star49Thank you I know that, the last two even for years. But there are dozens of countries around operating Russian fighters with upgrade possibilty for R-77.
Even Russia seems to wait for something better.
thats correct. the number of R-77 sold PLAAF is not big considering the Flanker fleet. If it was such good they would have domisticated it for all fighters.
star49if there is no source on internet it doesnot mean it didnot happened there is plenty on SA and PAF cooperation in media. like H-2 and H-4 and there IIR seekers. i think you are not following it thats why u ask too much.
Who said it had to be an internet source. I want to know where you’re getting all of this data from because it seems to me that you’re making it up.
Can you translate what you said about the R-77. What you said doesn’t make any sense. And who said the range of the R-77 is 100-km? I certainly didn’t, although others may have. Personally I think it’s in the neighborhood of 50 to 60-km or so (about the range of the AIM-120). And you still haven’t given me proof as to how you know it’s only capable of Mach 3 (what in the hell would the Russians do to an export missile to make it loose several hundred miles per hour in speed as compared to the version in service with Russia?).
Regarding the JF-17’s weapons then please inform me what weapons they want with it? Oh that’s right…you don’t know anymore than the rest of us. And what does that have to do with missile seekers? You don’t make any sense!
Thanks for the sources about the PL-5E, but I know where to look when I want data about weapons. In any case you apparently didn’t understand what i said to you. All that you have done is quote sources like those sites, which means that you know nothing more about the subject in question than anyone else. Your ability to type something into a search engine doesn’t mean a thing.
nope. PAF didnot have MICA or AIM-120 or Aspide 2either. but my opinion does not change on these.
The IAF also doesn’t have those weapons…….noticing a trend here?
MIG-21 engine will burn trying to accelerate with F-16A with 27000lbs engine. MIG-21 are old airframes with limited lime in airframe and engine. offcourse performance on paper is different. but here we are speaking about real operating conditions.
It will burn? What in the hell does that mean? Of course it will burn…it burns jet fuel to run you moron! Secondly, no F-16 has an engine that makes 27,000 pounds of thrust. The F-16C/D uses an engine of 29,000 pounds thrust roughly, while most F-16A/B’s use the 23,000 pound thrust engine (roughly). Pakistani F-16’s are early A/B models with the 23,000 pound thrust engine so saying an F-16A with a more powerful engine a rather moot point in this case because it doesn’t apply to the PAF so why are you bringing it up?
You still haven’t specified just how the Pakistanis have the huge advantage in SAM’s…..
Ballistic missiles? You think India doesn’t have those? There’s only so much technology will do in the case of ballistic missiles. I guarantee you that people killed by an Indian missile will be just as dead as those hit by a Pakistani one. Besides as I said we’re talking about air combat between the IAF and PAF (in the air!…imagine that), and not ballistic missile strikes. I think you’re using the ballistic missile card because you can’t face the fact that the PAF will get slaughtered by the IAF in a fight.
Now that I think about it again I’m more ashamed at myself for partiticpating in this stupid debate (it’s not even really that because star49 is a complete idiot). I just hate seeing idiots say things that aren’t true, not to mention the fact that most things this star person says are completely made up. You counter his argument and he switches to something else…..this is ridiculous!
I’m done.
seeing ur knowledge about most popular fighter like F-16 i dont think u understand more complex issues between PAF-IAF. PAF F-16 uses PW-220E engines with 27000lbs. there was structural upgrade locally to them.
and about BVRs in IAF. i think PAF can get one of them and has knowledge about the other but they dont have high opinion about it. JF-17 will come with locally produced weopons mixing seekers from SA
PAF-IAF fight will not like one F-7 meeting one Su-30MKI. ground based radars will detect MKI at 300 to 400km and bvr capable Mirages will be already at required height to confront them. if they misses them than there is SAM and than F-7 and F-16 for close in dog fight. ( its pretty comfortable with current strenght thats why no hurry in getting JF-17 and F-16).
i am putting it away for time beign that that MKI airbase is more than likely to be bombarded with solid fuel BMs. thats how the whole airforce strategy works.
star49Hindustan Times
May 19, 2005
No Defence
May 18
HT
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s call to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to “redefine its approaches and restructure its capabilities” is long overdue. The country has showered a great deal of respect and money on the organisation since the mid-Eighties, but it has got back precious little to show for it.
