maglomanic
Junior Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics
Currently PAF operates nearly 400 planes. What would be yoru suggested numbers?? I don't think PAF can go for more than 200 high end planes.
Thats not enough numbers.
1)Less numbers translate into less numbers flying at a given time and thus less coverage of airspace. You cannot expect all the airforce to be in the air at a given time. Even doing that puts logistical pressures on the support effort and undue number of hours on your planes and engines. Not good for both.
2) When you have planes with their hands full in all theaters not having suffiecient numbers will translate into more time taken to respond.Flows from one pretty much. You can probably put up a good show in the begining and send as many as possible but to sustain this effort in the face of escalation of operations and attiration will definitely bring down response time.
3) Knowing the hardware is part of the threat assesment. Infact i would say second only to knowing the tactics and sometimes equally important. By having just one or two types you pretty much ensure that your enemy just prepares for those scenarios that involve those threats.
4)Multirole planes is the need and i totally agree with that. But having less multirole doesn't compensate for the sorti rate that would be needed to help out sister services. With less numbers there is only so much you can do. Less numbers directly affects priorties of airforce in a conflict.
Pakistan wasn't very active until 1995. Mostly super-7 was to replace huge numbers of j-7s in PLAAF inventory. Pakistan during the days of super-7 was more inetersted in F-16s. Diving Falcon should be able to confirm that Pakistan infact turn down cooperation on this plane in the begining (1989 i guess). The early era doesn't include Paksitan or it's requirements at all. If you have evidence otherwise i would be really grateful if you could get something here.Gollevainen said:
Currently PAF operates nearly 400 planes. What would be yoru suggested numbers?? I don't think PAF can go for more than 200 high end planes.
Thats not enough numbers.
1)Less numbers translate into less numbers flying at a given time and thus less coverage of airspace. You cannot expect all the airforce to be in the air at a given time. Even doing that puts logistical pressures on the support effort and undue number of hours on your planes and engines. Not good for both.
2) When you have planes with their hands full in all theaters not having suffiecient numbers will translate into more time taken to respond.Flows from one pretty much. You can probably put up a good show in the begining and send as many as possible but to sustain this effort in the face of escalation of operations and attiration will definitely bring down response time.
3) Knowing the hardware is part of the threat assesment. Infact i would say second only to knowing the tactics and sometimes equally important. By having just one or two types you pretty much ensure that your enemy just prepares for those scenarios that involve those threats.
4)Multirole planes is the need and i totally agree with that. But having less multirole doesn't compensate for the sorti rate that would be needed to help out sister services. With less numbers there is only so much you can do. Less numbers directly affects priorties of airforce in a conflict.
