What's new

Best BVR Capable Fighter in South Asia

Status
Not open for further replies.
so you think that F-7s arn't BVRAAM capable, here see for yourself (I hate to do such things)
j7withpl12wi4.jpg

This is a J-7 carrying SD-10 BVRAAM which may lead to a.....(no more allowed)
Secondly, well I have posted before and before, there are many tactics which are utilized by air force jockeys.The radar detection range depends upon the RCS of object aircraft. And radar capabilities and detection ranges are dependent upon the RCS. MKIs radar may track a 15M3 traget like MKI itself at 350 KM, that does not mean that MKI will detect a target of 1M3 RCS at 350 KM, the detection spectrum will reduce drastically.It does the opposite to the otherside, where the 15M3 RCS potentially allows maximum detection efficiency of opposite radar. So it works as a double disadvantage. And F-7 is nowhere near the size of MKI so its RCS would be much much lesser than that of MKIs so dont expect MKIs to detect F-7s from 350 KM. Thirdly there is a tactics called tight formation in which aircrafts flly so near to eachother that the radar would not be able to distiguish between them for a good range. which allows the other accompanying air crafts to come undetected.

There is any BVR platform in PAF in 2008??? i heard that SD-10 is not inducted yet from ya pakistani member here is it true?? so who is the BIG LIER here you are that person...?

It is going to be done.. the MLU ensures that.
The JF-17 is using the Chinese SD-10.. rumored to be able to match the R-77 in range..but since its not confirmed till it becomes operational.. lets leave it out of the equation.

....
 
.
There is any BVR platform in PAF in 2008??? i heard that SD-10 is not inducted yet from ya pakistani member here is it true?? so who lie's here you are that person...?

It is just writing for the sake of writing somthing, thts it. |Since JF-17 is gonna replace F7s in 2015, i do not think they might integrate it in F-7, which is a costly affair and not a value addition since it is going ot retire soon.
 
.
There is any BVR platform in PAF in 2008??? i heard that SD-10 is not inducted yet from ya pakistani member here is it true?? so who is the BIG LIER here you are that person...?

why did you missed the very 1st seve words,
The JF-17 is using the Chinese SD-10
dont pretend to be a hypocrite :lol:
anyways here is an old news about it
April 17, 2006: Pakistan's cabinet gave approval to the country's air force to begin negotiations for the purchase of F-16 and J-10 fighter aircrafts from the US and China. Both America and China has already offered these planes to Pakistan. PAF will purchase 98 hi-tech aircraft besides missiles and other equipment to improve the capabilities of Pakistan Air Force (PAF). Mixed package of hi-tech aircraft and equipment is being purchased from USA and China are as under: J-10 aircraft (36), F-16 A/B, ex-Pakistan (26), F-16 C/D (18 with an option for 18 more), SD-10 BVR missiles (300), BVR, 500 (American) targeting pods 18 and joint direct attack munitions (500).
anyways...I know what you are upto....I guess you can also go ahead with "press hitwall phenomenon"
 
.
why did you missed the very 1st seve words, dont pretend to be a hypocrite :lol:
anyways here is an old news about it

anyways...I know what you are upto....I guess you can also go ahead with "press hitwall phenomenon"

IF jf-17 is operating SD-10,WHY PAF is negotiating for MBDA BVR from French? 2 type BVR in a light weight fighter? :toast_sign:

Long range weapon integration is a costly and time taking affair, and yes, you do it like in the pix u have shown..:smitten: (in the replica)
 
.
why did you missed the very 1st seve words, dont pretend to be a hypocrite :lol:
anyways here is an old news about it

anyways...I know what you are upto....I guess you can also go ahead with "press hitwall phenomenon"

Answer my first Question then we see "There is any BVR platform in PAF in 2008??? If soo which one and from when it did active service in PAF???:cheers::wave:
 
.
on the bold part aspects, IAF will :pakistan::pakistan::pakistan:touch F-16 of Israel / USAF also

Both have a advanced version and combat history on it...

