When was that? I remember reading a detailed article on F-7PG by Alan Warnes, though (if i remember correctly) it didn’t mention the sort of things you are talking of.

Alan Warnes wasnt the only one to write articles on the PAF & its F-7s – if you search around the forum or ask on some Pak fora and they might have saved the article. I didnt archive it, but remember it very well. There was a substantial debate on the issue as well..
It wasnt the PG but the earlier F-7s, s’what I meant by “newer F-7s”, the PG iirc had a slightly better range and some features.

Both PAF and PLAAF did consider putting BVRAAM on their latest J/F-7s but decided against it. Both have other options (albeit somewhat limited for PAF), and I dont think either will be operating the type beyond 2020. As for SD-10/PL-12, well what can i say:) PL-12 has been integrated with J-8/J-11/J-10. Even PAF at present is in negotiations with chinese for 300 SD-10, the primary reason why they decided to go with a chinese avionics package for first bacth of JF-17 back in 2003/04.

Like I remember, the limited scan angles and lack of decently ranged BVR modes on the Grifo-7 made it pyrrhic at best. Whats the point? To get more corroboration, there was a PDF on the Finnmec website which gave the performance of the different Grifo radars. The Grifo-M – for the Mirages- the larger antenna’ed cousin of the Grifo on PAF F-7s, had ranges moreorless equal to the Kopyo-21 on IAF Bison. Pretty unambiguous really.

I disagree that it makes little sense to have put the SD-10 on the PAFs F-7s if they had the ability to do so. In one fell move, the PAF would have neutralised one of the IAF’s key A2A advantages. But like I said, w/current limitations, its useless.

And please read what I wrote – obviously the J-8/J-10/JF-17 can carry SD-10s and BVR armament, their radar can support it. Thats what I said, whenever the PAF can get “manageable” eqpt from the PRC, even if it is not the shiniest or whatever, they are prudent enough to go for it.

Its all about volume. The F-7s limited nosecone size limits the antenna aperture size, the scan angles and modes.

I am aware the PRC is advertising newer radars with “claimed” BVR modes and TWS- as far as I can see, these are all advertising claims, no operational or even prototype F-7 exists with these radars and a test BVR armament.

I have never really imagined PAK-FA serving IAF alongside Mig-21. But you never know.:)

PAK FA will be coming in as MiG-21s are leaving. I anticipate PAK-FA to reach production only between 2015-2020.

Did i say something different when i was talking of speed and height?

Pretty much. Your post made it appear as if unless the MiG-21s were at substantial height and supersonic, their BVR armament wasnt of much use. Thats not how it works. There are many vital reasons why in fact you’d want to maintain standoff, b/w your target & yourself, even if you are in a fighter like the MKI which has the range & performance to get a speed/ height boost as and when required. Why go supersonic, in the Bisons case, when you are launching a RVVAE against a non BVR F-7 or Mirage, both of which make up 90% of the PAF Fleet.

Which version of present R-77 on Bison achieves 30 miles at subsonic speeds? And what sort of altitudes are you talking about?

The standard RVV-AE can achieve b/w 30-50 km at medium alt, ie b/w 6 – 10 km. At high alt – 15 km upwards, at higher speeds, it doubles. At real low alt, it should be around 20 km. Note, the RVV-AE seeker range itself is 20 odd km against a std fighter sized target, so it actually assists the Bison pilot – he doesnt have to provide MCG for long, missile seeker w/d go active pretty soon. Note, stern chase would dip ranges appreciably to a 4th – but given the Bisons role, I am talking of interception vs incoming a/c. RVV-AE carrier launch speeds are given at 0.6 Mach, min.

PS. All i can say is if Bison has all this, then GoI must be full of idiots to be thinking of spending billions of dollars on MMRCA, while LCA and PAK-FA are only round the corner with all sort of other fighter upgrades comng along.

Upgrades are always upgrades. They are not new airframes. For one, the Bisons arent getting younger. Another 10-15 years, and it just doesnt make sense to keep them around anymore. The IAF training cycle is intensive and a minimum of 300-360 sorties per pilot will tell on the airframes he utilizes.

The Bison airframe still has weaknesses – for one, its payload is limited to 5 pylons and it is a short ranged fighter. IMO, I consider this as the only true shortcoming of the MiG-21 Bis airframe. It has excellent handling, enhanced payload and range, but the last is still limited.

