The LCA don’t have a radar at the moment I believe. So it would be hard to put them into service, while JF 17 less capable as it is, is almost a finished product.

the issue isn’t about a radar..just because a fighter has a radar or has dropped some bombs (which is what the PAF will be first testing the JF-17 for as of now, not A2A missiles) it doesn’t become a finished product.

there will be a whole set of combat doctrines, manuals, syllabi, etc. that needs to be formulatd before a fighter is even close to being considered operational. pitting the JF-17 in a fight against any IAF fighter would most likely be suicidal as of now..they’ll have to test it thoroughly, understand its weak and strong points and only when its reached Final Operational Clearance, will it be used in war.

just modified the table to increase the serviceability of the Jags from 70% to 75% and incorporated some basic weighted averages and a Gap analysis.

MiG-21 Bison’s serviceability is 60%, not 50%..by the way, what is the source for the serviceability rates of the PAF ? they seem very high for an air force that is primarily flying outdated fighters.

for instance, I find it hard to believe that when the PAF has to acquire second hand airframes to even keep its existing fleet of Mirages in the air, that their serviceability would be as high as 75%..its obvious that there would be a shortage of spares because those Mirages aren’t being built anymore and they need to cannibalise other jets to keep some flying.

also, how is the MiG-27’s combat effectiveness any lower than that of non-ROSE upgraded Mirages ? and even then, some 40 odd MiG-27s are to be upgraded to MiG-27UPG levels, so they’d be as effective for their role as any ROSE Mirage..and surely the MiG-29 is more effective for its role of Air Defence than those Mirages ! yet, they have the same combat effectiveness factor..the same goes for Jaguars, and IAF Jags were always among the most capable Jags in the world, with the DARIN and DARIN-II upgrades. yet you’ve given them a combat effectiveness half that of older Mirages..

and why is the F-7MP/P combat effectiveness 0.7, when that of the MiG-21 Bis is given as 0.3 ?! are you suggesting that those F-7MP/P, which can carry the same amount of ordinance as a Bis, are both limited to WVR, have almost similar range, and only have a slight performance advantage, are 0.4 times more effective than MiG-21 Bis ?! thats pure bias..

and since you’re adding JF-17s to the mix, you might as well add IAF’s Hawks and Tejas prototypes..I’m quite sure that PAF doesn’t even consider the JF-17 as part of its force right now, when its not even inducted.

fact is, the figures are a joke. maybe if a neutral person were to put this sheet together, one might see a little more truth to the analysis.

the figures in the spreadsheet are totally skewed towards the PAF..for Gods sake, Mirage IIIs having a servicibility rate of 75% and the bulk of the IAF having a servicibility rate of 50 % !? and how on earth can a fighter thats not even in service have servicibility, overall effectiveness and other parameters defined ? you can’t even do that for a year or two after it is inducted into the PAF..and no source for the 90% service rate for the F-16s either..even the USAF would be thrilled with that rate, let alone the PAF.

basically, this thread is going to start a flame war, which is all thats going to happen.

what exercise was this Usman ?

IAF has now gotten a MiG-21 Bison simulator from BAeHal

May be so, but although I might be proven wrong on this, but I can’t remember anyone (who did not follow IAF, i.e. IAF enthusiast) referring to these fighters by such exciting names in a serious manner. And then the hostility went down gradually for one reason (ppl realised that the two are as good as others:)) or perhaps another (ppl reaslised they were serious contenders and a name might stick to a very capable fighter on these forum for many years to come;))

maybe instead of just trying to remember who called the SH a “Sewer Hornet”, you could just do a search..

apparently, SOC, Arthur, Crobato, GarryB, Flex297, Matt, SteveO, Spectral and a host of others call it that..are they also IAF enthusiasts ? I guess not. two of them are also mods on this forum, so does anyone want to raise the issue of poor taste with them?

as for the Lawn Dart, I don’t even think you’d need to do a search. the F-16s are widely known by that name on other forums too.

Russian missiles on American aircraft may not happen but Israeli weapons is a possibility. Also i think India will buy American weapons if it chooses an American aircraft. IAF can integrate the US/Isreali weapons with the LCA as well. One has to remember that we uses entirely different french weapons for our Mirage 2000 fleet. We are integrating the AIM 132 with the Mirage 2000 now, as it can be integrated with the American types as well, that will offer some type of commonality.

If the IAF was not serious about the American ac. They would not have requested for their presence in the competition. The F 16s presence was requested by the IAF the F 18 was later added.

the IAF will most likely purchase US weapons if it does choose a US platform, primarily because its not an easy task to integrate a BVR weapon with a radar, with all its associated software/hardware and trials.

regarding WVR weapons, the IAF has integrated Magic 2s on MiG-21s and R-73s on the Mirage-2000s, but those are only WVR weapons.

as for ASRAAM on IAF Mirages, thats the first time I’ve heard it..could you provide a source? As far as I know, the upgrade was only to use Mica IR and EM missiles or Israeli weapons Derby and Python V if Vivek Raghuvanshi (a DDM journo) is to be believed.