Possible steps to counter the rising threat from IAF ?

[ironman]

Please delete this man....Its classified...

 

[adm_havemercy]

IAF can only afford to operate one type of heavy role stealth fighter and that is PAK-FA or F-35... its not the financial factor but lack of well capable pilots, not capable of absorbing multiple high tech technologies, and also restriction from both parties as they will not prefer their rival plane parked side by side... americans would love to take a peek or more than that.... and so will the russians... and dont tell me that indians are more trust worthy...

first of all f-16 in wont get selected . so we practically have no chance of getting a f-22 or f-35 . so lets drop this useless conversation right here .

 

[adm_havemercy]

I'm already aware of what BVR is and its implications in modern aircombat. I assumed you would be on the same frequency of thought here, but I guess I'm obligated to state the obvious here. BVR is what matters in this day and age, but dogfighting is still part of the curriculum. I didn't think we would need to state the obvious, but I guess we all have to, right? regardless, TVC will not help much when it comes dogfighting, thanks to HMD and modern WVR missiles.


that's not a reply.


thanks for spending that time, however, arguing for the sake of arguing isn't going to take you anywhere. thrust-vectoring technology was tested on almost all platforms in service; F-16 MATV, F-15 ACTIVE, and F-18 HARV. the tests were of course successful, given the parameters, but the technology, as I have repeatedly been saying here, was not mature enough to incorporate in the aircraft. thanks to the F/A-22's increased computing power, flight control systems including fly-by-wire, and matured nozzle control computers, they decided to introduce the technology into the aircraft.

the Flanker's size makes a big difference, anyone who has some basic understanding of aerodynamics will be able to see that. larger twin-engined aircraft are the main candidates for thrust-vectoring, yet it's not necessary for single-engined fighters. smaller aircraft are already more agile and maneuverable then the larger aircraft, regardless of TWR. the F-16A/B and the JF-17 are perhaps the best aircraft in that category.

as for 'credibility', whether a pilot says the test was successful or not, does not change the fact that the technology had to mature a bit more, to be introduced to newer aircraft. showing me the magazine has not changed anything at all.

yes sir you are right . at that time it was not matured enough . but after nearly 15 years it has evolved .
also iaf is not a bunch of fool that they would make such an aircraft their prime fighter which has useless features which only increase the cost and serviceability of the aircraft .

if tvc is futile then tell me why is china trying to get tvc in their j-10 .
tvc not only helps in dodging missiles but also helps in doing tight turns which are extremely important in combat nowadays .
so you are considering smaller the aircraft better the manouvarability . so then lca should be the most manouverable aircraft but its not .
the fact is the only reason you are critisizing tvc is bcoz you dont have it . the day when you will get it in your jf-17 you will start singing a different tone .

 

[MZUBAIR]

The debate topic was "Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF? ".
Lets stick with the topic.

Pakistan have current & future planes for PAF Quality and Quantity.

JF-17 Current 18 Total of 250 expected
Chengdu J-10B Current 0 36 ordered, to be delivered in 2009 expected
F-7 current 192
A-5 Current 41
F-16 Current 44 24 will be recieved in 2009 / 2010
Mirage III Current 121
Mirage 5 Current 60

Total Current 476

In 2010 (till March) PAF will recieve Total 30 JF-17, 24 F-16 & 36 J-10B

In 2010 Total 90 + 476 = 566

So I feel both quantity & quality will be up to the mark in 2010 & I suggest that topic should be closed as we are not discussing accc to topic subject.

 

[adm_havemercy]

The debate topic was "Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF? ".
Lets stick with the topic.

Pakistan have current & future planes for PAF Quality and Quantity.

JF-17 Current 18 Total of 250 expected
Chengdu J-10B Current 0 36 ordered, to be delivered in 2009 expected
F-7 current 192
A-5 Current 41
F-16 Current 44 24 will be recieved in 2009 / 2010
Mirage III Current 121
Mirage 5 Current 60

Total Current 476



In 2010 (till March) PAF will recieve Total 30 JF-17, 24 F-16 & 36 J-10B

In 2010 Total 90 + 476 = 566

So I feel both quantity & quality will be up to the mark in 2010 & I suggest that topic should be closed as we are not discussing accc to topic subject.

yes ur right . lets stick to the topic .
i dont think paf will be able to counter iaf numerically . so you should get latest 4.5 gen jets .
i think you need at least 200 f-16 and j-10 . as gripen has no chance of winning the mmrca . as the decison is made i think you guys should do something to get it . truly 4.5 gen fighter with latest avionics and smaller price tag . say about 50 will really boost your airforce .

but i dont see a 5th gen aircraft around you right now .

