plane for plane, the IAF has a numerical advantage. there is no doubt about this. It also has a larger number of airplanes that have better range. There is nothing in the PAF that can match the payload and range capabilities of the Su-30MKI.

But it doesn’t need to. In the event of an air war between the PAF and IAF, it is 99% likely that the PAF will be on the defensive and that it will be the IAF flying into PAF territories.

In this scenario, range is not as important, but readiness rate is.
the series of later model F-7s, will be advantageous here because range will no longer be a significant matter as the PAF will be on the defensive. these F-7s will have a higher operationability rate and can maintain a higher tempo than what the IAF can muster. All the F-7’s need to do is to force any IAF attacker to jettison its a2g ordinance, and it has done most of its job. Ground based SAMs and AAA can take care of the rest.

In the long run, the PAF can win a war of attrition, it is much cheaper to lose an F-7 than an Su-30, while losing a Mirage 2000 will be disastrous for the IAF because they cannot replace it.

Bisons are a non factor as they will be on the defensive, and its unlikely the PAF will start flying into Indian territory to cause a war.

In perhaps 5 years, the PAF will be receiving J-10s, which for the most part, will be superior to the Su-30MKI in all aspects except range.

A very sane post! Definitely think this is closer to the truth. Also, Pakistan’s ballistic and cruise missile advantage would come into play. Aircraft are easy to replace, but pilots are a lot harder.

The readiness rate of each type is related to the efforts to that. In times of tension or wartime all air-forces will rise that level to ~90% in general, which will drop after the first day of operation.
Not the peace-time, but the wartime-strength is of intrest.
To avoid miscalcutions or wishfull thinking, all types have to be set at 90 % about the both AFs in question. 😉

There is a difference between what you WANT and what you realistically can field. A machine won’t just stop having breakdowns and problems just so that you can go to war. Particularly since you don’t want to lose your pilots over enemy skys even before they shoot you down. History shows us how important maintenance becomes, and how crucial sortie rates are.

Hey, I won’t rate a plane used by a single AF that got a very bad accidental rate be better than a plane used by multiple AFs that essentially has better flight record.

Something may look better on paper ONLY, but a flying coffin won’t be better than anything in reality.

I increased the serviceability of the Bisons by 10% i.e. higher than other MiG-21s of the IAF, but its still lower than the F-7 PGs and is rated equally effective, something multiple people across the divide have considered fair. Pinko, what do you think of my overall analysis? Would greatly appreciate a thorough criticism of it..

Almost all of the stuff in the Bisons were replaced and extensive riveting was done you can see this one the pictures at Bharat Rakshak.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Eqpmt/Walkarounds/MiG21Bison/

I am convinced, it does not make sense to give all the MiG-21s the same. The Bisons should be better. Let me modify this aspect to my model.

How could the F7 PG have an availability rate of 85% while the Mig 21 Bison would get an availability rate of just 50%

It’s basically the same airframe!

Nic

The Chinese made the F-7 PGs and they are significantly different from the Bisons. they have also incorporated many maintenance friendly measures and lengthened maintenance time frames. F-7 PGs are also much younger and have significantly better quality build than MiG-21s of the IAF. And I am not even going into the better engines on them.

PLA,

I’m curious how you can justify, much less quantify, any of the figures in your table. Especially so those of serviceability percentages (what does that even imply?) and the totally arbitrary ‘combat effectiveness’…

An analysis based on numbers pulled out of thin air, regardless of whatever ‘cues’ may have been received is a complete joke.

I don’t mean to be mean, but why spend so much time and effort on something so fundamentally flawed?

hehe well you obviously don’t agree. But its a way to break things down and analyze the key factors and similar methods have been used.. I once read a book about how simple mathematics can be used to calculate combat effectiveness. (I can’t remember the name for the life of me). I have attempted to apply that theory to practice. The numbers are based on the arguments I have presented and they do make general sense – If PAF was such a whimp as posed by the actual number of planes, would the IAF had sat back and done nothing during this crisis period? Clearly, not.. If you read the article you’ll notice that I have clearly stated that relativity is important – the numbers don’t have to be absolutely accurate as long as they are relatively accurate. The table also allows anyone to copy it and play with it if they so like, and reach their own conclusions.