PAF Conducts successful test of indigenously developed FAAZ BVRAAM

[Michael]

Sabre-F-104
F-6- Mirage
F-7 -

Earlier today, I came across a short video from an official media outlet in which a senior defense industry expert explained why China continues to maintain a large number of older combat aircraft, such as the J-10A and JH-7.

The core conclusion is that by leveraging an air combat support system to compensate for the technical shortcomings of these aging platforms, they can still play a potent role in modern warfare.

This approach is equally applicable to the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). Naturally, the PAF would need to further refine its own air combat support system. With the right systemic backing, these older aircraft could remain in service for many more years without compromising the PAF’s overall operational capabilities.

 

[Yasser76]

Earlier today, I came across a short video from an official media outlet in which a senior defense industry expert explained why China continues to maintain a large number of older combat aircraft, such as the J-10A and JH-7.

The core conclusion is that by leveraging an air combat support system to compensate for the technical shortcomings of these aging platforms, they can still play a potent role in modern warfare.

This approach is equally applicable to the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). Naturally, the PAF would need to further refine its own air combat support system. With the right systemic backing, these older aircraft could remain in service for many more years without compromising the PAF’s overall operational capabilities.

Yeah, interesting point. Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s the actual platform was much more important then networking or weapons.

These days a JF-17 can be part of the same network and use the same weapons as a J-10C even if it is a different class of fighter. This compensates for the gap in radar and airframe performance.

In the past a F-7 could only do say around 25% of the job of an F-16, I reckon now a JF-17 has 75% odd overlap of roles with a J-10C.

High end is still important but less so as even "low end" catches up. Look at USAF. F-35 and F-22 can both fill each others roles to a much larger degree then F-16s could with F-15s back in the day or a F-5 could with an F-4

 

[Michael]

Yeah, interesting point. Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s the actual platform was much more important then networking or weapons.

These days a JF-17 can be part of the same network and use the same weapons as a J-10C even if it is a different class of fighter. This compensates for the gap in radar and airframe performance.

In the past a F-7 could only do say around 25% of the job of an F-16, I reckon now a JF-17 has 75% odd overlap of roles with a J-10C.

High end is still important but less so as even "low end" catches up. Look at USAF. F-35 and F-22 can both fill each others roles to a much larger degree then F-16s could with F-15s back in the day or a F-5 could with an F-4

We can view these older fighter jets as, in effect, "aerial trucks" that provide tactical resupply for more advanced combat aircraft.

Both the JF-17 and the J-10CE share a common limitation: a relatively short operational range. They typically require external fuel tanks, which occupy hardpoints on the wings and consequently reduce the number of weapons they can carry.

We could implement modest modifications to these older fighters, enabling them to carry weapons, while allowing the JF-17s or J-10CEs to provide guidance and command.

As for the radars on these older aircraft, we can essentially disregard them—it is worth noting that China’s latest UCAV, the GJ-11, does not even carry an AESA radar; it relies entirely on support from the broader integrated system.

 

[Yasser76]

We can view these older fighter jets as, in effect, "aerial trucks" that provide tactical resupply for more advanced combat aircraft.

Both the JF-17 and the J-10CE share a common limitation: a relatively short operational range. They typically require external fuel tanks, which occupy hardpoints on the wings and consequently reduce the number of weapons they can carry.

We could implement modest modifications to these older fighters, enabling them to carry weapons, while allowing the JF-17s or J-10CEs to provide guidance and command.

As for the radars on these older aircraft, we can essentially disregard them—it is worth noting that China’s latest UCAV, the GJ-11, does not even carry an AESA radar; it relies entirely on support from the broader integrated system.

Yes, that is my point too I guess, once PAF has such a dense and developed system then the platforms that are connected to it can offload much of the sensor work and management to the network, you wil just need platforms for the final physical part of the kill chain.

However, when it comes to deep strike and when the platforms may be seperated from a large part of the network stealth will come into play. Hence the ultimate need for a high end J-35