AIM-120C-5 you have with inferior SD-10, compare to R-77/R-27/Python 4,5/ DERBY...:toast_sign:

F-16 C/D 18 + 18 JF-17 now 2010 with maximum 2 years experience compare to 125+ Su-30MKI + 69 MiG 29 + 4 MiG-29K/KUB + 100 MiG-21Bis + 8 Harries on 2010 with almost more then 2 decade experience...:toast_sign:
Both the F-16 and the MiG-29 were designed to correct mistakes and shortcomings of previous aircraft. With the USAF it was the low kill ratios over Vietnam as well as the lack of complete air superiority over the battle field a feat that was achieved with great success both over the battlefield's of Europe and Korea where the US Army was able to operate under little threat of air attack. With the Russians they wanted an aircraft that would perform the same roles as the MiG-25 and the Su-27 but at a shorter range. As well as an aircraft that for the first time could match Western fighters in ACM, while maintaining the ability to operate as an interceptor. Thus the MiG-29 became a smaller and shorter range F-15 while the F-16 became a larger and longer range F-5.


Both teams designed craft that were cleared to operations of 9g and made use of wing-body blending to increase internal volume , reduce weight and improve maneuverability. They both located the intakes close to structures to reduce the AoA (angle of attack) sensed at the face of the intake/s thus increasing the AoA that the aircraft could take in comparison to other aircraft of their day. With the F-16A the AoA limit is 25deg where as the MiG-29 has been cleared of an AoA of up to 45deg.

One of the major differences was in the engine arrangement with the General Dynamics team choosing a single P&W F100 this gave commonality with the F-15 and lower fuel consumption. In contrast the Mikoyan team choose a twin arrangement of the RD-33 with no thought give to using the Saturn/Lyulka AL-31F as used in the Su-27. The reasoning being that the use of two engines gave the aircraft greater survivability as the MiG-23/27's suffered a greater attrition ratio then the MiG-25. With the intakes the GD team adopted a fixed geometry intake as high mach number capability was not required for the role that the F-16 was to fill, while the requirement for a dash speed of mach 2.3+ led Mikoyan to adopt a two dimensional , four shock , variable geometry intake with one fixed ramp and two moving ramps.

In regard to FOD (foreign object damage) the GD team took the position that FOD would not be a problem as the F-16 would operate form swept, paved runways. Where as the Russians felt that a rough field capability was an important capability and as such devised two movable ramps over the intakes to prevent FOD while on the ground or at low speed at low level. When the intakes are closed the engines breath via auxiliary intakes on the upper surface of the wing.


Old Rivals: A PAF F-16 (Left) and an IAF MiG-29 (Right)

The F-16 has incorporated a number of features that are intended to enhance combat effectiveness. The pilot's seat is inclined at 30deg rather than the normal 13deg , he also has a side stick controller which allows the pilots arm to be supported this has not met with universal approval as some pilots prefer to be able to fly with either hand. The F-16 also for the first time incorporated a Fly-By-Wire flight control system, this allowed the aircraft to be made inherently unstable and would greatly improve maneuverability in air-combat. While the MiG introduced the first HMS (helmet-mounted sight) and IRST (infra-red search and track) sensor with a laser range finder for passive attacks and missile engagements up to 45deg off-borsight but maintained a conventional flight control system and achieved high maneuverability mainly due advanced aerodynamics. i.e. The tail of the MiG-29 is said to have been positioned to take advantage of the four vortices by the wing and fuselage.

In combat provided that the MiG-29's 7.5g above 0.85 mach can be avoided it should beat any F-16 due to its BVR capability , higher thrust/weight ratio and lower wing loading. While in recent exercises between USAF F-16 and German MiG-29A's showed that in ACM the greatest advantage the MiG-29 had was it's helmet mounted sight coupled with the AA-11 Archer which gives it a kill zone greater than any aircraft serving. F-16 pilots found that any aircraft within 45deg's of the nose of a MiG-29 was always under grave threat. The ability to target aircraft well of boresight has proved to be such a success that helmet mounted sights have become requirements on any new fighter program.


Luftwaffe MiG-29s and USAF F-16s have engaged in intense DACT exercises

While both aircraft have short-commings those of the MiG-29 have effectively been solved with newer versions ( MiG-29 S/M/K and MiG-33 ) which have increased the fuel capacity of the MiG as well as adding an in-flight refueling system. The number of hard points has also been increased by two and the max warload has been doubled, along with the inclusion of a fly-by-wire flight control system and a new radar that allowed two targets to be engaged simultaneously with the new AA-12 Adder active radar missile as well as full clearance for flight at 9 g's . Most of these upgrades have been offered to current users of the MiG-29 with the Russian and Indian airforces conducting some upgrades.

