Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for? [Recent F-16 deal news, etc]
- Thread starter Mukesh Patel
- Start date
elkaboingo
New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for ????
you cant read a book about planes and expect those same rules and doctrine to apply to every country and every situation :roll . each country has a unique set of circumstances. having a large plane flying around with fuel, while consuming fuel is just way too ineffiecient for us.
i wouldnt mind some eurofighters, but at 70million each, one squadron of them blows away half of our 2.5billion salary (thats not even including logistics and training and things, not to mention the large cost of maintaing a twin engined fighter) . but lets say we did get this plane, it has a longer range than all our other fighters so would the air tanker be needed.
f/a-18? if uncle sam is begrudging us a few f-16MLU's, how are we gonna get the frontline fighter of their navy. that would require fighting in iraq, which we shouldnt get our troops mixed up in.
mirage's airframe is too old and not even a fraction stealthier than the III/V's that we have. i wouldnt mind the rafale though.
since you have inside sources, can you tell me the avionics on the jf-17 please . last i heard was tompson and thales.
so in the end, why blow the money on some dumb tankers, lets go for a full blown AWACs system, C4I, and realtime datalinking. all this plus the new network of ft2000 and their ground radars will give our airforce a huge advantage and boost them into the 21st century.
:smokingc:
well the j-10 stuff is news to me. i know that the ws-10a engines will soon be out, and we cant get the plane until then, because teh current engine is russian.umair said:Wrong Kaboings!elkaboingo said:we havent even seen j-10 yet
unless we got an f-16 block 60/62 or the israeli one, it aint gonna stand up to the highly maneuverable MKI with israeli avionics and weapons and stuff. no the MLU will not suffice.
try and think through our eyes, air to air refueling is just too much. even when flying 24/7 CAPs its cheaper to land and refuel and have the pilot take a break while some one else goes up.
we have enough range to get to the closest IAF bases, but even if we had the range to get to the farther ones, would it help? our planes would be detected by the awacs. :roll . with the H-4 (which is MUPSOW) it increases our strike range without more risk to the pilot.
The F-16s(2nd hands) are a viable option for Mirage replacement.The JF-17 can handle air-air just fine.People tend to confuse the 90% capable statement about the Thunder with the F-16s avionics performance.I had this cleared up, the maneauverability of the Thunder is 90%+ that of the Falcon's but the avionics for this plane will put it just a notch below the Block 50/52 F-16s
As mentioned earlier PAF is trying(santions resumption is a stumbling point) go for a western 4th gen platform as well as the J-10, most probably the EF Typhoon followed by the Super Hornet(we like to keep the Uncle option open
you cant read a book about planes and expect those same rules and doctrine to apply to every country and every situation :roll . each country has a unique set of circumstances. having a large plane flying around with fuel, while consuming fuel is just way too ineffiecient for us.
i wouldnt mind some eurofighters, but at 70million each, one squadron of them blows away half of our 2.5billion salary (thats not even including logistics and training and things, not to mention the large cost of maintaing a twin engined fighter) . but lets say we did get this plane, it has a longer range than all our other fighters so would the air tanker be needed.
f/a-18? if uncle sam is begrudging us a few f-16MLU's, how are we gonna get the frontline fighter of their navy. that would require fighting in iraq, which we shouldnt get our troops mixed up in.
mirage's airframe is too old and not even a fraction stealthier than the III/V's that we have. i wouldnt mind the rafale though.
since you have inside sources, can you tell me the avionics on the jf-17 please
. last i heard was tompson and thales. so in the end, why blow the money on some dumb tankers, lets go for a full blown AWACs system, C4I, and realtime datalinking. all this plus the new network of ft2000 and their ground radars will give our airforce a huge advantage and boost them into the 21st century.
