What's new

Pakistan Navy interested in J-11Bs

Status
Not open for further replies.
.
Good move, Pakistan will need to increase her budget by another 20% next year to get these babys.

Hope they do!!!

:cheers:
Pakistan at present cannot afford twin engine fighter jets its maintenance cost is too high low pak defence budget...I would suggest to go for a twin engine jf17 block4 version

Good move, Pakistan will need to increase her budget by another 20% next year to get these babys.

Hope they do!!!

:cheers:
Pakistan at present cannot afford twin engine fighter jets its maintenance cost is too high low pak defence budget...I would suggest to go for a twin engine jf17 block4 version
Good move, Pakistan will need to increase her budget by another 20% next year to get these babys.

Hope they do!!!

:cheers:
No pakistan shouldnt it should rather focus on its debt ridden economy ..you should concentrate on making strong pakistan economy my suggestion is for next 5-6 years lower the defence budget after becoming a strong economy you go for huge defence budget India is now worlds 3rd largest economy surpassed britains...now we can increase our defence budget
 
.
PN needs its own fighter jet which is good thinking by PN & they should try to acquire them. If it is really necessary.

We also need to understand that JF17 is not a solution for everything & all steps should be taken to strengthen our airforce & PN.
 
.
PN does not need an air superiority fighter. Besides A2A armament, J-11B carries mainly unguided rocket launchers and free-fall cluster bombs, possibly some precision guided munitions but I've not seen anything about (Chinese) antiship missiles. It is not a real naval strike aircraft in that sense (you'ld need at least J-11C for that) As is, the only advantages would be long range, excellent dogfighting capability. Besides these considerations, it needs to be considered what such an acquisition would mean in terms of a) logistics and maintenance and b) command and control (why would the navy need its own naval strike fighters? Isn't a larger number of C-802 capable JF-17 giving more flexibility, and more cost-effectiveness, with range provided through aerial refuelling?)
 
.
IMHO the MiG-35 would be a great fit for the PAF in-land and on the coasts.

First, the PAF could opt to switch the JF-17 Block-III power-plant to the RD-33MK and scale its logistics and maintenance infrastructure to the MiG-35. Second, the PAF could equip the JF-17 Block-III and MiG-35 with the same avionics, electronics warfare suite as well as air-to-air, air-to-surface and anti-ship munitions inventory. Third, maybe even utilize the same AESA radar platform on the JF-17 Block-III and MiG-35, but with the latter's radar having a higher number of TRMs.

The benefit of having the MiG-35 isn't as much as it being twin engine, but rather, a bigger platform with more range, better payload capacity and longer endurance than the JF-17. Whereas the JF-17 can be used for guarding Pakistan defensively, the MiG-35 can be utilized for offensive operations (e.g. carry more air-to-ground munitions) or maritime operations. The added range and endurance should help for maritime operations, might be enough internally for it to carry 4 AShM, 4 AAM, and a center fuel-tank.

It's supposedly a comparatively cheap fighter too. Well, the predecessor MiG-29M/M2 is US $40-45m a unit for Egypt, though I'm not sure (but hoping) if it includes the maintenance and support package. Would be neat if the PAF could pick up empty MiG-35s (airframe + engine only) for $30-35m, and then load up the internals separately (using Chinese or Western subsystems).

Too bad it's just my dream... @Penguin @Tank131

PS: In this dream-world air force I'd also throw in a couple of A320s outfitted with Cobham in-flight refueling tanks, probes and drogues to serve as air-to-air refueling platforms. Why? Just 'cause...
 
.
Su-27 is an unparalleled fortune.
Hope we can get all its essence and create a better one.
 
.
IMHO the MiG-35 would be a great fit for the PAF in-land and on the coasts.

First, the PAF could opt to switch the JF-17 Block-III power-plant to the RD-33MK and scale its logistics and maintenance infrastructure to the MiG-35. Second, the PAF could equip the JF-17 Block-III and MiG-35 with the same avionics, electronics warfare suite as well as air-to-air, air-to-surface and anti-ship munitions inventory. Third, maybe even utilize the same AESA radar platform on the JF-17 Block-III and MiG-35, but with the latter's radar having a higher number of TRMs.

The benefit of having the MiG-35 isn't as much as it being twin engine, but rather, a bigger platform with more range, better payload capacity and longer endurance than the JF-17. Whereas the JF-17 can be used for guarding Pakistan defensively, the MiG-35 can be utilized for offensive operations (e.g. carry more air-to-ground munitions) or maritime operations. The added range and endurance should help for maritime operations, might be enough internally for it to carry 4 AShM, 4 AAM, and a center fuel-tank.

