Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for? [Recent F-16 deal news, etc]
- Thread starter Mukesh Patel
- Start date
The Watcher
New Member
lets put the f16 genie back in its bottle and ship it to USA. We dont need and want f16s!!!! And SU-27 are not good since India has su30s! WE need new equipment not used up crap and thats costs too much to maintain!
mysterious
New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
I'm still sticking to my Gripens. :smokingc:
I'm still sticking to my Gripens. :smokingc:
Londo Molari
New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Rafale is the only one not being politically blocked.
Rafale is the only one not being politically blocked.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
adsh, buddy as I've already posted Pakistan has had this technology for almost a decade now in the private(and more in the public) sector.We have experience of using composites in UAV construction and the same (in theory) as far as I know can be expanded upon for use in aircraft construction.As far as redesign goes, it's already been done.There are subtle differences in the aircraft design visible between the earlier concepts and present models(I also have a pic of a redesigned mockup on my hd, will upload it when I find it).Gary will know more about wether extensive redesigning will be involved or not.I just tell u guys here what little I get to know from my sources, and thats they will raise the ratio to 50% in the production version.adsH said:
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Ya...but I dont think Pakistan wants to buy any thing that is easily available to India as well. I think that is why we didnt push much for the mirage 2000-5 deal as well. EF-2000 is a great choice. I like to see tjose Jets in Pakistan. Air superority will be ours but I think if they can give it to Pakistan than they can sell them to India as well. Some how India has not shown much interest in Gripens. May it is cause that Sweden blocked its military sales to India during Kargil war n were still providen Pakistan with maintainance. (this has been swedish policy for quite a long time. They wont provide arms to countries involved in conflict but will provide spare parts n components for all ready bought arms......I wounder y countries do tht...Wapons r made to fight n just when fight starts they stop providing them..so what r wapons made 4 than...hahaha..plz dnt comment on this).
Any ways I read the price of British Hariers n they r been sold at quite a reasonable price...if Brits agree PAF should buy them..atleast one sqdn of them or dozan of them.
On the other hand there are ppl here now who realy dnt like F-16s no more. Hack they r even sayn tht PAF should lose the exsisting F-16s as well. PAF is never going to do tht..it would be foolish to do so. On the other hand scrtry. Of Defence Donal Rumsfield already said tht he has decided to sell F-16s to Pakistan..all he needs is approval from congress. N for insult to an injury he said tht to former BJP FM of India.
Any ways this is what PAF might have by year 2010:
1)Gripen - 60 (Sweden)
2)F-16s - 60 (USA)
3)JF-17 - 80+ (Pak versions only)
4)Mirage2000-5 - 20 (France)
5)Mirage 3n5 -100+(France.They just keep on collectin them... I wounder y)
6)J10 - 40 (China..but Pak should get its technology transfered here)
EF-2000 n Rafeal should still be on the list
Retirements for :
1) F-6 ( Mig_19)
2) F-7 (Mig_21)
3) A-5
2015 is the date i consider retirment for mirage 3 n 5...i just dnt know y PAF keeps on collecting them..
On the other hand the above list of jets in 2010 depends on Sweden n USA's support.
Londo Molari said:
Ya...but I dont think Pakistan wants to buy any thing that is easily available to India as well. I think that is why we didnt push much for the mirage 2000-5 deal as well. EF-2000 is a great choice. I like to see tjose Jets in Pakistan. Air superority will be ours but I think if they can give it to Pakistan than they can sell them to India as well. Some how India has not shown much interest in Gripens. May it is cause that Sweden blocked its military sales to India during Kargil war n were still providen Pakistan with maintainance. (this has been swedish policy for quite a long time. They wont provide arms to countries involved in conflict but will provide spare parts n components for all ready bought arms......I wounder y countries do tht...Wapons r made to fight n just when fight starts they stop providing them..so what r wapons made 4 than...hahaha..plz dnt comment on this).
Any ways I read the price of British Hariers n they r been sold at quite a reasonable price...if Brits agree PAF should buy them..atleast one sqdn of them or dozan of them.
On the other hand there are ppl here now who realy dnt like F-16s no more. Hack they r even sayn tht PAF should lose the exsisting F-16s as well. PAF is never going to do tht..it would be foolish to do so. On the other hand scrtry. Of Defence Donal Rumsfield already said tht he has decided to sell F-16s to Pakistan..all he needs is approval from congress. N for insult to an injury he said tht to former BJP FM of India.
