I yield to better informed & analytical people here. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Better sortie rates are important. The Israelis proved that. This is another important advantage the PAF has and that it's pilot to plane ratio vs the IAF.

Also this "Massive attack" theory does not account for.

Airfield density closer to front line
Logistical support for the various types needing to be dispersed to said airfields.
Space at said airfields and vulnerability to attack from land and air launched stand off munitions.

These (And many others) Are why the Indian "Cold start" tactic would never have worked."
As the saying goes "Amateurs talk tactics professionals talk Logistics"
 
.
Back
Top Bottom