What's new

Interesting read about 4th generation fighters

HAIDER

ELITE MEMBER
May 21, 2006
23,762
13
23,463
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
4th generation jet fighter

Aircraft classified as fourth generation jet fighters are those in service approximately from 1980-2010, representing the design concepts of the
1970s. Fourth generation designs are heavily influenced by lessons learned from the previous generation of combat aircraft. Representative fighters
include the "teen" series of American fighters (F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18) and the Soviet MiG-29 and Su-27. The growing costs and the demonstrated success of multi-role aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom II gave rise to the popularity of multi-role fighters. Long-range air-to-air missiles, originally thought to make dogfighting obsolete, proved less influential than expected; designers responded with a renewed emphasis on maneuverability.


The rapid advance of microcomputers in the 1980s and 90s permitted rapid upgrades to the avionics over the lifetimes of these fighters, incorporating system upgrades such as AESA, digital avionics buses, and IRST. Because of the drastic enhancement of capabilities in these upgraded fighters and in new designs of the 1990s that reflected these new capabilities, the designation 4.5th generation is sometimes used to refer to these later designs. It is intended to reflect a class of fighters that are evolutionary upgrades to the 4th generation to incorporate integrated avionics buses and elements of stealth technology. A prime example of this generation is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, an upgrade of the 1970s Hornet design. While the basic aerodynamic features remain the same, the Super Hornet features improved avionics in the form of an all-glass cockpit, a solid-state AESA fixed-array radar, new engines, the structural use of composite materials to reduce weight, and a slightly modified shape to minimize its radar signature.

List of 4th generation fighters
* France: Dassault Mirage 2000
* Israel: IAI Kfir
* India: HAL Tejas
* International:
** Pakistan/China (PRC): JF-17 Thunder
** UK/Germany/Italy: Panavia Tornado
** United Kingdom/United States: McDonnell Douglas/BAe Harrier II
* Japan: Mitsubishi F-2
* Sweden: Saab JA 37 Viggen
* United States:
** Grumman F-14 Tomcat
** McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle
** General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
** McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet
* Soviet Union/Russian Federation
** Mikoyan MiG-29
** Mikoyan MiG-31
** Sukhoi Su-27
** Yakovlev Yak-38
* Taiwan (ROC): AIDC **** Indigenous Defence Fighter
4.5th generation
* France: Dassault Rafale
* International:
**Eurofighter Typhoon (U.K., Germany, Italy and Spain)
**Sukhoi Su-30 MKI (Russia, India and Israel)
* South Korea: F-15K
* People's Republic of China (PRC): Chengdu J-10
* Russia
** Mikoyan MiG-35 (MiG-29 with thrust vectoring)
** Sukhoi Su-30/33/35/37(Su-27 Derivatives)
** Yakovlev Yak-141
* Sweden: Saab JAS-39 Gripen
* Singapore: F-15SG
* United States
** F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
** F-15C/F-15E
* UAE: F-16 Block 60 (F-16E)

5th generation designs
The American F-22 Raptor, put into production in 2004, is often regarded as the first of a new generation of fighters, termed the fifth generation. (Although the European Eurofighter Typhoon is often considered a direct rival to the F-22 Raptor with a similar perfomance). One of the key design differences between the F-22 and preceding designs is an emphasis on stealth. The in-development F-35 Lightning II (formerly Joint Strike Fighter) has also been designed for stealth, and the F-22 has influenced the continued development of the 4th generation designs, and the shape of design work for other countries' long-term fighter development projects (for instance, the rumoured Chinese Shenyang J-XX project, and the Russian PAK FA).

Design considerations

Performance

Perfomance has traditionally been one of the most important design characteristics, as it enables a fighter to gain a favorable position to use its weapons while rendering the enemy unable to use his. This can occur at long range (beyond visual range or BVR) or short range (within visual range or WVR). At short range, the ideal position is to the rear of the enemy aircraft, where he is unable to aim or fire his weapons and his hot exhaust makes a good target for IR-guided missiles. At long range, while optimal positions are not so clear, it is nonetheless an advantage to intercept enemy aircraft before they reach their targets.

