Pakistan eyes Chinese jets to counter IAF dominance

[SQ8]

unless its proven i can shout that jf-17 can beat the sh1t out of F-22 raptor . lolz but i dont want peoples throw stones at me by saying " Pagal hai , Pagal hai "

They wont throw stones at you, they will laugh at you. You need to get out of the "asset for asset" warfare thinking. It is the same reason the US is keeping quiet while petty detractors like Pierre Sprey are making TRP on bashing the F-35. Today is the age of networked warfare and shared combat goals. It wont be the MKI vs the F-16 or the JF-17 vs Mig-29.. it will the PAF vs the IAF.. period. It the assets of the PAF will be fighting in a combined operation against the other.. in this case a networked link of F-16s, JF-17s and Mirages all with the picture given to them by the Ground and airborne radar assets planning their strategies against those of the IAF with MKIs, Jaguars, M2ks and so on.
That is how you gauge success.. and to think that the JF-17 is completely out gunned is to ignore the results of AIMVAL/ACEVAL and practical lessons in aircombat. That any day of the week, the pilot and fighting force that knows more about the enemy and plans better is going to have a greater chance of success against one that is on paper better equipped.

 

[rockstar08]

They wont throw stones at you, they will laugh at you. You need to get out of the "asset for asset" warfare thinking. It is the same reason the US is keeping quiet while petty detractors like Pierre Sprey are making TRP on bashing the F-35. Today is the age of networked warfare and shared combat goals. It wont be the MKI vs the F-16 or the JF-17 vs Mig-29.. it will the PAF vs the IAF.. period. It the assets of the PAF will be fighting in a combined operation against the other.. in this case a networked link of F-16s, JF-17s and Mirages all with the picture given to them by the Ground and airborne radar assets planning their strategies against those of the IAF with MKIs, Jaguars, M2ks and so on.
That is how you gauge success.. and to think that the JF-17 is completely out gunned is to ignore the results of AIMVAL/ACEVAL and practical lessons in aircombat. That any day of the week, the pilot and fighting force that knows more about the enemy and plans better is going to have a greater chance of success against one that is on paper better equipped.

ok agreed, but what Asset of PAF you are talking about bhai ? do we even have a long range SAM system ?? , and even to fight a networked linked warfare in the end it will your fighter which will fly to sky and face the enemy planes right ?
what you are saying is good but only in the sense of a defensive warfare , what about bombing deep inside enemy territory ? PAF over the years keep telling us that we are defensive force , but there must be something which needs to be done , not always defence force is enough ? or unless you have a defense force like Israel ..

 

[SQ8]

ok agreed, but what Asset of PAF you are talking about bhai ? do we even have a long range SAM system ?? , and even to fight a networked linked warfare in the end it will your fighter which will fly to sky and face the enemy planes right ?
what you are saying is good but only in the sense of a defensive warfare , what about bombing deep inside enemy territory ? PAF over the years keep telling us that we are defensive force , but there must be something which needs to be done , not always defence force is enough ? or unless you have a defense force like Israel ..

Yes, and your fighter not fly alone.. it will not fight alone. It will have a situational picture that is built from the information given by AEW, other fighters, ground radar and so on. It will fight in coordination with other fighters and all available assets. Enemy aircraft will be baited and herded into kill zones for existing air defence.

As for offensive warfare, you have to understand the same about what faces the Enemy. The USAF with its awesome offensive power and with AEW supported still ended up with surprises in some cases by the Iraqi Air Force.. which it won due to superior training and less with superior equipment. What it tells you that even with superior equipment being over enemy territory is a massive disadvantage for any attacker. In our case the workaround for the offensive is stand off weapons; the PAF has invested heavily in stand off assets that allow for our fighters to attack those targets that we need to hit the most without putting our assets in danger.

 

[rockstar08]

Yes, and your fighter not fly alone.. it will not fight alone. It will have a situational picture that is built from the information given by AEW, other fighters, ground radar and so on. It will fight in coordination with other fighters and all available assets. Enemy aircraft will be baited and herded into kill zones for existing air defence.

As for offensive warfare, you have to understand the same about what faces the Enemy. The USAF with its awesome offensive power and with AEW supported still ended up with surprises in some cases by the Iraqi Air Force.. which it won due to superior training and less with superior equipment. What it tells you that even with superior equipment being over enemy territory is a massive disadvantage for any attacker. In our case the workaround for the offensive is stand off weapons; the PAF has invested heavily in stand off assets that allow for our fighters to attack those targets that we need to hit the most without putting our assets in danger.

ok got your point its not bad to have some heavies , ? let alone PAF , we have to see the PN to , IN is huge in front of our tiny PN fleet , what and how we suppose to hit Enemy ships guarding with DDG's and Frigates , ?

@MastanKhan you should read this .. Oscar did make good point , what do you think ?

 

[SQ8]

ok got your point its not bad to have some heavies , ? let alone PAF , we have to see the PN to , IN is huge in front of our tiny PN fleet , what and how we suppose to hit Enemy ships guarding with DDG's and Frigates , ?

@MastanKhan you should read this .. Oscar did make good point , what do you think ?

Its not that having heavies is a bad thing, its whether you really need them as desperately as you would rather have more medium or light weight assets to do the job. What the PN needs is an air asset that can stay on station to provide air cover and prosecute maritime and strategic strike missions. For that the F-16 could suffice if equipped properly or ideally an aircraft like the Eurofighter. In light of neither being available, the PN is left with the hobsons choice of relying on a light fighter that can provide air cover with refuelling support and carry out respectable maritime strikes. It must be remembered that the Argentinians managed to attack the RN with aircraft that were much less capable(relative to the time) and carried much less.

A better world alternative would be to have a medium-large aircraft for the PN along the lines of the Mig-35 which can carry some 4 AsHMs to provide greater impact. But that would require funds for not just the aircraft but the logistics and training.. not to mention the headache of having another asset to have to keep worrying about sanctions for.

 

[Donatello]

Its not that having heavies is a bad thing, its whether you really need them as desperately as you would rather have more medium or light weight assets to do the job. What the PN needs is an air asset that can stay on station to provide air cover and prosecute maritime and strategic strike missions. For that the F-16 could suffice if equipped properly or ideally an aircraft like the Eurofighter. In light of neither being available, the PN is left with the hobsons choice of relying on a light fighter that can provide air cover with refuelling support and carry out respectable maritime strikes. It must be remembered that the Argentinians managed to attack the RN with aircraft that were much less capable(relative to the time) and carried much less.

A better world alternative would be to have a medium-large aircraft for the PN along the lines of the Mig-35 which can carry some 4 AsHMs to provide greater impact. But that would require funds for not just the aircraft but the logistics and training.. not to mention the headache of having another asset to have to keep worrying about sanctions for.

JH-7 and J-10 can do that role, two squadrons, 36 aircraft would be enough for a constant AsHM role....while being multirole to be dispatched for strike/air defense in other sorties.

 

[SQ8]

JH-7 and J-10 can do that role, two squadrons, 36 aircraft would be enough for a constant AsHM role....while being multirole to be dispatched for strike/air defense in other sorties.

The JH-7 is pointless in that role even if we could afford more assets like that. It is a pointless in air to air combat which is also a requirement for the asset needed by the PN. The J-10 is just a slightly longer legged JF-17 with regards to this role.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

So by that logic it would be economical to turn a Toyota Corolla into a Maserti or Ferrari class car?

After all Ferrari was based on an other car. The classic example is VW Beetle which ended up as Porche.

 

[SQ8]

After all Ferrari was based on an other car. The classic example is VW Beetle which ended up as Porche.

 

[Donatello]

View attachment 178091

The JH-7 is pointless in that role even if we could afford more assets like that. It is a pointless in air to air combat which is also a requirement for the asset needed by the PN. The J-10 is just a slightly longer legged JF-17 with regards to this role.

PLAN is pretty happy with the JH-7...provided enough payload for a maritime role.
On J-10....yes it is longer legged, but also comes with more hard points.......3 fuel tanks on JF-17 for range and you can't carry any anti ship missiles.......Mig35 too suffers from range issues...

 

[SQ8]

PLAN is pretty happy with the JH-7...provided enough payload for a maritime role.
On J-10....yes it is longer legged, but also comes with more hard points.......3 fuel tanks on JF-17 for range and you can't carry any anti ship missiles.......Mig35 too suffers from range issues...

This is the PLAN orbat.

Aircraft Origin Role Version Number[1][2] Comment
Fighter aircraft
Shenyang J-11

China Air Superiority Fighter J-11BH 24[1]
Sukhoi Su-30MKK

Russia Multirole Fighter Su-30MK2 24[1] 50 more on order.
Shenyang J-15

China Multirole Fighter J-15 16 Carrier capable 4.5th generation aircraft for use aboard the PLAN aircraft carrier 16 Liaoning.
Chengdu J-10

China Multirole Fighter J-10A
J-10S 24[1]
Shenyang J-8

China Interceptor J-8F
J-8H 48[1]
Chengdu J-7

China Interceptor J-7E 30[2]
Strike aircraft
Xian JH-7

China Strike Aircraft JH-7
JH-7A 120[1]

So clearly they are happy with the JH-7 as their strike aircraft.. not as their air cover asset.

 

[MilSpec]

You might need this as well,Chinese OICWView attachment 177291 :

Nice work on the dressed up OICW, but looks like it's an AK47 underneath, The mag is an 30 round AK mag and the mag release is the same, the gastube port too looks like an AK. But kudos on the rest of it , looks legit.

 

[rockstar08]

Its not that having heavies is a bad thing, its whether you really need them as desperately as you would rather have more medium or light weight assets to do the job. What the PN needs is an air asset that can stay on station to provide air cover and prosecute maritime and strategic strike missions. For that the F-16 could suffice if equipped properly or ideally an aircraft like the Eurofighter. In light of neither being available, the PN is left with the hobsons choice of relying on a light fighter that can provide air cover with refuelling support and carry out respectable maritime strikes. It must be remembered that the Argentinians managed to attack the RN with aircraft that were much less capable(relative to the time) and carried much less.

A better world alternative would be to have a medium-large aircraft for the PN along the lines of the Mig-35 which can carry some 4 AsHMs to provide greater impact. But that would require funds for not just the aircraft but the logistics and training.. not to mention the headache of having another asset to have to keep worrying about sanctions for.

well you are right , but i believe that 1-2 Sqs of j Series wont be bad option , right now PAF is desperately looking for some used F-16's , in order to fill the gap , that is why they cancel J-10b i guess .. i think that is a wise decision , Indians are no where near to sign the Rafale deal , and all they will get is more numbers of Mki's ..
what i am saying here that we should not used the new heavies for maritime strike missions or just bombing the strategic assets of india , but some heavies will make sure that enemy think twice before he even think of any misadventure ..it could be symbol of power projection ....
but right now the PAF is in condition that even few numbers of Mki will be a concern for them ...

 

[AFlover]

well you are right , but i believe that 1-2 Sqs of j Series wont be bad option , right now PAF is desperately looking for some used F-16's , in order to fill the gap , that is why they cancel J-10b i guess .. i think that is a wise decision , Indians are no where near to sign the Rafale deal , and all they will get is more numbers of Mki's ..
what i am saying here that we should not used the new heavies for maritime strike missions or just bombing the strategic assets of india , but some heavies will make sure that enemy think twice before he even think of any misadventure ..it could be symbol of power projection ....
but right now the PAF is in condition that even few numbers of Mki will be a concern for them ...

I dont know why PAF doesn't think to modify its doctrine of not procuring heavies to ehance its reach everybody feel the need of it especially for stike role and Navy they definately need lo g endurance fighter
PAF can procure the funds from the govt if present the case effectively
I think over relying on 16s is dangerous us may play its role right at the time of conflict, there should be another 4, 4.5 gen long legged fighter in the inventory

 

[HRK]

@rockstar08

Why do some members of the board (let me confess that I am among one of them) feel there is a need for some heavier platforms in PAF ??

Before to answer this question at this level I believe its more logical if I present at least my part of understanding step by step

Concept of Air Power:
It is such a wide concept which covers every factor upon which Aerial warfare is dependent, but in its core this is a concept of "Projection of Power & Influence from Air to achieve Strategic, Tactical or Operational objectives".

RAF in its Doctrine define this concept as under:
"The ability to project power from the air and space to influence the behaviour of people or the course of events"

Now here at this stage recall the inventory of IAF and PAF & compare not just the numeric size of both forces but the their technological gap and lethality, you & every other can easily can make a guess that which side is more likely to get influenced by opponent and which side is more likely to achieve Strategic, Tactical or Operational objectives, by employing their aerial assets.

Following is the table which classify the fighters on the basis of their technical capabilities

Now keep in mind that the basic nature of Air-power is Offensive & Aerial assets can be best utilized when employed offensively, though the extent of offence depend on the limitation of role of engagement ROE, I would like to remind you the strategy of offensive defence of PAF in the war 1965 and to an extent in the war of 1971.

