Acquisition of J-15 for PAF- Air Superiority & Deep Strike Platfrom

[Signalian]

If you could also go through this thread and read what members have been saying about the role for these jets and what they are being bought for. Then you wouldn't be asking redundant questions.

I didn't not find replies worthwhile so i brought points on the table.

@Khafee Also pointed out multiple times that for Pakistan it's only a J-15 by name. Meaning its completely different then the ones Chinese are operating. He also stated that's is far more advanced compared to the ones they operate. Do care to go back and read what he said.

Advanced has many interpretations. Try NOT to judge me next time, instead learn to ask.

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

I didn't not find replies worthwhile so i brought points on the table.



Advanced has many interpretations. Try NOT to judge me next time, instead learn to ask.

Looks like someone is a little hurt lol
Take a walk mate

 

[Signalian]

Looks like someone is a little hurt lol
Take a walk mate

This forum has been made to discuss , not to judge. Keep that in mind.
Stand aside and stop quoting me if you have a problem with my posts.

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

This forum has been made to discuss , not to judge. Keep that in mind.
Stand aside and stop quoting me if you have a problem with my posts.

Am I the one going around saying "I've been judged, I've been judged"? No, I've read your comments on this jet and you give off the vibe in which my comment was based on.

Now being judged is part of discussion if you think people dont judge then you are fooling yourself.

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

That being said why in the hell would I have an issue with your posts infact it's you that cant respond properly so you resorted to acting like the victim.

The fact that I pointed out, that you should read what others have said to answer your questions and you stating "they aren't worthwhile" now that's shows your intentions.

 

[War Historian]

All the brothers just cool down. You are both respectable members and seniors.please i request both of you please avoid any confusion and anger against each other. Thanks you brothers.

 

[Armchair]

Above points bring in more discussion points, like STOVL, if J-31 gets this capability and PAF wants such proposition in AZM in long term.

Hi Signalian, PAF / PN aren't buying J-15s for a carrier role so STOVL doesn't come into the equation. Yes, they may be able to touch and go if PLAN visits with a big boat. That's about it. FLANKERs are known to require a very long runway, this is one of the reasons India gave for going for a new platform. They can't operate from a good number of FOBs in the north (NW, NE).

You would also need to build new HAS to fit such large birds... well unless you could fold the wings. The point the @Khafee made was that going for a navalized flanker with custom changes (like no folding wings) was not an option for PAF / PN due to time constraints. These are probably decisions made at the same time as the VT-4 / SPH and we were both discussing how things can go ballistic in the shorter term.

What Role PAF / PN Would Use the J-15

To highlight, I want to note that there are three wider concerns were a FLANKER fits in:

1. By allowing PAF the ability to strike the Indian South, and its Western coast. India does not have this area properly covered, just as Pakistan didn't have Baluchistan properly covered and India had been planning air operations from the South.
Operationally, this means India now has to divert resources (aircraft, radar, SAM, even construct bases perhaps) to the South rather than focusing on the North West alone.
This is the main reason @Mastankhan has been asking for so long for the JH-7.
In the South, they have their economic stronholds like Mumbai. A strike on Mumbai or some of the ports would shatter foreign investment confidence for a decade. Suddenly their ports are at risk, and their prosperous south is under threat, something they never faced - ever.

2. We have all seen how PN is growing - from a brown water navy it is now closer to a blue water one. As the navy expands, it needs a better air umbrella as air strikes are the deadliest concern for all naval vessels. Operationally, there is only so much air cover JF-17s can provide over the fleet. They don't have the legs to be an effective umbrella for an expanded PN.

3. India is investing in expanding its own naval air power with new aircraft carrier and shore based aircraft. Pakistan has to counter this in some way or form, particularly as the IN is much larger and an air advantage will be catestrophic for the PN.

urther more PN itself has aircrafts which carry AShM like P-3C as an example.

Will be hard to protect P-3Cs or anything else from India's gigantic flanker fleet and aircraft carriers. How will air cover be provided to them, out at sea... this is why Pak needs a naval fighter.

