PAF has a total of 76 F-16s
so around 130 modern fighters
these are enough to counter all IAF fighters except the su-30 mki
PAF need air superiority fighters to counter some 200 flankers F-15 strike eagle is perhaps the best option but no chance US will allow it
other options can be chinese j-11 of russian su-35 two or three squadrons should be enough for a country the size of pakistan
as far as SAMs are concerned the best and available option is the chinese derivative of s-300 maybe pakistan should get licence production for that system to promote local industry
No one is denying the need for either a twin engined platform for Air superiority/naval role and LRSAMs.
I hate the "our planes cannot go up against The SU MKI" debate. bhai are we talking about an air encounter or an Akhara where two Pehlwans are having a Kushti. Why do posters think the USAF perseveres with F16 inspite of having beasts like F15/18s and manufactures F35 inspite of having F22. Do the US fighter pilots go back to base if they are in a single engined fighter and face a twin engined fighter. What have the results of F16 vs F15/18 encounters been? There obviously is more to it than meets the eye. So what are the factors?
Twin engined platforms also suffer from Bigger RCS which makes them visible from a long distance.Single engined platforms for obvious reasons have smaller RCS and will be difficult to visualize so they do have their own advantage.
The other factors will be the range of the radar, an AESA and the range and quality of your BVR. In the presence of these factors the advantage of a twin engined fighter is neutralized. No one but a pimply youth will send a twin engined planed armed with 12 BVRs into an engagement zone as short as the Indo-Pak arena. You need to see the demo of the EFT fully armed from a couple of yrs ago and realize how a n armed fighter turns into a brick more difficult to maneuvre and turn. If it is a combo of 4 BVrs +WVRs the JFT will carry it as well as any other twin engined fighter. No one will loiter around in an arena where BVRs are flying Left right and center unless one has a death wish.
So single engined fighters have their own distinct advantage.In the light of the ABOVE YOU HAVE TO SEE THE FOCUS OF DEVELOPEMENT OF
JFT TO SEE WHAT THE PLANNERS ARE GOING FOR.
All of you need to read a brilliant post by @Oscar on the subject if you want to learn( JFT is the wrong omnirole aircraft for PAF# post 128). If you want to just pontificate after this then please continue.
Now the subject of LRSAMS. We know that these are expensive. Our only ally in this field is China and till 5-10 yrs ago it did not have a credible product to sell. The other offerings were too expensive for us and possibly not available as well. So we now only after many yrs have options open up to us with appropriate loans and friendship prices which we might be able to afford. The batteries for LRSAMs are still expensive and run into billions(3-4 Billion$) so they are not easy to get from anywhere.
With all other needs to take account of we have to prioritise our limited budget to get the maximum bang for the buck. Again on the subject of TOT we need to be realistic. What will our friends help us with and what will they object to or pleasantly and courteously decline is something that a lot of us do not understand. To quote an example it is on record that 2-3 yrs ago the Chinese denied us access to the Qing class subs. They have every right to do so.
The last factor in this whole equation is what is a viable option for us to get TOT on and what is not. Again one needs to look at our priority and what our friends will let us access and indeed what we are capable of absorbing in our industrial setup.
These are factors which need to be taken into account before posting your opinions. You need to remember why we made JFT as simple as it was with no composites and why one of our previous ACM said it was not possible for us to absorb the technology present on the Gripen.
Araz
?