:smokingc:
elkaboingo
New Member
that is true, but the plane is 20 years old (just like PIA's 747Oqaab said:
) and its airframe has gone through a lot of stress from fighting su-25 and su-22 and from CAPs patrols. i wondering if it would be better to just get a jf-17... the chinese pilot who test flew jf-17 said it would equal f-16 in maneuvreablility if it had a little more thrust.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for ????
Boingo, I think you're thinking of refuellers as only range extenders. This is slightly incorrect. They are "endurance" extenders first and foremost. Most countries air forces have sufficient range to be able to strike their likely targets. CAP's and CAS require extended endurance to be effective. If you've studied the most recent air battles (Iraq, Afganistan and Kosovo) you would have heard of terminology such as time critical targeting, perhaps? It's a fairly new concept but basically the aircraft fly around in circles waiting for a call from ground forces (or intell sources) to strike a particular target. The only way to achieve this is through air to air refuelling. Remember air to air refuellers can refuel all sorts of aircraft, including AWACS, maritime patrol aircraft, helicopters as well as fighters. They will also in the very near future become Communication hubs for "networked forces". In addition to this most tankers provide a duel transport capacity as well. Don't try and tell me Pakistan doesn't need additional transport capacity. EVERY Air Force (USAF included) requires additional transport capacity. A C-130 based air to air refuelling capacity could then possibly provide a very useful capability to Pakistan's air forces. The US Marines use the C-130 in this very (dual) role, so why not Pakistan? In my earlier comments about the F-16's, I was envisaging them as the 2nd tier in the PAF. Upgraded F-16's still provide a VERY potent air to air as well as air to ground combat capability and would complement a "high end" fighter such as the Eurofighter very well. A PAF based on Eurofighter and F-16's, supported by AWACS, air to air refuellers and a comprehensive ground based air defence system, would provide a powerful deterrent capability indeed.
Boingo, I think you're thinking of refuellers as only range extenders. This is slightly incorrect. They are "endurance" extenders first and foremost. Most countries air forces have sufficient range to be able to strike their likely targets. CAP's and CAS require extended endurance to be effective. If you've studied the most recent air battles (Iraq, Afganistan and Kosovo) you would have heard of terminology such as time critical targeting, perhaps? It's a fairly new concept but basically the aircraft fly around in circles waiting for a call from ground forces (or intell sources) to strike a particular target. The only way to achieve this is through air to air refuelling. Remember air to air refuellers can refuel all sorts of aircraft, including AWACS, maritime patrol aircraft, helicopters as well as fighters. They will also in the very near future become Communication hubs for "networked forces". In addition to this most tankers provide a duel transport capacity as well. Don't try and tell me Pakistan doesn't need additional transport capacity. EVERY Air Force (USAF included) requires additional transport capacity. A C-130 based air to air refuelling capacity could then possibly provide a very useful capability to Pakistan's air forces. The US Marines use the C-130 in this very (dual) role, so why not Pakistan? In my earlier comments about the F-16's, I was envisaging them as the 2nd tier in the PAF. Upgraded F-16's still provide a VERY potent air to air as well as air to ground combat capability and would complement a "high end" fighter such as the Eurofighter very well. A PAF based on Eurofighter and F-16's, supported by AWACS, air to air refuellers and a comprehensive ground based air defence system, would provide a powerful deterrent capability indeed.
elkaboingo
New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for ????
let me assure you, if a war broke out between pakistan and india, it would not be anything like iraq, kosovo, or afghanistan. first off, in those [one-side] wars, there was complete air superiority. we face a bigger adversary that has AWACs and more planes.
since our airbases are minutes from the border, a quick scramble will provide adequately timed CAS. US planes were based on carriers and were pounding the enemy 24/7 non stop. yes i did say our CAPs were 24/7 also. but for them, it is easier to land and refuel, as opposed to taking fuel from a tanker.
to keep a tanker up, it takes fuel. so much fuel consumption for a not-so-neccessary thing is a waste. maybe if PAF's budget expands, we could get it but it will be one of the last things on the list. far more important are AWACs, high tech fighters, and better ground radars.