The F-16 by comparison has had few of it's problems solved in the past few years. One of it's greatest drawbacks the lack of a BVR capability was solved with the clearance of the AMRAAM for use on the F-16 but the second major problem of insufficient wing area on the F-16C has never been solved.
 
.
Both the F-16 and the MiG-29 were designed to correct mistakes and shortcomings of previous aircraft. With the USAF it was the low kill ratios over Vietnam as well as the lack of complete air superiority over the battle field a feat that was achieved with great success both over the battlefield's of Europe and Korea where the US Army was able to operate under little threat of air attack. With the Russians they wanted an aircraft that would perform the same roles as the MiG-25 and the Su-27 but at a shorter range. As well as an aircraft that for the first time could match Western fighters in ACM, while maintaining the ability to operate as an interceptor. Thus the MiG-29 became a smaller and shorter range F-15 while the F-16 became a larger and longer range F-5.


Both teams designed craft that were cleared to operations of 9g and made use of wing-body blending to increase internal volume , reduce weight and improve maneuverability. They both located the intakes close to structures to reduce the AoA (angle of attack) sensed at the face of the intake/s thus increasing the AoA that the aircraft could take in comparison to other aircraft of their day. With the F-16A the AoA limit is 25deg where as the MiG-29 has been cleared of an AoA of up to 45deg.

One of the major differences was in the engine arrangement with the General Dynamics team choosing a single P&W F100 this gave commonality with the F-15 and lower fuel consumption. In contrast the Mikoyan team choose a twin arrangement of the RD-33 with no thought give to using the Saturn/Lyulka AL-31F as used in the Su-27. The reasoning being that the use of two engines gave the aircraft greater survivability as the MiG-23/27's suffered a greater attrition ratio then the MiG-25. With the intakes the GD team adopted a fixed geometry intake as high mach number capability was not required for the role that the F-16 was to fill, while the requirement for a dash speed of mach 2.3+ led Mikoyan to adopt a two dimensional , four shock , variable geometry intake with one fixed ramp and two moving ramps.

In regard to FOD (foreign object damage) the GD team took the position that FOD would not be a problem as the F-16 would operate form swept, paved runways. Where as the Russians felt that a rough field capability was an important capability and as such devised two movable ramps over the intakes to prevent FOD while on the ground or at low speed at low level. When the intakes are closed the engines breath via auxiliary intakes on the upper surface of the wing.


Old Rivals: A PAF F-16 (Left) and an IAF MiG-29 (Right)

The F-16 has incorporated a number of features that are intended to enhance combat effectiveness. The pilot's seat is inclined at 30deg rather than the normal 13deg , he also has a side stick controller which allows the pilots arm to be supported this has not met with universal approval as some pilots prefer to be able to fly with either hand. The F-16 also for the first time incorporated a Fly-By-Wire flight control system, this allowed the aircraft to be made inherently unstable and would greatly improve maneuverability in air-combat. While the MiG introduced the first HMS (helmet-mounted sight) and IRST (infra-red search and track) sensor with a laser range finder for passive attacks and missile engagements up to 45deg off-borsight but maintained a conventional flight control system and achieved high maneuverability mainly due advanced aerodynamics. i.e. The tail of the MiG-29 is said to have been positioned to take advantage of the four vortices by the wing and fuselage.

In combat provided that the MiG-29's 7.5g above 0.85 mach can be avoided it should beat any F-16 due to its BVR capability , higher thrust/weight ratio and lower wing loading. While in recent exercises between USAF F-16 and German MiG-29A's showed that in ACM the greatest advantage the MiG-29 had was it's helmet mounted sight coupled with the AA-11 Archer which gives it a kill zone greater than any aircraft serving. F-16 pilots found that any aircraft within 45deg's of the nose of a MiG-29 was always under grave threat. The ability to target aircraft well of boresight has proved to be such a success that helmet mounted sights have become requirements on any new fighter program.


Luftwaffe MiG-29s and USAF F-16s have engaged in intense DACT exercises

While both aircraft have short-commings those of the MiG-29 have effectively been solved with newer versions ( MiG-29 S/M/K and MiG-33 ) which have increased the fuel capacity of the MiG as well as adding an in-flight refueling system. The number of hard points has also been increased by two and the max warload has been doubled, along with the inclusion of a fly-by-wire flight control system and a new radar that allowed two targets to be engaged simultaneously with the new AA-12 Adder active radar missile as well as full clearance for flight at 9 g's . Most of these upgrades have been offered to current users of the MiG-29 with the Russian and Indian airforces conducting some upgrades.

