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.
STOVL aircraft are very complicated to develop, expensive to maintain and have an incredibly bad record - just check out the Harrier and the well known troubles in operating them. PN doesn't need them as PN is not hoping for an aircraft carrier at any time.
Incidentally, it was because of including the STOVL F-35 that the program faced an incredible amount of problems and the ultimate product for A and C suffer from serious aerodynamic challanges because of the same. I would humbly hope PAF doesn't make the mistake the West has and go down that road... just an opinion here.
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.
I think the main reason mentioned by
@Khafee , which I perhaps didn't explain quite clearly in my last post, is that J-15s are:
1. Navalized. This means that when you fly them over the sea, they are relatively corrosion resistant (see Dutch F-16s and their problems with corrosion due to constant sea overflight).
2. Agreement not to sell Su-27s between China and Russia. Russia refused to gives Su-33 and J-15 is a Su-33 copy. Thus technically, China won't be breaking its agreement with its most important ally.
3. If Pak wanted to customize a J-15 variant, a new variant would need to go through a testing process (like no folding wings, no strengthened undercarriage for carrier landings). This testing phase would have pushed the project back by 18 months. But Pakistan is re-arming urgently. 18 months is too late for the perceived ballgame.
4. I don't see this as a major shift in doctrine, but I am happy to agree to disagree. The most major change is PN's ability to strike Indian Southern coast. Pretty much at will.
BMs and CMs are nuclear capable and once you start lobbing BMs to Indian South, Indians have no way of knowing if that BM is nuclear armed or not. So is it a Pakistani first strike or not. So, essentially, BMs become useless for a conventional war, as they take both sides precariously close to MAD.
Pakistani CMs don't have the range or payload to impact Indian south. And CMs are relatively easier to shoot down, when launched from a distance. They are basically small, subsonic aircraft on a one way mission.
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.
PN Air arm with JF-17 has a very short range radius of operations. Take a look at the map and the SLOCs. How will PN maintain SLOCs if IN wants to enforce a blockade? Would be near impossible. Calculate the radius of operation of JF-17s from all Pak bases and see if you can maintain air cover over the most rudimentary SLOC zone...
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.
PN is still hopelessly outsized and out performed. Count the number of VL tubes of both navies. The amount of air defenses on their ships vs Pak's. The number of AShMs on each... What PN has is a bandaid. Now combine that with the force multiplication effect of naval air power. Naval wars have, since WWII been won from the air... How will PN manage to protect Pak from a blockade with a few squadrons of JF-17s against 2 aircraft carriers and endless FLANKERs? Realistically, even if a single squadron of J-15s, the disparity is huge. We are trying here to reduce that disparity and give David a chance against Goliath.
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.
Bilal Khan (Quwa) thinks Azm will be operational in the 2040s... we don't even know what it is and what capability it will bring... what happens if Modi goes totally nuts and tries to create Akhund Bharat in December, 2020? What happens is US sides with India and shuts down spare parts for PAF? What happens if US sells F-18s or F-35s to IN? ... Pak has to plan for contingencies. Milavia procurement has to be predictive as if India does attack, there won't be any time to go shopping or even get the pilots familiarized.
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.
I hope so too, I'm always worried about the finances. I am not even able to comprehend how Pak is affording VT-4s let alone J-15s. Financially, it seems like suicide.
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.
I agree, I feel J-16 would have made more sense (or J-11 variant). But perhaps China will not break ranks with Russia, it shouldn't in fact, given the geopolitical situation that is developing.
7. A rebuild/overhaul facility in PAC Kamra for Flanker series. Further more simulator for pilot training.
France was (is?) maintaining some combat aircraft squadrons with only 40 hours a year flight time for pilots. Part of the reason is financial, but part of it is by substituting with simulators. Another way to do the same is to also add LIFT into the equation. In this regard, a squadron of JL-9s would be interesting. Even if we don't replicate the french, and reduce flight hours from 200 per year to say 60 per year, with the rest being fulfilled via JL-9 LIFT and on simulators, we can drastically lower the cost of operating the J-15s.
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.
I may be wrong here, but I don't think a single naval squadron of J-15s would greatly change PAF doctrine. I personally would go with 18 aircraft naval squadron, and 8 extra aircraft, 4 each for Northern Command and Central Command. Maybe most of those would be kept as EW aircraft. Note the power of EW on the EA-18 Growler. They can paralyze an entire air defense setup. That's still just 26 aircraft...
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.
I like these concepts you have brought forward. Pak and India, both went with MiG-21s but developed and used them totally differently. I think we can see the same with FLANKER employment.
If J-15s do come to Pakistan, I would personally feel that a single engined Azm would become more likely, as engines could be common to both types.