 

[MZUBAIR]

yes ur right . lets stick to the topic .
i dont think paf will be able to counter iaf numerically . so you should get latest 4.5 gen jets .
i think you need at least 200 f-16 and j-10 . as gripen has no chance of winning the mmrca . as the decison is made i think you guys should do something to get it . truly 4.5 gen fighter with latest avionics and smaller price tag . say about 50 will really boost your airforce .

but i dont see a 5th gen aircraft around you right now .

Dont worry PAF would surely be thinking abt for it.
We should talk about current PAF position, which seems to me suitable for PAkistan.

I think The topic should be closed as I already in my above post proved that PAF is moving towards quality & quantity and will be reached there in 2010.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

yes ur right . lets stick to the topic .
i dont think paf will be able to counter iaf numerically . so you should get latest 4.5 gen jets .
i think you need at least 200 f-16 and j-10 . as gripen has no chance of winning the mmrca . as the decison is made i think you guys should do something to get it . truly 4.5 gen fighter with latest avionics and smaller price tag . say about 50 will really boost your airforce .

but i dont see a 5th gen aircraft around you right now .

@ troll

4th generation MRCA

- 70-80 F-16 MLU M3 / block 52+
- 150 JF-17 Block1/2

4.5 generation MRCA

- 36-100 FC-20
- 100 JF-17 block 3
- another type could be added by 2019

5th generation fighter

- Chinese Stealth fighter.

 

[The Punisher]

@ troll

4th generation MRCA

- 70-80 F-16 MLU M3 / block 52+
- 150 JF-17 Block1/2

4.5 generation MRCA

- 36-100 FC-20
- 100 JF-17 block 3
- another type could be added by 2019

5th generation fighter

- Chinese Stealth fighter.

as you are a senior member , how you predict that you will get chinese stealth fighter ??? any link ???

and how you can even say that jf-17 block 3 will be 4+ gen aircraft ??? any link ??? first let the block 2 come then say something about block 3 .....


its look like words in air .....


and everything is not troll ..... show some mature kind of nature .

 

[Myth_buster_1]

as you are a senior member , how you predict that you will get chinese stealth fighter ??? any link ???

you give me a good reasion why china will not give us stealth fighters? in the past and in the present they have offered us just about anything they have..

and how you can even say that jf-17 block 3 will be 4+ gen aircraft ??? any link ??? first let the block 2 come then say something about block 3 .....
its look like words in air .....
and everything is not troll ..... show some mature kind of nature .

this has been answered so many times with links and i will not waist my time over explaining same thing over again.
go through JF-17 threads and IDEAS-2008 PDF which will give you a hint that more advance variant will be coming up...
you asked what makes JF-17 block 3 4++??
- AESA radar
- Composite body with stealth features such as the DSI and absorbing materials.
- advance avionics
- new Air frame
etc etc....

 

[mean_bird]

Sure it is, just add a nuke and Presto! A cruise missile becomes a highly effective air to air missile before your eyes.

AIR-2 Genie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just in case you didn't notice, that was sarcasm. Sorry, couldn't resist.

lol..nice one.

However, as irony would have it, the Brahmos is limited to 290km and 500kg so it can't carry a sizeable warhead (see MTCR of which Russia is a signatory).

 

[adm_havemercy]

you give me a good reasion why china will not give us stealth fighters? in the past and in the present they have offered us just about anything they have.. ....

no doubt they will offer you but chinese 5th gen fighter is a bit far away in future than FGFA and youre gonna need some serious money for getting them .

this has been answered so many times with links and i will not waist my time over explaining same thing over again.
go through JF-17 threads and IDEAS-2008 PDF which will give you a hint that more advance variant will be coming up...
you asked what makes JF-17 block 3 4++??
- AESA radar
- Composite body with stealth features such as the DSI and absorbing materials.
- advance avionics
- new Air frame
etc etc....

thats almost a completely new plane sir !!!!!!!!

 

[mean_bird]

The debate topic was "Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF? ".
Lets stick with the topic.

Pakistan have current & future planes for PAF Quality and Quantity.

JF-17 Current 18 Total of 250 expected
Chengdu J-10B Current 0 36 ordered, to be delivered in 2009 expected
F-7 current 192
A-5 Current 41
F-16 Current 44 24 will be recieved in 2009 / 2010
Mirage III Current 121
Mirage 5 Current 60

Total Current 476

In 2010 (till March) PAF will recieve Total 30 JF-17, 24 F-16 & 36 J-10B

In 2010 Total 90 + 476 = 566

So I feel both quantity & quality will be up to the mark in 2010 & I suggest that topic should be closed as we are not discussing accc to topic subject.

Forgive me for intruding, but I think you are missing one big point here... the new aircraft are not additions but replacement. So as new and better planes are inducted, the current ones are phased out.

Personally, I think PAF would maintain a fighter/Attack fleet of around 400.

 

[adm_havemercy]

absolutely true . take out f-7 , mirage and a-5 from that list .

 

[saiko]

I'm already aware of what BVR is and its implications in modern aircombat. I assumed you would be on the same frequency of thought here, but I guess I'm obligated to state the obvious here. BVR is what matters in this day and age, but dogfighting is still part of the curriculum. I didn't think we would need to state the obvious, but I guess we all have to, right? regardless, TVC will not help much when it comes dogfighting, thanks to HMD and modern WVR missiles.

You misunderstood what I said completely.

The USAF being enamored with BVR does not mean that WVR doesn't matter. It only means that the USAF thought WVR didn't really matter and it influenced their procurement decisions. Coincidentally, that's also why they stopped research on the HMS. In large-scale aerial engagements WVR is almost guaranteed to occur.

For HMS/off boresight missiles to be a factor you have to first explain to everyone here what sequence of maneuvers the JF-17 will perform after the merge to get the Su-30MKI into its frontal aspect. I will even throw you a bone and suggest that it doesn't need to be a co-alt merge, though it should be a co-e merge.

that's not a reply.

Yes it is. The helmet mounted sight's effectiveness is negated in a multi-plane scenario in the same way TVC is. But you seem to be enamored with the HMS.

thanks for spending that time, however, arguing for the sake of arguing isn't going to take you anywhere. thrust-vectoring technology was tested on almost all platforms in service; F-16 MATV, F-15 ACTIVE, and F-18 HARV. the tests were of course successful, given the parameters, but the technology, as I have repeatedly been saying here, was not mature enough to incorporate in the aircraft. thanks to the F/A-22's increased computing power, flight control systems including fly-by-wire, and matured nozzle control computers, they decided to introduce the technology into the aircraft.

You mean when the pilot described how they acutally put the TVC equipped F-16 into combat trials against non-TVC equipped F-16s the technology wasn't mature enough? So what specifically wasn't mature about it, in the context of the article?

the Flanker's size makes a big difference, anyone who has some basic understanding of aerodynamics will be able to see that. larger twin-engined aircraft are the main candidates for thrust-vectoring, yet it's not necessary for single-engined fighters. smaller aircraft are already more agile and maneuverable then the larger aircraft, regardless of TWR. the F-16A/B and the JF-17 are perhaps the best aircraft in that category.

Of course the size makes a difference. I never claimed otherwise. But the days when wing-loading is an accurate measure of an airframe's maneuverability are long gone.

Simplest example? The Su-30MKI has a superior instantaneous and sustained turn rate over the F-16, any block. The F-16 is much smaller and lighter. How can this be? Please explain.

as for 'credibility', whether a pilot says the test was successful or not, does not change the fact that the technology had to mature a bit more, to be introduced to newer aircraft. showing me the magazine has not changed anything at all.

In hinsight showing you what actual F-16 pilots think about an actual F-16 equipped with TVC in combat trials think is pointless. You are not interested in an actual debate here.

 

[hj786]

Saiko, so far you have been assuming that the TWR, instantaneous and sustained turn rates of JF-17 are inferior to F-16 and Su-30. I have read a Chinese interview with a Chinese and a Pakistani test pilot translated by some guys on a military forum, the Chinese test pilot who had flown F-16 as part of his test pilot training (in the UK I think) said JF-17's horizontal performance was similar to an F-16A, while the Pakistani test pilot (an F-16A pilot) said JF was better in the horizontal axis. If you were to assume JF-17's instantaneous and sustained turn rates were slightly above those of F-16A, how would this affect the outcome? What if JF-17's engine was replaced with the RD-93B putting out 10% greater thrust (I think this would increase TWR to 1.05)?

For brahmos i've posted above links as proof. sorry for the stupid second post I was meant to post DERA study but wrong link.

The three links you posted contain EXACTLY THE SAME REPORT. The headline says "brahmos... air-to-air missile" but then the report says ASTRA AIR TO AIR MISSILE. Who the hell do you think you're trying to teach? A kindergarten? Go teach a circus you clown.

Anyway jf-17 will achieve its TWR of 95 only with half tank fuel and without any payload. So i think its not a matter at all..

Firstly, that TWR probably includes two wing-tip air-to-air missiles. Secondly, JF-17's TWR will only go up as more powerful engines are integrated (WS-13) and weight is reduced through use of composite materials. Thirdly, we have inside information from a PAF veteran combat pilot that the actual TWR is "much higher" than that. Go tell InAF and your fellow trolls what you think, nobody else here cares.