Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

[Patriot]

brother no offense to you but sadly enough all your post have a same answer!!
do some research, the net is full of this info! the very thread you are posting your question have detailed discussion about pakistani F16 firing BVR!

anyhow for a quick review:
currently no PAF plane is able to fire BVR missiles. (this includes F16)
pakistani F16 will be able to fire BVR Aim 120C5 after the MLU is completed and also the new block 52, IF we get them will be able to use these missiles!
i hope this helps you and yaar please dont take my post offensive but i will suggest you do do some research of your own and this surely will be benificial for you!

regards!

Wrong.JF-17 can launch PL12/SD-10.

 

[Arsalan]

self deleted

 

[Arsalan]

Wrong.JF-17 can launch PL12/SD-10.

sir the JF is still not battle ready and not operational at squadron level!
surely it can fire the BVR but i guess we have to wait for some tome to see the plane battle ready. according to the news and discussion on this very forum, JF is undergoing evaluation and weapon integration and first squadron will be declared operational by september!

anyways no doubt in your point that JF can fire SD10 BVR missilies

regards!

 

[AzadPakistan]

I think Pakistan shoudl have may be 20 JF17 Thunder fighters by end of this year

 

[Munir]

Does it really matter that we have not enough BVR to counter? I doubt that. It only makes our airforce defense more difficult. But the whole system is multi layered and goes up to Babur and nukes... I am not worried. We have mabe some holes but the endresult will not be changed if we had them closed.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

It is extremely important to have a large number of extremely potent BVR missiles at hand---as a matter of fact it must be something that ought to be on the top of the priority list of the PAF---so AMRAAM becomes a weapon of choice AND A MEGA MEGA FORCE MULTIPLIER for a smaller paf when facing an opponent the size of IAF.

As paf cannot compete with the iaf over the number of planes---the only thing that it can come up with are the BVR's---the u s will supply the amraam's to pakistan---for the u s the amraams and the F 16 blk 52 do not tip the power balance against the iaf but rather gives the paf enough platforms and firepower to stay away from using the nuclear option and iaf taking liberty at flying into pakistan at their discretion.

Even though the paf is getting the sd10----which is fine and good---but it is no match for what the iaf has right now---all the missiles systems in the iaf armour are seasoned systems---like any othetr chinese system in operatin---it would take them 5 to 10 years to get mature. Paf must keep its options open for the u s and french bvr's.

The nuclear option by pakistan is not acceptable at any cost. Pakistan has the resource, the ability and the force to take on the iaf in the next 5 to 10 years.

Once the paf crosses over the minimum number threshold of bvr amraams, blk52's, upgraded f 16's and a couple of hundred jf 17's---the iaf would have lost all techincal edge of neutrlizing paf at its discretion----the amraam would take the edge out of the su 30 threat to the paf.

It actual warfare----the air battle and supermacy will depend upon how of the much and what kind of dominant role does the su 30, the m2k's, the mig 21 bis and the jaguars play in the first 72 hours of the start of hostilities---and how much of losses can the iaf handle in that time frame.

The number of su 30's lost in the initial stages of the war will make or break the iaf. The bottomline is that air war will be decided by the bvr's.

 

[Arsalan]

Hi,

It is extremely important to have a large number of extremely potent BVR missiles at hand---as a matter of fact it must be something that ought to be on the top of the priority list of the PAF---so AMRAAM becomes a weapon of choice AND A MEGA MEGA FORCE MULTIPLIER for a smaller paf when facing an opponent the size of IAF.

As paf cannot compete with the iaf over the number of planes---the only thing that it can come up with are the BVR's---the u s will supply the amraam's to pakistan---for the u s the amraams and the F 16 blk 52 do not tip the power balance against the iaf but rather gives the paf enough platforms and firepower to stay away from using the nuclear option and iaf taking liberty at flying into pakistan at their discretion.

Even though the paf is getting the sd10----which is fine and good---but it is no match for what the iaf has right now---all the missiles systems in the iaf armour are seasoned systems---like any othetr chinese system in operatin---it would take them 5 to 10 years to get mature. Paf must keep its options open for the u s and french bvr's.

The nuclear option by pakistan is not acceptable at any cost. Pakistan has the resource, the ability and the force to take on the iaf in the next 5 to 10 years.

Once the paf crosses over the minimum number threshold of bvr amraams, blk52's, upgraded f 16's and a couple of hundred jf 17's---the iaf would have lost all techincal edge of neutrlizing paf at its discretion----the amraam would take the edge out of the su 30 threat to the paf.

It actual warfare----the air battle and supermacy will depend upon how of the much and what kind of dominant role does the su 30, the m2k's, the mig 21 bis and the jaguars play in the first 72 hours of the start of hostilities---and how much of losses can the iaf handle in that time frame.

The number of su 30's lost in the initial stages of the war will make or break the iaf. The bottomline is that air war will be decided by the bvr's.

very true! the BVR will be of utmost importance, specially with all the AWACAS flying around we do need to neutralize them!
a good BVR will surely cancle out the Su30 edge that the IAF have right now!

as rightly said that

The bottomline is that air war will be decided by the bvr's

i would like to add that
war itself will be decided by the air war!

any war between pakistan and india, if it happens to break out! wont be for the gain or capture of territory but will be to inflict as much damage to the opponent as possible by destroying its assets like dams, airports, factories and all the things which when destroyed will take the country decades back!! and for this role the Airforce will be of prime importance!

although missiles are an option but they will be expensive and the worlds reaction will be sever!
so all in all the airforce will be of key importance! also navy will have its role to play to keep the sea routs open!!

Regards!

 

[Munir]

If air war was that good then wh did the take ground forces into the battle in Irac and Afghanistan? Some overestimate IAF b having a few mki's and BVR...

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Arsalan has stated it correctly---present day war between india would be the destruction of strategic targets---whosoever does the more damage will come out ahead---iraq and afghanistan were different scenarios---the u s wanted to take control of the country---over here such is not the case.

The iaf will have to throw in the creme de la creme of their strike force in the air----that is what they have been talking about for the last ten plus years---so the iaf and paf will be playing a major role for their respective countries---at the end of the day, it will be the numbers game---if the paf can contain the su 30 threat and bring them down in large numbers---the war will take a different turn---a damage to a large number of su 30's will be a terrible blow to the psyche of iaf and india---at that stage the situation may take a turn for the worst---an angry iaf and a disappointed india may go for the ultimate weapon---they might set off the first nuclear strike against the air force bases at sargodha, karachi and peshawar.

Wars are a terrible things---once they start---predictability goes out of the window---the unexpected become the heroes and the dependable get the loose bowel syndrome.

 

[mean_bird]

Hi,

Arsalan has stated it correctly---present day war between india would be the destruction of strategic targets---whosoever does the more damage will come out ahead---iraq and afghanistan were different scenarios---the u s wanted to take control of the country---over here such is not the case.

The iaf will have to throw in the creme de la creme of their strike force in the air----that is what they have been talking about for the last ten plus years---so the iaf and paf will be playing a major role for their respective countries---at the end of the day, it will be the numbers game---if the paf can contain the su 30 threat and bring them down in large numbers---the war will take a different turn---a damage to a large number of su 30's will be a terrible blow to the psyche of iaf and india---at that stage the situation may take a turn for the worst---an angry iaf and a disappointed india may go for the ultimate weapon---they might set off the first nuclear strike against the air force bases at sargodha, karachi and peshawar.

Wars are a terrible things---once they start---predictability goes out of the window---the unexpected become the heroes and the dependable get the loose bowel syndrome.

What??? Mastan Sahib, such a statement from a gentleman like you?

I don't know what people's perception of Nuclear weapons are not ordinary weapons you can employ just to destroy an opponents base. They will not only destroy an airbase but the entire city near it and make it uninhabitable for decades to come.

Nobody will go for airforce bases in case of a nuclear war. You go for the opponent's strategic assets and command and control center so that they do not strike back. You go for nuclear plants, you go for where you think missiles are stored, you go for the center of the command and control.

The only reason you could ever go for an airforce base is after you finish all the other strategic weapons because you do not want a retaliatory attack but I do not think anyone will be foolish enough to have nuclear assets near an airforce base. If an air launched nuclear attack were to ever happen, the plane would probably take off from a highway or stretched surface from a remote camouflaged location, not an airforce base as the risk is too great.

The first country to launch a nuclear strike will have to launch all of them together and target the whole of the other country. And yes the implications would be horrible as millions would be annihilated and the region will become unlivable for decades.

Hopefully sense will prevail and we will avoid any wars in the future. Because wars are like wild-fires...they can die off before even reaching the nearby bushes or they can destroy whole forests and they are unpredictable.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi mean-bird,

Thanks for the post. The civilians think in a different manner whereas the warriors look at things differently.

The iaf will not wilfully target civilian site for a nuclear tactical / surgical strike and neither will paf. The anger for the loss will be directed at the air bases from where the planes took off---that has always been the conventional wisdom.

A good example is the dowing of the Atlantique---a female asked Nawaz Sharif---my brother died on that plane---why don't you revenge him---why don't you make a missile strike on that air base from where the indian plane took off.