 

[TsAr]

That being said why in the hell would I have an issue with your posts infact it's you that cant respond properly so you resorted to acting like the victim.

The fact that I pointed out, that you should read what others have said to answer your questions and you stating "they aren't worthwhile" now that's shows your intentions.

Cool it down brother, everyone is here for a discussion, lets not get personal.

 

[Counter-Errorist]

@Signalian 2 points to consider:

- Whether we like it or not, PLAN will eventually deploy to Gwadar.
- China and Pak militaries have been doing comprehensive training on integrated battle scenarios.

 

[TsAr]

@Signalian 2 points to consider:

- Whether we like it or not, PLAN will eventually deploy to Gwadar.
- China and Pak militaries have been doing comprehensive training on integrated battle scenarios.

I do not see that in the near future, PLAN ships would dock on Gawadar.

 

[Armchair]

A stealthy aircraft will have a better survivibility rate even for deep strike as compared to J-15. PAF should scrap J-15 idea and go for stealth aircraft.

I think PAF would have but J-31 isn't mature yet. And PAF never buys an immature platform... See J-10 saga and what the senior PAF have said about it on record.

 

[Safri167]

Hi Signalian, PAF / PN aren't buying J-15s for a carrier role so STOVL doesn't come into the equation. Yes, they may be able to touch and go if PLAN visits with a big boat. That's about it. FLANKERs are known to require a very long runway, this is one of the reasons India gave for going for a new platform. They can't operate from a good number of FOBs in the north (NW, NE).

You would also need to build new HAS to fit such large birds... well unless you could fold the wings. The point the @Khafee made was that going for a navalized flanker with custom changes (like no folding wings) was not an option for PAF / PN due to time constraints. These are probably decisions made at the same time as the VT-4 / SPH and we were both discussing how things can go ballistic in the shorter term.

What Role PAF / PN Would Use the J-15

To highlight, I want to note that there are three wider concerns were a FLANKER fits in:

1. By allowing PAF the ability to strike the Indian South, and its Western coast. India does not have this area properly covered, just as Pakistan didn't have Baluchistan properly covered and India had been planning air operations from the South.
Operationally, this means India now has to divert resources (aircraft, radar, SAM, even construct bases perhaps) to the South rather than focusing on the North West alone.
This is the main reason @Mastankhan has been asking for so long for the JH-7.
In the South, they have their economic stronholds like Mumbai. A strike on Mumbai or some of the ports would shatter foreign investment confidence for a decade. Suddenly their ports are at risk, and their prosperous south is under threat, something they never faced - ever.

2. We have all seen how PN is growing - from a brown water navy it is now closer to a blue water one. As the navy expands, it needs a better air umbrella as air strikes are the deadliest concern for all naval vessels. Operationally, there is only so much air cover JF-17s can provide over the fleet. They don't have the legs to be an effective umbrella for an expanded PN.

3. India is investing in expanding its own naval air power with new aircraft carrier and shore based aircraft. Pakistan has to counter this in some way or form, particularly as the IN is much larger and an air advantage will be catestrophic for the PN.


Will be hard to protect P-3Cs or anything else from India's gigantic flanker fleet and aircraft carriers. How will air cover be provided to them, out at sea... this is why Pak needs a naval fighter.

Also sir,
4. Train our pilots for naval / carrier ops.
There are chances that Chinese will station 1 carrier in Arabian sea.
5. Electronic warfare capability
6. Buddy refueling
7. Increased payload for heavier SOWs

 

[TomCat]

Am I the one going around saying "I've been judged, I've been judged"? No, I've read your comments on this jet and you give off the vibe in which my comment was based on.

Now being judged is part of discussion if you think people dont judge then you are fooling yourself.

Bhai,

Really bad, Why not being yourself ?
@Signalian Has all rights to put forward his views,

When a person includes the elements of personal liking in rational judgement and analysis, The rationality is lost and biased ness is born. So kindly...

Signalian is one of the best posters of either of the forums, Unlike you and me.

