I really wish Pakistan would take the option of an additional 18 F-16 Block 52s and supplement them with HARMS. Would be the most beautiful sight ever
If you are referring to the AGM-88 ..why? You already have an excellent ARM in the MAR-1 missile.
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.
I really wish Pakistan would take the option of an additional 18 F-16 Block 52s and supplement them with HARMS. Would be the most beautiful sight ever
If you are referring to the AGM-88 ..why? You already have an excellent ARM in the MAR-1 missile.
I wanna start by saying that I'm typically very conservative with making defence acquisition proposals and I understand that we have the MAR-1 but quite frankly:
1. It is my understanding that the F-16 cannot be loaded with the MAR-1; but then you might say, "well we'll just give the SEAD role to the JF-17s then!", however..
2. the MAR-1 is not combat proven unlike the stress tested and highly successful AGM-88 HARM
3. The JF-17 does not have the mature enough, complex EW suite to deal with a high-threat SAM environment. It is noteworthy that we possess the ALQ-211 for the F-16 which is, in my opinion, one of the absolute best AIDEWS systems in the world and certainly the best in South Asia.
4. The MAR-1 also unfortunately lacks the range that the AGM-88 HARM possesses. This is a field in which the HARM can be fired a good 40-50km before the MAR-1. This sort of advantage can keep our pilots away from SAM while safely taking them out.
My worry is that we might become over dependent on the JF-17 and put all the eggs in one basket. By that I mean that we are relying on it to take the anti-ship role with C-802A's and replace the Mirage 5PA3s at Masroor, and we are also relying on the same platform to carry out SEAD. I understand it's supposed to be a multi-role plane, but it think it's a case of too much too early. Don't get me wrong though, it is definely the most cost effective option . As I said earlier, I don't normally like making "wishlist" posts, but this is most definitely my wishful thinking.
Thoughts @Oscar @Munir @Aeronaut @Donatello? Do you think that the F-16 should take some of the burden off the new birds wings? And would you, if funds allowed it, take the option of the additional 18 F-16s and allocate them for a dedicated SEAD role squadron?
Edit: One last question and alternative. OR would you request that the MAR-1 be implemented on the PAFs F-16s?
The deal is sealed and missiles have been/ are being delivered.
Ye cheeezzzzzz!!!!
I technical question...Missiles like Mar-1 are specifically to be used against SAMs, anti-ballistic missile batteries, systems like Iron Dome and so on. And these missiles are called "anti-radiation" missiles.
What exactly does that mean? In other terms, "how" exactly are these missiles different from say regular air-to-ground missiles? Why can't regular air-to-ground missiles be used for destroying SAMs, Iron-Dome like system etc?
I wanna start by saying that I'm typically very conservative with making defence acquisition proposals and I understand that we have the MAR-1 but quite frankly:
1. It is my understanding that the F-16 cannot be loaded with the MAR-1; but then you might say, "well we'll just give the SEAD role to the JF-17s then!", however..
2. the MAR-1 is not combat proven unlike the stress tested and highly successful AGM-88 HARM
3. The JF-17 does not have the mature enough, complex EW suite to deal with a high-threat SAM environment. It is noteworthy that we possess the ALQ-211 for the F-16 which is, in my opinion, one of the absolute best AIDEWS systems in the world and certainly the best in South Asia.
4. The MAR-1 also unfortunately lacks the range that the AGM-88 HARM possesses. This is a field in which the HARM can be fired a good 40-50km before the MAR-1. This sort of advantage can keep our pilots away from SAM while safely taking them out.
My worry is that we might become over dependent on the JF-17 and put all the eggs in one basket. By that I mean that we are relying on it to take the anti-ship role with C-802A's and replace the Mirage 5PA3s at Masroor, and we are also relying on the same platform to carry out SEAD. I understand it's supposed to be a multi-role plane, but it think it's a case of too much too early. Don't get me wrong though, it is definely the most cost effective option . As I said earlier, I don't normally like making "wishlist" posts, but this is most definitely my wishful thinking.
Thoughts @Oscar @Munir @Aeronaut @Donatello? Do you think that the F-16 should take some of the burden off the new birds wings? And would you, if funds allowed it, take the option of the additional 18 F-16s and allocate them for a dedicated SEAD role squadron?
Edit: One last question and alternative. OR would you request that the MAR-1 be implemented on the PAFs F-16s?
I wanna start by saying that I'm typically very conservative with making defence acquisition proposals and I understand that we have the MAR-1 but quite frankly:
1. It is my understanding that the F-16 cannot be loaded with the MAR-1; but then you might say, "well we'll just give the SEAD role to the JF-17s then!", however..
2. the MAR-1 is not combat proven unlike the stress tested and highly successful AGM-88 HARM
3. The JF-17 does not have the mature enough, complex EW suite to deal with a high-threat SAM environment. It is noteworthy that we possess the ALQ-211 for the F-16 which is, in my opinion, one of the absolute best AIDEWS systems in the world and certainly the best in South Asia.
4. The MAR-1 also unfortunately lacks the range that the AGM-88 HARM possesses. This is a field in which the HARM can be fired a good 40-50km before the MAR-1. This sort of advantage can keep our pilots away from SAM while safely taking them out.
My worry is that we might become over dependent on the JF-17 and put all the eggs in one basket. By that I mean that we are relying on it to take the anti-ship role with C-802A's and replace the Mirage 5PA3s at Masroor, and we are also relying on the same platform to carry out SEAD. I understand it's supposed to be a multi-role plane, but it think it's a case of too much too early. Don't get me wrong though, it is definely the most cost effective option . As I said earlier, I don't normally like making "wishlist" posts, but this is most definitely my wishful thinking.
Thoughts @Oscar @Munir @Aeronaut @Donatello? Do you think that the F-16 should take some of the burden off the new birds wings? And would you, if funds allowed it, take the option of the additional 18 F-16s and allocate them for a dedicated SEAD role squadron?
Edit: One last question and alternative. OR would you request that the MAR-1 be implemented on the PAFs F-16s?
only 100 we order boss and why TOT@Oscar i read somewhere that we got tot for Mar 1 ?
dont know thats why i m asking a question i dont see any need for more thoughonly 100 we order boss and why TOT
No ToT, only integration with our aircraft. essentially the engineers from Mectron were here to help integrate the system onto the JF-17.@Oscar i read somewhere that we got tot for Mar 1 ?
no tot sir we just buy load on C-130 and bring them homedont know thats why i m asking a question i dont see any need for more though
1.Well, there are good points raised.. however the issue is not of integrating the MAR-1 onto the F-16, its of having a SEAD platform. The F-16 is the best candidate for it but at this point the issue is with weapons release and integration. The US is not too comfortable with letting the HARM go.
2. The problem lies with many of the weapons operational with the PAF(or many other airforces around the world). That risk has to be taken by mitigating it with simulated and live tests.
3. The JF-17 is not going to be the main SEAD platform nor is it at the start. Currently older Mirages with extra ECM are tasked with it. The JF-17 will however have enough ESM on it to allow it to be risked for SEAD.
4. The Range advantage being there, the MAR-1 does have fairly similar capabilities to the AGM-88D. And the range on the HARM at 150 km is when launched from altitude, the same goes for the MAR-1.
However, the HARM cannot be fired from any other aircraft other than the F-16. While the MAR-1 is compatible with the Mirages and the JF-17s. along with any additional platform that the PAF wishes.
more like the AGM-88A.
and MAR-1 is a derivative of the US missile.