PAF J-35AE - News, Updates and Discussions

[royalharris]

The j-10 is already sufficient to deal with india; China I think will not upset the regional military balance j35 to Pakistan.

What does it matter if it upsets regional balance and grants Pakistan air superiority?

 

[imadul]

The Su-57 isn't battle proven.

Battle proven was a wrong characterization, I should had said, SU-57 has taken part in some controlled action to test systems and missiles, KH-69, and other SOW from within Russian airspace.
It will be mad not to try SU-57 in battle space from stand off distances to test systems.

AP says Ukraine struck parked su-57 in Russia.

Ukraine says it struck a top fighter plane deep inside Russia

Ukraine says its forces have hit an ultra-modern Russian warplane stationed on an air base nearly 370 miles from the front lines.

apnews.com

 

[lightning f57]

What does it matter if it upsets regional balance and grants Pakistan air superiority?

India has quantity, Pak needs quality to even the playing field.

 

[KingQamaR]

What does it matter if it upsets regional balance and grants Pakistan air superiority?

China Interest's is always maintaining regional stability . If they do sell F35 to Pakistan today is more inclined to safeguarding Middle East peace behalf of China, rather than focusing its efforts on seemingly fragile india.

 

[That_Guy]

Neither does F 35 have any actual experience by your standards.

I 100% agree. It doesn't.

In fact, any fighter that hasn't faced another fighter in actual combat, I don't consider it having any actual experience.

Lmao, you tried to use that ad a gotcha, when all you proved is that my stance is consistent.

 

[That_Guy]

Disagree here, ground attack in a highly contested area against a peer is no easy task, both for pilots, aircraft, avionics and weapons. That is a bit like implying the A-10 has no combat experiance.....

What peer though?

The A-10 was design specifically for air support against ground targets. Im talking specifically fighters that are primarily meant for air to air, with multirole capability.

Regardless, even by this standard, fighters like the F-35 and Su-57 haven't been in highly contested airspace against a huge network of ground based anti-air systems.

In the case of both Iran and Ukraine, air defenses were few and far between, and remain few and far between to the day.

 

[mythbuster]

I 100% agree. It doesn't.

In fact, any fighter that hasn't faced another fighter in actual combat, I don't consider it having any actual experience.

Lmao, you tried to use that ad a gotcha, when all you proved is that my stance is consistent.

Congratulations for having a consistent stance , a sign of intellectual stagnation.

 

[That_Guy]

Battle proven was a wrong characterization, I should had said, SU-57 has taken part in some controlled action to test systems and missiles, KH-69, and other SOW from within Russian airspace.
It will be mad not to try SU-57 in battle space from stand off distances to test systems.

AP says Ukraine struck parked su-57 in Russia.

Ukraine says it struck a top fighter plane deep inside Russia

Ukraine says its forces have hit an ultra-modern Russian warplane stationed on an air base nearly 370 miles from the front lines.

apnews.com

A better characterization, I appreciate you corrected yourself. Not many are willing to do that, and tend to double down.

Thank you for that.

 

[Cipher212]

I 100% agree. It doesn't.

In fact, any fighter that hasn't faced another fighter in actual combat, I don't consider it having any actual experience.

Lmao, you tried to use that ad a gotcha, when all you proved is that my stance is consistent.

This is irrelevant in the age of technology. Airforces can simulate entire air campaigns without firing a single actual BVR. In fact 4th and 5th Gen aircraft have specific training modes built in.

All modern aircraft are battle proven. Every piece of equipment on them will work in a war the way its designed to.

The part that is not battle-proven is the human sitting inside it usually.

 

[MH.Yang]

What does it matter if it upsets regional balance and grants Pakistan air superiority?

If Pakistan obtains the J-35 ahead of schedule, India will quickly purchase the Su-57&F-35 instead of continuing to wait for AMCA. Do you want your opponent to be Su-57&F-35, or AMCA?

Moreover, the regional arms race will rapidly escalate, and considering the power gap between the two countries, the arms race is not favorable for Pakistan.

Of course, if a conflict breaks out, India will suffer significant losses. But India is a populist country, and after suffering significant losses in the air force, the Indian government will inevitably use large-scale ground attacks to appease public opinion. This is not good news for Pakistan. Now Pakistan needs a peace window to develop its economy and improve domestic security and stability.

 

[lightning f57]

If Pakistan obtains the J-35 ahead of schedule, India will quickly purchase the Su-57&F-35 instead of continuing to wait for AMCA. Do you want your opponent to be Su-57&F-35, or AMCA?

Moreover, the regional arms race will rapidly escalate, and considering the power gap between the two countries, the arms race is not favorable for Pakistan.

They wont be getting the F35, AMCA is a national pride thing so thats a given. Su57 will fill in meanwhile. So J35s can come as soon as they are ready too.

 

[MH.Yang]

They wont be getting the F35, AMCA is a national pride thing so thats a given. Su57 will fill in meanwhile. So J35s can come as soon as they are ready too.

I found that the Iranian members of the PDF are afraid of war, while the Pakistani members are afraid of no war.

In fact, Iran needs war to gain survival space, while Pakistan needs peace to develop its economy.

 

[That_Guy]

This is irrelevant in the age of technology. Airforces can simulate entire air campaigns without firing a single actual BVR. In fact 4th and 5th Gen aircraft have specific training modes built in.

All modern aircraft are battle proven. Every piece of equipment on them will work in a war the way its designed to.

The part that is not battle-proven is the human sitting inside it usually.

Simulations are not the same real combat.

You are wrong.

Your comment contradicts reality, as seen from the various wars that have been waged in the last 2 decades.

 

[Cipher212]

Simulations are not the same real combat.

You are wrong.

Your comment contradicts reality, as seen from the various wars that have been waged in the last 2 decades.

Please list those contradictions. Which jet did well in war games but failed in IRL air-to-air combat. How exactly did it fail? How did it differ from the wargame results? What was the scenario in the actual combat vs the wargames.

You mentioned past 2 decades. That takes us to 2006. I can't recall many air to air engagements between then and now. Especially ones that had an unexpected result.

 

[Oscar]

Simulations are not the same real combat.

You are wrong.

Your comment contradicts reality, as seen from the various wars that have been waged in the last 2 decades.

Please list those contradictions. Which jet did well in war games but failed in IRL air-to-air combat. How exactly did it fail? How did it differ from the wargame results? What was the scenario in the actual combat vs the wargames.

You mentioned past 2 decades. That takes us to 2006. I can't recall many air to air engagements between then and now. Especially ones that had an unexpected result.

That is some aspect of missing actual "I might die in this" that gets lost in simulation. Red flag after all came out of giving those initial 12 combat missions so at least in practice the pilots had enough proficiency to have actual combat “feel like an extension of the exercise,”. This was also reported by PAF pilots both in 2019 and 2022.

From a pure combat aircraft perspective however, some 10-15 years ago Lockheed Martin and other manufacturers had created enough of a simulated environment to test out designs in pretty much every scenario and every threat they face. Today the Chinese are there as well.

The issue then is less with combat proven or not combat proven designs but the actual manufacturing and human factors.

The Su-57's service issues have stemmed from technology in terms of manufacturing and supplier aspects in maintaining quality both from materials and human resources.
The J-10s early losses have all been mitigated but if you have a poorly trained person who makes one mistake then the aircraft gets put at risk in combat.

So it is not so much about combat as much as human temperament and reducing the impact of human error on the platform. The J-35 does not need to enter combat to prove its readiness but it needs to have manufacturing, maintenance and operational standards meet the specs laid out by its designers otherwise its risk in combat increases.

Air combat btw is not where losses generally happen for aircraft historically but with the introduction of standoff weapons then coupled with increased surface to air missile threats the issue is now with measures and countermeasures in that space.

Moreover, with MDO the problem is no longer a system being combat tested but the system of systems being tested again and again in simulations that put a similar amount of stress on both men and material to meet standards.
If you cannot meet your own claimed standards then you have IAF In the air warfare domain on May 7th -

Then there is always Murphy's law -
Be it trigger happy Kuwaitis deciding to open fire on aircraft in pattern or Iranians firing a subsonic optical system when the F-35's EOTS did not pick it up.

So you could call it combat proven - but simulations ensure that the burden on "proving in combat" to say a system is effective is a very very small percentage.