The F-16 by comparison has had few of it's problems solved in the past few years. One of it's greatest drawbacks the lack of a BVR capability was solved with the clearance of the AMRAAM for use on the F-16 but the second major problem of insufficient wing area on the F-16C has never been solved.

whats your point here..? which one is good..?
 
.
whats your point here..? which one is good..?

hay, just found this one on strategypage
November 10, 2010: India is buying 107 American F414 jet engines for its new LCA (Light Combat Aircraft, or "Tejas") jet fighter. These engines will cost about $7.7 million each. Eventually, most of the LCAs built will be powered by the Indian Kaveri engine, which is still in development hell. The F414s will substitute only until the Kaveri is ready.

To deal with the Kaveri problem, earlier this year India made a deal with French engine manufacturer Snecma, to provide $200 million worth of technical assistance. Last year, the Indian air force had asserted that help from Snecma would not save the ill-fated Kaveri engine program. But the government apparently believes that it is necessary for India to acquire the ability to design and build world class jet engines, whatever the cost. Only a few nations can do this, and India wants to be one of them, soon, at whatever cost.

When work began on the Kaveri, in the mid-1980s, it was believed that the LCA would be ready for flight testing by 1990. A long list of technical delays resulted in that first flight not taking place until 2001. Corners had to be cut to make this happen, for the LCA was originally designed to use the Indian built Kaveri engine.

For a jet fighter, the engine is the most complex part of the aircraft, and the Kaveri has had its share of setbacks. Fortunately, there was an American engine, the GE F404, that fit the LCA, and could be used as a stop-gap. The Kaveri engine is still not ready for flight tests. The American engine has been used in the meantime. The F414 is a more recent model of the F404, and has 15 percent more thrust.

The LCA is only now preparing to enter mass production. Five prototypes already exist, and another ten pre-production models will be built next year. By 2012, mass production (at least 20 aircraft a year) is to begin, no matter what. Or at least that's the plan. For over two decades, India has been trying to design, develop and manufacture its own LCA "lightweight fighter," but the project has been a major disaster.

The U.S. F-16 is probably the premier "lightweight fighter" in service, and entered wide service about the time India began thinking about creating their own. Both the F-16 (at least the earlier models), and the LCA, weigh about 12-13 tons. But the F-16 is a high performance aircraft, with a proven combat record, while the LCA is sort of an improved Mirage/MiG-21 type design. Not too shabby, and cheap (about half the cost of an F-16). Also, for all this time, money and grief, India has made its aviation industry a bit more capable and mature.

For all this, India only plans to buy 200-300 LCAs, mainly to replace its aging MiG-21s, plus more if the navy finds the LCA works on carriers. Export prospects are dim, given all the competition out there (especially for cheap, second-hand F-16s). The delays have led the air force to look around for a hundred or so new aircraft (or even used F-16s) to fill the gap between elderly MiG-21s falling apart, and the arrival of the new LCAs. However, two decades down the road, the replacement for the LCA will probably be a more competitive, and timely, aircraft.

Last year, the Indian Navy announced it was buying six of the new LCA fighters to operate from the new carriers that are to enter service in the next five years. This is an experiment to see how the LCA will do as a carrier aircraft. The navy has already bought navalized MiG-29s for these carriers. The navy LCAs will also be navalized (mainly stronger landing gear, a tail hook and different cockpit electronics.) The MiG-29K weighs 21 tons (16 percent weapons), while the navalized LCA weighs 13 tons (34 percent of that weapons). The MiG-29 is a better fighter, but the LCA carries a little more (4 versus 3.5 tons) armament, making it a cheaper way to attack ships or land targets with missiles and bombs. A land based carrier deck is being built, so the naval LCA can begin tests, and training pilots, within two years.
Warplanes: America And France Help India Out
Why dont you guys go and do some bashing over there:coffee:
 
.
hay, just found this one on strategypage
...

oops i think other ways...:cheers:

But still my Question remains need to be answered by any good person with knowedge plz..

"There is any BVR platform in PAF in 2008??? If soo which one and from when it did active service in PAF???"
 