if we get into the navy, mirages from airbases in karachi can reach any trouble spot in minutes.
about the f-16's, im thinking it would be better (and cheaper) to buy a new jf-17. after this main upgrade of the paf, we dont want too many old fighters in our inventory.
let me assure you, if a war broke out between pakistan and india, it would not be anything like iraq, kosovo, or afghanistan. first off, in those [one-side] wars, there was complete air superiority. we face a bigger adversary that has AWACs and more planes.
since our airbases are minutes from the border, a quick scramble will provide adequately timed CAS. US planes were based on carriers and were pounding the enemy 24/7 non stop. yes i did say our CAPs were 24/7 also. but for them, it is easier to land and refuel, as opposed to taking fuel from a tanker.
to keep a tanker up, it takes fuel. so much fuel consumption for a not-so-neccessary thing is a waste. maybe if PAF's budget expands, we could get it but it will be one of the last things on the list. far more important are AWACs, high tech fighters, and better ground radars.
if we get into the navy, mirages from airbases in karachi can reach any trouble spot in minutes.
about the f-16's, im thinking it would be better (and cheaper) to buy a new jf-17. after this main upgrade of the paf, we dont want too many old fighters in our inventory.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for ????
It isn't easier to land and refue than taking fuel from a tanker, not when you are talking about large number of fighters. Significant amounts of fuel are used in the taking off. An analysis would have to be conducted by the air force on this, but I'd be surprised if landing and refuelling large numbers of fighters proved cheaper than supporting them from the air, particularly given factors such as the length of time taken to land and refuel these fighters as opposed to a few tankers. The additional stress imposed upon the fighters having to land twice and takeoff twice as often as necessary, the fact that you do not have fighters in the air performing their normal tasks while they are on the ground. Scrambling you say? Scrambling is a tactic used in an emergency. It is not a long term solution to a tactical problem. If you're ground forces are going to be supported from the air then the aircraft need to be in position when the call comes in. The lack of air superiority issue is completely separate to this argument. It comes down to real time targeting. If the examples I provided previously aren't acceptable. Look at the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Israel faced massive enemy air and ground forces, similar in theory I guess to what Pakistan faces against India. Israel had the opportunity to devastate Egyptian forces when they were crossing the Suez, but their air force couldn't get there quickly enough and the Israeli's faced massive ground fighting as a result. The distances the IDF/AF were required to cover were only relatively short as well. The only proven and effective way to achieve this is to have your aircraft support by air to air refuelling. Another way is to have extremely long range aircraft, such as F-111's or B1-B's etc. Pakistan to my knowledge does not possess such an aircraft. Cheers.
It isn't easier to land and refue than taking fuel from a tanker, not when you are talking about large number of fighters. Significant amounts of fuel are used in the taking off. An analysis would have to be conducted by the air force on this, but I'd be surprised if landing and refuelling large numbers of fighters proved cheaper than supporting them from the air, particularly given factors such as the length of time taken to land and refuel these fighters as opposed to a few tankers. The additional stress imposed upon the fighters having to land twice and takeoff twice as often as necessary, the fact that you do not have fighters in the air performing their normal tasks while they are on the ground. Scrambling you say? Scrambling is a tactic used in an emergency. It is not a long term solution to a tactical problem. If you're ground forces are going to be supported from the air then the aircraft need to be in position when the call comes in. The lack of air superiority issue is completely separate to this argument. It comes down to real time targeting. If the examples I provided previously aren't acceptable. Look at the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Israel faced massive enemy air and ground forces, similar in theory I guess to what Pakistan faces against India. Israel had the opportunity to devastate Egyptian forces when they were crossing the Suez, but their air force couldn't get there quickly enough and the Israeli's faced massive ground fighting as a result. The distances the IDF/AF were required to cover were only relatively short as well. The only proven and effective way to achieve this is to have your aircraft support by air to air refuelling. Another way is to have extremely long range aircraft, such as F-111's or B1-B's etc. Pakistan to my knowledge does not possess such an aircraft. Cheers.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for ????
I comepletely agree Aussie Digger...
Such long range strike aircraft you mention are not so readily available these days, or even 'popular'...Technological advancements and changing requirements forces these roles onto markedly different planes, such as Tornadoes and Strike Eagles or to a certain extent, the Joint Strike Fighter. No. Everyone wants their super fighter bombers...Their Sukhois, Hornets, Falcons and Mirages.
I comepletely agree Aussie Digger...
Such long range strike aircraft you mention are not so readily available these days, or even 'popular'...Technological advancements and changing requirements forces these roles onto markedly different planes, such as Tornadoes and Strike Eagles or to a certain extent, the Joint Strike Fighter. No. Everyone wants their super fighter bombers...Their Sukhois, Hornets, Falcons and Mirages.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for ????
Yes Winter, they're not even popular in Australia, which still has some... Apparently it's much better to have short range fighters supported by (non existent) numerous tankers, flying the 2000 mile one way trip to even reach a possible target.
Yes Winter, they're not even popular in Australia, which still has some... Apparently it's much better to have short range fighters supported by (non existent) numerous tankers, flying the 2000 mile one way trip to even reach a possible target.
elkaboingo
New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for ????
yes i do say scrambling . if the brigade commander sees an opportunity that is too good :smokingc: , he'll call in for an emergency CAS. or if he thinks the opportunity might pass, he will call an MLRS strike.
in 1973, most israeli pilots were off because it was yom kippur. the pilots that were on duty were not really expecting to have to do anything.
mid air refueling is only effective if youre either bombing the enemy 24/7 (which requires air superiority) or or if you will be having too many fighters out at the same time and your airfields are getting crowded.
more fuel is consumed flying around in circles for hours on end, waiting for a call. (the reason this is practical for larger countries fighting in afghanistan and places, is because theyre almost always on call, because there is no risk of being shot down) in pakistan there are not large amounts of fighters. in iraq and other conflicts, pilots we always going after some target or the other. it wont and cant be the same. a CAS consists of 4 strike planes and 2 for top cover. a CAP is 2 planes.Aussie Digger said:
yes i do say scrambling
. if the brigade commander sees an opportunity that is too good :smokingc: , he'll call in for an emergency CAS. or if he thinks the opportunity might pass, he will call an MLRS strike. in 1973, most israeli pilots were off because it was yom kippur. the pilots that were on duty were not really expecting to have to do anything.
mid air refueling is only effective if youre either bombing the enemy 24/7 (which requires air superiority) or or if you will be having too many fighters out at the same time and your airfields are getting crowded.
pakcamando14
New Member
hey people you dont even have a clue what musharraf is doing because you guys dont know the whole story about him. he is a very good leader and dose everything equaly. Also it would be nice if pak air got new jets, but you dont here the pak pilots complaining. they are top world class fighters and they could kick..... even with a ww2 war plain.
Go pak air and this dose not have to do with patritism but this all stuff from books and thigs like that
:!:
Go pak air and this dose not have to do with patritism but this all stuff from books and thigs like that
:!:
Majin-Vegeta
Banned Member
yo Pakcamando..can i plz see these books?? me want more knowledge bout Pakistan..not FAKE knowledge..REAL Knowledge..theres lots of stuff FAKE on the internet.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for ????
Elkaboingo. The battle I was referring to during Yom Kippur occurred after Israeli forces were rushed into action after they realised they were being attacked. A cursory study of the war will show this. The Syrians (support by Jordanians, Iraqis etc) attacked from the direction of the Golan Heights, Egypt attacked (not surprisingly) from Egypt. The Syrians however attacked first. The Israeli's suffered greatly because they were unable to strike the Egypitan forces when they were crossing the Suez Canal. This is what I was referring to. Hopefully the PAF commanders don't think that scrambling is a successful and viable long term plan. Pakistan may REALLY be in trouble. If you think that scrambling fighters is a more fuel efficient tactic than conducting regular air patrols, supported by tankers then I think you should study the issue more closely. EVERY major air force in the world considers it more effective to operate tankers. Please explain why Pakistan would be any different. You haven't done that yet. There is no other way to extend an aircraft's range or endurance (apart from modifying the aircraft itself...) I would also imagine that the number of planes flown in Combat air patrols and close air support missions would depend on the threat. What would be the point of having 2 aircraft on patrol if your forces are being attacked by 50+ fighters?
Elkaboingo. The battle I was referring to during Yom Kippur occurred after Israeli forces were rushed into action after they realised they were being attacked. A cursory study of the war will show this. The Syrians (support by Jordanians, Iraqis etc) attacked from the direction of the Golan Heights, Egypt attacked (not surprisingly) from Egypt. The Syrians however attacked first. The Israeli's suffered greatly because they were unable to strike the Egypitan forces when they were crossing the Suez Canal. This is what I was referring to. Hopefully the PAF commanders don't think that scrambling is a successful and viable long term plan. Pakistan may REALLY be in trouble. If you think that scrambling fighters is a more fuel efficient tactic than conducting regular air patrols, supported by tankers then I think you should study the issue more closely. EVERY major air force in the world considers it more effective to operate tankers. Please explain why Pakistan would be any different. You haven't done that yet. There is no other way to extend an aircraft's range or endurance (apart from modifying the aircraft itself...) I would also imagine that the number of planes flown in Combat air patrols and close air support missions would depend on the threat. What would be the point of having 2 aircraft on patrol if your forces are being attacked by 50+ fighters?
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for ????
eg
During Vietnam, Anderson airbase at one stage had B52's in constant laps due to an inability to land (IIRC that meant that up to 64 B52's were landed and some 12 were always lapping and stacking)
Cold War, both US and USSR had planes lapping and stacking with tankers keeping them up until shift change
Israel, constant CAP with AWAC's and tankers up
India and Pakistan, ditto. When I was last in India in may-june 2003 there was a period of tension where India was rotating Jaguars and Mig's for CAP. I saw aircraft taking off in pairs literally every 60 seconds to maintain a CAP elelement. I can only assume that tankers and AWACs were up.
Planes are kept up as it shortens the response times, is cheaper to do and provides the host nation with a "failsafe option" of projection to perimeter and thus a clear message about speed of response.
Elkaboingo, so I do agree with A-Dig and Winter on this quite a bit, but thats based on what I've seen as the reasons for constant CAP and deployment in the past. Its the reaction time and message of intent that is critical - even if your borders are only narrow. Its a lot harder to smack down the sharp end of the spear if its airborne, even if you total its home base, it can still distress land and fly another day (if the odds are in its favour etc...)
If you look at countries that have been in a constant siege mentality (USA, Russia, Israel, India and Pakistan at various times_ then the common denominator is that CAP is king.Aussie Digger said:
eg
During Vietnam, Anderson airbase at one stage had B52's in constant laps due to an inability to land (IIRC that meant that up to 64 B52's were landed and some 12 were always lapping and stacking)
Cold War, both US and USSR had planes lapping and stacking with tankers keeping them up until shift change
Israel, constant CAP with AWAC's and tankers up
India and Pakistan, ditto. When I was last in India in may-june 2003 there was a period of tension where India was rotating Jaguars and Mig's for CAP. I saw aircraft taking off in pairs literally every 60 seconds to maintain a CAP elelement. I can only assume that tankers and AWACs were up.
Planes are kept up as it shortens the response times, is cheaper to do and provides the host nation with a "failsafe option" of projection to perimeter and thus a clear message about speed of response.
