Re: IAF Capabilities vs PAF Power
PAF has very limited BVR capability which will the job 10 times harder.
NOTE: Stick to the topic.
Re: IAF Capabilities vs PAF Power
NOTE: Lets stick to topic.
NOTE: Lets stick to topic.
NOTE: Lets stick to topic.
NOTE: Lets stick to topic.
NOTE: Lets stick to topic.
Re: IAF Capabilities vs PAF Power
PS: Its better if we stay on topic, coz i dont want to get banned!
If you want to take this debate further than please feel free to open a new thread there! I dont wantt my post to get deleted so its better if u start a new thread, no one will stop you!
Re: IAF Capabilities vs PAF Power
Look at your post - to every proof I have given you have just stated what you heard. Only allegations, no proofs! LOL. Anyway, I buy your point - let us stop it!
Re: IAF Capabilities vs PAF Power
I give you all a must read article by Aviation Week and Space Technology, By David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie. If anyone among you all has already read it than please don't blast me:), I am pretty new to this business.
Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time'
The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.
In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.
"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape maneuver permit the second, close-in shot, in case the BVR [beyond-visual-range] shot missed," an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S. electronic warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."
THE SCENARIO in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.
If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.
Positioned below the F-15, the Su-30 then uses its passive infrared sensor to frame the U.S. fighter against the sky with no background clutter. The Russian fighter then takes its second shot, this time with the IR missile, and accelerates out of danger.
"It works in the simulator every time," the Air Force official said. However, he did point out that U.S. pilots are flying both aircraft in the tests. Few countries maintain a pilot corps with the air-to-air combat skills needed to fly these scenarios, said an aerospace industry official involved in stealth fighter programs.
Those skeptical of the experiments say they're being used to justify the new Aim-9X high-off-boresight, short-range missile and its helmet-mounted cuing system, the F-22 as an air superiority fighter and, possibly, the development of a new long-range air-to-air missile that could match the F-22 radar's ability to find targets at around 120 mi. They contend that the Su-30MK can only get its BVR missile shot off first against a large radar target like the F-15. While it's true that the Su-30 MK would not succeed against the stealthy F-22 or F-35, neither would it regularly beat the nonstealthy (but relatively small radar cross section) F-16 or F/A-18E/F, they said. These analysts don't deny the F-22's value as an air-to-air fighter, but say the aircraft's actual operational value will be greatest in the penetrating strike, air defense suppression and electronic jamming roles.
At the same time, there may be more to the simulations than justifying new weaponry, say European analysts. Also at play are some tactical wrinkles being developed for the more effective use of new Russian missile versions.
The combination of Su-30 and R-27ER/ET (NATO designation AA-10), flown and fought in a competent fashion, also represents a significant threat. Even though the R-27ER is only a semiactive radar-guided missile, the extra maneuvering capability resulting from the large motor is a significant improvement over the basic R-27. Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R-27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile.
The R-27ER, while only semiactive, also outperforms the baseline R-77 ( AA-12) in terms of kinematics. The R-77 motor has a simple, and short, burn profile, which has resulted in disappointing performance, piquing the Russian air force's interest in developing the K-77M rather than fielding the basic AA-12 in any numbers. The K-77M (K denotes a missile still in development, while R reflects an inventory weapon) is an upgraded R-77 with improvements that include a larger motor with a burn sequence profiled to increase range.
The oft-touted, but yet-to-be-fielded, R-27EA active variant of the AA-10 could further enhance the Su-30's capabilities, were an export customer to buy the derivative. In terms of one-on-one combat, the second-generation Flanker family presents a considerable threat to aircraft not designed from the outset as low observable, unless they are capable of extended-range BVR missile engagements. For instance, this threat drove the British selection of a rocket-ramjet missile to equip the Eurofighter.
Look at your post - to every proof I have given you have just stated what you heard. Only allegations, no proofs! LOL. Anyway, I buy your point - let us stop it!
Talking to you is like me banging my head in the wall..... No point!
Lets just finsih it here........
Re: IAF Capabilities vs PAF Power
The author ignores the obvious fact that Pakistani Air force is well-organized and our jawans prevailed in 1965- I guess Pak Armed forces might be best in Asia in quality although not in the world. I have heard Saudi Armed forces are good.
Re: IAF Capabilities vs PAF Power
^ the only things saudi armed forces have ever fought or even trained to fight are camels. while that experience is useful in some situations, most of those arent related to war.
The author ignores the obvious fact that Pakistani Air force is well-organized and our jawans prevailed in 1965- I guess Pak Armed forces might be best in Asia in quality although not in the world. I have heard Saudi Armed forces are good.
