for PAF What a Mirage offeres that F-16/ JF 16 don't/ Can't/ Won't

[niaz]

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the B-57s primarily tasked with deep strike until 1985? Reportedly, the Mirage IIIs were tasked with "tactical strikes" along with recce. From what I remember reading, the Mirage III didn't really have enough legs for deep strike sorties, as complained by the Israelis. The Mirage V came about exactly due to this when the Israelis suggested that the avionics behind the cockpit of the Mirage III be replaced with more fuel.

Sir,

You are partially correct.

B-57 was a subsonic medium range bomber. Its combat radius with 2000 KG in the Bombay & 1,300 on external hardpoints was over 900 miles but at altitude. Pakistan received only 26 B-57s & 2 RB-57s. Understand Pakistan lost 3 B-57s in the 1965 conflict, others were lost due to attrition & accidents. (I was at my uncles who lived in at the Pak Capital Exchange compound and witnessed Air Cmdr. Masroor's B-57 as it flew over and crashed somewhere near the present day Gulshan Iqbal area in 1967). To the best of my info, there were only 15 B-57 left by the time Mirage III became operation in the PAF.

Mirage III, on the other hand, is a Mach 2 fighter bomber with all-weather capability. It can carry greater bomb load (4000Kg) than B-57 and has a combat range of just over 700 miles. The only difference between Mirage III and Mirage 5 is that Mirage V has a slightly longer nose and has a longer range than Mirage III in the Hi-Lo-Hi profile.

Mirage V model came about because of Israelis request to eliminate all-weather Radar (it was not needed in the Mid- East environment) replacing the space with more fuel. Its main advantage over Mirage III is its ability to carry 2 x 400KG bombs in hi-low-high profile up to 675 miles with the external fuel tanks in clear weather and it also costs less. However, the later models of Mirage V have been upgraded with more capable radar & avionics.

 

[alphibeti]

At kargil War whole PAF didn't have a single BVR on its arsenal @Syed Hammad Ahmed

Yeah, that's correct but... Is BVR = PAF? Do you think PAF - BVR = 0?
I think that might be a factor for not putting PAF in action during Kargil crisis, a minor one though. The most crucial issue was that there was apparently a paralyze in the state of Pakistan. Political leadership, caught in the nap, was shocked, disappointed, and so unwilling to take the challenge seriously just because no one literally was taken aboard before the actual action by Musharraf. Anyhow, PAF would have surprised many had it put in action during the Kargil war. IAF and IA wouldn't have been allowed to bomb our isolated positions with such an impunity by M2ks and Bofors. But obviously the political leadership was neither ready nor willing to face the inevitable consequences of escalating the situation.

 

[ghazi768]

I invite you to commentary on 2 different platforms

different from their physical layout, capability (payolad, engine, performance, avionics) and mission

the Discussion is centered around Mirage , it will serve for few more years but knowing its a 60/70s era plane it will have to be retired despite its excellent service to date

when PAF got Mirages originally what was their role?
did it change to dedicated strike role later?
what made it so special?
what other Airforces got them for multi role or strike role only?
why Mirage is fit for a strike role better than JF-17 or F-16?

what will be a true representative of Mirage then? a modified JF-17 with some compromises and some additions?
would future blocks of JF-17 ever be able to match its its capability that comes with speed?

or like for like replacement of Delta wing jet like Grippen or J-10? Mirage 2000 (their production stopped their spares maybe an issue).

when PAF got Mirages originally what was their role?
Interception

did it change to dedicated strike role later?
For some of the fleet

what made it so special?
Nothing, almost everyone was retiring them so were available cheaply and french were ready to customize avionics for us in ROSE program.

what other Airforces got them for multi role or strike role only?
Any fighter jet form 2nd generation, I think, could be used for strike using gravity bombs. Actually Mirage F1 was preferred by other airforces for strike role because of its conventional wing design which made it easer to fly low than Mirage 3/5 delta winged ones (Although F1 was originally commissioned by french airforce as interceptors as their wing design was better at energy management).

why Mirage is fit for a strike role better than JF-17 or F-16?
Both have pros and cons, mostly because of availability of different munitions to us for F-16s. Mirages pros are in strategic, SOW, anti-radar and anti-shipping domains for what we have got or customised Mirages for. F-16 have got the best pod and excellent and tested in wars munitions for precision strike. JF-17 is an evolving platform which will Insha-Allah eclipse Mirages certainly and in-time even F-16s, in all domains.

would future blocks of JF-17 ever be able to match its its capability that comes with speed?
Speed is a misnomer, both can go beyond Mach 1 but both will need to burn after-burners for that. Speed is helpful especially in escaping quickly and that both are capable of doing. JF-17 may actually have an advantage because of its RWR to help it get out of harms way quicker than Mirages. Because of this and its other electronics, most probably they will used in combination with Mirages where possible.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

when PAF got Mirages originally what was their role?
Interception

did it change to dedicated strike role later?
For some of the fleet

what made it so special?
Nothing, almost everyone was retiring them so were available cheaply and french were ready to customize avionics for us in ROSE program.

what other Airforces got them for multi role or strike role only?
Any fighter jet form 2nd generation, I think, could be used for strike using gravity bombs. Actually Mirage F1 was preferred by other airforces for strike role because of its conventional wing design which made it easer to fly low than Mirage 3/5 delta winged ones (Although F1 was originally commissioned by french airforce as interceptors as their wing design was better at energy management).

why Mirage is fit for a strike role better than JF-17 or F-16?
Both have pros and cons, mostly because of availability of different munitions to us for F-16s. Mirages pros are in strategic, SOW, anti-radar and anti-shipping domains for what we have got or customised Mirages for. F-16 have got the best pod and excellent and tested in wars munitions for precision strike. JF-17 is an evolving platform which will Insha-Allah eclipse Mirages certainly and in-time even F-16s, in all domains.

would future blocks of JF-17 ever be able to match its its capability that comes with speed?
Speed is a misnomer, both can go beyond Mach 1 but both will need to burn after-burners for that. Speed is helpful especially in escaping quickly and that both are capable of doing. JF-17 may actually have an advantage because of its RWR to help it get out of harms way quicker than Mirages. Because of this and its other electronics, most probably they will used in combination with Mirages where possible.

I recall early 80s when our 23March used to be in Pindi
mirage led the fly past
dive climb and barrel role in a blink until the mid 80s F16s became the show stealers.
Mirage 3 always looked ahead of its time and till today only looks from yesteryear time.

 

[tarrar]

I think PAF uses Mirage only for bombing missions, others wise I don't see any use of obsolete mirages in PAF