 

[Gripen9]

Requirements of PAF which seem a lot to differ as far as JF-17 and Azm projects are going, as well as history. Since J-15 is based on SU-33, if it does come, it has to be seen if following are required:

1. Folding wings are an option which PAF requires or not.
2. A strengthened under carriage.
3. Arresting hook.

SU-33 has a primarily air superiority role, J-15 is fighter-bomber, it has to be seen how PAF utilises it.

Above points bring in more discussion points, like STOVL, if J-31 gets this capability and PAF wants such proposition in AZM in long term. There was discussion about a helicopter carrier since an aircraft carrier is used for force projection which doesnt seem to be on PN agenda. One has to see what kind of aircraft carrier (Ski-Jump or catapult etc) can it be suited to or that it will never have any carrier borne opes capability. Apart from that, what does a twin engine multi role fighter bring for PAF when its actually a carrier based aircraft which is seen to be acquired for PN. Why wouldn't J-16 be a better option, apart from that single seat and tandem seat arrangement, what could be other differences. The EW variant of J-16D seems a plausible candidate too. This leads to another thought that after J-15, would PAF go for J-16 also or customise J-15 to a completely non-navalized version. The combo of J-15 with JF-17 for certain Ops (Naval, regular CAPs etc), J-15 sorties with stealth aircraft like Azm in future, data linking J-15 with F-16 or Mirage ROSE squadrons for strike missions etc. There are few types of PAF aircrafts already suited for Naval missions - Mirage-V, JF-17 and its expected that F-16 will complement naval missions as it has ability to carry AGM-84 Harpoon, further more PN itself has aircrafts which carry AShM like P-3C as an example. The advent of a Rebuild factory for Flanker series in PAC. Circumvention of export licenses for FlankerJ-series by PRC.

I have provided some food for thought now although initially i had planned to toss them around one by one.

Broaden your horizon a bit, my standard of posting is not that low that i resort to nit picking. I have just floated a point to be discussed, not to be judged.

Here is my post on this thread from Apr 22. I did explore what you have suggested vis a vis folding wings and under carriage for J15. But we are currently going by explicitly what @Khafee has told.

Acquisition of J-15 for PAF- Air Superiority & Deep Strike Platfrom

Just quoting you for future reference :) How does quoting me help “¡¡“

world-defense.com

 

[Signalian]

Hi Signalian, PAF / PN aren't buying J-15s for a carrier role so STOVL doesn't come into the equation. Yes, they may be able to touch and go if PLAN visits with a big boat. That's about it. FLANKERs are known to require a very long runway, this is one of the reasons India gave for going for a new platform. They can't operate from a good number of FOBs in the north (NW, NE).

You would also need to build new HAS to fit such large birds... well unless you could fold the wings. The point the @Khafee made was that going for a navalized flanker with custom changes (like no folding wings) was not an option for PAF / PN due to time constraints. These are probably decisions made at the same time as the VT-4 / SPH and we were both discussing how things can go ballistic in the shorter term.

What Role PAF / PN Would Use the J-15

To highlight, I want to note that there are three wider concerns were a FLANKER fits in:

1. By allowing PAF the ability to strike the Indian South, and its Western coast. India does not have this area properly covered, just as Pakistan didn't have Baluchistan properly covered and India had been planning air operations from the South.
Operationally, this means India now has to divert resources (aircraft, radar, SAM, even construct bases perhaps) to the South rather than focusing on the North West alone.
This is the main reason @Mastankhan has been asking for so long for the JH-7.
In the South, they have their economic stronholds like Mumbai. A strike on Mumbai or some of the ports would shatter foreign investment confidence for a decade. Suddenly their ports are at risk, and their prosperous south is under threat, something they never faced - ever.

2. We have all seen how PN is growing - from a brown water navy it is now closer to a blue water one. As the navy expands, it needs a better air umbrella as air strikes are the deadliest concern for all naval vessels. Operationally, there is only so much air cover JF-17s can provide over the fleet. They don't have the legs to be an effective umbrella for an expanded PN.

