This Is the Ultimate MiG-21

[MilSpec]

You missed what he was trying to say. Actually you completely missed it. He is not claiming that a certain missile has range more than the other missile, but rather what is the chance that a missile can hit a target SUCCESSFULLY within those range limits. A missile having a range of 100NM will not have a 100% kill probability at 100NM. It will be far less than that. There has been numerous discussions here and on other forums that the way missile range is calculated is very misleading. It is not standardized at all. Russians do it in a different way than Americans. A missile that is approaching head on to a target has a higher chance of kill than the missile that has to put up a chase. And if that chase is already 50nautical miles behind, then the missile has a low probability of kill.

The AIM54 Phoenix was a mammoth of a missile, with 100NM range, but was superseded by shorter range AIM120. So it is not exactly the range that matters. But the chances of kill. And beyond a certain limit, like speed, altitude, direction, turn rate etc, the dynamics of the missile govern the chance that if it will hit or miss the target.

The last part of your post stating Underdevelopment etc is not relevent here. Aim120 and SD10A are both in active service and more than enough that PAF needs.

Substantiate the kill or escape probability with any test data if available.

 

[Donatello]

Substantiate the kill or escape probability with any test data if available.

Wrong thread to discuss individual missile statistics, which in reality may not be available at all.

 

[Storm Force]

Not wishing to piss on your parade about SD10 and AIM120 bvrs

But let me confirm that your missles are as good as your radars and your fighters jammers and ew suites

Pretty much gurantee that PESA scanned radar on the MKI tracks two or three x as fast as the mechanical scanners on the F16 & JF17 in PAF arsenal.

I am also certain that the ELTA jammers on the mki will be better than anything in the PAF arsenal.

______________________-

THE POINT im trying to prove is that this theory that a great BVR is the be all AND END ALL of the fighter is not the REALITY

The MKI has better technological radars than any MSA fighter

TO BEAT IT you need to AESA radars to both JF17 & F16 then coupled with you BVRS you may have the edge..

OTHERWISE the indian will see you first sinmply because his radar works quicker

 

[SQ8]

PAF LOST An F16 to a MIG23

One F-16 was lost in these battles during an encounter between two F-16s and
four Soviet Air Force MiG 23s on 29 April 1987. The pilot, Flight Lieutenant Shahid Sikandar Khan, ejected safely

Shocking since the MIG23 are vintage planes

No, it was a fratricide. Proved again and again .. which is why you shall NOT mention it again in this thread.

 

[SQ8]

As far as Missile comparison is concerned, although older Rvv ae are comparable to Aim 120C, the newer lot of RVV AEM1 with multi-function doppler-monopulse active radar seeker have better performance than RVV AE, addtionally Python IV currently posses the best all aspect seeker in the combat arena as of today and is also qualified on the MKI.

I would not discount the AIM-120C that easily.. not its later versions anyway. There is a lot more that they offer to the Operator.
It is quite interesting that the Russians persisted with the R-27 even though the R-77 was meant to replace it. Tell you a lot about the design of a system and growth potential. Having a LOAL mode is getting very common with the short range weapons now.. and I would not discount it NOT being on later SD-10 variants as the Chinese "mirror" a lot of things they see in Russia and the west.
After all, as a engineer.. the first thing that clicks in your head is...I know how that would be done.

While India does operate an impressive array of Missiles(or equipment for that matter).. I see this as counter-productive in the long run. Where the whole world is moving towards commonality,why have different systems all along? Sure the systems are integrated on the MKI or LCA.. but you and I know that realistically stocks are kept at particular bases and are allotted as per prior operational procedure.
Sure a Python IV may be fired from a MKI but it was never meant for it. The MKI already has the R-74..why would a mission planner want to shove a Python on it if the pilots are not well versed in its employment limitations and tactics?
Moreover, why have different missiles for different aircraft in the first place?

If there were truly smart logistics planners in India, they would focus on having a minimum number of supply headaches.
Unless there are restrictions for usage.. the AA-11 Archer(and all future variants) should be the standard WVR Missile.. One standard Close to Medium Range BVR weapon.. and one very long range weapon for attacking HVAA's and for deterring aggressors. Having.. lets see. ..near ten types of Missiles.. meaning knowing their technical specs, procedures, maintenance.. parts. training and so on. Im not sure if it is something I would truly boast of.

 

[godofwar]

While India does operate an impressive array of Missiles(or equipment for that matter).. I see this as counter-productive in the long run. Where the whole world is moving towards commonality,why have different systems all along? Sure the systems are integrated on the MKI or LCA.. but you and I know that realistically stocks are kept at particular bases and are allotted as per prior operational procedure.
Sure a Python IV may be fired from a MKI but it was never meant for it. The MKI already has the R-74..why would a mission planner want to shove a Python on it if the pilots are not well versed in its employment limitations and tactics?
Moreover, why have different missiles for different aircraft in the first place?

I guess India is copying Russian doctrine

The advantage of having many different types of missiles is that the enemy can not deploy specific counter measures for aparticular missile and is unaware of the safe distance at which he can not be targeted.

 

[SQ8]

I guess India is copying Russian doctrine

The advantage of having many different types of missiles is that the enemy can not deploy specific counter measures for aparticular missile and is unaware of the safe distance at which he can not be targeted.

