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

[TomCat]

Destroyers provide escort to Cruisers or Aircraft carriers, since neither serve in PN, the plausible induction could be capability of ABM integration for AD apart from carrying a cruise missile. Interestingly, Frigates and subs will then be deployed to escort Destroyers, usually its the other way round.

In the case of PN,
It would be bi-directional need.

The only reason why DDGs would be great for PN is their offensive oriented payload and the capacity.

 

[Armchair]

The moment you start jamming anything, your stealth becomes useless. This is because most enemy aircraft can now see you and modern AAMs have lock on jam capability. Modern AAMs such as the PL-15 also have AESA radars of their own, making them very difficult to jam and having certain anti-stealth features.

In a way, a J-15 is essentially a counter argument to stealth. It says "yes you can see me but what are you going to do about it". "Look at the raw performance, combat weight and raw firepower I can carry, can your stealth even come near to matching me?". "What happens when you have 4 LRAAMs chasing you and they are networked to me and to an AWACs".

The USAF must surely have reasons to still be manufacturing block 3 Super Hornets, alongside F-35s.

 

[Armchair]

Assalamoalaikum.
I was going through posts in this thread and while reading the posts of respectable @Signalian , a thought came to my mind about possible acquisition of J 15s by PAF.
We have already discussed that because of Russian factor, it may be relatively better to choose J 15 amongst the chinese flankers, plus, the PN needs twin engine, heavier fighters more than single engine jets. But one thing is quite interesting in choosing these particular flankers.
The airbases of Pakistan throughout the country have hangers built for single engine, relatively smaller fighter aircrafts. Dimension wise, the biggest aircraft that we operate is F-16 whose rough dimensions are 5, 10 and 15 meters for height, width and length. The dimensions of flankers are roughly 6, 14.5 to 15 and 22 meters for height, width and length.
Out of these dimensions, length doesn't seem to be a problem as we have seen hangers to be quite long in comparison to the aircrafts. Height has the difference of 1 meter which may also not be a problem inshaaAllah.
But the width is too much to be parked in any hanger made for F-16 size aircraft at maximum.
J-15 has folding wings and the folded dimensions in width are about 7.42m, or roughly, 7.5 meters. In wings-folded state, they can be accomodated in any hanger within Pakistani airbases inshaaAllah.
Just my thought for selection of J-15 over any other chinese flanker!
I might be wrong totally.

Wonderful analysis. This is a point I also made but you made it better.

 

[Armchair]

In olden times, Destroyers were seen as a smaller combatant, that acted as escorts for Battleships, battle cruisers, cruisers. Destroyers were also later classified into different kinds of destroyers including Destroyer Escort. However, today Destroyers are the main capital ships of many navies. Only a handful of light cruisers are fielded by the US and a few others. The only navy that fields a battlecruiser is the Russian Navy (Kirov Class), which is today an old and outdated ship.

Full size battleships have essentially stopped existing. Since WWII, the top navies all field aircraft carriers. I am still at a loss why Spain or Italy needs an aircraft carrier except for prestige. Aircraft carriers have grown in size. Light aircraft carriers started with the HMS Hermes, at 11,000 tons.

Very roughly:
Battleship: 30,000+ tons (defunct)
Battlecruiser: 20,000-30,000 (defunct)
Cruisers: 10,000-20,000 (few, less common today)
Destroyer: 5,000 - 10,000 (main capital ships of today)
Frigate: 2500 - 5,000 (most common combatant ship today)
Corvette: 1,000 - 2,500
Sloop-of-War: 500 - 1000 (defunct)
FAC: 100-500

When the big boys were in their hay day, Destroyers were just escorts and tag alongs. But today they are the most important ships for many navies that don't have bigger ships. Navies that don't have aircraft carrier, usually head their task force with a destroyer acting as the central core and frigates and other smaller vessels (and supply ships) acting in support.

Destroyers today have impressive numbers of VLs. Today, navies are often judged on a rule of thumb basis by the number of VLs they have. Another common method of measure is tonnage.

You will not find a serious navy today that does not have destroyers.

 

[Armchair]

Allah na hi kare. World is moving towards stealth jets and we are wishing for Flankers. Instead of fully going in to Chinese camp. We should have equally good relations with China and US.

Hi, would you be so kind as to expand on this point so we can understand your thinking better? Also, what stealth jets are on offer by the US, I think I've missed this news.

 

[Hawkeye]

Hi, would you be so kind as to expand on this point so we can understand your thinking better? Also, what stealth jets are on offer by the US, I think I've missed this news.

We all know that US is anti China and they straight away put sanctions on you if you go against their interest. Look what they did to Turkish F35s and now they are also bullying UK that they will stop spare parts of their F35s for showing interest in Chinese 5G. They have started shifting their companies from China to India. Now they are close allies with India and will always favor them. So what I think is if we want these J15s, j31 and j10s then we should Froget F16s especially the block 70s and even if we get these block 70s then we always be at the risk of our spare parts getting block by US at any time it wants for being Pro China. Also the influence US has on Europe could also be bad for us as if we ever need European tech for our JF-17 and project Azm.

 

[Safri167]

Froget F16s especially the block 70s and even if we get these block 70s then we always be at the risk of getting our spare parts block by US at any time it wants for bieng Pro China. Also the influence US has on Europe could also be bad for us as if we ever need European tech for our JF-17 and project Azm.

We were always at risk being with US, they did sanctioned us before many times, blocked spares when we needed them most. We also won't need anything for JF 17 and AZM from European, the Chief said we will go for ITAR free solution.

 

[Hawkeye]

We also won't need anything for JF 17 and AZM from European, the Chief said we will go for ITAR free solution

Bro we are currently using British ejection seats, Turkish targeting pod originally we wanted French targeting pod and French avionics. Some time back PAF was also checking leonardo company's radar for block 3. Pakistan can not make a fully local and will not make a fully Chinese tech FGFA.

 

[Hawkeye]

@Khafee sir is it confirm that we also getting growler version of J15.

 

[Khafee]

@Khafee sir is it confirm that we also getting growler version of J15.

IA yes!

 

[Khafee]

Bro we are currently using British ejection seats, Turkish targeting pod originally we wanted French targeting pod and French avionics. Some time back PAF was also checking leonardo company's radar for block 3. Pakistan can not make a fully local and will not make a fully Chinese tech FGFA.

See the thing is, Armed Forces sometimes just "appear" to be looking to buy, when in reality they are sizing up the competition. Hope you get what I am saying.

 

[!eon]

If J10 is coming then they will definitely be replacing mirages, j15 are for navy.

 

[Khafee]

Pakistan Navy ATR-72 arrives at Mönchengladbach to be upgraded to RAS-72-500 “Sea Eagle”

AWACS, AEW/C & Special Purposes Aircraft

I believe PN acquired 4 ATR airframes. this is the third being converted. Potentially we can get another converted later on. These should NOT be considered full blown ASW aircraft but ASW lite. They lack MAD & sonobouys. However with Sea Spray radar, surface detection of snorkeling submarines...

world-defense.com

 

[Hawkeye]

IA yes!

So we can expect that our J15s will come in Ram coating?

 

[Armchair]

I think we have heard from pretty senior PAF connected officials that PAF is looking for ITAR freedom in the Azm. British ejection seats can easily be replaced, although they aren't ITAR and Britain wouldn't have any leverage from it, just lost sales. Between, ejection seats need little maintenance so really a very insignificant issue.
It will take time for many to rethink of a world where Pak isn't forever dependent on the West and constantly being kept in line with a stick by the West. As this illusion clears up, things will make more sense.