Egyptian Armed Forces

Sulman Badshah · Jul 21, 2015

Wasteland said:
There we go with the BVR crap talk again from the uninformed people !
Ignorant people will never understand! Do you know what does a BVR missile mean? EGYPT DOES HAVE BVR capability on their F-16's ! Egypt has the most modern version of the AIM-7 Sparrow, which is the AIM-7P , it's the latest upgrade of the AIM-7, it was developed in 1994 , it has a 88 km range, 100 km maximum, 4.5 mach speed, that's not a BVR missile ?!?! stup8d

First of all if you want to talk than learn to respect ... Sparrow is medium range missile with older tech which don't give any kind of advantage over opponent aim 120 ...
The Sparrow uses semi-active radar homing, which means the launching fighter needs to maintain a continuous illumination lock on the target aircraft. In contrast, an Israeli F-16 equipped with AMRAAM missiles can achieve lock, launch, then break lock and evade while the missile guides itself to the target.
It is much difficult to keep the fighter to lock the aircraft on all way missile goes while opponent fighter is using fire and forget missile with better capabilities

To me the only BVR Egypt have in its arsenal is mica on mirages and rafales .... Mateor might come soon

and R77 will be coming along with migs

current situation isn't good of EAF but future looks great

raazh · Jul 21, 2015

Congratulations to Egyptian brothers .. The Planes look lethal .. Hope Egypt and Pakistan hold bilateral air force exercises to learn from each others experience ..

Amir_Pharaoh · Jul 22, 2015

Frogman said:
Without the AIM-120 and AIM-9X (accompanied with the JHMCS) the Egyptian -16 is at a severe disadvantage both in terms of its WVR and BVR performance compared to the rest of the region (that operates sophisticated kit).

@Frogman Many consider F-16 fleet in EAF as falcons without claws!
But you do know the reasons behind the non-existence of Aim-120 and standoff munition
Egyptian Armed Forces | Page 8

Frogman said:
Even our Mig-21s and F-7s were upgraded to have HOBS capability with the R-73. How can an obsolete platform that is being actively retired have a capability (or one up) that the mainstay and backbone of the EAF does not? It's preposterous.

Only very few numbers were upgraded, acquiring mig-29m/m2 or mig-35 are more convenient and sufficient to upgrade the entire Russian/Chinese-origin fleet.

Frogman said:
The use of the F-16 as an interceptor or air superiority fighter against a near peer or advanced adversary is simply out of the question. Instead what we are beginning to see is the introduction of French and Russian aircraft to take over those roles while the -16 is being relegated to close air support, reconnaissance, wild weasel, maritime strike, and precision strike.

There's a lot of discussion regarding the main role of the F-16s.
Although it's a multi-role fighter but its weapon package made many believe that its role almost inclosed to close air support, reconnaissance and others tasks you mentioned.

I don't expect that F-16s are to take the air-superiority missions in EAF, Mirage-2000 are much reliable and there are many photos of EAF Mirage-2000 escorting E-2 Hawkeye.

Frogman said:
I truly think that a large chunk of the -16 fleet should be sold off to fund either a new lightweight multirole fighter that offers us all the near peer capabilities the EAF requires or more Rafales (preferably more Rafales).

I also think the money spent on the Mig-35 would have been better spent on Rafales, although it isn't perfect it is a lot better than the -35 and has plenty of growth potential considering its only near its third tranche whereas the Mig-35 is probably the end of the road for the Mig-29 (plus Mig is struggling). In my honest opinion Russian jets was a bad move.

My fifty pence, sell off a lot of them and start a Navy Air Corps and Army Air Corps with the remaining F-16s (plus Apaches and other aircraft either operating with the Navy and Army would go into those corps). Buy a shed load more Rafales, possibly try be sneaky and steal the local production/assembly deal off of the Indians.

I don't think that EAF has the privilege to sell any F-16s for many reasons, politically at least.
I do agree with you about increasing the numbers of Rafales, and I think many Egyptians do!
I also agree re, Mig-35 but my opinion is not the same as for Su-35 I wanna see this bad a** serving in EAF

As for "local production/assembly" Rafales/Migs/Sus .. it's the big dream I hope it'll become real in the near future

Wasteland · Jul 22, 2015

Sulman Badshah said:
First of all if you want to talk than learn to respect ... Sparrow is medium range missile with older tech which don't give any kind of advantage over opponent aim 120 ...
The Sparrow uses semi-active radar homing, which means the launching fighter needs to maintain a continuous illumination lock on the target aircraft. In contrast, an Israeli F-16 equipped with AMRAAM missiles can achieve lock, launch, then break lock and evade while the missile guides itself to the target.
It is much difficult to keep the fighter to lock the aircraft on all way missile goes while opponent fighter is using fire and forget missile with better capabilities

Ignorance again, AIM-120C is also a medium range missile, and no the Israeli F-16 equipped with AMRAAM can't just launch then break lock immediately that's totally false so correct your information first, the AIM-120 can only guide itself to the target only when it's 25km far from the target, if the pilot fired an AIM-120 from let's say 60km he will still have to keep a lock on the target until the missile is 25-30 km away from the target to be able to turn on it's own radar and guide itself, do you understand now ? the AIM-120 becomes truly a fire and forget missile if it's 25-30 km away from the target !

Now about the latest version of the Sparrow, the AIM-7P which Egypt operates on it's F-16's for god's sake can't you get it? it was developed in 1996, you call the old tech ? dumbass

Sulman Badshah · Jul 22, 2015

Wasteland said:
it was developed in 1996

again abusive comment ... discuss with respectable manners if you have any

AIM-7P is almost same as AIM7M .. only software upgrade was made which provide performance improvements providing look-down, shoot-down in heavy clutter environments and much lower altitude engagement (nothing else on performance and guidance parameter) .... AIM-7M which was developed in 1987 ..
again Egypt purchase AIM7M for both of the times one in 91-92 and other is 96-97 .. and later they got software upgrade ...

The most suitable Question should be that Is egyptian AIM7 is providing any advantage over Israeli AIM120 ,, the answer is none

and do you any credible source of specification that you have written in your first comment because mainly AIM7 P range is considered as 60-70 zone..

still it will be better for EAF to get their hands on AIM120 C5 or C7 to add extra teeth in its fleet

Frogman · Jul 22, 2015

Amir_Pharaoh said:
Many consider F-16 fleet in EAF as falcons without claws!
But you do know the reasons behind the non-existence of Aim-120 and standoff munition

I'm well aware of the reasons why the US restricts certain weapons systems and that's the exact reason why the EAF should move away from a US fighter as its backbone.

The restructuring of US military aid to Egypt will make it even harder to procure conventional weapons systems. So anything like the AIM-9X or AIM-120 may be out of the question.

My preference would be to do exactly what the US want us to do with that aid, funnel it towards counter terrorism endeavours.

Specifically I would attempt to funnel the yearly aid money into procurements for the Special Forces (but maintaining current capability) and in doing so bolster an underdeveloped part of the Armed Forces.

My starting point would be a small dedicated aircraft wing for the SF comprised of tactical lift aircraft ( eg.MC-130), utility helicopters (eg. MH-60), and light helicopters (e.h MH-6). Not only would this boost the SF in terms of their COIN and fill gaps within the Armed Forces (e.g MERT/PEDRO equivalent i.e combat search and rescue/ medical emergency response) but it will also be of great value in conventional operations.

Amir_Pharaoh said:
Only very few numbers were upgraded, acquiring mig-29m/m2 or mig-35 are more convenient and sufficient to upgrade the entire Russian/Chinese-origin fleet.

That wasn't my point. The point was an obsolete aircraft had a capability that our backbone didn't. Which is unacceptable.

I'm not arguing to upgrade the Mig-21 its obsolete and our airframes have been worn to dust.

Amir_Pharaoh said:
There's a lot of discussion regarding the main role of the F-16s.
Although it's a multi-role fighter but its weapon package made many believe that its role almost inclosed to close air support, reconnaissance and others tasks you mentioned.

I don't expect that F-16s are to take the air-superiority missions in EAF, Mirage-2000 are much reliable and there are many photos of EAF Mirage-2000 escorting E-2 Hawkeye.

The Mirage 2000 is due to be retired in the next five years (I don't see them continuing beyond that due to their age). In my opinion going after the UAE M2K would be a waste of resources (even if the UAE offered them at a preferable price) that could be pushed towards more Rafales.

