I think that replacing A-5s, F-7P, Mirgae V/III all with JF-17 is not a good option. Because it takes away the element of surprise and makes it easy to overcome a fighter.

Keeping this in mind what options other than JF-17 can be used to replace our A-5s,F-7P,Mirage V/III ie second line of air defence?


How about following

replacing A-5s with FBC-1 (JH-7)
Picture FBC-1

replacing F-7P with J-11 (Chinese Su-27)
Picture J-11

replacing Mirage III/V with Mirage F-1
Picture Mirage F-1

what do u think?

I think the PAF should operate the least amount of different fighters, and make the entire Air Force common around with radars, engines, weapons, etc. On that note, it'll considerably lower costs, the saved money can be redirected into acquiring a more advanced fighter or investment in a new generation project (JXX). So I think the F-7Ps, Mirages, and A-5s all have to be replaced with the JF-17 and another fighter in the following pattern.

Currently we have around 120 F-7Ps and FT-7Ps in active service, the F-7Ps and FT-7Ps must to be replaced by 2012?. We also have less than 40 A-5Cs for the ground attack role. By 2005 we should have around 100-120 Mirage ROSE I/II/IIIs, 60-80 Non-ROSE Mirages, 60 F-7PGs, and maybe 50 F-16AMs/BMs.

• 1) The 60-80 Non-ROSE Mirages should be replaced by 40 Mirage 2000-5Mk2s by like 2012 at MAX. The new Mirage 2000-5Mk2 will replace the role of the Mirage ROSE I/IIIs in Multirole, while the Mirage ROSE I/III take the role of the replaced Mirages.
• 2) The >40 A-5Cs and 40 Mirage ROSE I/III should be replaced by the first batch of 80 odd JF-17s, in both strike roles and air-superiority.
• 3) The 120 F-7Ps & FT-7Ps, 60 F-7PGs, and 60-80 Mirage ROSE, are replaced by 120 JF-17s and 20 Mirage 2000-5Mk2s by 2017.

So basically at the end, we're operating around 50 F-16AM/BMs, 60 Mirage 2000-5Mk2s, and 200 JF-17s.

but webby does raise an important issue, if all our older a-5's, f-7's and mirage's are replaced by jf-17, then the enemy will know how to vounter one plane (jf-17) and will focus on a jf17 fight

if we have at least two different types, jf-17 and fbc-1, then a fighter can do interception and fbc-1 can do CAS, giving an element of surprise

if we can fit jf-17 radar, and avionics into a fbc-1, its engines get an upgrade to a more powerfuller ones, as well as communications like datalinking to the erieyes, so it can carry heavy a2g weapons while the jf-17 can do its fighter role

PAF can not replace A-5s with FBC-1 or even JH-7A for a very simple reason. Whereas FBC-1 (or its export version referred to as FBC-1M) is a deep strike aircraft, A-5 is a simple CAS platform. Using FBC-1 (a heavy weight in its own class) to do the job of A-5 would be an utter waste of resources.

What PAF is trying to do at the moment is to reduce the types/number of less capable machines in its inventory with a smaller number of multirole and more lethal machines. At this moment, PAF is operating several different types including Mirages III/V (various models), F-7MP/PG, A-5, F-16. Increasing the commonality and integration would go a long way in terms of reducing the costs, which should save money for extra purchasements. By 2015, PAF would ideally like to have an air force based around JF-17/F-16/another modern 4+ generation fighter, any of which should be able to perform CAS role.

Coming to others, J-11 is a heavy weight fighter and not cheap to run. Induction of such a fighter into Pakistani service (for air defence purposes) is not in alignment with PAF doctorine. Finally, induction of Mirage F-1 into PAF (even with upgrades) would be a step towards past, as it would mean a totally different types whose maintenance will be very hard as spares are not easily available anymore. Having said that, i have heard that PAF is in negotiations with Libya for her fleet of Mirage F-1. However, i hope this rumour to be untrue. I certainly would be much happier with more Mirage Vs than Mirage F-1.

