Pretty much what I was inferring.

Purchasing F-16’s but being told you can’t have a decent BVRAAM to equip it is an exercise in pointlessness.

Nice, Bekim.

On the subject, have any accurate details of the single seat canopy ever been made public in the years since this thread was created?

Compared to what?! The main interceptor of the PVO in the 70s-80s with the MiG-23P/23-14 as successor from 1976. At that time-scale none had compained about its shortcomings in the open and in automated flight support for all weather operations it was much better than most Russian frontline fighters of that time-scale. Just in the 90s after its retirement from service it shortcomings were were a temporary topic. Much less to its former pilots in the memory of their best time. In the meanwhile the nationalists have started to restore the former published fame by sticking to that reminiscences and official claims. It comes to their help that the Su-15 was never tested in anger with results for all to see. To avoid misunderstandings the Su-15 was tailored to the limited PVO mission and did its job.
By its engines the Su-15 was redlined at Mach 2,1 similar to the MiG-21s.

It’s forebears and it’s contempories, such as the Mig-19P/PM, Yak-25, Yak-28P, Su-9, and Su-11.

The Mig-23 was designed primarily as a Mig-21 replacement for Frontal Aviation.
It’s swing wings feature is indicative of this.
The Mig-23P for the PVO could hardly have been the Sukhoi Su-15 successor from 1976, seeing as it only went into production in 1978.

It only got up to speed numbers-wise in the 1980’s.

Thus, the Su-15 filled that niche within the PVO for well over a decade before the Mig-23P appeared.
The Mig-23P’s main asset over the Su-15 was it’s superior radar, allowing look-down/shoot-down capability that wasn’t part of the Su-15’s original remit, due to different threats in different decades.

A report published after the end of the SU showed that the flight performance specifications were lowered during the testings to allow it to pass the state trials successful and get certificated into service.

I’ve not heard of this before. Can you point me towards that?
What I do know is that part of the Su-15 performance requirements were against targets at certain speeds and altitudes.
These were relaxed, due to certain projected US airframes not making it into service, and the Mig-25 handling the upper echelon targets.
Everything else I’ve seen indicate that, with one or two minor exceptions, the Su-15 achieved what was set out for it in it’s state acceptance trials.
Rewinging the Su-15 from a pure delta to a cranked delta did lead a slightly reduced maximum speed and altitude, and this led to a formal acceptance of this, but it was requested, and bought other benefits, and thus is another matter.
There were teething problems as the interceptor was put into service in the first years, but this is a perfectly normal occurrence, and happens with almost all aircraft.

There was an interesting proposal by Taiwan a while back that looked at re-engining their F-5’s with the same engine as used in their Ching Kuo, using one of these to replace the 2 J-85’s.

This would have brought commonality benefits, but I suspect they must have been meaning to use the developed version of this engine, as a single one of the engine currently used would have provided slightly less thrust than the usual twin turbojects of the F-5.

Once this developed engine for the Ching Kuo was cancelled, I suspect this put an end to their F-5 re-engining concept too.

Are you sure India is definitely going ahead with the engine swap?

Last I heard, they weren’t.

That link doesn’t confirm it either.

If they did, the new engines would give it a new lease of life.
More powerful, more modern, lighter, lower SFC, etc, etc…

A worthy comparison, I think.

The F1AZ has the advantage of a ranging radar and refueling probe.
The Jaguar has a laser ranging and marked target seeker whilst the F1AZ has the Thomson CSF laser rangefinder.

The radar should give the upper hand to Mirage, I feel.

The F1AZ has a slightly higher power-to-weight ratio, and is certainly quicker on the deck and at altitude.

Both aircraft have undercarriages designed for unpaved runways.
Both have very similar takeoff and landing runs.

It is difficult to compare their range as an “apples-to-apples” comparison.

The Jaguar sometimes had the reputation of being slightly underpowered, particularly in hot climates.

The Mirage F1 platform was very under rated for some reason, and I personally lean much towards it in this comparison.

The Jaguar has been retired by France 8 years ago already, yet they still use the Mirage F1 (not the F1A, I know), and in combat too, to this day.

I would have thought a better upgrade would be to try and get some more modern Chinese radar plus some PL12 “copies” (since importing actual missiles is not allowed anymore). AWG-9s are really long in the tooth by now… and even swapping out some of the analogue electronics for digital stuff can only do so much to improve ECCM / resolution / scan speed / modes and “reliability”!

Why have you been named your first name as you were, Mr. el Kebir?

Really? Point out were I’m wrong “again.”

Your analogy of turbofans vs turbojets, using the high-bypass airliner turbofan as an analogy.

As has been mentioned, turbofans in some of the more recent fighters have such a small bypass ratio, as to be almost turbojets again, as you have acknowledged.

And whilst it depends on what criteria you use to describe “supercruising”, I will stay away from recent single company advertising, and utilise the concept of sustained supersonic flight without the need for afterburning.

In this regard, the EE Lightning (Mach 1,22), Mirage F-1, Concorde all supercruise.
The F104 with the J79-19 can also maintain Mach 1,1 at altitude in level flight without recourse to it’s afterburner.

Add the SR-71, XB-70 Valkyrie, B-58 Hustler, Mig-25R, F101 Voodoo, Tu-128, and a variety of other aircraft designed to do so, such as the TSR-2, and there are plenty of 1950’s and 1960’s turbojet designs that could do it.

Some would need their afterburner to get “over the hump” before switching off and maintaining supersonic speed, and some wouldn’t need it.