These two scenarios have competing demands - interception requires excellent linear speed, while WVR engagements require excellent turn rate and acceleration. Prior to the 1970's, a popular view in the defense community was that missiles would render WVR combat obsolete and hence maneuverability useless. Combat experience proved this untrue due to the poor quality of missiles and the recurring need to visually identify targets. Though improvements in missile technology may make that vision a reality, experience has indicated that sensors are not foolproof and that fighters will still need to be able to fight and maneuver at close ranges. So whereas the premier third generation jet fighters (e.g. the F-4 and Mig-23) were designed as interceptors with a secondary emphasis on maneuverability, interceptors have been relegated to a secondary role in the fourth generation, with a renewed emphasis on maneuverability.

There are two primary contributing factors to maneuverability - the amount of power delivered by the engines, and the ability of the aircraft's control surfaces to translate that power into changes in direction. Air combat manoeuvering (ACM) involves a great deal of energy management, where energy is roughly the sum of altitude and airspeed. The greater energy a fighter has, the more flexibility it has to move where it wants. An aircraft with little energy is immobile, and a defenseless target. Note that power does not necessarily equal speed; while more power gives greater acceleration, the maximum speed of an aircraft is determined by how much drag it produces. Herein lies the tradeoff. Low-drag configurations have small, stubby, highly swept wings that disrupt the airflow as little as possible. However, that also means they have greatly reduced ability to alter the airflow to maneuver the aircraft.

There are two rough indicators of these factors. A plane's turning ability can be roughly measured by its wing loading, defined as the mass of the aircraft divided by the area of its lifing surfaces. A highly loaded wing has little capacity to produce additional lift, and so has limited turning ability, whereas a lightly loaded wing has much greater potential lifting power. A rough measure of acceleration is a plane's thrust to weight ratio

Thrust vectoring is a new technology being introduced to further enhance a fighter's turning ability. By redirecting the jet exhaust, it is possible to directly translate the engine's power into directional changes, more efficiently than via the plane's control surfaces. The technology has been fitted to the Mikoyan MiG-35, Sukhoi Su-30MKI, and F-22 Raptor. The U.S. explored fitting the technology to the F-16 and the F-15, but only introduced it on the F-22 Raptor. There is some indication that the J-10 and Typhoon may eventually be refitted with thrust vectoring.

Supercruise

Supercruise is the ability of aircraft to cruise efficiently at supersonic speeds without the afterburner. Because of parasitic drag effects, fighters carrying external weapons stores encounter excessive drag near the speed of sound, making it impossible or prohibitively fuel-consuming to break the sound barrier. Though fighters easily break Mach 1 and 2 in clean configurations on afterburner, and the English Electric Lightning was able to break Mach 1 without the use of afterburner, these were academic exercises as they were not carrying combat loads.

With improvements to engine power output and careful aeronautical design of weapons stores, it is now possible for fighters to supercruise with combat loads. The Typhoon, and the (fifth-generation) F-22 are the only modern fighters with this ability. Dassault claims the Rafale to be able to supercruise but this claim has yet to be demonstrated. The Typhoon can supercruise at Mach 1.5 with a combat load of six missiles and no tanks, or Mach 1.3 with a full combat load. Though specifications have not been claimed, the F-22 is believed to have superior supercruise ability, owing to its internal weapons stores.

Avionics

Avionics is a catch-all phrase for the electronic systems aboard an aircraft, which have been growing in complexity and importance. The main elements of an aircraft's avionics are its sensors (Radar and IR sensors), computers and data bus, and user interface. Because they can be readily swapped out as new technologies become available, they are often upgraded over the lifetime of an aircraft. Details about these systems are highly protected. Since many export aircraft have downgraded avionics, many buyers substitute domestically developed avionics, sometimes considered superior to the original. For example, the Sukhoi Su-30MKI sold to India, the F-15I and F-16I sold to Israel, and the F-15K sold to South Korea.

The primary sensor for all modern fighters is radar. The U.S. pioneered the use of solid-state AESA radars, which have no moving parts and are capable of projecting a much tighter beam and quicker scans. It is fitted to F-15C, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and the block 60 (export) F-16, and will be used for all future American fighters. A European coalition GTDAR is developing an AESA radar for use on the Typhoon and Rafale, and it is unknown if Russia or China are developing airborne AESA radars. For the next generation F-22 and F-35, the U.S. will utilize Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capacity. This will spread the energy of a radar pulse over several frequencies, so as not to trip the radar warning receivers that all aircraft carry.

