PAKISTAN POSITIONING JF-17 FOR GROUND ATTACK ROLE

[Armchair]

Hi,

150 K military in the arena---25 K in Oman---50 / 50 K in Emirates and Saudia---25 K in rest of the areas---totally self suficient in air ground and naval assets purchased thru funds provided by GCC

Would neuter the influence of india in the GCC

Would reduce the level of threat felt by the GCC residents

Would have neutered the Yemen crisis in a short time

Would have reduced the level of threat from outside forces in the region

Would create a massive source of employment in pakistan

Would increase the industrial base in pakistan

Would increase the jobs of pakistanis in the civilian sector of GCC

Would have military covering the flank of india from another vantage point

Would cover the flank of Iran from another vantage point

Would be incharge of the largest independent air---ground and naval battle group in the region with total control to keeping peace in the region

You pakistani kids and adults are absolutely clueless---what does my being a car salesman have to do with not knowing abut wars and tactics---.

Wars and knowing about tactics & fighting wars is a natural god gifted phenomenon and has nothing to do with your profession---. George washington was a farmer's son---.

The most successful general of the history of the world Subotai Bahadur was the son of an iron smith---yet because of his tactics & strategies in war---he made Chengiz Khan's militaries the conquerer of the world---.

Tom Clancy was an insurance salesman---so please stop this pakistani stupidity of attaching my background to what I write---.

Something has happened in 2018---that has made pakistan and pakistan's military helpless---. On the surface---we show to be very strong---but in reality---we may have fizzled out---.

@Khafee you know what I am talking about---.

We apparently have an unofficial army in the region, headed by one of our generals @Khafee would know about it. We missed the big cake, can we not get a bit more of this candy now? Is the food off the table already?

 

[Keysersoze]

@CHI RULES
A radar that detects a 3m² target at 170 km will detect a 5m² target at 193 km. Not 200 km.
Also East Pendulum states the figure of 170 km for 5m² targets for the KLJ-7A radar. Not 3m² target.
-->East Pendulum

@Keysersoze
Do you have a source that states that the 158 km range is against 3m² targets for the Grifo-E?

Because I found these figures
View attachment 568203

-->Grifo-E Brochure

Edit: Corrected a mistake.

Yeah 85 NM= against a fighter sized target (3m2) ( I am assuming the larger antenna will fit in the cone)

Less capable than the Vixen

Yeah but is it because of the size of the radar that its better suited?

 

[aliyusuf]

Yeah 85 NM= against a fighter sized target (3m2)

A fighter sized target is more commonly taken in as 5m² RCS and usually when 3m² RCS is used it is mentioned that it is against a fighter sized target of 3m² RCS. Otherwise 5m² is taken as standard RCS.

In the Grifo-E brochure, it is not mentioned that it is a fighter sized target of 3m² explicitly. So we have to assume that the range numbers given are against 5m², which is the usual fighter size RCS standard.

That is my understanding.

 

[MastanKhan]

We apparently have an unofficial army in the region, headed by one of our generals @Khafee would know about it. We missed the big cake, can we not get a bit more of this candy now? Is the food off the table already?

Hi,

It still might be---. The threat has not gone away but has taken a different direction--GCC wants an umbrella of security---this period of uncertainty is not helping them and their neighbors---.

This issue needs to be understood by Pakistan as well---.
Being non aligned and not committed is not going to work at all---. You become a nobody when you stand alone---.

The GCC knows that they have an issue---they know that there is a problem---but the problem is possibly beyond their abilities & capabilities even though they have the resource---.

Pak can provide the solution---pak has the manpower to do the job---a job than will be done right---& for that---pak needs to have control over the operation---100 %.

Be it 50000 troops or 150000 troops---. A battle group formed with the troops of one nation and led by a commander of that nation---that is the first step---.

Is IK ready for that---. Does he understand what is at stake in the gulf and in the sub-continent---. Where fingers sitting on hair triggers can begin the start of a catastrophe which may have no ending---.

 

[FuturePAF]

Pakistan should look into the Powered JDAM type upgrade for the Takbir. It may fit under the JF-17's wings and maybe cheaper than the Ra'ad Cruise missile. Range is 160 nautical miles or about 300 km.

 

[khail007]

Hi,

It still might be---. The threat has not gone away but has taken a different direction--GCC wants an umbrella of security---this period of uncertainty is not helping them and their neighbors---.

This issue needs to be understood by Pakistan as well---.
Being non aligned and not committed is not going to work at all---. You become a nobody when you stand alone---.

The GCC knows that they have an issue---they know that there is a problem---but the problem is possibly beyond their abilities & capabilities even though they have the resource---.

Pak can provide the solution---pak has the manpower to do the job---a job than will be done right---& for that---pak needs to have control over the operation---100 %.

Be it 50000 troops or 150000 troops---. A battle group formed with the troops of one nation and led by a commander of that nation---that is the first step---.

Is IK ready for that---. Does he understand what is at stake in the gulf and in the sub-continent---. Where fingers sitting on hair triggers can begin the start of a catastrophe which may have no ending---.