I do not think you understand what the Russian doctrine was and are inaccurate in what you make it out to be. The Russian doctrine was NOT to have multiple types of missiles.. (except systems that were specific to an aircraft.. such as the R-40 Acrid and the R-93 Anab to the Mig-25 and Tu-28 respectively).. All their missiles were updated and new systems kept coming out.

The Russian doctrine was to have two different types of guidance systems or two weapons with different guidance systems for its aircraft so that even if the enemy has a countermeasure to one guidance system, the other may have a chance to connect.

Russian aircraft even had a selector switch in which they could fire a IR and a Radar guided missile at a target simultaneously since the mid 60s.

If it were up to the Russians, they would love to have a single missile that has both seekers in one(which they are trying to develop) and which they can fit to all their aircraft.

So your point in my view it invalid.

 

[Bratva]

^ AFAIK, Israel did employed dual seeker config in air to air missile with "dolphin head" nose design

 

[MilSpec]

I would not discount the AIM-120C that easily.. not its later versions anyway. There is a lot more that they offer to the Operator.
It is quite interesting that the Russians persisted with the R-27 even though the R-77 was meant to replace it. Tell you a lot about the design of a system and growth potential. Having a LOAL mode is getting very common with the short range weapons now.. and I would not discount it NOT being on later SD-10 variants as the Chinese "mirror" a lot of things they see in Russia and the west.
After all, as a engineer.. the first thing that clicks in your head is...I know how that would be done.

While India does operate an impressive array of Missiles(or equipment for that matter).. I see this as counter-productive in the long run. Where the whole world is moving towards commonality,why have different systems all along? Sure the systems are integrated on the MKI or LCA.. but you and I know that realistically stocks are kept at particular bases and are allotted as per prior operational procedure.
Sure a Python IV may be fired from a MKI but it was never meant for it. The MKI already has the R-74..why would a mission planner want to shove a Python on it if the pilots are not well versed in its employment limitations and tactics?
Moreover, why have different missiles for different aircraft in the first place?

If there were truly smart logistics planners in India, they would focus on having a minimum number of supply headaches.
Unless there are restrictions for usage.. the AA-11 Archer(and all future variants) should be the standard WVR Missile.. One standard Close to Medium Range BVR weapon.. and one very long range weapon for attacking HVAA's and for deterring aggressors. Having.. lets see. ..near ten types of Missiles.. meaning knowing their technical specs, procedures, maintenance.. parts. training and so on. Im not sure if it is something I would truly boast of.

Russian persistence with Alamo, especially with the ER is beacuase can be game changer in the hands of good driver. From what little I know, R27 Er which have newer seekers are extremely useful to be used from N011 platform against agile platforms with pesky radars....

Of course different missiles are an issue and IAF is working to simplify logistics, but with the platforms and their munitions MKI and hopefully LCA Mk2 will be still able to consolidate all of what is available on the shelf. . Python 4 is an excellent all aspect BVR, and it's philosophy of use is very similar to Rvv-AE M1. The only reason to qualify them on MKI is the original platform it was intended for is not ready, and the harriers are retiring, Thus MKI consolidating that inventory in case of an emergency is an added advantage. Similar philosophy was used to qualify R27ET on Mirage 2000H as mig29's operate in the same vicinity and the the stockpile of Vympel stuff is quite huge...

Eventually, we will see only astraI/II, RVV SD, mica the mythic K172 as mainstays of AAM's.

Another reason for India to currently use Israeli /European missile is proliferation of Russian seekers to China and Pakistan. (in certain level also Israeli system from Python 3)

Eventually with AstraI/II that risk will be significantly mitigated.

 

[godofwar]

I do not think you understand what the Russian doctrine was and are inaccurate in what you make it out to be. The Russian doctrine was NOT to have multiple types of missiles.. (except systems that were specific to an aircraft.. such as the R-40 Acrid and the R-93 Anab to the Mig-25 and Tu-28 respectively).. All their missiles were updated and new systems kept coming out.

The Russian doctrine was to have two different types of guidance systems or two weapons with different guidance systems for its aircraft so that even if the enemy has a countermeasure to one guidance system, the other may have a chance to connect.

Russian aircraft even had a selector switch in which they could fire a IR and a Radar guided missile at a target simultaneously since the mid 60s.

If it were up to the Russians, they would love to have a single missile that has both seekers in one(which they are trying to develop) and which they can fit to all their aircraft.

So your point in my view it invalid.

I was not making a point but an educated guess.

I remember reading an article in economic times saying it Russia's strategy to keep many missiles having different velocity and range to keep the enemy guessing.

Since I can not provide the link to the article, this discussion is moot.

 

[HariPrasad]

JF17 is best aircraft we have!!

No it is F 16.

 

[Manticore]

JF-17's various initial design phases | Page 3

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

please go through this thread before reposting

What? Why did you move my posts?

 

[HariPrasad]

Gripen looks amazing love the design

Certainly. Grippen is an excellent design with excellent capability. We have the target to match the latest gripen's capability with our LCA MK2.

 

[Munir]

Certainly. Grippen is an excellent design with excellent capability. We have the target to match the latest gripen's capability with our LCA MK2.

How many decades is that going to take? What is your track record with other products?