There is a reason why Saudis allowed Americans into their country when Saddam invaded Kuwait.. They knew they were defensless..
Re: IAF Capabilities vs PAF Power
Lockheed Martin offers the F-35 to India
24 July 2007
American military aviation major Lockheed Martin has offered India its state-of-the-art, fifth generation, stealth-capable fighter aircraft, the F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter. The company, which is in the running for India's offer to buy 126 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA), is trying to further sweeten the deal, having offered the F-16 for the contract.
The F-35 is descended from the X-35 of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, funded by the US, the UK, and others. It is designed and built by a consortium led by Lockheed Martin with BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman. The technology demonstrator flew in 2000; and a production prototype flew on 15 December 2006.
Last week, top executives from Lockheed Martin met officials from India's Ministry of Defence and told them that the US government had agreed to make the F-35 Lightening-II available for the IAF's 5th generation fighter contract. Lockheed Martin's Vice President for Business Development Rob Weiss said after the meeting that the F-35 would be in the reckoning much beyond the induction of the 126 MRCA planes, as the country's security experts have been struggling to find partners to develop futuristic 5th generation fighters.
New Delhi has talking to Moscow for joint development and joint investment in next generation fighters, but the Russian concepts of these fighters are only on the drawing board at present. Americans started development of the F-35 in early 2000, with an initial cost outlay of US $50 billion. The new generation fighters will be inducted into the US Air Force by the end of 2009 or in early 2010.
"In the next few years a number of countries will join the F-35 programme and the IAF is welcome," Weiss said. The F-35 fighter uses stealth to pick and choose engagements while reaming undetected by enemy defence systems. It has embedded antennae, aligned edges, internal weapons, as well as special coatings and material.
The designers say that the F-35 fighter will have the most powerful sensor suite ever, with a seamless real world and real-time 360-degree display of the battle space to turn the pilots into 'tacticians rather than technicians'. If new countries joined the F-35 programme, the US could be open to delivery of new generation fighters within the next decade.
They said if the IAF chose the Lockheed Martin world's best selling fighter F-16 fighting flacons, it could "position India to be ready to receive advanced technologies incorporated in the F-35's." Lockheed Martin officials said lot of new technologies being tested on F-35 would be leveraged in the new generation F-16 Block 50 fighters.
On India's decision to raise the offset limit in purchase of the 126 new fighters to 50 per cent, Weiss said his company was confident of meeting this target. "We have met offset requirements totalling US $40 billion in 37 countries," he said. He also said Lockheed was ready to support IAF's lifecycle needs and for technology transfer. "Fighting falcons are already being produced in five countries," he emphasised.
On the proposed sale of six C130J transport aircraft to India for use by special forces, the Lockheed Martin has announced that a letter of agreement was expected to be signed by the end of this year. Deliveries of the aircraft would start 30 months after the contract was signed; first deliveries would be by 2011. The company's long range maritime reconnaissance aircraft - P3C Orion - has been dropped from the Indian Navy's request for proposals.
In the meanwhile, the F-35C variant of Lockheed Martin's Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme has passed its air system critical design review (CDR). A key milestone following a series of subsystem reviews, it gives the development team behind F-35C - a conventional take-off and landing aircraft for carrier-borne operations - the green light to proceed toward production of three test and evaluation units, said a company spokesman
F-35 details
General characteristics
* Crew: 1
* Length: 50 ft 6 in (15.37 m)
* Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.65 m)
* Height: 17 ft 4 in (5.28 m)
* Wing area: 459.6 ft² (42.7 m²)
* Empty weight: 26,000 lb (12,000 kg)
* Loaded weight: 44,400 lb (20,100 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 60,000 lb (27,200 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
* Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf (128 kN)
* Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf (191 kN)
Performance
* Maximum speed: >Mach 1.8 (1,200 mph, 1,931 km/h)
* Range: 1,200 nautical miles (1,400 miles, 2,200 km) on internal fuel
* Combat radius: 600 nautical miles (690 miles, 1,110 km)
* Rate of climb: Not publicly available
* Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: (with full fuel) 0.968; (with 50 per cent fuel) 1.22
Armament
* 1 GAU-12/U 25 mm cannon mounted internally with 180 rounds in the F-35A, and fitted as an external pod with 220 rounds in the F-35B and F-35C.
* Up to four AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-9X Sidewinder or AIM-132 ASRAAM internally, or two air-to-air and two air-to-ground weapons (up to two 2,000 lb weapons in A and C; two 1000 lb weapons in B) in the bomb bays. These could be AMRAAM, the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) up to 2,000 lb (910 kg), the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) - a maximum of four in each bay, the Brimstone anti-armour missiles, Cluster Munitions (WCMD) and High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM). The MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile is currently being adapted to fit internally in the missile spots and may be integrated into the F-35.
* Many more missiles, bombs and fuel tanks can be attached to the four wing pylons and two wingtip positions, but at the expense of being more detectable by radar. The two wingtip pylons can only carry short-range air-to-air missiles (AIM-9s), while the Storm Shadow and Joint Air to Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) cruise missiles can be carried in addition to the stores already integrated. An air-to-air load of 12 AIM-120s and two AIM-9s is conceivable using internal and external weapons stations, as well as a configuration of six two thousand pound bombs, two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s.
Fighter Aircraft
Unlike their bomber counterparts, fighter craft may be used in both offensive and defensive operations; however, fighters may only engage other aircraft, and are the only type of military unit capable of doing so. Fighters may be deployed on their own, to independently engage other nations aircraft, or they may be sent to escort and defend bombers during bombing runs. As was previously stated, fighters will also engage any incoming bombers and fighters from enemy nations. Much like bombers, each aircraft has an individual strength rating ranging from 1 to 9, and each fighter craft has its own requirements and base purchase costs depending upon this strength rating.
[edit] Types of Fighter Aircraft
Aircraft||Infra Req.||Tech Req.|| Base Purchase||Cost Maintenance||Cost Strength
Yak-9 100 30 $10,000 $200 1
P-51 Mustang 200 65 $15,000 $200 2
F-86 Sabre 300 105 $20,000 $200 3
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 400 150 $25,000 $200 4
F-100 Super Sabre 500 150 $30,000 $200 5
F-35 Lightning II 600 255 $35,000 $200 6
F-15 Eagle 700 315 $40,000 $200 7
Su-30 MKI 850 405 $45,000 $200 8
F-22 Raptor 1000 500 $50,000 $200 9
Google for the link by searching for "Cybernations Aircraft"
God, the obsolete Paki F-16s weren't even considered in the top 10. LOL :)
Fighter Aircraft
Unlike their bomber counterparts, fighter craft may be used in both offensive and defensive operations; however, fighters may only engage other aircraft, and are the only type of military unit capable of doing so. Fighters may be deployed on their own, to independently engage other nations aircraft, or they may be sent to escort and defend bombers during bombing runs. As was previously stated, fighters will also engage any incoming bombers and fighters from enemy nations. Much like bombers, each aircraft has an individual strength rating ranging from 1 to 9, and each fighter craft has its own requirements and base purchase costs depending upon this strength rating. [edit] Types of Fighter Aircraft Aircraft||Infra Req.||Tech Req.|| Base Purchase||Cost Maintenance||Cost Strength Yak-9 100 30 $10,000 $200 1 P-51 Mustang 200 65 $15,000 $200 2 F-86 Sabre 300 105 $20,000 $200 3 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 400 150 $25,000 $200 4 F-100 Super Sabre 500 150 $30,000 $200 5 F-35 Lightning II 600 255 $35,000 $200 6 F-15 Eagle 700 315 $40,000 $200 7 Su-30 MKI 850 405 $45,000 $200 8 F-22 Raptor 1000 500 $50,000 $200 9
Google for the link by searching for "Cybernations Aircraft"
God, the obsolete Paki F-16s weren't even considered in the top 10. LOL :)
so you are trying to say MIGS and sabre are better than F16s...
your most talked about thing SU30MK is yet to be checked and by the way it didnt do well in redflag exercises.
Lockheed Martin offers the F-35 to India 24 July 2007
do you really think pakistan would be sleeping all those years.
pakistan has plans to acquire j-10 in near future and may be we are on JSF bandwagon as well.
its not just electronics and hardware my dear that matters but their pilots/driver :))))) as well.
desert storm is a perfect example iraq had impressive hardware as well but f15s/f18 took care of them very well most of them in first shot...
indo pak situation is getting complex every year and to think of war is idiotic..
there arent just aircrafts and armies each party has to take care of but missiles, etc as well.
each party would have something to hit other, one way or other...
do you really think pakistan would be sleeping all those years. pakistan has plans to acquire j-10 in near future and may be we are on JSF bandwagon as well.
Tell your Military chief atleast go for J-11B which is a much better Chinese Aircraft. Though even J-11B isn't better than SU-30MKI. I am talking about a 5th Generation fighter guy! Pakistan in JSF LOL. A single plane costs 90 million. Your foreign reservers are around 3 billion. You buy a squadron you will have to borrow cereals from India.:) I guarrantee you we will not patronize while helping our neighbour.
its not just electronics and hardware my dear that matters but their pilots/driver :))))) as well.desert storm is a perfect example iraq had impressive hardware as well but f15s/f18 took care of them very well most of them in first shot...
Wow, ultimate sarcasm! I have a request who ever is interested in juxtaposing IAF with PAF and come to a common conclusion must shun the dirty practices of a writing malicious stuff about Indian Pilots skill. I am giving the proof of our skill the one and last time. Read this
Over the next couple of months, there will be extended discussions of COPE INDIA, the annual exercise between the U.S Air Force and its Indian counterpart.
COPE INDIA began in 2004, with mock dogfights between USAF F-15 EAGLES and Indian Air Force SU-27 FLANKERs. The results of COPE INDIA were surprising, *not because the FLANKERs and their air-to-air missiles provded to be technically advanced (we already knew that), but because theIndian pilots proved to be more tactically advanced than we had originally assessed. * Indian FLANKER pilots effectively employed their aircraft against the F-15s, proving more than a match for their American counterparts.
I haven't seen any official reports on the latest COPE INDIA exercise, which pitted Indian FLANKERs against U.S. F-16CJs from Misawa AB, Japan. According to a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor, some Indian sources are claiming they gained the upper hand, while others are making more guarded assessments.
The Monitor article is disappointing in a couple of respects. First, it bases much of its assessment on comments from military chatrooms and bulletin boards, which may (or may not) be accurate. Secondly, some of article's observations should be placed in a more accurate context. For example, Monitor reporter Scott Baldauf notes that U.S. fighter prowress is slipping, based on the results of COPE INDIA, and the introduction of newer Russian and French aircraft, with technical capabilities similar to our F-15s and F-16s.
It's worth noting that the American fighters now being "matched" by other countries were first introduced in the 1970s, and the versions that flew in COPE INDIA are almost 20 years old. In other words, foreign designers are just now matching U.S. technology that appeared decades ago. Additionally, Mr. Baldauf fails to note that the U.S. has significantly raised the bar for fighter technology, with the introduction of the F/A-22 Raptor. The F/A-22 has never appeared at COPE INDIA and likely never will, given the advanced (and sensitive) technology associated with that airframe. With its advanced stealth capabilities, the Raptor can acquire, engage and destroy other aircraft without being detected. That's a tremendous capability, one that no other Air Force can match.
It is also dangerous to translate the Indian example to other nations that operate the SU-27. The Indian Air Force is one of only a handful of third-world air forces that can fully exploit the capabilities of an advanced fighter. China may have 400 FLANKERs, but its tactics are well behind those of the U.S., most NATO air forces, Japan, South Korea, India, and Singapore, just to name a few. Flying a SU-27 like an older MiG-23 FLOGGER or MiG-21 FISHBED makes no tactical sense, but the tactics of many FLANKER operators are antiquated, to say the least.
The Indians deserve credit for developing the tactics and training programs required to fully employ their advanced aircraft. But describing COPE INDIA as an Indian Air Force rout is premature at best, and a likely exaggeration of what actually transpired. The exercise provided valuable training for both sides, and for U.S. pilots , exposure to aircraft and missiles they may see in combat in the near future. Flying against those threats--in the hands of skilled IAF pilots--makes COPE INDIA a valuable exercise, indeed.
For example, can you imagine if a real war broke out (full scale, with China) and one or more B-2's were shot down? Or if a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier were to be sunk? In both cases, the loss of those expensive, difficult-to-build assets would be irreplaceable.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RED FLAG (Vegas)
IAF shot down almost equal no. of Raptors with SU-30MKI without using its Radar in US Air Space, reason being the fact that such sensitive technology shouldn't fall in foreign hands. Without the much advanced radar Indians were like one hand tied back which resulted in some Friend Kills but over all this has caused speculations in USAF about the much boasted capability of Raptors. Results are classified but official statements explicitly say that Indians didn't have total Air Superiority but in no case they were worse than any of the other Air Forces.
~Pentagon
indo pak situation is getting complex every year and to think of war is idiotic..
I acknowledge your point and categorically agree to you! Juanid, a rational Paki!:)
**RED FLAG (Vegas)
IAF shot down almost equal no. of Raptors with SU-30MKI without using its Radar in US Air Space, reason being the fact that such sensitive technology shouldn't fall in foreign hands. Without the much advanced radar Indians were like one hand tied back which resulted in some Friend Kills but over all this has caused speculations in USAF about the much boasted capability of Raptors. Results are classified but official statements explicitly say that Indians didn't have total Air Superiority but in no case they were worse than any of the other Air Forces.
~Pentagon
**Don't comapre PAF with US and France Air Force. I guess you must have bought my point about skills this time!:)