Any ways this is what PAF might have by year 2010:
1)Gripen - 60 (Sweden)
2)F-16s - 60 (USA)
3)JF-17 - 80+ (Pak versions only)
4)Mirage2000-5 - 20 (France)
5)Mirage 3n5 -100+(France.They just keep on collectin them... I wounder y)
6)J10 - 40 (China..but Pak should get its technology transfered here)
EF-2000 n Rafeal should still be on the list
Retirements for :
1) F-6 ( Mig_19)
2) F-7 (Mig_21)
3) A-5
2015 is the date i consider retirment for mirage 3 n 5...i just dnt know y PAF keeps on collecting them..
On the other hand the above list of jets in 2010 depends on Sweden n USA's support.
lalith prasad
Banned Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
ef2000 costs70million and currently it is facing problems with its software india also cant afford it.i think su30 costs around 37.5 million.by the way developing uav with composite material is no big deal.it is like if you use plastic to make a toy it is a bloody headache to make a fighter with plastic same applies to the composites .i think india acquired composites technology from dassault which acted as consultants for the lca project then india conducted further research on it.the reason why using this technology is difficult in fighters is more difficult compared to its use in uavs is the the material specification and skin thickness changes considerably for fighters.
ef2000 costs70million and currently it is facing problems with its software india also cant afford it.i think su30 costs around 37.5 million.by the way developing uav with composite material is no big deal.it is like if you use plastic to make a toy it is a bloody headache to make a fighter with plastic same applies to the composites .i think india acquired composites technology from dassault which acted as consultants for the lca project then india conducted further research on it.the reason why using this technology is difficult in fighters is more difficult compared to its use in uavs is the the material specification and skin thickness changes considerably for fighters.
mysterious
New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Saber my friend, I still have no clue how and why you're making the PAF bear the burden of operating 'five' different AC platforms. *shrugs* :roll
Saber my friend, I still have no clue how and why you're making the PAF bear the burden of operating 'five' different AC platforms. *shrugs* :roll
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
My strategy for PAF is to be in aggressive mode rather than defencive in case of war. In 1965 PAF played Aggressive n the ended up destroying main Indian airfields and squadrons (Pathankot etc)...In 1971 PAF was in defencive mode..though it did performed better than the Indians had the loses were big. PAF had a different agressive strategy in 1965.. They used 1 plane during the day n other during the night. For air defence they used different ACs. So on different missions they were sending different ACs and it worked..... Now the 5 or 6 AC I mentioned that PAF should have by 2010 will do the same Job for PAF that mirage3s, sabres etc.. did for PAF.
On the other hand I think you are right that the PAF would have to bare a lot of burden...but thats the way it goes. The best defence is offence.
5?....u mean 6.. hahamysterious said:
My strategy for PAF is to be in aggressive mode rather than defencive in case of war. In 1965 PAF played Aggressive n the ended up destroying main Indian airfields and squadrons (Pathankot etc)...In 1971 PAF was in defencive mode..though it did performed better than the Indians had the loses were big. PAF had a different agressive strategy in 1965.. They used 1 plane during the day n other during the night. For air defence they used different ACs. So on different missions they were sending different ACs and it worked..... Now the 5 or 6 AC I mentioned that PAF should have by 2010 will do the same Job for PAF that mirage3s, sabres etc.. did for PAF.
On the other hand I think you are right that the PAF would have to bare a lot of burden...but thats the way it goes. The best defence is offence.
Restoring the PAFs Qualitative Edge
A new article by Zubair Ansari about PAF:
Enjoy!!!!
Restoring the PAFs Qualitative Edge
By Zubair Ansari
URL of this article:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/printer_1647.shtml
Jul 9, 2004, 10:46
No one can deny the pivotal role of Air power in any modern conflict. The United States is the classic example of how air power can be employed achieve air superiority and to cripple an enemy economically and militarily before employing ground forces. This leads to fewer losses for the ground forces and a quicker end to the war.
Modern doctrine is to employ air power to destroy economic targets, logistic supply lines and to get air supremacy very early by destroying the air defence, air force and economic infrastructure leaving a lesser mop up role for the ground forces. Also the ground forces guide the airforce in tactical situations by laser designating targets in the battle field.
