khanasifm
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 7,082
- Reaction score
- 6
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Military Aircraft Maximum Speeds
www.aerospaceweb.org
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think this may boil down to 2 issues: (1) the PAF itself didn't expect the Mirage III/5 to endure for this long and (2) the PAF didn't foresee its air-launched strike capabilities evolving to the extent that it did in the last 10-15 years. Generally, a SOW strike was likely a very limited (in scale) tool, but now, large-scale SOW employment is a difference-maker that could buy the PAF valuable time and space in a conflict. The current ASR of the NGFA clearly asks for a very capable strike platform. IMO, "deep strike" (via SOW, large platforms, etc) will be the new "next thing" the PAF will seek moving forward (as it had for BVR a couple decades back).
If the PAF could run it back, I think it would have pursued a Cheetah-type project back in the mid-1990s (instead of ROSE) across 100+ airframes so as to build a large deep-strike capability.
Yea, and SOWs may be scalable and relatively low cost too. I'm thinking about the IREKs. They aren't fancy, but could get the job done at 60-100 km with Mk83s. The more platforms available to carry those the better.Yes, it seemed the development of our SOW capability moved so fast that all we require are just decent platforms as carriers, the sophistication and capability are all in the missile, in the early 90-s this was not the case.
Yea, and SOWs may be scalable and relatively low cost too. I'm thinking about the IREKs. They aren't fancy, but could get the job done at 60-100 km with Mk83s. The more platforms available to carry those the better.
@denel.I think this may boil down to 2 issues: (1) the PAF itself didn't expect the Mirage III/5 to endure for this long and (2) the PAF didn't foresee its air-launched strike capabilities evolving to the extent that it did in the last 10-15 years. Generally, a SOW strike was likely a very limited (in scale) tool, but now, large-scale SOW employment is a difference-maker that could buy the PAF valuable time and space in a conflict. The current ASR of the NGFA clearly asks for a very capable strike platform. IMO, "deep strike" (via SOW, large platforms, etc) will be the new "next thing" the PAF will seek moving forward (as it had for BVR a couple decades back).
If the PAF could run it back, I think it would have pursued a Cheetah-type project back in the mid-1990s (instead of ROSE) across 100+ airframes so as to build a large deep-strike capability.
Only for ATAR9C. PAC does not have the capability to modify them in any sense. They are doing what is done at the MRO i-e strip the engine, inspect, overhaul and replace worn out parts such as bearing, shafts etc. We do not have the metallurgical expertise to manufacture compressor or turbine blades.I don't disagree with that, but I still wonder... it's been a while since KT tested it in dive mode. PAC has a full overhaul facility for the SNECMA. Have they made any mods? Who knows. I'm just speculating.
They call them mirage 5 but actually they are mirage 3