In reaction to the increasing American emphasis on radar-evading stealth designs, the Soviet Union turned to alternate sensors. This drove them to emphasize infra-red search and track (IRST) sensors, first introduced on the American F-101 Voodoo and F-102 Delta Dagger fighters in the 1960s, for detection and tracking of airborne targets. These are essentially a TV camera in the IR wavelength, passively measuring the emitted IR radiation from targets. However, as a passive sensor it has limited range, and contains no inherent data about position and direction of targets - these must be inferred from the images captured. IRST sensors have now become standard on Russian aircraft. With the exception of the F-14D, no Western fighters carry built-in IRST sensors for air-to-air detection, though the similar FLIR is often used to acquire ground targets. The next-generation F-22 and F-35 will both have built-in IRST sensors, though the latter's is intended for ground targets.

The tactical implications of the computing and data bus capabilities of aircraft are hard to determine. A more sophisticated computer bus would allow more flexible uses of the existing avionics. For example, it is speculated that the F-22 is able to jam or damage enemy electronics with a focused application of its radar. A computing feature of significant tactical importance is the datalink. All of the modern European and American aircraft are capable of sharing targeting data with allied fighters and from AWACS planes (see JTIDS). The Russian MiG-31 interceptor also has some datalink capability, so it is reasonable to assume that other Russian planes can also do so. The sharing of targeting and sensor data allows pilots to put radiating, highly visible sensors further from enemy forces, while using that data to vector silent fighters toward the enemy.

Cost

The per unit cost is difficult to accurately determine, as the amortization of a large development cost over a varying number of units produced can greatly vary the price. Moreover, the purchase price does not reflect lifetime costs of maintenance, parts, and training. A useful guide to costs come from export prices, which are widely reported, and represent a mix of the marginal cost of production plus some recouperation of development costs.

Figures are in USD unless otherwise specified.
* Dassault Rafale More than €50m, depending on export sales
* Eurofighter Typhoon Austrian version: '03 €62m
* Mitsubishi F-2 US$ 100m
* MiG-29 about '98 US$ 27m
* Sukhoi Su-27US$ 24m
* Sukhoi Su-30 US$ ~38m (Several variants)
** Sukhoi Su-30K for Indonesia: '98 US$ 33m
** Sukhoi Su-30MKK/MK2 for China: '98 US$ 38m
** Sukhoi Su-30MKI for India, highly specified version: '98 US$ 45m
** Sukhoi Su-30MKM for Malaysia, a variant of the Indian version: '03 US$ 50m
* Saab Gripen about '98 US$ 25m
* Ching Kuo IDF (Taiwan) initially large order put cost per unit at US$ 24m
* F-14 Tomcat '98 US$ 48m
* F-15 Eagle '98 US$ 43m
* F-16 Fighting Falcon late models about '98 US$ 25m
* F/A-18 Hornet E/F model '98 US$ 60m
* F-22 Raptor Total program cost of '06 US$ 338m, based on production run of 183 aircraft (Actual unit cost is about US$ 130m)
*F-35 Lightning II:
** F-35A US$ 45m
** F-35B > US$ 100m '06
** F-35C US$ 55m
Maintenance Demands
As militaries make growing use of Operations Research and other management techniques from the corporate world to examine the effectiveness of hardware, a growing emphasis is being placed on maintenance and reliability. A prime example of this is the F/A-18 Hornet. While unimpressive on paper compared to its contemporaries, it incorporated a low-maintenance design. As a result, its mean time between failure is three times greater than any other Navy strike aircraft, and requires half the maintenance time. These greatly elevated its sortie rate and made it more effective than aircraft that were superior in a 1 on 1 comparison but which were more often than not unavailable to fight.
Stealth technology
Stealth technology is an extension of the notion of visual camouflage to modern radar and IR detection sensors. While not rendering an aircraft "invisible" as is popularly conceived, stealth makes an aircraft much more difficult to discern from the sky, clouds, or distant aircraft, conferring a significant tactical advantage. While the basic principles of shaping aircraft to avoid detection were known at least since the 1960's, it was not until the availability of supercomputers that shape computations could be performed from every angle, a complex task. The use of computer-aided shaping, combined with radar-absorbent materials, produced aircraft of drastically reduced radar cross section (RCS) and were much more difficult to detect on radar.

