A C-802 shall disable a ship from battle. That is excactly what it did with the INS Hanit.

Provided the warhead blew up?

Otherwise, the plain missile plus its oxidizer etc could have caused the damage.

Not to tread on any feet here, byt its not unusual for Chinese weapons to be spotty in terms of performance thanks to varying build quality…there were Pak origin ATGMs of the Red Arrow series supplied to Bosnians fighting against Serbs during the Yugo war..they were of extremely dubious quality..warhead issues plus the wires being shoddy and looping the missile into the ground..

So a warhead failure could be considered…but its speculation at this point..

There has to be some limits to fantasy. India co-developed sukhois…….yet is going around begging for help with the LCA- who by now is less indeginous than the Al khalid tank.

India codevelops…unlike some countries we dont depend on fake honor and dignity ..if having LM lend a Vista to check out the FBW shortens the testing process..we’ll do so..

Lastly, apart from Green paint (perhaps even that was Chinese) Pakistan has contributed nothing to the Al Khalid…so a nice cup of stfu might be in order.. 😉

Not even china co-developed the sukhois—instead it got the license to produce them in china. All india did was get limited number of fully assembled ones and remaining ones came in simi knock down kits–even for which required calling up russian engineers to assemble them. Till date indians have not been able put together ( assemble ) the entire 140 despite being supplied with the kits, instructions manuals etc.

If this is the extent of your “knowlijj” then I wonder what you’r doing on an aviation board…
Any fellow knows that when a license production program begins it commences with SKD/ CKD kits to familiarize local engineers with the product and gradually ramps upto local production…
And of course if you were using your grey matter you would know that the entire 140 are to be produced by 2011, not overnight…
Lastly for the MKI program, India deputed engineers to Russia plus an IAF eval team, contributed several vital avionics items, including the heart of the avionics package, the mission computer and is also developing its own improvements for its Sukhois such as composite structures and new displays..

As far your comment about whining goes –u aparently didnot read all my posts—the thrust of my argument is pakistan should not waste money on the american junk being offerred—rather save it to further develop jf-17 and buy

All you have done so far is whine about the dastardly Americans and how their freebies are not good enough…

If the PAF really doesnt want those freebies then ask them to put their money where their mouth is and buy their own stuff

Beggars cant be choosers or alternatively, dont look a gift horse in the mouth.

Take your pick.

j-10s. Atleast j-10 are equivalent to the sukhois.

Prove it.

What pakistan is doing in buying new f1-6s is wasting money on outdated junk.

And now you know more than the PAF brass.

Man you must be deaf. 😛

SOC is just saying that the IRIS-T is not operational yet. Its being tested.

And no please dont copy and paste another report saying the same thing and say the reverse.

What was the range of the Vixen, Aerospace?

Thanks

Coming back to the main subject, I’m a bit surprised that Phaz was selected so easily (over say, Elta), after the initial Kopyo fiasco (10 hrs MTBF and all……..was rectified eventually but not up to advertised MTBF).

Almost all radars the world over have similar issues..

The APG-79 was having similar issues with its software…one moment dazzling, the next second crash..

The APG-77 had issues earlier as well iirc

The MTBF of many western radars when just inducted was bad..they were brought up after opeval and rectification

Many other Russian radars were worse..

So nothing new

If Phaza did its job and met IAF requirements later, they would have been accepted

The IAF has DACT’ed against AIM-120C equipped fighters on two (excluding Singapore) separate major excercises and were hardly shocked. In fact, the Bisons were detecting F-16s at the same range with their Kopyos and scoring quite well.

Detection ranges are valid, but the missiles used were all “mythical” with exercise specific performance

The best way to counter AIM-120C5s would be to have more joint-excercises, not by purchasing xyz which is supposedly better on paper.

Valid point, but we should do both! More exercises and overwhelmingly better equipment.

The Zhuk-ME may have a higher range than the APG-68v9 but is not that much better as desired. With PAR induction, why should the IAF settle for anything less?

Per some brochure figures I have, in range performance the MFE is not that much better than the ME (in fact somewhat equal)..I think its a better radar thanks to its growth potential though..even if its current performance is somewhat lackluster..

What is wrong with a buy what is available now and then replace it when something better becomes available? The alternative is to buy a new carrier based fighter with no radar and just wait till the one you want becomes available. I know which makes more sense to me…

Garry, the thread is about Indian Air Force MiG-29 Upgs. Not IN MiG-29 K’s.

Do you think it is in Indias interests to have unstable suppliers of equipment?
Besides I didn’t take this to be an India thread and was thinking more from the point of view of the supplier than the customer. After a decade and a half of funding projects and design organisations, it is nice that funds are now becoming available for manufacturing and production.

India has already done its bit for Phaza with a 125 order for the Kopyo and 16 Zhuk-Ms..would have liked to see a newer radar though, thats all.

Plus the thread was IAF chooses ME and so replies on that topic

Have you not heard of at least two R-77 programs to extend the missiles range, from a larger rocket motor to ramjet propulsion. Indeed considering the range of R-27 missile types it wouldn’t surprise me if they don’t do the same… with three propulsion types (standard, and long range booster rocket, and ramjet propulsion) plus multiple seeker types, perhaps IR and ARH, with Passive radar homing and IIR as well.

Are these in production?

Replacements for R-73 and also R-77M and R-37M have been mentioned as the standard weaponry of the PAK-FA and therefore are likely in development as we speak.
Have reason to believe that the photo below is a weapon called MK-80 and was a proposed replacement for the R-73. The nose vanes are to detect the direction the missile is travelling and suggests TVC.
The other photo is the passive radar homing seeker of the R-27P or R-27EP.

Thanks Garry but again, these are prospective programs..not ready ones

BTW the KS-172 or R-37M might be a waste against F-16s but if used to successfully kill an AWACS plane or two the effect would be rather greater than a few downed F-16s.

True, but the MiG-29 /Zhuk ME is unlikely to carry a KS-172..that will be a MKI job & the rank & file discrepancy vs AMRAAMs remains