While it is suitable for defence (vs the PLAAF + some limited offence) & for both against the PAF (given the ranges involved), the IAF wants to substantially upgrade its capability by inducting fighters with much more range & payload.

In effect, the IAF will have 230 (MKI) + 125 (MMRCA) + 52 (M2KH) long range fighters w/substantial payload. Not to mention the upgraded Jags etc which enhances the IAFs combat power vs the PLAAF, which is necessary, given the PLAAFs investments in newer aircraft and modern SAMs (S-300 series).

The LCA & MiG-29s Upg & MiG-27s Upg with IFR will replace the Bison in its role vs Pak. Ultimately, even the MiG-27s will go & the LCA will continue.

The PAK-FA is intended for the period when the MiG-29s and Mirages need to be replaced. For once, sensible planning.

USA is planning to – BAMS – “Broad Area Maritime Surveillance”. RQ-4 Global Hawk has been selected. Other countries are also looking using UAVs in similar roles, e.g. Australia.

Indian Navy is using its Herons and Searcher -IIs in similar roles already. Going forward, there is a MALE UAV called the Rustom in development.
http://news.oneindia.mobi/2007/09/01/428153.html

Doesn’t make much of a sense to give them this capability NOW (when they only have a few years left) and M2K-5/Mig-29/LCA/MRCA will have this capability with MKI already operating with data link.

Entire issue is the cost involved (in even putting in a basic Russian origin system for Kopyo compatibility) vs the time left in service. I wouldnt be sure that the IAF wont upgrade the Bisons – if it proves practical to give them an airframe/life extension (Consider the work at NAL for instance), they might get it. A datalink would make a huge difference to the Bisons combat effectiveness.

This is why ppl have been debating whether its a good idea to put BVRAAM on airframes like Mig-21/J-7. Obviosuly it depends on circumstances and can only be analysed on case by case basis, but the first lesson of BVR engagement is to gain altitude/speed to increase the range of your missile…wont evn talk of detection/IFF etc here. In such engagements who ever fires first can put the opponent on the defensive and hence holds the advantage. The negative effect on R-77’s range when fired from a subsonic Bison only at few thoudand feet is obvious, and while this might work against non-BVR fighters, Bison will have problems if it tried to use the same tactic against BVRAAM equipped forces.

You are confused about BVR here. To gain respectable benefit from a speed boost for your BVR armament, you need to be at a substantial speed to begin with, not to mention height & your radar & WCS should be optimized for that role. Just going supersonic and being at a few ten thousand feet is by itself no panacea.

And employment matters depending upon operational conditions. Ie where your aircraft are located, their intended role, and how they will be used and most importantly, what the opponent has.

In this case, given the Bisons role (CAP), its placement (AFB next to Indo-Pak border) and hence engagement time, it barely needs that kind of extreme range to begin with!

In fact, at subsonic speeds of the launch aircraft, the RVV-AE can easily achieve 20-30 mile distances and the missile will be supported by the Kopyo. The Bison itself has proved hard for F16s, F-15s AND E-3’s to track in two exercises with the USAF, which goes to show that assumptions about it being detected first & attacked wont work either. In IAF exercises, the Bison was outgunning the earlier RDM + Super530D equipped Mirages as well. Goes to show, the newer avionics definitely compensated for airframe performance to a degree. And 20-30 mile distances are quite sufficient vs aircraft w/no BVR to begin with.

All in all, its a very useful upgrade – a Bison on CAP or a QRA can be vectored to intercept incoming PAF/PLAAF strikers – engage them at BVR ranges AND choose to disengage or engage thereafter, depending on the situation & own condition. A Bison can now engage a F-16 package with a fair chance of success! Break them up, cause trouble, and run off! Depending on the situation, a Bison group can be supported by a MKI one. If you have escorts w/ Flankers – the MKIs take those on & the Bisons go for the strike package. After all, thats what the IAF demonstrated at Cope India – mixed force packages!
A MiG-27 strike package can have a bunch of Bisons with it. Monitoring radar wouldnt be able to distinguish b/w the two @ range, and inbound interceptors would be hard pressed to have BVR missiles coming their way in turn!

Earlier, the IAF never had this option. A bunch of Bis engaging a bunch of F-16s in WVR would have always been at a disadvantage. And the IAF would have had to seriously consider where and how to place its A2A fighters. Splitting its MiG-29 and Mirage fleet into sections distributed across AFB.

Today, the Bison is a multirole aircraft – its Kopyo enables both BVR and accurate A2G weapons delivery w/dumb bombs. It can also engage targets with precision munitions such as the KAB TV Guided EOPGMs. It can target radars with Kh-25’s. It can carry SPJs for its own & group defence. It now carries a modern RHAWS+CMDS fit.

And its superior in terms of combat potential to the bulk of the PAFs fleet – both F-7s and the Mirage fleet. Both of which will have to be at a disadvantage facing a BVR armed Bison package. They have to first dodge the incoming RVV-AEs (consider the impact on fuel state & package cohesion & situational awareness) while the Bison pilots have the option to close in with Sura + R-73E or move off.

EU can.. easily..

Yes. But I was talking of individual countries not confederations. That ways, even the Russians can be part of a confederation – say BRIC, and make everything! Individually @ a country level, US & Russia – rest are too far behind, they after all didnt invest the trillions and gazillions these guys did in cold war.

It it is about to support something with a real chance of success, you can try for while to find out, if your hopes can be fulfilled.
Otherwise you have to answer the question, how many killed are worth that success. South-Korea was in favor of the USA, when Vietnam was not.
To change a population in total does never work. To support a given part of a population to achieve that may work. Wishful thinking aside, after a limited time, the ones in support have to be able to do it alone. Sometimes people have to go through a hard time at first to built the strength for that.
When I remember well, the world-public was informed about the preparations and operations of the IDF afterwards and not before. This time it is the other way around. When unknown silent may create some fear and a deterrence by that,
the lasting war of words and claims are a no win situation about that.
Are we still in the Basar or do we mean business, even our supporters are confused about that.

Sens, I do think Karzai and his govt can make a difference. Unlike Vietnam, where the swamp in North Vn was supported by a superpower AND out of the US’s reach, in this case – its just Pak. And hopefully, the US will slowly and steadily stop being such a patsy and start laying down the law with the Pak Govt. Once the ISI and the Pak Army elements stop supporting the Talib, half the job is done. The rest will be a long haul- but it can be achieved. To give you an idea, my nation has comprehensively defeated a massive insurgency in Punjab (today it is one of India’s most productive states), contained another in Kashmir, despite the same groups vs ISAF’s best efforts and has all but defeated another separatist movement in the North East. This by a developing country, with a fraction of the resources available to the US & the west. Its all about political will, and the commitment to see it through. If your lot sticks it out, you will win. If you cut and run, you will lose.

One only needs to follow this forum and watch how anti-Iranian rhetoric increases with time exactly following the official propaganda spread through media. The same people who were not bothered even with existence of Iran two years ago suddenly cannot stop trumpeting out how its rotten autocratic regime is suddenly responsible for all evil on this planet.

Go easy on the rhetoric, frankly my ears and eyes are tired!! If Iran is nasty or big enough to sponsor terrorists in Hamas and Hezb, then its also big enough to take a few media articles pointing out the same, irrespective of what its supporters claim!! In fact, Iran is brazen about its behaviour, dont see why you have to be so apologetic and whine on their behalf, when they themselves are far more open!!

Funny is that Iran has had the same supreme ruler since 1989 which was a president of Iran since 1981, its politics has not changed a bit and banners with ‘Death to Israel’ have been constantly appearing on all military parades since late 70s.. But before Bush started his media campaign no one has given rat’s fart about it.

Talk about yourself please!! Others have given a “rats fart” and more than a “rats fart”. Israel itself has done a lot to secure itself and done its best to bring to the worlds attention about Irans support for terror groups. Its a different matter entirely, that the EU couldnt find its own butt on a given day with its scrabbling member nations and that the UN is anyways an impotent organization! If the US NOW finally brings up Irans actions – well and good, too little too late, but something is better than nothing. And the US has constantly put Iran on a watchlist, for a long long time ever since they went from “Ally” under the Shah, to “loony bin” under the mullahs- dont know how long you were asleep, but before Bush, they did care and acted on it. Its only the recent advances in the Nuke program and Ahm.’s increasingly apocalyptic pronouncements that justifiably worried the world. My country went overtly nuclear in 1998, if its leaders spent day and night making pronouncements on how they would teach “x” enemy a lesson and “abolish it” – obviously, it would worry other nations!!

It is utterly unimporatnt whether you are American, Canadian or Singaporese, you, too have joined crowd of people just brainlessly repeating the same stuff you are being fed with in media. Iran is evil, Iran wants to kill us all, Iran wants nukes, Iran supports terrorism, Iran is a big satan, blah blah blah, it’s almost like a prayer.. It will be a fun to watch where this all ends.

I can very tell who is brainless here, even though as usual you use the term – cant live without insults can you, internet tough guy, LOL ! Anyone with a basic knowledge of the ME and Irans power structure would know that its theocracy has and continues to fund terrorism & regards it as a religious & strategic goal vis a vis Israel. Now you may not even care about it and keep making comments for some loony debating points sake, but for the rest of us- you get what you serve. If Iran wants to play tough, and sponsor terror groups AND provoke more well armed countries, then it has to also prepare for a conventional conflict where it might come out the loser. Thats the way the cookie crumbles, Flex- as much as you rant about Iran and what not. Personally, a theocracy with nukes, and that too, a nation which doesnt respect status quo but keeps challenging it? Ouch – hope the US and Israel defang them, because otherwise, things will only get worse. Iran could have done much more to avoid this.

Iran simply cannot be allowed to keep acting like this – constant attacks on Israel via proxies, the devastation of Lebanon thanks to a totally avoidable conflict, now a Twelver’ prez with apocalyptic claims and support of a wide ranging nuke and missile program – the world has enough problems already, without Iran going this path. And that too, with this degree of irresponsibility. Theocracies aint good w/nukes.

So why do you bother responding, then?

Because I couldnt let your insult laden drivel slide. Make your points politely and I might have even ignored you.

HAMAS my favorite org? Where do you have it from?

Sarcasm- recognise it, kindly.
From your utterly bizarre defence of organizations like the Hezb and Hamas, which if you should have realised are extremist, militant organizations and worthy of contempt.

Was this meant as a serious argumentation? 🙂 I am amazed…

I am not – your lame response reflects your general ignorance about the Middle East and the reality there! I mean tough talk apart, I do wonder about whether you have even debated or thrashed these issues out in depth in real life with Iranians and Israelis and Arabs! Since you havent, and you need to project a silly arguementative tone, all you are left with are one-two liners like the above!

If you stuck an ELTA radar and in a J-7G and fitted it with Derbys (assuming that is both possible and economically viable) and some sort of simple datalink capability it would actually look more or less just as good as the Bison. Not that this matters, the J-7 will probably never be fitted with that sort of equipment.

Possible is a good term to use, but thats the point it isnt possible, not without extensive work at least! Which is why the PAF F-7s all have a very limited air interception set, since the F-7/J-7 series simply does not have the nose volume to hoist a proper A2A radar with BVR capable modes!! The current Grifo variant on the PAF F-7s is also limited in that very respect, so what talk of SD-10’s or Derby!

Almost everybody for whom the J-7G or MiG-21Bis is still an option does not need BVR or can’t afford it. Most of the customers for these aircraft are poor nations making the IAF something of an exception and even for them the Bison a stopgap. Poor nations consider these aircraft only because they want to make the most of their money. The J/F-7 is available, new built, at low prices and the Chinese don’t start to sulk like the Russians tend to do if the customer decides to put Western or Israeli avionics and weapons in his airframes. The only thing that surprises me about the F-7 export variant any more is that it still manages to find customers. One would think anybody shopping for an aircraft in this class would be lining up for the FC-1.

Dont know where you are from, but the Russians no longer sulk if any western or Israeli avionics are installed as long as it helps sell the plane! With or without external assistance, the bulk of systems remain theirs, after all – take a look at the Bison, and the MKI, and its full of external OEM gear including Indian items such as radio and IFF, RWRs, processors and what not, to French INS-GPS and Indian HUD! Makes the entire product end user specific!!

In fact, the Russians have gone a lot ahead in integrating own proprietary standards w/ World standard Mil interface for integration of third party kit.