PAKISTAN’S MIRAGES: SPECIALISTS ENDURING OUT OF NECESSITY

[CHI RULES]

Hi,

The aircraft that the russians feared the most was the F111 due to its flight capabilities---. The JH7 is the closest copy of the F111 as it can be.

Its designed cability to fly low throughout its mission sets it apart from the J10's, SU30's etc etc etc---. To top that off---it carries almost 3 times the load of the Mirages---. It has a longer range than the mriages.

If the Paf can select and operate the Fantan A5 then stating that the JH7 did not qualify is a lie and misleading by the pak air force---.

Truthfully---the JH7 gives too much strike power to the Paf---and why is the Paf afraid of that---that question need to be asked to the sellouts in the Paf---.

Thanks to Almighty the PAF top brass is not a fool, otherwise they should have bought JH7B as per your advice. The pure bomber can't be afforded by PAF doctrines off course based on defensive nature and low finances required to fulfill present and future requirements.

Sorry for harsh reply but the suitable fighter/bomber jet for PAF is one having multi role capabilities i.e 4.5 th or 5th gen jet in near future.

 

[MastanKhan]

Thanks to Almighty the PAF top brass is not a fool, otherwise they should have bought JH7B as per your advice. The pure bomber can't be afforded by PAF doctrines off course based on defensive nature and low finances required to fulfill present and future requirements.

Sorry for harsh reply but the suitable fighter/bomber jet for PAF is one having multi role capabilities i.e 4.5 th or 5th gen jet in near future.

Hi,

Harsh reply ---what harsh reply---. You never had any substance in your posts---.

A doctrine is not made by an air force---a doctrine is made by the state---Paf had high jacked that authority from the state---.

A doctrine is not based on what your needs are---but based on what you are going to oppose---.

Armies and their weapons are build to overcome what the enemy has---.

Let me make this clear---you do not have either the ability or the capability to understand what I have stated over the years---because your respond always is that " Paf knows better "---.

 

[CHI RULES]

Hi,

Harsh reply ---what harsh reply---. You never had any substance in your posts---.

A doctrine is not made by an air force---a doctrine is made by the state---Paf had high jacked that authority from the state---.

A doctrine is not based on what your needs are---but based on what you are going to oppose---.

Armies and their weapons are build to overcome what the enemy has---.

Let me make this clear---you do not have either the ability or the capability to understand what I have stated over the years---because your respond always is that " Paf knows better "---.

That's fact PAF knows better, as for substance, subjective statements can be countered by subjective remarks. You have suggested JH7B for PAF, please let us know the facts and figures of this jet which make it a best choice.

 

[MastanKhan]

That's fact PAF knows better, as for substance, subjective statements can be countered by subjective remarks. You have suggested JH7B for PAF, please let us know the facts and figures of this jet which make it a best choice.

Hi,

They are already posted on the board---.

Young man---just be thankful that I respond to you---so that you open your mind and may learn something and not tag the Paf line---.

Here is your ability and level of capability---.

You just recently posted something about Mirage 3---and its role---. You did not have the intellect to just look up the information about its role on the world wide web---.

A simple search would have given you the answer---but you chose not to find it---.

If you could not perform such a SIMPLE TASK to know the right answer---where would you get the credibility to make a statement that Paf knows better---.

 

[Raider 21]

Hi,

Harsh reply ---what harsh reply---. You never had any substance in your posts---.

A doctrine is not made by an air force---a doctrine is made by the state---Paf had high jacked that authority from the state---.

A doctrine is not based on what your needs are---but based on what you are going to oppose---.

Armies and their weapons are build to overcome what the enemy has---.

Let me make this clear---you do not have either the ability or the capability to understand what I have stated over the years---because your respond always is that " Paf knows better "---.

Mastan,

Behave yourself.

 

[salman-1]

In presence of such a large variety of strategic missiles and cruise missile, doctrines are a bit changed for deep strikes. Russian invasion compelled us for an air superiority fighter like F16s and A5 close support fighter for border control, now what's compelling us for just a deep strike bomber?, that's a question. Do we really need one, or a multi role would do the job enough.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Hi,

The aircraft that the russians feared the most was the F111 due to its flight capabilities---. The JH7 is the closest copy of the F111 as it can be.

Its designed cability to fly low throughout its mission sets it apart from the J10's, SU30's etc etc etc---. To top that off---it carries almost 3 times the load of the Mirages---. It has a longer range than the mriages.

If the Paf can select and operate the Fantan A5 then stating that the JH7 did not qualify is a lie and misleading by the pak air force---.

