Pakistan to get F16 -Blk70/72 | Page 80 | World Defense

Pakistan to get F16 -Blk70/72

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
6,744
Reactions
5,872 263
 

AliYusuf

MEMBER
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Messages
229
Reactions
493 10
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
- JH-7 does not offer such range plus can't take this Babur missiles
Couldn't JH-7AII carry Babur with little bit of integration and modification on the pylons ... just as much would be needed on the H-6?

As JH-7 could not take such long range weapons therefore it will be forced to enter or to go near to danger zons
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 the first generation simple JH-7s.

J-11/J-15/J-16 would not offer better range than than IAF Su-30MKI and in naval role their offensives role will be limited in terms of geographical reach
Don't need to. Just need to do the job within the range that it is needed to be done.
J-15 with composites and AESA and PL-15 can certainly care of an Su30MKI and maybe even a Rafale (who knows) in the BVR regime.

While H-6 will purely act as HUNTER from air against IN vessels in open sea without coming close to them and as Pure Bomber against the coastal facilities of IN and would attack them from the distance of 500-600 Km this will force IAF to patrol the coastal areas in deep enough sea zone, this will take toll on IAF assets, and will force her to divert jets from western front to coastal front to defend.

In other words H-6 employment in Naval role will weaken IAF strenght at western front indirectly where they can perform offensive role and would forced IAF to support IN at coastal front where their role would be limited to defence so the benefits of H-6 employment would be
  • Decrease the strength of IAF at our Eastern front
  • Which mean availability of less number of aerial assets in offensive role against Pakistan
  • Will force IAF to place aerial assets in southern zone as far as Kochi
  • Force IN either to disperse Naval vessels in open sea outside the reach of H-6 strike rang which would be at least 3,500km with long range weapons
  • Or would force IN to concentrate near Southern Coast with increased number of air defence assets like SAM and supported by increased number of Fighter jets from both services namely IAF and IN
  • So both IAF and IN will come under pressure specially IN as two of her commands would face direct attacks from H-6
  • IAF will feel the pressure as it will be forced to disburse her assets from Kashmir to Kerala and spear some for Chinese Border as well
  • So two services would be forced to perform with less number of assets at our easter and southren front
This will prove very costly, in my humble opinion. At the moment it will also require a plethora of supporting assets to provide cover for the relatively slow moving and relatively lumbering H-6 (with huge radar cross section).

But if we can create a growler unit of sorts + fighter cover for any eventuality + proper integration of suitable munition for the job ... and above all bear all the acquisition costs and the more challenging operating costs ... then it is a very very powerful addition to our force.

You do realize that apart from the USA, Russia and China ... no other country has been very successful in operating birds of this class.
 

Gripen9

MEMBER
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
42
Reactions
93 3
Country
Pakistan
Location
USA
Couldn't JH-7AII carry Babur with little bit of integration and modification on the pylons ... just as much would be needed on the H-6?


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 the first generation simple JH-7s.


Don't need to. Just need to do the job within the range that it is needed to be done.
J-15 with composites and AESA and PL-15 can certainly care of an Su30MKI and maybe even a Rafale (who knows) in the BVR regime.


This will prove very costly, in my humble opinion. At the moment it will also require a plethora of supporting assets to provide cover for the relatively slow moving and relatively lumbering H-6 (with huge radar cross section).

But if we can create a growler unit of sorts + fighter cover for any eventuality + proper integration of suitable munition for the job ... and above all bear all the acquisition costs and the more challenging operating costs ... then it is a very very powerful addition to our force.

You do realize that apart from the USA, Russia and China ... no other country has been very successful in operating birds of this class.
I can see a potential of PAF IL-76/C-130 crews training on the H-6 in China and H-6 be part of Pak-China exercises in Pak coastal areas. If push comes to shove during actual hostilities, they can be seconded to PAF with existing missile arsenal from PLAAF. This will eliminate the required ancillary support structure you may need to set up in order to formerly absorb the platform in your inventory.
 

Gripen9

MEMBER
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
42
Reactions
93 3
Country
Pakistan
Location
USA
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 :p
 

TomCat

MEMBER
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Messages
426
Reactions
540 9
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Arab Emirates
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 :p
The rest we can make up ourselves ;):^D
 

Mastankhan

MEMBER
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
222
Reactions
853 14
Country
Pakistan
Location
USA
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
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
48
Reactions
31
Country
USA
Location
USA
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

MEMBER
Joined
Sep 25, 2019
Messages
51
Reactions
92 1
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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

MEMBER
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
222
Reactions
853 14
Country
Pakistan
Location
USA
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---.
 
Last edited:

HRK

MEMBER
Joined
Dec 11, 2017
Messages
124
Reactions
316 19
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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
 
Last edited:

AliYusuf

MEMBER
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Messages
229
Reactions
493 10
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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.
 
Last edited:

HRK

MEMBER
Joined
Dec 11, 2017
Messages
124
Reactions
316 19
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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)
 
Last edited:

AliYusuf

MEMBER
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Messages
229
Reactions
493 10
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
@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.
 

Top