Pakistan-China Joint Exercise "Shaheen VII - 2018"

[SQ8]

yes i agree but you are already living with a maintenance nightmare with mirages.

Which is where the strike element might be compensated for with J-10Cs.
My friend, Instead of the usual “PAF is this or that” from inexperienced and irrelevant people on this forum that you will hear such stuff; I have experienced in the industry and speak to people such as those currently heading the Southern command.
Did you know that less than 5 years ago the PAF did not have enough money to even pay interest on the loans(not the payments themselves) it has for the new platforms it bought?
Things have only marginally improved and such decisions go into purchasing. Not 5 year but 30 year plans to ensure relevancy of capacity and flexibility.

With such limited finances there is no luxury of investing into one trick airframes or bomb trucks which as such will end up having to jettison their loads to escape even basic interceptions or air defence assets.

 

[CriticalThought]

What the advocates of JH7 seem to be missing is the fact that max range of SOWs relies on the height and velocity at which they are released. The JH-7 could attain height, but can it attain speed?

Next, once India brings forth its carrier battle group, the Arabian Sea is not going to be a friendly place for any aircrafts. And given increasing Indian and Israeli influence in Oman, it is naive to seek safety in the Western Arabian Sea. Bomb trucks are very good when you have the luxury of large numbers of capable defenders. In the absence of a long range fighter, bomb trucks for PAF make no sense.

For the record, this is the reason why I am against a strike version of Thunder even. I am even against the J-10s. Su-35s provide the real capability we need, and I really hope PAF will get the budget for them.

Even a TVC J-10 isn't ideal. The mechanical moving parts on a TVC engine mean higher chances of failure due to which twin engine is a must.

 

[SQ8]

What the advocates of JH7 seem to be missing is the fact that max range of SOWs relies on the height and velocity at which they are released. The JH-7 could attain height, but can it attain speed?

Next, once India brings forth its carrier battle group, the Arabian Sea is not going to be a friendly place for any aircrafts. And given increasing Indian and Israeli influence in Oman, it is naive to seek safety in the Western Arabian Sea. Bomb trucks are very good when you have the luxury of large numbers of capable defenders. In the absence of a long range fighter, bomb trucks for PAF make no sense.

For the record, this is the reason why I am against a strike version of Thunder even. I am even against the J-10s. Su-35s provide the real capability we need, and I really hope PAF will get the budget for them.

Even a TVC J-10 isn't ideal. The mechanical moving parts on a TVC engine mean higher chances of failure due to which twin engine is a must.

TVC is less and less relevant against higher maneuvering off boresight missiles capable of 50G.
It may have some utility in BVR fights to give a last minute advantage for evasive maneuvering; but in general its defeated simply if the enemy refuses to fight on certain terms.
Terms that are harder to enforce with the increasing sensor awareness found i most modern fighters.

 

[CriticalThought]

TVC is less and less relevant against higher maneuvering off boresight missiles capable of 50G.
It may have some utility in BVR fights to give a last minute advantage for evasive maneuvering; but in general its defeated simply if the enemy refuses to fight on certain terms.
Terms that are harder to enforce with the increasing sensor awareness found i most modern fighters.

TVC coupled with decoys can be a hard nut to crack at BVR range.

I predict an active protection anti-A2A missile capability in the future. The old BFM dance never gets old.

 

[FuturePAF]

The asserted “qualities “ of the JH-7 are not applicable to the PAF or PN vis a vis budget and future growth,

It uses Chinese copies of the Spey engine but that leads to it having a lower thrust to weight ratio even to the older F-4 Phantom and payload comparable less than the Tornado which is a much much superior airplane.

For the 70-80’s PLAAF looking for an indigenous strike platform it was an OK design, but it is wholly disadvantaged for both today’s and tomorrow’s fight.

As for the wikipedia pasted assertion on how it was to mirror the F-111 or otherwise, all it takes is a cursory look at its payload/range on a Hi-lo-lo-Hi mission to see how its barely as good as the blackburn bucaneer(designed in the 50s) and lacks flexibility against more modern threats.

Those advocating for the Jh-7 probably are from the 50s with a thought process mirrored in that age; along with similar understanding of how military arms are run.

Fair point that it may not be best suited aircraft for the mission, but the mission; long range AShM carrier to deal with the emerging threat of Indian Carrier Battle Groups blockading our ports. Which aircraft do you think would be best to meet the mission requirements? (Maybe the J-11D) Also, Do you agree the PN should have its own fighter/bombers, or should these planes be flown by the PAF?

