vikasrehman[QUOTE=Rajan;1508963]150 odd MKI along with MRCA, LCA and future FGFA to deter against J-10, MKK and J-XX? Thats pretty close. But the scene on India’s western border will not be same. I think Both India and China is integrating thier multiple resources to make a modern air force with network centric capabilities, next generation missiles, electronic warfare and space based assets for various purposes, now Pakistan lacks most of them. Above all they just recently got a BVRAAM missile![QUOTE]
Rajan, while I do agree that IAF had managed to creat a major qualitative gap between itself & PAF for a number of reasons, much of that gap would be bridged with induction of many new capabilities into PAF within next 2-3 year. Of course more additions into IAF would increase that gap once more, and we have to wait and see as to what PAF’s response would be. But discussing such things would mean getting into hypotheticals.
Now take a look at the aims of two airforces’ during a conflict. From what I know, PAF would largely want to deny the enemy the use of its own airspace and provide CAS to its own forces when/where required. In other words PAF would be a defensive force, although (logically speaking) it would try offensive strikes as well as part of its defensive strategy. In comparison, IAF’s aims are rather clear from India’s ‘Cold Start’ doctorine. IAF has to achieve air superiority over the skies of Pakistan very quickly (probably 48 or so hours) if IBGs want to succeed in achieving their objectives. Considering the fact that Indian generals are assuming (as the recent articles show) that China would become involved in a conflict, what do you think are the chances of IAF achieving complete air superiority over PAF so quickly? And especially when one of the nuclear threshold for Pakistan is that a large part of its AF is destroyed? And IAF is unlikely to achieve air superiority without destroying a major part of PAF.
PS. Please note that I was talking about a conflict here and not mere surgical strikes or so carried out by IAF. I personally do not believe in the feasibility of surgical strikes or a minor conflict alone…in my opinion any such thing would quickly evolve into a major conflict between these two nations.
PAF will get a good BVRAAM, SPADA 2000, aerial refuelers, and Chinese/Swedish AWACS but those are past for the IAF! They are heading for a new direction. Now they have Indian satellites monitoring every PAF bases, they have long range AEROSTAT to monitor 24×7, every types of radar from man portable low level radars, LLTR, LLLWR, multiple PESA and AESA radars to space based microwave satellites. New SAMs like MRSAM, SPYDER and may be AAD. With in two to three years they will get their own satellite navigation system and full net centric warfare capabilities. They also recently set up an aerospace command. Facing all of these combined with SU-30 MKI, upgraded Mirage-2000 and Mig-29, LCA, MRCA will be difficult for PAF. They need something new. Like Rafale or EFT or SU-35 or F-18E/F…..
I dont deny the existence of the qualitative gap. But I dont think its big enough for IAF to achieve all its objectives. In my opinion a 400+ force of JF-17/F-16/FC-20 equipped with BVRAAM and backed with refuellers/AEW&C and a decent radard/SAM network is good enough to form a min credible detterance against 500+ IAF machines over next decades. Could IAF with this force level achieve air superiority over PAF? Yes…in my opinion. But the price would be high, and that is the whole point of min credible detterance.
Regarding netcentric warfare capabilities, PAF has been working on this for a number of years, and have managed to made good progress.
vikasrehmanVikasrehman, you had earlier opined that the IAF demanded numerous additions on the Tejas because it got delayed so much, only so that it could keep up with the contemporary developments. However, the converse is true i.e. it got delayed precisely because IAF kept demanding more additions to something which was to be no more than a MiG-21. Once again note that the first Tejas TD-1 did roll out by 1995, which was “on schedule”.
However, what you mentioned may be applicable to the Arjun tank, because DRDO had to go on adding newer features only to keep up with global developments as 3 decades went by. It is another matter that the “delays” were more due to an adamant and hostile nature of the Army, rather than any lack of performance.
I have always thought that it would have been better for LCA and Indian aviation industry (as a whole) had the LCA been inducted into IAF in its basic form, and subsequent developments would have been done in blocks. However, IAF being the user of an ADA/HAL product (I dont think IAF was actually an active party in its development???) had every right to expect a product at a certain time (whatever time (realistic/unrealistic) they were given by the designers/manufacturers) and ask for any additions if they felt that a certain product (if not provided within the original timeframe) was no longer relevant .
vikasrehman[QUOTE=Misraji;1508803]That thing is one scary weapon.[QUOTE]
It sure is.