Truthfully---the JH7 gives too much strike power to the Paf---and why is the Paf afraid of that---that question need to be asked to the sellouts in the Paf---.

Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Since it has low flying/terrain following capabilities, it can potentially avoid radar detection and be able to strike deep in enemy territory. However in case if it does get detected how can it take on IAF's Su30? Su30MKI would have a considerable advantage over JH7B in an air to air combat scenario. In order to prevent that scenario Pak would only have two options

1) Only send JH7B for deep strikes inside enemy territory after a bulk of IAF jets have been destroyed and Pak has complete air dominance.
- This would be extremely hard to achieve given the disparity in numbers between IAF and PAF.

2) JH7B would be escorted by some air superiority fighters like JF17 or even F16 perhaps? JH7B can potentially share its terrain following data with JF17 or F16(if possible?) to allow them to also fly super low when escorting JH7B to avoid detection. Otherwise any advantages of low flying would be lost if JF17 or F16 were not flying low while escorting.
- In case of JF17 there can be the issue of limited range since JH7B might have a longer range than JF17...I'm assuming bcuz of JF17 being single engine and smaller than JH7B...I couldn't find combat radius of JF17 to compare.
- F16 would most likely not have that potential range issue with conformal fuel tanks(and additional hardpoint fuel tanks if needed) but idk if it's possible to share terrain following data from JH7 to F16 and have it follow the terrain flying super low bcuz of the different origins of the aircrafts.

 

[MastanKhan]

Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Since it has low flying/terrain following capabilities, it can potentially avoid radar detection and be able to strike deep in enemy territory. However in case if it does get detected how can it take on IAF's Su30? Su30MKI would have a considerable advantage over JH7B in an air to air combat scenario. In order to prevent that scenario Pak would only have two options

1) Only send JH7B for deep strikes inside enemy territory after a bulk of IAF jets have been destroyed and Pak has complete air dominance.
- This would be extremely hard to achieve given the disparity in numbers between IAF and PAF.

2) JH7B would be escorted by some air superiority fighters like JF17 or even F16 perhaps? JH7B can potentially share its terrain following data with JF17 or F16(if possible?) to allow them to also fly super low when escorting JH7B to avoid detection. Otherwise any advantages of low flying would be lost if JF17 or F16 were not flying low while escorting.
- In case of JF17 there can be the issue of limited range since JH7B might have a longer range than JF17...I'm assuming bcuz of JF17 being single engine and smaller than JH7B...I couldn't find combat radius of JF17 to compare.
- F16 would most likely not have that potential range issue with conformal fuel tanks(and additional hardpoint fuel tanks if needed) but idk if it's possible to share terrain following data from JH7 to F16 and have it follow the terrain flying super low bcuz of the different origins of the aircrafts.

Hi,

This aircrafts primary use should be over the water standoff distance strike missions---. Flying out from Pasni area---out of the range of enemy radar and awacs---.

If the enemy wants to take on these aircraft---then it would have to move its assets away from the main battlefield---towards the shoreline to protect Mumbai---.

The presence of this aircraft means that the enemy flotilla would be staying farther out into the ocean than otherwise.

As this aircraft can carry 2 CM400 AKG's---that can be used against enemy ships or against enemy ground targets---.

First the mindset of heavy strike aircraft must be developed---and aircraft procured---then other options become VISIBLE---.

If the JH7 can fly down 500 miles and launch a Babur CM---very interesting targets can be taken out---.

It is simply not a matter of terrain following data---but the design of the aircraft and the engine---the engine operate at the optimal best at low low flight---JF17 and F16's are not designed for that---.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Hi,

This aircrafts primary use should be over the water standoff distance strike missions---. Flying out from Pasni area---out of the range of enemy radar and awacs---.

If the enemy wants to take on these aircraft---then it would have to move its assets away from the main battlefield---towards the shoreline to protect Mumbai---.

The presence of this aircraft means that the enemy flotilla would be staying farther out into the ocean than otherwise.

As this aircraft can carry 2 CM400 AKG's---that can be used against enemy ships or against enemy ground targets---.

First the mindset of heavy strike aircraft must be developed---and aircraft procured---then other options become VISIBLE---.

If the JH7 can fly down 500 miles and launch a Babur CM---very interesting targets can be taken out---.

It is simply not a matter of terrain following data---but the design of the aircraft and the engine---the engine operate at the optimal best at low low flight---JF17 and F16's are not designed for that---.

