Sir, PAF evaluated the J-10 2 years ago. The word after the evaluation was that the aircraft has immense potential. Now I cannot tell you how the PAF has decided to push the envelope on this supposedly great potential, but the recent indication of a pending order gives you an idea that PAF think that inducting this platform is a viable solution and one that fulfills the ASRs laid down for the platform. In terms of a demonstrated BVR capability, the J-10 is definitely not any worse off than JF-17 and the PAF is fairly well aware of the capabilities of the SD-10. The actual performance of the SD-10 is something that should be looked at and evaluated separately from the J-10 in my opinion. There is always the possibility that PAF may induct a western BVR solution for the J-10, however there is immense satisfaction in having the option to acquire a considerable inventory of the SD-10 even if western sources are not available. As bad as the AIM-7 Sparrow was, it was still a serious deterrent. I do not see SD-10 to be that bad a deal.
On the issue of the supply chain management, I think it depends on what the configuration for the FC-20 is. If PAF decide to go with a Western radar, then the issues are altogether different. Thus far getting access to Chinese technology has not been a problem (thanks to them!). Usually its our own requirements which make us go to other suppliers beyond the Chinese, otherwise the Chinese have always been very accommodating.
So I think the answers to most of the above is affirmative.
I am all for additional Vipers. However it would be a strategic folly to prefer the F-16 over the Chinese solutions (that is if its being proposed that PAF drop the Chinese hardware in favor of the Western solution). PAF has always had a mix of hardware for either the cost or reliability of supply reasons. Don't really see a reason why this approach should be shelved. Especially when Pakistani and US strategic interests do not always converge and the sanctions axe is always dangling over the heads of the planners in Islamabad.
I think this is a misunderstanding. JF-17s and J-10s will be tied into a converged grid via the AEW platforms. Operationally its not possible for PAF to conduct effective operations without having all of the Chinese and western assets tied into the PAF ADS. At least technically, I do not see any reason why the Chinese aircraft cannot be tied into the Link-16 architecture given the fact that Chinese have been producing NATO standard interfaces (on their databuses) for their aircraft for a while (for export customers). Lagging behind is one thing, not being able to communicate another. Also issues such as bandwith etc. can be addressed with putting more powerful hardware which is produced in mass in China. What I know for sure is that all new assets (JF-17, FC-20 and the F-16s MLU and blk52s) are fully planned to be integrated via DLs to the AEW platforms. We would not be acquiring 9 AEW platforms if this was deemed unfeasible. Its a lot of money to be spent and PAF have done their homework. Admittedly it may not be the best DL solution, it will still be workable for our purposes.
If you've watched the Red Flag video of the performance of the IAF several things the Colonel said should be on your mind.
Not sure if this is what the Col said. But currently the IAF Bisons are not DL'd. Currently the DL in use within the IAF is limited to 16 ship formations of the MKIs. They use GCI just like we do for extended situational awareness for their platforms like the Mig-21 and Mirage 2000 besides using the AI radars on their aircraft (both of which are limited to a range of less than 100 km).
While the range of their AEW will be considerable, it still does not provide them with that much of a surprise as PAF AEW assets are also capable of looking 350km inside of India. What these platforms do provide is the ability for both sides to have extended early warning of ingressing aircraft. So the good thing is that nobody should be surprised if these assets are employed effectively.
They surely can take more punishment than we can owing to their size and the adage "Quantity has a quality all its own" comes to mind, however I think this is the aspect where the Chinese hardware comes really handy for us. While losses to western hardware would be almost impossible to make up during wartime, its not so with the Chinese hardware. We have done this in the past wars and rebuilt PAF back up fairly quickly.
PAF would be stupid not to go for JF-17 and FC-20/J-10. 100 or 200 MRCA are all fine but are still susceptible to a deterrence put up by a mixed Multi-role force made up of F-16s, FC-20s and FC-17s all Data Linked and fielding BVRAAMs and high agility WVRAAMs. The technology does change, however PAFs solution is not a bad one.
IAF used their bisons fairly effectively (although under RoEs unfavourable to the USAF) against the USAF F-15s. Tactics and upgrades had a big role to play here. So not sure why the same cannot be possible with JF-17s and FC-20s against an IAF fleet with MKIs and MMRCAs?
PAF is fairly confident in terms of its capabilities and its ongoing upgrades. They know that if things keep on going the way they have, they will have a very credible capability against the IAF in the future. Their goals are obviously not those of attaining air dominance over the IAF, however for tactical superiority, PAF will be fielding a pretty good outfit.
I took this part of another one of your posts as I wanted to add a few lines about it. I think the question of why J-10 is being pursued has to addressed in light of the alternates.
To answer the question, I would say firstly, PAF would pay less than additional blk52s if it went for the J-10. Secondly, more blk52s means more aircraft that could be threatened with the blockage of spares (Pakistan is not a tier1/2 US ally or partner so we have to be mindful of what could happen in case the Congress gets a little nutty about Pakistan). The third and most important aspect is that the force structure review for the PAF for the past two decades at least has laid down a requirement for at least 400 combat aircraft. Given the restrictions and concerns I mentioned above, and the need to have high, medium, low performance mix in the force (F-16s/FC-20, JF-17s, Mirage/F-7PGs respectively), the FC-20 was deemed to be a very good platform. The costs associated with lifecycle, support etc. are acceptable because no matter which way you look at it, PAF will get the hardware at friendship rates and those too usually at our own payback schedule. Can't say the same about US FMS on this count at least.
Last edited:
With limited resources I advocate a mix of Gripen and Falcon MLU offering maximum convergence with AEW assets and at the top of the optimumal performance curve however you too are correct with diversity of the fleet. In other words I am basing my fleet modernisation plan on the assumption that ties with the West will improve/status quo whereas you factor in status quo/deterioration of ties as geopolitical factors when planning.
Great Discussion with you Sir.
Why would any of the other Arab states be interested in a Chinese made third gen fighter approaching block obsolescence if they have the cash to buy Western?
!