If Finances are the critical Issue; Even one Squadran of J-11D (18 aircraft) for long range low level Anti-Shipping backed by two PAF Squadrans of JF-17 dedicated for Shore Defense maybe enough. 50% of the force at Karachi and 25% at Ormara and 25% at Gwadar maybe enough to cover the navy and hold back the Indians. Thoughts?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Which is where the strike element might be compensated for with J-10Cs.
My friend, Instead of the usual “PAF is this or that” from inexperienced and irrelevant people on this forum that you will hear such stuff; I have experienced in the industry and speak to people such as those currently heading the Southern command.
Did you know that less than 5 years ago the PAF did not have enough money to even pay interest on the loans(not the payments themselves) it has for the new platforms it bought?
Things have only marginally improved and such decisions go into purchasing. Not 5 year but 30 year plans to ensure relevancy of capacity and flexibility.

With such limited finances there is no luxury of investing into one trick airframes or bomb trucks which as such will end up having to jettison their loads to escape even basic interceptions or air defence assets.

I'd add that even multi-role platforms are not a sure bet either.

On paper, the Block-52+ alone is sufficient to manage strike needs, but US restrictions on the sale of JSOW, JASSM and Harpoon Block-II limit its actual potential, so it's not at the level the PAF would prefer in terms of deep strike.

Likewise, Egypt is finding its Rafales partially capped because of a lone ITAR component in the SCALP ALCM.

As good as the Su-35 is, we don't know how willing (or easy to work with) the Russians would be re: custom integration work (to load Ra'ad, Chinese AShM, etc).

I'd say the absolute best strike platform for the PAF was the Mirage 2000-5/-9. It had the right balance of range, payload capacity, electronics (RDY-3 with terrain avoidance) and openness from Dassault to integrate one's choice of SOW, AShM and ALCM.

The next best thing now would be the J-10CE. If anything, you can at least ensure compatibility with the CM-302 or HD-1A supersonic AShM ... plus extending the use of the SD-10A and C-802A inventory across more fighters and probably being allowed to link-up Ra'ad/II.

 

[ziaulislam]

If PAF has bought some J-10s, the sanctions on F-16 are meaningless to USA.

its already meaningless..issue is cost effectiveness of new f16. Used are blocked for completely different reason...Israel deal to sell used f16 to NATO member Croatia was blocked this week ..as USA wants to sell its own

 

[LKJ86]

its already meaningless..issue is cost effectiveness of new f16. Used are blocked for completely different reason...Israel deal to sell used f16 to NATO member Croatia was blocked this week ..as USA wants to sell its own

Why meaningless?

 

[enroger]

I agree you need a long range naval strike platform, aside from the obvious use against IN, it also offers an option to threaten Indian SLOC that is more efficient then subs.

If not JH-7 then something along the line of Su-30 or Su-35, you need that capability.

Hi,

I would have had 2 sqdrn's in 2013 when the offer came---.



Hi,

Why---?

The JH7A is still the best aircraft for naval strike roles---. Can carry two heavy AShM's---which is a must for naval strike mission---. You cannot go against an enemy with just one AShM ---that is bad planning bad decision---.

As for Paf's assessments---for the last 47 years---they have been from bad to worst---full of excuses and reeking of incompetence---.

Paf has gone so bad that it has jubiliated at shooting down third rate afghan air force aircraft with first rate fighter aircraft and strutting around like peacocks as if they had conquered the K2 for the very first time---.

The naval strike aircraft needs to be considered keeping in perspective the our arabian sea / indian ocean geographic position---.

It is human nature to look for EASY WAY---. That is what the F16 jocks would do---.

If you ever read up the biographies of the US pilots who did not got assigned to other aircraft and not the F16's---they also hated those other aircraft---till they learnt to fly them---flew those aircraft on the merits of HOW THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE FLOWN AND USED---and then they changed their minds---.

When the Paf had analyzed them---they did not have the 350 KM ---500 Km range standoff weapons at that time---shoot and scoot. When they analyzed them---they look for a merge---.

In this case---the aircraft would be launching from the farthest possible point and then bugging off---.

One has to look at the arabian sea and pakistan's geography in relation to the opponents geography---pakistan's air base close to Gwadar---one would notice that the Paf would have a lots of leeway in managing and flying their missions---.

This aircraft is not a problem---the problem is with the Paf's mindset---.

 

[帅的一匹]

I agree you need a long range naval strike platform, aside from the obvious use against IN, it also offers an option to threaten Indian SLOC that is more efficient then subs.

If not JH-7 then something along the line of Su-30 or Su-35, you need that capability.

J16 is the best option.

