Who on earth said PAF will get only single engine fighters?

[Armstrong]

So at the moment..the PAF has 18 aircraft that are able to hit the further(as an exclusive) critical nodes of the enemy and have enough chances to complete the mission.

Just 18 !

As opposed to how many would our adversary be wielding in such an engagement to be used in a similar role against us ?

Also, would it be correct to say that we could use our various platforms to fire-off stand-off weapons against their 'critical nodes' from our own airspace or on its borders ?

Additionally would it also be plausible to suggest that our SRBMs & our MRBMs, fielding conventional armament, be used to target their critical nodes instead of sending in our boys in what could most certainly be a suicide mission ?

 

[SQ8]

Just 18 !

As opposed to how many would our adversary be wielding in such an engagement to be used in a similar role against us ?

Also, would it be correct to say that we could use our various platforms to fire-off stand-off weapons against their 'critical nodes' from our own airspace or on its borders ?

Additionally would it also be plausible to suggest that our SRBMs & our MRBMs, fielding conventional armament, be used to target their critical nodes instead of sending in our boys in what could most certainly be a suicide mission ?

Lets see.. there's the MKI's.. the M2k's..and the Rafale whenever it comes in.
Yes, which is why these weapons offset some of the range and survivability issues.

And lastly.. NO.. there is no way to tell if an SRBM or MRBM is carrying a nuke or not... too risky.
There is probably an acceptance among Pakistani pilots that their usefulness in a war is probably going to be limited to two weeks at most. Either they'll run out of aircraft to fly or end up martyred.

 

[muse]

18 against MKI, M2k, Rafale? Lol


I guess for PAF discretion is the better part of valor

 

[Armstrong]

Lets see.. there's the MKI's.. the M2k's..and the Rafale whenever it comes in.
Yes, which is why these weapons offset some of the range and survivability issues.

And lastly.. NO.. there is no way to tell if an SRBM or MRBM is carrying a nuke or not... too risky.
There is probably an acceptance among Pakistani pilots that their usefulness in a war is probably going to be limited to two weeks at most. Either they'll run out of aircraft to fly or end up martyred.

If our situation is as dire as that, what prevents our enemy from teaching us a decisive lesson every time the opportunity arose ?

 

[Dillinger]

If our situation is as dire as that, what prevents our enemy from teaching us a decisive lesson every time the opportunity arose ?

Emmm..nukes armi..nukes..you've got em' and we've got em'...anything escalates out of hand and it will be sajji all around.
@Oscar what about leasing twin engined aircraft with greater range and punch under exigent circumstances like one of the posters suggested here? Wouldn't that be feasible?

 

[SQ8]

Emmm..nukes armi..nukes..you've got em' and we've got em'...anything escalates out of hand and it will be sajji all around.
@Oscar what about leasing twin engined aircraft with greater range and punch under exigent circumstances like one of the posters suggested here? Wouldn't that be feasible?

Who will lease it to us is the big question. Lets put it this way about Pakistan's financial situation and its current credibility and Ive stated this before. The PAF(under the umbrella of the Defense Ministry) signed loans with China to provide funds for the JF-17 program and the SAAB Erieye. Currently.. as finances stand.. there is not enough money in the PAF coffers after the usual expenditures of day to day flying(increased due to the participation in WoT), admin costs etc.. to even pay the premium on these loans.. let alone spend on new equipment.
Leasing sounds excellent, but at the same time.. it has the string of having fighters that can disappear overnight if the leasing party decides it wants them back.. suddenly all the plans come crashing down.

Another thing, when you lease a piece of equipment.. be it a car in which you still have to figure out where its oil check is and where does the filter go.. or an aircraft.. in which you have to learn its systems, the maintainers have to learn how to keep it flying.. and the spares..etc. Are additional costs incurred which are essentially sunk when the lease terminates without you owning any assets at the end of it. The PN operated the Brooke and Garcia class on lease.. personell trained on it.. learnt its systems.. the PN spent money..and one find day they were gone. All the plans that had them in the operational doctrine blown to bits.. all the training.. sunk.

