Just what I think.
Before calling a pilot “full retard” or talking about a “Jewish plot”, expect to have more neutral information than those obtained via CNN ( any images, if they exist… ? )
These intercepts are common since the Cold War, some more aggressive than others, but all of these pilots are professionals who would not risk unnecessarily their lives or political incident.

Plus 100.

Claiming that Russian pilots went full retard with zero evidence is without merit.

With hands down, second to none, the Ka-52 is such a looker

Agreed. It looks like a generation ahead of whatever systems are out there.

Not that I disagree, but..

#1 performed by AH-64As.. The Mi-28N is considerably more advanced as it is..

Yes, but the US had E3s and all sorts of SIGINT. The Apache Longbow would be a good step forward for the IAF.

#2 for that scenario, I would prefer sheer numbers..

But as said, IAF have already made their choice, good luck with their AH-64Es.

Sheer numbers are not the answer alone, when dealing with targets because long range munitions can do the task as well.

toledo, i agree.
JF-17 is actually a pretty mediocre airplane. no matter how much the apologist and fan boys like to scream “but itz gots DSI boss!”.
the Tejas is a far more ambitious airplane.. that will never get into service in meaningful numbers in a meaningful airframe. In which case, what good is a prototype aircraft vs one that is actually flying.

Tejas bar is like asking a honda civic to perform like a mustang. maybe they should just accept it is a civic.

Tejas orders stand at 100 Mk1A and some 20 Mk1. Naval LCAs will be around 40-60 but a more ambitious redesigned Mk2.

The IAF will probably order more Tejas once it proves itself but its need for light fighters will be at the 100-200 airframes level.

And that will be meaningful because it frees up Sukhois and (perhaps?) Rafales from a bunch of missions against, close range missions.

What a typo that is to believe Apache is better in precision of ammunition/munition. It is quite known to be less accurate and having several problems involved based on the technologies of SALH. The performance of course increased with E model and M-TADS aswell Hellfire-2 but the reports never stopped.

The Apache in some respects, namely its sensor suite is more mature than the Mi-28. Customers choose things depending on their priorities. The Mi-28 may be more armored.. but its not a high priority for the IAF which is clearly looking at the Apache for multiple roles.. including SEAD.

It is clearly that the tender is everything but based on technology just another T-90 nonsense of “losing” while being higher in results.

Clearly a topic you barely understand. The facts – Arjun rated higher than the T-90 in some criteria because its FCS is better, its stabilization is better & its suspension (Hydropneumatic) helps with fire on the move better. The T-90 came ahead marginally in overall firepower because it had a Gun Launched Missile – Arjun didn’t (at the time of trials, the Mk1 that is). Both tanks ranked similarly overall.. the Arjuns FSAPDS was also behind that of the T-90 (Mk1 was developed in the 1990s and never advanced because no confirmation of orders).. T-90s can fire BM-42 variants.. not really advanced but still better than Mk1 120mm FSAPDS.. now Mk2 is in production at same level & future variants are planned.. point is its not as simple as you claim it to be. Arjun had a better FCS/stab/suspension at time of trials. Worse off in ammo. Hence equivalent results. Now, its different. Mk2 is ahead of T-90 significantly (FCS has been further upgraded) & has equivalent ammo. (Though by world beating standards, FSAPDS has a ways to go, but then again that’s why IA relies on INVAR as well even for its T-90s)

The Arjun’s FCS is intended for the T-90s in Indian service btw with its ballistic computer..the T-90s CPS is also being replaced with a new one from the same designer who did the Arjuns sight.. the T-90s GMS though is to be fixed with an ECS which is yet to be procured.

Guess what, even so, the T-90 is still being purchased, despite the trials, so much for your conspiracy theory, because for all its flaws, its ok with IA’s logistics structure whereas the Arjun, is some 10+T more than IA can handle (bridging and otherwise).

There are some problems at that time with Arbalet radar but it certainly did not lose in 20 counts, if those counts were not tailored, meaning were picked based on participant than on requirements of military.

Who knows what you are talking about now..

I fail to understand why over the horizon support is limited? unless you think at the start of the war all assets (P3s, Erieye, ZDK03 and helicopters) will simply run away or wait around for Mig29s to come bomb them.

Check the frontage of the area you claim “all assets” will sanitize or monitor and then consider what assets Pakistan has and who owns them.

Coastal batteries with PN. Will PAF donate its ZDK-03/Erieyes (how many does PAF have BTW, one Erieye destroyed anyhow by the Taliban) whilst IAF is busy hammering it? It will use its assets as its primary ones.

How much is the sensor footprint of a single helicopter?

Why would the IN NOT attempt to misdirect and actually take out PN sensors? That’s what the entire basis of carrier ops is.. put a Ka-31 at an axis far away from the carrier.. datalink it to all ships.

The point is coastal batteries are not as potent assets as you make them out to be.. they are very tied to sensor and acquisition networks (and both India & Pakistan) which are limited in the subcontinent. India has the edge in kit but also a much bigger coastline to protect.. even its coastal batteries will suffer from such issues.

However, ironically, its non high tech support might work (won;’t get too much into that)..

All India can try is limited strikes with long range weapons but that is not going to blockade a port.

Why does India need to blockade a port as versus periodically striking it with long range missiles or air strikes from a carrier many many Km out which is constantly relocating?

IN will have to accept massive losses in order to get near enough for a blockade.

Come on Buran, this is as unrealistic as it gets. As a Pakistani it may be pumped up to say this, but the reality speaks otherwise that the balance of power is way too lopsided. If the IN did not have point defense systems or soft kill systems or long range cover, all together, it would be one thing, but you are talking of a mobile force all of which has overlapping fields of defense when properly deployed.

IN can actually screen or sink ships from far away by announcing a blockade or even periodically attack Pak infra.. it need not play into one set of scenarios. Ironically, its PNs subs which are the biggest threat.. but even there in IN gets its chopper acquisition on track, the sensor reach offered by say submarines detecting a blockade flotilla and silently networking that back may also be out of the question.. do the PN subs have ELF for instance or SATCOM?

MIG29s are good for attacking targets in uncontested airspace but they are not a solution for attacking ground targets where the airspace is defended by AEW and BVR fighters.

Say what?? Are you even aware of a MiG-29 K fit?

They will be intercepted long before they launch their weapons. Gawadar is more than 1000km away from Indian bases so any expedition with IAF AEW and tankers will be limited in frequency.

India does not have to make repeated incursions but cause enough damage periodically that messes up the port ops.

On the flip side some major Indian ports are within the striking range of Pakistani cruise missiles, but that would not result in a permanent blockade.

Of course it goes both ways. But do remember that in 1999, India didn’t even have CIWS missile systems yet it blockaded Pakistani ports, something which Nawaz et al admitted later on caused significant push to have Pakistan vacate its remaining positions and leave.

Point is the PN is the weakest of the three arms.

In a war, both sides will take hits, but the more you hit India, the more India will resort with disproportionate force. Its the nature of things. And size and tech are only on India’s side vis a vis the naval line up.. conventionally, there is very little to support the PN over (apart from their Agostas) which si not to say they can’t retaliate.. but its lopsided.

his entire post is wrong anyway. I forgot to clear up his wrong statement on the Tejas’ “high wing loading”, when in fact it has the lowest wing loading amongst most fighters.

IAF TP (who are still aligned to IAF as officers and not the developer) view on its performance:

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/12/the-tejas-fighters-role-in-war.html

The Tejas has been designed as a multi-role fighter. It can engage enemy aircraft with the R-73 short-range air-to-air missile (SRAAM); by FOC next year, more potent air-to-air missiles, probably the Israeli Derby and Python, would be integrated. Against ground targets, the Tejas carries conventional and laser-guided bombs. Next year, it will have an integral 23 millimetre Gasha cannon.

The Tejas’ avionics — radar, laser and inertial navigation system — enhances the accuracy of these weapons. Its highly rated Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar provides multi-role capability, allowing the pilot to fire air-to-air missiles at enemy aircraft; and also bomb ground targets with a highly accurate navigation-attack system. The pilot operates his weapons through a head-up display (HUD), or through a helmet-mounted sighting system (HMSS) by merely looking at a target. Experienced fighter pilots say the Tejas is the IAF’s most “pilot friendly” fighter.

Although it is one of the world’s lightest fighters, the Tejas’ weapons load of 3,500 kg compares well with most IAF fighters, including the Mirage-2000, Jaguar, upgraded MiG-27 and the MiG-21. Depending on the mission — strike, photoreconnaissance, or air defence — its eight hard points can carry missiles, bombs, fuel drop tanks or a targeting pod. It can bomb targets and fire missiles as accurately as the Sukhoi-30MKI. The latter scores mainly in its longer range and bigger weapons load, both stemming from its much larger size.

The Tejas’ capability is best known to the air force and navy test pilots in the National Flight Test Centre, who have tested it in 2,400 flights. They claim it may be more versatile than the MiG-29 (primarily built for air-to-air combat); the MiG-27 and the Jaguar (both oriented to ground strike); and all variants of the MiG-21, including the multi-role BISON.

The Tejas’ likely adversary, the Pakistan Air Force’s F-16 fighter, has a slightly larger flight envelope, but the Tejas’ superior avionics give it a combat edge over the PAF’s older F-16A/Bs (currently being upgraded in Turkey); and superior to their new JF-17 Thunder light fighter, co-developed with China. Only the PAF’s 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 fighters, flying since 2010-11 from Jacobabad, may be a match for the Tejas.

Said an NFTC test pilot during the IOC ceremony on December 20: “As a multi-role fighter, the Tejas is at least the equal of the IAF’s upgraded Mirage-2000. It can more than hold its own in our operational scenario.”

Today, the IAF controls the aerial battle from airborne early warning and command (AEW&C) aircraft like the Phalcon, a giant radar mounted on a transport aircraft. Flying over the battle space and scanning 400 kilometres on all sides, the AEW&C identifies enemy aircraft and, over a secure datalink, allocates fighters from nearby bases to tackle the intruders. The AEW&C also orders up fighters to strike ground targets in the land battle.

“Tejas light fighters, located at forward airbases like Pathankot, Ambala, Sirsa or Jodhpur are ideal for missions in the vicinity of the border. They are close at hand and react quickly. Being far cheaper, they can be bought and used in larger numbers, saturating the enemy’s radar picture and complicating his decision-making,” says a senior former IAF planner.

“With an AEW&C guiding the Tejas directly to the target, it does not need a long operating range; and its combination of Elta-2032 radar and air-to-air missiles, are lethal against most contemporary fighters.”

Now, the standard production Tejas Mk1A is to have the Elta-2052. It would be interesting to see the range figures.

http://www.iai.co.il/Sip_Storage//FILES/7/41417.pdf
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/cutting-edge-israeli-radar-wins-air-force-approval-for-tejas-fighter-115102500749_1.html

Illustrating Israeli capabilities, the Tejas Mark I was already armed with an all-Israeli combination of the Elta EL/M-2032 radar, the Derby and Python air-to-air missiles, and a data link that digitally interconnected these. Indian test pilots say this was a “world-class” air-to-air combat configuration. But now, the Elta-HAL AESA radar could make Tejas a more capable air-defence fighter.

As regards datalinking, its the most hush hush part of the Tejas program and even the IAF (try finding references to its data link program and current status).
However, the same radar, missile combination was on the IN Sea Harrier program. And there.

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2009/07/exclusive-navy-to-network-target-test.html

As part of the Limited Upgrade Sea Harrier (LUSH), the Indian Navy will shortly conduct its second live firing test of the Israeli Derby beyond visual range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM), a weapon system that has been integrated to the last of the Navy’s Sea Harriers as part of the upgrade programme. While the first live firing of the Derby active-radar seeker missile was conducted using the aircraft’s primary sensor, the next test will be from one of the Navy’s upgraded Sea Harriers with its radar switched off. Guidance will be provided from another platform, either on the ground or in the air.

In short, cooperative engagement & the kind of stuff for which the Gripen was famous.

Later last year, reports emerged from the Israeli side on Derby ER being the Tejas’s preferred fit.
http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2015/i-derby-er-all-new-performance-0

A major advantage of the I-Derby ER is that it uses the same missile envelope. Unlike the AAIM-120D or Meteor, I-Derby ER will be compatible with aircraft currently cleared to carry Derby. RAFAEL claims it will be able to deliver 80% of the Meteor’s performance at a third of its cost. It is also superior to the AIM-120C7 and more affordable, the company claims. Already cleared on F-16 (Block 52), F-5E, Kfir and Sea Harrier, I-Derby ER integration tests are currently under way on the Indian Tejas LCA.

The Astra missile is also in advanced trials and is expected to be inducted soon. Astra Mk2 development is also expected to be less troublesome since the key motor has been developed by India already for the LRSAM/Barak-8 program.

There are also local programs underway for radar etc., so all in all Tejas will be produced with some pretty sharp claws and eyes.

I didn’t read the telegraph article, I just wanted to stimulate a bit the English guys on this forum. I didn’t know the effect would be so huge and so fast

So, you basically wanted to stir up sh!t. Good going and gives that extra veneer of respectability to your banal statements.