. .
oops i think other ways...:cheers:

But still my Question remains need to be answered by any good person with knowedge plz..

"There is any BVR platform in PAF in 2008??? If soo which one and from when it did active service in PAF???"
To satisfy the pain in.......
Mirage IIIO ROSE I

33 of the ex-Australian Dassault Mirage IIIO/D aircraft of the PAF were modified to ROSE I standard. The cockpit was modernised with a new head-up display (HUD), "hands on throttle and stick" (HOTAS) controls and new multi-function displays (MFD). New navigation systems, including an inertial navigation system and GPS system, were also installed. Defensive systems upgrades consisted of a new radar warning receiver (RWR), electronic countermeasures (ECM) suite and counter-measure dispensing system, dispensing decoy flares and chaff to confuse enemy missiles and radar.

In 1991, the PAF bought 50 Australian Mirage IIIO/D, 45 of which were refurbished and put into PAF service. The FIAR Grifo M3 radar was then to be fitted to 33 of the Mirage IIIEA/DA fighters which were procured from Australia, following on from the earlier ROSE avionics upgrade integrated by Sagem. It was stated that ROSE I fighters could easily be in service beyond 2010. In early 1999 it was stated that problems in "certain parameters - and errors in certain modes" had surfaced during flight trials of the Grifo M radar in the Mirage III, but these were later solved.

45 of the 50 Dassault Mirage III fighters received from Australia were found to be suitable for service with the PAF, 12 of them were overhauled at PAC and made operational. After being inspected, the remaining 33 were selected for upgrade under Project ROSE. In June 1998 the cockpit upgrades for the 33 Mirage III fighters was completed, including installation of multi-function displays (MFD), head-up display (HUD), HOTAS controls, radar altimeter and a Sagem nav/attack system. The Grifo M multi-mode radar was installed later in a second phase of the upgrade project.
The integration of a new Italian fire-control radar, the FIAR (now SELEX Galileo) Grifo M3, gave Mirage III ROSE I fighters the ability to fire advanced beyond visual range (BVR) radar guided air-to-air missiles. PAF's standard short range air-to-air missile at the time, the AIM-9L Sidewinder, was integrated with the Grifo M3 radar.

The Grifo M3 was developed specifically to fit the Mirage III and has been in full operation on the Mirage III since 2001. It has a power consumption of 200 W, operates in the X-band and is compatible with IR guided, semi-active and active radar guided missiles. The circular antenna has a diameter of 47 cm. The radar has over 30 different operational air-to-air/air-to-surface mission and navigation modes. Air to air modes include Single/Dual Target Track and Track While Scan. Air to surface modes include Real Beam Map, Doppler Beam Sharpening, Sea Low/High, Ground Moving Target Indicator, Ground/Sea Moving Target Track. Other optional modes include Raid Assessment, Non Cooperative Target Identification, SAR (synthetic aperture radar) and Precision Velocity Update. Low, medium and high pulse repetition frequencies reduce effects of ground clutter. Digital adaptive pulse compression technology, dual channel receiver, scanning coverage +/-60 degrees in both azimuth and elevation, air cooling, weighs less than 91 kg, MTBF (flight guaranteed) over 220 hours. Extensive ECCM (electronic counter-counter-measures) provisions and built in test equipment (BITE). IFF interrogators can also be integrated.[8][9]

The PAF is currently installing in-flight refuelling probes to 30 of its Mirage III ROSE I aircraft, stating that it is a pilot programme for the induction of aerial refuelling capability into the PAF.
Project ROSE - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
AoA RockStar nice to have you back. The bold portion is where the PAF link 16 makes the difference. Because the data is being provided by all available ground and air based sensors, the PAF F-16s shall be able to provide mid course updates to the AMRAAM without having to move in close. This is why I believe we may have an edge.

Did you even bother to read my previous post ? All Su 30 MKI's are being retroffied with Link 16 (Contract given to Israeli company). How do you suppose they communicate with Phalcon's ?
The same retrofit is being done under mirage upgrade contract and is currently being done for Mig29 upgrade.

So the point about Link 16 is moot.
 
.
Both the MKK,MK2 have been flown in by PAF pilots..
data on both the R-77,R-27..and the AA-11 is present.
The Python 5 is a 5th gen IR AAM with BVR engagement ability..
And.. lets just say.. we have taken care of that part as well.. and Ill leave it at that.