During the 1970's, the rudimentary level of stealth shaping (as seen in the faceted design of the F-117 Nighthawk) resulted in too severe a performance penalty to be used on fighters. Faster computers enabled smoother designs such as the B-2 Spirit, and thought was given to applying the basic ideas to decrease, if not drastically reduce, the RCS of fighter aircraft. These techniques are also combined with methods of decreasing the IR, visual, and aural signature of the aircraft.

Recent American fighter aircraft development has focused on stealth, and the recently deployed F-22 is the first fighter designed from the ground up with a consideration for stealth. However, the stealthiness of the F-22 from angles other than head-on is not clear. The F-35 incorporates the same degree of stealth shaping, although its exposed rear turbine blades render it significantly less stealthy from the rear (the thrust vectoring nozzles of the F-22 also serve to conceal the turbine blades). Several late 4-th generation fighters have been given stealth shaping and other refinements to reduce their RCS, including the Super Hornet, Typhoon, and Rafale.

It should be noted that stealth is considered mainly in terms of lack of visibility to other airborne radars. Ground-based, lower-frequency radars are less affected by stealth features. The Australian Jindalee over-the-horizon radar project is reported to be able to detect the wake turbulence of an aircraft regardless of its stealth capabilities [1]. It remains to be seen whether a similar system can be devised that is small enough to fit into aircraft, and is suitable for tracking rather than simply a warning. Loss of stealth advantages would make the F-35 particularly vulnerable.

There are some reports that the Rafale's avionics, the Thales Spectra, includes "stealthy" radar jamming technology, a radar cancellation systems analogous to the acoustic noise suppression systems on the De Havilland Canada Dash 8. Conventional jammers make locating an aircraft more difficult, but their operation is itself detectable; the French system is hypothesised to interfere with detection without revealing that jamming is in operation. In effect, such a system could potentially offer stealth advantages similar in effect to, but likely less effective than, the F-22 and JSF. However, it is unclear how effective the system is, or even whether it is fully operational yet.

As well, research continues into other ways of decreasing observability by radar. There are claims that the Russians are working on "plasma stealth", [2]. Obviously, such techniques might well remove some of the current advantage of the F-22 and JSF, but American defence research also continues unabated.

There are ways to detect fighters other than radar. For instance, passive infra-red sensors can detect the heat of engines, and even the sound of a sonic boom (which any supersonic aircraft will make) can be tracked with a network of sensors and computers. However, using these to provide precise targeting information for a long-range missile is considerably less straightforward than radar.
Combat performance
--- This list includes some of the 71 confirmed kills the various F-16s from various

--- air forces achieved while losing none in air combat.


* On April 28 1981 Israeli F-16s scored the first air-to-air kill by shooting down two Syrian Mi-8 'Hip' helicopters. [3] and [4] [5]
* The first fighter kill of the F-16 took place on July 14 1981 during 'Operation Opera' when an Israeli pilot downed a Syrian MiG-21. [6]
* In 1982 3 Syrian MiG-21s and 2 Syrian MiG-23s were shot down by Israeli F-16s. [7]
* In 1983 and 1984 numerous Syrian missile sites were attacked and destroyed in Lebanon, while Syrian aircraft were engaged and Israeli F-16s achieved a 44-0 kill ratio. [8] and [9]
* On May 17 1986 a Pakistani F-16 shot down an Afgan Su-22, thus Pakistan became the second country after Israel to put F-16s into military action. [10]
* An F-16 of the Venezuela Air Force downed an AT-27 during the Air Force coup on November 27 1992.
* The first USAF F-16 kill and the first AMRAAM kill took place on December 27 1992 when a USAF F-16D shot down an Iraqi Mig-25 over southern Iraq. [11] [12]
* On January 17, 1993, a USAF F-16 pilot shot down a MiG-29 in Iraqi no-fly zone. (Some sources claim it was a MiG-23.) [13][14][15]
* Two USAF F-16Cs shoot down four Serbian Soko G-4 Super Galebs over Bosnia-Herzegovina during two missions on 28 February 1994. [16] [17]
* During the 1999 Kosovo War, a Dutch F-16 pilot shot down a Yugoslavian MiG-29; a USAF F-16 pilot shot down a Mig-29, the last aerial victory scored against the Mig-29. [18] [19]