In that case if it was to fly low over mostly water and target Mumbai or something...then it's main adversary would be Indian Navy assets. Using CM400 AKG...at a lower altitude would make it less effective in terms of range and speed. More speed of CM400 AKG gives the enemy less time to react and more range gives our jets(the ones launching CM400 AKG) a chance to stay out of range from enemy fire...in which case wouldn't a high/high profile to launch CM400 AKG make more sense? Which would make Chinese Navy flankers a better option than JH7...

I thought u were advocating for JH7 to exploit blind spots in radar coverage of Indian landmass.

 

[MastanKhan]

In that case if it was to fly low over mostly water and target Mumbai or something...then it's main adversary would be Indian Navy assets. Using CM400 AKG...at a lower altitude would make it less effective in terms of range and speed. More speed of CM400 AKG gives the enemy less time to react and more range gives our jets(the ones launching CM400 AKG) a chance to stay out of range from enemy fire...in which case wouldn't a high/high profile to launch CM400 AKG make more sense? Which would make Chinese Navy flankers a better option than JH7...

I thought u were advocating for JH7 to exploit blind spots in radar coverage of Indian landmass.

Hi,

The aircraft pops up to the reqd altitude---lets go of a missile and is gone---.

You don't need to be flying high all the time---the is what the most fearful attribute of the F111 was---flew low---then popped up to the launch altitude---let go of the weapons and went below the deck and was gone---.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Hi,

The aircraft pops up to the reqd altitude---lets go of a missile and is gone---.

You don't need to be flying high all the time---the is what the most fearful attribute of the F111 was---flew low---then popped up to the launch altitude---let go of the weapons and went below the deck and was gone---.

Got it...one last question...
I understand how low flying/terrain following can help avoid radar detection on the ground. I have no clue how it works or is of any benefit over water...could u explain?

 

[MastanKhan]

Got it...one last question...
I understand how low flying/terrain following can help avoid radar detection on the ground. I have no clue how it works or is of any benefit over water...could u explain?

Hi,

One of our very esteemed american colleagues wrote on it a couple of three months ago.

It is very difficult to detect a low flying object over water---more so than over land---.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Got it...one last question...
I understand how low flying/terrain following can help avoid radar detection on the ground. I have no clue how it works or is of any benefit over water...could u explain?

The curvature of the earth should play into the flying object's favour when it's flying at low-altitude. Be it over land or sea, high-level radars can't spot gaps over the horizon, hence the reason why you (1) have an AEW&C or a MPA with an air and surface surveillance radar and/or (2) fit ships with over-the-horizon radars (OTHR) (note: it seems that Pakistan is doing all three on its end). But it could be tough to detect a threat if (1) the deployment aircraft is a low-RCS object capable of stably flying low and (2) its ALCM is an even lower-RCS object, one that is launched at 280, 350 or even 550 km away.

 

[MastanKhan]

Got it...one last question...
I understand how low flying/terrain following can help avoid radar detection on the ground. I have no clue how it works or is of any benefit over water...could u explain?

The curvature of the earth should play into the flying object's favour when it's flying at low-altitude. Be it over land or sea, high-level radars can't spot gaps over the horizon, hence the reason why you (1) have an AEW&C or a MPA with an air and surface surveillance radar and/or (2) fit ships with over-the-horizon radars (OTHR) (note: it seems that Pakistan is doing all three on its end). But it could be tough to detect a threat if (1) the deployment aircraft is a low-RCS object capable of stably flying low and (2) its ALCM is an even lower-RCS object, one that is launched at 280, 350 or even 550 km away.

Hi,

Thank you Bilal---. The americans have upgrade the B52 for such a purpose---a B fckn 52 bomber---as old as I am---will pop up 250 to 350 miles away from the shoreline---a 5th gen flying in the front providing the target lock---launch its massive smart weapons load and be gone even before it got detected---.

The americans are spending billions on the concept that I am talking about---and my boy CHI over here is praising the obsolence of the Paf---and my other young friend Knuckles trying to come to his rescue---.

 

[Raider 21]

Hi,

Thank you Bilal---. The americans have upgrade the B52 for such a purpose---a B fckn 52 bomber---as old as I am---will pop up 250 to 350 miles away from the shoreline---a 5th gen flying in the front providing the target lock---launch its massive smart weapons load and be gone even before it got detected---.

The americans are spending billions on the concept that I am talking about---and my boy CHI over here is praising the obsolence of the Paf---and my other young friend Knuckles trying to come to his rescue---.

No rescue Mastan. Speculate all you want.

Cheers !!!