The weapons used will be basically tactical nukes---with smaller yields---regardless of what indians think---india cannot and willnot start up with high yield nuclear strikes on civilian targets---the problem lies herein---the war between india and pakistan canmnot be fought at all times---it is basically a winter war---the problem with winter time war is that most of the time the direction of the wind is down stream---winds are coming from afghanistan to paksitan to india---so the nuclear cloud would be entering india after a large nuclear strike----now that scenario holds good for 2/3 rd's of pakistan----the lower areas like karachi and part of sindh and baluchistan would not fall into that category.

The problems with the start of hostilities is that we all are dependendant on the personal level of security or insecurity of a few individuals---once the hostilities start---things will go out of control in the blink of an eye---it all comes down to is taking a chance---paf will not wait for its fleet to be decimated and neither would the iaf wait for its su 30's to be annihilated----.

The best scenario for war between pakistan and india is NO WAR---the only way it can stop the war, pakistan needs to procure strike and air superiority fighters to contain the su 30's. Once the the su 30 threat is neutralized, the indian aggressive stance will dissipate. Pakistan does not need to counter iaf number for number in planes---for the reason that iaf would not be placing all their planes on one side---they will have to cover their backs from bangladesh and the flanks from china---so half or a little of their air force will be doing watch duty---which leaves only half or a little more than half for the pakistani front---time is a great neutralizer of things---.

The bottom line is that how insecure the indian decision makers would feel if they see their air force crumbling down---you and I can talk whatever we want to---but I would want to believe that even at the most stressful moments, both sides would refrain from using them indiscretely on civilian population.

 

[Arsalan]

What??? Mastan Sahib, such a statement from a gentleman like you?

I don't know what people's perception of Nuclear weapons are not ordinary weapons you can employ just to destroy an opponents base. They will not only destroy an airbase but the entire city near it and make it uninhabitable for decades to come.

Nobody will go for airforce bases in case of a nuclear war. You go for the opponent's strategic assets and command and control center so that they do not strike back. You go for nuclear plants, you go for where you think missiles are stored, you go for the center of the command and control.

The only reason you could ever go for an airforce base is after you finish all the other strategic weapons because you do not want a retaliatory attack but I do not think anyone will be foolish enough to have nuclear assets near an airforce base. If an air launched nuclear attack were to ever happen, the plane would probably take off from a highway or stretched surface from a remote camouflaged location, not an airforce base as the risk is too great.

The first country to launch a nuclear strike will have to launch all of them together and target the whole of the other country. And yes the implications would be horrible as millions would be annihilated and the region will become unlivable for decades.

Hopefully sense will prevail and we will avoid any wars in the future. Because wars are like wild-fires...they can die off before even reaching the nearby bushes or they can destroy whole forests and they are unpredictable.

very right dear! but i guess you mistook the theam of sir mastan's post!
from what it appeared to me he wanted to discuss every possibility. no one wuth the basic knowledge (sir Mastan is much much more than this) understand that the nukes are more of a military muscel then there role as being used for destruction in war! but yes this can happen! we have two examples, in extreme conditions the US were forced to use them to stop the onslaught by the Japs. though the condiion at that time were very different then they are now but yoiu know "every thing is fair in love and war!!"

anyhow at the moment i guess all of us agree to the point that the nukes are not going to be used in war case. but sadly truth remains the same that war beween india and pakistan is no more for the gain of territiry or assets rather it is to destroy them! so a war at this stage of technology means complete distruction!!

regards!

 

[Arsalan]

Some overestimate IAF b having a few mki's and BVR...

true, this is not the case. although the IAF seems to have an edge on PAF currently but it will be neutralized once the JF, J10 and the SAAB erieye induction is complete.also the addition of F16 will be helpful if we get them. as for the BVR part the SD10 and the ibg big AIM120C5 will be too good to cancle out the indian BVR threat! completely agreed!

but as far as the first part is concerned

If air war was that good then wh did the take ground forces into the battle in Irac and Afghanistan?

sir the case with us is not the same! US wanted to capture these regions for there regional economic and strategic intrests, to capture the territory land forces are surely required but this wont be the case with indo pak war! we wont be going for opponents land as it will be no good (and it may be set free once the war is over as world powers will come into play for a cease fire likely to agree on return of forces to the pre war posts!) all the aim of the wasr will be to inflict maximum damage to the enemy by destroying its assets like air bases, factories, armed force bases, nuclear assets and all! and in this case there is no doubt that the airforce will be of prime importance!
i hope you understand what i mean to say!

regards!

 

[mean_bird]

Hi mean-bird,

Thanks for the post. The civilians think in a different manner whereas the warriors look at things differently.

The iaf will not wilfully target civilian site for a nuclear tactical / surgical strike and neither will paf. The anger for the loss will be directed at the air bases from where the planes took off---that has always been the conventional wisdom.

A good example is the dowing of the Atlantique---a female asked Nawaz Sharif---my brother died on that plane---why don't you revenge him---why don't you make a missile strike on that air base from where the indian plane took off.

