Pakistan eyes Chinese jets to counter IAF dominance

[D-WARRIOR]

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'.

soo heavies are required then.. what are our options then??

 

[rockstar08]

@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
View attachment 178145
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.

View attachment 178158

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'.

@HRK this is exaclty me , mastan khan and other members were discussing , obviously i dont know much technical details like you provide in your post , but what you have mentioned all i agree with ..

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Kiya eye out for Chinese planes , we had J10B deal not taken , ab 10 years wait karo

Stealth technology koi penuts hai jo free main mil jaigi

 

[SQ8]

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".

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,

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'.

Looking at it one by one.. I see a lot of convenient omissions from your analysis.

What are the strategic and tactical objectives of the PAF? You have not discussed them or theorized what they might entail. Without having a clear cut picture of what those are, how can we say that one approach is better than the other?

Are BVR capable aircraft also the ONLY aircraft capable of precision strike and stand off weapons usage? Considering that the PAFs stand off inventory is distributed across the Mirage fleet for now...and they are not BVR capable.. does that make them useless?

The answer to that is no, they are strike assets which have a particular task to perform. The Entire world employes both strike and air superiority assets in different platforms. The PAF is not unique to this idea.
There is a massive operational disparity that has to be matched by acquired more mid range assets rather than spending our limited budget on theoritical silver bullet heavy assets.

And there seems to be no need to deviate from that potential. At this point the PAF posses strike platforms whose task is to operate with a limited degree of success. There is a need for a deep strike platform but the idea that it has to be a heavy platform is as fallacious as the argument that the Gripen would have been a better choice than the JF-17.. the PAF wanted a strike fighter that could with impunity some 300km into India. and it eyed the M2K. Since that was not available it switched its focus on the Block-52. There is still a need for a strike platform but any medium platform that is capable of successfully penetrating deeper into the Indian ADGE will suffice.
More importantly, no fighter does anything on its own.. at least for the PAF. The flypasts of 23rd march or 14th August are clues enough as to how combat operations are conducted. Those aircraft that you see arriving at perfectly timed intervals do not all fly out from the same base...or at the same time; but they all arrive at the "target" at the same ToT. In wartime, this is what will happen if a Mirage strike is heading out to attack a defended target...it will have support from either F-16 or JF-17 assets.. and will be provided radar warning via the PAFs Air Defence Network as much as possible.

As for Stand off weapons, you are mistaken in thinking that the Raptor(H-2/4), Raad and other air launched stand off platform will be construed as a nuclear launch.. or for that matter the usage of babur. The IAF is getting a ton of Brahmos.. shall we think that every Brahmos launch will be thought as a nuclear launch?Or their usage of their Spice and Popeye systems the same?

Additionally, Ballistic missiles have generally no play in this matter.The Launch of a BM is something that can be construed as a nuclear provocation; but that of a cruise or standoff platform is not.

Stand off platforms do not necessarily have to stay behind safe territory.. the idea of stand off is to ensure that the attacking aircraft does not come in danger of the enemy Air defence. While the Indian Air Defence network is impressive.. it is not an Iron wall. It covers their important installations and provides a radius of cover... when you can attack the target outside this radius of cover.. you have your stand off terminology. There are already pre-set targets that are revised at regular intervals for the PAF's offensive plan...they form key spokes in the wheel(and the opposite from the IAFs PoV is also true) and will dent any war efforts of the foe if hit. And there are sufficient numbers of stand off weapons to carry out that task.
Additionally, to think that the F-16s are NOT capable of carrying out certain tasks inside enemy territory is ignoring the lessons of forces like the IDF.

The last paragraph is another ignorance of repeated results from air combat results. In which the key conclusion is not about BVR or Radar range.. but about situational awareness. Being able to employ assets most effectively and letting those assets have better situational awareness than the approaching enemy. The PAFs whole hulabaloo regarding its network centric operations is centred around this whole concept. The JF-17 does not need a massive radar because it will be receiving data from off board sensors. What is important for it to prevail over any other fighter is its ability to detect and attack another target before the other target is able to... versus the F-16 which has a considerably smaller RCS than say a MKI..the JF-17 is still detected at half the ranges of it in exercises. That means that it can get closer to a much larger target before it itself becomes a target, and possibly employ a weapon before a much larger target does..More importantly, none of these assets are fighting alone, but in concert with each other.

The PAF is lacking both technologically and numerically behind the IAF, but that calls for more 4th generation networked assets that can provide it the ability to offset those numbers.. along with a limited medium asset(other than the F-16s) of the 4++ category to provide a strike punch.

As to how with such a wide range of variable has the sudden argument for "heavy" aircraft come up is pretty unclear to me.
Without the following questions answered, I see no solid argument for a heavy platform

1.What operational requirements within the PAF vis a vis targets and loitering power demand a heavy rather than a medium asset?

2.What advantage would a heavy asset bring in terms of networked operations and avionics that would offset its high cost in procurement, logistics and consequent limited numbers due to the small budget of the PAF?

3. How would the above advantages be any better in meeting the requirements of the PAF as compared to the pre-existing ideal of a JF-17,F-16 mix supplemented by a Medium strike asset?

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

@Oscar

How much advantage does CFT have in regards to naval operations? Would it be wise to retrofit some F-16 with them for this role rather than going after heavies.

 

[Super Falcon]

I still think paf should buy something which give it a edge since 80s paf nose diced jf 17 is good but not something we say it will gice a edge ocer iaf