Elkaboingo, so I do agree with A-Dig and Winter on this quite a bit, but thats based on what I've seen as the reasons for constant CAP and deployment in the past. Its the reaction time and message of intent that is critical - even if your borders are only narrow. Its a lot harder to smack down the sharp end of the spear if its airborne, even if you total its home base, it can still distress land and fly another day (if the odds are in its favour etc...)
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for ????
In addition to my previous post, Elkaboingo. I was on exercise a long time ago (Kangaroo 95) and my unit was based at RAAF Tindal (Australia's major northern air base). Aussie FA-18's were waiting in their shelters then and were able to be airborne 2 minutes after receiving a call. To do this the aircraft were sitting under their shelters fully armed and fuelled. The pilots were sitting in the aircraft waiting for hours on end. Some actually went down with heat stroke at that time, thus rather diminishing their effectiveness... These fighters however were support for the fighter already airborne conducting CAP's. The only way to properly defend your airspace is to have fighters flying these patrols, supported by ground based (and preferrably Airborne) aerial surveillance radars. In addition air to air refuellers allow you to "mulitiply" your available force by extending the time they can remain on station. This occurs regardless of the number of enemy fighters. Yes an air to air refueller is relatively vulnerable, but this is a force protection issue. Not a reason to adopt wholly different tactics. Air to air refuellers properly supported by escorting fighters are the solution to this. Their benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. When was the last time you heard of one being shot down?
In addition to my previous post, Elkaboingo. I was on exercise a long time ago (Kangaroo 95) and my unit was based at RAAF Tindal (Australia's major northern air base). Aussie FA-18's were waiting in their shelters then and were able to be airborne 2 minutes after receiving a call. To do this the aircraft were sitting under their shelters fully armed and fuelled. The pilots were sitting in the aircraft waiting for hours on end. Some actually went down with heat stroke at that time, thus rather diminishing their effectiveness... These fighters however were support for the fighter already airborne conducting CAP's. The only way to properly defend your airspace is to have fighters flying these patrols, supported by ground based (and preferrably Airborne) aerial surveillance radars. In addition air to air refuellers allow you to "mulitiply" your available force by extending the time they can remain on station. This occurs regardless of the number of enemy fighters. Yes an air to air refueller is relatively vulnerable, but this is a force protection issue. Not a reason to adopt wholly different tactics. Air to air refuellers properly supported by escorting fighters are the solution to this. Their benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. When was the last time you heard of one being shot down?
Yes that's true, but when we train, we train as if we are at war.Awang se said:
On some exercises we will have constant CAP, but it all depends on the wargame scenarios being played out.
eg the US exercise usually imitate a full scale invasion or will be scaled back to a Marine landing/beach head situation.
pakcamando14
New Member
hey majin-vegeta
if you know how to read urdu and wouold like to give me your adress i would gladly send those books. i hope you like them.
if you know how to read urdu and wouold like to give me your adress i would gladly send those books. i hope you like them.
Majin-Vegeta
Banned Member
i cant read urdu english only (even though im also Pakistani LOL) o well, thanks anyways yo
i think Pakistan should Get JF-17's, thier wat? 15 million a piece from wat i heard..and thats quite cheap, Plus ive also heard that the JF-17 is extremely upgradable, So i guess they can order some Fighters now..and wait for JF-17's and by 2k6 they should be ready for sale..and Then Pakistan can make some moola!!
english only (even though im also Pakistani LOL) o well, thanks anyways yoi think Pakistan should Get JF-17's, thier wat? 15 million a piece from wat i heard..and thats quite cheap, Plus ive also heard that the JF-17 is extremely upgradable, So i guess they can order some Fighters now..and wait for JF-17's and by 2k6 they should be ready for sale..and Then Pakistan can make some moola!!
pakcamando14
New Member
its ok
but i think pakistan should get planes from china and start talking to russia. they should also try to get planes from one of the eurupean counteries too.
but i think pakistan should get planes from china and start talking to russia. they should also try to get planes from one of the eurupean counteries too.
Revival_786
New Member
Pakistan got J-10s from China did they not?