Group Captain Cecil Chaudhry, SJ

Re:Reply #: 224

anarayan,

At the risk of turning this into a defense related forum, i want to ask you a question. I read sometimes ago about the attrition rate of MIG 21? in IAF. Looks like almost 1 squadron was lost. Do you or anyone else know the reason for this?

Sridhar

The Mig 21 Debate:



As someone who actually flew PAF aircraft for a short while, here is my take on the F-7.

No Chinese plane is in the same league as an American or a French plane. If for no other reasons, then the poor air conditioning alone ;-) (inside pilot humor). So comparing Migs to equivalent French and Ameirican aircraft of the same generation is somewhat unfair.

Russian aviation technology is (was until recently) far inferior to US and French technology. This is primarily in two areas: avionics and mettalurgy.

Avionics are the backbone of air combat now. People maybe surprised to know that the F-16 is third fastest aircraft in the PAF inventory. Both the Mirage and the F-7 have a higher max speed, if I remember correctly. So engine and airframe can only take you so far. Its the radars, misslies, weapons systems, maneouvrability (completely controlled by avionics computers, nowdays) that is the name of the game. So two Mig-21 with similar engines and airframes can be two completely different aircraft, if they have different sets of avionics and missiles. Russians traditionally have been years behind NATO in avionics.

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.

It is only from the Mig-29/Su-27 onwards that the Soviet technology has caught up with NATO technology. Everything before that was overrated due to the reasons described above.

The Mig-21 (and its various versions), I believe, is the highest selling jet fighter aircraft in the history of mankind. So there must be something good about it. When Chuck Yeager talks about the F-6 and its low flying hours to maintenance ratios, he is actually pointing out the fact that the Pakistanis did a better job of maintaining it than its design allowed. I don`t think he mentions the F-7 in his book.

The F-7, along with the Mirage III and IV are now the mainstays of the PAF. The F-6s are being phased out (and sold to Bangladesh). In my opinion, PAF aircraft and weapons selection historically has been excellent. The PAF, with its extremely limited budget, has purchased the best of breed, at cheap prices, and has put together some pretty good weapon systems.

The latest generation French and US aircraft (specially the French) are way too expensive for the PAF now. There spare parts are even more expensive. So the PAF has purchased, at extremely cheap prices, Chinese aircraft. However, Chinese aircraft are no match to similar generation NATO aircraft, due to the various factors correctly pointed out by different posters.

The original Mig-21 is not in the same league as, say the F-4. However, the PAF is only using the airframe and engine of the Chinese Mig-21 (the engine is also an updated version). The real meat of the fighting machine, i.e. the avionics and missiles, are all from NATO. I believe the PAF was testing the French Magic-II missiles (the latest and greates missile) on the F-7, as well as the Cosmos communication system and Rear Warning Radars, around ten years ago. The F-7 has a British Marconi HUD, etc., as well. So basically a Pakistani F-7 can/may already have end(ed) up with many of the same weapons systems, and avionics as an F-16. It obviously would not have the same maneouverability, T/W ratios etc., and hence would not be in the same league as an F-16. But it would be far better than the original Mig-21. I would put the Pakistani F-7 in the same category as the US F-5 (I have been out of the business for a while, so my info maybe a bit outdated). However, Pakistan has assembled it at a fraction of the price.

I do not have much information of the Indian Mig-21. India started purchasing it decades ago. So it probably received much older versions than Pakistan. Also, India was a complete Soviet shop, and hence was always behind the PAF in avionics and missile systems. It has only recently acknowledged this fact, and is now turning towards French and British systems. 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.

As far as the pilot vs. aircraft debate is concerned: It is true that in the end, it is the pilot that counts. However, I think this rule applies within the boundaries of the same generation of aircraft. A good pilot flying an F-7 will not be able to shoot down an average pilot flying an F-16. There is just too much performance difference in the aircraft. However, a good pilot flying an F-6 (Mig-19) will be able to shoot down an average pilot flying F-7.

Israeli pilots: Israeli pilots are generally recognized as the best in the world. And for good reason. However, I have seen the PAF pilot training process up close, and I cannot imagine any training program being more intense, with higer standards. If it is not the tougest in the world, then I would like to see one that is tougher (I have been quite critical of other areas of training in Pakistan, so I hope my views will be considered unbiased). It is definitely tougher than the US training programs, which I have some knowledge of, as well.

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.

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.

Re: Anarayan #224

I`m going by the Bharat Rakshak website on the 1971 Air War (the appendix) where they list the ``official`` Pakistani airframe losses. However, the bibliography for this site lists several non-Pakistani sources (including Indian ones) and so I would think that if the ``official`` Pakistani count is erroneous, the authors of the site would have said so.

The Indian count for PAF losses is of course MUCH higher. Indian sites give losses ranging from 90+ (the ``official`` IAF claim) to 75 (the Bharat Rakshak ``unofficial`` list) to 63 (the SAPRA site). However, the Bharat Rakshak site gives Indian losses as 75 (all causes) while the SAPRA site only acknowledges 56 losses. BUT the two sites use different categorization criteria (apparently SAPRA excludes ``non-combat`` aircraft from its totals). If we adjust for this difference, then the Bharat Rakshak total is 68, still higher than the SAPRA site. While the SAPRA list is on their ``Air War in the West`` page, the list of PAF losses counts the Sabres destroyed on the ground in Dacca, so I assume its a list comprising both sectors.

