Capabilities of PAF Dassault MIRAGE-III/V.

[Bossman]

The vintage PAF Mirages are still better than IAF Jaguars which have significant power issues.

 

[Centurion2016]

The vintage PAF Mirages are still better than IAF Jaguars which have significant power issues.

Jaguar was designed by France & UK as a dedicated low level strike plane

The indian Jaguar darin upgrade is far better strike plane than obsolete mirage 5 that's jack of all trades

 

[Basel]

Jaguar was designed by France & UK as a dedicated low level strike plane

The indian Jaguar darin upgrade is far better strike plane than obsolete mirage 5 that's jack of all trades



View attachment 411423

This was original Mirage-5 and it was built for low level ops in mind too, kindly don't spread lies to prove yourself.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/mirage-5/

 

[Bossman]

Jaguar was designed by France & UK as a dedicated low level strike plane

The indian Jaguar darin upgrade is far better strike plane than obsolete mirage 5 that's jack of all trades



View attachment 411423

It was originally envisaged a trainer. It has fundamental issues which cannot be addressed through upgrades. It is grossly under-powered. Wonder why IAF has been looking for a more powerful engine. It is very rare that the type of engine of a fighter has to be replaced half way through its life. By the time DARIN is completed the Mirages would been retired. BTW the Mirages have also been also been significantly upgraded

 

[Sameer25]

These are wartime loads and usually are only carried on special missions. In any case, these heavy loads will severely restrict the maneuverability and range of the fighter jet. But I don't think there is any restriction on the mirages for carrying such heavy bomb loads. The planes that are flying will retain the same capabilities as when they left the factory. The only thing that changes with age is their component failure rate.

Again for any attack mission, attack aircrafts will must have to be accompanied by fighter aircrafts so it may not be better to use multirole aircraft doing both things(attack n self defence) in a single shot?

idk why attack aircrafts would need air support in pakistani territory against terrorist. last time i checked TTP werents flying f-22s or F16s

 

[sparten]

Why is it that You believe PAF can penetrate IAF airspace easily Today. ????????

Is PAF strike planes equipped with F22 raptors with RCS size of marbles and therefore invisible to radar
Or equipped with highly advanced EW suites like Rafales Spectra suites which jam the GCC radars .

YOU NEED TO Qualify your statement

IMO PAF mirages are obsolete airframes will get detected and taken out by any of IAF fighters be it mki mig29 or even bison mig21.

Don't underestimate the indian ability to track PAF fighters that may enter indian air space. The reason they will get picked up is the PAF strike fleet is mostly obsolete second generation mirages .

Which is why I specified ROSE Mirages. With their modern ECM suite, Grifo M3 RADAR and FLIR.They absolutely could penetrate Indian airspace, especially in the low-level night time attack profile. FLIR permits them to fly low less than 100 feet, at night, which drastically reduces counter detection ability.

Radar coverage is not the same every where at every altitude. No country even the US and Russia and certainly not a 3 million sq km landmass having country like India can afford that. Typically you have a heavy RADAR concentration at the border, and at the avenue of approach for major targets. Otherwise, the RADAR coverage is spotty. The entie USAF has been unable to stop narco flights from Latin America, despite havimg

So a PAF ROSE Mirage strike package would have to fly low to avoid Indian RADAR for about 200 or so KM past the border. Then fly at medium altitude coast to the target, before dropping to low altitude again on approach. With stand off munitions like the Ra'ad and the H-2/H-4 it would be coast at medium altitude to get to launch point.


Do the Indians have a chance of intercepting and shooting down? Certainly and likely some would be lost. Is there a good chance that the mission could be completed successfully? Yes.

 

[DarX]

idk why attack aircrafts would need air support in pakistani territory against terrorist. last time i checked TTP werents flying f-22s or F16s

I think he was referring to strike missions in enemy territories where they might face an active hostile air defence.

Jaguar was designed by France & UK as a dedicated low level strike plane

The indian Jaguar darin upgrade is far better strike plane than obsolete mirage 5 that's jack of all trades



View attachment 411423

Jaguars were designed as trainer jets and only later on were adapted as strike platforms. The PAF has also not been sitting around and had upgraded its Mirages more than decade earlier. So the IAF is actually late to the party, as always.

 

[khanasifm]

 

[khanasifm]

 

[Khadim e Darul Ehsaan]

I think he was referring to strike missions in enemy territories where they might face an active hostile air defence.

Yes i was referring enemies airspace which threat level reaches to 110% , in our own airspace we have other plenty of options , even burraq can do surgical strikes on terrorist

 

[Windjammer]

Jaguar was designed by France & UK as a dedicated low level strike plane

The indian Jaguar darin upgrade is far better strike plane than obsolete mirage 5 that's jack of all trades

And the IAF started receiving it's Jaguars a decade after the Mirage 5s arrived in Pakistan, despite Jaguars being twin engine jets and never fired once in anger, still the IAF managed to crash the equivalent of three squadrons strength.... imagine if they were involved in actual combat.!!!

 

[SQ8]

This is a PAF mirage thread- please do not waste time with the self fellatio delusional types from across the border with their super paranormal weapons systems.

 

[Sameer25]

I think he was referring to strike missions in enemy territories where they might face an active hostile air defence.



Jaguars were designed as trainer jets and only later on were adapted as strike platforms. The PAF has also not been sitting around and had upgraded its Mirages more than decade earlier. So the IAF is actually late to the party, as always.

thats what mulitroles are for, im taking about strictly against ground targets without air defense

 

[DarX]

thats what mulitroles are for, im taking about strictly against ground targets without air defense

It is unclear what you are trying to say over here. The multi-role jets were introduced because newer planes could perform both attack and air superiority missions with the help of avionics. The air force could then deploy a single type of aircraft which would simplify logistics and pilot training. As there were multiple references to the A-5 Fantan, it must be noted that the A-5 was derived from the F-6 and so was extremely maintenance intensive. Replacing it with the JF-17 provides a much better platform which also requires less maintenance. It also helps in providing much greater flexibility and lowers costs tremendously, as the air force could then field just one squadron to control the whole area, where it would've needed two squadrons for air defense and ground strikes.

This was the major reason behind the demise of specialized planes like the F-14 tomcat. Some types of planes do remain, like the A-10 warthog, which have unique capabilities, but even that aircraft is slated to be retired and replaced by a multi-role jet. So multi-role jets are NOT just planes which can undertake strike missions and air superiority at the same time, but they are planes which can undertake both missions just by changing the weapons load or having a mixed weapons load.

With regards to why strike missions might need air cover, if the threat environment is negligible, like operating within Pakistan territory, of course the PAF strike planes will not need air cover. But at other times it is needed even if the enemy doesn't have an air force. The shoot down of the Russian SU-24 by the Turkish F-16 is a case in point.

 

[Sameer25]

It is unclear what you are trying to say over here. The multi-role jets were introduced because newer planes could perform both attack and air superiority missions with the help of avionics. The air force could then deploy a single type of aircraft which would simplify logistics and pilot training. As there were multiple references to the A-5 Fantan, it must be noted that the A-5 was derived from the F-6 and so was extremely maintenance intensive. Replacing it with the JF-17 provides a much better platform which also requires less maintenance. It also helps in providing much greater flexibility and lowers costs tremendously, as the air force could then field just one squadron to control the whole area, where it would've needed two squadrons for air defense and ground strikes.

This was the major reason behind the demise of specialized planes like the F-14 tomcat. Some types of planes do remain, like the A-10 warthog, which have unique capabilities, but even that aircraft is slated to be retired and replaced by a multi-role jet. So multi-role jets are NOT just planes which can undertake strike missions and air superiority at the same time, but they are planes which can undertake both missions just by changing the weapons load or having a mixed weapons load.

With regards to why strike missions might need air cover, if the threat environment is negligible, like operating within Pakistan territory, of course the PAF strike planes will not need air cover. But at other times it is needed even if the enemy doesn't have an air force. The shoot down of the Russian SU-24 by the Turkish F-16 is a case in point.

but we should have a better strike fighter like the su-34, it is extremely manuveral yet it can fit many bombs and missles. it has the fighting of a SU-27 while the bombing of a A-10