Group Captain Cecil Chaudhry, SJ

Re:Reply #: 238

Romair,

Thanks for your illuminating posts.

``One must live in a real world, and not in a fantasy world. Pakistan needs to reduce its threat perception through talks and negotiations with India, first``. Amen to that. Pakistan and India should increase people to people interaction (i say this at the risk of sounding like an Indian politician who repeat this ad nauseam but i really mean it). Once the bilateral relationship (including trade)normalises to the level that threat perceptions are lessened in both countries (more so in Pakistan),defense expenses will come down in both countries. Once people of India view Pakistan as a friend next door,they are sure to ask their politicians: Do we really need all this defense expenditure? The fact is Kargil gave politicians and defense experts much needed excuse to drastically increase the defense expenditure of India, something they had planned all along but had no means of justifying ie until Kargil. The big question is can the relations be normalized when there are hawks on both sides. They have already sabotaged the summit. Let us see what the future unfolds.

Sridhar

Romair,

{{{Why in the world do you think India, an extremely poor country, is buying these aircraft, when its air force is already four to five times that of Pakistan. Obviously not for display purposes or to give its kids flying lessons. It is to attack Pakistan.}}}

Huh! after all your posts you havent figured it out?! Or do you think we civilians are really that dumb?! After all, havent ylh & you made it crystal clear to us?!

Its because 1 PAF pilot is equal to 4 or 5 IAF pilots! Its not the planes; its the PILOTS, dummy!

I`ll bet you there is no IAF pilot who could beat ylh in his flight simulator game! And to think they could take on a real PAF pilot!

{{{It is to attack Pakistan.}}}

Give me a break! That line is only for the benefit of Pakistani civilians, when they grumble about military rule.

Ooops I forgot---your post was to tahmed!:(

Romair,

(1)

``The Russians have faced problems in metallurgy, as well. The turbines of the Russian jet engines tend(ed) to melt at very high temperatures, due to mettalurgical defects. Because of this, Russian aircraft have never been able to achieve the same thrust to weight ratios as the US aircraft. The only way they have been able to reach those ratios is by putting in huge engines, which reduces the aircraft`s maneouvrability.``

You have half-baked ideas from somewhere.

Regarding metallurgical problems:



No aircraft engine manufacturer (including americans) has been without metallurgical problems.

Given a fixed engine configuration, the most important factor affecting thrust is the Turbine-Entry-Temperature (TET). If we want more thrust, we need to throw in more fuel into the combustor - which increases the TET. During the sixties, maximum TET for russian engines may have been about 100 deg C lower than the american engines (just a remembered guesstimate, I have no actual figures). Engine manufacturers continuously attempt to increase TET by employing better/latest alloys. So there is no `metallurgical defect` anywhere. The engine controls are designed to allow the maximum allowable temperature for that alloy used.

Regarding melting of turbines:



No Mig turbine (or any jet fighter turbine) would ever melt, because there are ALWAYS control systems in place to warn the pilot and/or automatically cut fuel supply. This is a very, very basic control found on all jet engines.

Probably I know where you got the turbine-melting story from. That is the story about the Mig-25. We`ll discuss that some other time.

Ruggedness of Russian/European engines:



Actually, the most acute problem faced by designers/pilots is not turbines melting but `compressor stall`. This happens when the airflow through the engine either suddenly increases or suddenly decreases. This may happen if for eg. the pilot goes into a drastic turn or climb and the inlet is not able to properly handle the `angled` airflow. It may also happen if the pilot suddenly opens the throttle. Generally the engine hiccups and flames-out. Worst thing to happen is - compressor gets ruined. Blades break of and wreak the turbine downstream.

A friend who used to work at Koraput (engine testing center) told me that he was really impressed with the ruggedness of the russian engines as compared to english/french ones. One could ram the throttle wide open for a Tumansky and the engine would smoothly pick up from 15000 rpm to 50000. The english/french engines had to be handled more gently. Any rough accelerations and they stall. I believe my friend.