Thus you work yourself inside out as opposed to out side as was the case earlier crippling the country economically and militarily making it difficult for the enemy to wage war.
The modern Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA)
What is a modern 4th generation multirole aircraft you ask. Well it is not just improve ments in aircraft handling, power to weight ratio and performance. That is just the starting point. It incorporates digital fly by wire control system and relaxed stability and is highly maneuverable.
In the modern fighter aircraft the key is avionics such as a powerful multimode radar with multiple target tracking and attacking capability in air to air mode at Beyond Visual Range (BVR) with active radar guided, fire and forget air to air missiles. Look Down shoot down capability. A Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS) which allows for the pilot to lock short range targets by merely looking at them 60+ degrees of bore sight.
The man machine interface has been improved reducing pilot work load for quick decision making such as a glass cockpit, (Hands on Throttle and Stick) HOTAS, holographic (Heads Up Display) HUD, Color Multi Function Displays (MFD).
It can carry out precision strike with laser guided bombs, missiles and other stand off smart munitions. It has terrain following capability and moving digital ground maps, Forward looking Infrared and Laser Designation Pods.
It can carry out variety of missions in all whether such as CAP(Combat Air Patrol), anti shipping, SEAD (Supression of Enemy Air Defences) missions with (anti Radiation Missiles) ARM missiles and air to surface missiles and precision TV and laser guided munitions.
It has stealth characteristics with low radar signature and composite materials to make the airframe light yet strong allowing heavier payloads, and radar absorbing or deflecting structure and materials and air to air refueling capability to improve endurance and range.
Why there is a Strategic Gap
Very long, please read the rest of it here:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_001647.shtml
[This thread will be merged with other PAF thread(s) soon.]
A new article by Zubair Ansari about PAF:
Enjoy!!!!
Restoring the PAFs Qualitative Edge
By Zubair Ansari
URL of this article:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/printer_1647.shtml
Jul 9, 2004, 10:46
No one can deny the pivotal role of Air power in any modern conflict. The United States is the classic example of how air power can be employed achieve air superiority and to cripple an enemy economically and militarily before employing ground forces. This leads to fewer losses for the ground forces and a quicker end to the war.
Modern doctrine is to employ air power to destroy economic targets, logistic supply lines and to get air supremacy very early by destroying the air defence, air force and economic infrastructure leaving a lesser mop up role for the ground forces. Also the ground forces guide the airforce in tactical situations by laser designating targets in the battle field.
Thus you work yourself inside out as opposed to out side as was the case earlier crippling the country economically and militarily making it difficult for the enemy to wage war.
The modern Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA)
What is a modern 4th generation multirole aircraft you ask. Well it is not just improve ments in aircraft handling, power to weight ratio and performance. That is just the starting point. It incorporates digital fly by wire control system and relaxed stability and is highly maneuverable.
In the modern fighter aircraft the key is avionics such as a powerful multimode radar with multiple target tracking and attacking capability in air to air mode at Beyond Visual Range (BVR) with active radar guided, fire and forget air to air missiles. Look Down shoot down capability. A Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS) which allows for the pilot to lock short range targets by merely looking at them 60+ degrees of bore sight.
The man machine interface has been improved reducing pilot work load for quick decision making such as a glass cockpit, (Hands on Throttle and Stick) HOTAS, holographic (Heads Up Display) HUD, Color Multi Function Displays (MFD).
It can carry out precision strike with laser guided bombs, missiles and other stand off smart munitions. It has terrain following capability and moving digital ground maps, Forward looking Infrared and Laser Designation Pods.
It can carry out variety of missions in all whether such as CAP(Combat Air Patrol), anti shipping, SEAD (Supression of Enemy Air Defences) missions with (anti Radiation Missiles) ARM missiles and air to surface missiles and precision TV and laser guided munitions.
It has stealth characteristics with low radar signature and composite materials to make the airframe light yet strong allowing heavier payloads, and radar absorbing or deflecting structure and materials and air to air refueling capability to improve endurance and range.
