If Botswana cannot afford to upgrade these CF-5s to the extent that Thailand or Brazil upgraded theirs, then a more sensible option would be a limited upgrade to reduce pilot workload and upgrade some avionics. Structural upgrades may not even be required, depending on how much life is left in those airframes. Any which way you look at it, it’ll be a lot cheaper and affordable than brand new Gripen C/Ds or FA-50s or even second hand Gripen C/Ds for that matter.

With just 5 operational pilots and a total of 15 hours per month for the entire BF-5 fleet, they’re barely keeping themselves operational. It is quite obvious that they have serious inadequacies and spending hundreds of millions of $ on a new fleet of T-50s or Gripen C/Ds will do them no good. They’ll just end up spending most of their lives on the ground as hangar queens. the obvious reason that politicians show so much interest in acquiring a new jet fleet is the kickbacks they’ll demand and suppliers will have to pay.

it would simpler to simply upgrade those BF-5s to the standard that Thailand recently upgraded its F-5s to, with Elta 2032 radar, Derby BVRAAM and DASH helmets. Will more than suffice for the threats that Botswana faces. And will be cheap to operate so money can be spent on everything else that the BDF lacks.

Indian Air Force Cheetah (Alouette II) somewhere in the Himalayas, likely near the Siachen Glacier

pic posted on BRF

Lacking a dedicated pod hardpoint, the JF-17 will need to use a wing pylon to mount the ASELPOD (reportedly bought from Turkey). Haven’t yet seen or heard about its integration with the JF-17, but till Block 2, it lacked this capability or the fuselage hardpoint.

And why were 2 different AShMs integrated with the JF-17? I understand that the JF-17 needed to take over maritime strike roles from the Mirage in the PAF which explains the expedited integration of AShMs, but why 2 different types?

The Tejas carries its LDP on a dedicated fuselage station. That allows it to carry weapons and drop tanks on 7 wing and fuselage pylons. Plus there are tandem wing pylons already certified that allow the Tejas to carry 2 500 lb bombs on a single mid-board pylon.

LCA Tejas wing loading higher than that of the FC-1? And FC-1 has a higher T/W ratio than the LCA? Despite similar engine thrust and empty weights? Whatever hard work you’ve put into this comparison, Paralay, I’m afraid a lot of it doesn’t make sense.

Japan to receive 56 additional AMRAAM C7 missiles