PAF J-10CE News, Updates and Discussion

[Corax]

It should be considered as a force multiplier, not replacement but aid

I never mentioned replacing anything, and yes exactly that, augmenting existing assets as a force multiplier.

 

[Corax]

AWACs are expensive to procure , maintain and operate , you can't use them as liberally as you wish.

There wouldn't be any need to use AWACS over and above their current use, it's just adding a further capability to guide long range SAMS.

It's an effective means of simply expanding the kill web, giving more options.

 

[RajaBaja]

Not necessarily, as long as all assets use the same data link, there's no reason why existing AWACs can't be used to augment SAMs.

AWACS could guide SAMS. Pakistan did a mass display of it in May. The issue is, AWACS and force multipliers are one of the first targets of wave 1 of an offense to cut off support / supplied. So if you have a bunch of missiles waiting on a firing solution from an AWACS and that AWACS is down, or data link broken or even slowed due to jamming, you'll waste ALL your SAMS or they can't be fired.

 

[Oscar]

Forget thsi account ... pure nonsense!

View attachment 134789

A clean J-10 can supercruise but not at that speed. And the altitude context is missing as well.

 

[Rational Philosopher]

Forget thsi account ... pure nonsense!

View attachment 134789

That's his own account I believe

 

[Corax]

AWACS could guide SAMS. Pakistan did a mass display of it in May. The issue is, AWACS and force multipliers are one of the first targets of wave 1 of an offense to cut off support / supplied. So if you have a bunch of missiles waiting on a firing solution from an AWACS and that AWACS is down, or data link broken or even slowed due to jamming, you'll waste ALL your SAMS or they can't be fired.

Better not let your AWACs be hit or your data links jammed then! But that's more about doctrine and the use of preemptive action more than anything else.

 

[Rational Philosopher]

Better not let your AWACs be hit or your data links jammed then! But that's more about doctrine and the use of preemptive action more than anything else.

If your data links are jammed or AWACs hit — you have a WAY bigger issue on your plate than just your SAMs not being useful. At that point you might be about to be obliterated.

Every planning and tech advancement is about exactly avoiding this scenario.

 

[RajaBaja]

Better not let your AWACs be hit or your data links jammed then! But that's more about doctrine and the use of preemptive action more than anything else.

In any conflict, you have the front end and the backend including support, force multiplier and AWACS. So you'll limit front end attack capability immediately as soon as you take out support systems. So every mature military first plans to take out the reserves or support structure.

Take a look at the Chinese stealth J-20. Why was it essentially built? With long range distant fights essentially to take out US's tankers, AWACS, EW assets. If you are successful in getting those out, the front end attack will start to fade away. Aircraft won't penetrate deep, will need to turn back to find fuel or land, range, payload, deep target insights, all gone. Same logic applies here on SAMS to operate through AWACS

 

[Corax]

If your data links are jammed or AWACs hit — you have a WAY bigger issue on your plate than just your SAMs not being useful. At that point you might be about to be obliterated.

Every planning and tech advancement is about exactly avoiding this scenario.

Yes, if you're worried about PAF AWACS and data link being destroyed, then you have far worse things to worry about, no need to think about data linked SAMs.

 

[Corax]

In any conflict, you have the front end and the backend including support, force multiplier and AWACS. So you'll limit front end attack capability immediately as soon as you take out support systems. So every mature military first plans to take out the reserves or support structure.

Take a look at the Chinese stealth J-20. Why was it essentially built? With long range distant fights essentially to take out US's tankers, AWACS, EW assets. If you are successful in getting those out, the front end attack will start to fade away. Aircraft won't penetrate deep, will need to turn back to find fuel or land, range, payload, deep target insights, all gone. Same logic applies here on SAMS to operate through AWACS

You're assuming the IAF gains a fifth gen fighter equivalent to the J20, undertakes preemptive strikes within Pakistan airspace, and destroys most of the PAF AWACs and force multipliers. That's a big "what if". All I mentioned was to data link long range SAMS to link 17 and other force multipliers to expand the kill web, I clearly didn't take into account the IAF destroying most of the PAF.

 

[Deino]

That's his own account I believe

Who is „he“?

 

[Rational Philosopher]

Who is „he“?

The person whose message you had quoted about the content being false, it was his own Twitter he linked.

 

[Deino]

The person whose message you had quoted about the content being false, it was his own Twitter he linked.

Ah, my bad … thanks, but that explains a lot!

 

[RajaBaja]

You're assuming the IAF gains a fifth gen fighter equivalent to the J20, undertakes preemptive strikes within Pakistan airspace, and destroys most of the PAF AWACs and force multipliers. That's a big "what if". All I mentioned was to data link long range SAMS to link 17 and other force multipliers to expand the kill web, I clearly didn't take into account the IAF destroying most of the PAF.

You made up a post without reading my posts. Kindly read up the post before commenting. No where did I use "IAF' or PAF. We are talking about operational tactics and strategy the world's top countries are using!

Since you have written a post, let me address a part of it. In an air battle, let's say there is an AWACS flying in the back like we did in May. And India has mass deployed S-400's already (that they are now implementing). That's a 3 ring architecture. First ring is within 50-80 KM of Pakistan and can target over 350 KM of Pakistan airspace, essentially the entire Pakistani air space due to lack of our depth. Now if you can identify properly tankers and AWACS and fire a 20 missile salvo on these "high value" targets, you WILL loose it. There are no two ways about it. You don't need a J-20 equivalent to do that job.

Again, read all the comments on the discussion on tactics and then add your opinion so the discussion can continue on the same level.

 

[Corax]

You made up a post without reading my posts. Kindly read up the post before commenting. No where did I use "IAF' or PAF. We are talking about operational tactics and strategy the world's top countries are using!

Since you have written a post, let me address a part of it. In an air battle, let's say there is an AWACS flying in the back like we did in May. And India has mass deployed S-400's already (that they are now implementing). That's a 3 ring architecture. First ring is within 50-80 KM of Pakistan and can target over 350 KM of Pakistan airspace, essentially the entire Pakistani air space due to lack of our depth. Now if you can identify properly tankers and AWACS and fire a 20 missile salvo on these "high value" targets, you WILL loose it. There are no two ways about it. You don't need a J-20 equivalent to do that job.

Again, read all the comments on the discussion on tactics and then add your opinion so the discussion can continue on the same level.

Sorry, but this is juvenile and non-sensical, not sure how old you are, but it seems like you have a very simplistic view of things. I'll leave you to your machinations.