I thought Chinese weren't allowed to sell J-11's without Russia's permission?

One of the key elements of the A-5 was its ability to carry an internal payload. Even now, only the F-16s and the A-5s are able to deliver a nuclear weapon. I think that this is why, even now PAF is holding on to these beasts.

What about upgrading A-5s with new goodies for CAS role.It is cheap and fast.Only disadvatage is low weapon load.

For Strike purpose PAF will have to induct one of two (Mirage2000-5MKII or JH-7A)
Don't Forget about J-10 as it is also in the wish list of the PAF.J-10 can be modified for ground strike by chiese easly coz they made it.

I think price wise we can add more JH-7A in large number, however incase of Mirgae 2000-5 it will be a good idea to use it as one of the main strike aircraft. Not just as a replacement for A-5

Here is a good question, is it worth upgrading A-5s with its old Airframes etc? If yes how many more years can it serve PAF?

Any new fighter plane, may it be F-16 or Mirage 2000-5 will replace the A-5 and some of the Mirages, conducting air and ground attack roles.

What are we going to do with the Mirages & A-5's after they have been replaced?
Would they still be useful for anything?

Very good questions,well i think multiple ways

1. PAFs A-5s and Old Mirages can be sold to African countries along with technical know how and full overhaul options at PAC for a cheap price tag

OR

2. These old planes can be used in basic combat traning or dog fight lessons

OR

3. Pakistan can take there parts out ie avionics etc and sell it to African countries

Those planes can also be used for aggressor training roles.

true...........

But personally i would support selling them to a third country. But he question is which countries would be wanting to buy these birds?

I dont think PAF would be selling its mirages (or even J-7s) to country, though some may be gifted to one or another country as a gesture of friendship. If one looks at the track record, PAF has been buying Mirages from here and there for sometime to keep the numbers and use them as spares (as spares from France r awefully expensive since they r only made for special order as there r no longer any production lines for Mirage III/V). When JF-17 starts replacing these fighter, they would go gradually-a few every year. Instead of selling them for very cheap and going for rather expensive spares, PAF would simply start mothballing these machines and using their parts. Same logic could be applied to J-7s though their spare parts r much cheaper since PLAAF also operates them.

Very Interesting topic I think we should discuss this in a feasible manner rather then anything else.

First let’s answer few questions to understand the realm of the topic in question:

- How much money will be allocated in replacement of the planes?
- What are logistical problems we might face if we go for a new jet? Ie: J-11 and others in question.
- Are we going to have the international support on picking our avionics package and can we upgrade the fighter jet to our requirement?
- What will be the future for the planes inducted? Will we go after the advance plane like J-XX or similar in the future and when will that timeline be?
- Will we be able to sell the planes at hand and what will we get out of it?
- What will be the economic implication on the induction of the new fighter jets to Pakistan?

I think we should all think about these questions and I would like to hear some comments on this. I also would like to know what numbers will be adequate to fulfill the need for the new jets as we are in accordance practicing the minimal deterrence.

How about Zimbabwe

JF-17 is the only option. China will be making different versions of this aircraft. Kunlun II engine will be ready after 2012. F-7Ps and Older mirages should be replaced by JF-17s (advanced versions).

JH-7 is good for strike missions. Could replace A-5s and Mirages (naval). It costs 18 million USD.

guys why not Mirage-5 which is far advanced that Mirgae V, air frame will last up to 2015 with some upgrqdes at PAC.........what r the chances it could serve as a stop gap fighter and a good option to take on Indian Mig21 bison's

Interesting choice but I think we would have to go with extensive modification if we are looking at making this a prominant Fighter/Ground Attack aircraft to take on Bison. I dont know it seems too much work for this fighter. Although I like the choice and know the reason behind the decision.

Bison is not a big threat to PAF. According to ACM, we will be purchasing more F-7PGs very soon.

The Mirage IV is meant for strike missions. Not sure about its price, it may cost some 15 million USD but 70 of these upgraded fighters isnt a bad deal.

I'd prefer buying new fighters over the long-term, and reducing the number of types we operate. Ideally we should be operating F-7PG, JF-17, and F-16s, if we get additional F-16s that is, otherwise J-10s. Thats around 3-4 types of aircraft, over time the F-16s will be replaced anyways. I guess the best option would be to have a Strike Specified JF-17, or strike specified J-10s or F-16s.

DF

This is PAF's current strategy, i.e. reduce the number of fighter types. Whether they can do it or not would be determined by wot options are available to them. Although PAF would have never wanted to put all (or most) of their eggs in the same basket-american sanctions were enough to teach them that-i assume they wouldnt have much choice left in not too near future to get most (if not all) thigs from china. Is this bad??? To me personally NO...and its something i have been advocating for for sometime.

I agree to that and IMO Pakistan should get financial support from other Muslim nations so we can get something good out of the fighter R&D programme.

JF-17 maybe can use for strike mission, but consider it only can carry one drop tank, or sacrified it BVR missiles to carry 3 drop tank for better range.

Still the advantage go to the FBC-1, it because the FBC-1 specially design for deep-strike, this mean it have terrain following ability, this will allow the FBC-1 to fly very low and it also design to have long range with huge payload (5000kg++)?

Another advantage for the FBC-1 is it have a second pilot as weapons operater, this will increase the accuracy and strike ability for the aircraft.

JF-17 with BVR platform as the escort for the FBC-1 will be a better combo for a deep-strike.

The JF-17 will either carry two 10,000 litres fuel tanks under wings or one 15,000 litres fuel tank under fuselage. In both cases, it can carry two BVR and three short range missiles.

BTW, dont U think we should wait for advanced version of JH-7 i.e JH-7A ?

Actually, the PAF should be operating less types of aircraft, and more advanced aircraft rather less than 40. In that case, we should stick to strike specified J-10s for our strike.

There are rumour said the FBC-1 will use WS-10 engine, so it will share the same engine with the J-10 for easy maintanace.

An aviation minded person would know that A5 sucks big time in a2a handling. So dogfighting aint the best. Same goes for mirages. Furthrmore the F6 are finished but their engines and other usable avionics are going to be used for this plane. Just like the fact that they will keep FT6 for A5 training. If ones sells A5 what to do withthe mountains of spare parts? The mirages are not going to fly around for long. And those African countries do rather look for Su27 or mig29 at this moment. They even fly them. Sorry to end a dream but the fcts about A5 and Mirages are well known. I see Webmaster is trying to join serious discussions...

I am amazed. Truly.

I see it like this....

The A-5 should be replaced with either an upgraded K-8 used specifically for CAS or the A-10 which we can easily get using Wana etc as an excuse.

The F-7's should be replaced with JF-117 and J-10 and the Mirages should be simply replaced by some FBC-1 to carry out the maratime role.

hi oyee Plat kia baat ki hai, Damn A-10 dude that thing is flying Tank killer. but i doublt unce same will give us

we can convert K-8s in the same roll, i say mount the DU bulets on gateling gun on k-8s. that thing is gonna become monster, nothing stands DU.

Here is how I see it.

Replace F-7Ps and Multirole Mirages with 200 JF-17s, the JF-17s form our backbone and carry out all of the general roles. Use it for intercept, strike, air-superiority, maritime patrol, and stuff like that.

Replace the BVR-capable and ROSE Mirages with 70 J-10s. Use J-10 for deep-strike, anti-ship, maritime, interdiction, air-superiority, recce, etc. Replace the A-5s by placing 30 F-16A/B MLUs in the deep-strike, anti-ship, and nuclear assault role.

IMO

PAF must get rid of these A-5C. Senario has changed a bit with the arrival of J-10B. If this can take role of F-16B/D/F then it will be great.With a long range and big weapon load this fighter can serve next 2-2.5 decade without any problems.

Mirages are expensive and i don't think upgradationh can be done on it.SO not a much promsing option and Rafel is too expensive.I personally like Flanker family fighter for Strike but due to its Russian origin it is relly hard for PAF to get thier hands on it.Only thing can happen is if China rename indignaised J-11 to J-13/14 then export it but it is not likly to happen.As J-10 is thier own product and is based on muture technologies.