Uncritical and downright wrong-headed media coverage leads to the DRDO getting credit for even missiles like the workhorse surface-to-air missile Trishul and Akash and the Nag anti-tank missile, which were to have entered service in 1993-94, and have not. In an era in which unmanned aerial aircraft play such a key role, all that the DRDO has to boast about is the Lakshya, a minor aerial vehicle used simply as a target for air-to-air missiles. The Nishant UAV is being kept alive through artificial life-support, as is the Arjun MBT.
The Pakistani missile arsenal, leaving aside the matter of how it was acquired, is at least a decade ahead of Prithvi and Agni. Hubris and the DRDO’s own bureaucratised culture are to blame for this state of affairs, as well as its penchant for needless publicity and reinventing the wheel.
But don’t blame the DRDO alone for this state of affairs. The user services, with the exception of the Indian Navy, have a huge, and for the country costly, inferiority complex when it comes to using Indian-designed equipment. Take the LCA, a great achievement for which the country has laid down Rs 5,000 crore investment so far. The IAF makes a show of being interested, but its equipment plans are aimed at strangling the programme.
The government must knock a few heads in the armed forces and get them to work with some sincerity with the DRDO to bring indigenously designed equipment into service. Our strategic defence is now based on nuclear weapons, and tensions with Pakistan and China have eased so there is a bit of a cushion.
Equipment plans for the air force and the army based on imported systems should be delayed and even scrapped, to give indigenous programmes the needed impetus. Only by taking a tough stand on such issues will the country be able to get a return on the massive investments it has made on defence research.
star49Let’s tear this latest pathetic attempt at debate by star49 up shall we?
First off he claims the Pakistanis got their hands on Cheetahs from the South African air force. Possible..but let’s see some sources….what were they in Pakistan for to begin with?
if there is no source on internet it doesnot mean it didnot happened there is plenty on SA and PAF cooperation in media. like H-2 and H-4 and there IIR seekers. i think you are not following it thats why u ask too much.
R-77 has slower speed and less range compared to other medium range bvr missiles in this category so nobody wants it.
Funny…that’s not what I’ve heard regarding this missile..and I personally feel bad for you because the Russian crusaders that abound on this forum are going to tear you limb from limb for making that statement. While I don’t think the R-77 is any better (or worse) than something like the AIM-120, I highly doubt it has a shorter range or slower speed than the AMRAAM. It’s reportedly very similar in capability, which would include a speed that far exceeds Mach 3 (AMRAAM is capable of well over Mach 4)….by the way what exactly “limits” the R-77 to Mach 3? Source on that data perhaps?
u have only heard about R-77 i know from some other way about it. but it is limited to Mach3 in current export version and range is not 100 km either.
No evidence that the PAF has signed up for the SD-10? So wait a sec….they want a new fighter that gives them a BVR capability. The FC-1 has been shown with SD-10 (PL-12) missiles on it, yet when Pakistan orders the airplane they won’t get its BVR armament? Is it just me or does that not make much sense? Are they just buying the FC-1 to provide the Indians with yet another BVR less target?
showing aircraft with pictures does not mean that everything is ordered at exact same specification. as i said earlier pictures can be misleading in terms of armament especially involving seekers for missiles.
you have no knowledge about this matter so better not comentAnd you do? All I’ve seen you do is quote a few figures comparing the AIM-9L to the PL-5E (which are widely known figures anyway). You yourself have shown no greater knowledge on air-to-air missile performance that anyone else…in fact, you’ve made it quite clear (as bad as your English is) that you have no idea what you’re talking about through your pathetic attempt at debate on these matters.
u can check even globalsecurity or sinodefence for PL-5E performance.
when one side has the advantage they use the things to pressure other side. it is more fear of poor performance of R-27. they dont use it.
Fear of poor performance on the R-27? That has nothing to do with it. As I pointed out earlier, there wasn’t any type of significant air war during the 1999 conflict (I don’t consider it a war like in 65 or 71), so there was no need for the IAF to start shooting lots of R-27’s or Super 530’s. And don’t you think the R-27 has been improved? If the AIM-7 had never been improved, then most Iraqi fighters that got airborne during Desert Storm would still be intact (provided they weren’t later blown up on the ground during 2003). The only reason you see the R-27 as a poor weapon is because the Pakistanis don’t operate it. The same would apply to the Super 530 and the R-77. If the PAF had any of the above, then you would likely have differing opinions of the missiles in question.
nope. PAF didnot have MICA or AIM-120 or Aspide 2either. but my opinion does not change on these.
F-16’s and MiG-21’s? Actually if you want to get picky, a MiG-21 is slightly faster than an F-16. So I’d hardly call that laughable. Of course, I guess if a MiG-21 is trying to run down an F-16 I guess that means the valiant PAF pilot flying the Falcon is indeed a coward? Why should he run from an airplane that’s supposedly inferior? (Take note I’m not saying the MiG-21 is a better plane than the F-16 because of course it’s not, but I’m making a point here)
MIG-21 engine will burn trying to accelerate with F-16A with 27000lbs engine. MIG-21 are old airframes with limited lime in airframe and engine. offcourse performance on paper is different. but here we are speaking about real operating conditions.
F-16’s and outclimb Su-30’s and therefore that automatically makes the R-77 a redundant weapon? Wow, how many errors can we find with that stupid statement. First off, the Su-30 is more than capable of keeping pace with the F-16 in a climb. Secondly, in a close in fight the R-73 is the weapon of choice, not the R-77. Thirdly, NO fighter on Earth can outrun an air-to-air missile. Finally, how exactly would the F-16 being able to outclimb the Su-30 (if it could which it can’t) affect the performance of a missile that is at least twice as fast as an F-16 at maximum speed (which will be reached in level flight at full AB…..not in a climb)?
Su-30MKI is heavier than base line Su-27 by quite a margine . top speed is reduced and so is climb rate. at best it can keep up with F-16C but not A with uprated engines.
PAF advantage in long-range SAM’s? So the Pakistani Air Force operates huge numbers of S-400 and S-300 SAM’s? That’s an interesting note. Superor BM’s? What does that have to do with the fact that the Pakistani Air Force is totally incapable of protecting its country from the IAF should that need ever arise? You think of IAF bases are hit with ballistic missiles that Pakistani bases won’t suffer the same threat? We’re talking about a theoretically convetional war and possible air combat between the IAF and the PAF, in which case the PAF is badly outclassed.
Pak has long range sam system but the other side not and BMs is the critical component in rendering airbase unusable for period of time.
star49Of course, this type of childish comment is more than enough for me to question the credibility of PAF officials. I am not saying JF-17 will not have the SD-10(which it will) but you cannot possibly take the PAF officials seriously.
there is no evidence at this point that PAF has signed up for SD-10 either. and R-77 is limited to Mach 3 at the moment.
Just because U-Darter can pull 15 more Gs than a R-73 does not mean it will score a kill and R-73 will not, the R-73 will still score a kill with 40Gs no matter against what. Also there are other things to compare in U-Darter vs R-73 such as degree off boresight and their RANGE.
you have no knowledge about this matter so better not coment. SA has IIR seeker for most of the missiles and similarly is the increase in no escape zone. offboresight is closer to what a missile can pull.
they had the operational bvr at that time it was in there advantage to use it. why play defensive?
He said “large scale combats” not “large scale BVR combat”. There wasnt much air warfare in those wars as there was in others like Vietnam and Iraq-Iran.
when one side has the advantage they use the things to pressure other side. it is more fear of poor performance of R-27. they dont use it.
The majority of IAF aircraft crashing are the much much older Mig-21s, which have been in IAF service longer than anything in current PAF service. Not only that, but this is during peacetime, things are a little different than they would be at wartime, when maintenance won’t be the greatest factor affecting an air combat battle.
the last 8 aircrat were Mirage 2000 and Jaguars not MIG-21.
You wish lol, you’re comparing a BVRless Mirages(for now), F-16s and F-7s to modern fighters like Mirage-2000, Mig-29 and Su-30. A Mig-29 with HMS+R-73 does not even need a BVR missile to take down half of PAF, just that combo will be more than enough. F-16 is PAF’s best fighter, since it’s the longest ranged, most maneuverable yet it would have even a lot of trouble against Mig-21-93s in any type of fight.
hehe. trying to catch F-16 with MIG-21 it is laughable. F-16 can out climb Su-30 where R-77 will be useless to catch it.
LOL a BVR/WVR fight is a lot more complex than that. There is no way most of your PAF fighters will even survive BVR fights at first, just forget that. The Mig-29 still has bigger combat radius than Mirage or the F-7.
No thats not the way things wokr in S Asia, if 1 aircraft is shown to carry that and is upgraded that way, and the others are said to be upgraded along the same lines, then they ARE upgraded and can do the same things.
i am not putting other things like PAF advantage in long range SAM and bombarding the only Su-30 base with the superior BMs. there are alot of factors but better not mentioned them.
star49Are there some infos about PAF and Denel? Helmet sight, AAMs and Mirage expertise.
Sofar there is no rush to buy R-77. What is wrong with that AAM? Malaysia wanted bought F-18s, just to get AIM-120s.
JF-17 is surely coming with HMD. the only question is either SA or French system. this thing is not disclosed at this point if current fleet has this or will have this. PAF did obtained Cheetahs from SA.
R-77 has slower speed and less range compared to other medium range bvr missiles in this category so nobody wants it. RMAF tried with Mica for flankers.
but too expensive so dropped it.
star49Since when do claims equate to unequivocal fact?
so what is principle BVR of IAF? u cannot claim unless u dont have knowledge of the otherside.
star49> they have already claimed that there BVR missile equipped with JF-17 will have
> no rival in S Asia.so carrying fwd your thesis, means it will be better than F-16 block52 armed with V9 radar and amraam-C. glad to hear that.
and this from the same Govt that was promising glorious victories over India at the same time 90,000 soldiers laid down arms in Dhaka 🙂
export version of AIM-120 is always down graded so it may not perform like AIM-120C 🙂
star49This is official report on UKraine Industry. PAF is in no rush to buy R-27 while IAF bought it even joint manufacturing with Ukraine is not possible because of the other programs. and Pak has the best of the relation with there industry. so see the logic.
The fact that Artem has not supplied any armaments to the Ukrainian armed forces since 1995 is undoubtedly a negative factor. Some analysts do not rule out the possibility that Ukraine’s potential in this field may grow if it can find another, non-Russian ally. China or Pakistan may fit the bill. But it should be borne in mind that China – one of the main customers for Ukrainian R-27 missiles – is boosting the drive to create its own aviation industry, capable of producing medium-range air-to-air missiles. This may also diminish the export potential of Artem’s Ukrainian developments connected with the production of air-to-air missiles in a closed cycle without Russian participation. In addition, China’s activities to produce air-launched missiles and the close military-technical links between China and Pakistan may restrict Ukraine’s manoeuvring over airborne missile projects with Pakistan, which also has an interest in creating its own capacity for producing air-launched guided missiles.
in 2003, the Artem state joint-stock holding company started work on a contract, signed in May, to supply India with R-27 air-to-air missiles for Su-30MKI fighters. The value of the contract is put at 70-90m dollars. It is assumed that some of the deliveries under this contract (at least 200 air-to-air missiles are involved) were made in 2004.
Source: Defense-Express magazine, Kiev, in Russian, 1 Feb 05; pp 10-21
star49some data about that i got from another forum. MIG-21UPG is limited to 1500KG and airframe is old to sustain 8gs. more likely 7g.
COMPARING F-7 P AND F-7 PG
INTRODUCTION :
Compared to the J-7II, the maximum climb rate of the J-7E/F-7MG has increased by 24%, the close combat ability by 84%, general aerodynamic performance by 43%, and the general combat capability by 35%.
( F-7P is upgraded version of F-7 M which it self is export version of J-7 III which it self is more capable than J-7 II )
F-7 P :
Date Inducted :
1988-90sF-7 PG :
Date-Inducted :
2002UNIT COST :
F-7 P :
?????F-7 PG :
5 Million US $AIR FRAME LIFE :
F-7P :
800 HoursF-7PG :
????PERFORMANCE :
F-7 P :
Crew: 1
Wingspan: 7.154 m
Length: 14.885 m
Height: 4.103 m
Empty weight: 5,275 kg
Normal take-off weight: 7,531 kg
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0
Range: Ferry range 1,740 km (two AAMs and two 480 liter drop tanks), or 2,230 km (three 720 liter drop tanks)
Radius: (Loitering with two AAMs and three 720 liter drop tanks, at altitude 11,000 m) 45 minutes flight and 5 minutes combat; (Long-range interception with two AAMs and three 720 liter drop tanks at speed of Mach 1.5) 650 km; (long-range interdiction with two 150 kg bombs and three 720 liter drop tanks, hi-lo-hi) 600 km; (close air support with four rocket launchers, no drop tank, lo-lo-lo) 370 km
Service ceiling: 18,800 m
Maximum climb rate: 180 m/s (sea level)
+G limit: 8F-7 PG :
Crew: 1
Wingspan: 8.32 m
Length: 14.885 m
Height: 4.103 m
Empty weight: 5,292 kg
Normal take-off weight: 7,540 kg
Maximum take-off weight: 9,100 kg
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0
Radius: (Long-range interception with two AAMs and three 720 liter drop tanks at speed of Mach 1.5) 850 km; (Interception with two bombs and three 720 liter drop tanks, lo-lo-hi) 550 km
Range: ferry range 2,200 km
Service ceiling: 18,800 m
Maximum climb rate: 195 m/s (sea level)
G limit: -3 to +8.5Power Plant:
F-7P:
One Liyang (LMC) Wopen-7B (MNPK ‘Soyuz’ [Tumanskii] R-11F) turbojet rated at 9,700 lb st (43.15 kN) dry and 13,450 lb st (59.83 kN) with afterburning.F-7PG:
One Liyang (LMC) Wopen-13F (R-13-300) turbojet rated at 44.1 kN dry and 66.7 kN with afterburning.AVIONICS :
Radar :
F-7 P :
Griffo-7
Range : 55 KM
Look-up : 25 NM
Look-Down : 20 NM
Track-While-Scan
+- 10 Degrees Horigontal RangeF-7 PG :
Griffo-7 PG
Range : 55+ KM
Look-up : 25+ NM
Look-Down : 20+ NM
Track-While-Scan
+-20 degrees Horigontal RangeHOTAS CONTROL :
F-7P:
???F-7 PG:
YESECCM :
F-7 P:
NOF-7PG:
YESMajority of other avionics are of Western origin
and F-7 PG has got a slightly better capability than F-7 P.COCKPIT PICTURE:
Any one required to paste plz….
EXTERNAL LOAD :
F-7P /F-7PG:
Four under-wing stores stations can carry up to 2,000 kg of disposable stores (each unit rated at 500 kg)WEAPONS SYSTEMS :
GUN :
F-7P /F-7PG:
Two 30 mm Type 30-1 cannon with 60 rounds per gun in the lower sides of the fuselage
AAM :
F-7P :
AIM-9L
AIM-9P-4
PL-2
PL-5F-7PG:
AIM-9L
AIM-9P-4
R-550
PL-2/5
PL-9 ( with HMS)Air-To-Surface :
F-7P / F-7PG:
500 Kg. Bomb
250 Kg. Bomb
100 Kg. Bombs
50 Kg. Bombs
Multiple-Rockets
Cluster-Bomb Units
DROP-TANKS :F-7PG/F-7 P :
Centre wing station is pumped to carry one 720 liter drop tank.
The two outboard wing stations are also pumped to carry two 720 liter drop tanks.
star49Show me some official sources saying the PAF has BVR weapons in active, operational service, and some pictures preferably then I’ll believe you that it’s a reality.
so words constantly coming out from PAF officials at different times is not reality or only pictures can be reality. they have already claimed that there BVR missile equipped with JF-17 will have no rival in S Asia. offcourse BVR would have been real and tested and operationalized before such a claim can be made.
As for the PL-5….perhaps copy isn’t the best word. Heavily influenced would be much more accurate. The PL-2 is a direct copy though of the AA-2 Atoll, and the Atoll itself was based on the early AIM-9B Sidewinder. The PL-5E, has an almost identical outward appearance to the AIM-9L/M. It is slightly more capable than the AIM-9L, (or so it is said to be…whatever that’s worth I’m not sure), but it can’t match the capability of newer versions of the R-73. And PL-9? Show me some in PAF service then we can have that discussion. So as of right now until you prove me wrong, the PAF has no operational BVR capability, and even if Darter was in service, it’s a much shorter ranged weapon than the R-77, R-27, or Super 530.
PL-5E slightly more capable than AIM-9L. it has 40 degree offboresight vs 28 of AIM-9L. much closer to export R-73 with 45 degree. and can pull 40gs the same as R-73. only U-darter is capable of 55g. and how u calculated the range of PAF bvr missile? that u are comparing it with known system. if Super 530D or R-27 was such novelty PAF would have long acquired them from France and Ukraine.
So who cares how much the PAF payed for the Grifo set. It’s still a small radar, mounted inside the radome of a MiG-21 clone with fancy wings. It’s not going to be that big of a factor when facing the much superior radar sets of the Su-30, MiG-29, and Mirage 2000. Even the Bison’s radar has a longer range (even if only by a little).
you are confusing Grifo-M with Grifo-7 and it is not fancy wings claim is more than 45% improvment in maneoverability and that is quite a large difference in any wver fight.
1999? As far as I know, no large scale air combats occurred like in the 65 and 71 wars, so what does that prove? Nothing.
they had the operational bvr at that time it was in there advantage to use it. why play defensive?
The IAF still has an overwhelming advantage in terms of numbers and equipment. You ask how much of the IAF is serviceable at any on time, and I ask you how much of the PAF can be said to be operational at any time as well?
Just compare the crash statistics of two airforces. you will understand how big is the difference in maintainance quality.
The PAF isn’t exactly the epitome of a modern air force, with some of the older F-16’s out there, very old Mirages, old A-5 Fantans, older F-7’s, and then the new F-7PG’s. So, the only truly new aircraft in the fleet, the F-7PG’s, are fighters with a limited radar, no BVR capability, and a very short range. I’m not denying that the Mirages may have been made more capable, but how they will fare against MiG-29’s, Mirage 2000’s, and Su-30’s is another story. The F-16’s might do okay, but they are limited in numbers and have no BVR capability as of right now.
The average fleet of PAF is newer than IAF. F-7 are maximum 15 years old and form the bulk. the rest is Mirages which are not that much used by airforces from where they were purchased and rebuilt. and F-16 quality is certainly better than MIG-29 in IAF.
and regarding mirage facing MIG-29. Mirage will fire first the bvr and MIG-29 does not have the legs to catch it into wvr fight. it is too short range mostly for point defense not for escort. Su-30 is the only capable fighter in IAF fleet.
Tankers? How exactly are those a liability? Am I mistaken or has the advent of air refuelling totally changed the face of air force operations? Whether you’re talking about the vital support USAF KC-135’s played during Vietnam or 25 years later in Desert Storm, or the huge asset the IRIAF’s 747’s and 707’s were during the Iran-Iraq War, you can’t deny that the tanker is a vital element to a modern air battle. Of course I guess the fact that India has tankers and the PAF doesn’t might have something to do with you trying to downplay the role that tankers play? The tanker is not going to show the location of a strike package anymore than the strike package is going to show its own location because as far as I know neither India nor Pakistan operates any stealth aircraft.
nope i am not down playing the role of tanker. how far u will put it away from the border for safety and time consumed in fillling aircrafts in air which will eliminate the need for surprize and aircrafts needed for its escort. keep in mind both India and Pak has forward operating bases for this purpose to fill the aircrafts as close to border as possible. i dont think tanker has any role to play just India aircraft carrier.
US can afford the use of Tankers because of total airsuperiority which gives time and safety for air refuellling. but with IAF it is not the case. CFT is the way to go in IAF and PAF scenario.
You ask if MiG-21’s with newer weapons will have sufficient range? Perhaps not, but then again neither does the F-7. The MiG-21’s won’t likely stray too far into Pakistani territory anyway because longer-ranged Su-30’s, Mirage 2000’s, and to a certain extent MiG-29’s will be the ones clearing the skies of any opposition.
F-7PG has 200km more radius on internal fuel and is close to manevarability of F-16. certainly it can do with Su-30 and M2k in wvr fight due to its small size an high agility while Mirage willl fire BVR at safe distances on them. no opportunity for MIG-29 to entangle that far.
and pictures of missiles infront of aircraft is often misleading and is used for disinformation purpose.
How exactly would that be now? So if a MiG-21 Bison is shown with R-77’s and R-73’s in the front of the aircraft, then it cannot carry those weapons, and the IAF is just making things up? I guess the same could be said of the Chinese because there is a well-known picture of an F-7MG shown with its array of weapons including bombs, rocket pods, and short-range AAM’s. But I guess it can’t really carry those weapons can it?
u cannot contemplate that one aircraft is upgraded so the rest of the fleet is upgraded also. one paper 100 aircrafts are upgraded but reality only 10 may carry them. thats the way things in S asia works.
Regarding inflight refuelling capability, the IAF at least has some aircraft with that capability (in fact most of them do), and they actually have tankers to refuel them. The PAF doesn’t even have tankers….of course those are a liability aren’t they?
As far as your last few sentences about turning rate or something please translate those into some form of legible English because none of it makes any sense. Where are you from anyway?
show me at what distance from the border u r going to refuel the aircrafts from tankers and how many aircrafts are needed to protect them for duration of refueling and any time a BVR capable aircraft can sneak in and give bvr shot at the tanker with maximum range.
star49India, Russia Lock Horns Over Ipr Pact
May 17
Hindustan Times
INDO-RUSSIAN talks on an agreement for protection of defence-related intellectual property rights are deadlocked, with India terming a Russian draft as “restrictive”.
Russia – India’s largest defence equipment supplier for over four decades – has made the signing of an omnibus defence IPR agreement as a precondition for all future defence deals with India.
This agreement would not only effect future defence deals with Russia but also have a bearing on India’s options to upgrade weapon systems procured from Russia.
“We want more flexibility in the agreement,” Defence Secretary Ajai Vikram Singh said on Monday. He toured Russia recently in an effort to break the deadlock. The Indian side presented an alternate draft to the Russians, who are considering it.
Singh said India wanted “flexibility” to modify equipment to suit its requirements, like airconditioning the T-90 tanks. Besides, in transfer of technology deals, it wants the freedom for the principal manufacturer to outsource smaller parts to vendors.
“Excessive restrictions may not be conducive to business. The Russian leadership was receptive to our point of view. We’re awaiting their response to our draft,” he told mediapersons.
Original equipment manufacturers from Russia want to be involved in all upgrades of equipment designed by them. With this insistence, they have forced India and Israel to make them a party in the contract for the supply of three airborne early warning and control systems (AWACS) to India.
This programme involves mounting an Israeli-made Phalcon early warning radar on an Uzbek Il-76 aircraft. Russia’s argument was that as this would involve design changes in the IL-76 platform, and as the designer of this aircraft, it demanded that it be made party to the deal.
The upgrade of 125 MiG-21 Bis fighters with the incorporation of Israeli and French avionics and weapon systems too has Russian involvement.
Russian agencies have also made a strong case for participation in the upgrade programme for the MiG-27, which is being attempted by HAL. The programme for the upgradation of the Tu-142 maritime reconnaissance aircraft too is reported to be stuck on this account.
Earlier, Moscow was insisting that the IPR agreement be made applicable with retrospective effect, regulating all further sale, propagation, modification or upgrade of Russian-designed weaponry. But it has since recanted, agreeing that the provision be applicable only to future deals.
star49what i am saying for ages now confirmed by official sources BVR for mirages.
Islamabad, May 22 (UNI): Pakistan aeronautical experts have successfully upgraded avoinics and other sub-systems of Australian Mirage aircraft that Pakistan Air Force (PAF) had purchased in the late 1990s.
“Our experts at the PAC (Pakistan Aeronautical Complex) have successfully upgraded avionics, fire control, BVR (beyond visual range) and jamming system of more than 40 Australian Mirages the PAF has been flying since late 1990s,” an official source said here on Saturday.He said the PAC has also rebuilt a number of Mirages out of over 30 such jets, the PAF had purchased from Libya last year.
The credit of giving a new lease of life to the discarded jets goes to our experts, he added.
Pakistan is the second country after France, which rebuilds Mirage aircraft at one of the specially-built facilities in the PAC. The complex has been rebuilding Mirages of not only the PAF, but also the same jets being flown by other friendly countries.
The PAF had procured 40 used Mirages after up-gradation of their avionics system by SAGEM of France under a $ 120 million deal in the late 1990s
star49What interests me most about this subject is the question “Will IAF send its MiG-21s into Pakistan airspace?”. I think it will. The IAF doctrine is to maintain offensive over enemy airspace, not to allow the fight to reach India. To implement this doctrine the IAF has a huge component of strike aircraft, much larger than the air defence fleet. As savage-rabbit pointed out the IAF MiG-27s and Jaguars are hoing to face opposition from PAF which is in nature a defensive airforce. Strike aircraft will have to be escorted, and there are not too many AD fighters around to do this. Expect Bisons to be embeded with the strike packages. BTW all reports indicate that the Bison radar has a superb performance.
No doubt MiGs are shortlegged, but in India/Pakistan all airbases are situated very close to the border, arrayed against each other. But still PAF will have an advantage as far as endurance is concerned since they are fighting over their soil.
IAF cannot send both MIG-29 and MIG-21 into PAF airbase for WVR combat but they can fire BVR just about border area. kopyo is limited range radar with smal fov to find targets on in own. it will need GCI or awacs support. same is the case of MIG-29. even M2K needed external tanks to carry bombing in its own terroritery.
Only Su-30 has the range and endurance to fight both wvr and bvr on other side and can be launched from deep inside bases. In PAF-IAF scenario air-tankers are more liability than asset. they will consume what every limited escort support is available and will show the location of strike package to the other side.
IAF inventory:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units/Fleet.html
IAF inventory is huge on paper but how many are operational in given time? that is big question mark. i highly doubt operational availability of more than 50% for Soviet made jets.
Also the WP-13 is a newer engine than the R-25 and even if it is based on an old design and it supposedly benefits from modern technology to make it more fuel efficient so the F-7PG at least should have an edge
definitely more reliable seeing the past 15 year history of crashes of F-7 vs MIG-21. -PG engine has uprated thrust and greater MTBO also.
modernised mig-21(with kopyo radar ) can fire R77, R27, R 73, KH 31, KH 35, KAB 500kr
True. In IAF we already have confirmation + pictures of Bisons operational with R-73, R-22 and KAB-500Kr. Kh-29 is a likely.
any modern radar is very verstile in weopon package but does it carry all of them in one mission with sufficient range thats important. and pictures of missiles infront of aircraft is often misleading and is used for disinformation purpose.
does mig-21 bison have inflight refueling capability
No.
it does not matter.
greater ranges the aircraft with greater turn rate balance out that advantage of the rival offboresight missile..
huh? what logis is that?
why aircraft does not turn. greater distance allows it greater turn ability.
Mirages have superior range radar with datalinks
Datalinks in PAF Mirages? huh?
i think you are sleeping.
star49PL-5 is not a copy of AIM-9 but more influence from K-13.
from where you got that PAF does not have PL-9? infact one of SAM development with PAK directly comes from PL-9. about U-darter. check Flight International 1995 issue. it has $160m deal with south africa. about PAF BVR capability just how much PAF paid for Grifo Radar in 1995. it is much more than any kopyo at current prices. infact price will approach BARS. and that was exactly the purpose to give it BVR capability both for air to air and air to ground weopons. how can they claim about JF-17 BVR because BVR missiles needs extensive testing and time to enter operational doctorine.
and conventional war did happened in 1999 with no PAF loss despite otherside so called BVR capability.
Sign In