BTW, what international exercises does the PAF participate in? And with its latest gear please. Such exercises should be a good indicator and a good “exercise” (obviously .. 🙂 ) of PAFs proficiency with these goodies.
I know of Antolan Eagle. Which others??
Here is a list that SSAAD at PakDef recently provided to me.
AE 2004, AE2006, AE 2007, Rodeo 2007 (Air mobility competition), AE2008, Ex Indus Vipers 2008, Ex Al-Saqoor (2008 KSA), ATLC (2008 UAE), Rodeo 2009, Ex. Brightstar (2009 Egypt), ATLC (2009 UAE). I am missing one conducted with the USAF F-16s in Pakistan in 2007 or so.
Rodeos involved C-130s so not specifically fighter aircraft. Nevertheless good exposure for the PAF air crews.
In addition PAF have received invitation to participate in Red Flag. They have not done so, and what happens in future remains to be be seen.
A defensive mindset would have acquired more early-warning radars and more SAMS.
PAF has a decent set of EW radars, and Erieye would only add to it. They would get SPADA 2000 (SAMs) by the end of 2010, and Im willing to bet that long range SAMs (FD-2000/HQ-9) would be their next top priority.
Just kidding. I do understand your point. However, there seems to be slight contradiction in reports
PAF deployed within 5-6 hours.
We (IAF) saw gradual build up over WAC …
My only point was that if you have an offensive defense strategy, then the enemy detecting your build-up is not a good idea.
More-over, from IAF’s side the surge of fighters, need not be near the borders. Su-30s based deep within the country can be tasked for the first strikes, giving minimal warning.
First report talks about putting out the ‘red alert’ status while the second talks about the re-deployment. Considering Pakistan’s width vis-a-vis India & the location of respective AF bases, its logical to assume that PAF could redeploy its assets a lot quicker than IAF. As for the SU-30s operating from deep within the country, this is where airborne radars like Erieye come in handy.
vikasrehmanBrahmos.
Regards,
Ashish
Ok.:)
vikasrehmanI am not sure about R-77 but AIM-120 does have home on jam capability which can make jamming risky business for the adversary aircraft.
So does SD-10, unless Im mistaken.
vikasrehmanI was just trying to say the MRCA will be a bigger boost to the IAF than the FGFA arriving at a future date.
In case of a two-front war if that is what the editorial you have mentioned implies, then you are right. It is in this scenario that the MRCA will become crucial as the heavy hitters will be diverted east.
And the reason I add greater emphasis to FGFA vis-a-vis MMRCA is the former’s low RCS & the way this could be utilised to neutralise enemy air defences. Having said this, we are talking about at least 10 years before FGFA is introduced into IAF, and who knows what sort of anti-stealth developments we would have by then.
PS. That was the link indeed. Sorry I forgot to add it the first time.
vikasrehmanOne your first point, I think the Su 30 MKI is a superior but even if we consider them equal, the IAF also holds a numerical advantage. As a deterrent however you are right.
As for the second point. If you look at the IAF now, it is over-reliant on the MKI which have to be factored in to both fronts. The MRCA will change that,while boosting the IAF’s strike capability significantly. Suppose if IAF chooses the Super Hornet, a few of these Bomb-Trucks escorted by Su 30 MKIs will be a a nightmare scenario for the PAF. After all the best place to destroy your enemy’s Airforce is on the ground not in the air.
I don’t have any doubts about the qualitative advantage IAF enjoys (and would keep enjoying in the forseeble future) over PAF, but Im no longer sure about the numerical advantage in a major conflict. Following is a link to an interesting editorial, which makes one think (if so) how much of it inventory would IAF be willing to deploy along its western border in a major conflict.
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/21245.asp
As for destorying an enemy’s airforce on the ground, I think the presence of AEW&C sort of assets makes this sort of task extremely difficult, unless (may be) its an overwhelming surprise attack.
vikasrehmanHow does it compare to the R 77 ? The Su 30 MKI has a better radar than the Block 50/52+ and has a better Jammer, which would mean that any marginal advantage the C5 has over R 77 will be nullified as the F 16 will have to be well within the R 77s range to try a successful BVR kill using the C5.
Regarding BVR fights, I think (realistically speaking) any fighter would be well within the range of other’s missile (talking about R77/C5 here) when a BVRAAM is actually fired. While C5 might have a range of 105 Km (this is the figure I have seen in many places, though exact figures must be classified) and I have seen figures ranging from 50-100 Km for R-77, most BVR battles would likely occur within 15-30 km ranges. Those missiles are damn expensive, and no body would be in a hurry to fire one off at extreme ranges. Having said this, of course the long range of MKI radar does have its own advantages.
