Pakistan Gets F16 -Blk70/72

[Gripen9]

Bye the way, I don't know where to post it, but found it relevant.
Whenever we think of giving teeth (another fighter) to PAF, we always assume the capabilities of the aircrafts and our economic and maintainence capacity but ignore one important thing.
In 1965, chinese helped us with J-6, we were able to fly that.
In 2002-2003 Pak-india stand off, chinese helped us with J-7 and A-5 because those were the aircrafts in CHINESE INVENTORY which we were able to fly.
Now today, O.k, arabs and turks may help us with F-16s as we are used to it but beleive me, that help will be withdrawn with a single bark of America.
Now what we are left with to be helped with by chinese as they are not operating the JF-17s?
I want to say that, instead of pursuing more and more F-16 to fill the numbers gap for replacing mirages, if we replace the gap with mixed numbers of block III JFTs and any other fighter which chinese are using actively in their inventory, that will be much much helpful strategically inshaAllah.

We didn't get the F-6s till 1966. There were no F-6 available during 65 war. China did "gift" the first 60 in 1966. And we incorporated AIM-9b missiles on them.

Similarly in 2002, they urgently transferred 40 additional F-7PGs but no A-5s. Who would want A-5s in 2002

 

[TomCat]

We didn't get the F-6s till 1966. There were no F-6 available during 65 war. China did "gift" the first 60 in 1966. And we incorporated AIM-9b missiles on them.

Similarly in 2002, they urgently transferred 40 additional F-7PGs but no A-5s. Who would want A-5s in 2002

The rest we can make up ourselves

 

[!eon]

It was there for 107 minutes and they only spotted it after 101 minutes.

 

[Mastankhan]

It was there for 107 minutes and they only spotted it after 101 minutes.

hi

see—-all this talk of paf ‘ man behind the machine’ is totally bull crap.

they are a capable people no doubt, but they have had very capable machines as well to get the best out if them.

Paf is trying to short change the capability of the machine and such is not the case in real world.

an able capable knowledgeable aggressive keen operator can really make the thing do things it was really designed to.

an air force that inducted A5’s in the fleet should tend to listen as well

 

[Humble Analyst]

Interestingly, China is looking to replace the J-15s because it has proven to be unreliable as a carrier-borne aircraft.

It requires a ski-jump platform for taking off from carriers. China is looking to replace ski-jumps with flat-tops on their carriers.
At 17,500 kg, they are probably the heaviest carrier-borne aircrafts.
Due to it's weight, it needs to launch with lighter fuel and lesser payload to be able to launch from carriers.
It's flight control issues tend to show up during carrier take-off and landing as well.

Khafee suggests we'll get about 24. That's about as many as China has produced.

So looks like China will be handing off the entire fleet over to us and focus on F-31 carrier-variant, while we get a land-based J-15 without any of its problems.

Win-win!

Very hood post and I concur

 

[loanranger]

We need a twin engine jet. Chinese J series with Pl-15 should be a top priority even before F16s. When the Americans see the PAF flying J10 Cs, the f16s will come with favourable t&c's without us even asking. Ofcourse we must take care of American intrests too which are acceptable to both sides.

 

[Mastankhan]

Sir, no matter what the cap range is, scientifically i believe, the longer time / range utilization you give to it, the higher probability of your CM to fail/fry-up unexpectedly and most importantly intercepted

Hi,

The strike package may include 25 plus aircraft---which means that many of them would be equipped with anti ship missiles---so pretty much almost all of the enemy ships would be wiped out---.

But if you look at my route---enemy ships would not be that far out---. They would be staying closer to their shoreline under the umbrella of their LRSAM's and aircraft---.

You have to understand---frigates SA missiles have short ranges---even with their long range sams---aircraft anti ship missiles have a pretty long ranges---190 Km for the C802's---500 Km for CM400AKG's ( possibly more range )---.

There is a reason why I push for 50-60 JH7A's---.

The indian ships won't be able to hide even in the ports on the arabian sea western coastline---.

The indian flotilla would be decimated if it came across these aircraft---.

Now don't get me wrong---we will lose a lots of aircrafts and pilots---but by the time we lose a lots of them---the enemy would have lost so much more that its navy would not be a navy anymore---.

 

[HRK]

Couldn't JH-7AII carry Babur with little bit of integration and modification on the pylons

JH-7 does not carry CJ-10 missiles but weapons like C-802, C-704 , C-705, which are limited in range so it is logical to believe that it is not able carry weapons like Babur missile or CJ-10

Possibly that is not quite so. There are three versions of the JH-7 i.e. JH-7, JH-7A and JH-7AII. The one which have been recently upgraded and introduced in air exercises in Russia this year, has new AESA radar and other modifications. The specs we usually find are that of t

Again as said earlier no version of JH-7 is spotted with CJ-10, and AESA integration does not mean the jet is capable to carry and employ such class of weapon.

If allow me to point out JH-7 and H-6 are different class of weapon platform for two different set of requirements and employ two different weapon package, in two different type of Naval battle zone and environment, JH-7 is used for defence of near sea region while H-6 is for long rang and deep open sea region

Here consider a scenario I am sure you must be aware that India has acquire the rights of docking Naval ships at newly built Duqam port in Oman which is just 1,100 km from Karachi, which mean Indian Navy would not be solely dependent on Mumbai port and ports in Gujarat for logistics and would be in position to acquire essentian supplies from Duqam

Now imagin India station its Carrier battele group at 800 to 900 km south of Karachi but 300-400 Km N.east of Duqam port, here keep in mind two things

• Extended Range of Bhramose missile is 600-700 Km which mean they can strike at Karachi from sea
• They would be able to influence Naval traffic coming or going from Pakistani ports as all the ship for Pakistan have pass that zone

Here note this zone would be reachable to us even with Jf-17 and Mirage Jets so it will be a contested zone which will effect Pakistan's SLOC, even if you add JH-7 in the mix from our side it will not make a notable difference as contested zone may shift further 200-300 Km south of Karachi where Indian vessels would be relatively in better position, but the complete denial of the Strike capability of IN at Karachi would not be achieved

Now if we add H-6 in our A2/AD it will force IN to place carrier group near horn of Africa which mean complete denial of Strike capability of IN at Karachi (Indian 700 km SLBM is not operational as of yet) additionally Daqum port will not remain beneficial for them

This is just a single employment of H-6 in defensive role now hope that u would get the point and will play further scenarios and try to analyse effect of employnent of Jh-7and H-6

This will prove very costly,

This is just an assumption as you can yourself calculate the cost of operating Destroyer class vessels and the financial and Human resources are required as cmpre to H-6

 

[AliYusuf]

JH-7 does not carry CJ-10 missiles but weapons like C-802, C-704 , C-705, which are limited in range so it is logical to believe that it is not able carry weapons like Babur missile or CJ-10

Seriously? You truly think an aircraft that has the loadout equivalent to almost that of the Flanker (J-15) and JH-7AII cannot be made to carry a full fledged cruise missile while a Mirage 3/5 family can (albeit a smaller one)?

Also to hit Mumbai and the Indian west coast we can't do it without an aircraft like an H-6?

H-6 needs a significant A2A, SEAD & other ancillary support assets to go along to make it a viable option.

Also let me repeat, name one country that is not the USA, Russia or China which is successfully operating an H-6 class bird?

This is just an assumption as you can yourself calculate the cost of operating Destroyer class vessels and the financial and Human resources are required as cmpre to H-6

A destroyer can operate on it's own. I doubt whether an H-6K can?
Factor in the operating cost of the support assets that will required for the H-6 as well.
Factor in the cost of maintaining the behemoth that the H-6 is.

Discussion was primarily about hitting Mumbai and the Indian West Coast.
Not keeping the IN CBG at bay.
That can be done by other naval assets (we are getting newer subs and surface vessels) and also probably a well placed ballistic missile or a J-15 strike should the need arise ... or better still lets discuss that separately and not dilute this discussion with it.

I think we both have expressed our point of views and it is ok to have a difference of opinion.

 

[HRK]

Seriously? You truly think an aircraft that has the loadout equivalent to almost that of the Flanker (J-15) and JH-7AII cannot be made to carry a full fledged cruise missile while a Mirage 3/5 family can (albeit a smaller one)?

Yaaap just check the size and weight of CJ-10, as far as Mirage is concern it take RA'AD cruise missile which is the evolution of Babur missile in miniaturise form for air launch purpose, so plz check the weight and size of RA'AD missile, secondly even if JH-7 is successfully modified to carry Long rang cruise missile like BABUR then
how many it would be abel to carry??
and up to which distance????

Food for thought

Also to hit Mumbai and the Indian west coast we can't do it without an aircraft like an H-6?

Mumbai is accessible for us from many means,

Indian west is our Eastern border with India, so I think you are asking about Indian eastern coast and southern coast ????

If this is the case than currently our ballistic missiles and submarine our only option with us which we could use to target those centres but both option have some of their limitations like any other option but H-6 would increase our options to hit Indian South, Southeastern coast as well as Indian naval vessels in deep open sea which currently can be targeted only by our submarines

Here I would emphasis you to study limitations of PN which is necessary to understand why the idea of H-6 is purposed

A destroyer can operate on it's own. I doubt whether an H-6K can?

Nope at such ranges where H-6 could reach and hit the target and return no destroyer would be able to operate alone

Here consider the war time employment and deployment areas for purposed idea of destroyers

Factor in the operating cost of the support assets that will required for the H-6 as well.

A destroyer would required 150-200 staff on board to operate it plus other staff in other supporting ships plus to keep that flotilla deployed in constant threat zone in enemy backyard secure supply line would need to be establish for extended period of time that too would require deployment of ADDITIONAL assets and resources, plus maintenance of Destroyer and supporting Flotilla all would cost us enormous amount of finance

So plz understand that currently no surface asset of PN fleet is able to be deployed and strike Indian southern and southeastern shores and this status is going to remain as it is for quite some time, so again i would request to learn the limitation of PN first to under the idea how H-6 will mitigate those limitations

Discussion was primarily about hitting Mumbai and the Indian West Coast.

Not from my end I explicitly mention in one of my post that I am purposing the idea which go beyond Mumbai

Now it appears to me that you are not reading my post in detail but cursory manner so to post all of post in summarise manner and to make the reason of this purposed idea understandable I am posting following bullet points

• H-6 can deny the striking capabilities of Indian navy against Pakistan's coastal assets (read my previous post as reference in this regards)
• H-6 will give you reach way beyond Mumbai in fact I explicitly mention Kochi as one of the target of Interest at Indian southern coast
• H-6 employment in offensive role will force IN and IAF to disburse their assets at south as well which currently no system in Pakistan's inventory could do even our submarine would only tie down IN assets not IAF assets
• H-6 would make us capable to hit Indian ships at very long distances in open sea let suppose an Indian ship deployed at 2000-2500 km from Pakistani coast, currently you do not have any option other than submarine

So in short H-6 could give us long striking range in sea and at Indian coast, could force TWO SERVICES of Indian defence to disburse their assets far from our eastern boarder thus releasing pressure from our east, supplements our surface fleet and would increase their area of operation by repelling Indian surface fleet beyond Horn of Africa (read my previous post)

 

[AliYusuf]

@HRK Sahib,
What we had been discussing on this thread, prior to your posts, compared to what you are proposing ... is not the same issue/topic.
What you are suggesting will require revamping the very maritime/naval role core strategy of the PAF + new assets other than H-6 (to support H-6 in it's missions) + integrating missiles that we don't even have in our inventory yet.
Maybe in a another 5 years to decade something similar may become a strategy when our economy improves.
But that is my own humble opinion.
But maybe your suggestions can be discussed in detail on a separate thread by defining first what our objectives will be.

 

[HRK]

@HRK Sahib,
What we had been discussing on this thread, prior to your posts, compared to what you are proposing ... is not the same issue/topic.
What you are suggesting will require revamping the very maritime/naval role core strategy of the PAF + new assets other than H-6 (to support H-6 in it's missions) + integrating missiles that we don't even have in our inventory yet.
Maybe in a another 5 years to decade something similar may become a strategy when our economy improves.
But that is my own humble opinion.
But maybe your suggestions can be discussed in detail on a separate thread by defining first what our objectives will be.

Again I was not going to purposed it in this thread but when @Mastankhan shaib gave the reference JH-7 I purposed H-6 to him to think and expand his idea on the same line of thought which he purposing from many years, as I find H-6 more beneficial in this role than JH-7

My proposition which was for Mastan khan was picked by other members like you as well so they start asking question and seeking clarifications, all what I did was just attempts to clarify and to make the idea more understandable for other

So intention was not for derailment of this thread and I did not purpose to induct H-6s in PAF but in PN as purely PN assets for NAVAL role

 

[AliYusuf]

Again I was going to purposed it in this thread but when @Mastankhan shaib gave the reference JH-7 I purposed H-6 to him to think and expand his idea on the same line of thought which he purposing from many years, as I find H-6 more beneficial in this role than JH-7

My proposition

So lets discuss this on a new thread.
How about you first define the objectives that your proposition is catering for and also do so by opening a new thread.
Then let us all carry on from there.

 

[HRK]

So lets discuss this on a new thread.

I have already posted detail suggestion with area and target of interest so I think @Khafee could shift these post in new thread and If someone find a need to ask question I would be available to reply

 

[Wamaman]

Fellas, Lets stick to the topic and point here, Don't waste the crux of the matter into little skirmishes, have the tolerance and patience to accept people feedback. One only improves, when they acknowledge their faults, problems and fix em for the better.