Very nice work, you have mentioned radar values etc for F-16 and Su030, have you also set parameters for AAMs? NEZ values and PKs based on speeds of aircraft at encounters, also strategies such as approach in frontal quarter or side along engagement, if you have please post them as well. Are AWACs simulated in this scenario.
I think strategy-wise, it would have been better for IAF to just send 4 M2Ks in a lo-lo bombing run as target will be near to border this will result in less chances of detection if AWACs are not involved. Using GPS base PGMs is better than LGBs for faster turn around and more accuracy unless jammers are indicated in the area.
Also PAF response is simulated as very mediocre, with 4 Su-30s approaching at high altitude and 6 other Su-30s probably at medium altitude, even if AWACs are not involved with heightened alert state many more assets will get scrambled. Unless you are simulating a strategic or tactical surprise by IAF or lower readiness or availability states for PAF, number of fighters on both sides should be almost equal in numbers.
I have no idea how you simulation calculated kills also you have not provided any information about altitudes of defending fighters. I am assuming F-16s and JF-17s approached in high altitude to medium altitude while F7s approached in low altitude. In this case, if simulation is not taking into account any special tactics by IAF than all of low to medium altitude IAF fighters will be at disadvantage in BVR fight. BVR ranges at lower altitudes is significantly lower than higher altitude also they will be further lower for fighters at lower altitude as they at best will be able to get near to supersonic speeds. This will give PAF fighters at higher altitude with good look down ranges a significant advantage in ranges.
Every parameter is set. From AAMs to ECM. AWACS are simulated as well.
Missiles such as the AIM-120:
TypeName=AIM-120C-5
FullName=AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM
ModelName=AIM120C
Mass=156.500000
Diameter=0.178000
Length=3.655000
SubsonicDragCoeff=0.120000
SupersonicDragCoeff=0.222000
AttachmentType=USAF
SpecificStationCode=
NationName=USAF
StartYear=2000
EndYear=2030
Availability=2
BaseQuantity=40
Exported=TRUE
ExportStartYear=2006
ExportEndYear=2040
ExportAvailability=1
WeaponDataType=1
RailLaunched=TRUE
RocketPod=FALSE
Retarded=FALSE
FinStabilized=TRUE
SpinStabilized=FALSE
HasGrowl=FALSE
EffectClassName=MediumMissileEffects
ReleaseDelay=0.000000
WarheadType=13
Explosives=18.000000
FusingDistance=2.000000
ClusterBomblets=100
ClusterDispersion=10.000000
GuidanceType=13
Accuracy=95
MaxTurnRate=23.000000
MaxLaunchG=7.000000
LockonChance=95
LaunchReliability=100
ArmingTime=2.000000
SeekerFOV=15.000000
SeekerGimbleLimit=45.000000
SeekerTrackRate=55.000000
SeekerRange=55000.000000
MinLaunchRange=1000.000000
MaxLaunchRange=90000.000000
Duration=120.000000
CounterCountermeasure=98.000000
NoiseRejection=95.000000
CapabilityFlags=0x1000002f
LoftAngle=0.000000
DescentAngle=0.000000
MaxLoftAltitude=0.000000
CLmax=14.000000
MinFreq=0.000000
MaxFreq=0.000000
The M2K's did approach at low level and had embedded escorts by Mig-29 UPG's also at the same altitude. The MKI's had various altitude approaches.
The F-16s were at medium altitude, the JF-17s at low-med altitude and the PG's at low altitude. All these assets were scrambled as IAF assets were picked up.
The point of this simulation was to show the PAF at a severe tactical disadvantage. Yet, even when outnumbered and at this essential disadvantage, the PAF equipment does give the attackers a tough time.
Ill be posting another scenario with the PAF doing what it does best and the IAF also doing best.
Lets see how that works out.
Was the simulated Mirage an upgraded one or an old one? And was it in passive mode with tracks coming from link and SU-30 MKI radar?
It was a M2K-5-2, it was flying passive and sensors off AFNET. AFNET linked all IAF assets including the MKI, Mig-29 and the A-50.