I think the next gamechanger will be the MRCA, and not the FGFA. 100+ MRCA backed by MKI will be very hard deal with. (India is likely to get AMRAAM C7/Meteor depending on its choice for MRCA)
There is no doubt that MMRCA with C7 or Meteor would have its own advantages, and increase IAF existing capabilities manifold. I guess PAF response would be to get AESA equipped FC-20 (if that option is available) with PL-21 in greater numbers (at present they plan to buy 36 though the number could be as high as 150). PAF might have to wait for 5 years or so (after IAF inducts C7/Meteor) before they get something like PL-21, but they would surely get it.
vikasrehmanFirst, you need to read my post carefully as you are reading something other than I wrote. I never said they would ‘surely’ be superior to blk 50/52. Secondly, Pakistan did not go for Gripen as they are not Multi-role (the current one that is) and neither as capable as F-16s and come with US/Western sanctions threat. The only time Gripen was considered was in 90s, with ToT and as an alternative to the JF-17 but not for the medium weight fighter requirement.
J-10 was an alternate against F-16 blk 50/52 so US won’t try to play games (again) as well as an insurance policy. Now that the F-16 look like they are coming, J-10 has been shifted further to the point they develop good enough for PAF’s challenges.
As far as any other country trying to buy J10, its a recent plane that doesn’t have an indigenous engine. It is taking china a lot of time to develop their own engines so any comparison at this stage isn’t really worth it. You can’t go compete Russia using their own engines..its as simple as that. That’s why even PAF has been scheduled for 2013/14.
Good old viper, Gripen C/D is a fully fledged multirole machine and that is what PAF was interested in. Also, PAF was interested in this bird even during Musharraf era. But then PAF would have chosen F-16 over almost anything else, if they had the choice, and F-16s did materialise.
As for the rescheduling of FC-20 to 2014/15, besides what you have said it is also as much to do with how quickly PAF could assimilate them. Over next couple of years PAF would have its hands more than full with everything else coming in (that we have discussed). And 2014/15 timeframe makes perfect sense. As for the engines, since Russian fighters are not involved in any Pakistani fighter competition, I think Russian could be ‘convinced’ when it comes to re-exporting these engines as well. But I do expect th chinese alternative to be available by the time FC-20 comes to Pakistan.
vikasrehman1) Refuellers have been in Indian service since 2004 and the IAF has been practicing buddy refuelling from it’s MKI’s for a while before that. Indeed 6 more refuellers are in the pipeline and the RFP has been sent out. Has the edge really moved.
2) Awacs maintainence : India chose the IL 78 because of fleet commonality with it’s Il 76’s which have been maintained close to 2 decades. I don’t think maintainence will be a real issue. Indeed they all have brand new PS 90 engines. Add to that the 3 DRDO Awacs on Embraer and an additional 3 Phalcons to be ordered. Edge now?
3) AMRAAM Vs R77 etc. Indian experience with BVRAAM for over a decade. Regular exercises in BVR engagements across various continents.
Muns, IAF had those capabilities and PAF did not. Now PAF has also acquired them, and will gain experience over time. Period.
vikasrehmanApart from all these the IAF will be inducting LCA, LCH, Transport helicopters, ALH, Green pie, Spyder, 2nd Phalcon, Akash, C-130J’s, spy satellite and different UAV’s, AeroSats, Harop .
This is apart from the various upgrade programs happening to the current service aircrafts.
So the technology upper hand the IAF has at this decade will continue in the coming decade also.
And this gap is unlikely to be bridged.
I think the status quoted would remain the same, and the next gamechanger would be the introduction of the next gen fighter by IAF.
vikasrehmanJ-10 with CFT…wind tunnel testing.
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/important/64/20091230/15756853_7.html
vikasrehmanlol So much darkness is not good. Just recently PAF got it’s hand on a fourth generation fighter and yet to get any BVRAAM in number! Forget USA or Russia/India selling PAF any fifth generation fighter. There is no other source.
It will be chinese.
If J-10 is sufficient against EFT/Rafale than everything is possible in this world! Its like comparing a grape with an orange! But for no reason PAF tried to get western fighter like Gripen before going for J-10! I think they did not have any other choice. 😉
J-10/FC-20 might not be sufficient. But it would go a long way in terms of increasing PAF’s capabilities, i.e. maintaing a credible detterance. And that is what PAF wants.
The other day I came across an article quoting IAF chief that a force of 150 odd MKI would be stationed along India’ North East borders. Is that enough for IAF to gain air superiority over China? I don;t think so. Is that (along with some MMRCA and other squadrons) enough to maintain a detterance/status quo? Yes.
PAF would start receiving AMRAAM/F-16 from June/July 2010. They would operationalise their first BVRAAM equipped JF-17 around the same time. They would have aerial refullers & SPADA 2000 by the end of 2010, while Chinese AEW&C would start arriving from 2011 or so. They would have all their Erieyes by the end of 2011. Although there are reports that Pakistan might have purchased FD-2000, and even if not its only a matter of time before Pakistan gets its hands on FD-2000/HQ-9 types. If the current geostrategic situation does not go through some earth shaking changes, Pakistan would be able to concentrate all its assets along its eastern borders. Would that be enough to maintain the status quo. I believe it is possible. And hopefully, both Pakistan and India would use this time to increase their economic cooperation, which would make any war/conflict economically unfeasible for both of them.
vikasrehmanPAF also wanted western avionics in their JF-17s, however it seems that the Chinese forced them to go in for the Chinese avionics for the initial batches atleast.
I don’t think chinese forced them or any such thing. If you check the history of JF-17, you would find out that the airframe development was decoupled from avionic integration almost a decade ago. This was done because of the sanctions (after nuke tests), as many western countries were not willing to sell modern aircraft systems to Pakistan. OTOH, PAF needed JF-17 quickly because its old inventory was getting older and needed replacement. In addition, PAF’s top priority for JF-17 was an active BVRAAM, which they wanted ASAP. Back in 2003/04, the only realistic western option was Grifo S7, but there were certain issues with this radar, which would have required time/resources to sort out. Hence PAF decided to compare the chinese avionics and they got what they wanted. However, since PAF has always preferred western avionics, they decided to go for chinese avionics for first 50 JF-17. They would use the time to look for western avionics (they have many more options available to them now) and compare them with their chinese equivalents. As of now its likely that 51st machine would incorporate RC-400/MICA combination…but this is only a strong specualtion, and in reality PAF could go for something else.
It for sure doesnt look good, that the first customer, the PAF, doesnt have confidence in Chinese Avionics and is opting for western ones…
PAF would take what it considers to be a good bang for the buck, and what meets Pakistani requirements.
If obtaining the best Chinese Technology was so easy, the negotiotions would be of the J11B for PAF instead of the J10.
J-10 entered service back in 2003, and we have known since 2004 (PAF ACM confirmed it in an official interview) that J-10 was available…when everyone was saying no way on earth. What makes you think PAF would want J-11B instead of J-10? Realistically speaking, PAF have never been interested in heavy twin engined fighters…their interest in flankers back in 1990s was a mere stunt.
As for China/Pakistan defence ties, only fiture would reveal how strong they become.
vikasrehmanGot some specific questions and would appreciate some replies thanks.
1) Are Pakistans new f-16’s blk 52’s DFRM equipped. Same for the MLU’s. Without them they might still be susceptible to jamming. Especially since IAF jammers and pods are in widespread use?
They do not have DFRM for the time being at least.
2) What are the conditions that Pakistan has accepted on their F-16 use. Last i heard they need to check with the US if they are to leave Pakistan airspace. Supposedly they are to be maintained in a new AF base and monitored constantly?
Hard to know what the end user agreements involve. But I can’t imagine it would involve something like ‘prior’ US permission to use in a strike role (even if that means leaving Pakistani airspace) during a conflict.:)
3) What payload and type can the Falco carry on the hardpoints? Understand it’s up to 70kgs. Are the Falco UAV’s in time supposed to assist in the Predator Drone attacks that are ongoing?
It is around 70 kg. Currently Pakistan Falcos are unarmed, though apparently there are plans to arm them in future.
Good to see that Pakistanis still have faith in the US to provide most of it’s frontline systems. What with issues over the Kerry Lugar bill and it’s ongoing situation i was thinking the present situation isn’t all that rosy.
Geostrategic situation is always changing, and its hard to know what the situation would be like in a year’s time let alone 10 years. The two countries have a very large trust deficit, and in spite of that, they do tend to cooperate where possible.
Sign In