Now, who will lease to the PAF? The Saudi's? Nope.. they have multiple investments from India coming in not to mention any attempt at antagonizing India will not go well on the American buddies front.
The Chinese? They'll probably do it...except whatever ounce of dignity that the Chinese have left for us will be gone when we tell them we cannot pay the lease on their fighters unless they they give us the money.
Who else? Algeria?

Leasing is simply a bad idea.. especially for an unreliable economy like ours.

 

[muse]

If our situation is as dire as that, what prevents our enemy from teaching us a decisive lesson every time the opportunity arose ?

You ask such a question of gamblers? - Decisive is not in the vocabulary of gamblers, they know they will be need to keep order afterwards, there is no decisive for them, sadly.

 

[Dillinger]

Who will lease it to us is the big question. Lets put it this way about Pakistan's financial situation and its current credibility and Ive stated this before. The PAF(under the umbrella of the Defense Ministry) signed loans with China to provide funds for the JF-17 program and the SAAB Erieye. Currently.. as finances stand.. there is not enough money in the PAF coffers after the usual expenditures of day to day flying(increased due to the participation in WoT), admin costs etc.. to even pay the premium on these loans.. let alone spend on new equipment.
Leasing sounds excellent, but at the same time.. it has the string of having fighters that can disappear overnight if the leasing party decides it wants them back.. suddenly all the plans come crashing down.

Another thing, when you lease a piece of equipment.. be it a car in which you still have to figure out where its oil check is and where does the filter go.. or an aircraft.. in which you have to learn its systems, the maintainers have to learn how to keep it flying.. and the spares..etc. Are additional costs incurred which are essentially sunk when the lease terminates without you owning any assets at the end of it. The PN operated the Brooke and Garcia class on lease.. personell trained on it.. learnt its systems.. the PN spent money..and one find day they were gone. All the plans that had them in the operational doctrine blown to bits.. all the training.. sunk.

Now, who will lease to the PAF? The Saudi's? Nope.. they have multiple investments from India coming in not to mention any attempt at antagonizing India will not go well on the American buddies front.
The Chinese? They'll probably do it...except whatever ounce of dignity that the Chinese have left for us will be gone when we tell them we cannot pay the lease on their fighters unless they they give us the money.
Who else? Algeria?

Leasing is simply a bad idea.. especially for an unreliable economy like ours.

True enough.

Btw sir I had mentioned you with a few questions- you may have not had the time back then-

Sir you had mentioned that the MKI was not important because of the radar but rather because of its range..Prasun Sengupta (dunno if you've heard of him) echoed the same thing recently..he added that it allowed the said craft to exploit various "gaps" in the ADGE in Pakistan. Is that true? If so can't buying systems like the Hq-9 fill these gaps? I mean there is some murmur that even BD is buying hq-9s, won't that work the same way for them- making their airspace nigh impenetrable?

 

[Armstrong]

True enough.

Btw sir I had mentioned you with a few questions- you may have not had the time back then-

Sir you had mentioned that the MKI was not important because of the radar but rather because of its range..Prasun Sengupta (dunno if you've heard of him) echoed the same thing recently..he added that it allowed the said craft to exploit various "gaps" in the ADGE in Pakistan. Is that true? If so can't buying systems like the Hq-9 fill these gaps? I mean there is some murmur that even BD is buying hq-9s, won't that work the same way for them- making their airspace nigh impenetrable?

Bangladesh is smaller than Punjab; we're stretched in the North-South direction !

 

[SQ8]

True enough.

Btw sir I had mentioned you with a few questions- you may have not had the time back then-

Sir you had mentioned that the MKI was not important because of the radar but rather because of its range..Prasun Sengupta (dunno if you've heard of him) echoed the same thing recently..he added that it allowed the said craft to exploit various "gaps" in the ADGE in Pakistan. Is that true? If so can't buying systems like the Hq-9 fill these gaps? I mean there is some murmur that even BD is buying hq-9s, won't that work the same way for them- making their airspace nigh impenetrable?

