So in that case Pakistan will wait for another decade like they waited to get Mirage III and then upgrade it to credible standards?
Air Battle over Kashmir : MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
So in that case Pakistan will wait for another decade like they waited to get Mirage III and then upgrade it to credible standards?
GRIPEN has US engine ,GE 404
US has refused the sale of American engine in Turkish helicopters
Why will they allow for GRIPEN
US has refused the sale of American engine in Turkish helicopters
Why will they allow for GRIPEN
Turks screwed Uncle same through s400 purchase thats why they denied the engine for their attack copter. That may be the same reason, now Turks are collaborating with Russians on a jet engine joint development.
For now they have F-16s and JF-17s and in the long term they will be operating 2 F-7PG squadrons. So that's more than enough until 2035 or so. They have ordered 188 JF-17s and could easily add 50-100 more before 2035. So their low end is taken care of. They need to worry about high end aircraft post 2035. Of course they will need to spend a lot of money to keep the Chinese junk flying.
You really believe those 40 years old f16 can hold fort till 2035 ,very few of them has been upgraded to mlu,block 52,rest are all block A,B.
Whereas we are feeling the urge to upgrade the su30 which was purchased much later,mirage 2000 has been upgraded along with might 29.
So without OEM approval and most of f16 reaching obsolence ,the most potent weapon of them will fast become a relics of the past,I dare say they will become Turkey shoot of tejas family,with even mk1a proving too much for them to handle.
With 36 /72 f4 rafale and super sukhoi upgrade ,they will be in a hopeless situation...just to remove their honor and dignity we should induct 1/2 squadron of f35 or f15 and they will loose the appetite to fight .....as all the facade was created on the superiority of American jets in their hand ...so just to crush them psychologically inducting f35/15 is a good choice ..I have even heard that only block 52 are capable of using amraam ,just imagine their plight...depending on a 3rd class chinese jet to save their honor ,they are destined to be raped.
The old F-16s can be upgraded to 8000 hours. So PAF F-16s have plenty of life in them, enough for 20 years of service life. All their F-16s can use AMRAAM. The Balakot skirmish used old F-16s.
I think that all their F16 A/B models have been upgraded to blk 50 or 52 standards, barring airframe changes.
Tejas MK1A and JF17 blk3 are roughly similar? However PAF might have decided to use the JF17s for more versatile needs.
I doubt that the Chinese will allow PAF to be too inferior to the IAF, so surely a couple of squadrons of J10Cs will be coming soon. The Chinese will ensure that PAF and PA will always have enough to fight an intense 5-7 day battle against India. Plus India will be offensive while Pak will be offensive-defensive. So our attrition will be a lot more.
War is best avoided, however our stick should be very disproportionate. The nuke overhang is no longer being told by Pak - wonder why
.
Last edited:
I think that all their F16 A/B models have been upgraded to blk 50 or 52 standards, barring airframe changes.
Tejas MK1A and JF17 blk3 are roughly similar? However PAF might have decided to use the JF17s for more versatile needs.
I doubt that the Chinese will allow PAF to be too inferior to the IAF, so surely a couple of squadrons of J10Cs will be coming soon. The Chinese will ensure that PAF and PA will always have enough to fight an intense 5-7 day battle against India. Plus India will be offensive while Pak will be offensive-defensive. So our attrition will be a lot more.
War is best avoided, however our stick should be very disproportionate. The nuke overhang is no longer being told by Pak - wonder why
The A/Bs have been upgraded to Block 40 standards. Block 50 onwards uses a different airframe. But the avionics build is quite similar.
Mk1A and B3, it depends. Regardless of whether the B3's avionics are better or worse, the real difference is airframe. The LCA has been made for BVR combat and its use of composites and more modern design has pushed RCS to reduced observable class, ie 0.1m2. Whereas JF-17 B1 and B2 are similar to the F-16, ie, between 1-5m2. What it means is if a radar can detect a JF-17 from 150Km, the same radar will detect the LCA only from 75Km. So the question is if the B3 has been made reduced observable or retains the same RCS as its earlier models. The JF-17 has been designed to be closer to a ground attack aircraft than an air superiority aircraft, so it won't meet the performance standards of the LCA for air combat.
Attrition depends on technology. In the previous wars, we mostly used inferior tech compared to the PAF, so they had the upperhand in technology. But technology did not play as significant a part then as it does now. Today, technology can make a force absolutely overwhelming. If tech is on your side and it's enough to be termed RMA, then it's going to create an asymmetric difference. And we have this against the PAF.
Their nuclear sabre-rattling ended due to US pressure.
So prepare for China and Pakistan is already covered. It's good if Pakistan gets j10 India will know the weakness.
Taiwan scrambles jets after largest ever incursion by China
At least 38 aircraft flying in two waves crossed Taiwan air defence zone, prompting the deployment of its fighters jets.
..............
by reading all these I am pretty sure the next combat will involve minimum 40 to 50 units in air. So is it the quantity game now?
Last edited:
That's how air combat happens, with large number of jets in the air.
One can assume the H-6 and Su-30s carried the strike package whereas the J-16s were meant for all air combat related support.
In a 4th gen fight, you have a Leading Group, with ECM jets and fighter jets. So the ECM jets hide the Strike Group behind them, whereas the fighters engage the enemy in air combat. Protecting the Strike Group is the Escort and Top Cover, which consist of more fighter jets. And behind the Strike Group and Top Cover is the Protection Group, which engage the enemy that the Top Cover failed to kill. Right in front of all these will be the Armed Recon group, whose job is to kill any SAMs that may have escaped the initial SEAD/DEAD operations along with enemy fighter jets. Behind all these will be standoff jammer aircraft, AWACS, tankers etc, along with SAR helicopters.
So you can see how complex a single strike mission really is. It's easily a multi-squadron job involving a dozen to three dozen aircraft in all.
Thank you for your detailed post. Is it possible for a low orbiting satellite to track a military aircraft, and kill the radio camouflage?
And everybody laughs at that claim , specially when its coming from a airforce that still prefers migs 21 over its own jet and crashes it every other day. They claim a lot of things but when times comes to deter enemy from transgression, all they have to show is few blown up pieces of AAMRAMS, a downed jet by enemy and a captured pilot paraded by enemy to satisfy their ego and to humiliate this so called superior airforce.
There must be some limit to delusions.
PS: I see these outgoing chiefs proudly fly Mig 21s on their last sortie almost ceremoniously. To me its pathetic and cringeworthy considering the state in which these jets are with metals patches, sealants all over the body just to hold it togather in the sky. And these jets are what the pilots are forced to fight with and to die trying to fly these craps.
They proudely show their ignorance and failure as a IAF chiefs to retire these junk metals and people are supposed to cheer for these fools.
Last edited:
200% right, especially the sent off flight inside mmig21. As an indian, we should ashamed for our boys flying inside 50 year old airframe & fight an enemy armed with f16s.
Too many problems. Distance, onboard power, the different layers of atmosphere, like the Ozone layer which protects the planet from high frequency microwaves, overwhelming amounts of clutter, both from the ground as well as the atmospheric layers etc.
Nothing wrong with the claim. That's how long it takes during surge ops to conquer the skies. The only way for them to survive is to not fly at all, which is what the PAF did in 1971.
As for the Mig-21, it's pretty much our most important aircraft when it comes to air defence. Which is why it was Abhinandan's Mig-21 that brought down the F-16, not the MKIs and M2000s. So it's actually the opposite of what you are trying to say. Even during CI exercises with the US, they pointed out how the Mig-21s would just show up out of nowhere, take them out and disappear, while the bigger aircraft kept them busy. It's basically a ninja, and the LCAs job is going to be pretty much the same. In terms of technology, it has the same weapons options and EW capabilities as the MKI and older Mig-29. In fact it was our most capable BVR fighter after the MKI throughout the 2000s. As for showing off on the Mig-21, it's one of the hardest aircraft to fly, and for pretty much all fighter pilots before the Hawk, they all started off on the Mig-21, so there's nothing surprising about making it their last as well.
IAF MiG 21 inventory is the goldmine of IAF... so many peoples pocket money come from these maintenance jobs
I thought that external weapons reduce this advantage significantly.
In enough numbers? Maybe a decade from now if the MKIs get upgraded and more Rafales come.
I know that you believe this. But they have successfully sabotaged US's Afg operations. Economic hits are already there, but to a perceived existential threat like India, i find it hard to accept that US pressure is adequate enough to make them suddenly stop.
For IAF against PAF? Too tough without heavy attrition and leaving the eastern flank completely exposed. The operation IAF took during the Balakot operation shows how much planning and deception IAF had to take against PAF so that they could enter Pak airspace safely for a brief period of time.
What about Mig-29s? Without upgrades was it so bad?