JF17 now maritime strike role

[Khafee]

and why do you think we have not inducted CM-400? any senior member please comment.

@Indus Falcon ...........?

 

[C130]

how confident is Pakistan that they can get past India anti ship wall?

you have to get through multiple layers of defense


Barak 8, Deseaver Mk II (soft kill), and CIWS in AK-630.

 

[The enlightened]

how confident is Pakistan that they can get past India anti ship wall?

you have to get through multiple layers of defense


Barak 8, Deseaver Mk II (soft kill), and CIWS in AK-630.

My hopelessly befuddled friend.
These things don't exist. At least not in this part of the world. See

'A night mare in arabian sea....'
Somehow the Jaguar and P-8I armed with multiple Harpoons or a Sukhoi armed with 3 BrahMos is just child's play.

'The computational ballistics involved to intercept a fast missile is very hard'
But the PN is immune to Indian BrahMos, Sizzlers etc.

'PC-3 Orion LMR planes would locate Indian naval vessels long way off'
But the PC-3 themselves would remain undetected and immune from the indian radar thus no question of being targeted by indian MiG's and Sukhoi's.

'Indian Navy would be forced to employ substantial assets in seeking and destroying the Hunter Killer subs'
Pakistan Navy can just doze off in the harbour ignoring Indian submarines...............


See it's all good.

 

[Indus Falcon]

@Indus Falcon ...........?

Tried, Tested, Inducted.

how confident is Pakistan that they can get past India anti ship wall?

you have to get through multiple layers of defense


Barak 8, Deseaver Mk II (soft kill), and CIWS in AK-630.

There was a light weight missile the Chinese were testing, fired from rocket pods. Lightweight, 100km+ range, no war-head, swarm effect.

Wondering where it is

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

 

[risingsinga]

I am not an expert on warfare or weapons technology but I can conclude that neither India nor Pakistan has the ability to win a conventional war without being self-destroyed so both have reached kind of MAD status. Thus it is imperative for both countries to seek peaceful ways to resolve long standing issues and be beneficial members of the world.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

I am not an expert on warfare or weapons technology but I can conclude that neither India nor Pakistan has the ability to win a conventional war without being self-destroyed so both have reached kind of MAD status. Thus it is imperative for both countries to seek peaceful ways to resolve long standing issues and be beneficial members of the world.

Lets all sing Kumbaya...

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

I am not an expert on warfare or weapons technology but I can conclude that neither India nor Pakistan has the ability to win a conventional war without being self-destroyed so both have reached kind of MAD status. Thus it is imperative for both countries to seek peaceful ways to resolve long standing issues and be beneficial members of the world.

 

[A2Z]

Hon Sir,

What you say is hundred percent correct if there were to be a blue water engagement between Pakistan & Indian surface flotillas, say somewhere near Sri Lanka. However, probable future engagement between PN & IN is unlikely to be so.

Firstly, ambush in the blue water would be job of the submarines. Needless to point out that Augusta 90 with AIP can remain submerged for up to 21 days. Augusta would be augmented by 8 additional Chinese origin submarines. Indian Navy would be forced to employ substantial assets in seeking and destroying the Hunter Killer subs of Pakistan Navy leaving fewer vessels to fight PN surface fleet.

Surface engagement will most likely be in the littoral waters. Having 4 additional frigates would certainly go a long way towards this end. Remember we only have to ensure clear sea lane within a 200 Kilometre strip along our shores. PC-3 Orion LMR planes would locate Indian naval vessels long way off and PN would have 8 F-22 frigates along with half a dozen or so missile carrying FAC to face the Indian Naval attackers.

The above frigates & FAC supported by a squadron (16 planes) armed with Anti- Ship Sea Skimming missiles pose a serious threat to any intruder. The missile armed planes can also be supported by fighter escort if so required.

Secondly, in view of your post, do you expect Pakistan Navy to do nothing?

Asymmetric war is nothing new, and regardless of the numerical disadvantages, the nation has to fight with whatever she has. All that is needed is having the capability of inflicting sufficient damage on the adversary that he thinks twice before attempting to start the war. However, if your post implies that since the rape is inevitable; one might as well enjoy it? That is certainly not Pakistan Navy's way of thinking.

Some very good points indicated sir, yes the surface fleet along with the subs that we have will be able to hold the enemy but don't you think we face a much bigger threat from the skies?
What I think is that almost all the naval air arm that IN would deploy would have the first target to achieve air dominance over arabian sea. Our airforce would be busy tackling the IAF and what PN would be left with are JF-17 and Mirage 5. So what concerns me is are these 2 capable enough to tackle IN's Mig-29 and Harriers? Because we just don't have to defend against the Mig-29 and Harriers attacking our land targets but we need to take care of P-8 targeting our subs and other jets that may look to takeout our vessels as well.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Some very good points indicated sir, yes the surface fleet along with the subs that we have will be able to hold the enemy but don't you think we face a much bigger threat from the skies?
What I think is that almost all the naval air arm that IN would deploy would have the first target to achieve air dominance over arabian sea. Our airforce would be busy tackling the IAF and what PN would be left with are JF-17 and Mirage 5. So what concerns me is are these 2 capable enough to tackle IN's Mig-29 and Harriers? Because we just don't have to defend against the Mig-29 and Harriers attacking our land targets but we need to take care of P-8 targeting our subs and other jets that may look to takeout our vessels as well.

The IN's Sea Harriers have offically been "stood down" now the Viraat has been decommisioned.

 

[ghazi768]

Some very good points indicated sir, yes the surface fleet along with the subs that we have will be able to hold the enemy but don't you think we face a much bigger threat from the skies?
What I think is that almost all the naval air arm that IN would deploy would have the first target to achieve air dominance over arabian sea. Our airforce would be busy tackling the IAF and what PN would be left with are JF-17 and Mirage 5. So what concerns me is are these 2 capable enough to tackle IN's Mig-29 and Harriers? Because we just don't have to defend against the Mig-29 and Harriers attacking our land targets but we need to take care of P-8 targeting our subs and other jets that may look to takeout our vessels as well.

Introduction of Jf-17 in numbers (with more squadrons in southern command in future) will completely change the scenario in Arabian Sea in respect of Pakistan and India. PAF/PN will be in much better position to execute sea denial and blockage of Persian Gulf especially with the introduction of land based AShM batteries capable of targeting ships in range of 300+ km.

First JF-17 have got better sortie rates because of low serviceability requirements which means that more operations can be launched in defensive or offensive modes. Indian carrier based fleets will be more limited in this respect. They are STOBAR with ski-jumps, ski-jump put more stresses on airframes of jet fighters and increases serviceability and decreases force availability especially in a multi-day intense campaign. Also they have to take-off with half the payload and fuel and than later refuel in air via buddy-buddy air-refuleing which increases operational complexity and reduces range and reduces fighter fleet available for strike or carrier group defence. In an intense campaign that will further reduce availability. PAF on the other hand will be in position to throw more and more sorties if it goes offensive against one or both carriers, difference will be significant.

Mig 29K already have shorter ranges because of lower fuel fractions than comparative fighters. There carrier CAP and strike ranges are already significantly less than Rafale (which can do a carrier CAP at 185 km for 2 hours with three 1250 ltrs tanks with six AAMs) and F-18 E (which can do a carrier CAP at 265 km for 2 hours and 15 minutes with 480 gallon tanks and 4 AAMs) while Mig 29K will be forced to take smaller payloads and will require lot of buddy-buddy re-fuelling to have 100+ km CAPs in access of an hour. Their strike ranges and sortie rates will be significantly reduced as well.

On the other hand Jf-17 has very good fuel fraction on internal fuel and can fly longer and farther than Mig 29K and with 2 drop tanks can easily manage 800+ kms with certain allocations for furballs with mixed sorties, some carrying BVRs for air-superiority to build pressure on carrier fighter fleet and others moving in to finish the job with AShMs. Equipped with CM 400 and C 802 they do not even need to get closer and can off-load their payloads in 200-300 kms range.

No offence or disrespect to indian posters here, but once Jf-17 are deployed in numbers in southern command, Indian carrier groups will have to either operate in deep Indian Ocean or operate within the umbrella of their Land based IAF fighters. Until Indian Navy gets a CATOBAR carrier with fighters capable to take bigger payloads such as Rafale M, I think situation will remain tilted towards Pakistan.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Introduction of Jf-17 in numbers (with more squadrons in southern command in future) will completely change the scenario in Arabian Sea in respect of Pakistan and India. PAF/PN will be in much better position to execute sea denial and blockage of Persian Gulf especially with the introduction of land based AShM batteries capable of targeting ships in range of 300+ km.

First JF-17 have got better sortie rates because of low serviceability requirements which means that more operations can be launched in defensive or offensive modes. Indian carrier based fleets will be more limited in this respect. They are STOBAR with ski-jumps, ski-jump put more stresses on airframes of jet fighters and increases serviceability and decreases force availability especially in a multi-day intense campaign. Also they have to take-off with half the payload and fuel and than later refuel in air via buddy-buddy air-refuleing which increases operational complexity and reduces range and reduces fighter fleet available for strike or carrier group defence. In an intense campaign that will further reduce availability. PAF on the other hand will be in position to throw more and more sorties if it goes offensive against one or both carriers, difference will be significant.

Mig 29K already have shorter ranges because of lower fuel fractions than comparative fighters. There carrier CAP and strike ranges are already significantly less than Rafale (which can do a carrier CAP at 185 km for 2 hours with three 1250 ltrs tanks with six AAMs) and F-18 E (which can do a carrier CAP at 265 km for 2 hours and 15 minutes with 480 gallon tanks and 4 AAMs) while Mig 29K will be forced to take smaller payloads and will require lot of buddy-buddy re-fuelling to have 100+ km CAPs in access of an hour. Their strike ranges and sortie rates will be significantly reduced as well.

On the other hand Jf-17 has very good fuel fraction on internal fuel and can fly longer and farther than Mig 29K and with 2 drop tanks can easily manage 800+ kms with certain allocations for furballs with mixed sorties, some carrying BVRs for air-superiority to build pressure on carrier fighter fleet and others moving in to finish the job with AShMs. Equipped with CM 400 and C 802 they do not even need to get closer and can off-load their payloads in 200-300 kms range.

No offence or disrespect to indian posters here, but once Jf-17 are deployed in numbers in southern command, Indian carrier groups will have to either operate in deep Indian Ocean or operate within the umbrella of their Land based IAF fighters. Until Indian Navy gets a CATOBAR carrier with fighters capable to take bigger payloads such as Rafale M, I think situation will remain tilted towards Pakistan.

A very very solid analysis there brother.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

The JF in the south will primarily defend the airspace, and secondary mission would be to undertake maritime interdiction.

 

[Akasa]

I'd like to point out that although it's widely believed that fighters cannot launch from STOBAR vessels with a full payload/fuel, there are no mathematical calculations to prove it.

 

[Metanoia]

Please excuse my lack of technical expertise...but I am a bit skeptical in regards to the effectiveness of JF-17 in a maritime capacity (as the primary aircraft). Won't we be needing a twin-engine platform (considering the area and what we'll be up against) with a higher payload, range, speed to conduct the required/expected sorties over the sea?

In my opinion the JFT can be used in a supporting role...but I doubt it can be ever be the primary strike aircraft (replacing F-16 for instance).