Regarding huge engines:



Consider the F-104 and Mig-21. Both Mach 2 aircraft - one american, the other russian. The difference in TET results in only a few inches fattenning - and not HUGE, as you seem to suggest. OK, the Mig-21 is a few inches fatter. Did it reduce its maneuvarablity ??? HELL NO, It could run rings around the F-104. So you are wrong again. Also tell me one soviet fighter that you feel is not maneauverable.

Regarding Indian Mig-21 v/s F-7:



``If the Indian Mig-21 has not been upgraded with NATO systems, then it is probably quite inferior to the F-7. If it has been upgraded, then it would be in the same league.``

Weapons avionics are fine for aiming sidewinders from 10 miles away. In actual close combat - what happens. I don`t know what kind of pilot training you received. Didn`t you learn that you can never get behind someone faster than you. I`ve already posted that at low altitudes the BIS has one-and-half times the thrust as an F-7.

Regarding PAF kill-ratio:



``If Air-to-Air combat is considered the benchmark of a pilot, then the PAF has done quite well. It`s pilots have gone into combat against the Indian, Soviet and Israeli air forces. In all these situations, the opposing air force had better aircraft (except for perhaps the Soviets in Afghanistan) in much larger quantities, with far higher budgets. Yet the PAF has had a higher air-to-air kill ratio against all three of its adversaries.``

The great PAF (each man a tiger!) humbles the Soviet Air Force. We don`t want to go overboard do we. You were not at war with the USSR but merely proxies for the US, fighting under US supervision. Please also let us know the extent of USAF support (AWACS, Jammimg, Satellite data etc) your pilots received. That would be the correct picture rather than make out the PAF taking on the Soviets singlehandedly.

Regarding Avionics:



``Avionics are the backbone of air combat now.``

If that were so, nobody would spend time/$/effort for developing the super-aerodynamics of today`s planes. The cobra maneauvre is old and kid`s play compared to what the coming generation will have. Look up `thrust-vectored engines` on the net.

For this discussion, Avionics may be classified as two:

1) Avionics which controls the entire plane: There is the reflexes of the pilot and the reflexes of the plane. Even if the pilots reflexes are fast, the plane may not respond that fast. Stable platforms respond slowly, unstable platforms respond much faster. The idea in the computer controlled planes like F-16 is for the plane to be basically unstable. So it responds incredibly fast to a command. But then no human could have fast enough refelxes to fly an unstable plane. Thats where computer control comes in. PAKISTANI F-7s AVIONICS ARE NOT OF THIS KIND.

2) Weapons Avionics: How much are western weapons avionics better than the Soviets. Well, a solid-state device here, a better interface there, a more polished HUD perhaps. What else? Enough to give a killing advantage ?



Fuzair,

I`ll again go back to my original statement. In 1971, for thousands of bombing missions by SU-7 and the HF-24, Mig-21 was used as `top cover`. Add to that the `interceptor` missions for the Mig-21. Can it be that ONLY 2 PAF planes were shot down by all these Mig-21 sorties - in 2 weeks - on 2 fronts??? You decide.

(1)

``Who is correct? Who knows?``

Yes, who knows what the truth is? BUT...we CAN always know plain lies can`t we, like Yeager attributing all IAF losses to PAF (nothing to ground fire) and therby claiming a 3:1 `kill ratio` for the PAF.

(2)

``As far as buying the MiG-21 goes, the PAF is doing it because it has no choice. We can`t afford/obtain anything better. Do you seriously think that the PAF prefers F-7s to the F-16s or anything Western?``

Yes, agreed. Wish Romair would see that too. He seems to be making virtue out of necessity.

(3)

``Incidentally, how do you explain the MiG-21`s bad record over Vietnam once the USAF finally got its act together? How about the failure of the Russian pilots to score decisive victories over the Israelis in the War of Attrition over the Suez?``

Wish I was expert enough to answer that.

regards,

Asif Naqshbandi #230: ``how good is the Su-27 Flanker``

I try to keep up, but I am not too upto date on aircraft anymore. But I believe the Su-27 is now recognized as an equivalent of NATO planes. I think the Mig-29 has equivalent or higher thrust to weight ratios than the NATO aircraft. And if I am not wrong, the Su-35 etc. are just experimental versions of the Su-27.