I'd add that even multi-role platforms are not a sure bet either.

On paper, the Block-52+ alone is sufficient to manage strike needs, but US restrictions on the sale of JSOW, JASSM and Harpoon Block-II limit its actual potential, so it's not at the level the PAF would prefer in terms of deep strike.

Likewise, Egypt is finding its Rafales partially capped because of a lone ITAR component in the SCALP ALCM.

As good as the Su-35 is, we don't know how willing (or easy to work with) the Russians would be re: custom integration work (to load Ra'ad, Chinese AShM, etc).

I'd say the absolute best strike platform for the PAF was the Mirage 2000-5/-9. It had the right balance of range, payload capacity, electronics (RDY-3 with terrain avoidance) and openness from Dassault to integrate one's choice of SOW, AShM and ALCM.

The next best thing now would be the J-10CE. If anything, you can at least ensure compatibility with the CM-302 or HD-1A supersonic AShM ... plus extending the use of the SD-10A and C-802A inventory across more fighters and probably being allowed to link-up Ra'ad/II.

what Pakistan desperatly need is striker like J16 or Su30.

 

[enroger]

J16 is the best option.


what Pakistan desperatly need is striker like J16 or Su30.

J-16 is indeed superior, however there are significant political huddles for China to start exporting flanker derivatives....

Maybe when the case can be made that Russia 100% would not sell to Pakistan then there might be some possibilities.

 

[MIRauf]

J-11D hasn't even made it past the development phase, how can you induct it ? Latest is that SAC has put J-11D on back burner.

I am interested in Acura NSX Type-R, slated for 2020, doesn't mean that I be buying or leasing it, I am just interested. Acura may decide to put it on back burner or delay it.

 

[CriticalThought]

As good as the Su-35 is, we don't know how willing (or easy to work with) the Russians would be re: custom integration work (to load Ra'ad, Chinese AShM, etc).

It would be disingenuous to disregard a platform based purely on unknowns. We should at least try to find out whether the Russians would be willing and helpful to allow integration.

That said, a big reason for acquiring Su-35s in the first place is to take advantage of, and understand, Russian philosophy of aerial warfare along with Russian weapons. It would be a waste to only acquire the platform and not the weapons package.

Of course, we would want to integrate our own weapons as well. Would Russia disallow that? If we look for parallels, Russia has allowed China to create an entire line of indigenous Flankers as long as they don't export. And I believe as long as integration doesn't doesn't affect exports, Russia would allow anything. @vostok

It is interesting to note that the same country France which allows open integration in Mirage-2000 becomes restricted by American interference. And one thing that is guaranteed in a Russian deal is the absence of any American influence on Russia. We just need the balls to stand up to CAATSA.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

It would be disingenuous to disregard a platform based purely on unknowns. We should at least try to find out whether the Russians would be willing and helpful to allow integration.

That said, a big reason for acquiring Su-35s in the first place is to take advantage of, and understand, Russian philosophy of aerial warfare along with Russian weapons. It would be a waste to only acquire the platform and not the weapons package.

Of course, we would want to integrate our own weapons as well. Would Russia disallow that? If we look for parallels, Russia has allowed China to create an entire line of indigenous Flankers as long as they don't export. And I believe as long as integration doesn't doesn't affect exports, Russia would allow anything. @vostok

It is interesting to note that the same country France which allows open integration in Mirage-2000 becomes restricted by American interference. And one thing that is guaranteed in a Russian deal is the absence of any American influence on Russia. We just need the balls to stand up to CAATSA.

There's a finite amount of fiscal resources in Pakistan. Yes, the entire package could be bought from Russia, but the PAF's stated requirement for off-the-shelf fighters has been at 30-40 (it can't procure many more at this time). So a full-package that's disconnected from the systems the PAF had already purchased (e.g., SD-10, C-802A, etc) will be very expensive and, in all likelihood, force a trade-off and opportunity costs elsewhere.

Secondly, we do have to dismiss things based on unknowns. The rational way to act is based on certain or known knowledge, not on things we don't know. So if we don't know if the Russians will be amenable to integrating first or third-party systems, then we should be cautious about proceeding with them.

Ultimately, the way forward with Russia will likely be in terms of developing core industrial inputs that will feed into Pakistani weapon systems, such as Project Azm. This will be easier for both sides.

 

[帅的一匹]

J-16 is indeed superior, however there are significant political huddles for China to start exporting flanker derivatives....

Maybe when the case can be made that Russia 100% would not sell to Pakistan then there might be some possibilities.

how is the deal between Pakiatan and Russia going?

i mean Su35.