Amir_Pharaoh said:
I don't think that EAF has the privilege to sell any F-16s for many reasons, politically at least.
I do agree with you about increasing the numbers of Rafales, and I think many Egyptians do!
I also agree re, Mig-35 but my opinion is not the same as for Su-35 I wanna see this bad a** serving in EAF

The Jordanians sold some of their -16s to Pakistan and many eastern European nations are looking for economical fighters. I don't think the US would veto any such sale especially if there is an intention to upgrade a part of the fleet.

A word of caution on the SU-35 and soviet era fighters in general. These beasts were intended to be used to destruction on the battlefield and not push out flying hours during peace time.

The entire Soviet maintenance and training doctrine was based on this idea. Their top of the line fighter would remain under wraps (rarely used) while pilots flew twin seat training aircraft ( eg. MiG-29UB).

Hence the common theme of Russian aircraft requiring overhauls/rebuilds more often than their western counterparts, they never intended for their airframes to fly 10,000 hours over a lifetime. The same goes with their engines.

So invariably the pilots on western aircraft will get more flying time and thus more experience whereas those flying Russian/Soviet aircraft will fly less due to the number of hours the airframe/engine can manage before a rebuild or change.

As for "local production/assembly" Rafales/Migs/Sus .. it's the big dream I hope it'll become real in the near future

More important than local assembly or production is becoming a partner in the program. I mean we built the Mirage 2000 but then, zip. The same with the Alpha Jet and the K-8E.

Becoming a partner means you're actively involved in the program and dictating but also contributing towards what you want. The Saudis and the Typhoon are an example, KSA is actively pushing what it wants for the Typhoon and is literally dragging the partners involved in the program along (except for the UK).

Taygibay · Jul 22, 2015

Frogman said:
Are there any plans to introduce a European anti-radiation missile? Any plans on integrating the AGM-88?

Nope! There are no European ARMs as we write! When Aramis(Fr)/Arminger(De) split in 2001+, the idea stayed that using its seeker on the Meteor ( a solution sometimes labeled Meteor ARM ) would be adequate until 2005-2007.
Beyond that date, the project went dead. The real users would be the Brits that are looking to trade their ALARMs for
AARGMs at present. The Germans don't intend to fight and the French think a combo SPECTRA-AASM-SCALP can
do the multi_layered job of SEAD-DEAD. The rest use US stuff already and/or will get what comes with the F-35.

There are rumors still of an adaption by Boeing from the Meteor cuz it fits the JSF bays! But that would not solve your problem of US limitations if it happened to surface anyway …

Sorry man and good day, Tay.

MICA · Jul 22, 2015

well i kinda agree with @Frogman with what he said about our F-16 fleet , by looking of it's arms we can all agree that the F-16 will only participate as a light bomber as it can do it pretty good and cheaper to operate than the rafale beside reconnaissance and working as an air defense support under some long range SAM batteries pretty much like the role the M2k is playing now , however while i am not that impressed with Mig's but getting them is a must , you are phasing out more than 130 aircraft from the EAF soon and you just can't replace all of them with Rafale's "money Wise" or getting more F-16 with its incomplete armament which will be the dumbest thing ever (block 52 deal is only to replace the aging Block 15 , you Got now F-16 ( block 52 , 40 , 32 ) and Rafale which they are pretty deadly in specifically bombing , you want now a good Air-to-Air based aircraft which you can afford to buy and operate in big numbers with staying away from USA Subsidiarity , so the best pick will be getting Migs with latest tech with R-73 and R-77 missiles

Mahmoud_EGY · Jul 22, 2015

Kamal_dbk said:
well i kinda agree with @Frogman with what he said about our F-16 fleet , by looking of it's arms we can all agree that the F-16 will only participate as a light bomber as it can do it pretty good and cheaper to operate than the rafale beside reconnaissance and working as an air defense support under some long range SAM batteries pretty much like the role the M2k is playing now , however while i am not that impressed with Mig's but getting them is a must , you are phasing out more than 130 aircraft from the EAF soon and you just can't replace all of them with Rafale's "money Wise" or getting more F-16 with its incomplete armament which will be the dumbest thing ever (block 52 deal is only to replace the aging Block 15 , you Got now F-16 ( block 52 , 40 , 32 ) and Rafale which they are pretty deadly in specifically bombing , you want now a good Air-to-Air based aircraft which you can afford to buy and operate in big numbers with staying away from USA Subsidiarity , so the best pick will be getting Migs with latest tech with R-73 and R-77 missiles

yes and maybe later a 5th generation fighter from china

Frogman · Jul 22, 2015

Kamal_dbk said:
well i kinda agree with @Frogman with what he said about our F-16 fleet , by looking of it's arms we can all agree that the F-16 will only participate as a light bomber as it can do it pretty good and cheaper to operate than the rafale beside reconnaissance and working as an air defense support under some long range SAM batteries pretty much like the role the M2k is playing now , however while i am not that impressed with Mig's but getting them is a must , you are phasing out more than 130 aircraft from the EAF soon and you just can't replace all of them with Rafale's "money Wise" or getting more F-16 with its incomplete armament which will be the dumbest thing ever (block 52 deal is only to replace the aging Block 15 , you Got now F-16 ( block 52 , 40 , 32 ) and Rafale which they are pretty deadly in specifically bombing , you want now a good Air-to-Air based aircraft which you can afford to buy and operate in big numbers with staying away from USA Subsidiarity , so the best pick will be getting Migs with latest tech with R-73 and R-77 missiles

I don't think going with the MiGs is a good long term plan both in terms of performance and in terms of cost.

While the EAF is retiring a large number of aircraft they need not be replaced on a one for one basis. It would be much more economical to operate a fleet of around 200-300 fighter aircraft compromised of two fighter types.

The EAF simply no longer requires a fighter strength of 350-400 fighters especially with the introduction of multi-role fighters (or even omni-role such as the Rafale).

In terms of cost the MiG-35 will add a completely new aircraft (alongside the Rafale) to maintain, buy spare parts for, upgrade, overhaul, and arm.

Aside from the logistical nightmare of operating 4 (-16 M2K Raf MiG) very different aircraft it's complicated and more even though I unqualified to make his assertion I believe it will be more expensive over a lifetime.

The biggest issue I have with the MiG-35 is that there is literally no room for growth any more with the MiG-29. Ten or twenty years from now I don't see the MiG with any significant upgrades in armament or performance.

Moscow simply isn't investing in MiGs (they're even already planning a replacement so how can we expect it to operate for the next 30-40 years in the EAF?) future and the introduction of conformal fuel tanks (which the Rafale doesn't have yet), a new engine (which may be possible with the Rafale giving it supercruise capability on par with that of the Typhoon), new generation of targeting pods (Talios on the Rafale), and new generation of munitions (Meteor/AASM/SCALP) simply won't happen for the MiG-35 considering the resources being pushed to Suk and the PAK-FA.

We are introducing a fighter that has no future when we should be looking towards more Rafales and fifth gen aircraft (in the medium to long term future). It will give us a temporary boost in capability in the short term but it will be burden beyond that. The 2-3 billion euros we spent of the -35 deal should have been used to procure more Rafale (possibly around 20 more considering unit price).

My view of what the EAF should look like by 2030:-

72-100 Rafale

(if it takes 5 years to deliver one fully operational squadron 72 but the French got 130 delivered in 15 years)

24 Fifth gen aircraft

(whatever that may be)

80 F-16

(being retired and replaced by further inductions of Rafale and fifth generation aircraft)

But one can only bloody dream grrr!

MICA · Jul 22, 2015

well i like this discussion

• first EAF was operating ( F-16 , M2K , Mirage-5 , f4 , Mig 21 , F-7 ) all at the same time so after phasing out the aging aircrafts till 2020 it will Only operate ( Rafale , Mig 29M/35 , F-16 ) so it wouldn't be a logistical disaster.

• as i said in my previous post i am not that impressed with the Mig but with the new aesa radar , new engine RD-33OVT , and with the italian jammer from Elettronica and the OLS it's pretty well equipped economical A2A fighter , you know our Generals (Lol) will not only rely on french or USA because of "تعدد مصادر السلاح" as they always claim and they are kinda right tbh.

• the mig has a new Pod developed btw but you are right russia is ignoring Mikoyan projects.

• 5th gen fighters , F-35? don't even dream about getting it , Pak Fa ? russia are struggling developing it , J-20 ? beside i am not so sure about it i don't see it in production before 2020 from optimistic pov and of they will not sell it now

the new mig targeting pod