Capabilities of PAF Dassault MIRAGE-III/V.

[Marker]

Rational Approach for PAF to Upgrade its Fleet

Upgrading and refurbishing an existing aircraft fleet is far cheaper option then procuring a new aircraft system from China or France or any other country willing to export such systems to Pakistan.

The cost of inducting a new aircraft system do not only comprises cost of aircraft, but also cost of logistic support including first, second and third line maintenance facilities.

Therefore, inducting Mirage 2000 or Jh-7 or J-10 is never a viable course for PAF.

Rational approach for PAF is to expeditiously induct JF-17 Block III say 80 to 100 aircraft. Till then PAF should continue operating the Mirages while upgrading JF-17 Block I and IIs.

PAF should also focus on establishing in-country manufacturing facilities for avionics/electronics, jet engines, and aircraft /airframe with the support of sincere and serious local investors and vendors and foreign collaborators.

PAF is already involved in a very ambitious R&D project named “AZM”. But its success depends on the availability of appropriate infrastructure (as mentioned above) needed for the project completion.

Meanwhile PAF can collaborate with Chinese counterparts to design and manufacture another derivative of JF-17, a medium weight multi-role platform having twin engines with TVN, minimum RCS (near stealth capability), FBO flight controls, super cruise, higher pay load capacity, very high service ceiling say 65000 to 70000 ft and about 3000 to 3500 kms combat range, state of the art EW, ECM and radar package.

The experience gained during designing, manufacturing, integrating and operating this derivative will help to develop a formidable stealth air platform.

PAF should also divert its resources to continuously develop and acquire anti-stealth technologies and integrate these into existing air platforms.

 

[Path-Finder]

Frankly the best alternative for dedicated strike platform is Jh7 for replacement of Mirage 3. History may prove myself or my dear friend @MastanKhan who strongly believe this is much needed.

JH-7 is not better than Panavia Tornado, if I am wrong then correct me. So It might be better to get retired Panavia Tornado instead!

 

[aliyusuf]

JH-7 is not better than Panavia Tornado, if I am wrong then correct me. So It might be better to get retired Panavia Tornado instead!

Doubt if the US won't use it's influence with the UK to scuttle such a deal. Tornado's were the best supersonic under the radar low-level flying strike planes of it's time. They could even be totally modified with Chinese avionics and weapons ... as it is very doubtful that top end western munitions will be allowed anymore.

 

[Path-Finder]

Doubt if the US won't use it's influence with the UK to scuttle such a deal. Tornado's were the best at supersonic under the radar low-level flying strike planes of it's time. They could even be totally modified with Chinese avionics and weapons ... as it is very doubtful that top end western munitions will be allowed anymore.

The plane is maintenance heavy and costly to operate, but what made it viable was the Euro consortium and the users which allowed it to fly for as long as it did. It is a very successful platform with its impressive operational history. But PAF is not interested in such planes for reasons not openly known. The fact that this plane is being retired now as the role it fulfilled is not optimal in the present and future battlefield.

 

[aliyusuf]

The plane is maintenance heavy and costly to operate, but what made it viable was the Euro consortium and the users which allowed it to fly for as long as it did. It is a very successful platform with its impressive operational history. But PAF is not interested in such planes for reasons not openly known. The fact that this plane is being retired now as the role it fulfilled is not optimal in the present and future battlefield.

Until acquisition of LO/VLO (stealth) or low RCS planes like Eurofighter, Rafale or SuperHornet is possible (not all air forces them), something like the Tornado may still be contemporary in our theater of war for a foreseeable future.

 

[Marker]

Correct; these have been discussed earlier to great lengths .


Frankly the best alternative for dedicated strike platform is Jh7 for replacement of Mirage 3. History may prove myself or my dear friend @MastanKhan who strongly believe this is much needed.

Performance and Capacity Comparison JF-17 vs JH-7 vs Mirage

Crew: JF-17 – 1 pilot
JH-7 – 2 pilots
Mirage – 1 pilot

Payload: JF-17 – 1,542 kg (3,400 lb) external stores
JH-7 – 9000 kg (20000 lb) external stores
Mirage – 4000 kg

Powerplant: JF-17 – 1 × Klimov RD-93 afterburning turbofan
JH-7 – 2 × Xian WS-9 Qinling turbofan engines
Mirage – 1 × SNECMA Atar 9C afterburning turbojet

Max speed: JF-17 – Mach 1.6 to 1.8
JH-7 – Mach 1.52
Mirage – Mach 2.0

Combat range: JF-17 – 1350 kms
JH-7 – 900 kms (without in-flight refueling) 1760 kms (with in-flight refueling)
Mirage – 1,250 kms

Hard points: JF-17 – 7 + 1 (Block 3)
JH-7 – 9
Mirage – 5

Above comparison data clearly reveals that JH-7 can carry substantial payload on its external hard points but its range is least about 900 kms! So PAF cannot use JH-7 as its deep strike aircraft.

 

[denel]

I bought a few books to add to my collection and wanted to share a small section of it for all the Mirage lovers and our South African friend here @denel .
It also reminded me of what the Wing Commander Kaiser Tufail said in the Aircrew Interviews, when asked about PAF's performance, where all the countries that enlisted the help of our instructor pilots must have seen something in our performance viz-a-viz Indian Air Force.

Enjoy

-----
The Air Pockets
Accolades in South Africa - by Air Marshal Najeeb Akhtar

In early nineties, PAF had started looking for various hitherto untapped sources of armaments and weapons; among these was South Africa with which we did not have diplomatic relations. So, I flew to London aboard a normal PIA flight, acquired a ready made South African passport and traveled to Johannesburg on the South African carrier. During the visit, I was informed one evening that the South African Air Force Chief, a Brigadier wanted me to meet him. I immediately sat down and prepared some talking points, mainly on the PAF, for visit the next day.

When I arrived at the Air Force HQ, I was received with a friendly smile from the Brigadier. After a nice cup of coffee when I began to speak about the Pakistan Air Force, the Brigadier politely interrupted, saying he knew a lot about the PAF and so did all his pilots. I was surprised and wanted to know the reason for his air force knowing the PAF so well.

"Well you see", he spoke. "You know that we have been flying Mirages for a long time. About twenty years ago, we were involved in a war with Angola. The Angolan Air Force flew the Mig-21 Bis aircraft. We knew nothing about the tactics used by the Mig-21 Bis against the Mirages. We contacted the Americans and sent us their manual on fighting the Mig-21 Bis. Then we talked to the Israelis and they gave us a handwritten manual - titled, 'How a Mig-21 Bis ought to fight a Mirage'. It was authored by some unknown Pakistani pilot serving in Egypt for Syria. The write-up somehow fell into the hands of the Mossad, was handed over to the Israeli Air Force that adapted it in their fighter squadrons and they gave it to us. We also found it most useful and our pilots developed fighter tactics accordingly. . "You see, we know about your air force and pilots already". I felt tremendous joy at this compliment paid to an unknown colleague and to the Pakistan Air Force in that corner of the world.

The coffee had never tasted more delicious!
-------

That is an actual fact; we had paid attention to PAF and IAF in their use of Mirages; PAF in particular as they had experience with Mig21 vs Mirage 3.

One correction to this article.... he could not gotten a RSA passport as that is illegal; this was a bar coded visa that was pasted on his Pak passport and could be removed as needed.

Performance and Capacity Comparison JF-17 vs JH-7 vs Mirage

Crew: JF-17 – 1 pilot
JH-7 – 2 pilots
Mirage – 1 pilot

Payload: JF-17 – 1,542 kg (3,400 lb) external stores
JH-7 – 9000 kg (20000 lb) external stores
Mirage – 4000 kg

Powerplant: JF-17 – 1 × Klimov RD-93 afterburning turbofan
JH-7 – 2 × Xian WS-9 Qinling turbofan engines
Mirage – 1 × SNECMA Atar 9C afterburning turbojet

Max speed: JF-17 – Mach 1.6 to 1.8
JH-7 – Mach 1.52
Mirage – Mach 2.0

Combat range: JF-17 – 1350 kms
JH-7 – 900 kms (without in-flight refueling) 1760 kms (with in-flight refueling)
Mirage – 1,250 kms

Hard points: JF-17 – 7 + 1 (Block 3)
JH-7 – 9
Mirage – 5

Above comparison data clearly reveals that JH-7 can carry substantial payload on its external hard points but its range is least about 900 kms! So PAF cannot use JH-7 as its deep strike aircraft.

Please recheck your numbers friend. Mirages M2.0+ is only at a burst and not sustained; it is always below 1.2 - Atar turbojets are much fuel hungry vs the Spey turbofans that are on JH7.. Range varies as per payload as well; so basic maths there.

 

[Marker]

Please recheck your numbers friend. Mirages M2.0+ is only at a burst and not sustained; it is always below 1.2 - Atar turbojets are much fuel hungry vs the Spey turbofans that are on JH7.. Range varies as per payload as well; so basic maths there.

Please refer the following:
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/mirage-iii/
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/mirage-5/
According to them, the max speed for Mirage III/V is Mach 2.0. You are right that max speed is not a sustained speed.

Mirage III/V is powered by a single turbojet engine (French) whereas JH-7 is powered by two turbofan engines (a Chinese copy of Rolls Royce Spey engine). Hence it is logical that overall fuel consumption per km of JH-7 will be higher than Mirage.

Yes, range will vary according to the payload and its aerodynamics. However, combat ranges are given not for max payload. 900 kms is very less for deep strike missions. Though the combat range of JH-7 can be extended to 1760 km with aerial refueling but considering the depth of Pakistani airspace and location of various airbases, in-flight refueling will not be easy for first few days of the conflict. Hence cost:opportunity ratio is more tilted towards cost.

 

[LKJ86]

Yes, range will vary according to the payload and its aerodynamics. However, combat ranges are given not for max payload. 900 kms is very less for deep strike missions. Though the combat range of JH-7 can be extended to 1760 km with aerial refueling but considering the depth of Pakistani airspace and location of various airbases, in-flight refueling will not be easy for first few days of the conflict. Hence cost:opportunity ratio is more tilted towards cost.

900km? Are you seriously?
Do you think JH-7 or JH-7A has the in-flight refuelling capability?

 

[Marker]

900km? Are you seriously?
Do you think JH-7 or JH-7A has the in-flight refuelling capability?

Please refer wikipedia for complete specs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi'an_JH-7

and also Global Security
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/jh-7-specs.htm

 

[denel]

Please refer the following:
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/mirage-iii/
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/mirage-5/
According to them, the max speed for Mirage III/V is Mach 2.0. You are right that max speed is not a sustained speed.

Mirage III/V is powered by a single turbojet engine (French) whereas JH-7 is powered by two turbofan engines (a Chinese copy of Rolls Royce Spey engine). Hence it is logical that overall fuel consumption per km of JH-7 will be higher than Mirage.

Yes, range will vary according to the payload and its aerodynamics. However, combat ranges are given not for max payload. 900 kms is very less for deep strike missions. Though the combat range of JH-7 can be extended to 1760 km with aerial refueling but considering the depth of Pakistani airspace and location of various airbases, in-flight refueling will not be easy for first few days of the conflict. Hence cost:opportunity ratio is more tilted towards cost.

Turbofans consume less vs turbojets; plus jh7 carries more fuel.

JH-7 is not better than Panavia Tornado, if I am wrong then correct me. So It might be better to get retired Panavia Tornado instead!

oh no... tornado is a pig to maintain. the last best british jet was the buccaneer/hunter.

 

[LKJ86]

Please refer wikipedia for complete specs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi'an_JH-7

and also Global Security
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/jh-7-specs.htm

Can you explain this:

And as we know, JH-7 and JH-7A don't have the in-flight refuelling capability, but why this:

 

[Marker]

Can you explain this:
View attachment 605205

And as we know, JH-7 and JH-7A doesn't have the in-flight refuelling capability, but why this:
View attachment 605206

Combat radius is the maximum "safe" distance an aircraft can fly in a mission dependent flight profile, completes its mission and returns back to its base.

Transition voyage or ferry distance is the maximum distance an aircraft can fly from one destination to another.

Combat radius cannot be half of ferry distance due to its flight profile. Type and weight of payload and throttle settings variation causes more fuel to consume.

Whereas in transition voyage, the distance is given for minimum aircraft configuration (payload) and its flight profile is set to cruise speed.

 

[LKJ86]

Combat radius is the maximum "safe" distance an aircraft can fly in a mission dependent flight profile, completes its mission and returns back to its base.

Transition voyage or ferry distance is the maximum distance an aircraft can fly from one destination to another.

Combat radius cannot be half of ferry distance due to its flight profile. Type and weight of payload and throttle settings variation causes more fuel to consume.

Whereas in transition voyage, the distance is given for minimum aircraft configuration (payload) and its flight profile is set to cruise speed.

There are some official information from AVIC. But according to tradition, its parameters are always underestimated.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

There are some official information from AVIC. But according to tradition, its parameters are always underestimated.
View attachment 605208 View attachment 605209

So is AVIC going to manufacture new JH-7Es for exports, or would it use PLAAF/PLAN stocks?