The maneouvre you are talking about is called the Cobra maneouvre. It is definitely an amazing sight. The aircraft goes beyond 90s vertical and flips back into straight and level flight. I do not know of any US aircraft that can do that. Although, I am not quite sure what the advantage of such a maneouvre would be in a missile fight.

``Why can`t Pakistan buy the new Su planes then?``

For the same reason Pakistan cannot by any other next generation aircraft. They are way too expensive.

ylh #230: My flying career was too brief to really be considered a flying career. I went thru all the training. By the time I got to the Migs, I had a medical problem, and had to sit on the ground for a while. Got attached to an Army SSG unit (great guys, and fun to be around) in Peshawar, for a while, as a PAF rep. Went back to school; became an engineer. Served as an engineer for a while. Got a chance to do a joint assignment with the Navy and Army. Got fed up with the excess of Generals, and the lack of pay. And left for greener pastures.

Fuzair #236: Saif-ul-Azam is the correct name. My understanding is he shot down two Mirages in one sortie, and two again in another one. My info could be wrong, and the correct number could be three.

Soviet aviation is definitely outdated in comparison to American aviation. One can tell just by looking at the sleakness of the respective aircraft. However, the Mig-29 onwards series of Soviet aircraft seem to have made a technological jump. I have been out of the circuit for a while, so I cannot give too many details. The Su-27 Cobra maneouvre is something I have never seen any American aircraft carry out.

Chinese aviation is even more outdated than Soviet aviation. However, it is dirt cheap, and along with NATO avionics makes for a pretty good aircraft. Some more issues with Chinese aircraft are the facts that they are gas guzzlers. Drink gasoline at very high rates. And they have terrible ejection seats. I have so many friends who have died due to these ejection seats. The PAF has had to refit every single F-6, F-7 and A-5 with British Martin-Baker ejection seats. These seats cost nearly as much as the airframe and the engine!

tahmad #235: I have never been able to quite figure out the argument that you are putting up. The first and foremost necessity of every human being is security. If my neighbor is buying guns, day after day, to kill me, then at the very least I have to buy a bullet-proof vests for me and my family; even if it means I will not have running water.

I would encourage you to study the air threat Pakistan faces from India in much more detail, before you debate the trade-offs between Pakistani aircraft and Pakistani schools. In most cases, in my opinion, these arguments are used by Pakistanis who want to gain cheap popularity as social reformers without understanding the threats that Pakistan faces from the IAF. They also do not understand the great sacrifices young Pakistani pilots make to defend the Pakistani air space, in dangerous sub-standard Chinese equipment. In fact, it is due to the efforts of these young pilots that these ill-informed reformers have the freedom to make such arguments.

``I use the term ``useless`` deliberately, since their only use was deter an attack by India and such an attack has not taken place anyway - ``

I fail to understand your argument here. You state that the purpose of the aircraft was to deter an attack, and then state that this purpose was not achieved, since an attack did not take place. The reason the attack did not take place was because it had been detered. Hence the aircraft had achieved its purpose.

I believe a major portion of the cost of the F-16 was paid by the Saudis. If you want to debate whether PAF should have chosen a next generation aircraft different from the F-16, then it is a legitimate debate. However, Pakistan did need a next generation aircraft to counter the next generation aircraft India was buying by the dozens. Also, after the nuclear explosions, Pakistan has actually changed to a policy of nuclear deterence.

People need to take into account the massive air force build-up of the IAF. In just the past few years, it has signed a multi-billion dollar deal with Russia for Su series of aircraft. It has (or is about to) sign a billion dollar deal with Britain for jet aircraft. It has Mirage-2000s (the most expensive largely produced aircraft in the world). It also has Jaguar aircrat. Not to mention the complete series of Mig aircraft.

Why in the world do you think India, an extremely poor country, is buying these aircraft, when its air force is already four to five times that of Pakistan. Obviously not for display purposes or to give its kids flying lessons. It is to attack Pakistan. What exactly should Pakistan have done/should do, to defend itself. Do you expect Pakistan to take on Mirage-2000s with Cessnas? What good is plumbing and housing, if it gets destroyed to bits?

India is the only country in South Asia with strategic attack aircraft. Almost all of the PAF aircraft are defensive in nature. Basically to protect the little plumbing and housing, that we do have, from air attacks. The other role of the PAF is protecting the Paksitan army, while it is fighting a defensive ground war. The whole PAF doctrine is defensive. Infact, every PAF purchase has been a defensive measures against an offensive aircraft purchase made by India.

The guns vs. butter debate is as old as mankind. Ideally, everything should be spent on butter. However, living in a false utopia is more harmful than helpful. An air force`s size has to be proportional to its threat perception. The PAF size is actually smaller than its threat perception. The only way, in my opinion, to reduce the size of the PAF, is to reduce the threat perception first. If the IAF threat remains the same or increase, and the PAF gets rid of its aircraft, then who will protect the Pakistani airspace, when those Su-27 and Mirage-2000s come flying in. And for those of you, who have even the faintest of thoughts that those Indian aircraft will not come flying in, I would encourage you to sit inside one of the PAF radar stations in Lahore, and see how close these planes come to the Pakistani borders, just to check whether we are awake. I would also like to ask such critics whether they can explain why India buys such expensive offensive equipment, if it is not going to attack Pakistan with it, when Pakistan lets its guard down.

One must live in a real world, and not in a fantasy world. Pakistan needs to reduce its threat perception through talks and negotiations with India, first. It should then agree to bilateral reduction in militaries. Unilateral reduction of the PAF with the same threat perception, is going to be very counterproductive. We live in a tough neighborhood.

Currently, Pakistan should freeze its military budget, and keep a potent nuclear threat. This is exactly what Pakistan has done. It should now start reducing the size of its army, but definitely not its air force.

There seems to be a widespread case of what I call Ylh`s Disease on this board. The symptom is this - ignore the overall picture and find some obscure detail to harp on to make you feel good.

The overall picture is this: Pakistan has lost 3 wars to India (even the NY Times said so yesterday, in case any Pakistanis are in denial) and the PAF couldn`t do jack about it. Who cares if PAF pilots can fly a Mig 21 to the moon and back if Pakistan still had to suffer 3 humiliating losses?

The obscure details are something along the lines of this: ``We have lost all the wars we have fought, but let`s revel in the story of the heroic PAF pilot who, against insurmountable odds when the Indians sent a billion aircraft after him, flew to Jupiter and back and managed a breathtaking escape which left even in Nasa in awe.``

Fuzair,

I think you are right... the person I was referring to made his kills in the 1973 Arab Israeli War. Indeed it was Saif ul Azam who shot down the Mirages in 1960s.

Thankyou for correcting me.

Are you a former flyer like Romair also? If so tell us about it.

-YLH

Interesting Site:

http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/pakpilots.htm

Re: Romair #227

Thank you for the interesting writeup on the MiG21. I believe the Soviet pilot who defected with the MiG-25 reported that the plane`s theoretical top speed was Mach 3.2 (?, could be wrong here) but that at speeds above Mach 2.6/2.8, the engine would melt. Also, the Americans who first looked at the plane were convinced that it was a Soviet Maskirova (deception) attempt since the plane was basically junk (too heavy, too primitive, v. poor avionics), designed to convince NATO that Soviet MiGs are much worse than they actually are.

I don`t know about the Soviet MiG 29s but virtually all Soviet military equipment is/was pretty much rubbish compared to the NATO equivalent. At one level being technically sophisticated is a great danger since, for example, the first M16s issued to US troops in Vietnam would jam if they got a speck of mud in the chamber (whereas the AK-47 will, so I`ve heard, just about fire underwater) but you must draw the line somewhere.

My uncle, in Army Aviation, flew one of the Soviet/Afghan Mi-24 Hinds that defected and landed in Quetta and, according to him, it handled like a car with four punctured tires compared to the Cobra, which he had also flown.

Also, I think you must be referring to Saif ul Azam, who was, I believe, a Bengali. He shot down ``only`` three Israeli planes, of which ``only`` one was a Mirage. I believe his weapon of choice was indeed a Hunter, a technically superior plane to the PAF`s beloved F-86 Sabres.

However, whether its three or four, no one else has managed to shoot down more than one Israeli as far as I know, so all kudos to Saif ul Azam.

There was another Mirage shot down by a different PAF pilot in 1974, which is what YLH was referring to I believe.

Regards.

Romair #227 Thanks for an educational piece on the PAF. When you say that the PAF has been cost-effective in aircraft purchases, I assume you did not count the F-16 ``purchase``. I believe at $14 million per plane - one plane alone would have provided permanent housing with plumbing for 1,400 families (assuming $10,000 per house), or pay for one years education for 20,000 children (assuming $700 per year per student). And this does not include the overhead that comes with the plane (personnel, civil works, and so forth). And this is one plane only. From among the 30 or so we paid for. And did not get. And lost the bulk of the money. It is a sad irony that even this pathetic outcome was a blessing in disguise for Pakistanis: we avoided the maintenance costs on these useless pieces of junk if they had been delivered. I use the term ``useless`` deliberately, since their only use was deter an attack by India and such an attack has not taken place anyway - the threat of the nuclear weapons is enough to keep the Advanis at bay.

Jay

Justify the following (and leave Hoodbhoy out of this... we tolerate him because his exaggeration actually leads to productive things in Pakistan)..

`the curriculm requires the students to identify

to identify the hindus.`

And for the first time in your life, refrain from sarcasm, bitterness, and play of words, ... be man and lets have some straight talk!

-YLH

Romair,

Can we know a little more about your AirForce/ Flying career?

-YLH

Romair,

` PAF pilots have actually done quite well against Israeli pilots.

There was a PAF pilot who shot down four Israeli Mirages in a

Hunter, while he was on attachment with the Syrian (or Egyptian?)

Air Force, in the 60s. Considering the fact the Hunter is inferior to

the Mirage, this is quite an achievement. Actually, he was a

Bengali, and I believe moved to Bangladesh after 71. `



Yup his name is something `alavi` probably though dont quote me. He was flying a syrian Mig 21 in the 1967 war. The artists representation of his victory can be found in `PAF heroes` and on the walls of the mess halls in almost all PAF establishments.

-YLH

Manoj

1) Give me the link again to that article.

2) What has been the IAF`s role to support its troops in Siachen? I am not educated in this regard or well versed to what PAF`s role has been in Siachen (which may I add is a stupid fight and a stupid situation India involved itself in)....

Before I waste my time, I want to know what kamalat IAF has shown in Siachen.

The F7P debate:

F7P might be a modified version of Mig 21, but to the best of my knowledge, it is not exactly a Mig 21. Having stood close to both the F7P (Sargodha Air Base) and Mig 21 (PAF Musuem Karachi, Soviet Mig 21) , it is my opinion that the F7P is considerably lighter. Mig 21 looks like a big sewer pipe ... F 7p`s fuselage (spellings?) or mainbody or whatever is much narrower in diameter.

F7P is definitely more agile, being lighter, and has the capability of pulling 7 Gs. It is also considered PAF`s mainstay.

-YLH

Romair , that was an interesting article about the Mig-21 and Soviet-Western planes. I`ve got a question--how good is the Su-27 Flanker and the latest Sukhoi Russian planes, esp. the Su 35 and the Su 37. I saw a Discovery channel documentary recently about the Su 37 and it said it is prob. the best overall fighter plane in the world. Apparently it is incredibly manouvrable too and outshone the Eurofighter and the F18 at the Prais Air show in 96 when it was first showm publically.

Why can`t Pakistan buy the new Su planes then?

Mithuna, no problems :-) It is a pleasure in fact (translating Urdu and Farsi poems into English is a hobby of mine!)

Your transliteration was not too bad :-)

The whole verse is,

Peshwaye tumaam rindaanam

ke sag e kooye sher i yazdanam

I am the leader of all the wine-drinkers *

for I am a dog of the street of the lion of God

notes: rind (pl. rindan) is a Farsi word which I have translated as wine drinkers here. But in the context of Sufi poetry, and particularly here, it is used to mean those who are intoxicated with the wine of Divine gnosis --or love of God.

:-)