Sir G, actually in pre-Gulf war arena, Pakistan was in that role in KSA and other Arab countries/states. Pakistani forces were wearing and using Saudi uniform/equipment and were under Riyadh command. Before commencing of Ops Desert Shield the honeymoon was over and US took all areas of their interest.
So don't be optimistic, you will be feeling heartbroken again; else raising two to three division of freshly retired soldiers is not a problem for Pakistan and will be a win win situation for both GCC & Pakistan.

 

[MastanKhan]

Sir G, actually in pre-Gulf war arena, Pakistan was in that role in KSA and other Arab countries/states. Pakistani forces were wearing and using Saudi uniform/equipment and were under Riyadh command. Before commencing of Ops Desert Shield the honeymoon was over and US took all areas of their interest.
So don't be optimistic, you will be feeling heartbroken again; else raising two to three division of freshly retired soldiers is not a problem for Pakistan and will be a win win situation for both GCC & Pakistan.

Hi,

Those circumstances were different---. That package of war was out of league of Pakistan military on its own---.

Why did US military got involved---do you have any idea---?

 

[MastanKhan]

Sir G, actually in pre-Gulf war arena, Pakistan was in that role in KSA and other Arab countries/states. Pakistani forces were wearing and using Saudi uniform/equipment and were under Riyadh command. Before commencing of Ops Desert Shield the honeymoon was over and US took all areas of their interest.
So don't be optimistic, you will be feeling heartbroken again; else raising two to three division of freshly retired soldiers is not a problem for Pakistan and will be a win win situation for both GCC & Pakistan.

Hi,

I have written about it years ago---. So I was just checking do you really know why the US got involved in the first gulf war---.

I was waiting for your reply---.

 

[Keysersoze]

A fighter sized target is more commonly taken in as 5m² RCS and usually when 3m² RCS is used it is mentioned that it is against a fighter sized target of 3m² RCS. Otherwise 5m² is taken as standard RCS.

In the Grifo-E brochure, it is not mentioned that it is a fighter sized target of 3m² explicitly. So we have to assume that the range numbers given are against 5m², which is the usual fighter size RCS standard.

That is my understanding.

I had this conversation a few years ago with a very reasonable Indian chap on this forum. Unfortunately whilst the information that I found at the time stayed in my head I can't find the source. I could be wrong but I believe a normal fighter sized target to be a mig21 which would have an rcs of 3m2. But as I don't have anything to back this up at this time i would have to concede i could be wrong.

A fighter sized target is more commonly taken in as 5m² RCS and usually when 3m² RCS is used it is mentioned that it is against a fighter sized target of 3m² RCS. Otherwise 5m² is taken as standard RCS.

In the Grifo-E brochure, it is not mentioned that it is a fighter sized target of 3m² explicitly. So we have to assume that the range numbers given are against 5m², which is the usual fighter size RCS standard.

That is my understanding.

Just for your interest

RCS (m2) RCS (dB)
automobile 100 20
B-52 100
B-1(A/B) 10
F-15 25
Su-27 15
cabin cruiser 10 10
Su-MKI 4
Mig-21 3
F-16 5
F-16C 1.2
man 1 0
F-18 1
Rafale 1
B-2 0.75 ?
Typhoon 0.5
Tomahawk SLCM 0.5
B-2 0.1 ?
A-12/SR-71 0.01 (22 in2)
bird 0.01 -20
F-35 / JSF 0.005 -30
F-117 0.003
insect 0.001 -30
F-22 0.0001 -40
B-2 0.0001 -40

 

[GriffinsRule]

Range of an AESA radar is just one of the factors when comparing between competing offers, and I would argue one of the least important ones. Power management, software (ability for the radar to discern clutter from targets, ability to track multiple targets of different types flying at different speeds, vectors and altitudes, ground mapping modes, ECCM capabilities etc are all more important than just plain range. Also, the range is deceptive as it would change depending whether the jet is scanning a swatch of airspace or if it tracking a specific target with a very focused beam.
All these technical issues are not as easy to solve as some people think and are the biggest reason for the delays in Block 3 production. You cant field a radar until it is extensively tested and issues that are found get resolved (a time consuming process). This process might still will be an ongoing on even once the block 3 start production and is put into service and the upgrades will be done to the software as new issues will most definitely come up in real world scenarios that would need to be addressed.

 

[TsAr]

and this is why it will never happen.

Agree, USA would never want PAF to have superiority over IAF

 

[araz]

Agree, USA would never want PAF to have superiority over IAF

I think USA might not want it but to some extent especially in a short term engagement we have achieved parity if not superiority. This is important in spite of the powers that be hampering our efforts. In the long term we will not be able to sustain it but then the train would have left the station.

 

[Khafee]

I think USA might not want it but to some extent especially in a short term engagement we have achieved parity if not superiority. This is important in spite of the powers that be hampering our efforts. In the long term we will not be able to sustain it but then the train would have left the station.

Very well said. This point forces one to ponder, how will the enemy respond?

 

[araz]

Very well said. This point forces one to ponder, how will the enemy respond?

I think peace overtures with the Kashmir carrot being dangled is the answer of the enemy in a nut shell. Deep down they will be building up capacity while we will be doing the same.
A

 

[Silicon0000]

Agree, USA would never want PAF to have superiority over IAF

I think right now it would be exactly opposite.

Americans are good business man.