PAF & IAF Inventory (Aircraft)
At this section of my post I will limit my discussion to the fighter aircraft inventory of both Air forces.

PAF: As we know PAF operates F-16MLU & BLK 52+ are 4th generation aircrafts while JF-17 is still a 4the generation aircraft but fall at the lower tier of 4th generation category, Mirage III/V, J-7 are 3rd generation aircafts

IAF: IAF operates SU-30 MKI (4+ gen), MiG-29 (4th gen), Mirage 2K5 (4th gen), MiG-21 (3 gen) while upgraded Jag would also fall in the category of 4th gen.

Operational Disparity
Here you can very easily observe the disparity of PAF against the IAF not just in terms of numbers but in terms of technology, somewhere at the forum I posted earlier that IAF (including Indian Navy Air Wing) currently have +400 BVR (4 gen or 4+ gen) aircraft while Pakistan have only 124 BVR capable aircraft & in next 3 years we will add only 50 more aircraft (JF-17 blk-II)

Now consider the role which these 124/174 (in three years) aircrafts would have to perform If wars breaks out today or with in next three years, these aircraft will be required to perform Counter Surface Operations (including Land & Sea), Combat Air Patrol, Close Air Support (including Maritime Duties).

what about Air Interdiction role inside Enemy Territory ? would they be able to perform this role in 'effective manner' with limited aerial assets at their disposal ???

In that role they would have to face +400 BVR fighter including ~150 non BVR/ limited BVR capable fighter aircraft of the opponent (to keep the scenario simple I am not including SAM sys here).

Alternative Options
At this stage we hear the argument that PAF is not an offensive force therefore it does not have the doctrine of power projection but here most of people forget that PAF was never an Offensive Force and never had a doctrine of Power Projection in absolute terms but in 'limited' manner

Limited Air Interdiction inside enemy territory in terms of aerial depth does not comply with the concept of Power projection which required employment of aerial assets for longer period of time in or around enemy territory which cost not just financially but in terms of Human capital as well.

The second argument which is equivalently popular is the 'STANDOFF WEAPONS' which will be employed for any such operation, which raised some secondary questions.

- Are we intended to employ Cruise (Air & Ground launch) and Ballistic Missiles (SRBM + Battle filled ) in that role ??

In my understanding which may or may not be wrong, because of the limited number of aerial platform we are bound to use these assets but the problem in the employment of these assets is that all of them are nuclear capable, even their employment in conventional role may raise unwanted signal, so this option seems effective but dangerous due to their high profile nature.

Conventional weapons such as H-2, H-4, C-802 (air launch version), Glide bombs, PGMs & others are available but their range are limited, so their role and impact would remain limited.

- Do we have sufficient numbers Cruise and Ballistic missiles in our inventory?

They are expensive so their employment will remain limited to the High-value Targets only, but what would be the sufficient number which will required to eliminate the high value targets is another issue of debate.

So over dependency on Cruise or Ballistic Missile can prove a mistake which may attract some undesired consequences, Aircrafts (here I am not emphasizing for heavies) should be preferred option.

At this stage its quite evident that no matter how big our arsenal of Stand off weapons including Cruise or Ballistic missiles would be even then Fighter Jet would be required to do the job inside enemy territory. So in that case the question arise about the survivability of the aircraft inside enemy territory

Survivability of the Aircraft
Survivability of 4 or 4+ generation is mainly dependent on two factors electronic warfare & Situational awarness which is dependent on the Networking & Avionics capabilities of the aircraft, I believe you do know the capabilities of our 'existing fleet' of PAF which would struggle against opponents inside enemy territory. Now tell me our JF-17 & F-16 offer better capability then Su-30 or Rafel or Euro fighter ?? if not then their chane of survival are limited.

If we are unable to pose threat to enemy (our current fleet does not pose any threat to India) who would we able to influence the people (forces on ground+decision makers) and the course of events (war events) in other mean we will find it very difficult to achieve the our Strategic, Tactical or Operational objective.

In the word of General Erwin Rommel

“The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adopting compromise solutions”

So cut the long story short due to limited capabilities & numbers of PAF assets we think heavies are needed to avoid a situation in which we are forced to adopt the Compromised Solution or find ourselves in situation in which we have to decide about 'ultimate decision'.