[QUOTE=Kaduna2003;1311310]

No. wouldnt have worked. For one, the F7PG is an excellent dog fighter able to mix it with the f-16s up in the air

and F-7PG was inducted in 2000 or so , i am talking about late 80s. And F1 was battleproven in the iran-iraq war had 3 times the load carrying capability and was just as good as a dogfighter
.

And second, the need was for more then 200 aircraft so that the PAF could replace the F-6s that were being retired

.
why replace on 1to 1 basis , afterall the PAF does not seriously consider it can win a war of attrition against IAF.better to have a lean hardhitting airforce which will discourage Indians from any incursions across the border

And i dont think getting 200+ F-1s was ever on the table

.
even 50 would be better than 200 F-7s

Much better the way they went. ie got 200 F-7s and also upgraded the mirages which had the added benefit of not adding another type of aircraft to the fleet.

again this happened by 2000, they spent a lot of money , same old airframes and in terms of air2air combat still the mirages III/V are no good

thats the offical name of their airforce

in the absence of any dedicated strike plane A-5 was not a bad choice , given it could atleast deliver a tactical nuclear weapon, but useless for air2air

qsaark,
i dont doubt what your friend’s dad experinced,and there is no shortage of decadent and filthy arabs in this world .But that does not mean you can generalize that all arab pilots were like this.
Arab pilots had many other handicaps
they flew downgraded exports versions
against numerically superior IDAF [ only talking about 1982 ]
against an enemy with AWACS support

Dont argue that training and professionalism have nothing to do with overall performance of an aircraft or any other machine.

i never said that

or lazy and incompetent by nature) arab pilots who were flying them

but this did sound extremely offensive

btw i am neither arab nor do l like our country supporting arab puppet states like KSA , jordan etc

according to tom cooper’s book on iran-iraq war 3 F-4s were lost in air 2 air
shot down by mig-25 , while no foxbats were lost to f-4s

would anyone comment on this

The Mig-31 vs F-4 : They are not even from the same generation, not a good comparison. It is like F-15 vs Mig-21.

.

true they are not same class but compariosn is valid as they would have encountered each other if a conflict occured in europe

e.g F-86 and Mig-21 not same class but fought each other in 65 and 71 indo-pak wars

Against the MiG-31, I wouldn’t really want to be in a Phantom namely due to the MiG’s massive radar and the R-33 missile, which may or may not be effective against a maneuvering fighter (I for one, wouldn’t want to be the guinea pig for that test). If an F-4 somehow got a Foxhound within range of its AIM-7’s and AIM-9’s (or Skyflash in the case of British Phantoms), then perhaps the Phantom would stand a chance. AIM-7F/F and Skyflash were pretty decent weapons for their day (by far and away better than the earlier models used in Vietnam), and of course the AIM-9L rather speaks for itself. The F-4’s radar wasn’t bad by any stretch, but certainly getting long in the tooth by the end of the 80’s. The Foxhound crew does have an internal gun and either R-40 or (better for a duel against a fighter) the R-60 missiles for close in fights, but the strengths of the Foxhound lie in BVR attacks. The key for the F-4 crew would be getting a MiG-31 within range of its weapons, and a well-trained Foxhound crew would certainly be aware of this and I’d guess would avoid any situation that would give the F-4 crew the advantage (which is basically anything in close).

thanks for replying

if foxhound can launch all its 4 R-33 on a single target , what are the chances of a F-4D/E operating over soviet territory to dodge all of them ?

Personally I think ability of R-33 to hit a agile target is only a problem when a bomb/misslie loaded F-4 has sufficent warning to maneuvre ….which will not be sufficent if a single plane had to deal with 4 R-33s