The weapons used will be basically tactical nukes---with smaller yields---regardless of what indians think---india cannot and willnot start up with high yield nuclear strikes on civilian targets---the problem lies herein---the war between india and pakistan canmnot be fought at all times---it is basically a winter war---the problem with winter time war is that most of the time the direction of the wind is down stream---winds are coming from afghanistan to paksitan to india---so the nuclear cloud would be entering india after a large nuclear strike----now that scenario holds good for 2/3 rd's of pakistan----the lower areas like karachi and part of sindh and baluchistan would not fall into that category.

The problems with the start of hostilities is that we all are dependendant on the personal level of security or insecurity of a few individuals---once the hostilities start---things will go out of control in the blink of an eye---it all comes down to is taking a chance---paf will not wait for its fleet to be decimated and neither would the iaf wait for its su 30's to be annihilated----.

The best scenario for war between pakistan and india is NO WAR---the only way it can stop the war, pakistan needs to procure strike and air superiority fighters to contain the su 30's. Once the the su 30 threat is neutralized, the indian aggressive stance will dissipate. Pakistan does not need to counter iaf number for number in planes---for the reason that iaf would not be placing all their planes on one side---they will have to cover their backs from bangladesh and the flanks from china---so half or a little of their air force will be doing watch duty---which leaves only half or a little more than half for the pakistani front---time is a great neutralizer of things---.

The bottom line is that how insecure the indian decision makers would feel if they see their air force crumbling down---you and I can talk whatever we want to---but I would want to believe that even at the most stressful moments, both sides would refrain from using them indiscretely on civilian population.

thanks for the post.

I think you are misjudging the thing. There cannot be such a thing as a "nuclear surgical strike". Nuclear itself is not surgical to begin with but mass destruction. Even a leak from a well protected housing in Chernobyl was enough to render the city unlivable.

A nuclear bomb is not just a mega bomb you can use to destroy an area. Nobody will wait to see the full implication of a supposedly surgical nuclear attack to determine whether it is surgical or not. Either country will respond with all its might and immediately.

Nukes are there for the fear factor. Because no matter how much you try to convince yourself that the enemy won't do this and won't do that, but the question remains--"what if?". And nobody has an answer to this question and that is why it is such a deterrent.

very right dear! but i guess you mistook the theam of sir mastan's post!
from what it appeared to me he wanted to discuss every possibility. no one wuth the basic knowledge (sir Mastan is much much more than this) understand that the nukes are more of a military muscel then there role as being used for destruction in war! but yes this can happen! we have two examples, in extreme conditions the US were forced to use them to stop the onslaught by the Japs. though the condiion at that time were very different then they are now but yoiu know "every thing is fair in love and war!!"

anyhow at the moment i guess all of us agree to the point that the nukes are not going to be used in war case. but sadly truth remains the same that war beween india and pakistan is no more for the gain of territiry or assets rather it is to destroy them! so a war at this stage of technology means complete distruction!!

regards!

Nobody is doubting the knowledge of MastanKhan here. We just have difference of opinions and each one has a reason for that.

Two things I will add-
- Japan did not have a nuclear weapon
- Japan does not share a border with US.

There's a good reason nukes weren't used in the cold war and morality isn't amongst them.

 

[sancho]

true, this is not the case. although the IAF seems to have an edge on PAF currently but it will be neutralized once the JF, J10 and the SAAB erieye induction is complete.also the addition of F16 will be helpful if we get them. as for the BVR part the SD10 and the ibg big AIM120C5 will be too good to cancle out the indian BVR threat! completely agreed!

Aren't you forgetting something? IAF has not only Su 30 MKIs that are BVR capable, around 70 Mig 29 and 100 Mig 21 Bisons can launch R77 too. That alone would mean nearly 400 BVR capable aircrafts, not to mention that upg Mirage (Jags should be upg too, but not sure if they will get BVR capability), first LCA and MMRCA have to be added till 2015 too.
Of course the Bisons as an aircraft will be no match for PAF new fighters, but the missile will, espacially guided by AWACS!

Objectively you have to admit that the edge can't be neutralized cause PAF can't counter the numbers of fighters, nor the quality of techs and capabilities. For example, Saab AWACS will be a plus for PAF, but IAF already have one in service, the upgraded F16 and the new one will give more power and capabilities, but so will upg Mig 29/ Mirage and more MKIs. The same time when PAF will get J10B, with AESA radar, IAF will get MMRCA with same, or better capabilities, depends on who will win. Even the point that your F16 will have AIM120C5, will be gone by the induction of MMRCA, cause most likely it will have it too (F18SH and EF use it now, EF and Rafale shoud get the Meteor by then).
PAF and IAF will modernise their fleets and will give us a lot to talk about, but the edge should remain on IAF side.