What's new

Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

It's not just that, Indians are masters of trying to fight the last war. They really think in 10 years we will be content with AMRAAMS and F-16s, that is what they are planing for.

PAF sees itself in 10 years as moving on a generation. Cyber, AI, Networking and stealth may well mean IAF Rafales flying blind and being blastes out of the sky like IAF MIG-21s were. Their lack on investment in critical capabilities is shocking. They even needed UAE/French refuellers for the ferry flight for their Rafs.

SU-30 is early 90's tech, they think this can cope with AESA/PL-15 combo.

Guys live on a fantasy world.
True fact bro, in next 10 years PAF have multiple add on , in term of drones , most probably new 4.5 fighter plateform from Chinese interesting even PL 17 and PL 21 will ne integrated on that plateform as well. Additionally project azam will taking final shape. Induction of anti stealth redar is also possible from chinese..
New Awacs Induction is also on card and more stronge turkish EW jets possible
 
It's not just that, Indians are masters of trying to fight the last war. They really think in 10 years we will be content with AMRAAMS and F-16s, that is what they are planing for.

PAF sees itself in 10 years as moving on a generation. Cyber, AI, Networking and stealth may well mean IAF Rafales flying blind and being blastes out of the sky like IAF MIG-21s were. Their lack on investment in critical capabilities is shocking. They even needed UAE/French refuellers for the ferry flight for their Rafs.

SU-30 is early 90's tech, they think this can cope with AESA/PL-15 combo.

Guys live on a fantasy world.
Perhaps it is Pakistan looking to fight the last conflict - I would never underestimate a well funded enemy.
 
Perhaps it is Pakistan looking to fight the last conflict - I would never underestimate a well funded enemy.
Moreover, as Stalin said...

Quantity has a quality of its own.

In addition, just to keep things in perspective.... Sharing one of my older posts...

The fighter pilot is the last remaining example on earth of the military gladiator, the individual champion. His is the last remaining chance going back to the days of chivalry, and go one-on-one against an opponent. A fighter pilot may rely on his aircraft performance the way a worrior of old depended on his horse’s abilities, but ultimately, when two pilots oppose each other in approximately comparable aircraft, the outcome is entirely one of courage and skill. In an age where numbers and mass count for everything and the individual for nothing, there is something very attractive about a fighter pilot. A successful one, of course.

The picture can be overdrawn. A fighter pilot squaring off one-on- one would certainly face problems with his officer commanding, because the air force, as any other branch of service, is interested not in heroics and gladiatorial dash, but in winning. And you win best by team work.

The Israelis were the first to call themselves the Orange Juice Air Force because there they don’t encourage drinking, bravado, individuality and dash, but a quiet, unspectacular teamwork. The idea is to shoot more of them for each of us. That is the simple equation that governs air warfare.

The interesting thing about PAF and IAF is that each is a microcosm of their societies and their overall military position.

The Pakistan Air Force has always been far smaller than the I.A.F. The ratio has never been as bad as 1953, when India had about ten jet fighter squadrons to one of Pakistan’s but it has never been better than three-to-one. With resources being so tight, the P.A.F. has always striven to get the best return from a small force.

The P. A. F. reached its peak about 1960. It had ten combat squadrons, seven on the F-86 Sabre, two on B- 57 (the American version of the Canberra) and one on the F- 104 Starfighter, and about 160 combat aircraft. The I.A.F. had about 500 aircraft in 25 large squadrons.

The small Pakistani force operates with high efficiency, learning quickly from its American mentors that a small number of highly professional pilots flying standardized aircraft, and backed up with first class maintenance and a well-organized air base system costs less, and is more powerful, than a larger, more disorganized force.

The PAF has much smaller pool of fighter pilots, being a much smaller air force. This may not matter in a short war. In a long war, however, one lives off the fat till new pilots are trained, and as India has ample fat, the advantage is theirs. Admittedly the replacement pilots may not be as good as the first-line ones. But as the best ones disappear, or survive to get better, the not-so-good pilots become adequate in comparison to the PAF, which is also losing its good pilots.
 
The small Pakistani force operates with high efficiency, learning quickly from its American mentors that a small number of highly professional pilots flying standardized aircraft, and backed up with first class maintenance and a well-organized air base system costs less, and is more powerful, than a larger, more disorganized force.

This is the key to PAF's success. As I've mentioned in other posts, the PAF have strongly based their doctrine on the USAF model, and the PAF wouldn't be what it is today if it wasn't for US training, aircraft, and cooperation. A similar model was adopted by the Israelis. Leaving aside the love/hate relationship of the politics between the two countries, the airforces, as well as the other services of the two countries, have enjoyed mutually beneficial relationships, especially during the Cold War period. That is why the PAF would never hesitate at the chance of more Vipers, much to the chagrin of many US haters on here. If the PAF had adopted a Soviet or even Chinese airforce doctrine, the results in history would have been quite different. We have seen the results with airforces that have leaned towards the Soviet doctrine (most of the Arab states, india, North Korea, etc).
 
The PAF has much smaller pool of fighter pilots, being a much smaller air force. This may not matter in a short war. In a long war, however, one lives off the fat till new pilots are trained, and as India has ample fat, the advantage is theirs. Admittedly the replacement pilots may not be as good as the first-line ones. But as the best ones disappear, or survive to get better, the not-so-good pilots become adequate in comparison to the PAF, which is also losing its good pilots.

Traditionally, the PAF has always found it easier to source pilots than the IAF, which remains 'under-piloted'. Regardless,

Since every pilot lost in combat will principally also mean the loss of an aircraft, it would depend on which node lays on the critical path; pilot or aircraft? Reportedly, Jane's states that PAF's current "pilot to fighter aircraft" ratio is 2.5:1. Given that we will require more than a 1:1 ratio to keep sortie rates high enough, and that specialized combat aircraft/sorties will require two pilots per sortie, let's overestimate the absolutely essential ratio at 2:1, Vs IAF's authorized figure of 1.25:1 and its actual ratio of 0.81:1, Vs USAF's 2:1. Theoretically, this leaves behind 0.5x 395 = 197.5 "spare" pilots (not including the trainees already in the pipeline) that the PAF already has who could man another 197.5/2 ≈ 98 aircraft.

Under the most ideal conditions Pakistan would need 98/25 = 3.92 years to source 98 JF-17s. IMHO, we won't see a war lasting 3.92 years given the firepower both possess. At least not in a state where both sides are still able to source aircraft at these rates or even at all. Maybe an emergency loan of in-service Chinese J-10s early on? Needless to say, that would remain a fantasy only.
 
Last edited:
What made you say this? Please enlighten us, I would love to hear your reasons for this statement
A couple of reasons. Cost is certainly one as well as the availability of number of missiles as well as the flexibility in engagements two different sets of missiles provide a fighter pilot, ie radar and IR guided.
In case of Indo-Pak scenarios, fighter merge will happen most of the time imo just due to the short distances involved as well as proximity of air bases. USAF might get away with 6 AIM-120s in some very specific scenarios, but you will be hard pressed to find more than a couple of pictures with that load-out. Even with a BVR heavy config, you will see five AIM-120s and still one AIM-9.
PS I have yet to see pictures of any other AF carry 6 AMRAAMs on F-16s besides the USAF.
 
I came across this video and I think it makes perfect sense and also have seen Zubaida jalal visit to Iraq this year.
 
Photo-3894.jpg
 
With the USAF looking to divest Vipers and questions over the future of the Iraqi Viper fleet, I wouldn't write off a significant number of used airframes joining the PAF, politics and finances permitting of course. And if the PAF can get either the V upgrade package or the Turkish equivalent, the PAF could pursue an excercise in consolidation of unwanted Vipers from the global fleet, similar to what it did with the global Mirage III/V fleet.
 
With the USAF looking to divest Vipers and questions over the future of the Iraqi Viper fleet, I wouldn't write off a significant number of used airframes joining the PAF, politics and finances permitting of course. And if the PAF can get either the V upgrade package or the Turkish equivalent, the PAF could pursue an excercise in consolidation of unwanted Vipers from the global fleet, similar to what it did with the global Mirage III/V fleet.
Along with the eventual induction of next generation fighter which will replace F-22 they are also looking for a 4.5 Gen fighter that would replace F-16 (F-35 failed to do so) that would work along with F-35. That would mean a lot of spare F-16, but PAF might have to wait till atleast 2030 for this.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom