Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Dec 2013 12:29

Found this @ mp.net , JF-17 vs Gripen

http://i.imgur.com/KLaNd.png
http://i.imgur.com/JxOwXWU.jpg

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Dec 2013 03:40

Any Urdu speakers here? Apparently this appeared in Daily Express, Pak in Nov 2013 (23, nov) and says they lost three SAAB AEWC in the attack.

http://www.express.com.pk/images/NP_ISB ... 3089-1.gif

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Dec 2013 06:50

It actually means: 3 technicians named; Zafar Abbas, Waseem Iqbal & Chavez are found guilty of damaging erieye.

Probably insiders who abetted the attack or are scapegoats for letting it happen.

Per previous news, one Erieye was destroyed, two badly damaged.

March 21/13: Need a fix. Saab announces a 5-year, SEK 1.1 billion ($170 million) contract that runs from 2013-2017, and covers “a comprehensive set of spares and support services for a previously delivered system, Saab 2000 AEW&C (Airborne Early Warning & Control).” Unfortunately, “The industry’s nature is such that depending on circumstances concerning the product and customer, information regarding the customer will not be announced.”

The answer seemed obvious. Air forces using Saab turboprop AWACS include Sweden, Thailand and the UAE (Saab 340), and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (stretched Saab 2000 variant). Pakistan’s sale is well known and hasn’t been secret, so a Saab 2000 AEW&C customer insisting on secrecy must mean… Saudi Arabia.

Except that we might have been wrong. What even the February revelations in Pakistan hadn’t disclosed is that the attack on Minhas AB in Pakistan happened with 3 Erieye planes on the ground. One was destroyed – but 2 others were very badly damaged. That leaves Pakistan with a fleet of just 1 plane, until it gets those 2 fixed.

That could explain this $170 million contract, with the sudden secrecy invoked because Pakistan doesn’t want to publicly admit the extent of the loss; indeed, if Saab doesn’t announce a separate SEK 1+ billion support contract soon, the default assumption for this deal must become Pakistan.

The problem for Sweden, says Sweden’s Dagens Industri in an April 10/13 article, is that the original purchase was funded by a 2006 credit arrangement of SEK 7.4 billion from the Swedish Export Credit and Export Credits Guarantee Board. Now they’ll have to add SEK 1+ billion to cover this, all to a country that isn’t viewed as a terrific credit risk.

Our Swedish source says that Dagen Industri is about to break a follow-on story involving “questionable commissions” related to the sale. No, we’re not shocked, either. But Sweden has laws that will be enforced, even if Pakistan’s aren’t. Saab Group | Dagens Industri [in Swedish].
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/swe ... tan-02377/

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Dec 2013 07:16

saudis have a fleet of shiny five E3 Sentry which underwent one cycle of MLU at a point. why would they want the ereyie unless khan had quietly incapacitated these airframes and refused to make them operational?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Dec 2013 07:39

The saudis wouldnt want to give their prize assets like f-15 and e-3s to the pakis. There is also khan bahadur veto. After all Khan put inspections on vipers sold to TSP and has not given them AIM-9X.

Even so, there are persistent reports that it was KSA which partly funded the erieye purchase.

So outright transfers of expensive assets are probably out of the question though.

Somebody had posted a report on a hypothetical indo-pak scenario he had attended with gulf states running the wargame, he remarked none of them even remotely contemplated sending their shiny toys to PAF aid. at kargil too, the TSPAF was all alone, beard flowing and f-7s flying (f-16s only barely airborne).

TTP has given these wannabe ghazis a firm kick by showing who is the better believer.

Per PAK fora, the pakis received 4 erieyes, 3 operational and one training airframe. the TTP has destroyed one, and damaged one beyond use. presumably SAAB has been roped in to attempt to repair this. but at the moment, they only have one erieye operational.

4 chinese awacs are on order and as usual, PAF is claiming, that they are enough to strike fear in the eyes of everyone. reality though is that these cannot be datalinked to the f-16s and there are only 40-50 JF-17 block 1 which can be datalinked, and even that project is underway (not complete).

Interesting thing is that all our Su-30s come with datalinks to talk to each other as it is.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Dec 2013 09:03

Actually been doing some back of the envelope number crunching and TBH, with some additional force multipliers and the Rafale/LCA, the IAF can hold its own against the PLAAF and PAF, punish the latter, defend against the former (though it will be hard).

The latter is now a sideshow, and the number of truly modern aircraft in it (even considering the JF17) stand at 112, the Mirages and F7s being balanced out by our larger numbers of Bisons, MiG-27s, remaining MiG-21s and Jaguars.

Fun part is all our Bisons (120) are multirole, 40 (out of some 80) MiG-27s are PGM/EW/night capable, and around 3 squadrons of the 120 Jaguars ditto. I wouldnt be suprised if all the Jaguars are LGB/Litening capable as they all have the 1553bus and the vid imagery can be put on the HUD. This leaving apart the fact that IAF Mirages, MiG-29s and Jaguars are all going through upgrades.

India midway through the year had 170 Flankers. Even dedicating half this force plus our Mirage fleet vs PRC interventionism, it still leaves 3 squadrons (60) MiG-29s and 90 odd Flankers vs PAF, which, combined with the strike assets, are sufficient to tear the heart out of the PAF. Remember, more and more Flankers are being added as we speak.

Now versus the PRC, 85 Flankers plus 50 Mirage 2000s translates to a fleet of around 140 aircraft. A portion of the remaining IAF fleet can be retasked as necessary. In contrast, the PLAAF has around 170 Flankers (from Russia, half of them mostly A2A), 200 J-10s, and another 140 odd local knock offs. The oldest PLAAF Russian supplied Flankers are probably on their way out too. While the IAF will be outnumbered, they can still wage a defensive war in an all out conflict. The PLAAF will not be deploying all its assets against India either, so the odds will be around 2.5x when considering only IAF Flankers and Mirages.

Now note, this is at purely current numbers. Start pulling in Rafales, LCAs and even with retirals, the situation gets better for the IAF.

Its force multipliers where we need to look at.

Current PAF inventory stands at 5 AWACS. PLAAF has 12 (5 large, 7 medium).
Our fleet is at 3 (large), 2 (large - planned) and 2 medium (ordered). Project India aims for 10 more, but at large level. Clearly, we should order a few more Embraer based platforms to hold the line in the interim.

Another thing we really should focus on is EW (being done per CAS NAK Br) and also build up stocks of PGMs en masse. I believe this is where we really need to focus on to even out the numbers game.

We also lack something in the class of the H-8 cruise missile carrier (a big pain TBH) and the PLAAFs S-300 heavy IADS (while these will be mostly to defend cities/VPs, the HQ-9 is a local ripoff and can be considered eqvt for purposes of conservative modeling).

Our tankers are also limited to merely a few Il-78s. IAF is counting on AL Brahmos/Nirbhay to counter, plus MRSAM and variants. They recently asked Israel to step up and deliver as well. So lets see.

Net, the situation is not ideal, but nor is it overwhelmingly bleak. This is the state after one of the most whiff of corruption and we cancel all deals, MOD we have ever had. With a more savvy admin, procurement bottleneck addressed, we can expect better state of affairs ahead

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Dec 2013 09:17

BTW, the 40 LCAs being inducted, will clearly be more versatile than the Bison and allow us to replace the M/MFs. Overall numbers are very likely to go upto 200 for the LCA.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Dec 2013 09:51

the oldest lot of Su27s in the PLAAF were from 1994 I think. so 19 yrs old by now.

the mirage-III & Mig21 must take the cake in durability though the SH is claimed to have astonishing number also going fwd.

krish.pf · Post by **krish.pf** » 29 Dec 2013 02:21

45 min interview on the JF-17 Thunder. Must see.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18loql

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 29 Dec 2013 09:47

krish.pf wrote:45 min interview on the JF-17 Thunder. Must see.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18loql

Porkies are really smart. Whenever question was asked about bunder's performance compared to others in PAF, they simply dodged it and reverted to its price and indigenousness. Wish we had such a long coverage on LCA On its IOC.

On the other hand bunder in its block II avatar will be a good fighter.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 29 Dec 2013 10:00

Sid wrote:
On the other hand bunder in its block II avatar will be a good fighter.

What gives you this impression ??

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 29 Dec 2013 11:45

Brando wrote:
Sid wrote:
On the other hand bunder in its block II avatar will be a good fighter.
What gives you this impression ??

http://www.janes.com/article/31787/pac- ... nstruction

will have improved versions of avionics sub-systems, air-to-air refuelling capability, additional weapon-carrying capability, optimised maintenance facilitation and some operational capabilities

One major upgrade will be PGMs I guess, which there is no evidence that current version supports.

nash · Post by **nash** » 29 Dec 2013 15:49

after FOC MkI will have all the capabilities, may be more than bunder Blk II. By 2018 both IAF and PAF have 40-50 of their respective aircraft.

So i find no need to worry.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 29 Dec 2013 18:38

will have improved versions of avionics sub-systems, air-to-air refuelling capability, additional weapon-carrying capability, optimised maintenance facilitation and some operational capabilities

They need "money" to go through with any block 2 upgrade - money they do not have. Further, all this and more is available in our existing Bisons too. Also note how unspecific these comments are - "some operational capabilities" ? No mention of a FLIR/IRTS, no mention of AESA radar, no mention of a better or improved engine, no mention of a improved ECCM or ECM, no mention of which HMS they are finally going with etc.

Block 2 or Block 3, the Tejas Mk1 FOC and the Mk2 seems a far more credible bet in design and specific capabilities than what the Chinese are willing to sell to the Pakistanis in terms of upgrades. The Pakistani's however seem to believe that the JF-17 is a Mig-29 competitor - no matter how absurd that sounds!

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 29 Dec 2013 19:44

Only addition seems to be aprobe being fixed, dont know whether it will be functional

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2013 20:55

the south african AF seems to have a pitifully small inventory...even sri lanka or myanmar would have more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... _Air_Force

the denel rooivalk has had a total order book of 11 (!)

I also note no refuelers....so what were the refueling probes for in their former Mirage fleet?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Dec 2013 23:08

Parades!!!!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Dec 2013 23:17

Singha wrote:the south african AF seems to have a pitifully small inventory...even sri lanka or myanmar would have more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... _Air_Force

the denel rooivalk has had a total order book of 11 (!)

I also note no refuelers....so what were the refueling probes for in their former Mirage fleet?

IIRC they did have the capability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Squadron_SAAF
http://www.saairforce.co.za/the-airforc ... g-707-328c

NRao, at their peak, the SAAF was a pretty hardened combat arm, definitely not a parade ground AF.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Dec 2013 23:46

Yeah, this is off-peak.

Are they not disbanding their Grips?

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 30 Dec 2013 02:56

Singha wrote:the south african AF seems to have a pitifully small inventory...even sri lanka or myanmar would have more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... _Air_Force

the denel rooivalk has had a total order book of 11 (!)

I also note no refuelers....so what were the refueling probes for in their former Mirage fleet?

The South African have no enemies against whom an Air Force would be of use, so why expand? Any way not really a post for this thread.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Jan 2014 22:11

NRao wrote:Yeah, this is off-peak.

Are they not disbanding their Grips?

after ANC came into power and end of apartheid, their armed forces are pretty much struggling for existence judging by public records. really a sad state of affairs for one of the more professional forces (apartheid related issues apart).

vlamgat by dick lord is all about mirage f1 induction and deployment by SAAF. a good read.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 02 Jan 2014 23:07

Austin wrote:Found this @ mp.net , JF-17 vs Gripen
http://i.imgur.com/KLaNd.png
http://i.imgur.com/JxOwXWU.jpg

Pakistani propoganda. The link says external payload 4600 kg when PAC Kamra http://www.pac.org.pk/jf-17 says external payload 3400 lb 1542 kg.

Empty weight is given as 14520 lb 6586 kg instead of 6411 kg and MTOW 27300 lb 12383 kg instead of 12700 kg.

Throw it back at the fakers & posers.

JF-17 does not have any sensors other than radar. It uses missile as a sensor.

Its MAR-1 ARM will be launched in a general direction and the missile will be expected to find its own target.
The PL-5 & PL-12 can expect some cueing from the radar but no HMS cueing
Anti Ship missiles are easiest to integrate. These missiles too are launched in a general direction, with some radar cueing, and will be expected to find its own target.

JF-17 MAR looks very similar to the Mirage ones.

http://pafwallpapers.com/blog/wp-conten ... rk2010.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SrjgpG2MGu0/T ... IL78MP.jpg

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jan 2014 07:48

I think for external payload they would mean 3400 kg and not lb ....that would be an error.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Jan 2014 09:00

^^ Agree. Its a mediocre plane for a mediocre nation. Which is why it has no export orders. It'll probably sell as a J-7 replacement once those get older.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 03 Jan 2014 09:14

tsarkar wrote:

Is it just my eyes or do those Mirages really do look like leftovers from the 1960s? No visible enhancements whatsoever?

The JF-17 has the looks of a pig with lipstick. The more I read about what they put in there and how, the more I am convinced of the same. The Chinese really did a number on the PAF with that aircraft. No wonder they won't touch the thing even with a six-foot stick!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 03 Jan 2014 15:42

vivek_ahuja wrote: Is it just my eyes or do those Mirages really do look like leftovers from the 1960s? No visible enhancements whatsoever?

I think they only use them for Ground Attack duties now. Kaiser Tufail's comment in his blogpost about the situation during Kargil was telling.

It also must be noted too that other than F-16s, the PAF did not have a capable enough fighter for patrolling, as the minimum requirement in this scenario was an on-board airborne intercept radar, exceptional agility and sufficient staying power. F-7s had reasonably good manoeuvrability but lacked an intercept radar as well as endurance, while the ground attack Mirage-III/5s and A-5s were sitting ducks for the air combat mission.

I don't expect things to have changed very much as far as the Mirages are concerned since then.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jan 2014 15:48

the JF17 is the Mirage & later J7 replacement. the A5s are already gone by now I think. it should be better than the MirageIII/V and J7 by a good margin albeit far inferior to the block52 F-solah.
Cheen gave them the working airframe and engine and left the pakis to work out the ACM tactics, sensor and weapons based on what they could afford.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 03 Jan 2014 15:56

However, mediocre it might be, the JF-17 gives the pakis a cheap fighter to replace all their J-7's with the capability to engage BVR targets. Previously, they were completely dependent on their upgraded F-solah's for this. They also don't have to worry about spare parts deliveries being stopped during war time, unlike for the F-16s. It will take the pressure off their F-16 squadrons and enable them to concentrate those to defend key locations while leaving the JF-17 to fill the gaps. This is a huge change from the 90's and 2000's and will certainly impact IAF's plans for any future conflict. Our second line fighters like the Bisons and the non-upgraded M2ks and Mig-29's could have blown away anything in the PAF except for the Block 52's till now. Now they are faced with a more dangerous adversary. We shouldn't underestimate this.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jan 2014 16:14

and backed by ereyie and cheen awacs also flying from rear bases like quetta, jacobabad, peshawar,gwader...refueled by midas to improve time on station.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 03 Jan 2014 17:08

JF-17 has one shortcoming: there is no 2 seat trainer yet - though models have been displayed. Now if you are the USAF then simulators can make up (eg: in case of F-22 - those planes practically fly themselves anyways), but if you intend to have it as your backbone piloted by less experience crew then better you have a trainer. Our Jaguar and Flogger pilots will encounter the JF-17: so lets not take the threat too lightly.

nash · Post by **nash** » 03 Jan 2014 17:16

In case of Pakistan (PAF + PN)

50-80(nirbhay)
50-100(brahmos+prahaar(ARM))
20-30(shaurya)

is more than enough to take out all their 10 airbase and karachi and gwadar naval base with primary air-defense in first few hours of war, if it happen.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jan 2014 18:18

the JF17 has a ground based simulator for sure - seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBf-5MnoBh0
they will likely not assign it to K8 passouts but convert pilots from retiring J7/Mirage sqdns .

the PAKFA also seems not to have a trainer - khanish gen++ trend it seems.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Jan 2014 18:42

if you have a good enough sim, then you don't really need a 2 seater

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 03 Jan 2014 20:53

^^^ The Picture of the PAF Midas refueller topping up TWO Mirages has Photoshop written all over it...Gurus.. what do you think?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 03 Jan 2014 20:59

Coming to think of it the sky looks perfectly blue like a blue screen, the IL-78 roundels and markings are painted white, the "Pakistan Air FOrce", CE seems to disappear, the fighters refueling pods seems to be misalinged with the drogue, the fighters have not roundels or PAF markings

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 03 Jan 2014 21:01

Shrinivasan wrote:^^^ The Picture of the PAF Midas refueller topping up TWO Mirages has Photoshop written all over it...Gurus.. what do you think?

Oh its definitely doctored. Poorly done too. I was merely using that to illustrate the point about their Mirage fleet.

But this other one seems more legit, no?

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 04 Jan 2014 09:12

Utah gun manufacturer refuses sale to Pakistan

WEST VALLEY CITY — A local gun manufacturer is gaining attention after announcing its decision to turn down a multimillion-dollar deal to legally supply Pakistan with precision rifles.

Desert Tech was approached with the opportunity to sell precision rifles to Pakistan in November. The company turned the deal down this week because of fears the guns could eventually be used against U.S. troops.

"The company was founded on the principle of keeping Americans and our allied forces safe," said sales manager Mike Davis. "We’re not saying that Pakistan would get the weapons and do anything bad with them, but there’s just a heavy set of unrest over there.

arun · Post by **arun** » 05 Jan 2014 10:39

The battle between the uniformed Jihadi’s of the Military of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and their erstwhile proteges, the un-uniformed Jihadi’s, has resulted in over a 1,000 deaths for the Frontier Corps:

IG FC Maj-Gen Mehmood told Nisar that 1,009 troopers had been killed while 2,979 personnel had been injured in operations against militants.

From here:

Express Tribune

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 05 Jan 2014 12:32

I really Desert Tech decesion, thier decesion not sell has probably saved many Indian soldiers lives on the LOC, while UPA did Aman ki Asha by cancelling the Denel anti material rifles since they too painful for the Pakistanis in operation Parakram.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 05 Jan 2014 14:13

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pakistan ... 2368199/L/

Pak Navy (PAF?) Mi-14PG. Broadly an analogue of Sea King from Mi-8 family.