--- This list includes some of the confirmed kills the various F-15s achieved in air combat.
* During the 1991 Gulf War, USAF F-15 pilots shot down 5 Iraqi MiG-29 [20]
* During the 1999 Kosovo War, USAF F-15 pilots shot down four MiG-29s. [21]

--- This list includes some of the confirmed kills the various Su-27s achieved in air combat.
* In February 1999, during the Eritrean-Ethiopian War, Ethiopian Su-27 pilots shot down four Eritrean MiG-29s. (Some sources claim that the Ethiopian planes were flown by Russian pilots, the Eritrean planes by Ukrainians. (It is certainly true that local pilots were trained by instructors from those nations.) [22]
Comparative Analysis
It's misleading to extrapolate comparisons regarding these fighters from the combat history, as fighters function in a combined arms environment in which many other factors, including C4I (command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence) assets and pilot training determine success. For example, the undefeated records of the F-15 and F-16 should not be taken as unambiguous indicators of their superiority as airframes, as their combat action involved action by well-trained American and Israeli pilots with superior training and C4I assets against poorly trained adversaries with much poorer C4I assets.

However, for purchasing considerations, nations often consider comparative analyses of fighters to fill their specific mission requirements. Additionally, joint exercises are often revealing about the performance of fighters in a system, even as their validity is compromised by the inherent assumptions about the systems on either side.
DERA study
Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL) did an evaluation (simulation based on the available data) comparing the Typhoon with some other modern fighters in how well they performed against an expected adversary aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-35. Due to the lack of information gathered on the 5th generation combat aircraft and the Su-35 during the time of this study it is not meant to be considered official.

The study used real pilots flying the JOUST system of networked simulators. Various western aircraft supposed data were put in simulated combat against the Su-35. The results were:|Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor|10.1:1|Eurofighter Typhoon|4.5:1|Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker'|1.0:1|Dassault Rafale C|1.0:1|McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle|0.8:1|Boeing F/A-18+|0.4:1|McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C|0.3:1|General Dynamics F-16C|0.3:1
Aircraft Odds vs.
Su-35
These results mean, for example, that in simulated combat, 4.5 Su-35s were shot down for every Typhoon lost. Missiles such as the KS-172 may be intended for large targets and not fighters, but their impact on a long range BVR engagement needs to be factored in.

The "F/A-18+" in the study was apparently not the current F/A-18E/F, but an improved version. All the western aircraft in the simulation were using the AMRAAM missile, except the Rafale which was using the MICA missile. This does not reflect the likely long-term air-to-air armament of Eurofighters (as well as Rafales), which will ultimately be equipped with the longer-range MBDA Meteor (while carrying the AMRAAM as an interim measure).

Details of the simulation have not been released, making it harder to verify whether it gives an accurate evaluation (for instance, whether they had adequate knowledge of the Sukhoi and Raptor to realistically simulate their combat performance). Another problem with the study is the scenarios under which the combat took place are unclear; it is possible that they were deliberately or accidentally skewed to combat scenarios that favoured certain aircraft over others; For instance, long-range engagements favour planes with stealth, good radar and advanced missiles, whereas the Su-35's alleged above-average manoeuverability may prove advantageous in short-range combat. Nor is it clear whether the Su-35 was modeled with thrust vector control (as the present MKIs, MKMs have).

Eventually, we shall not forget that the DERA simulation was made in the mid 90s with limited knowledge about the Radar Cross Section, the ECM and the radar performances of the actual aircraft : indeed, at that time, the 4th/5th generation fighters were all at the prototype stage.

Exercise reports

Friendly air forces regularly practice against each other in exercises, and when these air forces fly different aircraft some indication of the relative capabilities of the aircraft can be gained.

Chinese J-10s have always overcome their Flankers in their exercises adding more mystery to the already little known about aircraft.