How ? Please explain.

Just to be on the record - India doesnt have Python 5 missile for its AF. It has Python 4. Python 5 will be used with Spike AAD.
 
.
Since the Pressler amedment started working against us, Pakistani Engineers have been doing wonders. Infact our engineering achievements really stand out.

Never say it can't be done to a Pakistani Engineer

Are you talking about the good ol 'JUGGAD' ?

Indian engineers are one better...they have modifed R77 to make it work like AMRAAM 120D...happy ? Please stop counting on things like engineering skills...its pointless...both sides are on the sub continent.
 
.
To satisfy the pain in......
Mirage IIIO ROSE I

33 of the ex-Australian Dassault Mirage IIIO/D aircraft of the PAF were modified to ROSE I standard. The cockpit was modernised with a new head-up display (HUD), "hands on throttle and stick" (HOTAS) controls and new multi-function displays (MFD). New navigation systems, including an inertial navigation system and GPS system, were also installed. Defensive systems upgrades consisted of a new radar warning receiver (RWR), electronic countermeasures (ECM) suite and counter-measure dispensing system, dispensing decoy flares and chaff to confuse enemy missiles and radar.

In 1991, the PAF bought 50 Australian Mirage IIIO/D, 45 of which were refurbished and put into PAF service. The FIAR Grifo M3 radar was then to be fitted to 33 of the Mirage IIIEA/DA fighters which were procured from Australia, following on from the earlier ROSE avionics upgrade integrated by Sagem. It was stated that ROSE I fighters could easily be in service beyond 2010. In early 1999 it was stated that problems in "certain parameters - and errors in certain modes" had surfaced during flight trials of the Grifo M radar in the Mirage III, but these were later solved.

45 of the 50 Dassault Mirage III fighters received from Australia were found to be suitable for service with the PAF, 12 of them were overhauled at PAC and made operational. After being inspected, the remaining 33 were selected for upgrade under Project ROSE. In June 1998 the cockpit upgrades for the 33 Mirage III fighters was completed, including installation of multi-function displays (MFD), head-up display (HUD), HOTAS controls, radar altimeter and a Sagem nav/attack system. The Grifo M multi-mode radar was installed later in a second phase of the upgrade project.
The integration of a new Italian fire-control radar, the FIAR (now SELEX Galileo) Grifo M3, gave Mirage III ROSE I fighters the ability to fire advanced beyond visual range (BVR) radar guided air-to-air missiles. PAF's standard short range air-to-air missile at the time, the AIM-9L Sidewinder, was integrated with the Grifo M3 radar.

The Grifo M3 was developed specifically to fit the Mirage III and has been in full operation on the Mirage III since 2001. It has a power consumption of 200 W, operates in the X-band and is compatible with IR guided, semi-active and active radar guided missiles. The circular antenna has a diameter of 47 cm. The radar has over 30 different operational air-to-air/air-to-surface mission and navigation modes. Air to air modes include Single/Dual Target Track and Track While Scan. Air to surface modes include Real Beam Map, Doppler Beam Sharpening, Sea Low/High, Ground Moving Target Indicator, Ground/Sea Moving Target Track. Other optional modes include Raid Assessment, Non Cooperative Target Identification, SAR (synthetic aperture radar) and Precision Velocity Update. Low, medium and high pulse repetition frequencies reduce effects of ground clutter. Digital adaptive pulse compression technology, dual channel receiver, scanning coverage +/-60 degrees in both azimuth and elevation, air cooling, weighs less than 91 kg, MTBF (flight guaranteed) over 220 hours. Extensive ECCM (electronic counter-counter-measures) provisions and built in test equipment (BITE). IFF interrogators can also be integrated.[8][9]

The PAF is currently installing in-flight refuelling probes to 30 of its Mirage III ROSE I aircraft, stating that it is a pilot programme for the induction of aerial refuelling capability into the PAF.
Project ROSE - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.

Earlier it was F-7 armed with BVR intercepted Indian MKIs in 2008.

When I questioned the same with technical facts, now saying the only BVR capable fighter in PAF in 2008 is Mirage.

By the way, the thru|Rose upgradation, PAF added only Sidewinder, which is a short range missile, not any SD-10 or AMRAAM or Matra.

Rgds,
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom