PAF Deploys to Northern Territories

[Raider 21]

Hi,

Project management don't win wars---but that experience does keep a secure job---. So---don't dwell on it---.

Just because you hang out with a few---does not mean you have experienced it---.

You may discuss as much as you want to---historical precedence shows that you have no substance when discussing the needs and utility of major weapons systems---.

A consistant---superior---larger---quick maneuverable heavy fighting force has always decimated a smaller---lighter fighting force---.

Likeswise for you in the same manner....

Strongly agree. The odds of a smaller, lighter fighting force overcoming a heavy fighting force are rare as everything is mathematical, but generally speaking the consistent, heavier, larger and maneuverable wins....

 

[MastanKhan]

By that analogy, F-15s have always defeated F-16s when the USAF and USN train in DACT?
Of course not ... infact both said planes have even been defeating by F-5s in aggressor roles.

Hi,

You are so innocent---. Just think about what you wrote---.

 

[Raider 21]

Hi,

You are so innocent---. Just think about what you wrote---.

I am confused by what has been written there as well. On a side note in those days, Marine Hornets gave a lot of trouble to Air Force Eagles and Vipers despite operating in few numbers...

Tactical defence does not necessarily the same as legacy defence....

 

[MastanKhan]

By that analogy, F-15s have always defeated F-16s when the USAF and USN train in DACT?
Of course not ... infact both said planes have even been defeated by F-5s in aggressor roles.

Now I know why the Iranians are not afraid of the USAF---.

 

[SQ8]

Hi,

Project management don't win wars---but that experience does keep a secure job---. So---don't dwell on it---.

Just because you hang out with a few---does not mean you have experienced it---.

You may discuss as much as you want to---historical precedence shows that you have no substance when discussing the needs and utility of major weapons systems---.

A consistant---superior---larger---quick maneuverable heavy fighting force has always decimated a smaller---lighter fighting force---.

Just reading your post reflects the fantasy in your mindset. What planet do you live on?
Historical precedents? geriatric surly 20 year car salesman experience , what historical precedent do you hold?
You talk as if the budget of Pakistan is running in trillions and they can walk into any market and pick off what is on the shelf.
Read your own red part, consistant, superior and larger? What part of a wrecked economy is beyond your comprehension? How do you plan to apply a technologically and numerically superior force in the context of PAF budget?
Did some drawing room uncle give you another whatsapp message on unlimited budget?

 

[thinkingcap81]

You talk as if the budget of Pakistan is running in trillions and they can walk into any market and pick off what is on the shelf.
Read your own red part, consistant, superior and larger?

Whatever be the finances available with PAF, which type of purchase would have been better for overall force projection and defensive posture - smaller number of heavy superior strike aircraft or larger number of JF-17 type aircraft?

Just like to have an opinion.

 

[SQ8]

Whatever be the finances available with PAF, which type of purchase would have been better for overall force projection and defensive posture - smaller number of heavy superior strike aircraft or larger number of JF-17 type aircraft?

Just like to have an opinion.

I think I posted a link to this earlier.

Whatever be the finances available with PAF, which type of purchase would have been better for overall force projection and defensive posture - smaller number of heavy superior strike aircraft or larger number of JF-17 type aircraft?

Just like to have an opinion.

depends on what is superior?
Payload or electronics?

Still, even if it was 1.5 JF-17 for 1 J-11( which it is not) ; the PAF would still face a numerically superior airforce, with greater heavy assets and face higher costs everytime a J-11 was launched to intercept; not to mention being unable to gain R&D and in house engineering knowledge with the JF-17.

@Knuckles seems to hint on this but seems to be confused with the question; which is if 50 heavy expensives like the J-11 are going to be better than 100 JF-17’s knowing the operational needs and budget of the PAF.

 

[Quwa]

I think I posted a link to this earlier.

depends on what is superior?
Payload or electronics?

Still, even if it was 1.5 JF-17 for 1 J-11( which it is not) ; the PAF would still face a numerically superior airforce, with greater heavy assets and face higher costs everytime a J-11 was launched to intercept; not to mention being unable to gain R&D and in house engineering knowledge with the JF-17.