The results of an exercise in 2004 pitting USAF F-15 Eagles against Indian Air Force Su-30MKs, Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and even the elderly MiG-21 have been widely publicised, with the Indians winning "90% of the mock combat missions" [23]. Another report [24] claims that the kind of systemic factors mentioned in the previous section were heavily weighted against the F-15s. According to this report, the F-15s were outnumbered 3-to-1. The rules of the exercise also allowed the Indian side the use of a simulated AWACS providing location information, and allowed them to use the full fire-and-forget active radar of simulated MBDA Mica and AA-12 missiles. The F-15s, by contrast, were not permitted to simulate the full range of the AMRAAM (restricted to 32 km when the full range is claimed in the report to be over 100km), nor to use the AMRAAM's own radar systems to guide itself in fire-and-forget mode (rather relying on the F-15's internal radar for the purpose). None of the F-15s were equipped with the latest AESA radars, which are fitted to some, but not all, of the USAF's F-15 fleet.

It is worth noting that the USAF is currently lobbying hard for as large a complement as possible of the F-22, and evidence that present USAF equipment is inferior to potential enemy fighters is a useful lobbying tool.

In June 2005, a Eurofighter pilot was reportedly able, in a mock confrontation, to avoid two pursuing F-15s and outmanoeuvre them to get into shooting position.

During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 proved its mettle against as many as 40 "enemy aircraft" during simulated battles. The Raptor achieved a 108-to-zero kill ratio at that exercise.

(Two IAF HAL Su-30 MK (rear) and two IAF Mirage 2000 fly with two USAF F-15 (middle of V-formation) during Cope India '04. The Su-30s scored a kill ratio of 9:1 over the F-15s during the air exercise.)



http://en.allexperts.com/e/0/4th_generation_jet_fighter.htm
 

PakShaheen

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Jan 2, 2007
40
0
1
I've heard repeatedly that the J-10 isn't considered a 4.5 Gen ac, due to it's in-cockpit technology. Are those just rumours started by competition or does it have any basings to it?
 

EagleEyes

ADMINISTRATOR
Oct 3, 2005
16,776
25
15,254
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I think to the some extent this is true. PAF is not impressed by the radar and other parts of avionics i believe, and that is the reason it might opt for western avionics.
 

HAIDER

ELITE MEMBER
May 21, 2006
23,762
13
23,463
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
You guys notice that F16 has been kill ratio, even against Mig29, or any other russian plane.
 

Neo

RETIRED

New Recruit

Nov 1, 2005
18
0
3,868
I've heard repeatedly that the J-10 isn't considered a 4.5 Gen ac, due to it's in-cockpit technology. Are those just rumours started by competition or does it have any basings to it?
Maybe not yet a 4.5 Gen but its will certainly match block 52 F-16C/D in performance.
I'm sure the FC-20 ( PAF specific derivative of the J-10C) with European avionics and systems will make it a 4.5 Gen fighter.
 

Owais

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 3, 2005
4,512
0
181
Maybe not yet a 4.5 Gen but its will certainly match block 52 F-16C/D in performance.
I'm sure the FC-20 ( PAF specific derivative of the J-10C) with European avionics and systems will make it a 4.5 Gen fighter.
PAF may get these birds only if they are fitted with an AESA radar with a WS10A TVC engine :tup:
 

genmirajborgza786

PDF VETERAN
Mar 20, 2006
4,304
20
6,071
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
Maybe not yet a 4.5 Gen but its will certainly match block 52 F-16C/D in performance.
I'm sure the FC-20 ( PAF specific derivative of the J-10C) with European avionics and systems will make it a 4.5 Gen fighter.
insha'allah but chief i want at least 4-5 squadron of this beautiful bird not just 36 aircraft.
thanks
 

niaz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 18, 2006
5,015
198
10,745
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
IMO the increasing cost of the 5th generation fighters makes it too expensive to use in large numbers. This would have a very strong implication on battlefield scenario where numbers do matter. For example assuming both airforces have comparable aircraft say F1-6 and Mig - 29. The aircrafts will be used primarily to deny each other air superioirty over the battle field and defend the air bases from the air attack. Dosesn't this imply that influence of fixed wing aircraft on the land battle will be minimal and interdiction missions will have to be carried out by the helos?? Would you risk losing a 100-million F-35 to an AA ground defence ??
 

ahussains

FULL MEMBER
Mar 25, 2007
454
0
5
It is possiable that J10 can be the 4.5 Gen by doing some major changes ...

