Flying_MonkeyCan you show us that PAF has higher flying hours than IAF?
No, but then I’m not claiming it has. I’m just saying these types of comparison are pointless unless you have reliable data. Perhaps you would be happier by reading the BR forums…
Flying_MonkeyHow is it consistent with your earlier post?
If you compare your replies, you initially said that IAF should have gone with M2K and not bothered about LCA. Now you tell us that M2K and LCA are different class. I am little bit confused on your contrary statements.
Also your statement that MiG-35 can fill LCA weight class. You still have not replied to that.
You miunderstood my previous posts. I am in favour of dropping the LCA all together and a “light” fighter. Instead, the IAF should operate 2 major types, the SU-30MKI and the MiG-35, completely manufactured in India with customised avionics in line with the MKI. Considering the IAF experience with the MiG-29, the MiG-35 would be the most effective solution for a MMRCA.
Regarding the M2K, if this was sourced in the first place, there wouldn’t have been a need to develop the LCA, and in particular, to have its development drawn out to fulfill the ever demanding requirements of the IAF, not to mention the need to have a MMRCA contest
Flying_MonkeyBAe says it’s delivered every part requested by India, on time. That has not been denied by any Indian official, even when asked directly. Whose fault is it if India doesn’t place orders for parts?
I was actually referring to the quality of the parts, there was a worrying issue of defective and in some cases damaged/corroded parts being sent to the IAF. If the IAF continues to rely on foreign sources for its parts and/or maintenance, it will always be subject to control by foreign bodies.
Flying_Monkeylamest excuses ever for denying that the PAF’s attrition rate per 10,000 hours of flying is HIGHER than that of the IAF..:rolleyes: keep up the self-delusion.
Ha Ha, you guys are such jokers. Why are you always so touchy when it comes to these rediculous comparisons. I didn’t deny anything, all I’m saying is that this comparison uses so many assumptions from an unrealiable source as the BR forums, that it becomes meaningless, no matter what kind of spin you put on it.
You could argue that the PAF has a higher attrition rate per 10,000 flying hours, but then the PAF has to work harder considering its lower number of aircraft. The IAF has numerical superiority, so is going to log more flying hours anyway.
Flying_MonkeyCan you expand that technically? A M2k vs LCA comparison. And how MiG-35 can fill the space of light fighter.
Well just a cursory comparison will tell you the M2K and LCA are 2 completly different fighters, you even solved it in your question, the LCA is a light fighter while the M2K is more a medium multi role aircraft, in the same league as the MiG-29, F-16 etc.
The LCA can carry 4000 kg external stores on 7 hardpoints compared to the 6500 kg on 9 hardpoints of the M2K.
Flying_MonkeyKeep dreaming buddy. None of your wet dreams are going to come true. LCA Mk2 will become a reality by 2012 laying the foundation for a robust and state of the art Aerospace industry. Mig 35 will never win the MRCA. One of the Euro or American birds will win, which along with the MKIs and Mk2 LCAs will allow India to dominate the South Asian skies.
And you accuse me of dreaming.
I doubt the MK2 will be anywhere near completion by 2012, sorry, this is just too optimistic.
Yes, you are right, I believe one of the US or European contenders will win the MRCA, but at a cost to India. Look at the fiasco of the Hawk trainers, all the issues with spares and logistics, and the following RFP for other AJTs. IMHO, the MiG-35 can be acquired with complete TOT, customised avionics along the lines of the SU-30 MKI and without the usual baggage of western sources. It is the most cost effective solution and along with the SU-30 MKI, it is more than adequate for the IAF requirements. Why even bother with the LCA anymore, it just simply doesnt offer anything extra, if the IAF wants a simple MiG-21 replacement then fine, but otherwise its a waste of time and money.
Flying_MonkeyDassault withdrew the Mirage 2000 when it went out of production, about the same time as India redefined the requirement to make it less like the Mirage 2000, & opened the competition to aircraft which had previously been excluded as not meeting the requirement. This happened after several years of the IAF saying it wanted to buy Mirage 2000 for the MRCA, but not actually doing so.
Dassault offered India the entire Mirage production line (i.e. India would have built not only its own M2Ks but any for export) & full rights to modify & develop it. India turned down the offer.
Now, what was that about Dassault making a huge mistake? What other rational option did Dassault have?
Sounds like it was India’s mistake rather than Dassult’s, all the IAF requirements could have been met by the Mirage 2000 and there wouldn’t have been any need for the LCA fiasco. Instead, India is now having to fork out for not only the LCA, which is less capable than the Mirage 2K in the first place, but also an additional platform to make up for the LCAs shortcomings. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
This is why it needs to drop the LCA as soon as possible, or only order a few units, and go full steam ahead with local built MiG-35s with full TOT. All the other contenders come with too many political and logistical strings attached.
Flying_MonkeyMKI-standard avionics would be a downgrade for the MiG-35, not an upgrade. The latter’s OLS is of much better quality, and it includes an integrated targeting and designation pod in the OLS-K as well as LWRs and an all-aspect optical MAWS. The Zhuk-AE radar, meanwhile, gains the inherent increased difficulty of interception, increased range, better clutter rejection and beam steering (et cetera) advantages of an AESA type over the MKI’s N011M. The MMI of the MiG-35 will also be a considerable leg up, with much more digitisation in the cockpit (compare the two: Su-30MKI, MiG-35).
Sounds like all the more reason to go for the MiG-35 then
Flying_MonkeyThis whole MMRCA is a complete waste of time for these cotenders. The most cost effective and logical way forward for the IAF would be to induct 250-350 MiG-35s, upgraded to MKI standard avionics. Considering the expereince the IAF have had with the MiG-29 and the facilities, a local licensed buit version of the MiG-35 would be fine. In addition to the approx 250 Su-30MKIs, thats quite a significant package. It would also greatly reduce costs and servicability logistics with having only 2 major types in service.
The LCA I guess would have to be ordered, albeit it token numbers in order to justify the project, however, this should be dropped altogether and full focus given to the PAK-FA, no need to waste any more time and effort on 4 gen types.
Flying_MonkeyYes, thats true. IAF is also about 2.5 times the PAF if you include the helicopter and trainer fleet. This is the most authentic database on crashes I could find. Every crash is detailed in the “.more” section.
What is interesting to note is that the age of the fleet plays the most crutial role in crashes. Mig29, F-7, Mirage 3 crashes have spiraled in recent years probably after reaching a threshold age.
Yes thats certainly true, the older types in both airforces have suffered quite considerably. I think some of the mirages in the PAF are nearing almost 40 years by now.
Flying_MonkeyHello everyone,
This is my first post to this forum. Couldnt resist your arguments and so registered 2 days ago. Now got permission to post.Here are the stats on IAF and PAF crashes right from 1947 to 2008.
http://www.warbirdsofindia.com/Crashes/count.phpRecent trend in crashes (2006 to 2008)
IAF –
Mig-29 : 5
Mig 21 : 5
Cheetah SA-315 : 5
Kiran HJT-16 : 4
Sea Harrier : 3PAF –
F-7 : 11
Mirage III : 9
Cessna T-37 : 3I haven’t listed all the crashes, only the troubled types.
Mig21 crashes have come down since the Mig21 fleet in IAF has been reduced to about the size of F-7 fleet in PAF. Mig 29 crashes is a recent trend. Hope it is arrested with the ongoing upgrade program, it will get newer RD33-3 engines. Kiran trainers and Cheetha helicopters are the real problem types. More so because more pilots are lost with them. Their replacements in the form of HJT-36 and LOH must be expidited.F-7 and Mirage 3 are no less pain in the a** for PAF. Except for 50+ F-7PG acquired after 2000 rest of these two types are to be replaced by JF-17. Mirage 5 relatively has a better record.
If this is to believed, the IAF lost 236 aircraft from 1998 to 2008, compared to 96 in the PAF, that’s almost 2.5 times higher in the IAF. Taking the entire figures, which also include wartime losses, the IAF has lost 1024 aircraft, compared to 363 in the PAF, almost 3 times higher in the IAF.
Flying_Monkeymore BS..read the article and you’ll see that the author is QUOTING a PAF Air Marshal’s statistics only. so you’re saying that the PAF Air Marshal is also lying ?:rolleyes:
I wouldn’t take anything from the BR forums as HARD data, particularly when it comes to Pak/India comparisons, some of the other content on that forum is quite stomach churning, it doesn’t hold much credibility.
Besides, seems like that data is quite outdated. The whole issue here is the appauling attrition rate in the IAF. Flying old airframes hard is going to be an issue, which is probably the main factor, in addition to poor training.
Flying_MonkeyThey might have the same roots, but a PAF J-7P doesnt have mouch in common with the Indian Bison. Bison is a way better fighter.
That doesn’t really explain why the IAF MiG-21s have a poor flight safety record and why they are called “flying coffins”
Flying_Monkeyand Pakistan has a high attrition rate for its J-7s as well when you’d compare the hours they fly to the hours the IAF MiG-21s fly.
as for China, news reports don’t filter out, thats why no one seems to hear about crashes in China.
unless, of course, the PLAAF doesn’t fly at most times, because no Air Force with older aircraft is immune to crashes..:rolleyes:
So what are the figures of the attrition rate of PAF J-7s relative to IAF MiG-21s? What are the flying hours you are comparing?
I think most of the PAFs J-7s are younger than most of the IAFs MiG-21s, so that is going to be an important factor. However, I would have guessed the PAF F-7s (of all varients) are likley to fly more hours given the extra burden they have relative to the numerically superior IAF, particulalry during times of tension, as we have seen over the previous few year or so.
Flying_Monkeywhich other major air force operates MiG-21s in the number that the IAF still does ? most other operators are minor ones that probably don’t operate half the number of hours the IAF MiG-21 fleet puts in on a unit basis. there are even now, with all the retirements, nearly 160 MiG-21s, including nearly 120 MiG-21 Bisons in IAF service. the one that crashed recently is a Type 77, a really old one that is due to be retired soon. and to give you an idea of the intensity of MiG-21 operations that used to happen (now its reduced because of retirements and the Hawk being inducted), please read the article below
and one of the big causes of crashes in the Indian subcontinent are bird hits, as in a few cases, there are major abbatoirs quite close to the airfields, bringing in large birds that are big threat to fighters. in one famous case, the IAF even ceased single engined operations from Hindon AFB, Delhi after the State Govt. of Delhi didn’t do anything about an abbatoir that was bringing in a lot of scavenger birds.
in the North East, weather is a big issue. it can become dangerous to fly within no time at all, and most accidents in the NE are related to weather issues. the terrain is very remote as well, with huge rainforests and very remote hills. the amount of rain-fall this region sees is very high as compared to any other part of India.
from the above article
quite poor excuses, doesn’t fully explain the very high attrition rate
Sign In
