"This is not before time. On August 25, 2005, a PAF Mirage crashed near the town of Badin, 105 miles (169km) east of Karachi. The pilot was able to eject safely and an air force spokesman gave ‘technical reasons’ as being responsible for the accident. Asked about frequent PAF crashes, the Commander-in-Chief PAF admitted that the attrition rate “was a bit high” and they had lost some aircraft at low level. He said the ageing Mirages were over 30 years old and the PAF was facing problems in acquiring spares because Dessault had stopped production of some components. However, Pakistan could not ground these aircraft because they formed part of the nuclear deterrent.
This explains why the PAF bought 50 Mirages, 150 sealed pack engines and a huge quantity of Mirage spares from Libya for cash in 2004. Like Pakistan, Libya owned Mirage IIIs and Vs but, although these were in excellent condition, the Libyan Air Force had been dormant for sometime following sanctions imposed after the Boeing 747 was blown up over Lockerbie. With the ex-Libyan airframes, Pakistan now operates more Mirages than the French Air Force. Most of the Libyan aircraft, however, are being cannibalized for spare parts to sustain the PAF fleet of Mirages for the next seven to ten years. Given that the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) likened its Mirages with their rudimentary avionics to ‘Sopwith Camels with reheat’.
Pakistan also plans a phased upgrade and refurbishment of its oldest Mirages with new radars and avionics. Indeed work is underway for the avionics upgrade by French company SAGEM on what is believed to be a total of 14 Mirage 5EFs."
A bunch of Camels are still listed on the PAF wickedpedia pages but whether that is accurate? Dunno.
Post by Leyland P75 on Nov 17, 2008 15:30:21 GMT 12
No passport needed but, strangely, they're very, very strict on carrying umbrellas on aircraft. I got stopped by security and given a very stern talking to for trying to "smuggle" such an item onto Virgin Blue. On the other hand, if you exceed the carry on baggage limit by over 3kgs and carry on:
1 full bottle of Reisling 3 Stubbies of Cascade Draught
All you get from security is a giggle and "Wow, that's a heavy 7kgs, big night planned then?" and sent on your way.
I don't know what you'd rather be attacked by, an umbrella or a bottle of wine wielded like a club.....
Which reminds me of another funny incident. I had my nail clippers confiscated a year back before jumping on a Singapore airlines flight. No biggie I thought. Imagine my horror when, on the flight, I was issued with a metal knife and fork to eat my meal! Lucky Alan Keyda hasn't heard about that one.....
Last Edit: Nov 17, 2008 15:33:00 GMT 12 by Leyland P75
"The primary route to valuing people is to learn to nurture highly innovative, unshakably ethical thinkers. Sadly, in today's armed forces such people, those who lead by virtue of their courage, creativity, boldness, vision, honesty and sometimes irreverence, are known as mavericks. The military services must learn it is admirable to disagree with, change, and improve the institution the individual serves and remains loyal to. Such change-seeking individuals are the ones who best adapt and prevail in humankind's most stressful circumstance: war. They are the war-winning leaders."
Post by Leyland P75 on Nov 27, 2008 18:10:47 GMT 12
The Tim Tam has been sucked and what a delightful event it was!
I reckon they should fit a GAU-8 to JSF. Preferably to the tail. This will have the following effects:
1) Just about double the speed of the JSF when fired. 2) Provide rear defence while running away from SU-27/30/31/33/35/37/99 - something we expect a lot of. 4) Make the JSF a dogfighter. 5) Provide true 'all-aspect' engagement capabilities. 6) Look really, really neat.
I reckon they should fit a GAU-8 to JSF. Preferably to the tail. This will have the following effects:
1) Just about double the speed of the JSF when fired. 2) Provide rear defence while running away from SU-27/30/31/33/35/37/99 - something we expect a lot of. 4) Make the JSF a dogfighter. 5) Provide true 'all-aspect' engagement capabilities. 6) Look really, really neat.
Even better, put the GAU-8 in a turret - for all over coverage when those nasty Russian superjets are all over the sky like fireflies. ;D
Post by Leyland P75 on Nov 28, 2008 16:20:47 GMT 12
Righto,
Just to kick off some more discussion.
I've been reading a little about the F-14 and it's role as a long range interceptor. Given that this was the only aircraft capable of carrying the AIM-54, and being equipped with a very powerful AWG-9, it got me to thinking about the discussions we've been having on BVR combat and future engagements.
So, given that the AIM-54 has long since been retired, and that the "Missile Truck" concept seems to have been abandoned (F-14, F-6D, B-1R, early F-111 concept), is it too early to sound the death-knell for WVR combat, or is it just very long range BVR type combat that has been canned. Indeed, what is the reason that long range engagements seem to be out of vogue? Probably the main reason I can think of is the difficulty of IFF.....
I'll assume by WVR that you mean Within Visual Range (or is there another meaning?). You seem to have the same result in your question for both WVR and BVR? WVR will always be possible given the uncertainties of life generally. Sniper rifles have been around for yonks but combat knives are usable in the right circumstances. Is this what you are meaning?
I don't see long range engagements being out of vogue. Who says that. OldNavy has made it clear that IFF is much better today and given the rules of engagement it is relied upon for BVR. BVR is king, WVR is when you a bloody desperate (and it WVR is unlikely).
However practicing these dogfights as we know them is good value (until too many aircraft are lost in training engagements then it is no longer good value). Every skill counts. Would you rather be a sniper or a knife fighter?
My perception of the F14 role was a Cold War long range interceptor. The idea of the Phoenix was to fire it at large bomber formations, or even the huge anti ship missiles the large bombers used to carry.
The limitations of this concept are shared with any long range types of missile, and that is that every manoeuvre the target performs creates a problem for the missile whilst it is in flight because the rocket can only impart a certain amount of energy, and whatever manoeuvre the missile has to perform for target intercept post rocket burn out erodes further manoeuvrability and achievable range.
I suppose the issue then comes down to probability of kill (PK). For most missiles, the PK increases the shorter the range to the target (IE the more energy can be expended on manoeuvring against the target evasion). What technology is doing is extending the range of WVR using optical and other enhancements, and also therefore the aerodynamics and engines need enhancing to cater for the greater visual range. Technology is doing the same to the medium range BVR missiles so in effect, everything is expanding outwards.
The BVR ident capabilities using various electronic and other methods have improved so dramatically you could probably assume the max range of AMRAAM-like missiles have absorbed the likely realistic high percentage PKs of Phoenix-like missiles. BVR has many more aspects now than IFF. Each aeroplane has an electronic signature which makes it identifiable to a degree, its radar return also identifies it to a degree and both normal and discreet transponding devices also give ident.
The visual sensors have also improved dramatically.
With modern radar and sensors, the modern battle will have BVR engagements starting at great range and leading to WVR (if needed) at ranges in excess of 10 miles! Of course we need to keep the guns to make our USAF Lt Col happy!
It would be good to be starting a career as a fighter pilot now... ;D I wonder if the Kiwis have any volunteers?
Last Edit: Nov 28, 2008 18:14:52 GMT 12 by oldnavy
UAV fighters flown from deep, deep, deep bunkers is appealing.
UAVs with real fighting ability and the sentient aeroplane in the movie "Stealth" are actually a long way off. Right now, we have a certain amount of band width, and there is simply not enough to allow unmanned aerial vehicles to be truly dynamic. It is one thing to fly along at hi level in pre-programmed routing/patterns, target objects using FLIR/Laser and drop guided weapons, but to actually manoeuvre dynamically requires much more up and downlink capacity. I am not clever enough to know whether it will ever be possible, but with my limited understanding I believe we need some seriously new technology before the useful UAV fighter enters service.
In the meantime, the WVR and BVR fights will grow in volume at the rate of progress of our existing technology. NB: in WW1 pilots started by shooting at each other with pistols. The fight has never stopped growing, first with manoeuvre size/speed range, and now with weapons capability.
Has anybody else ever wondered why Buck Rogers, Luke Skywalker, Apollo and Starbuck don't have guided weapons when they are supposed to be more advanced than us?