Not entirely..
The ADGE is co-ordinated with aerial interceptors. If for e.g. there is a deployment of the HQ-9 to cover critical areas.. then this system can simply be overwhelmed with stand-off attacks from different approaches. Sure, the chances of being pricked badly and losing more than a few aircraft increases.. but it does not deter you entirely from achieving objectives. A lot of this depends on the warfighting will...and specifically those involved in calculating losses. Will the HQ-9 cause losses for the IAF? Yes.. quite likely..
Will it cause unacceptable losses? that is for the IAF to decide.

For BD though the equation is much worse.. since its smaller landmass and consequential encirclement by India leaves it very vulnerable to attacks from any direction. However, what the HQ-9 and BD's natural vegetative cover allow is for a system like the HQ-9 to continue causing losses long after the AF has been made irrelevant. Being mobile allows it to relocate and setup at various sites to harass movements and operations... but not for long.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

J-31 will be the first exception in the near future.

 

[Dillinger]

Not entirely..
The ADGE is co-ordinated with aerial interceptors. If for e.g. there is a deployment of the HQ-9 to cover critical areas.. then this system can simply be overwhelmed with stand-off attacks from different approaches. Sure, the chances of being pricked badly and losing more than a few aircraft increases.. but it does not deter you entirely from achieving objectives. A lot of this depends on the warfighting will...and specifically those involved in calculating losses. Will the HQ-9 cause losses for the IAF? Yes.. quite likely..
Will it cause unacceptable losses? that is for the IAF to decide.

For BD though the equation is much worse.. since its smaller landmass and consequential encirclement by India leaves it very vulnerable to attacks from any direction. However, what the HQ-9 and BD's natural vegetative cover allow is for a system like the HQ-9 to continue causing losses long after the AF has been made irrelevant. Being mobile allows it to relocate and setup at various sites to harass movements and operations... but not for long.

But from what we hear on the forums the entry of the S-300 or its ilk pretty much ends the game or so it is believed. How long would the BD AF last under such a scenario?

But then the PAF is also buying additional AEW&C platforms from China and IF not today then in the next decade surely the J-31s will be operational with it. Given of what you know of the Pak-fa and rafale, how do you see them operating in such a scenario?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Another main reason overlooked in this thread is the same reason IAF rejected f-16s.IAF has been operating flankers for 15 yrs and knows the flanker inside out and chances are by the time j-11b arrives the super sukhoi with AESA,reduced RCS and and TVC will still be superior to it.So i think PAF is smart and knows what its doing to not buy a aircraft that would potentially still be second best and one that adversary knows inside out.
Best option is to save money to go for j-31 with western avionics.Till then a stopgap but of some j-10s for morale booster.

 

[muse]

I think a large part of this discussion is about doctrine, I'm convinced of that, and in particular whether we should plan for fighting in Pakistan or in the adversary's skies and landmass

 

[Hyperion]

It always has been about fighting within our territory (air and land). Day dreaming of air superiority over enemy skies or that of occupying enemy landmass is foolish. No one says it, but that's how it is. Obviously a commanding officer will never tell the juniors or conscripts "hey, we aren't that powerful as made out to be". It doesn't work that way, otherwise how can you tell a soldier to fight an opponent who is ten times better armed, and twice the size?

On the bright side nukes are a great equalizer. Nothing is gonna happen as long as we can assure our adversaries of "Samosa Option". We just need to keep working on better delivery systems (cheapest ones), we don't need stealth and all that. We'd be way better of developing couple of submarines (not nuclear powered necessarily, but quietest possible) and ballistic missiles that go with them. It's cheap (comparatively), sneaky and way more effective.

I think a large part of this discussion is about doctrine, I'm convinced of that, and in particular whether we should plan for fighting in Pakistan or in the adversary's skies and landmass