J-10C of Pakistan Air Force

T

turin

New Member
Wonder where they got that information on the WS-10A, because it sounds wrong...
Click to expand...
Thats a quote from an old piece by SinoDefence. I am reading DID quite often, but I really wouldnt pay money for the kind of content they put up (which some people seem to do).
 
T

tphuang

Super Moderator
SABRE said:
This is not surprising. Pakistan-China have been on to it for 3 years, its about time. Now the governments of the two countries have to sign the deal.
Click to expand...
this is only the beginning, I think the decision was made last year or maybe even earlier, but we are going to hear more about J-10 with Pakistan as time comes. They will have to figure out the configuration and delivery schedules and such.
 
SURB

SURB

Member
So PAF is getting the j-10s(can we say specifically j-10As ?). It seems the current geopolitics might have hurried the negotiations.I expected them to wait for MRCA deal and j-10Bs.:soldier
 
S

sunny1987

New Member
J-10

i think tat is very good deal as far as upgrading the airforce. but ihave one question . Can it compete with IAF su 30 mki as mki lokks good as far as its specifications are described. why pakistan did not go for bvr radars and missiles ranging over 300 kms? can anybody brief me on that
 
S

sunny1987

New Member
Can any body tell me why PAF is not going for twin engine fighter like typhoon or J-11?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
sunny1987 said:
Can any body tell me why PAF is not going for twin engine fighter like typhoon or J-11?
Click to expand...
They are more expensive to operate than single engined fighters and don't offer significantly more to a tight budget than a single engined fighter...
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
sunny1987 said:
i think tat is very good deal as far as upgrading the airforce. but ihave one question . Can it compete with IAF su 30 mki as mki lokks good as far as its specifications are described. why pakistan did not go for bvr radars and missiles ranging over 300 kms? can anybody brief me on that
Click to expand...
Firstly, there is NO BVR missile that will be effective beyond 300k's.

Secondly fighter sized radar systems do not work well, if at all at such long ranges and certainly not well enough to provide fire control for their own missiles, which as previously stated won't be effective at that sort of range and so on...

Attempting to compare one fighter to another in isolation is a waste of time. This is not world war one, fighters do not fight in isolation, without support and so you have to attempt to judge an airforce at a system level.

Will the PAF have an effective and capable air force with it's new fighter acquisitions and weapon systems, enabling assets - Erieye AEW&C, A2A refuelling aircraft and maritime patrol aircraft, ground based air defence and surveillance systems, Command, Control and support systems?

Is it's training system sufficient to provide quality aircrew and maintenance crews?

Is PAF able to support it's combat elements well? What sort of sortie generation is it capable of?

The list of questions go on and on.

The simplistic answer is yes, the PAF seem to be doing the right things, to build an effective force that should provide a good capability to help defend Pakistan.

Whether one aircraft is "better" than another is really irrelevant in the scheme of things. On one day, under certain operational conditions it might be and the next under different circumstances it might not.
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
I wonder how the mix of F-16s and Chinese fighters will do for the PAF in regards to maintenance and training. Additionally exercises between the two types must be very interesting.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Feanor said:
I wonder how the mix of F-16s and Chinese fighters will do for the PAF in regards to maintenance and training. Additionally exercises between the two types must be very interesting.
Click to expand...
They've been operating that way for a long time already, though with Chinese F-7 and A-5 fighters/strikers, rather than JF-17 and J-10 fighters...

Pakistan has no choice but to "wear" the cost in order to maintain it's strategic self-reliance capability.

I expect the J-10 will be praised to the heavens, seeing as it is apparently selected as Pakistan's "high end" fighter... (not that I have any great knowledge or insight into the aircraft nor it's capabilities, I just expect the pro-Pakistani brigade to love it and the anti-Pakistan brigade to despise and denigrate it...)

:rolleyes:
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
How does the radar and avionics on it compare across the board to other fighters? I mean the radar is an MSA, that only tracks 10 targets. That's comparable to the updated N001 on the MKKs they got.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Feanor said:
How does the radar and avionics on it compare across the board to other fighters? I mean the radar is an MSA, that only tracks 10 targets. That's comparable to the updated N001 on the MKKs they got.
Click to expand...
NFI. Tphuang might be the best bet if he's around?

I'd suggest they would be no LESS capable than the Block 52+ fighters, (at least in air to air) that Pakistan already has on order. It would seem to be a pointless acquisition otherwise and given the known relative capability of the F-16 Block 52, that's an impressive capability...
 
SABRE

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
sunny1987 said:
Can any body tell me why PAF is not going for twin engine fighter like typhoon or J-11?
Click to expand...
1. The easy answer should be "cost effectiveness." PAF has always been challenged by budget constraints.

2. Post modern air power is more dependent on aircraft's avionics and weapon system then the aircraft itself (open for debatable). Whether its single engine F-16 or twin-engine F-15 both can (& usually do) carry same or similar avionics and weapons (i.e. AIM-120 AMRAAM). Major advantage I see in twin-engine aircraft is that it has greater payload and can fly longer distance. But its the ability of an aircraft to strike deep rather then fly deep which is becoming more important. Because of this most modern air forces strive to achieve StandOff capability.

3. Post modern air forces (ground and sea forces as well) also require force multipliers (i.e. AWACS and A2A Refuelers) and non-aircraft based defences (ground or sea based air defence i.e. SAMs). These force multipliers and alternative defensive measures compensate the air crafts limited capabilities. An Su-30 may have a radar with greater range compared to F-16 but when an F-16 gets its data from an AWACS its seeking capability is boosted even further. These multipliers and defenses carry away significant chunk of budget as well, thus a moderate air force like PAF economizes by inducting less costly single engine air craft to boost numbers.

I think this is what Aussie Digger was trying to tell you (?).
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #18
Aussie Digger said:
I'd suggest they would be no LESS capable than the Block 52+ fighters, (at least in air to air) that Pakistan already has on order. It would seem to be a pointless acquisition otherwise and given the known relative capability of the F-16 Block 52, that's an impressive capability...
Click to expand...
That would be a lot more impressive then my reading has led me to think.
 
S

sunny1987

New Member
SABRE said:
1. The easy answer should be "cost effectiveness." PAF has always been challenged by budget constraints.

2. Post modern air power is more dependent on aircraft's avionics and weapon system then the aircraft itself (open for debatable). Whether its single engine F-16 or twin-engine F-15 both can (& usually do) carry same or similar avionics and weapons (i.e. AIM-120 AMRAAM). Major advantage I see in twin-engine aircraft is that it has greater payload and can fly longer distance. But its the ability of an aircraft to strike deep rather then fly deep which is becoming more important. Because of this most modern air forces strive to achieve StandOff capability.

3. Post modern air forces (ground and sea forces as well) also require force multipliers (i.e. AWACS and A2A Refuelers) and non-aircraft based defences (ground or sea based air defence i.e. SAMs). These force multipliers and alternative defensive measures compensate the air crafts limited capabilities. An Su-30 may have a radar with greater range compared to F-16 but when an F-16 gets its data from an AWACS its seeking capability is boosted even further. These multipliers and defenses carry away significant chunk of budget as well, thus a moderate air force like PAF economizes by inducting less costly single engine air craft to boost numbers.

I think this is what Aussie Digger was trying to tell you (?).
Click to expand...
Thanks a lot dears to reply me. i am now satisfied . Now can anybody now tell me about the maximum bvr missile range of IAF su-30 and PAF Falcons. because unless you dont have the strike capability of shooting of an aircraft beyond visual range then it is of no use that is what i think
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
The maximum range has little relevance to real life engagements. Not to mention that the "brochure" maximum range and the practical maximum range are two different things. Both are contingent on the target you're dealing with, and additionally depend on a number of things such as AEW support, ECM or jamming support, etc. I don't think there is an easy answer to these questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top