Who is correct? Who knows? I`m sticking with the Bharat Rakshak appendices and assuming that the B-R people would have given ``adjusted`` totals if the ``official`` Pakistani figures were wholly out of line with their own research.

Certainly the other B-R web pages give far higher MiG-21 totals BUT I am assuming that those pages reflect the ``official`` IAF claims (grossly inflated as per even SAPRA site tallies). Is there any evidence to the contrary as to the source of those IAF MiG kills presented? I didn`t see any. However, I will happily stand corrected if this is the case.

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? I don`t know why the IAF continues to buy them. Perhaps the later generation MiG-21s are greatly improved. You certainly seem to be saying that for the bis version.

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? The first Russian ``spin`` for the failure of their MiGs was that the Arabs are all bad pilots. The next version was that the Arabs were flying the ``monkey export`` versions. I assume that the Russian pilots were also flying the same monkey versions over the Suez, hence their failure.

Regards.

ylh, could we have your comments on

a) the article in defence journal on the exploits of PAF?

b) why did not PAF participate in evicting Indian Army from Siachen?

regards

Fuzair,

``In 1971, Indian Mig21s apparently shot down only 2 PAF planes while losing 8 Migs (mainly to ground fire/AAA and some flying accidents but one was apparently shot down by an F-86!).``

ONLY TWO PAF planes shot down - by 8 squadrons - in 14 days - on two fronts??!! Well, we are entitled to our beliefs I guess.

Bharat-Rakshak has this to say about Mig-21 kills in `71:

Western front:

12th Dec: One F-104A, One F-6

17th Dec: Three F-104A

Eastern front:

4 Dec: Three F-86 Sabres



``In any case, the track record of the MiG-21 is extremely poor.``

I wonder why the IAF wants to keep flying these planes?

Also wonder why PAF has RECENTLY ordered a whole bunch of these from China??? See Romair`s post.

regards,

hobbyty,

(1)

``And what about the avionic suite, Fire control AA missiles and BVR capablities?``

The exact control components and local modifications will obviously be classified. So there`s no way to know that.

(2)

``And to be honest, I`m still not clear about what makes it a superior performer....``

If you were an Aero engineer, I could explain what the tremendous difference in thrust at lower altitude translates to. (If you were one, you would know that anyway!).

However, look at just one item - the climb rate.

If an F-7 and BIS took off simultaneously at maximum climb rate - after 1 minute, the BIS will theoretically be 5 kilometers above the F-7.

regards,

Re: Ferozk #216

I thought no Pakistani pilot managed to shoot down a Phantom, just Mirages, Mysteres and Ouragons (sp?). However, I believe the Israelis lost a few Phantoms to Arab MiG-21 pilots. But, the performance of the Arab air forces against Israeli Air Force is dismal, even if we discount the planes lost on the ground in 1967.

In any case, the track record of the MiG-21 is extremely poor. The only place it has performed well was against the USAF in Vietnam in the early years of the US involvement and that changed as soon as the Americans started retraining their pilots in air combat tactics.

In 1971, Indian Mig21s apparently shot down only 2 PAF planes while losing 8 Migs (mainly to ground fire/AAA and some flying accidents but one was apparently shot down by an F-86!). The IAF had eight Mig squadrons, the most of any plane type, and the Mig did not show itself as a particularly good fighter. Its definitely a better fighter than the F104 but the F104 was never designed as a dog fighter. It was meant to intercept high altitude Soviet bombers (their version of the B48 or B52) that never went beyond the experimental/prototype stage.

Regards.

Thanks a lot, Asif. That qawwali is one of my favorites too. The one line which you said you have forgotten sounds like:

peshua-e-tabaamrindaanam (followed by ``ke sag-e-koo-e-sher-yazdaanam``)

The transliteration is probably atrocious.. but I`m just hoping it`ll remind you of what the actual words are.

Mithuna,

This kalam sung so beautifully by Ustad NFAK is in Persian. I dont know it all by heart but the following verses can be translated as I have written:

Ali Imam e man ast o manam ghulam i Ali

Hazar jan i girami fida ba naam i Ali!

Haydari-am , Qalandar-am mast-am

Banda-i- Murtaza Ali hast-am!

Translation into Urdu:

Hazrat Ali mera Imam hai aur main Ali ka ghulam hoon

meri hazar (qeemti) jaanein Hazrat Ali kay naam pe qurbaan ho jaayein!

Main Haydari hoon, Qalnadari hoon aur mast [bay-hud] hoon

Hazrat Ali e Murtaza ka banda [ghulam] hoon.

The other line you quote partially is

``ke sag-e-koo-e-sher-e-yazdan-am``

this translates as, ``(for) I am a dog of the street of the Lion of God.``

There is a line before it which I cannot recall.

It is prob. my fave NFAK qawwali :-)

re ylh

Don`t worry pal. I figured you meant Nur Khan not Tikka Khan. But I appreciate your coming back to clarify.

Indeed the new BAF chief is a Sargodhian. On a larger level, the most significant change we will see in the Bangladesh defence forces in the next five years or so is this: we will have the first chiefs of staff(in all services) who will be graduates of the Bangladeshi academies. It is inevitable but many analysts(and I myself) sure hope that the level training is up to par with Kakul, Risalpur, and Manora.

Anarayan

It not a question of being convinced, I just did not know much about this ship and why it would be a superior performer at lower altitudes. I don`t have problem with asserting that it is a superior ship, I just wanted evidence to help evaluate the assertion.

The values you provided, are these evaluated at our tempretures? can this aircraft operate at night?

And to be honest, I`m still not clear about what makes it a superior performer. And what about the avionic suite, Fire control AA missiles and BVR capablities? What do you think of the range available for both F7 and BIS?

hobbyty,

``F7 is no match for BIS, especialy at low altitudes`` PLease provide some justification for this statement.

You ask a good question. A Mig-21 is a Mig-21 is a Mig-21. So how come one is better at lower altitudes. I`ll let the designers answer:



Mig : Fifty Years of Secret Aircraft Design

by R. A. Beliakov, J. Marmain, R. A. Belyakov

[my comments in square brackets]

pg 330:

``One of the lessons learned in combat over the Middle East and Vietnam was that in order to defeat a turbo-prop powered fighter one had to involve it in close combat at low altitudes. To meet that challenge, the jet fighter had to be armed to the teeth and supplied wuth a good amount of fuel. It also needed to be a stable and maneuverable machine.

The dominant feature of all the Mig-21 variants reviewed thus far was their good performance at medium and high altitudes. But it never performed up to par at low altitudes, because of some of the distinctive characteristics of such power plants as the R-11F2-300 and the R-13-300.

[the pakistani F-7 has a chinese engine, the Liyang. This was a copy of the Tumansky R-11. I think the later versions have copied the R-13]

This is why it was decided in February 1971 to construct a new Mig-21 that would be especially efficient at low altitudes and high indicated airspeeds. The new OKB offspring was named Mig-21 BIS.

It was powered by a new engine, the R-25-300. It was rated at 4100 kg st dry - roughly equivalent to the R-13-300 - but had a much higher afterburning ratio in that its reheated thrust was rated at 7100 kg st. Moreover, at Mach 1 and beyond it could utilize a special afterburing regime called ChR(Chrezvichayniy Rezhim: exceptional rating) that permitted it to obtain a peak thrust of 9900 kg st for as long as 3 minutes between 0 and 4000 m.

[some other new design features mentioned next, I`m not quoting them here]

...........

...........



Here`s a comparison of the main performances. Mig-21 BIS values in square brackets.

F-7 values from http://military.topcities.com/china/j7.htm

Engine: Liyang [Tumansky]

Dry Thrust: 9,700 lb st [9100]

Afterburning Thrust: 13,450 lb st [15,620, 21780 - with ChR]

Max level speed: 2175 km/h [2175 km/h]

Mach: 2.04 [2.05]

Range: 1200 km [1225]

Climb rate per minute: 9000 m [13800]

service ceiling: 61,680 ft [57,400 ft]

Operated by Albania, China, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Tanzania



Well, hobbyty, are you convinced?

regards,

Re: Fuzair & Anarayan

Folks, it is the pilot and not the aircraft that makes the difference. PAF pilots, while flying MiG-21s, shot down Israeli F-4s.

Ciao

YLH

Secular pakistan,

Zia died long ago. Still why is it in this ataturk inspired mushys rule, in this days of progressive pakistanis asserting the the civil society of pakistan, the curriculm requires the students to identify to identify the hindus. The only way to achieve this governemnt objective is to start young, and there in is the k for kafir.

Please confirm that the curriculum requirement is true, that will make two of you, prof hoodboy and you, and it is not a bad company to keep

YLH 209,

That was a slip of tongue/fingers and I am sure the resident shrink will have something to say about it.

Anarayan

``F7 is no match for BIS, especialy at low altitudes``

PLease provide some justification for this statement.

Please advise what makes BIS as formidable as you suggest it is, and why at low altitudes? My understanding is that the craft is unstable at lower speed range? That it`s range and speed are designed to be used as interceptor and in numbers for swift engagement? Please advise.

As far as F7 is concerned - not really the ideal choice for PAF. Such aircraft are designed because of decisions taken with regards to threat/roles/missions (what is the capablility of the enemy and how do we respond) and cost of production/procurement and maintenance. PAF should, in a ideal world, have opted for a sophisticated multirole aircraft, STOL capable, (just an opinion)And, PAF and Army and Navy have a huge deficiency in electronic monitoring, and sensing infrastructure, also necessary educational infrastructure to be prepared for GPS guidance of ordinance and platforms. The fact that strategy/tactics includes planning for the entuality that large numbers of enemy air assets will survice and can engage in intercept, ground support or strategic bombing is troubling.