Why there is a Strategic Gap
Very long, please read the rest of it here:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_001647.shtml
[This thread will be merged with other PAF thread(s) soon.]
fieldmarshal
New Member
Re: Restoring the PAFs Qualitative Edge
the guy who wrote this does a good job of puttin all of it in one place, gosip ie. every thing he put forward is all old news which has been discussed here again n again, but it gives u the impression that it is written by some one wiht second hand info, not by some 1 who is in the thick of it n has experienced it him self. No offence bud but not impressed.
he compares the klashnakov with our fighter fleet, well bud in case u havent noticed the ak-47 was n still is the most successful assult rifile ever made by man n that is the reason y it is so widely used n i can tell u from personal experience that even the us special ops where usin em widely in operations.SO if our fighters are as capabile as an ak than no worries mate.
n mate u should check the capabilites of the grifo s7 before sayin its not capabile, well bud when its revealed in the thunders ull know wt i am takin bout.
the guy who wrote this does a good job of puttin all of it in one place, gosip ie. every thing he put forward is all old news which has been discussed here again n again, but it gives u the impression that it is written by some one wiht second hand info, not by some 1 who is in the thick of it n has experienced it him self. No offence bud but not impressed.
he compares the klashnakov with our fighter fleet, well bud in case u havent noticed the ak-47 was n still is the most successful assult rifile ever made by man n that is the reason y it is so widely used n i can tell u from personal experience that even the us special ops where usin em widely in operations.SO if our fighters are as capabile as an ak than no worries mate.
n mate u should check the capabilites of the grifo s7 before sayin its not capabile, well bud when its revealed in the thunders ull know wt i am takin bout.
fieldmarshal
New Member
Re: Restoring the PAFs Qualitative Edge
n plz dont be impressed by the use of the tech by the us in warfare. As things stand now they are loosin the art of war for the science of war.
Has any 1 heard bout the "millinium challenge", cuz that was a case in point of how a small enemy can bring even the u.s down, by just takin this tech advantage away from em n it was done. so i suggest that all of the ppl on this forum read bout it.
ps ; i will do it ie post it here if i get the time.
n plz dont be impressed by the use of the tech by the us in warfare. As things stand now they are loosin the art of war for the science of war.
Has any 1 heard bout the "millinium challenge", cuz that was a case in point of how a small enemy can bring even the u.s down, by just takin this tech advantage away from em n it was done. so i suggest that all of the ppl on this forum read bout it.
ps ; i will do it ie post it here if i get the time.
zubair_ansari
New Member
Re: Restoring the PAFs Qualitative Edge
Hi guys,
I am posting on the forum for the first time but I have been enjoying the forum for the past few months.
My motivation behind writing this article is that I am concerned about the acquisition problems the PAF is facing and I wanted to voice my concerns.
The PAF desperately needs to induct some hi-tech fighters because most of the fleet is getting too old as everyone knows that, whether we want to admit it or not.
You are right I am not connected to the PAF in any way so the news that I have is not first hand and merely an analysis of the PAFs predicament.
I mentioned the AK-47 as an analogy and not a direct comparison. The AK-47 is to assault rifles what a a Fishbed is to Modern Fighters although there is a wider technology gap between a Fishbed designed in the 60s as a day fighter compared to a modern 4th generation fighter. Obviously there have not been advancements in assault rifle technology at the same rate. Granted AK-47s are very effective but I do not think we can say that with confidence about F7, Mirage III, V versus Su-30, Mirage 2000 and MiG 29s.
Although I hate to admit is but I think if something is not done to rectify this soon, the PAF will be overwhelmed.
Hi guys,
I am posting on the forum for the first time but I have been enjoying the forum for the past few months.
My motivation behind writing this article is that I am concerned about the acquisition problems the PAF is facing and I wanted to voice my concerns.
The PAF desperately needs to induct some hi-tech fighters because most of the fleet is getting too old as everyone knows that, whether we want to admit it or not.
You are right I am not connected to the PAF in any way so the news that I have is not first hand and merely an analysis of the PAFs predicament.
I mentioned the AK-47 as an analogy and not a direct comparison. The AK-47 is to assault rifles what a a Fishbed is to Modern Fighters although there is a wider technology gap between a Fishbed designed in the 60s as a day fighter compared to a modern 4th generation fighter. Obviously there have not been advancements in assault rifle technology at the same rate. Granted AK-47s are very effective but I do not think we can say that with confidence about F7, Mirage III, V versus Su-30, Mirage 2000 and MiG 29s.
Although I hate to admit is but I think if something is not done to rectify this soon, the PAF will be overwhelmed.