3. India is investing in expanding its own naval air power with new aircraft carrier and shore based aircraft. Pakistan has to counter this in some way or form, particularly as the IN is much larger and an air advantage will be catestrophic for the PN.


Will be hard to protect P-3Cs or anything else from India's gigantic flanker fleet and aircraft carriers. How will air cover be provided to them, out at sea... this is why Pak needs a naval fighter.

STOVL aircraft is another type which PAF has not inducted as yet. Just like stealth aircraft for now. PAF is already involved in Azm project but STOVL is nowhere to be heard of as of now. I was highlighting PAF's sphere of aircraft utility.

PN doesn't operate an AC yet J-15 is a naval version of Flanker and even if its not inducted in PN instead its introduced as a replacement for F-7 or Mirage Non Rose, would mean that PAF is now going for a fourth type of aircraft and has changed its doctrine to a massive extent. So in either case whether its deployed with PAF or PN, a major shift in air doctrine for forces will be seen.

1. From PAF's pov, in an event of war, Pakistan's own airspace has to be defended as priority then strike missions for PAF, PA and PN targets have to be conducted. This means that bulk of aircrafts will be defending the air space, rest will be on strike missions wherever PA or PN operates. The strikes at far flung places like you mentioned South of India, will be catered by BM or CM.

2. PN Air arm sees JF-17 as an improvement over Mirage-V for all sorts of support missions. PN's main strike force are its subs which are designed to operate without air cover in hostile seas. Its not expected for aircraft to provide cover to subs and giving away their location by inviting IN aircrafts for a battle in the skies. The 2 squadrons that PAF has to support Navy will be used to thwart IN attacks along with PN combat elements.

3. PN has procured few types of missiles systems for defence against IN. Harba, Zarb etc missiles and missile boats are a testimony that PN expects a massive In attack in case of war and has prepared different sorts of defences to counter such an attack. If J-15 would be arriving for PAF Ops, its not possible that J-15 will be provided for PN Ops all the time. P-3Cs and ATR-72 will be used in ASW role rather than maritime surveillance when war beaks out. JF-17 can be kept airborne through A2A refuelling.

I would add more points:

4. Even if J-15 is acquired, PAF might not be able procure all rights to customise/upgrade it to its full capacity as it wants. PAF has such leverage with JF-17 for now and in future with the product of Azm outcome. Only time will be able to tell if Ra'ad can be integrated on J-15.

5. If J-15 is linked through a CPEC deal, even involving defence of CPEC in case Pakistan doesnt allow PLAAF aircrafts to operate from Gwadar, then J-15 should be coming at a very good price.

6. The proposition of J-16 (and its EW variant) and the selection of J-15 in flanker series. IAF deploys SU30MKi in air sup role while its a MR aircraft. PLAAF flies J-11 in air sup role and uses J-16 in strike role. So a definitive role of Flanker is to be seen especially when PAF goes for MR aircrafts.

7. A rebuild/overhaul facility in PAC Kamra for Flanker series. Further more simulator for pilot training.

8. An over all doctrine of PAF has to be re-visited. If J-15 gets inducted, will the numbers stop at 36-40 or rise in the following decades. What impact will J-15 deployment make on F-16 deals and further blocks of JF-17. Would PAF finally intend to compliment a stealth aircraft with a heavy fighter bomber. How would the future of F-16 be seen. Mirage ROSE squadrons would be replaced by stealthy or heavy fighter for strike role. Would J-15 be seen as an answer to IAF Rafale induction.

9. F-7 and Mig-21 Bison are born from the same plane but have deviated alot as they matured and settled in to fall in Ops role for two different Airforces. F-7 was never intended to be a front line fighter, a role which F-16 would always lead. Now J-15 is another story, it can take the top tier role for most Ops and its counterpart is MKI which it will be meeting in all sorts of combat. The electronics/avionics/radar/armament can be different yes, but the maneuvers/flying/estimated ranges/maintenance turnaround times/overhauling etc for both Flankers will be quite similar and in this regard, IAF has an edge over PAF. Both J-15 and MKi are and will be main stay of both Air Forces, where as F-7 and Mig-21 are slated for retirement.