JH-7A is another option but problem is it is quite far away from induction in PLAN and still to impress inthe presence of MKK.

I know JF-17 will come with strike ability but it's specifications and design is more tild towards AA combat role.But as it will be a home made product upgradation can be done at klater stages.

Used F-16s are best option beside J-10B.So what U say?

The Q-5 is a close in support aircraft. It is designed to get close with the enemy to support the grunts, much like the american A family of aircrafts.

For the same reasons why the Americans cannot find a replacement for the A-10, the Q-5 is a very unique type of plane. Options such as the JH-7, JF-17, or J-10 will not satisfy the needs of such a role due to design features. With in these choices, the JH-7 is the closest choice. But it is highly questionable that the planes agility is on par with those of the Q-5.

The Q-5 is derived from the J-6, which it self is basicaly the Mig-19. This aircraft is based on the ear of the most agile dog fighters. Its ability to manuver above the BF is rarely achieved by many other type of aircrafts. Most fighter bombers today are designed to engage the enemy by dropping leaser guided bombs, and cruise missiles. But there is still need for fast movers like the Q-5 and the A-10 to ditch down low guns blazing.

The newer generation of the Q-5 has improved avionics, and the ability to drop LGBs. My suggestion for PAF is to either upgrade their old Q-5s, or purchase newer and better ones. It is an old plane, but nevertheless still is very useful.

A good CAS fighter should have the following features:
- Armored Cockpit
- DU dispensing machine gun
- 2 engines that are seperated from one another, so that if one is hit the plane can still survive
- large payload

The A-5 lacks all these characteristics.

the A-6 had neither... and it worked very well during the viet war

The A-6 had a large payload, was able to carry advanced munitions of the day and had a two man crew. Last, but not least, it waorked well in a 70s gureilla war situation. The lessons learnt from that experience were put to use in developing the A-10. The A-5 was a beast of convenience developed from the frame and engines of a fighter, it never was never a true CAS plane in the sense of the A-10 and the Su-25.

Agree 100%.NIce post thouse.When we talk about MULTI ROLE aircrafts don't we include CAS Role in that.

Yes, the Q-5 was never a true CAS aircraft. But it was the closest that the Chinese has ever gotten. The plane has been battletested and has evolved through 4 generations, and is currently on its 5th. Its simple cheap and rugged.

The usage of this aircraft is very much dependent on PAF's doctrine. If the need is for a easy to operate, cheap to maintain, and rugged plane that can dive down for a lo-lo-lo ground support mission over the fireing zone, then the A-5 is their pick. Therefore no other plane in production out there currently can fill this role, not the Su-30MKK, not the JH-7. The A-10 may be the perfect stirke plane, but can you afford to induct it? operate?

With realism (cash), stretigy (training of pilots, maintince crew) and doctrine (tatics) in mind, the best thing that the PAF should do with the Q-5 is to upgrade and extend its service life.

How about the new LFC-16?

I agree with UD2 that as far as CAS is concerned, PAF does not have any other choice than the Q-5. I also agree with UD2 that the Q-5 is cheap. However, it is not rugged nor is it easy to maintain. In a CAS situation rugged means the ability to take multiple shrapnel hits from FLAK and SAM fragmentation warheads. It means that the pilot is protected because the cockpit is re-inforced and bullet proof. Also, the Q-5 has the same engine as the F-6. This machine is not trouble free and has to have frequent overhauls.

The Chinese upgrades to the Q-5 are aimed at making it a better strike fighter (ability to carry LGBs, etc.) This plane needs to have its cockpit armored and maybe evena wild weasel ability installed.

engine wise... true.. the WP-6/A is... not exactly the best engine around. infact it's ancient. But I'm not sure if they can fit anything else in there.

Armor wise... it's gonna be difficult... the engines doesn't give alot of power.

And since the production of these aircrafts has ceased for the PLAAF in 2002, I'd think they are designing something else.

LFC-16 is not an option, it's nothing more than an private experiment.

First, Munir was definitely on the track when he said dat parts from engine/avionic from F-6 would be used for A-5. Thats exactly wots happening right now and PAF engineers are busy mothballing some of those F-6s (somewhere around Karachi...i think?).

As for CAS, the era of Q-5s/A-10s is well over...my personal opinion. Regardless of the fact that A-5 may be a very agile plane, it'd be very difficult for any operations chief to send such fighters into heavy fighting for CAS with enemy being protected by SAM batteries and dozens/if not hundreds of MANPADS. This is most likely y those F-16s r providing CAS in Iraq instead of A-10s.

Once we start wheeling in JF-17s and the new fighter (J-10) in larger numbers, I think our F-16s will either be supplied to Maritime Formations or CAS.

F-16s as second line aircrafts... what joy would that be...

I doubt that the F-16s will ever be dedicated to the maritime strike role. The only knowm maritime strike F-16s are the Japanese F-2s. No other F-16 can carry the Harpoon. Looks like we still have a need for CAS in the Northern areas.

anyways, I would verymuch disagree with the arguement that the need for CAS is gone. The SAM streats were always there, during VietNam, GWI whatever.

But if the high flyers do their job, then there shouldn't be any major SAM threats left.

UD2



Its not the need dats gone, but rather the circumstances surrounding modern warfare which have made CAS an extremely dangerous job...and modern AFs around the globe r becoming more and more reluctant to expose their pilots to unnecessary dangers.

U have give a couple of examples, so lets take a look at them (and some more) in bit more detail

Vietnam war

USAF had hardly any guided A2G munitions, and hence they were forced to provide CAS to their ground unit. In spite of missile being impotent (in relation to modern standards), they still downed quite a few american flyng machines.

Afghan War

USSR was providing good CAS to its units, after the induction of Stingers, things changed a bit. Once again, USSR had hardly any guided munitions, and was forced to carry out CAS offences and as a result lost some machines.

GW1

USAF had learnt some lessons from previous wars. Hence they used high flyers to disable Iraq's SAMs to a large, and only then sent in their low flying fighters/helis. In spite of Iraq offering any potent threat during GW2, USAF was still reluctant to use any fighters for CAS missions at least during early periods of this latest war.


When it comes down to Pak/Ind, they r no USAF. PAF can never establish complete air superiority (in forseeble future at least) and its CAS fighters would be exposed to massive dangers (mainly ManPads) during their ops. OTOH, IAF could only establish complete air superiority after losing a large number of fighter (most of which would most likely be downed by Pak ManPad units). After carrying out a low level mission (in CAS role), the after burner of any fighter would provide a very juicy target for any missile with an IR seeker. However, any air supremcy by IAF would simply mean nuclear holocaust in the subcontinent.

Finally, any modern AFs would not want to send its pilots to destroy a few armoured vehicles/tanks (like A-10) by using bullets or dumb bombs, when another fighter can do the same job from 20,000 feet altitude with pin point accuracy by using some sort of guided munition.


PS. Operation like those conducted in WANA etc. r a totally different story, and hence A-5s r being used by PAF in those ops.

the latest Q-5s are able to carry LGBs.

But since what you argued is reasonable, then perhaps we should stop looking for a replacement for the Q-5, but rather what role Q-5 units should take after the plane's retirement.

It is apparent that the PLAAF has stopped the pruchase of the Q-5 in 2002. And they are currently looking very closely at the JH-7 and other cruise missile carriers.

Maybe the Q-5 units in the PAF can shift their orders from close in ground support to precision bombardment.

At present the PAF uses the ROSE Mirages as its precision strike component. They can deliver LGB and other PGMs

UD2

Multirole is the key word. Most modern airforces are switching from a large number of units (with specified tasks) to smaller number of units that can carry out a wide array of tasks. This does not mean there wont be any fighters for specified task, but only that a few minutes of work on each fighter should be able to convert it from one to another role.