kwaigonegin
Colonel
So is HAL producing the Rafale under license or just producing the Rafales?
JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
- Thread starter johnqh
- Start date
So is HAL producing the Rafale under license or just producing the Rafales?
AeroEngineer
Junior Member
France REFUSED to take responbility for indian build Rafael because they saw how backward india is.
This is why asif iqbal said that india's demostic build Rafael wont come out till 2020 the earliest. This means by then J-20 and J-31 both go into mass production already and Pakistan is getting J-31 for sure.
I just dont see this as a problem.
By 2020, PAF gets 250 JF-17, 40 J-10B, 50 advanced F-16 vs. India's 250 Su-30, 50 old M-200 and 60 old Mig-29 plus 18 Rafael from france. I just dont see IAF having the edge !
Also dont forget india has to face the far superior PLAAF also.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Well, AWACS, being a force multiplier, can certainly help, but it ultimately won't replace the upgrades that the individuals will need in order to carry out missions independently, which is what happens most of the time.
JF-17 indeed is agile, but remember that the Su-30MKI not only possesses thrust vectoring control but also canards.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
A close quarters dogfight would probably nullify some of the IAF's electronic advantages, yes, but the PAF would still be better off if her JF-17 were to upgrade her avionics to at least the same league as the IAF's electronics. There is no doubt that PAF pilots are very skilled and yes, that is a factor to consider, but there is only so much WVR combat can do. It is becoming an increasingly abandoned concept of aerial warfare and even in short ranges like 20 km radars can play a major role when it comes to ECM, EW, jamming, and tracking ability.
Under license, it says so in the article I posted.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
India is buying 180 Rafales, which, when equipped with an AESA radar, will match the performance of the J-10B. What Pakistan will rely on are her better trained pilots as well as the ability to build lots of high tech weaponry herself.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Canards are not some magical silver bullet that will make any old heap fly well. Delta canards are the next st up in terms of agility from conventional designs such as the Su27 or F15, but to get the most put of canards, the fighter really needed to have been designed from the start with canards in mind. The MKI's canards were added on as an afterthought, and it is telling that the latest and most refined example of the evolution of the Flanker design - the Su35, did away with them.
Saying that, it is also worth remembering that turning ability is not the only performance parameter that matters in WVR combat. Raw engine power the TWR is also extremely important. USAF F15s would, for example, exploit their TWR and fuel ratio advantages when faces off against the tighter turning F18s of the USN and Marines to good effect in DACT. The IAF MKIs would enjoy a similar advantage to the JF17, meaning they will aim to exploit vertical maneuverering and force the PAF JF17s to sacrific energy to stay on them knowing that they can generate more energy because of their higher TWR and fuel fraction (so the MKI can afford to engage their afterburners more often and for longer).
Going vertical is also not the be all and end all of WVR combat, but its not nearly as clear cut as saying the fighter with the better turn rate or TWR will have an automatic advantage factoring out pilot skill.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Yeah and if India ever fields it's 17 squadrons of Su-30 MKI then half will be facing West and half East, not all of them will be sent to fight Pakistan, out of the current 7 Sqaudrons only 3 are facing Pakistan
For a attack advantage you need a 3:1 ratio, good odds for any Pakistani pilot
There might come a day when India also fields 3 aircraft carriers, which means two operating at any one time, which means one for Pakistan and one for the East, because you know the panic the Indian high command will face if during a Indo-Pak war China sends down its carrier strike group close to the Andaman islands
On the other hand Pakistan can throw everything and anything into the war, go all out, get the India on the back foot move and dig in and establish a life line, India will be stuck on two fronts, it's a defence not a attack and the advantages lie with Pakistan on all fronts
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I have never heard of this 3-1 numerical advantage requirement before for air combat. There is such a thing for land combat, but that is mainly due to terrain and fortifications, both of which do not apply to air combat. Indeed, during much of the Cold War, NATO was expected to win the air war with significantly fewer fighters than the USSR. But even if that is real, it would only apply if the defender had a nation-wide advanced integrated air-defence network with top-end long and medium ranged SAMs fully integrated into its defense strategy.
Pakistan lacks this, so without long range SAM assist, why would the IAF need 3 times as many fighters to gain an advantage? With both sides operating AWACS and the closeness of the two, even ground based radars would give the pilots of both sides comparable situation awareness irrespective of which side of the boarder the fight was over during the initial clashes.
India's peace time force deployments is also not necessarily representative of how it will deploy its forces during am all out war, so don't expect all those Indian forces deployed to face China to stay there in the even of all out war with Pakistan.
China will obviously deploy its own forces to the Indian boarder, and that will force India to keep significant forces out of the fight with Pakistan, but without a formal mutual defense treaty, there is no guarantee that China will open up a second front on India as a matter of course. During war, it is ill advised to base your defence strategy on maybes and best case scenarios. Overconfidence and underestimating the enemy is the surest way to loose a fight.
To say that Pakistan would hold the advantage in the event of an all out war with India strikes me as being wildly optimistic. The best that Pakistan can realistically hope for is to hold its own in the air and achieve comparable exchange rates in combat. Considering the price and crew size difference between JF17s and MKIs, achieving even that would be a remarkable accomplishment and a huge moral victory.
I have said it before, and I will say it again now, but Pakistan really should look into beefing up its air defence network. Some HQ9s and HQ16s would fit in perfectly as they would network seamlessly with the Y8 AWACS and JF17s and future J10Bs and maybe J31s and act as important force multipliers for the PAF.
The likes of the HQ9s can engage IAF fighters well inside Indian airspace, and it would be a massive advantage to the PAF if they can force the IAF fighters to have to worry about SAMs just as they were entering BVR combat with PAf fighters. With a fighter screen above, the IAF will also have a hard time trying to suppress or take out those SAMs, so its a boost to both elements.
If IAF fighters drop low to use terrain to block ground based radar, they surrender the altitude and speed advantage in BVR combat against the PAF, giving the PAF the range and KP advantage in BVR. If they go high and fast to maximise their BVR potential, they make themselves sitting ducks for the likes of the HQ9s. Even ARHAAMs need the launch aircraft to guide them until the active seekers on the missiles are in range. Well-coordinated use of fighters and long range SAMs can force an enemy to choose between his own survival or making sure his BVR missiles actually reach active seeker range.
To counter this, the IAF would need to mount air superiority and SEAD/DEAD mission at the same time, that is when the attacker would need a significant numerical advantage as you suggested before. But if you factory in the IAF's significant Jaguar and Mig23/27 fleets, they do have the numbers needed to deal with a combined PAF and SAM defence. Which is even more reason that Pakistan needs to invest in SAMs. Those Jaguars and Floggers won't be sitting ideal irrespective of whether Pakistan has a good SAM network. Only difference being that without SAMs, far more of those ground attack aircraft will survive to breach deep into Pakistani territory to attack other high value targets. The PAF could slaughter the IAF in open combat and it would still be a total loss for Pakistan if those PAF fighters have no bases left to land at when they come back.
Good SAMs will keep the fight at the front lines for longer, allowing the PAF to operate for longer with minimal disruption and losses while on the ground rearming and refuelling.
SteelBird
Colonel
I've seen this issue several days ago but didn't want to put my nose into others' affairs as I am not a mod. However, I really can't stand with it as the thread has gone further and further from its topic and no mod steps in.
Just a warm reminder to all of you, come back to topic!
Just a warm reminder to all of you, come back to topic!