@Knuckles seems to hint on this but seems to be confused with the question; which is if 50 heavy expensives like the J-11 are going to be better than 100 JF-17’s knowing the operational needs and budget of the PAF.

Folks also seem to be understating the fact that the JF-17 is basically analogous to the Gripen C/D... and the PAF has around 100 of those. Moreover, the Block-III is basically one of a kind in as far as affordable multi-role fighters with AESA radars and integrated EW/ECM go these days.

Besides range and payload (key for offensive missions), how much more do you need (range/payload-wise) for defensive operations? The focus needs to be on getting very good electronics and munitions, and that is much, much more affordable (and scalable if we apply them to next-gen fighters) than an entirely new platform.

 

[Sinnerman108]

I think I posted a link to this earlier.

depends on what is superior?
Payload or electronics?

Still, even if it was 1.5 JF-17 for 1 J-11( which it is not) ; the PAF would still face a numerically superior airforce, with greater heavy assets and face higher costs everytime a J-11 was launched to intercept; not to mention being unable to gain R&D and in house engineering knowledge with the JF-17.

@Knuckles seems to hint on this but seems to be confused with the question; which is if 50 heavy expensives like the J-11 are going to be better than 100 JF-17’s knowing the operational needs and budget of the PAF.

Looking at Pakistan's geography ( elongated shape ) a Indian heavy aircraft can dominate from end to end.
Add to that the fact, that they have numerical superiority.

PAF will gain nothing by going deep into enemy territory.
Any high value enemy assets can be destroyed with missiles much more efficiently.

Thus, small agile, very very agile, cheap to operate and electronically integrated is the way to go.

 

[thinkingcap81]

depends on what is superior?
Payload or electronics?

Still, even if it was 1.5 JF-17 for 1 J-11( which it is not) ; the PAF would still face a numerically superior airforce, with greater heavy assets and face higher costs everytime a J-11 was launched to intercept; not to mention being unable to gain R&D and in house engineering knowledge with the JF-17.

@Knuckles seems to hint on this but seems to be confused with the question; which is if 50 heavy expensives like the J-11 are going to be better than 100 JF-17’s knowing the operational needs and budget of the PAF.

If 1.5 JF-17 > 1 J-11 type then what does it imply for IAF's obsession for heavy strike aircraft, as well as Chinese desire for the same? Will heavy strike aircraft make IAF more wary of PAF? Indian govt tried its best to stall just 8 F-16 blk 52+ aircraft for PAF which then tells what IAF thinks about F-16 blk 52+ / Su-30 variants vs JF-17/LCA. Perhaps you do not agree with the opinion of IAF strategists.

Of course PAF will face a more equipped IAF just like IAF vs PLAAF. So should IAF try to get more LCAs/Gripens instead of running after Rafales and Su-30s?

This is what i'd like to understand.

It does not seem right to overwhelmingly stick to JF-17 just to get introduced to aircraft R&D procedures.

Folks also seem to be understating the fact that the JF-17 is basically analogous to the Gripen C/D... and the PAF has around 100 of those. Moreover, the Block-III is basically one of a kind in as far as affordable multi-role fighters with AESA radars and integrated EW/ECM go these days.

Besides range and payload (key for offensive missions), how much more do you need (range/payload-wise) for defensive operations? The focus needs to be on getting very good electronics and munitions, and that is much, much more affordable (and scalable if we apply them to next-gen fighters) than an entirely new platform.

Is JF-17 as capable as Gripen C/D or is Gripen C/D not so good? Capability wise JF-17 and LCA are similar. So then Grippen C/D is good or bad compared to F-16 blk 52+? I don't know, just a thought in my head.

JF-17 is primarily for offensive or defensive operations? Do you require that many JF-17 for defensive operations considering assets that you have for protecting your airspace?

PAF will gain nothing by going deep into enemy territory.
Thus, small agile, very very agile, cheap to operate and electronically integrated is the way to go.

Why not? Is it enough to theoretically limit an airforce to shallow thrusts?

 

[Quwa]

If 1.5 JF-17 > 1 J-11 type then what does it imply for IAF's obsession for heavy strike aircraft, as well as Chinese desire for the same? Will heavy strike aircraft make IAF more wary of PAF? Indian govt tried its best to stall just 8 F-16 blk 52+ aircraft for PAF which then tells what IAF thinks about F-16 blk 52+ / Su-30 variants vs JF-17/LCA. Perhaps you do not agree with the opinion of IAF strategists.

Of course PAF will face a more equipped IAF just like IAF vs PLAAF. So should IAF try to get more LCAs/Gripens instead of running after Rafales and Su-30s?

This is what i'd like to understand.

It does not seem right to overwhelmingly stick to JF-17 just to get introduced to aircraft R&D procedures.



Is JF-17 as capable as Gripen C/D or is Gripen C/D not so good? Capability wise JF-17 and LCA are similar. So then Grippen C/D is good or bad compared to F-16 blk 52+? I don't know, just a thought in my head.

JF-17 is primarily for offensive or defensive operations? Do you require that many JF-17 for defensive operations considering assets that you have for protecting your airspace?



Why not? Is it enough to theoretically limit an airforce to shallow thrusts?

'analogous' means comparable or similar... so the JF-17 Block-II -- and the Tejas -- are comparable to the Gripen C/D. They both include the same kinds of subsystems and weapons capabilities. As for the JF-17; its air-to-air will likely be defensive, though with stand-off weapons, it can undertake some offensive operations.

 

[thinkingcap81]

'analogous' means comparable or similar... so the JF-17 Block-II -- and the Tejas -- are comparable to the Gripen C/D. They both include the same kinds of subsystems and weapons capabilities. As for the JF-17; its air-to-air will likely be defensive, though with stand-off weapons, it can undertake some offensive operations.

Which then begs the question - what does PAF think about offensive operations given that very few blk 52+ are available.

Since PAF is getting a large number of JF-17, it seems to me that in spite of all the other assets PAF has, they consider it to be a challenge to thwart IAF offensive operations. On the other hand IAF badly desires offensive aircraft and seems unhappy with LCA though it has an important role to play.

I still don't get the utility of spending so much resources on defensive capabilities while neglecting offensive capabilities. Mindsets could be different between the two airforces, but something is not quite adding up.

 

[SQ8]

If 1.5 JF-17 > 1 J-11 type then what does it imply for IAF's obsession for heavy strike aircraft, as well as Chinese desire for the same? Will heavy strike aircraft make IAF more wary of PAF? Indian govt tried its best to stall just 8 F-16 blk 52+ aircraft for PAF which then tells what IAF thinks about F-16 blk 52+ / Su-30 variants vs JF-17/LCA. Perhaps you do not agree with the opinion of IAF strategists.

Of course PAF will face a more equipped IAF just like IAF vs PLAAF. So should IAF try to get more LCAs/Gripens instead of running after Rafales and Su-30s?

This is what i'd like to understand.

It does not seem right to overwhelmingly stick to JF-17 just to get introduced to aircraft R&D procedures.



Is JF-17 as capable as Gripen C/D or is Gripen C/D not so good? Capability wise JF-17 and LCA are similar. So then Grippen C/D is good or bad compared to F-16 blk 52+? I don't know, just a thought in my head.

JF-17 is primarily for offensive or defensive operations? Do you require that many JF-17 for defensive operations considering assets that you have for protecting your airspace?



Why not? Is it enough to theoretically limit an airforce to shallow thrusts?

The IAF has 5 times- FIVE times more land area to cover, two to three fronts to cover and a massive coastline to defend which includes the possibility of duking it out over the far east. The requirements of the IAF against JUST the PAF are better fulfilled by a light fighter such as a combination of the Mig-29 and M2K which was an intial IAF staff requirement back in the 80’s.
The MKI was borne out of the fact that the Chinese were modernizing fast and that their main bases were behind plateu and out of reach of IAF aircraft while PLAAF bombers and Flankers could operate with impunity.
The other concern the IAF brought up was that both the PAF and IAF monitor each others nets and frontal approaches so clearly that it was extremely difficult to get surprises on each other. To offset this the IAF assumed that the range on the flanker would allow the IAF to create a second front with approaches from the ocean(something now negated with the PAF’s extremely thorough AEW assets).
Lastly, knowing the technological prowess of the F-16 even in its 30 year old form the IAF wanted an asset capable of dominating the airspace and by keeping the higher maneuvering assets of the PAF falling back against volleys of missiles to deplete energy especially since at that time it was assumed by the IAF that the PAF did not have BVR(no longer relevant since today’s PAF force is 70% BVR capaable and in most cases capable of earlier engagement-debates on this are like talking about whether cloud x will or wont rain in y square meter) .

More on the IAF and PaF here
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17-thunder-made-for-the-paf.398270/

 

[Quwa]

Which then begs the question - what does PAF think about offensive operations given that very few blk 52+ are available.

Since PAF is getting a large number of JF-17, it seems to me that in spite of all the other assets PAF has, they consider it to be a challenge to thwart IAF offensive operations. On the other hand IAF badly desires offensive aircraft and seems unhappy with LCA though it has an important role to play.

I still don't get the utility of spending so much resources on defensive capabilities while neglecting offensive capabilities. Mindsets could be different between the two airforces, but something is not quite adding up.

In terms of offensive capability, the IAF's burgeoning high-tech fighter fleet and impressive air defence set-up (esp. once the S-400 and MR-SAM are inducted) also pushes the PAF to rely much more on stand-off weapons (SOW). At this time, the Block-52+ is a non-factor on the SOW front (the PAF doesn't have JASSM or even Harpoon Block-IIs).

So that squarely leaves the JF-17 as the only viable platform that it can configure today for SOWs.

It's currently equipped with the REK (60 km glide bomb kit for MK-8x-series GPBs) and C-802 AShM. However, I think we'll start hearing or seeing more on the way of SOW integration in the coming years, esp. in terms of ALCM and LR-PGBs. The goal is to undertake air strikes from within Pakistani territories and beyond the S-400's reach (i.e. at low altitude, using the Earth's curvature).

In effect, the PAF's most plausible option is to build out a larger JF-17 fleet, one with enough aircraft to undertake the SOW role on a frequent basis (with others handling defensive air-to-air duties). It'd be cheaper for it to focus on extending the range of the Ra'ad and getting stuff akin to the Denel Umbani/Tariq and Raptor III.

In another sense... If you (PAF) can't affordably build a large (enough) fleet of long-range fighters for combat over India (which also necessitates an insane, unprecedentedly large SEAD/DEAD campaign beyond Pakistan's resources) ... then why not double down on having lots of SOW-capable JF-17s?

Scale your logistics base and development costs and make operating your fighter fleet as cheap (on a per plane) basis as possible. You can even simplify the SOW chain by using the same propulsion, guidance systems, etc for ALCMs and AShM, hence making their procurement cheaper.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Tactically---indian airforce does not have more land to cover---. India has more land---but if the opponent cannot reach it---then what is the worry---.

Why---because the pakistani air force planes do not have the legs to fly deep---.

Pakistani kids and adults must be really really stupid to think that---. I mean to ask---what kind of idiot would utter that---that as india has more land---it needs more aircraft to cover their space---.

Fools don't understand---that in order for them to spread thin---you will have to be able to target those VAST areas---.

What delusions do pakistanis live under---.

The only way that is possible is to have deep strike aircraft---and open a front over the arabian seas / indian ocean on the indian flank---.

Otherwise---the IAF can easily contain the PAF

Looking at Pakistan's geography ( elongated shape ) a Indian heavy aircraft can dominate from end to end.
Add to that the fact, that they have numerical superiority.

PAF will gain nothing by going deep into enemy territory.
Any high value enemy assets can be destroyed with missiles much more efficiently.

Thus, small agile, very very agile, cheap to operate and electronically integrated is the way to go.

Hi,

But the indian heavy will not dominate over the ocean strikes from pakistan---. That will even the odds---or as a matter of fact---with the right aircraft---it would favor pakistan---.