Only one Russian MIG 35 is 4.5 Gen ...

What about there MIG MPFI or 1.44 Mig Project... ?
 

Contrarian

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 23, 2006
11,572
4
10,721
Su-30MKI is also 4.5 gen.

Niaz, how will PAF constantly defend the waves of aircraft on Pakistani territory. If the numbers were going to be even roughly equal then no side could attain air superiority and what you said, would hold true.

But IAF has the numbers heavily tilted on its side. How can PAF defend against such a large force? If PAF had the technological edge it always relied upon, it could still be udnerstood, but for now, PAF is not ahead in technology, rather it is lacking in it. And it seems that there is nothing in the offing for PAF that would make it technologically superior to the IAF.

There have been many many reports that PAf is beefing up its sqd strength while IAF is depleting it, but then again, that is not true. Ask me if you want to know why or you would prolly know yourself.
 

EagleEyes

ADMINISTRATOR
Oct 3, 2005
16,776
25
15,254
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I will be short.

MRCA is not until 2015.

Mig-21 are being replaced. Mig-23 is already gone.

Pakistan side will be acquiring 95 F-16s, 250-300 JF-17s and 36 J-10s. Mostly modern with western avionics, BVR capability and support from AEW&Cs.

IAF has no technological edge when it comes to air fight in the future, neither many numbers as i see in the future. Basically, it will be a though fight. May the best one wins.
 

Contrarian

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 23, 2006
11,572
4
10,721
Yes, but this is the precicse mistake that every one commits. Pakistan wont be acquiring 250-300 JF-17's before 2015 EITHER. It is also YET to get the new F-16's, willbe around 2010-12. And ls forget about the J-10's. PAF will have to modify the plane quite a bit.

In lieu 230 Su-30MKI's by 2012-13. 126 MRCA by 2015/16. AWACS, etc, etc is all there in IAF too.

And IAF is phasing out all its old planes, doesnt PAF plan to do the same? So saing MiG 21's and 23's will go and all the PAF old planes will stay is weird.

Im not saying IAF has a mjor technological edge on PAF, im saying is that SINCE PAF does not have a technological edge on IAF, how does it plan to counter the sheer numerical superiority of IAF.
 

foxhound

FULL MEMBER
Apr 1, 2007
473
0
238
I think overall, the IAF has a quantitatively and numerical superiority over the PAF at the moment. The PAf needs to promptly upgrade or replace with the latest technology. The PAf should not just concentrate the threat from the IAF but should consider measures from other 'parties'...such as NATO forces....and possibly attempt to do something that will nuetralise air superiority from counties like the USA.

The IAF has alot of potential.....and could cause 'mayhem' if the PAF does not rapidly catch up.
 

Contrarian

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 23, 2006
11,572
4
10,721
230 MKI by 2012?? you must be kidding me!
Nope. Please google if you wish. The delivery schedule has been compressed from the original dateline of 2018 to 2012-13. It cost India more money, and more money was given to Russia, so that apart from compressing their own schedule, HAL's load would be reduced. Cuz HAL was slow, so some of HAL's orders were given to Russia as well.

I think you would remember this by when some people started saying India could not even build Su-30MKI's and that is why the orders were being given back to Russia. That was actually to compress the timeframe.

Apart from that the 40 new Su-30MKI's would also be fit in that time, that is what is the idea and some reports have said that, but i cannot confirm that. The additional 40 MKI's may take a bit more time. There configuration is also supposed to be different from even the Su-30MKI MkIII. Speculation is that it should have new engines(not sure), new avionics, new radar(Irbis)etc, etc. There has already been some controversy over the money over them. Its costing a lot, which even if you take inflation and time run, is a lot over the top.


with whome? LCA? Which is still a test bed or witH 126 MRCA?
126 MRCA as WELL as LCA. LCA has already been ordered if you have missed the news. Orders for 20 LCA's were given to ADA using F-404IN20 engines.

126 MRCA would also be in roughly around the timeframe of 2015, Russia has already expressed that it can deliver the planes VERY fast. The entire line would be for India and it would ensure SPEED.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom