Need for a Strike Aircraft (JH-7) for Naval Aviation

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

As it was stated the plane is useful , with in Chinese multi layer defence structure

Pakistan have a different need we already have mirages doing same role and plus we have JF17 Thunders as well

 

[A2Z]

I highly doubt that PN would go for such a thing right now they have focused on getting those subs and increase the number of frigates.

 

[niaz]

I was an engineer in charge of Esso’s Kerosene terminal at Keamari for 8 hourly shifts during 1971 war. Thus I have had first-hand hand experience of Indian naval dominance where IN had virtually bottled up Pak fleet. The anti –aircraft defence Naval Commander that used to regular visited us for checking the damage saying that Pak Navy had no answer to Indian missile boats. We should never experience the same situation again.

Since the battle of Midway in WW2, aircraft has become the primary strike weapon of the surface ships in an otherwise naval engagement. Realistically speaking; PAF Mirage-III’ s have little chance of penetrating Indian Navy flotilla defended by a couple of squadrons of Mig-29K.

Need for a naval strike aircraft is therefore paramount. Question being should it be JH-7 or any other?

Since an entirely new aircraft also involves huge expense in training & maintenance. A cheaper option could be employment of the ubiquitous JF-17 in block-2 or block 3 version armed with air- launched version of C-802 missile or Babur cruise missile. AM-39 could also do the job if PAF can successfully integrate it with Thunder.

However, F-16 Block 52 could, but don’t think JF-17 lumbered with about 1000 kg C-802 would be nimble enough to successfully fight-off Mig-29K. One would therefore need a flight of 6 or 8 aircrafts consisting of 4 JF -17 in fighter escort role, to have reasonable chance of destroying a high value target. Hence we would need at least two squadrons of Thunders optimised for ant-ship role instead of the present 13 odd Mirages.

Admittedly JF-17 is short legged, but we only need to defend about 200-mile corridor along our coast line to keep sea lanes clear.

 

[Arsalan]

I was in engineer in charge of Esso’s Kerosene terminal at Keamari during 8 hourly shifts during 1971 war. Thus I have had first-hand hand experience of Indian naval dominance where IN had virtually bottled up Pak fleet. The anti –aircraft defence Naval Commander that used to regular visited us for checking the damage saying that Pak Navy had no answer to Indian missile boats. We should never experience the same situation again.

Since the battle of Midway in WW2, aircraft has become the primary strike weapon of the surface ships in an otherwise naval engagement. Realistically speaking; PAF Mirage-III’ s have little chance of penetrating Indian Navy flotilla defended by a couple of squadrons on Mig-29K.
Need for a naval strike aircraft is therefore paramount. Question being should it be JH-7 or any other?

Since an entirely new aircraft also involves huge expense in training & maintenance. A cheaper option could be employment of the ubiquitous JF-17 in block-2 or block 3 version armed with air- launched version of C-802 missile or Babur cruise missile. AM-39 could also do the job if PAF can successfully integrate it with Thunder.

However, F-16 Block 52 could, but don’t think JF-17 lumbered with about 1000 kg C-802 would be nimble enough to successfully fight-off Mig-29K. One would therefore need a flight of 6 or 8 aircrafts consisting of 4 JF -17 in fighter escort role, to have reasonable chance of destroying a high value target. Hence we would need at least two squadrons of Thunders optimised for ant-ship role instead of the present 13 odd Mirages.

Admittedly JF1-7 is short legged, but we only need to defend about 200-mile corridor along our coast line to keep sea lanes clear.

An excellent post sir. Very right in you analysis!

I don't think inducting a new platform will be ideal. You keep on hearing about PAF going for J10, and Su-35, more mirages or JH7 for naval strike, JF-17 next blocks and a fifth generation. I don't know if these wishes are to make an air force or to make an air force museum!

ANY AIR FORCE, specially an air force of a country like ours will want to keep the types of air craft it operates as low as possible, meeting the tactical needs. That significantly reduces maintenance costs, increases the chances of securing upgrades from the manufacturer thus increasing the life span of the planes and get you pilots master the plane. For PAF, it seem that JF-17 and F-16 are the way forward with fifth generation plane to be inducted later on. At that same time, we may see a different 4.5 generation plan replacing older JF-17 and other planes. So for navy, JF-17 will be out answer. Fitted with excellent C-802 missiles and working in small 3 to 5 plane packs, they will be the best option that Navy can have. As you have rightly point, the area we need to defend and where we need to deny superiority to the enemy is relatively smaller one so JF-17 will work just fine. THIS seems to PAF's plan as well as we keep on seeing JF-17 with anti-shipping missiles.

 

[niaz]

Came across Norway’s’ Kongsberg naval strike missile weighing 410 kg with 125 kg warhead. Understand Poland has deployed the missile as coastal artillery as it has arrange of 185 Km (about 115 miles).

Beauty of this missile is that it is ‘Passive’ meaning it does not emit Radar or Infra-Red waves, therefore travelling at about 10 meters above the waves at high subsonic speed it is virtually un- detectable by its target until it is too late.

Naval Strike Missile - NSM - Kongsberg Gruppen

Assuming the Norway would sell it to us; I would welcome member’s opinion about Kongsberg deployment as Pak Navy’s coastal artillery. A dozen or so batteries strategically placed along the coast and data linked to PC-3 eye in the sky for targeting, would greatly boost Pakistan Coastal defence from surface vessels.

 

[araz]

Came across Norway’s’ Kongsberg naval strike missile weighing 410 kg with 125 kg warhead. Understand Poland has deployed the missile as coastal artillery as it has arrange of 185 Km (about 115 miles).

Beauty of this missile is that it is ‘Passive’ meaning it does not emit Radar or Infra-Red waves, therefore travelling at about 10 meters above the waves at high subsonic speed it is virtually un- detectable by its target until it is too late.

Naval Strike Missile - NSM - Kongsberg Gruppen

Assuming the Norway would sell it to us; I would welcome member’s opinion about Kongsberg deployment as Pak Navy’s coastal artillery. A dozen or so batteries strategically placed along the coast and data linked to PC-3 eye in the sky for targeting, would greatly boost Pakistan Coastal defence from surface vessels.

Niaz saheb.
The only problem would be that the indians would never come as close as that. All stategic aims would be achieved from a strategic distance outside the range of these missiles. With harpoons moynted on P3Cs and the c series and AKG series on JFT the need for a surface battery is negated. Any ways One of the naval experts might be able to shed more light on the matter.
Araz

 

[Quwa]

You know what? I ALMOST wrote that a couple of days ago. Proliferate UCAV tech inside your private sector, build BVR-able drones and heavier drones capable of launching ALCM's and stuff. The cost to number ratio would be marginal and benefits.....priceless!!!

But then I realize, folks here were still stuck in a derivative of older SU tech now being upgraded in the Shape of JH-7. So by putting drones into my post, I'd go way beyond the current standards being discussed. But absolutely, if the Pakistani industry can produce these, it would be the way to go.

If powered by solar and equipped with lightweight low-RCS missiles (with a relatively long on-field lifespan), then these HALE UAVs can just troll around the warzone. Heck, just have them fly around and force enemy radars and anti-air missiles to pick them, dry them out, and then attack with manned assets. If both (manned and unmanned) assets can fire at you, then you're basically forced to choose, and you might lose irrespective of your choice.

 

[Viper0011.]

JH7 is garbage. Been upgraded many time will retire soon.

I wanted to say this same sentence so many times over the pages and pages worth of discussions. But didn't want to sound rude or mean. But I agree.

If powered by solar and equipped with lightweight low-RCS missiles (with a relatively long on-field lifespan), then these HALE UAVs can just troll around the warzone. Heck, just have them fly around and force enemy radars and anti-air missiles to pick them, dry them out, and then attack with manned assets. If both (manned and unmanned) assets can fire at you, then you're basically forced to choose, and you might lose irrespective of your choice.

I agree. These would serve as good decoys too. And much cheaper BVR and missile firing vehicles.

I'd eve suggest Pakistan to upgrade her CN-transport planes from Indonesia and turn them into BVR and missile launching trucks. For BVR, put them behind like 100 KM's from the main interceptors and SAMS, use them if anything crosses that defensive ring. Even the US considered different big planes to be used as missile trucks. For missile firing, these guys can take off from Karachi and can hit anything within 300 KM's. Meaning that these missile trucks would allow you to send a bunch of missiles towards any naval assets trying to come within a 200 KM defensive tier.

I was an engineer in charge of Esso’s Kerosene terminal at Keamari for 8 hourly shifts during 1971 war. Thus I have had first-hand hand experience of Indian naval dominance where IN had virtually bottled up Pak fleet. The anti –aircraft defence Naval Commander that used to regular visited us for checking the damage saying that Pak Navy had no answer to Indian missile boats. We should never experience the same situation again.

Since the battle of Midway in WW2, aircraft has become the primary strike weapon of the surface ships in an otherwise naval engagement. Realistically speaking; PAF Mirage-III’ s have little chance of penetrating Indian Navy flotilla defended by a couple of squadrons of Mig-29K.

Need for a naval strike aircraft is therefore paramount. Question being should it be JH-7 or any other?

Since an entirely new aircraft also involves huge expense in training & maintenance. A cheaper option could be employment of the ubiquitous JF-17 in block-2 or block 3 version armed with air- launched version of C-802 missile or Babur cruise missile. AM-39 could also do the job if PAF can successfully integrate it with Thunder.

However, F-16 Block 52 could, but don’t think JF-17 lumbered with about 1000 kg C-802 would be nimble enough to successfully fight-off Mig-29K. One would therefore need a flight of 6 or 8 aircrafts consisting of 4 JF -17 in fighter escort role, to have reasonable chance of destroying a high value target. Hence we would need at least two squadrons of Thunders optimised for ant-ship role instead of the present 13 odd Mirages.

Admittedly JF-17 is short legged, but we only need to defend about 200-mile corridor along our coast line to keep sea lanes clear.

I totally agree with your posts. Very factual. The real question becomes not JH-7 or the JFT. The real question is, to keep the IN away out of 200 KM distance. I just responded to another post like this. Another option can also be to use CN (Indonesian cargo planes in the PAF's inventory) and turn them into ASM trucks. Flying off of Karachi or elsewhere, they can launch more missiles than a strike or a JFT like fighter.

Similarly, more JFT's can be built in block II or III configurations with heavier engines that the Chinese are about to introduce to the market as operational. The heavier engine JFT block II (specifically 3) should have more weight carrying options to include two BVR's. IMO, if the JFT goes out to 25-50 KM from Karachi's coast line, you could hit IN ships with missiles out to 350KM's away. That's a LOT of gap. So even a 200 KM must have defensive zone can be managed this way. Invading IN aircraft will also need to deal with long range SAM threat that can take them out to around 100 KM, or manned air-defense through jets.

That way, they'll also be limited to using missiles from far away and if you can take out the AC, these jets won't have a place to land and get rearmed. There are multiple ways to do this, cheaper and without introducing a new platform altogether. The money is always limited and it should be spent on the highest priority items such as advancing the JFT's and building them in numbers for internal use, the J-31 tech, buying subs, ships and all.

 

[MastanKhan]

I was an engineer in charge of Esso’s Kerosene terminal at Keamari for 8 hourly shifts during 1971 war. Thus I have had first-hand hand experience of Indian naval dominance where IN had virtually bottled up Pak fleet. The anti –aircraft defence Naval Commander that used to regular visited us for checking the damage saying that Pak Navy had no answer to Indian missile boats. We should never experience the same situation again.

Since the battle of Midway in WW2, aircraft has become the primary strike weapon of the surface ships in an otherwise naval engagement. Realistically speaking; PAF Mirage-III’ s have little chance of penetrating Indian Navy flotilla defended by a couple of squadrons of Mig-29K.

Need for a naval strike aircraft is therefore paramount. Question being should it be JH-7 or any other?

Since an entirely new aircraft also involves huge expense in training & maintenance. A cheaper option could be employment of the ubiquitous JF-17 in block-2 or block 3 version armed with air- launched version of C-802 missile or Babur cruise missile. AM-39 could also do the job if PAF can successfully integrate it with Thunder.

However, F-16 Block 52 could, but don’t think JF-17 lumbered with about 1000 kg C-802 would be nimble enough to successfully fight-off Mig-29K. One would therefore need a flight of 6 or 8 aircrafts consisting of 4 JF -17 in fighter escort role, to have reasonable chance of destroying a high value target. Hence we would need at least two squadrons of Thunders optimised for ant-ship role instead of the present 13 odd Mirages.

Admittedly JF-17 is short legged, but we only need to defend about 200-mile corridor along our coast line to keep sea lanes clear.

Hi,

That is why you need a heavy----it can load on the anti ship missiles and also a couple of BVR's as well---and you can also have 2 little JF 17 flying hiding under its wings---that at an appropriate time---can pop up and launch their missiles.

Niaz---what I don't understand is why would they not launch the mirages---and they could at least go on a straffing run.

 

[MastanKhan]

JH7 is garbage. Been upgraded many time will retire soon.

Hi,

That is an extremley sensless ONE LINER from a poster like you---written without givin any thught to what you were saying.

In this day and age of technology---electronic warfare packages--and missiles that find their own target with as little a push and a nudge---fly so far and hit their targets that it is beyond imagination---and that also they can do in the silent mode-----an aircraft in itself has become nothing but a conduit that delivers the materials of death and destruction.

The power of technology has brought down many a mighty to their knees---just like the great inception of AK47 in the hands of freedom fighters in its time.

This is the age when the ordinary and the average have become extraordinary---because now they can rely on a MASSIVE CRUTCH---

There is an aircraft out there---KFIR---close to 35 years old aircraft---been mothballed----. Then someone decided to give it a technology upgrade----. Now it comes with another 40 years of lifespan---and that too guaranteed----an aesa radar that is one of the most potent in its class--- a set of BVR and WVR missiles that can scare the day lights of any pilots and can also launch smart weapons.

Then there is a 60 years old warhorse---that has just come out of the reconditioning shop---totally refurbished to serve for another 50 years and the capability to launch a plethora of smart weapons----with the launching capability that is un-imaginable a few months ago to the general public--- .

A B52---that is going to launch a smart anti ship missile from 250 + miles away and then run away and the target not knowing what or where the missiles came from---a massive aesa radar and jamming capabilities not seen before and BVR launch capabilities as well.

Now if that little piece of ---- aircraft the JF 17---a hybrid copy of the MIG 21---F7PG---Mirage 3 / 5---F5----can become a 4th gen aircraft with some sweet gizmos and weapons system----then what is wrong with the JH7B---.

The JH7B is the same aircraft as would be the JF 17 with out the aesa or with out the BVR capability. If the JF 17 can look pretty and presentable with all that make up and doodahs---the why the JH7B look better with an aesa that is twice as big---with 4 times the BVR carrying capacity---antiradiation paint---and 4x the loiter time.

Technology is what is going to rule the skies---thru the aircraft---.

Just like 7---or 8 years ago---posters on this board would jump on me when I discussed the superiority of the BVR missiles and how the air combat would change---where pilots would be trained to take BVR shots and then run away and how the game has changed and you guys were still in your man behind the machine and WVR---and some super stu-ds over here would patronize me----and everyone of them has been proven wrong.

Specially those who claimed that let the America air force fight the Pakistani air force and we ( paf ) will teach them a lesson---and I told them it won't happen even in their dreams---there were so many of those over here---now they all have their mouths shut---salala check post strike and OBL.

As a leading poster---it is your obligation to write something with reason and a narrative.

Why when a modified B52 with all the electronic gizmos become such a massive threat---then why can't any other aircraft in a similar situation, with similar upgrades.

 

[thrilainmanila]

people need to understand that the JF-17 is an unproven aircraft so is the JH7 and J-10, the JF-17 is a supplementary fighter its not a strike fighter it doesnt pack the payload to complete the missions as a strike fighter. to navalise a JF-17 will be useless, your basically packing a lightweight fighter with heavy ordinance, they'll be blown to pieces before they even reach the indian flotilla
the JH-7 is outdated technology, by the time PN gets them they would be obsolete, I think the fact that the PN has a squadron of antique mirages is a joke, the pak navy need 2 squadrons of top of the line fighter jets, the naby will get pole axed by the indians when it comes to war. An outdated air wing which is litrally falling apart, poor SAM networks, poor costal defence, the indians are probrably licking there lips when they look at the poor quality of the pak navy,
the pak navy needs a serious upgrade with regards to a dedicated strike aircraft, and jF-17 is a bullshit option, honestly people on this forum let patriotism get to there heads, JF-17 is easy prey for the mig-29k they'll be taken out easily.

 

[Alphacharlie]

People Pls dont say JH 17 is a Supplementary Fighter.
Your Airforce has done a Commendable Job to make such a low cost jet...

Yet again for Sake of record - I inter from Uri and you say No No please dont intrude Sargodh has jf17...
This is not the WAY Airforces work.

Issue is JF 17 needs to be given Suplyments so that it can Chop Mig 29 UPG/Mirgae 2005, Su 30.

Kapish

 

[niaz]

Hi,

That is why you need a heavy----it can load on the anti ship missiles and also a couple of BVR's as well---and you can also have 2 little JF 17 flying hiding under its wings---that at an appropriate time---can pop up and launch their missiles.

Niaz---what I don't understand is why would they not launch the mirages---and they could at least go on a straffing run.

A couple of squadrons of Mirages had been inducted by then, however none were seen in Karachi. Only PAF aircrafts seen in the sky were F-6's & occasionally F-104's.

Missile boats always attacked at night. The day after sinking of PNS Khaiber & PNS Mujahid; PAF aircrafts strafed PNS Zulfiqar thinking it was the enemy. The incident is true because it was related to me by a Navy Lt who was on PNS Zulfiqar when it happened. PAF may have acquitted itself well in the North in 1971 war but not so in the Southern Pakistan.

One furnace oil & one diesel tank were already burning when I was on duty. It was my job to inspect any additional damage after each raid and if there was danger to the staff, to order evacuation. From the trench I have once personally observed a shadow (probably an IAF Canberra) flying low level with the anti-aircraft barrage in a different direction.

Because there was too much smoke from the fire at Keamari oil terminal and IAF bombers could not see clearly especially at night. Thankfully this saved us from additional damage.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

A couple of squadrons of Mirages had been inducted by then, however none were seen in Karachi. Only PAF aircrafts seen in the sky were F-6's & occasionally F-104's.

Missile boats always attacked at night. The day after sinking of PNS Khaiber & PNS Mujahid; PAF aircrafts strafed PNS Zulfiqar thinking it was the enemy. The incident is true because it was related to me by a Navy Lt who was on PNS Zulfiqar when it happened. PAF may have acquitted itself well in the North in 1971 war but not so in the Southern Pakistan.

One furnace oil & one diesel tank were already burning when I was on duty. It was my job to inspect any additional damage after each raid and if there was danger to the staff, to order evacuation. From the trench I have once personally observed a shadow (probably an IAF Canberra) flying low level with the anti-aircraft barrage in a different direction.

Because there was too much smoke from the fire at Keamari oil terminal and IAF bombers could not see clearly especially at night. Thankfully this saved us from additional damage.

@niaz sahab; thank you for 'filling up some blanks'; from the other side. I have a question for you: did the Missile boat Attacks and the Air Strikes happen together or were they spaced out ?

Another question; technical though, was ESSO in Pakistan part of ESSO Standard Eastern or a separate entity?

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

An excellent post sir. Very right in you analysis!

I don't think inducting a new platform will be ideal. You keep on hearing about PAF going for J10, and Su-35, more mirages or JH7 for naval strike, JF-17 next blocks and a fifth generation. I don't know if these wishes are to make an air force or to make an air force museum!

ANY AIR FORCE, specially an air force of a country like ours will want to keep the types of air craft it operates as low as possible, meeting the tactical needs. That significantly reduces maintenance costs, increases the chances of securing upgrades from the manufacturer thus increasing the life span of the planes and get you pilots master the plane. For PAF, it seem that JF-17 and F-16 are the way forward with fifth generation plane to be inducted later on. At that same time, we may see a different 4.5 generation plan replacing older JF-17 and other planes. So for navy, JF-17 will be out answer. Fitted with excellent C-802 missiles and working in small 3 to 5 plane packs, they will be the best option that Navy can have. As you have rightly point, the area we need to defend and where we need to deny superiority to the enemy is relatively smaller one so JF-17 will work just fine. THIS seems to PAF's plan as well as we keep on seeing JF-17 with anti-shipping missiles.

Sir,
A few months back while sitting with some PAF officers came to know that the Navy wanted to have aircraft but the only issue is progression that has some how stalled the process of inducting aircraft in PN.
The example that was give was very convincing PAF operates F-16's that are the top most aircraft and a fighter pilot would have flown all the other aircraft in the inventory before he/she is made a F-16 pilot. There is no such thing in PN, if PN would like to do some thing of this sort it would require time and billions which unfortunately can not be given to the navy.

There are talks regarding this and negotiations are taking place. PAF would like to procure more aircraft. Type is still not known as there are some options that are being evaluated.