It's supposedly a comparatively cheap fighter too. Well, the predecessor MiG-29M/M2 is US $40-45m a unit for Egypt, though I'm not sure (but hoping) if it includes the maintenance and support package. Would be neat if the PAF could pick up empty MiG-35s (airframe + engine only) for $30-35m, and then load up the internals separately (using Chinese or Western subsystems).

Too bad it's just my dream... @Penguin @Tank131

PS: In this dream-world air force I'd also throw in a couple of A320s outfitted with Cobham in-flight refueling tanks, probes and drogues to serve as air-to-air refueling platforms. Why? Just 'cause...

Sir, the most fundamental requirement for any new platform MUST be the ability to carry Ra'ad. Are we allowed to integrate nuclear capable Ra'ad on Mig-35?
 
.
Sir, the most fundamental requirement for any new platform MUST be the ability to carry Ra'ad. Are we allowed to integrate nuclear capable Ra'ad on Mig-35?
I'd lean on "yes." I'm not aware of any of the same end-user restrictions on Russian platforms as one would expect from their American counterparts.
 
.
I'd lean on "yes." I'm not aware of any of the same end-user restrictions on Russian platforms as one would expect from their American counterparts.

In that case I am a strong supporter of Mig-35 as well. The electronics specs + engine recently released sound like a copy paste if Block 3 capabilities. I have high hopes of an upgraded engine being available for block 3 with FADEC.
 
Last edited:
. .
In that case I am a strong supporter of Mig-31 as well. The electronics specs + engine recently released sound like a copy paste if Block 3 capabilities. I have high hopes of an upgraded engine being available for block 3 with FADEC.
Mig 31???

The MiG-31 interceptor was designed to fulfill the following mission objectives:
  • Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area;
  • Detect and destroy low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters;
  • Long range escort of strategic bombers;
  • Provide strategic air defense in areas not covered by ground based air defense systems.
MiG-31 production ended in 1994. A total of 519 MiG-31s was produced
 
.
Mig 31???

The MiG-31 interceptor was designed to fulfill the following mission objectives:
  • Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area;
  • Detect and destroy low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters;
  • Long range escort of strategic bombers;
  • Provide strategic air defense in areas not covered by ground based air defense systems.
MiG-31 production ended in 1994. A total of 519 MiG-31s was produced

Lols, sorry. Mig-35. I'll update the post.
 
.
Lols, sorry. Mig-35. I'll update the post.
To what extent would Mig-35 be able to accommodate the range of weapons currently used for F-16, JF-17, Mirage 3/5? Otherwise its induction would necessitate the induction of all sorts of Russian weaponry and ordnance. Whereas replacing Mirage3/5 with JF-17 will lighten logistics burdens. In that respect a J-10 variant would be much more interesting.
 
.
To what extent would Mig-35 be able to accommodate the range of weapons currently used for F-16, JF-17, Mirage 3/5? Otherwise its induction would necessitate the induction of all sorts of Russian weaponry and ordnance. Whereas replacing Mirage3/5 with JF-17 will lighten logistics burdens. In that respect a J-10 variant would be much more interesting.

On mobile now so difficult to post link to quwa's very recent article on Mig-35 pitch. But it says the Mig-35 has an industry standard bus and could be configured with italian/french ew and eccm package. Which is why I consider it the big brother of block 3. Depending on where block 3 sources its electronics from, mig-35 can be a strong contender because of the leverage from commonality of sub-systems especially the improved engine. As a matter of fact, if we decide to go with the improved RD-93MK, Russia may condition that with our purchase of Mig-35 - just my own intuition no sources. I also like the idea by @Bilal Khan (Quwa) of purchasing just the airframes and configuring it to our own specs.
 
.
To what extent would Mig-35 be able to accommodate the range of weapons currently used for F-16, JF-17, Mirage 3/5? Otherwise its induction would necessitate the induction of all sorts of Russian weaponry and ordnance. Whereas replacing Mirage3/5 with JF-17 will lighten logistics burdens. In that respect a J-10 variant would be much more interesting.
The PAF could swap out the Russian avionics and EW/ECM suite with the same subsystems on the JF-17. The JF-17 and MiG-35 could potentially even use the same AESA radar platform, albeit with the MiG-35 having more TRMs. If the JF-17 Block-III (or later)'s turbofan is switched to the RD-33MK, then the MiG-35 and JF-17 would have commonality in engine, internal subsystems and ordnance.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom